Quote from: Astargath on May 05, 2018, 01:08:38 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 05, 2018, 03:28:38 AM

Quote from: Astargath on May 05, 2018, 01:02:04 AM

Quote from: BADecker on May 04, 2018, 09:52:00 PM

Quote from: Astargath on April 23, 2018, 11:43:50 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 23, 2018, 12:45:36 AM

Quote from: Astargath on April 22, 2018, 10:08:54 AM

Quote from: BADecker on April 21, 2018, 04:39:21 PM

Quote from: Astargath on April 21, 2018, 09:34:03 AM

Quote from: BADecker on April 21, 2018, 12:54:42 AM

Quote from: Astargath on April 20, 2018, 05:52:55 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 19, 2018, 10:41:34 PM

Quote from: belphegory on April 19, 2018, 09:36:41 PM

Badecker it really is pointless trying to reason with you. Your delusions are irreversible. Wrong and irreversible.

And how dare you include me in your religious delusion.

I refute, refuse and spit on your so called authority over me....your god does not own me cos your silly book of old toilet paper says so. I could also write on a paper napkin that the Flying Spaghetti Monster owns everything in the universe. Its written...therefore it must be true.......There, you now belong to Him.

And once again you are arguing from a fallacy : https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

You want to see your god in everything...fine, go right ahead. But leave other people out of your delusions.

My delusions might be wrong and irreversible, but the fact that science proves that God exists isn't one of them.

The fact that God exists isn't religion. Religion is something that we don't really know, but have to take on faith or trust. Since I know that God exists, scientifically, it is you who are including yourself in potential non-facts, which you call a religion because you don't understand the science involved. So it isn't my religion. It's yours.

My authority over you is close to nothing. If you spit on it, and refuse it, then you must be accepting, or at least inviting, greater authority over you.

My God is the God of the universe. Are you trying to push yourself out of the universe? Just because you don't know that He owns you, doesn't mean He doesn't.

Just because you write on a napkin "the Flying Spaghetti Monster owns everything in the universe. Its written...therefore it must be true," doesn't mean that it is true. For example. You might think that you know that Big Bang is real. But if you don't understand BB math, you really only believe, and BB is really only a religion for you. Someone else who knows the math might know that BB could actually be real.

The point is, you are talking religion in this science thread.

Cool

You keep claiming that science proves god exists yet I have never seen a scientific theory, hypothesis or anything related to ''god'', have you? How come we have so many fake (as you claim) scientific theories like evolution with a ton of evidence behind it and yet not a single one for god, seems strange to me.

That's because we are at the conclusion of the proof. The evidence is so exceedingly overwhelming in C&E, entropy, and complexity, that you might as well waste time on formulating hypotheses and theories about it. Go ahead if you want.

Cool

If it's so exceedingly overwhelming, as you claim, again, why is there no scientific theory? Oh, because it's a waste of time, give me a break with your stupid excuses. How come we have a scientific theory for evolution then? Gravity? Oh yeah, scientists couldn't bother to make one for god, right? Who cares about a supernatural god that created the universe, am I right? They just didn't bother, that's what you are saying. You are a fucking joke lol.

LOL! See how well cause and effect works? You posted your post using all kinds of cause and effect operations, from your brain dictating what your fingers do at the keyboard, all the way up to the C&E flow of training that trained your brain to think of what to cause your fingers to type.

Thanks for asking a bunch of easy-to-answer questions.

BTW, when you have such an abundance of proof for the existence of God, like the scientists do, why would they want to make a theory for God? You ask such simplistic questions.

Cool

So let me understand it, you claim the evidence is so obvious, so extremely obvious that scientists don't even need to apply the scientific method to it? https://www.compellingtruth.org/scientists-believe-God.html
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

So, what's your point? You show some religious points about scientists. So what?

Quote from: Astargath on April 22, 2018, 10:08:54 AM

Interestingly, although some scientists do believe in god, there is a very significant difference on the percentage of scientists that believe in god vs the percentage of other people. ''specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God'' ''By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power'' Are you saying that the average americans are smarter than scientists hahaha, how is it possible that scientists believe less when there is such clear and obvious evidence out there?

Note that scientists have a reason for believing in God. It's because it is their religion.

Scientific proof for the existence of God is something that scientists use all the time in their scientific investigations, even though they don't realize they are doing it.
All scientists know that they are using cause and effect in their science.
They are all aware of degradation of their scientific operations... entropy.
They are all aware of complexity of atoms and molecules in even the simplest of their science projects.
They all use the above-listed scientific proof for the existence of God even though they don't realize that they are doing so.

Why would an average non-scientist American want to worship God like a dumb scientist who uses the proof for the existence of God, but can't even figure out that he is doing it?

You can't seem to talk science. Even your links are religious. You are in the wrong thread.

Cool

So you are smarter than most scientists, you understand the proof for god but they don't. Why not publish a paper, a scientific paper to make them understand the proof? How come the other scientists that do believe in god never published such paper? How come they didn't try to convince their partners about god using scientific proof? Seems really weird to me unless... wait for it.... there is no scientific proof for god, they know there isn't even if they believe in god and thus can't really publish a scientific paper about it or create a scientific theory. Who knows, right?

Scientists, themselves, state that they are just beginning to find out things about the universe. Why shouldn't I understand the scientific proof for the existence of God when others haven't even considered it? You don't understand the math for big bang. You believe because others talk about it. Why don't you understand the scientific proof for God when it is explained to you? Only because you don't want to.

Cool

But there are plenty of scientists who did consider it though and we still have no scientific theories about god. How do you explain that?

Scientists don't generally make theories for something that has been scientifically proven, and especially something that is as self-evident as the existence of God. What is difficult to understand is why you would want a theory for God.

Cool

If it is self-evident everyone would agree that god exists. If god was scientifically proven as you claim then scientists would have no problem in saying god is real and that they have proof, yet they don't. Even the ones that believe in god don't usually say the have proved his existence scientifically.

People don't always accept things that are self-evident. Rather, they accept things that they want to accept.

Some scientists ignore the proof for God, because God doesn't match their brand of scientific formulation methods.

Billions of people all over the world know that God exists, because they see His machine universe, and know by practical experience that machines have makers. Some of these people are scientists.

Quote from: Astargath on May 05, 2018, 01:08:38 PM

The arguments you make for the existence of god are not scientific, sure entropy exists or cause and effect but after that is just assumptions that all together point to a god and not to something else. There is no way to test it, therefore it's not scientific.

If the things I say are not scientific, you should certainly be able to show scientific arguments that easily refute them. Yet, all you can say is, "I rebutted your points," or, "Blah, blah, blah you aren't scientific." You can't explain the science of your rebuttals, because you don't have any that you understand, and therefore you wouldn't know if you had a rebuttal or not, or if I was using sound science or not.

Quote from: Astargath on May 05, 2018, 01:08:38 PM

If you see a house that has a a smaller ''house'' that says ''dog'' and also has a bowl of food in front of it, you would say that there is a dog around there. You can prove there is a house and that there is a bowl of food, in this case you can even go there and check if there is indeed a dog. You can't do that in your argument, you can't go and check if god is there and just like the dog, god might not be there. Funny that dog backwards is god.

Are you telling me that science doesn't know that empty space exists? The dog might be out to the vet the day you look for him. Or, as you are looking for him in his little house, he might be on the roof of the big house, looking down at you, ready to jump and chew you to pieces.

The methods I use are essentially flawless for proving the existence of God. If they weren't, you could point out a flaw in scientific fashion. Since you can't do it, you are unscientific, and wouldn't know science if it jumped up and awarded you $10 million in a sweepstakes.

Cool