Top 10 Scientific Proofs of God’s Existence

[ding]

IOW, amorphous nothing.

There is a lot of words there but no actual meaning whatsoever. Not one solid trait mentioned. Not one reason that this 'god' you are talking about confers any meaning, any control, any causal relationship that can be shown and certainly no reasons to worship, deify or otherwise care about this 'god' in any shape or form. IOW, if this is your perception of god then it is no more or less important than Carl Sagan's Dragon.

Basically, you assert that there is a spirit underlying reality and such is 'unknowable.' And you have the monumental arrogance to declare others view of god as an imbecile's perception.

The reason you reject the argument from evil is that you are whining about an argument that is not geared to your amorphous, meaningless deist god. It is a DIRECT contention against monotheistic moral religions - chiefly Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Sure, it looks like a silly argument when you apply it to your god because your god does not have any attributes so far. It would be just as silly if it were to be presented against the Greek pantheon of gods as it does not apply to that religious thought.

The real problem with your god is that it is irrelevant. You can SAY that is what god is but it has no impact or meaning on us in any shape or form. For that, you would need to outline further attributes you think this deity may or may not have.

Attributes like what the Christians continually put out: all loving, maximally good, all powerful, all knowing etc. It is within those that arguments become meaningful as now you have actual attributes to discuss.

To claim the bible has any real meaning and to allude to the accounts within as allegory as though there is something deeper there really speaks to the open dishonesty of presenting a deist version of god. Under that version of god, the bible is no different than the Koran, The Book of Mormon or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. All just stories meant to to convey something meaningful.

You asked me for my perception of God and I gave it to you. You have no perception of God or have a ridiculous perception of God and that's why you can't find God. The perception of God you are looking for doesn't exist.

 

[ding]

IOW, amorphous nothing.

There is a lot of words there but no actual meaning whatsoever. Not one solid trait mentioned. Not one reason that this 'god' you are talking about confers any meaning, any control, any causal relationship that can be shown and certainly no reasons to worship, deify or otherwise care about this 'god' in any shape or form. IOW, if this is your perception of god then it is no more or less important than Carl Sagan's Dragon.

Basically, you assert that there is a spirit underlying reality and such is 'unknowable.' And you have the monumental arrogance to declare others view of god as an imbecile's perception.

The reason you reject the argument from evil is that you are whining about an argument that is not geared to your amorphous, meaningless deist god. It is a DIRECT contention against monotheistic moral religions - chiefly Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Sure, it looks like a silly argument when you apply it to your god because your god does not have any attributes so far. It would be just as silly if it were to be presented against the Greek pantheon of gods as it does not apply to that religious thought.

The real problem with your god is that it is irrelevant. You can SAY that is what god is but it has no impact or meaning on us in any shape or form. For that, you would need to outline further attributes you think this deity may or may not have.

Attributes like what the Christians continually put out: all loving, maximally good, all powerful, all knowing etc. It is within those that arguments become meaningful as now you have actual attributes to discuss.

To claim the bible has any real meaning and to allude to the accounts within as allegory as though there is something deeper there really speaks to the open dishonesty of presenting a deist version of god. Under that version of god, the bible is no different than the Koran, The Book of Mormon or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. All just stories meant to to convey something meaningful.

Everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

 

[FA_Q2]

You asked me for my perception of God and I gave it to you. You have no perception of God or have a ridiculous perception of God and that's why you can't find God. The perception of God you are looking for doesn't exist.

Yes, you gave me a moronic perception of god. I addressed that. Your 'perception' of god is utterly meaningless drivel. And again, YOU have the audacity to demean others views because they do not line up with meaningless statements.

I am not looking for a specific god or perception of god, I am looking for ANY perception of god that makes even one iota of sense. The deist perception of god makes no sense as you have not pointed out how this is functionally any different than stating energy is the source of everything and created it all. Other than the fact we can actually test energy, discover attributes about it and actually make valid predictions and claims about it. None of which applies to your silly statements that it is all 'mind stuff.' This mind stuff is fundamentally impossible to understand by your own statements and, ergo, it is 'imbecilic' to declare that it is the source of everything. Even the underlying concepts you are trying to put fourth are incoherent.

 

[FA_Q2]

Everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

So... some people said something a long time ago and that is supposed to mean something? Here is a MUCH better and more salient quote:
Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.

For some reason, this theory of 'mind stuff' has brought nothing to the table where physics has brought us to space and back.

 

[ding]

So... some people said something a long time ago and that is supposed to mean something? Here is a MUCH better and more salient quote:
Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.

For some reason, this theory of 'mind stuff' has brought nothing to the table where physics has brought us to space and back.

Yes. It means that everything is made manifest by mind. If we assume that everything is just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[ding]

FA_Q2 it's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being created from nothing and hardwired to produce life an intelligence.

 

[ding]

Like I said before, you guys can't find God because you don't have a realistic perception of what God is. Your perception of God is a fairy tale. I wouldn't believe that either. But it is the lack of your intellect that keeps you from exploring the origin questions. You don't possess the intellectual capability for that discussion.

 

[JoeBlow]

You are missing out, snickers are fucking awesome!

I bet you gat up and look at your shit before you flush.

 

[ding]

Yes, you gave me a moronic perception of god. I addressed that. Your 'perception' of god is utterly meaningless drivel. And again, YOU have the audacity to demean others views because they do not line up with meaningless statements.

I am not looking for a specific god or perception of god, I am looking for ANY perception of god that makes even one iota of sense. The deist perception of god makes no sense as you have not pointed out how this is functionally any different than stating energy is the source of everything and created it all. Other than the fact we can actually test energy, discover attributes about it and actually make valid predictions and claims about it. None of which applies to your silly statements that it is all 'mind stuff.' This mind stuff is fundamentally impossible to understand by your own statements and, ergo, it is 'imbecilic' to declare that it is the source of everything. Even the underlying concepts you are trying to put fourth are incoherent.

You have no perception of God whatsoever. None. Nada. Zip. You never made an effort. You have no one else to blame for it but you. I have given you a realistic perception. It's not a coincidence the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence. Our universe has too many peculiarities. It is not natural for our universe to be this finely tuned for life and intelligence. It is decidedly unnatural.

 

[Michael1985]

I've seen countless attempts on the Internet of people trying to prove the existence of God. It's not possible to do. If it were doable, God would cease to be faith and instead be fact that everyone would adhere to.

 

[ding]

I've seen countless attempts on the Internet of people trying to prove the existence of God. It's not possible to do. If it were doable, God would cease to be faith and instead be fact that everyone would adhere to.

I believe that God can be known through the light of human reason through studying what he created. Let's say you created something I found and I didn't know you created it. Couldn't I use what I found to learn something about you?

 

[Michael1985]

I believe that God can be known through the light of human reason through studying what he created. Let's say you created something I found and I didn't know you created it. Couldn't I use what I found to learn something about you?

This argument presupposes that it's possible to demonstrate scientifically that all life was divinely created. If one could do that, you might have a valid point, but until such time, no.

 

[ding]

This argument presupposes that it's possible to demonstrate scientifically that all life was divinely created. If one could do that, you might have a valid point, but until such time, no.

Actually it need only ask the question if the universe was created intentionally or is an accidental happenstance of circumstance. If the material world is an accidental happenstance of circumstance then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was intentionally created or it is an accidental happenstance of circumstance. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. Science is limited to the study of the material world. Anything beyond that is the realm of philosophy. What I am proposing is to study what was created to try to answer the question I asked. So there is no presumption on my part. I am testing the evidence.

So.... Let's say I found something you created and I didn't know you created it. Couldn't I use what I found to learn something about you?

The obvious answer is yes to this question, right?

 

[edthecynic]

b. Now consider the entire universe and all of the matter and energy in it…if there is NO GOD…then Scientifically, the universe cannot exist…otherwise it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics because science states that “something” in our universe and within the laws of science cannot come from “nothing”…This is the FIRST law of thermodynamics and all scientific law about matter and energy are based upon this first laws foundation.

So what THING is God?????

 

[edthecynic]

Explosions cannot turn into order scientifically.

If you randomly mix hydrogen and oxygen together you get an explosion and a very orderly quantity of water!

 

[FA_Q2]

Like I said before, you guys can't find God because you don't have a realistic perception of what God is. Your perception of God is a fairy tale. I wouldn't believe that either. But it is the lack of your intellect that keeps you from exploring the origin questions. You don't possess the intellectual capability for that discussion.

Incapable of progressing the conversation without a personal attack, aren't you? That is the best you can do.

You define god using several logical fallacies, put up a bunch of bullshit vapid claims that amount to 'its magic' as that is what this asinine 'mind stuff simply is, and then blankly demand that everyone else is to dumb to understand.

What a fucking moron. I would counter your claptrap bullshit but why bother. Clearly you have decided to turn your brain off and resort to demeaning my intellect.

Funny, you actually have clearly shown you are a zealot - hilarious after whining so much about cannon on the subject. Though it is also clear you do not even know what the word means. Kind of like 'mind stuff.'

 

[FA_Q2]

I bet you gat up and look at your shit before you flush.

lol. No but I do like a snickers

 

[ding]

Incapable of progressing the conversation without a personal attack, aren't you? That is the best you can do.

You define god using several logical fallacies, put up a bunch of bullshit vapid claims that amount to 'its magic' as that is what this asinine 'mind stuff simply is, and then blankly demand that everyone else is to dumb to understand.

What a fucking moron. I would counter your claptrap bullshit but why bother. Clearly you have decided to turn your brain off and resort to demeaning my intellect.

Funny, you actually have clearly shown you are a zealot - hilarious after whining so much about cannon on the subject. Though it is also clear you do not even know what the word means. Kind of like 'mind stuff.'

It wasn't a personal attack. It is reality. You can disprove it at anytime by stating your perception of God. I am betting you can't do so.

 

[FA_Q2]

It wasn't a personal attack. It is reality. You can disprove it at anytime by stating your perception of God. I am betting you can't do so.

You are incapable of addressing a comprehensive talk about god. You have proven that with your 'perceptions' akin to the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[ding]

You are incapable of addressing a comprehensive talk about god. You have proven that with your 'perceptions' akin to the flying spaghetti monster.

My perception of God is that God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. The polar opposite of those attributes are not extant. They only exist as the negation of the attribute. And that's how I know God is good and compassionate. Because good and compassion exist.

What's the perception of God that YOU looked for?