Scientific proof that God exists?

[kendedese]

the existence of heaven and earth

[qwik2learn]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

[Astargath]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

[BADecker]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory.

This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true.

Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory.

[Astargath]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory.

This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true.

Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory.

How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? Last time I checked electric universe was pseudo-science. I know you love to believe in bullshit but give me a break will you?

[Nyenyepogi]

I believe that god exsists and he protect us to desctruction.

[BADecker]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory.

This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true.

Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory.

How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? Last time I checked electric universe was pseudo-science. I know you love to believe in bullshit but give me a break will you?

The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it. Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.

[qwik2learn]

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them.

You cannot disprove these tests, but you did try your best.
You cited Bosch, et al as an example of debunking. It was a thorough and well-researched paper (despite some errors). That means that someone tried very hard to debunk these tests; that paper is the best that you can hope for in terms of "debunking" unless you have a better paper to cite. You cannot "debunk" these tests by merely saying that they are not interesting, your very own source states that these tests are scientifically valid (i.e. methodologically sound).

[Sains]

the formation of the universe

[Astargath]

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them.

You cannot disprove these tests, but you did try your best.
You cited Bosch, et al as an example of debunking. It was a thorough and well-researched paper (despite some errors). That means that someone tried very hard to debunk these tests; that paper is the best that you can hope for in terms of "debunking" unless you have a better paper to cite. You cannot "debunk" these tests by merely saying that they are not interesting, your very own source states that these tests are scientifically valid (i.e. methodologically sound).

Why are you repeating what I said? I already said I can't, are you blind? ''what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument''

My argument is:
1. How do you know the tests were well done if you are not an expert in the field? (You are taking for granted the opinion of the scientist that did them and you are believing them)
2. Why haven't this scientists that are so eager to prove telekinesis claimed prizes of millions of dollars around the world? Which would not only give them money but also help them prove what they are trying to prove because they would become famous
3. If there is indeed such thing as telekinesis why aren't we seeing the applications of it?
4. Science has ruled telekinesis and other ''magic'' like that as not true, pseudo-science and garbage. And this has been done after many many years of study where scientists actually took these things very seriously but eventually no one was able to prove them just like we don't believe in witches anymore.

[Astargath]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory.

This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true.

Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory.

How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? Last time I checked electric universe was pseudo-science. I know you love to believe in bullshit but give me a break will you?

The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it. Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.

You didn't really answer the question though. How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist?
''Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.'' How do you know that? Are you an expert in astronomy?

''The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it'' It seems to me the other way around because advocates of the electric universe usually use it to prove god.

[JLCoin]

This is a brilliant presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBwvhCDbTok

[BADecker]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory.

This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true.

Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory.

How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? Last time I checked electric universe was pseudo-science. I know you love to believe in bullshit but give me a break will you?

The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it. Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.

You didn't really answer the question though. How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist?
''Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.'' How do you know that? Are you an expert in astronomy?

''The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it'' It seems to me the other way around because advocates of the electric universe usually use it to prove god.

The point wasn't to go off topic into electric universe theory. The point was to show that standard scientific theory is an insecure thing, and that the only science that works is that which is engineered, often outside what the theory for the engineering says should happen. Then they change the theory.

So, why accept the ever-fluctuating theory as truth? Accept the science fact... cause and effect, entropy (not the theory of it), and complexity... which, when combined, prove God exists. There is no other way for these scientific laws to exist in a universe like we have.

So, why God? Because God fills all the criteria: intelligent design as shown by complexity, emotion, identity, great power in all of it. These things are all part of the universe. Nothing other than God fulfills these things. God might be very different than we imagine. But He has all these things for them to exist. That's why we call Him God.

[Patarinoffka]

Not at all convincing evidence. More scientific terminology, and for a common person, information is very specific.

[Astargath]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory.

This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true.

Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory.

How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? Last time I checked electric universe was pseudo-science. I know you love to believe in bullshit but give me a break will you?

The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it. Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.

You didn't really answer the question though. How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist?
''Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.'' How do you know that? Are you an expert in astronomy?

''The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it'' It seems to me the other way around because advocates of the electric universe usually use it to prove god.

The point wasn't to go off topic into electric universe theory. The point was to show that standard scientific theory is an insecure thing, and that the only science that works is that which is engineered, often outside what the theory for the engineering says should happen. Then they change the theory.

So, why accept the ever-fluctuating theory as truth? Accept the science fact... cause and effect, entropy (not the theory of it), and complexity... which, when combined, prove God exists. There is no other way for these scientific laws to exist in a universe like we have.

So, why God? Because God fills all the criteria: intelligent design as shown by complexity, emotion, identity, great power in all of it. These things are all part of the universe. Nothing other than God fulfills these things. God might be very different than we imagine. But He has all these things for them to exist. That's why we call Him God.

I already showed you how those things combined do not prove god exists, I don't see your point here.

[qwik2learn]

Dean Radin explains why consciousness is fundamental:
Magic: A Scientific Resurrection of an Esoteric Legend

[buneng]

Don't need to have scientific proof as long as you know and you believe that God exist and you believe that he has the power and can control everything. That is faith, trusting and believing without seeing any proof

[QuestionAuthority]

[Astargath]

Yeah, god's general attributes don't make any sense when you look at the real world. If god already knows everything and also has the power to change it then why are we here. I guess this easy concepts don't work for religious folks.

[Matheus_Spel]

The site you provided is full of garbage and brainwashing. Read some real research.

I know that does not quite suit the topic but here's a thing to read about "god" people in this topic might find interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
A great article to break you brain)