Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 92. (Read 845587 times)

the knowledge that the world of science has with the present technology is written hundreds of years ago in the holy books. also the Muslim Muhammad tells us that he divides the moon in the sky into two halves. a survey was made on the moon.

Not true, I interpret them according to how the authors interpret their own results AND according to how they reply to criticism. You do not interpret these tests at all, you only read the tangential commentary of skeptics who, like you, have never read these papers and never did any experiments on this particular subject either. It's easy to say that I'm wrong but more difficult to specifically state why a particular experiment is wrong.
For example, in this paper that I linked you to, the skeptics are refuted in their interpretation of the evidence. Where is your reply?
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

I have done that, and I found that skeptics like you are typically using misdirection, such as making the fanciful claim that because the researcher "believes in God also", then his research is not credible.--similar to the skeptical claim that is examined in the above-linked paper. It is you who is not reading any scientific literature, as a matter of FACT. The researchers I pointed to have replied to skeptics, yet you are going to use the skeptics' outdated, ill-informed, and tangential commentaries to form the basis of your opinion without any further inquiry? That is a very shallow analysis and you are in no position to tell me that I did not do my homework; you did not read the primary material and now you continue to make excuses.

I pointed out some solid research which is repeatable, skeptics took no action. This thread is about experimental research, so why must you tell me to stop posting science articles? What is needed is for you to come clean about who has actually taken the time to reply specifically to these tests. I have no need to read material which fails to address the specific evidence at hand.

If that is true then you should easily find skeptics who directly critique these papers since that is the norm in science. I already pointed out that skeptics of Orch-OR have been robustly refuted by Hameroff and Penrose, yet you persist in claiming that Orch-OR is pseudoscience, merely because you have read some outdated skeptical commentary and accepted it without further reading.

I already made all of these claims earlier, yet you persist in your intellectual laziness by appealing to authority.

So that's the problem, the problem is you interpreting wrong these papers, the problem is you not expanding your views, you only read articles that are FOR telekinesis and magic, try to read articles against them and comeback here and tell us if you get a sense that they are important or true. if you are not a scientist, stop acting like one, why is your opinion more important than all the scientists that said telekinesis and paranormal stuff is pseudoscience? If you are not a scientist then you should not act like one, quit telling me about tests and articles you found, I can find just as easily hundreds of articles against what you claim is true, bottom line is the scientific consensus, and they all agree on this, is that there is not sufficient evidence for these claims.

Neither you nor I nor Randi are scientists, but after reading Sheldrake's papers about mind interacting with matter one gets the sense that this is an important discovery. The bottom line is that you refuse to read the papers relating these scientific experiments, but you still act like you know what is going on with those tests, you think that maybe by reading a tangential explanation from a skeptic you can validate your ideas without having to examine the evidence. Sorry, that is not how this works at all. I am not going to entertain ignorance, you need to step up and read these papers to see that mind does effect matter and that this testable phenomena is related to quantum processes. How many experimental findings are you willing to read about? That is the bottom line since scientific knowledge will not come to you by not-reading.

By the way, your own link showed that the theorists Hameroff and Penrose have thoroughly responded to skeptics, contrary to the claims of those who use Wikipedia as a source:
https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness

WTF?

So the reason you are alive is God? So he can decide who lives and who don't? Based on what? So my grandfather died because God wants to? What's your argument regarding this? "His time ended" or "He did bad things", is that your same argument if a newborn baby dies? lol

So the earth is running "on its right orbit" because of God? What do you mean with right orbit? Do you realize that if the Sun disappeared (for no reason, just a "click" and gone), we would be drifting untill we find a star heavier than earth and gravity would pull us and we would be "on our right orbit" again. I mean, did you went to school? Did they teach you basic stuff like what gravity is? Or instead of studying/learning you were reading the bible?  At least respect 1 of our greatest scientists know as Sir Isaac Newton (notice the "Sir" ), and learn more about gravity.
Take a few links to know why our planet orbits the sun: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-solar-system/planet-orbits.html & http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/57-our-solar-system/planets-and-dwarf-planets/orbits/243-why-do-the-planets-orbit-the-sun-beginner (and this has scientific proof.. not some bla bla bla from the bible).

And the apocalypse didnt't came yet because God doesn't want to? so he gives you a "blessing" aka "protects you" and will end the world with a click just because he woke up angry in the morning? Like seriously?
Who told you this bullshit? I mean this 5 arguments you've used looks some bla bla from someone who doesn't think properly or his IQ is really below the "standard". The only thing i read is:
1. Nonsense.
2. Nonsense.
3. Nonsense.
4. Nonsense.
5. Nonsense.


This is the only sentence that i don't read Nonsense.
There is no scientific proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist, but remember.. if you don't see it, doesn't mean that's not there!!!
You should switch your religion. Pastafarianism is way better than Christianism.
And guess what, we have an official website! Cool huh? https://www.venganza.org/about/#note1

What tests, I already debunked your whole thing, what more do you want lol. ''Sorry but quantum biology is a real field of study and that evidence begs to differ'' And sorry but Orch OR theory is not a scientific theory
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272175
http://ursa.browntth.com/the-blog/psa-theres-no-such-thing-as-quantum-consciousness

They are scamming you and you are falling for it.
''How is it stupid?'' If you don't see how that's stupid no wonder you believe all this crap.

http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html

I'm not an expert in bullshit and I can't go and look at all your retarded links one by one, bottom line is, science does not recognize telekinesis as real and there is a reason for that. You think scientists wouldn't be amazed by something like telekinesis, you think they are just lying about it or what do you think is happening. Are you a scientist?

Sorry but quantum biology is a real field of study and that evidence begs to differ. If someone has found that Orch-OR is implausible and unscientific then why have they not mentioned this to Penrose and Hameroff for their evaluation? I am sure that this is how science actually works. Hameroff is capable of defending his theory, and has done so numerous times.

How is it stupid? You do not offer an explanation for how all these concepts are connected and neither does materialist science. All closed systems depend on something outside the system. All logical systems depend on something outside the system. Materialism assumes the universe is a closed, logical system.

Oh really? Where in those links do you actually refute any of the tests I presented?

5 proofs I know that God exist:
1. The air I breath
2. The reason why I am still alive right now.
3. The reason why earth is still running on its right orbit.
4. The reason why Armageddon and apocalypse has not arrived yet
5. The blessing you I received everyday

If you don't received these 5 things, then you should start praying and ask for forgiveness.
Make your self closer to God because if you don't, the  one opposite to God is the one who is with you probably.

There maybe no scientific proof that God exist. But remember this, It doesn't mean that because you don't see it, its means that it's not there... 
God moves is MYSTERIOUS ways....

There is no right or wrong answer to this question. After all, none of us know for sure - unless you've somehow gone to the other side and somehow came back. However, I'll leave you with this thought...When polled, approximately 70% of the researchers at CRN expressed a belief in something greater than us. A creative force guiding the universe. Could be god, could be that we're in a giant simulator, truth is nobody knows, so in the meantime respect each others beliefs, because that's all they are until proven or disproven - which probably won't happen in this lifetime.

You can do the research yourself, the problem with you people is that you find some obscure article or ''theory'' you believe it and then you ask for evidence against it, can't you look at it yourself? You also seem to always look at extremely biased links or articles towards what you are trying to prove.

https://www.quora.com/How-plausible-is-Penrose-and-Hameroffs-Orch-OR-theory-of-consciousness
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-are-the-problems-with-the-orch-or-consciousness-theory.783472/

The Orch OR ''theory'' is not a theory, not a scientific theory at least.


http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22
''Principles of quantum physics and quantum mechanics supports concepts found in NDEs including a universal light (the Big Bang), a creator of the cosmos (Gödel’s incompleteness theorem)''

How stupid does that sound? Concepts found in NDEs like the universal light, the big bang?? A creator of the cosmos, godel incompleteness theorem? What is this garbage?
https://www.quora.com/Does-G%C3%B6dels-Incompleteness-Theorem-prove-the-existence-of-God

In the last link you have a ton of other answers
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933

https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true

The tests I posted all connect to each other. Astargath does not explain why they lack credibility, maybe he just prefers to ignore the science of mind because it would make him questions his Belief System (B.S..)...

ET intervention in human evolution:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/intervention-theory-an-alternative-to-darwinism-and-creationism-1624708

One could just as easily argue that mankind was created by aliens. If you look at the original Sumerian genesis story, we were created by the gods (plural), who came from the region around Orion's Belt and mixed their DNA with that of the lower form humanoids developing at the time. Might sound crazy, but it's no more ridiculous that believing that an old white dude with a big beard sitting on a throne in the skies created us.

Yeah, that's obvious. Thing is people like to mix religion and science and the result is 100% bullsh*t. Based on opinions, speculations, myths, faith, beliefs, etc we have religions. Based on facts, reality, proofs etc we got science. Thumbs up for science aka get rekt jesus.

Science doesn't care about opinions, what's real is real, magic is for kids.

This kind of talk won't have an agreement between the talkers.
Same as sports talk. You have your opinion (saying it was fault, per example), and i have mine (saying it wasn't)..

Or is simply not true, who knows 

Science can explain parapsychological research but not if it is bound to the mainstream orthodoxy of materialism.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.23329271

I read what you've wrote but didn't got it was a joke.. My bad.


True. For hundread of years religion is used to explain the unexplainable at the moment.

The fuck are you even talking about, not having an answer for something makes it a religion? How stupid are you, really? It's the best we have, the big bang theory, thanks to a lot of evidence that indicates it did happen. Scientists don't know for sure and they don't know many things but it definitely doesn't make it a religion. What religions do is: I don't know something, instead of admitting it, I will make something up to explain it.