Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 86. (Read 845587 times)
I really doubt there is any scientific proof to describe god existence.
The usual garbage full of fallacies and misinformation...
Yes
This is another one, very good example, from the same site:
#35 Natural Selection
The concept of “Natural Selection”, sometimes used synonymous with “Survival of the Fittest”, is often touted as the magic process that when added to mutation will result in advancing steps of higher and higher species and the success of evolution.[1] But I encourage you to read up on what Natural Selection is all about and see that it will NOT lead to evolution. Check out the examples that are given, and see for yourself what a fanciful argument this is for evolution of molecules to man. Actually you can't even start with molecules because Natural Selection ONLY works on a species once it can reproduce.
What they actually mean by "natural selection" is what we believers in God totally accept and we call it adaption to the environment. It’s a wonderful God-given quality in Nature that creatures have that allows them to better survive. But it is never a process that will give you a new species.
Full story you can read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2013/05/35-natural-selection.html
#35 Natural Selection
The concept of “Natural Selection”, sometimes used synonymous with “Survival of the Fittest”, is often touted as the magic process that when added to mutation will result in advancing steps of higher and higher species and the success of evolution.[1] But I encourage you to read up on what Natural Selection is all about and see that it will NOT lead to evolution. Check out the examples that are given, and see for yourself what a fanciful argument this is for evolution of molecules to man. Actually you can't even start with molecules because Natural Selection ONLY works on a species once it can reproduce.
What they actually mean by "natural selection" is what we believers in God totally accept and we call it adaption to the environment. It’s a wonderful God-given quality in Nature that creatures have that allows them to better survive. But it is never a process that will give you a new species.
Full story you can read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2013/05/35-natural-selection.html
Each person has his own God in his soul, and if there are atheists, then it is useless to prove and argue about the existence of God.
Technically even if everyone believed in different gods there still would be atheists (sort of) Christians are atheists on all the other religions, for example. It's the same with all religions.
Each person has his own God in his soul, and if there are atheists, then it is useless to prove and argue about the existence of God.
Everyone is educated enough to ''understand'' what's written there but you and I are not educated enough to actually know if the methods used were actually correct you dumbfuck.
Just because you refuse to evaluate the specific methods using reason does not mean that you or I are precluded from using reason to judge the methods and arrive at a conclusion. That is an argument from authority and from ignorance:
"Only experts can judge the methods of a study", but when I point to Bosch, your own source, you are silent.
"You or I cannot know if the methods are correct", but we can use reason to evaluate the facts presented and draw a sound conclusion, and if we are curious we can in fact conduct a replication study.
''The experts'' concluded that magic is not real long ago, why you still claim it's real? My own source SAID that even tho the experiments were done correctly THEY DIDN'T SHOW THAT MAGIC EXISTS, you should read it, not me.
In an investigation of 380 studies a group of scientists (Bösch et al, 2006) have written a meta-analysis on the subject.[3] In their paper they wrote "statistical significance of the overall database provides no directive as to whether the phenomenon is genuine or not" and came to the conclusion that "publication bias appears to be the easiest and most encompassing explanation for the primary findings of the meta-analysis."[3] So contrary to what you might read in a parapsychology book, psychokinesis has not been scientifically proven.
Now fuck off.
I love how even when he's trying to convince himself he makes contradictions in the same post.
Fine and dandy. The point is, there is no overpopulation. Smiley
Off Putting.. attention seeker with nothing.. :0
You are visibly upset by my pointing out your poor logic, so change your attitude and your arguments. Go get an education; "anyone can become an international expert by reading"!
Everyone is educated enough to ''understand'' what's written there but you and I are not educated enough to actually know if the methods used were actually correct you dumbfuck.
Just because you refuse to evaluate the specific methods using reason does not mean that you or I are precluded from using reason to judge the methods and arrive at a conclusion. That is an argument from authority and from ignorance:
"Only experts can judge the methods of a study", but when I point to Bosch, your own source, you are silent.
"You or I cannot know if the methods are correct", but we can use reason to evaluate the facts presented and draw a sound conclusion, and if we are curious we can in fact conduct a replication study.
Why would I read it if I don't have the scientific knowledge to know whether is true or not
and you don't have it either.
This research paper is not comprehensible? Why not? It is written in English. Your claim has zero substance; in fact, research papers can be understood by anyone, even technical papers can be easily grasped in a general sense. Just because I am not qualified to "peer review" a paper does not make it impossible to undersrand by the general public.Why do you believe it is the real question. I would ask you again, are you a scientist or expert in these things? If not, why believe any of these papers?
Everyone learns about science in school, anyone who went to college can read and understand a research paper, even one outside their field, given enough study.Why believe any paper at all for that matter? Published papers are written by experts and there is no difficulty in understanding them even if one is not an expert oneself. Your latest "argument" is totally circular and not based on evidence.
Everyone is educated enough to ''understand'' what's written there but you and I are not educated enough to actually know if the methods used were actually correct you dumbfuck. You claim you can read scientific papers with no scientific education in that specific matter and know whether they are good or not? Then you might be a fucking genius, why don't you admit that you just believe them?
''Why believe any paper at all for that matter? Published papers are written by experts and there is no difficulty in understanding'' So are the thousands of papers saying it's not real but you chose to believe those few ones that say it is real. You still haven't given me a reason on how you know the experiments performed there meet all the requirements and were done correctly.
Why would I read it if I don't have the scientific knowledge to know whether is true or not
and you don't have it either.
This research paper is not comprehensible? Why not? It is written in English. Your claim has zero substance; in fact, research papers can be understood by anyone, even technical papers can be easily grasped in a general sense. Just because I am not qualified to "peer review" a paper does not make it impossible to undersrand by the general public.Why do you believe it is the real question. I would ask you again, are you a scientist or expert in these things? If not, why believe any of these papers?
Everyone learns about science in school, anyone who went to college can read and understand a research paper, even one outside their field, given enough study.Why believe any paper at all for that matter? Published papers are written by experts and there is no difficulty in understanding them even if one is not an expert oneself. Your latest "argument" is totally circular and not based on evidence.
But a smartphone 200 years ago would have intrigued many people by its intricacy of design, even if it didn't have a use.
Yes, that's the point. They would think it's magic or a god did it because they don't know better. That's why we have gods. Thanks to our ignorance.
But a smartphone 200 years ago would have intrigued many people by its intricacy of design, even if it didn't have a use.
Smartphone wouldn't have worked 200 years ago. No way to charge the battery, and no cell towers.
Unfortunately, the argument may not look as good to the unconvinced as it does to the believer.
Even 200 years ago a smartphone would have seemed godly
I don't actually agree with Vod that we should expect science to explain everything. As far as I can tell, there should be plenty of things which are simply not relevant to scientific investigation.
Jump to: