Naked Science Forum

General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: davidwilliams on 25/06/2019 11:45:15

Title: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: davidwilliams on 25/06/2019 11:45:15
Why hasn't science been able to prove the existence of God? I was A2A on a question about turning into an atheist at 13 years of age. It bothered me deeply and I came to question my own beliefs. I'm at a crossroad. Help me through logical answers.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/06/2019 18:53:58
Why hasn't science been able to prove the existence of God?
One reasonable possibility is that He doesn't exist.
Also, because religion cheats.
https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/6-16.htm
https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-7.htm
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: evan_au on 25/06/2019 22:53:46
Quote from: davidwilliams
I'm at a crossroad. Help me through logical answers.
This is a bit more specific than the general question, but you could have a look at:
Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Life-changing Truth For A Skeptical World
by Josh McDowell & Sean McDowell

PS: This probably belongs in the "Just Chat" section...
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/06/2019 00:05:23
First, determine what you mean by God. Then decide what you would consider proof of existence. Now look for that proof. Or, if you want to be scientific, look for disproof.

So far, I haven't come across anyone whose definition and chosen proof have stood up to scrutiny.   

You could postulate "somebody must be in charge of everything" which may not be disprovable, but he's clearly not on the side of homo sapiens, so I'm an antitheist.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: jeffreyH on 26/06/2019 21:08:37
If there is a god who is omnipotent then it doesn't manifest its power. Newton's laws show that nothing is moved out of place without a very reasonable explanation. The laws of Newton would be broken every time god acted. Find the action without a cause and you find god
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: pensador on 28/06/2019 17:39:13
First, determine what you mean by God. Then decide what you would consider proof of existence. Now look for that proof. Or, if you want to be scientific, look for disproof.

So far, I haven't come across anyone whose definition and chosen proof have stood up to scrutiny.   


God the old guy sat in a chair that can do anything has similarities with many religions, and is clearly bollocks.

Religion makes the concept of god external to the person, allowing priests popes schizophrenics(see old testament) etc to speak on behalf of god and tell people what to do, organising societies, etc.

God the creator has similarities with Big Bang, in the beginning there was light. Playing with this idea and for the purposes of argument, and shear boredom. I would define god as being the universe, with everything in it being a part of said god. This god would be an automaton, responding only to external inputs, and abiding by the laws of physics etc.

The universe clearly exists so by my definition, god is proven to exist. DOH



Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2019 18:15:02
God the creator has similarities with Big Bang
And one noteworthy difference.
The big bang has evidence.
I would define god as being the universe
OK,
If we can redefine words in order to make  things the way we want them, I propose to redefine "God" too.

God is a pair of whole numbers A and B with no common factor such that A^2 divided by B^2 is exactly two.

The nice thing about this definition is that it allows me to prove that God does not exist
For example
https://www.homeschoolmath.net/teaching/proof_square_root_2_irrational.php

The problem is it's obviously a laughable definition, but... that doesn't seem to be a problem here
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: pensador on 29/06/2019 09:45:00
God the creator has similarities with Big Bang
And one noteworthy difference.
The big bang has evidence.
I would define god as being the universe
OK,
If we can redefine words in order to make  things the way we want them, I propose to redefine "God" too.


God is a pair of whole numbers A and B with no common factor such that A^2 divided by B^2 is exactly two.

The nice thing about this definition is that it allows me to prove that God does not exist
For example
https://www.homeschoolmath.net/teaching/proof_square_root_2_irrational.php

The problem is it's obviously a laughable definition, but... that doesn't seem to be a problem here

You might be even more bored than me.

Yes, the big bang claims to have evidence, but it does not constitute incontrovertible proof of the big bang, it is just a theory that will never have incontrovertible proof. The creation of all the matter in the universe in fractions of a second in some hot big bang, is less plausible than Hoyles ideas happening more slowly over an eternity, with no beginning of time. The genesis jackanory creation story taking 7 days could equally cite as evidence, the universe as it stands today. Evidence does not constitute proof.

God as a pair of whole numbers, is smaller than the universe as a god, with us just being a constituent part of said god. We could always assume the sun is god like what the Romans did. Again the sun exists, and is therefore  evidence of this version of god.

As Alan noted, the problem with the concept of god is in the definition. Some religions don't require a god, see Buddhism. Others don't seem to define said god, but just insist it exists. Jehovas witnesses for example when asked to define what god is never come back  ;)

The universe is god, is not a new concept, its called Pantheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism. Science just tries to understand the mind of said god. :) The universe exists, therefore Pantheist god exists.   ;D

Whole numbers also exist, so your definition of god also works, but they are just a small part of the Pantheist god. This would also apply to some rock star or football player, or egyptian priest reverred as a god. They are all just small parts of the eternal Hoyle universe, that did not start 14 billion years ago, in some laughable (according to Hoyle) big bang.


Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/06/2019 11:06:38
Yes, the big bang claims to have evidence,
No, it actually has evidence.

but it does not constitute incontrovertible proof
How fortunate, then, that nobody said it was.
The creation of all the matter in the universe in fractions of a second in some hot big bang, is less plausible than Hoyles ideas happening more slowly over an eternity, with no beginning of time.
No.
Because the big bang doesn't conflict with Olber's paradox, but the continuous generation idea does.

Also, with continuous generation you need some sort of pan universal time keeper to make sure that "new matter" is made at the right rate.
I can see you contemplating  calling that "God".
The genesis jackanory creation story taking 7 days could equally cite as evidence, the universe as it stands today
Not really.
Genesis  doesn't make sense.
"And the evening and the morning were the third day."
But the first  and second days must have had mornings and evenings- that's pretty much the definition of "day".

But the  failings of bronze age goat herders' myths aren't important here.
The universe exists, therefore Pantheist god exists.
Least useful tautology since "brexit means brexit".
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: pensador on 29/06/2019 11:37:16
WTF

The thread is about can science prove the existence of god. This depends on definition of said god. Your god is clearly an absolute belief in the hot big bang theory whereby you take as incontrovertible proof the CBR. The CBR could equally be evidence for a cold slower beginning to the universe. Once the temperature rises to about 2.75K cold baryogenesis ceases  ;) The only reason Hoyles ideas ended is because he popped his clogs and did not have a viable explanation for the CBR. The idea is not completely dead.

The fact of the matter is the universe exists, and has evolved to what it is today. From the pantheist point of view this is evidence for the pantheist god, which answers the question can science prove the existence of god. ie The definition of god depends on how god is defined from the Pantheist viewpoint you are already a part of god.

If you chose to have a god as an imaginary character that left no historical evidence and most likely never actually existed, not mentioning any names, that is up to you. You can take the born again religious view and invite said being into your life or accept a Pantheist viewpoint. If you want a god have one, define it how you like, if it is an object, it can be proven to exist, if it is imaginery it cant be proven to exist.

Like Alan wrote above proving the existence of god depends on the definition. :)


Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/06/2019 12:28:36
proving the existence of god depends on the definition.
And redefining it as a means to answer the question is pointless.

If I choose a definition that makes God exist then He exists.
If I choose a definition that makes Him not exist, then He doesn't exist.
So what?
Neither option actually tells us anything.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: pensador on 30/06/2019 10:22:20
proving the existence of god depends on the definition.
And redefining it as a means to answer the question is pointless.

If I choose a definition that makes God exist then He exists.
If I choose a definition that makes Him not exist, then He doesn't exist.
So what?
Neither option actually tells us anything.

That is the point, people that believe in a god do not generally have a plausible definition of the god they believe in, they just believe one must exist, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

People in general like to believe in things and be part of a community, regardless of evidence to the contrary, or different interpretations of claimed evidence.

Communities/societies built around a religious belief which is self reinforcing, and likely imprinted into peoples subconscious at an early age. These communities have leaders who reinforce the belief. Groups of people working together are often more succesful than individuals, who do not believe what they are told.

Speculation
If we take a ficticious character as a god with no supporting evidence other than the word of an emperor from a failing empire, with multiple religions and beliefs. We might form a council with all the religious leaders from different groups and arrive at a common acceptable religion based on the common religious ideas at that time. We might enforce the religion by nailing disbelievers to crosses or feeding them to lions etc. Cerca 325AD end of Roman empire, Emperor Constantine convened a council to form a new religion, to control his empire. He was a sun worshipper why would his new religion not have festivals based on equinoxes? Does the Roman empire still exert an influence today via its religion?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: lunar7 on 07/07/2019 21:21:19
One only needs to look at the world around them to see that only God can create life.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/07/2019 21:52:35
One only needs to look at the world around them to see that only God can create life.
No.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: pensador on 10/07/2019 17:38:34
One only needs to look at the world around them to see that only God can create life.

Define what your god is?

Is it maybe the quantum vacuum, zero point energy, dark energy, dark ???? ?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: pensador on 10/07/2019 17:45:51
One only needs to look at the world around them to see that only God can create life.
No.
Please define your understanding of god, that enables you to answer No.

God might be defined as the quantum vacuum perhaps from which via baryogenesis everything in the universe may have appeared. (in a big bang related sort of way, creating all of life in the universe ;) )
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/07/2019 18:22:23
Does the Roman empire still exert an influence today via its religion?
Philistines, Romans, the Inquisition, Communism, Fascism, even the British Empire....all came and went. We're still here. And, if modern-day antisemites are to be believed, we're still in charge of everything. The answer seems to be in having a faith that doesn't seek to convert or conquer others, or even argue very loudly for our precepts. It would be nice to be ignored for a few thousand years, but as Topol pointed out "If you look at a map, Israel is about the size of Yorkshire. If you look at a newspaper, it's bigger than Russia."   
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/07/2019 21:22:49
This god apparently caused the big bang then. OK. Well let's work with that conclusion. For billions of years mankind didn't exist. This dude, or dudette, who is all powerful, just didn't bother to use his or her supreme powers to do much at all for most of the time. What then? The supreme one just got bored?

Or maybe, using Occam's razor, life was a slow and incremental process that just took that long to develop. Still, maybe I am now damned to an eternity in eternal suffering. I doubt it.

The only real miracle is that we haven't destroyed ourselves yet.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: lunar7 on 11/07/2019 23:01:23
When we think the way the Universe works; the fundamental constants; the way Science works. There must be a God.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: pensador on 12/07/2019 13:31:14
The only real miracle is that we haven't destroyed ourselves yet.

I suspect that has more to do with good luck, or not as the case may be  ;)

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: pensador on 12/07/2019 13:35:17
When we think the way the Universe works; the fundamental constants; the way Science works. There must be a God.

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Where does your god come from? what is it?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/07/2019 18:53:38
God might be defined as the quantum vacuum perhaps from which via baryogenesis everything in the universe may have appeared.
Or God might be defined as a cucumber.
But that too, would be silly.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: pensador on 13/07/2019 10:25:39
God might be defined as the quantum vacuum perhaps from which via baryogenesis everything in the universe may have appeared.
Or God might be defined as a cucumber.
But that too, would be silly.

What would make a cucumber god any different to any other god.

The great god cucumber could be used in skin treatments, and reward the worshipper with soft skin perhaps.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: pensador on 13/07/2019 10:28:10
When we think the way the Universe works; the fundamental constants; the way Science works. There must be a God.

Ive got it, your gods a mathematician, in the beginning there was the HUP.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: pensador on 13/07/2019 10:31:23
There is a number of mysterious things in our life such as life itself, if these things are unknown, why do we refer them to myths?
Why not God prove his existence and save our efforts if he is merciful?

Your god is male then, and decides to be merciful or not as the case me be. Does this version of god respond to random events like a automaton.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Faltuh on 23/07/2019 04:59:31
There is a number of mysterious things in our life such as life itself, if these things are unknown, why do we refer them to myths?
Why not God prove his existence and save our efforts if he is merciful?
yes i think so
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Hayseed on 26/07/2019 07:12:33
Why is life the only singularity ever detected?  Life is NOT natural.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/07/2019 09:36:51
Why is life the only singularity ever detected?
Life is not a singularity, so your question makes no sense.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: pensador on 28/07/2019 08:53:32
There is a number of mysterious things in our life such as life itself, if these things are unknown, why do we refer them to myths?
Why not God prove his existence and save our efforts if he is merciful?
yes i think so

Should you have said yes I feel so, because you feel not think a god of some sorts exists. If you cant describe what your god is, then likely you dont know what it is you believe in.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 09/08/2019 12:44:05
God does not need time to exist in. Reminds me of the Tardis. God created the laws of the universe and so when he acts the laws are used, not contradicted. God wants us in this world and life in the Universe, to have faith, confidence, hope, rather than knowledge with proof. It is a nursery and testing ground. And something has gone wrong, with the premature introduction of knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge and proof is good for making tools and medicines..

You can have evidence and personal proof of Christ presence... In the Holy Spirit gifts and powers.

The universe is not self existent. I am not sure if it reasons.

Faith is necessary for dealing with knowledge and revelations... sometimes they are of very developed realities. Life reviews during near death experiences, visions of a city, with pearl gates....

For example, my late granma right up until she died was misled to think that Germany was only defending itself in WW2 and that the Jews had been rioting... I do not think she understood the holocaust. She was educated up to grade school before her father could not afford to send her to high school. Now if being so impressed by Germany she would not believe evidence that Hitler was Jewish in part and a hater. That there had been ambition in the Nazis to invade and not believe that the mass graves were real, even if God showed her images. Then how could she come to a knowledge of reality?

In this world we have evidences and proofs, books, images, reasoning and actual sites and the physical facts to manipulate in our hands and eyes. That is slow. In God is the promise of all wisdom and knowledge flowing through our minds like a waterfall when we die and enter the light. Not believing it is an option and a little blasphemy. When will someone ever believe or doubt a vision from God? Or verses from God?

It is possible some people can lock themselves out from believing God.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/08/2019 11:49:57
And something has gone wrong
How could anything go wrong in the creation of an omnipotent, omniscient being who set the specification in the first place, and has the unmitigated power to put it right? 

You will be telling us next that the god who created earthquakes and congenital syphilis is just and merciful.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/08/2019 12:35:01
When we think the way the Universe works; the fundamental constants; the way Science works. There must be a God.

Why? We ask why is that constant just so and this constant just so in order for us to exist? Why shouldn't it be just so? The sky looks blue. Why is the atmosphere constituted from molecules that scatter light in such a way that the sky looks blue? If it wasn't just so the sky may be red. So what? Such arguments are nonsense and show the immaturity of our species.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/08/2019 12:37:45
And BTW all the grown ups lied to you as a kid. Just because the grown ups did the same to them when they were children. Does that sound like maturity.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 10/08/2019 15:52:37
After the people had dominion things went wrong. This life is for testing and working dominion and faith. We have intervention when we ask or permit. The cross of Christ is the intervention. It is worked out slowly impressing understanding into human culture.

I suppose God made earthquakes, this would have come under our dominion. We lost dominion. Christ has dominion to restore us in his kingdom yet to fully rule on Earth. But God did not make diseases.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: syhprum on 10/08/2019 19:27:31
I think god really loves viruses and only created humans and other mammals as a convenient environment for them to evolve in. 
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/08/2019 20:15:50
After the people had dominion things went wrong.
The real problem is that God saw fit to put the serpent in the garden.
So, it's all His fault.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 11/08/2019 14:02:30
The serpent and tree of knowledge of good and evil was for the Adamic race to gain the ability to always free willing choose good amidst the choice of evil.

The Spirit entity in the serpent was self employed and not placed there. An agreement was probably reached beforehand. Adam could have taken authority and gained a nature of obedience and reverence with it's endearing. He would have had dominion over the whole planet.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: lunar7 on 11/08/2019 15:50:01
When we think the way the Universe works; the fundamental constants; the way Science works. There must be a God.

Why? We ask why is that constant just so and this constant just so in order for us to exist? Why shouldn't it be just so? The sky looks blue. Why is the atmosphere constituted from molecules that scatter light in such a way that the sky looks blue? If it wasn't just so the sky may be red. So what? Such arguments are nonsense and show the immaturity of our species.
You are implying the laws of Physics, which is how God makes things work, whether it be an electron orbiting the nuclues of an atom or the roots taking up mineral ions.
Besides, we may be 98% genetically similar to apes, but no linkage has been discovered between us an apes (nor will it be) because God created man in the image of Adam.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 11/08/2019 18:01:55
God created apes and man from a common root in matter or only in design.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Hayseed on 17/08/2019 00:57:56
Science can't even get physical reality right.........why would you think that they could concept God?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2019 01:22:57
.why would you think that they could concept God?
"concept" is not a verb.
Would you like to try again, but this time with a requirement that you post stuff that actually  makes sense to the real world?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2019 01:23:39
God created apes and man
Do you understand that man is an ape?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2019 01:25:47
to gain the ability to always free willing choose
... and in English?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2019 01:26:41
The Spirit entity in the serpent was self employed
Do you work for ATOS?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2019 01:31:35
An agreement was probably
There's nothing which inspires confidence like  a "God" that "probably" does something.
The Spirit entity in the serpent was self employed and not placed there.
I challenge you  to demonstrate that your assertion can be parsed in English.
Adam could have taken authority and gained a nature of obedience and reverence with it's endearing.
Ditto.
Did it occur to you that posting nonsense on a science we site will (at best) get you laughed at?
He would have had dominion over the whole planet.
If the fairy tale is right, he had already been granted that.
What did you think  you added there?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 17/08/2019 10:26:31
God created apes and man
Do you understand that man is an ape?
I just checked and see you are correct.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 17/08/2019 10:35:27
to gain the ability to always free willing choose
... and in English?
The first humans had to use free will. They had to be exposed to evil, while free willing, to free willingly choose obedience and stay in the light of life. Rather than be forced or protected from the knowledge of it. Over time, human nature would have become resistant to making evil choices.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 17/08/2019 10:36:55
The Spirit entity in the serpent was self employed
Do you work for ATOS?
Satan opposes God and does not ever work for Him only against Him. He also hates men and women made in his image and likeness.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 17/08/2019 10:41:32
The first humans could have kept their dominion. They and we today would have dominion over the whole planet, in regards to natural events.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2019 12:29:38
Satan opposes God and does not ever work for Him only against Him. He also hates men and women made in his image and likeness.
Then why did God create Satan?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 17/08/2019 13:38:20
Satan opposes God and does not ever work for Him only against Him. He also hates men and women made in his image and likeness.
Then why did God create Satan?
I would say God knew there would eventually be a rebellion. So he chose from the options one that would be finite, least successful and final. Finally finished. Satan was created as a servant, to serve God in the light, but he changed his mind, the angel led a rebellion seeking to have God's throne and power rather than worshipping him. They were expelled and became the angels of death.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2019 13:49:53
I would say God knew there would eventually be a rebellion.
In the absence of any evil, what could provoke a rebellion?
Satan was created as a servant, to serve God in the light, but he changed his mind,
Didn't God see that coming?
Did He choose to do nothing to stop it, and thus create all that is bad in the world?

It seems that Satan is more powerful than God.
Perhaps I should worship him.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 17/08/2019 15:22:58
I would say God knew there would eventually be a rebellion.
In the absence of any evil, what could provoke a rebellion?
Satan was created as a servant, to serve God in the light, but he changed his mind,
Didn't God see that coming?
Did He choose to do nothing to stop it, and thus create all that is bad in the world?

It seems that Satan is more powerful than God.
Perhaps I should worship him.
The angel was extremely intelligent, and proud. He went from worshipping God for his greatness to wanting to have it. Immense pride, jealousy, ambition, something like adultery, taking the worship of the rebellious angels... God saw it coming and chose the best of the options.

Satan and his cohorts were expelled, much weaker than God. Not as intelligent and weak at creativity, the angel of death imitates God or remembers works of old.

Some people worship money, some pleasure... but whatever it is, it is what seems to be worth the most to you that you see and feel is the source of good in your life.

Other Christians hold that God has a hidden purpose for evil.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: xitisoha on 19/08/2019 19:42:30
You are the part of god :)
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/09/2019 23:37:51
I would say God knew there would eventually be a rebellion.
In the absence of any evil, what could provoke a rebellion?
Satan was created as a servant, to serve God in the light, but he changed his mind,
Didn't God see that coming?
Did He choose to do nothing to stop it, and thus create all that is bad in the world?

It seems that Satan is more powerful than God.
Perhaps I should worship him.
The angel was extremely intelligent, and proud. He went from worshipping God for his greatness to wanting to have it. Immense pride, jealousy, ambition, something like adultery, taking the worship of the rebellious angels... God saw it coming and chose the best of the options.

Satan and his cohorts were expelled, much weaker than God. Not as intelligent and weak at creativity, the angel of death imitates God or remembers works of old.

Some people worship money, some pleasure... but whatever it is, it is what seems to be worth the most to you that you see and feel is the source of good in your life.

Other Christians hold that God has a hidden purpose for evil.
Do you believe that only christian god exists? What do you think about gods of other religions? Can they coexist?
If you can find a method to proof  that they also exist, you can be a pantheist.
On the other hand, if your method concludes that they don't exist, try using it to your own god. You may become an atheist.
If your method doesn't give you any conclusion, you may become an agnostic. But you can find a better method which is not useless.
If your method can prove the existence of your god while disproving other gods reliably, you can try your luck by sharing your method here. You may convert someone into your religion.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 10/09/2019 14:10:58
If we look back to the earliest gods, that of Genesis, Elohim, Moses YHWH based on Elohim. And Look at the story of Pandora's Box, and India's first god, Purusha. There is a commonality. The angels of Purusha that rebelled were said to break up Purusha into other gods, with the female principle, and then the threeness of the Hindu Trinity, creator destroyer. To me the latter are half truths. So there is only one god, whose presence fills the universe, he is all seeing, the Earth is his footstool, his presence fills the Earth, in him is also femininity and threeness. A benevolent nature. Looking here at Hinduism at the start. I do not believe in many gods. Or an overpowering greatness of rebellious angels.

Only one God revealed Himself in history, with a greater nature of love than any gods in mythology.  Only one answers the great challenges of sickness, sin which is also injustice, selfishness and unclean. And death. Making a way back to the friendship between Elohim and Adam and better.
[/quote]
Do you believe that only christian god exists? What do you think about gods of other religions? Can they coexist?
If you can find a method to proof  that they also exist, you can be a pantheist.
On the other hand, if your method concludes that they don't exist, try using it to your own god. You may become an atheist.
If your method doesn't give you any conclusion, you may become an agnostic. But you can find a better method which is not useless.
If your method can prove the existence of your god while disproving other gods reliably, you can try your luck by sharing your method here. You may convert someone into your religion.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/09/2019 14:24:51
To me the latter are half truths.
How do you determine which part is true, while the other is false?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 10/09/2019 14:26:45
To me the latter are half truths.
How do you determine which part is true, while the other is false?
The parts that resemble the faith checked by Moses in God's presence. The parts that do not give powers to define to the angels of death.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/09/2019 16:13:10
The parts that resemble the faith checked by Moses in God's presence. The parts that do not give powers to define to the angels of death.
How do you know moses?
How do you know that the stories about him are true?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 12/09/2019 07:16:49
The parts that resemble the faith checked by Moses in God's presence. The parts that do not give powers to define to the angels of death.
How do you know moses?
How do you know that the stories about him are true?

Moses is impressed in history as a well educated law maker and nation maker. There are examples of archaeological evidence of the displacement of people who ate pork in Israel or what was Israel. Things like sites where there were pork bones and pottery of one type, replaced by lamb bones and a new type of pottery during the Exodus period.

There are the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence of the book being faithfully transcribed, the Torah.

I had a vision of Moses.

Moses is endorsed in the Gospel with checks about hard heartedness. I believe in Moses because of Jesus and aspects of Moses' law fit in my natural judgement and my cultural learning, like marrying your girlfriend if you make her pregnant...

Moses best documented the Genesis account of creation and put together the old traditions with new revelations in God's presence, which is a constant theme throughout the Bible and all writings from YHWH. No love and presence, no YHWH and the gentiles under Paul the apostle, their faith rested in power as well as the earlier two. I have experienced touches of these things. The state of my conscience changing to clear, and a clean heart, also secret thoughts revealed and seeing others and hearing their testimonies of the same sorts of things being done in them.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2019 07:35:59
Moses is impressed in history
Really?
Can you show me a contemporary independent reference to show that he even existed?
I had a vision of Moses.
Your hallucinations don't constitute evidence.
Have you spoken to your doctor about them?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 12/09/2019 09:15:16
Moses is impressed in history
Really?
Can you show me a contemporary independent reference to show that he even existed?
I had a vision of Moses.
Your hallucinations don't constitute evidence.
Have you spoken to your doctor about them?
I have not studied archaeology to site names of hand, but at first I think of Simcha Jacobovici and I doubt the Hebrew University would say he was not real. From what I have heard the debate against Moses and the Exodus is not the greater one.

Britain's legal system was influenced by Moses over the centuries, so was this like being influenced by Gandalph?

Moses is so ancient that we don't have history of him like WW1. History was only really recorded from the ninth century BC, in regards to King David. Moses is somewhat legendary from a non faith, scientific view. Wikipedia mentions him, I found a few articles. I will have to read them later. Doing some exams.

The vision I had was an operating table vision just coming out of, Gamazel anesthetic. Pardon my spelling. Doctors would mostly ignore these things.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 12/09/2019 16:31:45
I think without bias that the Hebrews somehow left Egypt and invaded Israel. It should be in the DNA of the fully Hebrew Jews.

It is hard to believe in the pillar of fire, the mighty victories, the superiority of Hebrew soldiers despite the Egyptian trained Moses.

I think that is why it is considered a legend by science minded historians. Then there is also the bias against Jews. And the worry of fights starting over Israel. Some do not want to acknowledge their right to live there.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2019 20:00:33
Doctors would mostly ignore these things.
It is often wise to take your doctor's advice.
Britain's legal system was influenced by Moses over the centuries,
Via time travel?
Moses was said to have lived long before the Romans came to these islands (bringing their legal system with them).
At the time, there was no formal legal system in Britain.

So, even if Moses ever lived he was a long time dead before anyone could influence the british legal system.
It is hard to believe in the pillar of fire, the mighty victories,
I don't...


"The modern scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is a mythical figure"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2019 20:03:04
The vision I had was an operating table vision just coming out of, Gamazel anesthetic.
So, your response to my reminder that hallucinations are not evidence is to say that it was a drug induced hallucination.


Do you think that makes it better?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 13/09/2019 15:47:56
Doctors would mostly ignore these things.
It is often wise to take your doctor's advice.
Britain's legal system was influenced by Moses over the centuries,
Via time travel?
Moses was said to have lived long before the Romans came to these islands (bringing their legal system with them).
At the time, there was no formal legal system in Britain.

So, even if Moses ever lived he was a long time dead before anyone could influence the british legal system.
It is hard to believe in the pillar of fire, the mighty victories,
I don't...


"The modern scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is a mythical figure"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity

Moses in wikipedia is said to possible have existed as more than a mythical figure. It elaborates and speculates. And though it does not mention English law, it does mention that of the old USA at foundational times. And mentions Swedish historian Hugo Valentin as considering Moses the first to establish the rights of man.

Where can I find Moses influence on Britain and England in particular? He may have influenced Rome, not by time travel but through the debates of Jews living in Greece and Rome through the hundreds of years before and after Christ.

Visions on operating tables that do not come from hallucinogens, such as NDEs and OBEs are treated differently to hallucinations. But not all doctors take an interest. That is why I mentioned Gamazel as I think it is called, and not Ketamine, since the latter induces hallucinations. Gamazel causes memory loss of the event.


Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2019 19:10:13
Do you understand that a man who did not exist can not have influenced anything?

People who thought he existed may well have had an influence, but that is not evidence that he was actually real.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 14/09/2019 06:06:02
Do you understand that a man who did not exist can not have influenced anything?

People who thought he existed may well have had an influence, but that is not evidence that he was actually real.

I am sure I cannot persuade you to change your mind, and you cannot change mine. We are set in past decisions. For me, I am sure the Bible is evidence he existed, and that it is not a book of legends. Scientists here seem to believe God exists only one in five, from a past poll. You would be an atheist then. Others but which are scholars with biases I mentioned  would be the Hebrew University and another article I found was a Jew who graduated from Harvard and disagrees with the trends in amongst those scholars.

Not only the Romans but the Jews have offered us things in civilization and obviously Moses was the authority to them. They suffered a lot for that, to me that gives credence to his being real and not a fanciful idea. Circumcision, and keeping a just culture separate from pagans, the strictness and the defence of Israel was for a valid, non fanciful reason. God's presence existed and persisted throughout the composition of the whole Bible, and is still active today in pastors and writers and evangelists. You can find it if you look even locally. But you cannot have proof, God doesn't offer it. Christ is the choice of millions of Chinese in China and the same in Africa, despite persecution, not just for Bible ideas, but because of the experience of God's presence and power.

The development of the character of the Christ over hundreds of years and that someone fulfilled all those prophecies takes a consistency and most extraordinary luck if it were by chance. It seems behind the men and women, there was one author in common.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2019 21:10:00
You say " obviously Moses was the authority"
Why can't you understand that a myth of Moses would do that just as well as a real one?
It can't be "obvious" because it isn't true.
It can't be true because Moses isn't real.

I am sure I cannot persuade you to change your mind, and you cannot change mine.
I will change my mind if you provide evidence. You refuse to do so.
So the real question is "What are you doing on a science web page?"
You clearly are not interested in science.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Zer0 on 23/09/2019 22:10:32
OP - Re: Can science prove God exists?

Should it?

What exactly happens when Science debunks & demolishes all of Faith in the Almighty?
Aren't some folks on our planet so pauperised that all that they have or own to face the hardships of tomorrow is Hope & Faith.

I was pretty disappointed knowing the toothfairy ain't real...do not even get me started on Santa!
Is it fun to make kids cry in order to make em grow up?
Shouldn't growing old be a compulsion as usual, but growing up be kept always optional.


& Honestly, does Science not have any other more important impending crises to provide solutions for...
What good are such debates on & whether if GOD exists or not, other than they being extreme waste of time?

Why do believers belittle their own God by trying to seek proof of existence thru Science...
Believe what you may, keep your Faith..
Just Please remember, whatever your commandments are, keep em to yourself locked up inside of your own head.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/09/2019 17:42:48
Is it fun to make kids cry in order to make em grow up?
If people didn't tell lies about Sant and the Tooth fairy, they would save the kids from the tears when they find out
(1) they aren't real and
(2) they can't trust their parents.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Harryobr on 25/09/2019 12:01:41
Oh my God. Why is life the only singularity ever detected?  Life is NOT natural.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Hayseed on 26/09/2019 00:52:08
Life is the only single thing we have ever seen.  We see multiples of objects and entities thru out the universe.  But life is only here.

That tells me that life is not natural.   Life is more than mass and energy and their nature.   Life configures their nature, then replicates itself.  Allowing further configuration of nature.

Why?  How?  When?   Do you believe science can find the answers?   What about death?  We know that death is not necessary for to multiply life, so why is there death?

It's so cruel.  Why does life tease us.   Can science find out?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/09/2019 02:16:07
Why?  How?  When?   Do you believe science can find the answers?   What about death?  We know that death is not necessary for to multiply life, so why is there death?
I think that death is/was necessary to remind us that our current system is not perfect (yet), hence need to change and restart to make progress. It's necessary due to finite available resources. This should be obvious if we learned about genetic algorithm.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 28/09/2019 06:45:52
You say " obviously Moses was the authority"
Why can't you understand that a myth of Moses would do that just as well as a real one?
It can't be "obvious" because it isn't true.
It can't be true because Moses isn't real.

I am sure I cannot persuade you to change your mind, and you cannot change mine.
I will change my mind if you provide evidence. You refuse to do so.
So the real question is "What are you doing on a science web page?"
You clearly are not interested in science.


Moses' works of literature and military tactics were intellectual and from an educated man, poetry, mighty victories. He left a succession, and records of events that many modern people won't believe because of the supernatural content. He lived so long ago, in primitive times that records of history were not well done as later with King David and later still with the 5th century bc Greeks.

I tend to take Exodus as a real account.

If I were to look for evidence in the natural, it would be examples Hebrews DNA testing. Are they a distinct race?

What is the motive for a myth or a lie? Advantage? What advantage was there? Inside practicing justice was good, but outside it meant continuous struggles and conflict with demon worshipping pagans. It went on for centuries. They had to record of their ancestries. They could not simply mix with the pagans. From Moses they had a sense of justice balanced with mercy that worked and influences us today.

People may just believe that ancient Pharaoh records are true, but Moses they don't because the records are so old and scant for science. And some people refuse to believe in miracles.

Having experienced what we call Jesus' sacred blood as a man, I am persuaded to believe there was the line of Judah and Moses' sacrifice system...

So I suppose to post enlightenment scientists Moses is not an authority in the same way he once was anymore.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 28/09/2019 07:42:23
From the OP and behind what I have typed, is my admiration and respect for American open mindedness.

Many scientists and from a poll here, 4 out of 5 are non theists, are like vacuum sealed or tort. Beyond what can be seen or tested, they hold there is nothing, sometimes even it is as a faith.

If you could picture their observations, in plastic wrap, it would hold shape. No pockets of air.

I prefer open mindedness.

If we look at the size of our solar system the Milky Way, Andromeda, and consider how many galaxies there are, it is magnificently huge. And some scientists think it it came from nothing, although nothing had a powerful nature, to spontaneously produce a vast amount of matter and anti-matter. In the end they think the universe is self existent.

In addition to the universe vast nature, intelligent life in the universe like human beings, dolphins and elephants and sexual reproduction and beauty and the mind, are part of the universe. It does not take a great open mind to choose to consider another factor was self existent.

Christians believe God is self existent. It takes the same amount of faith, either way. God with his order and detail, or the universe with it's order, detail and life. I am open minded to think God is.

And I am open minded to think Moses and Bible accounts are real.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2019 12:42:04
If I were to look for evidence in the natural, it would be examples Hebrews DNA testing. Are they a distinct race?
Race isn't a well defined concept in science.
I tend to take Exodus as a real account.
That's your opinion; had you somehow mistaken it for evidence?
It takes the same amount of faith, either way.
Not really.
There is actual evidence for the big bang and (whether you like this  or not) there is none for God.
Also, you seem to brush aside the fact that, no matter how complex (and thus improbable) the universe is, God must be more complex and- by the same argument- more improbable.
And I am open minded to think Moses and Bible accounts are real.
You are not open minded at all.
You refuse to consider the evidence which shows that they are substantially made up.
We know who rewrote them, where and when.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 28/09/2019 12:56:01
There is actual evidence for the big bang and (whether you like this  or not) there is none for God.
Also, you seem to brush aside the fact that, no matter how complex (and thus improbable) the universe is, God must be more complex and- by the same argument- more improbable.
And I am open minded to think Moses and Bible accounts are real.
You are not open minded at all.
You refuse to consider the evidence which shows that they are substantially made up.
We know who rewrote them, where and when.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
The matter of probability does not apply to some matters. Probability cannot apply to the question of God's existence. Probability is for maths and to some extent physics. It is not transcendent. It is a subject within the universe, to things in the universe. A parallel universe could be quite different and without logic, from the same God.
 
The Hebrews separate from the Christian councils have their own school.

https://www.coursera.org/huji
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2019 13:25:03
https://www.coursera.org/huji
"The Hebrew University was founded in 1918 "
Come on...
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 28/09/2019 14:03:21
https://www.coursera.org/huji
"The Hebrew University was founded in 1918 "
Come on...
The Hebrews had always maintained their language in Israel. Their own TANACH. The Jews mixed in Europe always had their own distinct from Trinitarian school of thought, theology and have their own contributions to archaeology.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2019 14:38:08
https://www.coursera.org/huji
"The Hebrew University was founded in 1918 "
Come on...
The Hebrews had always maintained their language in Israel. Their own TANACH. The Jews mixed in Europe always had their own distinct from Trinitarian school of thought, theology and have their own contributions to archaeology.
So why post a link to a university that's younger than my granny?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2019 14:39:58
The Hebrews had always maintained their language in Israel. Their own TANACH.
It's a book.
So is Lord of the rings.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 28/09/2019 14:43:09

The people behind the Uni, in Jerusalem lived there since before Christ, with in mind, Roman expulsion and resettlement... Israel is ancient with it's own schools. Pre-Nicaea.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2019 16:03:27
It's still a book.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Zer0 on 28/09/2019 16:28:07
The Hebrews had always maintained their language in Israel. Their own TANACH.
It's a book.
So is Lord of the rings.

ROFL!

Can't believe it is still going on & on...centuries have passed...may God help Science!
;)
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 28/09/2019 16:39:22
It's still a book.
The TANACH is non fiction. People lived by it, wrote it, fulfilled it... It has a consistency, such as a lead up to a Messiah figure, that the Jews don't accept. We have to agree to disagree, because the writings of the Bible are about a God, you don't believe exists but some other scientists do and a lot of other people, like Lawyers and accountants...
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2019 17:15:10
It's still a book.
The TANACH is non fiction. People lived by it, wrote it, fulfilled it... It has a consistency, such as a lead up to a Messiah figure, that the Jews don't accept. We have to agree to disagree, because the writings of the Bible are about a God, you don't believe exists but some other scientists do and a lot of other people, like Lawyers and accountants...
It's still a book.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 28/09/2019 17:59:52
It is a book, theirs, the work of their ancestors, which whether you or not you believe it, is another school of thought that is separate from and predates the Catholic Church. For it not to be altered for different reasons. And now it can be tested against the dead sea scrolls.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2019 18:01:59
Do you realise that I don't care very much about the church- Catholic or otherwise.
So it doesn't matter to me that one old book is different from another old book.

Neither of them is evidence- for the same reason that the Lord of the rings is not evidence of hobbits and elves.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 28/09/2019 19:04:51
Do you realise that I don't care very much about the church- Catholic or otherwise.
So it doesn't matter to me that one old book is different from another old book.

Neither of them is evidence- for the same reason that the Lord of the rings is not evidence of hobbits and elves.
What about such things as dates in King David's life and works as compared with archaeology that matches. Say Kings and tablet records in surrounding lands sites?

And I thought you were saying the Catholic Church invented Moses?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2019 20:06:21
What I was saying is that religions make stuff up
In the case of the Catholic church we know who, where and when.
There is no reason to imagine the other religions are different

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 29/09/2019 07:43:19
Science can do quite a few things. Science is based on logic and observation. One observes and makes deductions which can have a great possibility of being true. An example was the Greeks logically deducing that atoms exist. It took a very long time for the proof but it did come.

The key observation that science should look at is that intelligence has evolved - mankind (generally true). To get to the point of such intelligence life had to do some things that are almost unimaginable. Cells had to signal each other and agree to cooperate. Cellular learning had to be encoded in the genes both in nuclear genes and mitochondrial genes. Replication and repair mechanisms had to be evolved. And the Earth had to go through stages that encouraged and promoted the evolution of intelligence. Dinosaurs had to be eliminated as the dominant species. Earth had to go through 10,000 years of ideal conditions so that the final emergence of mankind as fully functional intelligence could occur.

Science then asks questions. Is this an accident, or by design? One looks at the tendency inert molecules have to combine and align themselves with each other in cooperative arrangements. The carbon-oxygen-hydrogen-nitrogen combinations seem endless.

Study the channels on the cellular membrane, and even the membrane itself. They can open to allow on one ion species through at a time (millions per sec) based on tiny differentials or enzyme signals. They are proteins wound into folding coils. Just the folding of proteins that must take place with repeated accuracy is incredible.

Study the mechanism of sight. One photon of a particular wavelength causes a protein molecule to change size, press on another protein and start the chain of a nerve impulse.

The other question scientists do ask is "why did this happen"? What is the prime cause?

We know about the Big Bang but not where it came from. We do not know why there was more matter than anti-matter.

If one postulates that the Prime Cause is an intelligent entity then that explains the drive of evolution towards intelligence. The Prime Cause does not have to consist of anything and if it is vast enough it can create almost unlimited virtual reality of incredible complexity. Part of that incredible complexity could be both a God and a Satan each with vast but limited powers. As part of the rules they would have to remain unproven. Little miracles here and there that remain as anecdotes.

Another observation is that mankind is predisposed to mystical events, and that every now and then a prophet who changes the course of history arrives.

Skeptics scoff at the "story" but cannot offer a better one.

I was an atheist at 12 years, an agnostic at 17 years and now at 70 years I choose to believe (I have no faith) on the basis of personal experience. I have had few psychic experiences that cannot be explained by the usual "brain malfunction". Atheists presume that there is no God and every explanation goes "it cannot be true therefore we will chose a best-fit explanation". They then try to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I personally find that nearly every religion has some truth in it. God gave all of us a piece of the puzzle. IMO.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2019 09:25:54
If one postulates that the Prime Cause is an intelligent entity then that explains the drive of evolution towards intelligence.
And, since almost all life is not on an evolutionary path to intelligence, we can reject the postulate.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 29/09/2019 10:42:03
If one postulates that the Prime Cause is an intelligent entity then that explains the drive of evolution towards intelligence.
And, since almost all life is not on an evolutionary path to intelligence, we can reject the postulate.

First, your definition of "intelligence". And define "almost all". Quite the naysayer are you. Not "WE can reject" but "I [you] can reject". You are an opinion of one. You bring a blunderbuss to a debate of the highest order.

Mankind needed all the underlying life forms to reach peak intelligence. Even the trees that died off so long ago to provide coal and oil. And the trees that provided timber in various forms for sailing ships and shelter (or weapons of war), or fruit, or latex for rubber. Does a tree have basic intelligence to be able to assemble a collection of cells with all of them cooperating for the benefit of the whole? Finding water and light and then adjusting the behavior of cells to change?

Without the galaxies being formed, without planets being formed and without a Goldilocks planet with ideal terraforming, humankind could not have evolved. Need I mention the fine balance of the cosmic constants?

God provided clues for even the scientists to see and marvel at. Of course, there are those who will not see. The motor for the flagellum on certain bacteria. Humankind imitates life but this was a design well ahead of electric motors. All the parts must be there in order to operate. The intricacy is mind-boggling (for those who can appreciate just how intricate it is). That design must then be encoded in genes and the various cells must replicate and divide in a startling path in order to arrive at the end result.

And what is dark matter and dark energy but a figment of imagination in order to make the physical equations here on Earth work? Perhaps the Ultimate Creator Intelligence is messing with us knowing we will extinct ourselves before getting off this planet. Or not wanting us off the planet until we have evolved more spiritually?

Earlier I saw you said A) There are lupins B) There are no lupins and then said they cannot both be true. What about Schrodingers cat in the box? Apparently it can be either alive and dead at the same time. And what about electrons being in two places at the same time. Quantum logic can strange when used in everyday situations.

But the cause and effect rule still applies as one of the most basic rules. What is the Prime Cause? What is your opinion? And why you hold the belief that your opinion might be true?

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/09/2019 12:40:41
You can apply the scientific method easily to the question.

Suggest one unique, predictive, testable property or function of your god. Then test it.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 29/09/2019 13:43:00
You can apply the scientific method easily to the question.

Suggest one unique, predictive, testable property or function of your god. Then test it.
I don't think God will give us a portion of his presence to test. Knowing and trusting are alternate to each other. Imagine a baby who will not trust dad, learn from dad, infer from dad unless it is proven under tests. Fast paced love and friendship cannot take place. You can't be filled with all knowledge if you do not trust the holy one when you recognize him. All the info is not trusted as well. All knowledge and wisdom and prophecy is invalid and even if you see an angel you don't know what to make of it.

You can have evidence in prophecy, and you can experience God's presence, drink it in, but that is after trusting usually. After an near death experience, many people return to life knowing there is an afterlife and spirit and soul and other entities like God, angels and demons. But they can't prove it to anyone else.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2019 14:20:26
What about Schrodingers cat in the box?
It's irrelevant.
I have observed the garden.
The motor for the flagellum on certain bacteria. ... the various cells must replicate and divide in a startling path in order to arrive at the end result.
Bacteria are single cells; The flagellum is part of, and produced by, each bacterium. It is not produced by cell division.

First, your definition of "intelligence".
If you think the word is badly defined, you shouldn't have used it.

And define "almost all".
OK, Most of the world's species are things like bacteria, plants, nematodes etc whose lifestyle is such that using resources on any sensible form of intelligence would be counter-productive.

It's not even clear that a brighter sheep would be more successful.
So, for there to be any advantage to intelligence you need a niche in life where brains are worth the expense of running them.
That's top level predators and a few oddities like chimps.



Not "WE can reject" but "I [you] can reject". You are an opinion of one. You bring a blunderbuss to a debate of the highest order.

The "we" who can reject your idea are the "we" who can understand basic evolutionary biology.
On a science web page that should be the great majority.


Let us know when you catch up.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 29/09/2019 20:26:37
You can apply the scientific method easily to the question.

Suggest one unique, predictive, testable property or function of your god. Then test it.
I don't think God will give us a portion of his presence to test. Knowing and trusting are alternate to each other. Imagine a baby who will not trust dad, learn from dad, infer from dad unless it is proven under tests. Fast paced love and friendship cannot take place. You can't be filled with all knowledge if you do not trust the holy one when you recognize him. All the info is not trusted as well. All knowledge and wisdom and prophecy is invalid and even if you see an angel you don't know what to make of it.

You can have evidence in prophecy, and you can experience God's presence, drink it in, but that is after trusting usually. After an near death experience, many people return to life knowing there is an afterlife and spirit and soul and other entities like God, angels and demons. But they can't prove it to anyone else.

Well said.

What changed my mind WAS personal observation. Experiencing events that cannot be explained by physics.

On one occassion I knew with absolute certainty of a near future event and took precautions to avoid getting involved. A biker passed me and I knew he would die up ahead.  The shock of knowing was like the shock of realizing you have left a pot of oil on a hot stove. I slowed down so as to not ride over him after he died. It seems he had a heart attack and lay dead in the middle of the road a few kilometers ahead.

I "visited" my late wife in the after-life. No form and no gender. Heaven and hell are not two places. It is a continuum from very good to very bad. And it is a mental state. My late wife was in the very good part. I thought one could imagine a state with no fears, no pain, no hunger, no death, no taxes. It is impossible. One can only experience it.

I began living in a farm cottage which I realized had a bad spirit causing daily problems. For six weeks. When the Cape cobra slithered under my feet one night while I was listing the problems to my late wife in an email I got the message to act. A man had committed suicide outside the house and it was traumatic to his friends and the community. I communicated with his spirit and did as he wanted. To explain he had not realized what would happen and he wanted me to apologize. I did and things changed positively. I learned spirit is an intermediate form between soul and body. Spirit takes form and decays. Usually very quickly.

I could go on.

One communication (with confirmatory events following it) was that there will soon be a big reduction in population. God will not let humankind destroy the world he has made. "Soon" meaning in time to make a difference.

Sometimes the observations have to be done by people and not instruments. Anecdotal yes - but what else does humankind have when God will not allow direct proof of his/her existence.

What I hypothesized was applying logic to question of God and looking at the evidence of various religions - and the wonders humankind has discovered. We are sufficiently advanced to understand the concept of virtual reality. In programming there are classes and constructs which take form when used with parameters. Souls are like that.

I have had a chance to lucid dream and realized there is only one test to check if I was asleep and that was to will something impossible to happen. Pinching myself did not work. It is impossible to prove we are not in "virtual reality" in the mind of an Infinite Intelligence, and that God might be part of that virtual reality. As such, miracles are possible but it seem to be fairly rare, except for personal ones experienced by the faithful (and some others).
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2019 22:06:34
I began living in a farm cottage which I realized had a bad spirit causing daily problems.

On a science site?
Really?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/09/2019 05:12:17
All knowledge and wisdom and prophecy is invalid and even if you see an angel you don't know what to make of it.
Perhaps I'll ask about some unsolved problems in mathematics and get 1 million dollar of easy money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 30/09/2019 05:41:43
All knowledge and wisdom and prophecy is invalid and even if you see an angel you don't know what to make of it.
Perhaps I'll ask about some unsolved problems in mathematics and get 1 million dollar of easy money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems

God and the psychic world operate according to a set of rules. Much like the real world does. Getting rich is selfish and your request will not be granted. A prayer group for a deserving person is much more likely to succeed in modest ways.

There are huge numbers of frauds who operate using people's greed. It is one way to tell who they are. Another example is tales of direct conversations and visits to God such as told by Wendy Alec. It just does not happen although people really want to believe it does. People want to hear stories confirming the supernatural and they lose their skepticism.

I had no control over the psychic events that happened to me. They were few and random but after a long time (when I was in my sixties) I could see a pattern of learning. That is the science part. Observing and making deductions that are not contradictory or illogical.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/09/2019 09:11:53
All knowledge and wisdom and prophecy is invalid and even if you see an angel you don't know what to make of it.
Perhaps I'll ask about some unsolved problems in mathematics and get 1 million dollar of easy money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems

God and the psychic world operate according to a set of rules. Much like the real world does. Getting rich is selfish and your request will not be granted. A prayer group for a deserving person is much more likely to succeed in modest ways.

There are huge numbers of frauds who operate using people's greed. It is one way to tell who they are. Another example is tales of direct conversations and visits to God such as told by Wendy Alec. It just does not happen although people really want to believe it does. People want to hear stories confirming the supernatural and they lose their skepticism.

I had no control over the psychic events that happened to me. They were few and random but after a long time (when I was in my sixties) I could see a pattern of learning. That is the science part. Observing and making deductions that are not contradictory or illogical.
What if I pledge to donate all of that money to charities to save starving children in developing countries?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 30/09/2019 11:13:36
All knowledge and wisdom and prophecy is invalid and even if you see an angel you don't know what to make of it.
Perhaps I'll ask about some unsolved problems in mathematics and get 1 million dollar of easy money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems

God and the psychic world operate according to a set of rules. Much like the real world does. Getting rich is selfish and your request will not be granted. A prayer group for a deserving person is much more likely to succeed in modest ways.

There are huge numbers of frauds who operate using people's greed. It is one way to tell who they are. Another example is tales of direct conversations and visits to God such as told by Wendy Alec. It just does not happen although people really want to believe it does. People want to hear stories confirming the supernatural and they lose their skepticism.

I had no control over the psychic events that happened to me. They were few and random but after a long time (when I was in my sixties) I could see a pattern of learning. That is the science part. Observing and making deductions that are not contradictory or illogical.
What if I pledge to donate all of that money to charities to save starving children in developing countries?

It comes down to your motivation. If you are trying to test the existence of God, that is not allowed. If you want to get fame and recognition, that again is a selfish act. God wants people to strive to do good - not fill out an application form. God only intervenes for small personal requests that are easy to do and difficult to prove his/her existence, or the intervention is to guide the destiny of humankind.

These last interventions can different forms. One is that he can do nothing to prevent a pandemic like the Black Plague. Another is that he can stop a pandemic from spreading at a time it would direct humankind in the wrong direction. He is going to do nothing to stop the pending die-off which has already started but people are ignoring it and will ignore it until too late.

Most big interventions look natural. The extinction of the dinosaurs is an example.

Note that my hypothesis of God being part of the virtual reality means that God has limitations as does Satan. The Infinite Intelligence can allow God to do just about anything, and know just about anything, so my hypothesis does not interfere with how religions view God. It does explain the limitations of God despite his enormous ability to be powerful and all knowing. It explains why evil exists in the form of Satan.

I experienced the Infinite Intelligence when I was in my twenties. My studies of various religions recently made me aware of the Hindu concept of Brahman which is similar.

I also experienced being judged after death. I learned there is no argument. All is known. Once I was sent back because I was lacking achievement (either good or bad). The other time I was terminated permanently (but woke the next morning because it was a lesson). The lesson here is that souls are not necessarily eternal. Having experienced death twice in my dreams (painful sword in the neck and sword in the gut), I guess that re-incarnation of souls is possible. Re-incarnation makes sense. Souls evolve as species evolve. Otherwise there would be enormous number of souls just hanging around. Even with reincarnation, people should follow the teachings of Jesus and not look down upon a suffering person as one being taught Karma.

The souls direct the growing spirit to guide the growing physical.  One does not come back in a lesser form. This is needed for the formation of the brain which cannot follow genetic code to form the structures needed. Simply too complex. The soul does the fine tuning and detail, and does some subtle influence throughout life. That quiet voice or that intuition at times.

Suffering is thus temporary. Even the death of children or babies means the soul gets another chance.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 30/09/2019 14:15:01
I began living in a farm cottage which I realized had a bad spirit causing daily problems.

On a science site?
Really?

Isn't that the sort of thing Carl Jung experienced before he devised modern psychology? Paranormal psychology.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 30/09/2019 14:16:54
All knowledge and wisdom and prophecy is invalid and even if you see an angel you don't know what to make of it.
Perhaps I'll ask about some unsolved problems in mathematics and get 1 million dollar of easy money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems
It seems the people who have positive NDEs want to be closer to people than money and spend it on them and work closely with needy people.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 30/09/2019 15:23:29
I began living in a farm cottage which I realized had a bad spirit causing daily problems.

On a science site?
Really?

Isn't that the sort of thing Carl Jung experienced before he devised modern psychology? Paranormal psychology.

Just have a look at the books that propose the Prime Cause other than God. The understanding of our universe must necessarily try to understand and find answers to the underlying reason for our existence and the underlying reason for the laws of physics. The concept of God is one proposition, and one has to look for clues as to his existence.

Mental telepathy is another phenomenon that I have experienced reasonably often. Quite dramatically at one time in my early forties.

As a teenager I ran an experiment by telling a friend many houses away to check and remember the time. They were going to bed and got up to see the time. They said that they not only felt compelled to look at the time (the time I was thinking of) and felt it was important but went to the kitchen clock to be sure that it was correct.

Also as a teenager, I hypnotized a person who could read minds even if the other people were in another room. When the person was able to accurately predict a sequence of events in the next hour (the arrival of a friend, what they would say, what they would wear, and why they had decided to come). There were no phones in the area (early 1960 in Zimbabwe) and there was no pre-arrangement. Waiting for this to happen meant I would be a half hour late to meet my mother who insisted on promptness. The person told me my mother would be 35 minutes late. It got too spooky for me and others and I stopped experimenting.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2019 20:36:59
A prayer group for a deserving person is much more likely to succeed in modest ways.

https://xkcd.com/285/
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/10/2019 05:13:47
It comes down to your motivation. If you are trying to test the existence of God, that is not allowed. If you want to get fame and recognition, that again is a selfish act. God wants people to strive to do good - not fill out an application form. God only intervenes for small personal requests that are easy to do and difficult to prove his/her existence, or the intervention is to guide the destiny of humankind.

These last interventions can different forms. One is that he can do nothing to prevent a pandemic like the Black Plague. Another is that he can stop a pandemic from spreading at a time it would direct humankind in the wrong direction. He is going to do nothing to stop the pending die-off which has already started but people are ignoring it and will ignore it until too late.

Most big interventions look natural. The extinction of the dinosaurs is an example.

Note that my hypothesis of God being part of the virtual reality means that God has limitations as does Satan. The Infinite Intelligence can allow God to do just about anything, and know just about anything, so my hypothesis does not interfere with how religions view God. It does explain the limitations of God despite his enormous ability to be powerful and all knowing. It explains why evil exists in the form of Satan.

I experienced the Infinite Intelligence when I was in my twenties. My studies of various religions recently made me aware of the Hindu concept of Brahman which is similar.

I also experienced being judged after death. I learned there is no argument. All is known. Once I was sent back because I was lacking achievement (either good or bad). The other time I was terminated permanently (but woke the next morning because it was a lesson). The lesson here is that souls are not necessarily eternal. Having experienced death twice in my dreams (painful sword in the neck and sword in the gut), I guess that re-incarnation of souls is possible. Re-incarnation makes sense. Souls evolve as species evolve. Otherwise there would be enormous number of souls just hanging around. Even with reincarnation, people should follow the teachings of Jesus and not look down upon a suffering person as one being taught Karma.

The souls direct the growing spirit to guide the growing physical.  One does not come back in a lesser form. This is needed for the formation of the brain which cannot follow genetic code to form the structures needed. Simply too complex. The soul does the fine tuning and detail, and does some subtle influence throughout life. That quiet voice or that intuition at times.

Suffering is thus temporary. Even the death of children or babies means the soul gets another chance.
You can start a new religion since your doctrines are significantly different than any religion that I know.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/10/2019 05:43:51
[snip]
You can start a new religion since your doctrines are significantly different than any religion that I know.

Nothing that I have said has not been said by others at some time or another. I said that all religions have some truth. They should be more tolerant of each other.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/10/2019 08:03:59
[snip]
You can start a new religion since your doctrines are significantly different than any religion that I know.

Nothing that I have said has not been said by others at some time or another. I said that all religions have some truth. They should be more tolerant of each other.
That's also true for currently existing religions. They picked parts of older religion's believes and their contemporary cultures and then combined to form new belief systems.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/10/2019 09:34:21
[snip]
You can start a new religion since your doctrines are significantly different than any religion that I know.

Nothing that I have said has not been said by others at some time or another. I said that all religions have some truth. They should be more tolerant of each other.
That's also true for currently existing religions. They picked parts of older religion's believes and their contemporary cultures and then combined to form new belief systems.

Very true. Animism came first where spirit infused everything - Shaman as leader/spirit guide. The Native Americans have Great Spirit but are Shamanistic. The Greeks, Romans and Viking came up with families of Gods. The Zoroastrians came up with one God. There was interaction between them and Hindus. The Jews borrowed from the Zoroastrians during their captivity under them. The Christians added to the Old Testament and had the Council of Nicea vote that Jesus was God so that Rome could accept the religion. Islam used the Old and New Testaments for the religious part (Jesus being the greatest prophet but not God) and added rules for society. Buddha taught a way of life (not a religion). Confucius did the same. The Tao was also a way of life. Buddhism took elements from Hinduism and spread as a religion to Tibet, China, and Japan. Zen Buddhism is a meditative art and Shinto (animism) is still the state religion in Japan. The Aztecs and Incas had many gods attached to various entities including celestial objects - they too borrowed.

I find that there are times that the Sun seems to symbolize the presence to God, so it is not far fetched to worship the Sun as the physical embodiment of God.

I was driving to a hospital to visit people who had a relative in hospital with terminal cancer. As I came over the bridge, there was an unusual break in the clouds letting the sun stream down. The radio played "A Whiter Shade of Pale". I checked the time and was certain the person had just died. It was so. These are omens and signs.

There are demons. I went on a course where a young man was possessed by one. My late wife saw the black shadow on his left shoulder. The man got angry and violent at times. He could not understand why his wife and children feared him. I was on a deck holding a short stabbing spear and a war club. I had said that words were stronger than the sword. He got angry at this and tried to take the weapons from me. I resisted and the demon said to me "Kill him". He backed off as I stood my ground. When his turn came to take the weapons he was not allowed to. But I goaded and mocked him as he went through a series of Pilates moves.

Months later we chanced to meet him and his family. He came to me and thanked me for changing his life with the confrontation. His family were now close to him. His wife said that he came back a different man and she thanked me also. The demon was gone.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: stivemorgan on 07/10/2019 09:55:01
Hi there. Very interesting question. I would like to have some proof of God existing. But be careful with such questions. Some god believers can be angry )
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Hayseed on 07/10/2019 12:03:38
The problem with proof, is conviction.  What would you do if you found proof or was given proof?

What would you think of yourself?  Would you change and Worship?  Would all your family and friends? What if you were aware of the truth and still envied this world?   Many have.

What if you showed this proof to the world?   How would the world react?   Proof and truth are denied all the time, it's a human only character.  How many would ignore the spirit of the truth and become fanatical of obeying it.....their version of the truth.  Knowing humans.....there will be versions of this proof.

When the PROOF comes, a sword comes with it.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 07/10/2019 14:28:34
Hi there. Very interesting question. I would like to have some proof of God existing. But be careful with such questions. Some god believers can be angry )

Yes, the opening post was quite provocative. We would all like proof that God existed. So why does he insist (if he/she exists) on remaining unprovable. There is a difference between hidden and unprovable. Provable means that most people would accept as a certainty that God existed. Hidden means that people are not aware of his existence. It seems he remains hidden from some and not from others.

The problem is that if one is skeptical (such as myself) I am not totally convinced (self-proof) of his existence despite quite a lot of events that should leave most with little doubt. I have seen how reality can distort and that one doubts what one perceives in various ways - mostly sight and sound. Even when there is a group of people testifying to the same thing, there is the question of mass illusion.

I am left to assign a probability to God's existence. This is based on two factors. Is my overall belief logically consistent - that is, can it stand the test of others trying to point out contradictions. I believe it can. My belief is based on an assumption that God and his plane of existence would be logical.

The second factor is can one explain the various psychic events using the laws of physics - and I find that one cannot. Most events took place under very calm circumstances, although a couple of them were decidedly unusual - which only added to the strangeness.

The movie "The Matrix" has quite a few things in the story line that seem to be based on the world as we know it. The "deje vu" moment or glitch is one of them. An inconsistency and weirdness. The problem is one cannot test these happenings because they are random and infrequent.

One should ask why God choose to remain unproven. The answer is that humankind would behave quite differently. Some would resign themselves to fate instead of fighting to fix things. I know a family with two teenage daughters who sold everything and waited for God to provide. Friends eventually got tired of supporting them and they realized "God helps those who help themselves". One daughter made a piece of pottery to sell. It was a multi-coloured mini-animal that had strange but cute features. The demand grew and the money rolled in.

I think I see the plan that God has for me, but it is uncertain and filled with twists and turns. But each time I learn a lesson and I think the end result will be what it is supposed to be. But it may not - and may just be my imagination and desires. Still, I work towards the end goal.

You are right correct about people getting upset when their beliefs are challenged. The problem is that humans work towards having an internally consistent picture of things. Inconsistencies are rationalized in some way. But if a basic tenet of their belief system can be shown to be in serious contradiction to another basic tenet, then something has to change. Some people undergo radical change, or go into denial, or make another rationalization.

Take the problem with our physics. One theory works for very small and one for very large. This is an inconsistency. Scientists deal with this by saying we will eventually work out an answer. Believers in God say much the same thing. Proof is in the future.

The existence of dark matter and dark energy is another anomaly. They have been invented to explain observations that do not obey the known laws of physics. God is the explanation for things that also should not happen naturally. Healing of some people is one.

I have a question. What is God going to do about climate change? Is he going to intervene? Surely he would not let humankind destroy themselves and the planet?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 07/10/2019 15:02:24
The problem with proof, is conviction.  What would you do if you found proof or was given proof?

What would you think of yourself?  Would you change and Worship?  Would all your family and friends? What if you were aware of the truth and still envied this world?   Many have.

What if you showed this proof to the world?   How would the world react?   Proof and truth are denied all the time, it's a human only character.  How many would ignore the spirit of the truth and become fanatical of obeying it.....their version of the truth.  Knowing humans.....there will be versions of this proof.

When the PROOF comes, a sword comes with it.

Nice post. I dealt with some issues in the post before this one.

Proof to many is a scientifically repeatable experiment that is available to anyone and everyone. For example - one says "God, if you exist, lift me up 3 feet off the floor." And lo and behold, it happens. Breaking the laws of physics on demand.

Or put a "prophet" into a sealed room and have him come out with stone tablets with commands on them. This will create doubt unless repeated over and over. And even then there will be the naysayers. Uri Geller was an example of a fake and a fraud who used his wealth to silence opponents. Truly bending metal on demand is not possible. But people want to believe it is not just a trick.

It will not happen. Even if it did, people would then want to know what God expects of them. And this is your variations that one sees in different religions. Often based on what one man says has been revealed to him. The only way out of that is for God to immediately punish an action that is not part of his wishes. So what does God want? Perhaps part of his plan was variation in religion to keep life interesting. And give each religion a piece of the truth.

The punishment of the Aztecs for their human sacrifice was extinction so there might be general influences on doing "the right moral thing". It is often the people in power who make decisions that are not "good", and in fact could be interpreted as being evil despite their affirmations of good intent. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Personally, my experience has been that one does not need a ritual to achieve a psychic result. One needs the intention. My late wife ran a event that changed criminals and violent men into law-abiding citizens. It took only four days. There was some ritual for effect but people were asked to appeal to a Higher Power - whatever that power was. Some were Christian and some had ancestor beliefs. And other religions. It did not matter. The stories of their change were quite startling. The event had a 80% success rate. Like the AA, people had to want to change and were desperate for that change. The reputation of the course was a powerful incentive.

I use Tarot cards now and then. Mostly to help a person with a decision. They are quite accurate for me. One gets the answer one needs, not the answer that might be correct. Once I told a woman I did not know (just a fun afternoon of reading for various people in a group) that the cards said that she hated her husband. I knew the others in the group and said that the cards were probably wrong, and that there might be an influence from a family member that was going through a bitter divorce. She was silent and said nothing. Two weeks later she left her husband and two children. She did indeed hate him but was suppressing it. I did not sense it like a cold reading. The cards and the layout left little doubt. Arranging a deck while shuffling would be against the laws of physics but not so one would notice it. And it leaves plenty of room for doubt.

Then people will want proof that Satan exists. The rabbit hole goes deeper.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 08/10/2019 14:35:51
The problem with proof, is conviction.  What would you do if you found proof or was given proof?

What would you think of yourself?  Would you change and Worship?  Would all your family and friends? What if you were aware of the truth and still envied this world?   Many have.

What if you showed this proof to the world?   How would the world react?   Proof and truth are denied all the time, it's a human only character.  How many would ignore the spirit of the truth and become fanatical of obeying it.....their version of the truth.  Knowing humans.....there will be versions of this proof.

When the PROOF comes, a sword comes with it.
God is transcendent to the universe. His presences fills and surpasses the universe and multiverse. Black holes do not drag or crush him, stars do not burn him, foul things do not stain him... he is, they are inert.

The universe is vast, the multiverse a greater idea, does it matter how big God has to be? Either one or the other is self existent. There is beauty, vastness and order.

It is up to us, now well past the renaissance to be civil, and do better at helping northern Ireland rather than making new infights. The big churches are new orders prioritising peace and good will and unity.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: InTheEnd on 04/11/2019 16:45:31
There is nothing in science that denies the existence of God. What denies the existence of God is the philosophical idea that things happen by chance.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 05/11/2019 04:42:28
There is nothing in science that denies the existence of God. What denies the existence of God is the philosophical idea that things happen by chance.

Very nicely summed up. Some in the scientific community try to use logical argument to demonstrate contradiction in mainstream religion - mostly Christian. Some say that "unprovable" is the same as non-existence - which denies personal experience.

Science recognizes everything as having a cause except the prime cause. "Chance" and "nothing" are not examples of prime causes. The Ultimate Intelligence that I hypothesized (and experienced) is a logical prime cause - and God is a logical consequence. Such a hypothesis does not diminish God. Simply rationalizes and removes inconsistencies. He can still have almost all the attributes and be the "Creator" of the known universe.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: matross on 09/01/2020 09:39:43
The laws of Newton would be broken every time god acted.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 09/01/2020 16:32:05
The laws of Newton would be broken every time god acted.

The Laws of Newton and every other law of physics would be broken every time God acted.

The laws are there and are consistent all other times - which is nearly all the time. And when God acts, very few are aware aware that the laws have been broken.

God acts in ways that seem to be "natural" even when they seem miraculous. Example - a person has a 10 percent chance of beating a lung cancer. Lots of prayers, and the the person survives. Did God intervene, or was the patient simply one of the lucky 10 percenters?

At the moment, we are overdue for a global pandemic. Why has it not happened? Is God delaying it by subtle interventions that prevent a calamitous spread? The interventions required are on such a small and unseen scale we cannot know. I reckon God is allowing a slow thinning of the population to give humankind time to adjust to a new reality. The slow thinning is cell phone radiation degrading immune systems, increasing infertility and leading to a lower life expectancy.

If we are just illusions in the mind of an Ultimate Intelligence, then the whole trajectory of evolution from the Big Bang forwards is all playing out according to the design. Of course, the design could in the gazillionth revision as the Ultimate Intelligence sees the initial choices of key universal constants as flawed - eg too much expansion or too little expansion. Hence Intelligent Design. As an engineer I know that one cannot simply revise a design with a fatal flaw. One scraps it and starts again.

God is there to guide the trajectory in the desired direction and Satan is there to add some random variables (if we did not have random mutations, evolution would not take place). Satan adds the entertainment and stops the "game" from being boring.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/01/2020 21:58:59
I reckon God is allowing a slow thinning of the population to give humankind time to adjust to a new reality. The slow thinning is cell phone radiation degrading immune systems, increasing infertility and leading to a lower life expectancy.
Except that phones don't cause those things.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 10/01/2020 06:05:41
I reckon God is allowing a slow thinning of the population to give humankind time to adjust to a new reality. The slow thinning is cell phone radiation degrading immune systems, increasing infertility and leading to a lower life expectancy.
Except that phones don't cause those things.

In order for the thinning to take place, people must not realize the danger. So Bored Chemist is helping God by telling others that cell phones are quite safe and that those who claim otherwise are nutters. Good job - keep going.

The thinning is selective also. The radiation affects the weak, the sick and the elderly most of all. The strongest will survive. The smartest (those who realize the dangers) will also survive.

And as a by by-product, religion and belief in a higher power always thrive in times of pandemics. Watch what happens as it dawns on the population that something is causing the problem. Interesting times ahead.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: PmbPhy on 10/01/2020 08:14:55
Can science prove God exists?
No. Something that is important to understand is that science is not about proving things. Science has never actually proved any theory in fact. It's just not geared to do anything like that. Science is about observing nature and coming up with theories that can be used to make predictions about the phenomena it was designed to observe, i.e. to "explain." Religion is much worse at this, infinitely worse in fact. No religion on  Earlh can prove God exists. All religions postulate that God exists and not one of them have a good reason for doing so. Does God exist? Maybe. Keep seeking - That's the best thing to do.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 10/01/2020 15:07:24
Can science prove God exists?
No. Something that is important to understand is that science is not about proving things. Science has never actually proved any theory in fact. It's just not geared to do anything like that. Science is about observing nature and coming up with theories that can be used to make predictions about the phenomena it was designed to observe, i.e. to "explain." Religion is much worse at this, infinitely worse in fact. No religion on  Earlh can prove God exists. All religions postulate that God exists and not one of them have a good reason for doing so. Does God exist? Maybe. Keep seeking - That's the best thing to do.
Quite right about observations and theory. Wrong about religion. Religions that have endured and matured are the ones that have theories based on the observations of prophets. The bad theories such as the Roman and Norse good failed. My observations are spiritual in nature. You cannot use machines and devices to get repeatable observations of a communication from God. When enough people have experiences with a common thread it filters out the noise of mistake and fraud. My observations explain the Prime Cause, the apparent Intelligent Design, and the mysterious happenings involving psychic events. Try to find a contradiction in my theory. Science has no answer at all and simply says it does not know. People trash religions because of the problems in the rituals and because they need to be updated. That does not mean that the basic tenets of an Intelligent and Good powerful Spirit known as Good is false. Most religions accept the concept of a soul, and of Spirits with power such as Jesus or the Hindu gods. Unbreakable laws of physics cannot explain my experiences.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 10/01/2020 15:14:47
Trying to use my cell phone. Good should be God in two places. I see that the auto edit changed it here as well.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: PmbPhy on 10/01/2020 22:55:28
Clive - I disagree strongly. But I don't wish to discuss religion. I just wanted to respond to the question posed and put my two cents in. I never would have done so had I not had a strong grasp of world religions. I studied them throughout my lifetime. Especially in college and my won self study. Read the Bible twice cover to cover very carefully. Will repeat a few more times.

That's all I have to say on your response.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/01/2020 00:01:31

In order for the thinning to take place, people must not realize the danger. So Bored Chemist is helping God by telling others that cell phones are quite safe and that those who claim otherwise are nutters. Good job - keep going.
I'm quoting the evidence. The evidence says that phones don't do what you bear false witness about.
If that's supporting God in His endeavour to cull the world population, it's because He's lying.
Does a Perfect God need to tell lies to make a point?
That's not my idea of perfection.

If God wanted fewer people, he could simply make us less randy.
It would work, nobody would get upset about it.
But, instead, he chooses to  get us to kill eachother- whether it's via war (which actually kills people) or via phones (which... don't).

Do you understand why I'd not get up early on a Sunday to worship an  entity that did that?
You cannot use machines and devices to get repeatable observations of a communication from God.
You rather miss the vital point; you can't use anything else to do that either.
The smartest (those who realize the dangers)
I look forward to a plot of "some measure of smart" vs " belief that phones are causing significant harm".
My observations explain the Prime Cause, the apparent Intelligent Design, and the mysterious happenings involving psychic events.
No, they don't.

Try to find a contradiction in my theory.
You don't have a theory- look up the meaning of teh word.
However, I already pointed out problems with your idea.
You are choosing to ignore them.

That's OK as a personal choice, but you shouldn't do it on a science page.
If you were as bright as you think you are, you would already know that.
You keep doing it.
What does that say about you?
Most religions accept the concept of a soul,
Most of them tell you that the local equivalent of "a man in a frock should tell you what to do with your willy".
Reality isn't a democracy.
Unbreakable laws of physics cannot explain my experiences.
Maybe they can. but you wouldn't know that, because you don't understand the laws (and you refuse to learn).
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/01/2020 00:02:15
Trying to use my cell phone. Good should be God in two places. I see that the auto edit changed it here as well.
Anyone would think that God's not on your side.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/01/2020 13:02:42
At some point in the far distant past the earth did not exist. That means that the bible, or for that matter any other religious text, did not exist.

For millions of years humans did not exist. Many other species did. Language as we know it took an awfully long time to develop. It preceded a written version of language by quite a long time.

So which religious text is the 'right' one? It would be  arrogant of Christians to think it is theirs. Or even hebrews.

The affairs of man started with many gods. Usually based upon constellations. The unknown in other words. Mankind has a huge imagination with tiny insight.

And here we are. Debating with our tiny insight.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 17/01/2020 05:19:52
Clive - I disagree strongly. But I don't wish to discuss religion. I just wanted to respond to the question posed and put my two cents in. I never would have done so had I not had a strong grasp of world religions. I studied them throughout my lifetime. Especially in college and my won self study. Read the Bible twice cover to cover very carefully. Will repeat a few more times.

That's all I have to say on your response.

No problem. Thanks for your input.

It was only recently that I studied the various religions. Before that it was "practical field experience". I have been married to an atheist, a two Jewish women, a catholic, an agnostic and a Methodist. My son was a Scientologist and his wife is Muslim. My daughter is deeply Christian and the other son is Jewish but is also atheist.

My late wife was involved in reforming ex-combatants who had become the worst of criminals. She used Spirit and a combination of beliefs where the participants were asked to use a belief if a Higher Power. They sat solo in the bush for 24 hours and then took part in a ceremony in an African sweat lodge. I have danced in the hot sun from Friday noon to Sunday noon without food or water - and experienced a vision similar to that of Shamans. I have been to various services and taken part in various modalities.

My take on all of that was that there are indications of spirit and the supernatural. Both good and bad.

The bottom line is:
Is there a God? (I believe there is - 99%)
Is the existence of God contradictory to science? (I do not think so)
Can science prove the existence of God? (If one does an analysis of data to sort out noise similar to the analyzing of data from radio telescopes then science can pronounce that there is a decent possibility of a God).

Then one has to sort out the principles or rules associated with interacting with the Spirit world.

Example. My wife's work printer stopped functioning and was stuck on a nonsensical message. I was going to take it in for repair when our new neighbour happen to stop by and chat to my wife who was supervising the removal of tree cuttings outside. I mentioned the printer and he said to do a Google search. I was not getting the right information but persisted because I believe that the spirit world sends us helpful information by serendipitous means. I found the solution eventually. I would not have persisted if I did not believe I had been sent a message.

This has happened many times. This is how the believers have an evolutionary advantage.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 17/01/2020 05:35:12
At some point in the far distant past the earth did not exist. That means that the bible, or for that matter any other religious text, did not exist.

For millions of years humans did not exist. Many other species did. Language as we know it took an awfully long time to develop. It preceded a written version of language by quite a long time.

So which religious text is the 'right' one? It would be  arrogant of Christians to think it is theirs. Or even hebrews.

The affairs of man started with many gods. Usually based upon constellations. The unknown in other words. Mankind has a huge imagination with tiny insight.

And here we are. Debating with our tiny insight.

The same can be said for man's search for the laws of physic and the writing of scientific texts. The laws have been refined and reworked. Science moved from religious beliefs to workable laws. As far as the religious texts, many have elements of truth, albeit with lots of stories which people of the time needed in order to practice the basics. The basics are always "Do Good" and "Appeal to God". Just as science involves the philosophical in some areas so does religion.

The texts do lay out some rules. One is that a living human cannot see God and have fireside chats. Those who claim to have done so are certainly fakes. There are "communications" with God that take place with ordinary people and those that have taken place with the prophets who had more direct insight, but are at a level of "Did that really happen." Even Jesus seemed to struggle to connect at times.

Our insight has grown enormously. We are capable of updating the religious texts where there is a need to do so. Recognize evolution for example as the path of the creation of humans, and recognize the Big Bang as the creation of the Universe.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2020 18:12:34
Can science prove the existence of God? (If one does an analysis of data to sort out noise similar to the analyzing of data from radio telescopes then science can pronounce that there is a decent possibility of a God).
So, the Word of God is only available to those with money and technology.
That's a pretty sh**y way for Him to behave, isn't it?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 18/01/2020 05:17:49
Can science prove the existence of God? (If one does an analysis of data to sort out noise similar to the analyzing of data from radio telescopes then science can pronounce that there is a decent possibility of a God).
So, the Word of God is only available to those with money and technology.
That's a pretty sh**y way for Him to behave, isn't it?

Your illogical comments never cease to amaze me.

Ignorance is bliss. No fear of the afterlife, eh?

Your soul may regret your disrespect when it is surprised to find that 1) there is an afterlife and 2) you should have behaved better.

Take it from someone with experience. Although I experienced the nice section of the afterlife, I was aware that there were layers that went down to very unpleasant.

And my experience has also been that there are some lifetime consequences also.

Many of the poor and the dispossessed benefit most from the words of God. They follow the basics and have contentment despite their circumstances. My experience as well - in Africa.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2020 12:59:19
No fear of the afterlife, eh?
With thousands of sects to choose from, it's odds on that any given religion is the wrong one.
Why should I be any more scared than you?
Take it from someone with experience. Although I experienced the nice section of the afterlife, I
There are lots of words for people who make claims like that.
"Deluded" is probably the most polite.

Many of the poor and the dispossessed benefit most from the words of God.
Wouldn't it make more sense for God to simply ensure that they were not "the poor and the dispossessed".
Or is He, as I suggested, being a bit of a s**t?


Your illogical comments never cease to amaze me.
My posting was logical.
Which bit were you unable to understand?
Do you not understand that buying a radio telescope and data processing is expensive?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/01/2020 02:27:34
Can science prove the existence of God? (If one does an analysis of data to sort out noise similar to the analyzing of data from radio telescopes then science can pronounce that there is a decent possibility of a God).
What kind of data can increase the possibility of gods? What kind of data can decrease the possibility of gods?
 
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 20/01/2020 12:01:26
Can science prove the existence of God? (If one does an analysis of data to sort out noise similar to the analyzing of data from radio telescopes then science can pronounce that there is a decent possibility of a God).
What kind of data can increase the possibility of gods? What kind of data can decrease the possibility of gods?

Good question.

It is the same as the checking whether cell towers cause health problems.

One lists and records the narratives from people. A lot of people and a lot of towers. And one does the same for people not close to cell towers.

Then one puts on filters to rate the veracity of each narrative. Are the answers consistent  with each other (one asks questions that should give similar answers but are differently phrased)? Eliminate those with inconsistencies. Check for known illnesses BUT check it the symptoms got worse. Check for speed of progression of illnesses since (IMO) the illness can be speeded up compared to non-tower cases.

Do a credibility test on each participant. Do they have a tendency to exaggerate? Do they have bad memories? Do they tend to guess an answer if they are unsure? One filters to get reliable data.

Do something similar with regular people. Give them questions with known wrong answers and see how they respond. Check for mystic experiences and see how many can be related to imagination or hallucination. Check for common threads, especially across different religions.

Example. I asked someone what evidence assured them that God existed. They thought carefully and then gave the example of a man who changed his career and dedicated his life to casting out demons in tribal villages in South Africa. He did so successfully. Some may not have been demons but may have been psychological and worked anyhow. I got a demon out a man - just by a heated interchange so I do not scoff.

When one has a filtered list then one needs to explain how such events can be "manufactured" by the brain. I do not believe that under normal everyday circumstances that a spontaneous hallucination occurs. What science is looking for is "glitches" in the fabric of reality.

The problem is having the study done properly and scientifically in a way that does not presuppose an outcome. Far too many scientific studies do this. It is easy to see the ones that are just done to get the grant money where students take supposedly random polls with so much irrelevant data.

One can do a scientific analysis of various aspects of the supernatural and check for inconsistencies and contradictions. One God or multiple Gods? One God with helper Gods/spirits? Good versus evil - is it evolution or damaged personalities or can people respond impulsively to a demonic suggestion? Reincarnation - logical when compared to billions of souls existing in a do-nothing state?

And so on.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2020 18:56:30
Do they tend to guess an answer if they are unsure?
LOL.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: evan_au on 20/01/2020 21:15:55
On last week's podcast, Chris mentioned a sibling show, Naked Reflections.
Each week, it takes a science story from Naked Scientists, and has a look at the implications for society.
They try to look at the topic from a variety of viewpoints (including religious viewpoints).
If anything, it might help us see things from another person's viewpoint.
See: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/podcasts/naked-reflections
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 21/01/2020 12:22:08
Do they tend to guess an answer if they are unsure?
LOL.

Clearly you have not experienced different cultures. Until fairly recently, tribal mores in South Africa dictated that one could not say "No" to a superior. Asked if he could drive a bulldozer a man replied "Yes" - you can imagine the damage he caused before the supervisor found out the man had not a clue and never even sat in one.

Which is why I stress "intelligent design" of the filters.

BTW - In my opinion, you would never get past the first pass of screening out  those who shoot from the lip before engaging the brain. Not being nasty - just my assessment to give you an example you might relate to.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 21/01/2020 12:31:57
On last week's podcast, Chris mentioned a sibling show, Naked Reflections.
Each week, it takes a science story from Naked Scientists, and has a look at the implications for society.
They try to look at the topic from a variety of viewpoints (including religious viewpoints).
If anything, it might help us see things from another person's viewpoint.
See: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/podcasts/naked-reflections

Thanks. First glance is encouraging.

One topic which I will look at was "A good death". I just bought a book with title like that. Have not had a chance to read it yet, but I may need to soon regarding myself. I asked the Tarot cards about my health in the next few months because I am struggling. The first card - the key card - was the Death card. The literature says "Never tell a client that it means death - tell them it means renewal". Well, yes, mostly. But I know how to interpret the cards. Certainly it was a warning which I am heeding, because other cards were more positive and it was not the final outcome card. I have made some serious allowances and adjustments to simplify my life and focus on home and personal health, as well as ensure that an unexpected end for me does not leave too big a disruption. It has helped.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/01/2020 19:20:46
Do they tend to guess an answer if they are unsure?
LOL.

Clearly you have not experienced different cultures. Until fairly recently, tribal mores in South Africa dictated that one could not say "No" to a superior. Asked if he could drive a bulldozer a man replied "Yes" - you can imagine the damage he caused before the supervisor found out the man had not a clue and never even sat in one.

Which is why I stress "intelligent design" of the filters.

BTW - In my opinion, you would never get past the first pass of screening out  those who shoot from the lip before engaging the brain. Not being nasty - just my assessment to give you an example you might relate to.
OK, and you guessed about how we might look for evidence of a God.
But, according to the documentation we have, it won't work
Matthew 4:7
Test not thy God.
So, it looks very much like you didn't know but you decided to " shoot from the lip before engaging the brain. "

It's far from being the first time you have done it.

And that's why your comment- with utter blindness to your own trait- made me laugh.

And now, you have ruled yourself out of "intelligently" designing the filters.
So, were you wrong, or are you unintelligent?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/01/2020 19:23:40
Clearly you have not experienced different cultures.
That's another example of you getting it wrong because you are one of those who " guess an answer if they are unsure".
People want to hear stories confirming the supernatural and they lose their skepticism.
And that breaks the irony meter.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/01/2020 04:17:51
When one has a filtered list then one needs to explain how such events can be "manufactured" by the brain. I do not believe that under normal everyday circumstances that a spontaneous hallucination occurs. What science is looking for is "glitches" in the fabric of reality.
IMO, the purpose of science is to build a model of objective reality as accurate and precise as possible. It will help us (conscious agents) to make plans and decisions to effectively and efficiently achieve our ultimate/terminal goal and setting up iinstrumental goals.

The problem is having the study done properly and scientifically in a way that does not presuppose an outcome. Far too many scientific studies do this. It is easy to see the ones that are just done to get the grant money where students take supposedly random polls with so much irrelevant data.
Do you have reference to that assertion? It hink it's related to a problem called Goodhart's Curse which I mentioned here. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg590937#msg590937

One can do a scientific analysis of various aspects of the supernatural and check for inconsistencies and contradictions. One God or multiple Gods? One God with helper Gods/spirits? Good versus evil - is it evolution or damaged personalities or can people respond impulsively to a demonic suggestion? Reincarnation - logical when compared to billions of souls existing in a do-nothing state?

And so on.
I'll add which God question there.
Regarding the reincarnation, does it count other life forms lurking in other planets in other galaxies?

As many theists have suggested that the existence of gods is necessary for us to have morality, how can believing in gods help us making moral decisions such us in trolley problem and its variations? These problems are getting more concerns in the increasing usage of artificial intelligence such as in self driving cars. Can those cars make correct moral decisions without believing in gods?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 24/01/2020 06:11:35
Clearly you have not experienced different cultures.
That's another example of you getting it wrong because you are one of those who " guess an answer if they are unsure".
People want to hear stories confirming the supernatural and they lose their skepticism.
And that breaks the irony meter.

This is a debate. I gave an example and related it to you. You imply I am wrong. Am I? Is your experience of different cultures the people next door? And was I not right about the filter to get reliable data?

Irony? Why? There are people who are skeptical and still have feelings which they have to deal with. One has to put a weighting factor on, or discard those with too much bias, and those unable to rationalize their emotions and their analytical skepticism.

An example. In court, a witness gave testimony about the distances involved. The lawyer said it was not possible to judge distances that accurately. The man was in an engineering profession where he constantly had to estimate distances. He offered proof. He gave the lawyers the dimensions of the room within a few percent. The tape measure confirmed his estimates and the lawyer's case took a knock. In my twenties and thirties I could estimate torques very accurately and also do my wheel alignment by eye.

The human brain has incredible capability, and one has to ask whether a clump of dumb chemicals can organize themselves with such precision all by themselves. To tell me the proof that they can is that they did is sooooo disingenuous because it has to pre-suppose no God or supernatural. And yet those who offer this argument cannot see the flaw.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 24/01/2020 06:21:45
When one has a filtered list then one needs to explain how such events can be "manufactured" by the brain. I do not believe that under normal everyday circumstances that a spontaneous hallucination occurs. What science is looking for is "glitches" in the fabric of reality.
IMO, the purpose of science is to build a model of objective reality as accurate and precise as possible. It will help us (conscious agents) to make plans and decisions to effectively and efficiently achieve our ultimate/terminal goal and setting up iinstrumental goals.

I agree.

Which is why I say that the model to explain our consciousness AND the mystic events we experience AND the Prime Cause is the one I have put forward. To limit ourselves to mechanical experiments is a self-imposed limit to stop debate by some non-believers. They have to ultimately say "We don't know at this point and may never know". Like the black swan they can only say it might exist but one has never been seen. Until an explorer comes back and says he has seen one. They had to take his word as a witness and wait until further witnesses come forward and one is brought back for examination.

Our ultimate/terminal goal may just be subject to the "dream" set-up by an Ultimate Intelligence.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 24/01/2020 06:34:29
The problem is having the study done properly and scientifically in a way that does not presuppose an outcome. Far too many scientific studies do this. It is easy to see the ones that are just done to get the grant money where students take supposedly random polls with so much irrelevant data.
Do you have reference to that assertion? It hink it's related to a problem called Goodhart's Curse which I mentioned here. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg590937#msg590937

No link or study. Just examining some cell tower studies funded by the cell phone industry and used by erudite professionals who have not looked at the detail of how the studies are being done. The same can be said of many of the studies funded by the various powerful industries over the years (leaded petrol, tobacco, sugar, oil, radium and so on - global warming being a current "hot" topic).

Since the objective is to make money and produce a wanted result any professor would use students so as to distance themselves from a detailed analysis of the flaws - plausible deniability. A professor is used in order to add credentials to the project (appeal to authority). It is cost effective not to waste their time. How can one have passion for a project that is a sales effort.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 24/01/2020 06:50:36
One can do a scientific analysis of various aspects of the supernatural and check for inconsistencies and contradictions. One God or multiple Gods? One God with helper Gods/spirits? Good versus evil - is it evolution or damaged personalities or can people respond impulsively to a demonic suggestion? Reincarnation - logical when compared to billions of souls existing in a do-nothing state?

And so on.
I'll add which God question there.
Regarding the reincarnation, does it count other life forms lurking in other planets in other galaxies?

A valid point. The objective truth is that there is one truth irrespective of what people believe. The God of the Jews, Christians, Muslims or Hindus is ultimately the same God. It is the attributes that are ascribed to the God that vary. It is assumed that God and Good are the same. Mostly, because praying for the plagues upon ones enemies might not be seen as a "good" thing.

Most religions have an opposing force of Evil and have a supernatural being for that. Satan in the Western religions. I think the Hindus just see destruction (the God Shiva) as one aspect of God.

One prays and the one true God (or the helper spirits) respond.

If there is life on other planets then it is possible that one can reincarnate between planets. If souls assist and guide the life and provide the brains with resident implicit programming as it forms then one assumes that reincarnation in a very different form would not take place. A bacteria or frog would not reincarnate in a human (or vice versa). There have to be some logic (rules) guiding the process. Science has to figure out the model.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/01/2020 07:19:28
People want to hear stories confirming the supernatural and they lose their skepticism.
Irony? Why?
Because  you don't recognise yourself.

You want a supernatural belief- hence your references to God etc.
And you lost your skepticism- hence you believe the hogwash about "phones cause cancer".

But you say it as it fit only happens to other people.

One prays and the one true God (or the helper spirits) respond.

And that's why hurricanes never hit populated areas.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/01/2020 11:46:41
IIRC Satan was originally God's favorite, hence his alias as Lucifer, but he had ideas above his station and was deposed.

Beats me why anyone bothers with this bullshit, when it is obvious that the universe was created by Zeus raping a swan, which doesn't explain the turtles but clearly makes more sense than any Triune Mystery.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 25/01/2020 08:29:29
People want to hear stories confirming the supernatural and they lose their skepticism.
Irony? Why?
Because  you don't recognise yourself.

You want a supernatural belief- hence your references to God etc.
And you lost your skepticism- hence you believe the hogwash about "phones cause cancer".

But you say it as it fit only happens to other people.

One prays and the one true God (or the helper spirits) respond.

And that's why hurricanes never hit populated areas.

You have no idea about what I want. A supernatural belief is not among them. And you talk about assumptions! You want to have the sentence apply to me so you assume (totally wrongly) that I want a  belief in the supernatural. I have no strongly held (or even weakly held) beliefs in God or any religion. What I have is a theory based on my experience as to what it might all be about. Even recently, I have felt I have little time on earth but find no comfort that there is (or even might be) an afterlife. I recognize that a hypothesis is not proof or even conviction. I find that I simply hope I can finish some projects before the end comes.

As for cell phones causing harm, the personal evidence is overwhelming. Example - I say that dropping a brick on ones bare foot hurts - and it does. My experience has the same level of evidence as that example - except for many repetitions of pain and harm. I am going to post further incidents of harm on the cell tower thread. I find that the challenges you pose are similar to saying that any pain I feel (brick or tower) is psychosomatic.  Give it a few years and you can look back and wonder why you were so arrogant as to assume I am not very scientific or skeptical. If you survive that is.

Have you read my earlier posts? Where I say that the laws of physics govern most events, thus allowing for natural disasters and suffering? And that responses to prayers are usually personal and limited? A response can also be one of "I heard you, and it is noted for your judgement in the afterlife - that you had faith".

One could survive personally but averting natural disaster is just too extreme. Science would notice that there is an anomaly. You comment is an example of a straw man. You set up an extreme example which does not apply and use it as a general proof.

In quantum physics I was taught that one could throw a tennis ball against a wall and there was possibility that on some occasions the ball would just pass through. And you say but no-one has ever witnessed that, and no experiment has seen that. The laws of physics give the probability as so extreme as to practically impossible - but it could happen. Answering prayers is not as improbable - just that repeatable provable events are against the spiritual rules - at this time.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 25/01/2020 08:47:55
IIRC Satan was originally God's favorite, hence his alias as Lucifer, but he had ideas above his station and was deposed.

Beats me why anyone bothers with this bullshit, when it is obvious that the universe was created by Zeus raping a swan, which doesn't explain the turtles but clearly makes more sense than any Triune Mystery.

Literal interpretation of religious texts are mostly exercises in futility and it beats me why you bang on with obvious examples. Your sarcasm adds nothing to the debate. Try respect for other viewpoints. You could have asked for my viewpoint and interpretation - which I explain below.

The religions based on fireside stories for children have fallen by the wayside but still entertain using the imagination of previous societies. Clearly they had no prophets or wise men.

Some Biblical basics are clear. Thou shalt not kill. It is also common sense that there are exceptions and modifications to this basic code.


You choice of the story of Satan in the Bible is simply one where ordinary folk are informed that:
a) God is more powerful than Satan (because God created him - all things coming from God)
b) God accepts that spirit beings can be evil and that good can turn bad
c) That evil spirits work against the good of God and that they can distort Gods message
d) That Satan does have some powers to reward evil and a belief in evil
e) Satan is a thinking being with an agenda

My hypothesis is that the Ultimate Intelligence created God and Satan and the Universe and set the rules of physics and the rules of the spirit world. And because it is all an illusion or a virtual reality, the rules can change and can be broken but frequent or extreme breaks or deviations spoil the "Game of Life".
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 25/01/2020 09:26:50

As many theists have suggested that the existence of gods is necessary for us to have morality, how can believing in gods help us making moral decisions such us in trolley problem and its variations? These problems are getting more concerns in the increasing usage of artificial intelligence such as in self driving cars. Can those cars make correct moral decisions without believing in gods?

Now this is a topic worthy of debate. I believe one can get some answers by breaking issues down to the basics.

I am not sure that God imbues people with a basic morality or ethics. I believe that man has free will and God is there is reward or punish wrong-doing. Those who strongly believe there is a spiritual consequence are strongly disinclined to do evil. A logical fact that I have experienced over and over. The argument that there are people who do not need religion to act morally is arguing exceptions to the basic principle.

Consequences are a system of programming that reinforce how people behave. They would also influence how an AI changes the fuzzy logic and learning. AI can have hard rules to stop intelligent machines from causing harm.

In South Africa corruption and evil are flourishing and society here is getting rotten by the day. The consequences for illegal and immoral actions are rewards without punishment. From the top down and in every section of society including the justice department. An AI would be corrupted if it did not have some serious and strong basics that could not be overwritten or modified or replaced.

There are moral dilemmas that can be resolved by setting basic principles as strong guidelines. One must recognize the difference between morality and ethics. Morality is a set of codes for a society. If that code says that euthanasia of terminally ill people is acceptable then the code of Thou Shalt Not Kill is weakened. Ethically, killing is not good and must be justified. The eugenics movement in the US that was exported to Germany before WW2 is an example of good intentions going very wrong, and how a "slippery slope" can change good intentions to extremely bad.

The trolley dilemma has some interesting basics.
It is accepted generally that if there are two situations in which different numbers of people die then the one with the lesser number is the "better" choice. In war, sacrificing one man to save thousands is a no-brainer. Often people self-sacrifice because it is seen as morally better. Ethically there is not much difference because one death is one too many.
The next issue is whether one takes an action which is generally prohibited (throwing the switch to kill a man) or simply observing fate happening. Many do not want the responsibility, and do not want "blood on their hands". A general in a war makes a decision to attack and many are killed. He sees it as his job (responsibility) which absolves him of guilt. A hangman has a similar approach.

A machine has no guilt so if programmed to cause the least damage it will simply throw the switch. However, if programmed not to take actions to cause harm it will not throw the switch. If both programs are put in then it must use a system of weighing action versus inaction. The numbers now have to be weighted in. One man versus one man. No problem and no need for action. One man versus two men. Hmmm. One man versus a thousand. It had better throw the switch.

If the moral actions have a legal consequence then we have a heavy programming problem. A man shot another burning to death in a car with no hope of escape. Instead of being praised for having compassion the law prosecuted him.

It gets more complicated when one starts to put different values on the lives of different people. But once more it is a moral (societies norms and rules) decision.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/01/2020 11:28:22
Those who strongly believe there is a spiritual consequence are strongly disinclined to do evil.
Unless, of course, that consequence is just telling your story to a man in a little box and being told that his invisible friend forgives you.

Apparently, a murderer who went to the confessional will get into heaven, but I won't because I act in the way He designed me to, but which He disapproves of.

Seems a strange way to run a Universe.

The argument that there are people who do not need religion to act morally is arguing exceptions to the basic principle.
We are hardly an " exception".
In some countries atheism is the majority.
In the UK  atheists are a majority in some age groups.

You seem to be trying to say that only religion gets it right.
The evidence shows otherwise.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/01/2020 13:05:38
Those who strongly believe there is a spiritual consequence are strongly disinclined to do evil. A logical fact that I have experienced over and over.
So your huge experience of  ISIS rapes, beatings and beheadings has been positive? ***** for Trip Adviser, even though the menu lacked pork and beer? 
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 25/01/2020 16:19:55
Those who strongly believe there is a spiritual consequence are strongly disinclined to do evil. A logical fact that I have experienced over and over.
So your huge experience of  ISIS rapes, beatings and beheadings has been positive? ***** for Trip Adviser, even though the menu lacked pork and beer?

Did I say that religion is perfect and any follower of any religion can be trusted to follow the basic tenets? No. ISIS does not follow the basic tenets of Islam which are to be merciful to one's enemy when defeated. ISIS follows an aberration of Sharia law, a set of laws made by men.

There are many Christians who go to church but do not obey the commandments. They are fake. When I talk about the application of religious principles I mean those Christians who are sincere and try to apply the basic rules in their life. Do they always succeed? No - there are no perfect people. The Christian religion is full of men who abused their power and made man-made rules. But the basics of the religion have an attraction and a comfort for many, and much good has been inspired by men who truly follow the "goodness" of religion - even to the point of self-sacrifice.

There were many Hindu and Buddhist Gurus who came to the USA and used a distortion of the basic tenets for self-interest. Sex and money and power. One problem is that they believe that Karma can result in a person being reincarnated into suffering - and that the result is that people are responsible for their own misery. Even that making them more miserable is aiding their karma. Wrong. There is a lack of emphasis on the good rules.

When a religion like Judaism has the basics distorted into "our people" and not a universal "all people" then there are problems for both them and others. Besides the non-belief in an afterlife means a non-belief in consequences. The history before and after of Christ indicates the problem that this lack of consequence have brought about. Many Jews do not believe in a personal God or even any God. Israel has many Jewish atheists and agnostics.

You focus on exceptions to the rule. Have you met and interacted with people who follow the "good" guidelines of their religion? They do believe there are consequences and modify their behavior accordingly.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 25/01/2020 16:33:51
Those who strongly believe there is a spiritual consequence are strongly disinclined to do evil.
Unless, of course, that consequence is just telling your story to a man in a little box and being told that his invisible friend forgives you.

Apparently, a murderer who went to the confessional will get into heaven, but I won't because I act in the way He designed me to, but which He disapproves of.

Seems a strange way to run a Universe.

The argument that there are people who do not need religion to act morally is arguing exceptions to the basic principle.
We are hardly an " exception".
In some countries atheism is the majority.
In the UK  atheists are a majority in some age groups.

You seem to be trying to say that only religion gets it right.
The evidence shows otherwise.

The forgiveness of confession is a distortion of the basic tenet of forgiveness. I do not believe that sins are absolved unless a person truly regrets their actions and makes an effort to change. The Mafia hitman confessing and then going out on another hit will earn him a nasty place in the afterlife - or even this life.

The exceptions do not have to be a small number. And my experience in Sweden and New Zealand indicates that the non-believers are not very law-abiding or moral when compared to the few religious people there.

Do not put words in my mouth. I am not saying that only religion gets it right. But many atheists have been influenced or brought up in religious environments and that influence is not properly accounted for. Another area in which I am of the opinion that studies tend to prove the desired outcome with questions and polls that are badly set up and badly interpreted.

When I hear of exceptional people doing exceptional good I can almost rely on them being faithful believers. A homeless woman here had a 26 kg tumor. Most doctors advised the Christian person on a mission to help this woman to just assist in the dying process. A Christian doctor said he would operate because of his faith and the faith of the person searching for help. He was successful. What a wonderful personal story.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/01/2020 16:55:40
When I hear of exceptional people doing exceptional good I can almost rely on them being faithful believers.

The actual science broadly says the opposite.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111223113530/http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html

A homeless woman here had a 26 kg tumor.

Given to her by God.
How nice of Him.

But your decision to focus one one example of a Christian surgeon doing something that was his job- operating- as if it was a miracle, but ignoring ISIS killing thousands shows that you are simply not paying attention to the truth
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/01/2020 16:56:36
Another area in which I am of the opinion that studies tend to prove the desired outcome with questions and polls that are badly set up and badly interpreted.

How would I distinguish that from you simply not wanting to hear the truth?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 26/01/2020 18:40:19
I did a search on "Wuhan and 5G".

I noticed this site:

Saying "people have worried about 5g hurting immune systems. Wuhan ihas 5G technology. is there anything to this I wonder?"

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/ettb65/wuhan_is_5g_test_ground/

Comment deleted with the message:
Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose.



I say that the networks are very fearful of a panic about 5G reducing immune systems and also increasing the rate of mutation in viruses.

Read my thread about the dangers of cell phone tower radiation where I say exactly that. Will this comment be removed by the moderators also?

Cause and effect? Or just coincidence?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/01/2020 18:51:50
Will this comment be removed by the moderators also?
I doubt it.
Cause and effect? Or just coincidence?
Or conspiracy theory.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 27/01/2020 04:36:45
Will this comment be removed by the moderators also?
I doubt it.
Cause and effect? Or just coincidence?
Or conspiracy theory.

Remember my prediction. I said God told me that the overpopulation would be solved with a massive die-off. I am somewhat precognitive and clairprescient which means I know things that I can only know with the help of spirit. What I realized was that a simple pandemic would be contained so it could not achieve a 60% die-off. What had to happen was a silent unnoticed infection that would decrease immune systems so that both pandemics and ordinary illnesses would kill people off. For a while, I thought this might be a combination of a virus and a fungus because my fungal infection was so stealthy and not diagnosed.

But no. When the cell tower was put next door and I (and others) got sick, I realized it was another bit of psychic information. It is the perfect stealth mechanism because not only will the effects not be noticed for decades (like smoking) but it is global in reach, affecting every country, town and city. Particularly big cities. Remember the plagues - big cities!

It has the added factor of increasing mutation in pathogens because it DOES cause DNA breaks via increased ion channel stress and reactive oxygen species. Scientifically proven.

And the world is in denial. Helped on by the "experts" in the industry. When the truth comes out, science and technology will be dealt a serious blow - and people will look to things more spiritual to guide their lives. People will revolt against the inequality which is growing out of control. (Hence the censorship already taking place). New leaders with justice and fairness will hopefully emerge. Otherwise there will be dystopia as seen in most sci-fi movies of the future.

How's that for a prediction. So far it is on track. Like watching a train wreck in slow motion - one can see how it will unfold and nothing can be done about it.

So let me hear it - scoffity, scoff, scoff, scoff.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 27/01/2020 04:47:17
Here is an example of my ability to predict using Tarot cards

On 2 April 2016 I posted on a forum. It got a lot of scoffing and a lot of rewording to make it look like I had failed. I reckon it is pretty accurate. I did 5 readings with 3 of them very similar and giving more information.

Predictions as to whether Trump will be President.

Here is what the Tarot cards say: (for fun)

1. Will Trump win the nomination?

Trump has a strong interest in success, and he will win it in a business-like manner. There will be renewed ideas and possible social unrest with labor support for him.

2. Will Trump win the Presidential election?

Trump will pander to the masses, and to the mainstream religions. He will win an emotional victory. But he will face opposition from forces that will not want to recognize him. However, he will bull his way through with determination and achieve cooperation and balance.

3. Repeat. Will he win the election?

It is going to be a tough nasty fight. But yes. There will be fresh opportunities that will open up.

4. Repeat. Will he be sworn in as President?

Trump is going to cause disruption to the old ways. The establishment will be defeated. But yes he will be sworn in.

5. Will Trump stay the full first term?

Yes. He will do the right things. The outcome for the country will be very good.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: marcus1RM on 27/01/2020 16:39:45
Science can approve the contrary, hah.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/01/2020 18:42:42
Remember my prediction. I said God told me that the overpopulation would be solved with a massive die-off.
And, in fact, He hasn't.
So the evidence shows a zero success rate for your prediction so far.

I said God told me that the overpopulation would be solved with a massive die-off.
How else?
The alternative is essentially that we stop having sex.
That's... not very likely so, congratulations! You have predicted something that's damned near inevitable.
I am somewhat precognitive and clairprescient which means I know things that I can only know with the help of spirit.
How do we distinguish this from "somewhat delusional", given the lack of any objective evidence?



On 2 April 2016 I posted on a forum.
Where?
It hardly matters.
Do you know about this well documented scam?
Imagine I find 1024 fora that will let you post pretty much anything.
That's not hard.

Imagine I post on half of them that the stock market will go up, and on the other half I "predict" that it will go down over the course of a week.
I'm going to be right for half of them.
I forget about the ones where I'm wrong and concentrate on the 512 where I got it right. I post on half the ones that are left that I predict that the stock market will go up and on the other half that it will go down.
Now I have 256 sites where I got it right two times out of two.

I can carry on doing this a few times.
256 sites where I got it right 3 times in a row (odds about 1 in 8)
128 where I scored 4 out of 4 (16: 1 odds)
64  where I got 5 (32:1)
32 with 6 out of 6 (at odds of 64:1)
16 where I got  7 predictions right out of 7- That's pretty impressive.
The odds are better than 100:1

And now I advertise that anyone can have my prediction for next week- for a fee.
And the people who see my advert can check that I really did get all 7 predictions right.

Well,  you just claim to have predicted 1 50:50 shot. Trump won,
Do you want a medal?



Yes. He will do the right things. The outcome for the country will be very good.
LOL

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 28/01/2020 05:37:42
Science can approve the contrary, hah.

No, it cannot.  If God does not exist one cannot prove a negative.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 28/01/2020 05:45:41
Remember my prediction. I said God told me that the overpopulation would be solved with a massive die-off.
And, in fact, He hasn't.
So the evidence shows a zero success rate for your prediction so far.

I said God told me that the overpopulation would be solved with a massive die-off.
How else?
The alternative is essentially that we stop having sex.
That's... not very likely so, congratulations! You have predicted something that's damned near inevitable.
I am somewhat precognitive and clairprescient which means I know things that I can only know with the help of spirit.
How do we distinguish this from "somewhat delusional", given the lack of any objective evidence?



On 2 April 2016 I posted on a forum.
Where?
It hardly matters.
Do you know about this well documented scam?
Imagine I find 1024 fora that will let you post pretty much anything.
That's not hard.

Imagine I post on half of them that the stock market will go up, and on the other half I "predict" that it will go down over the course of a week.
I'm going to be right for half of them.
I forget about the ones where I'm wrong and concentrate on the 512 where I got it right. I post on half the ones that are left that I predict that the stock market will go up and on the other half that it will go down.
Now I have 256 sites where I got it right two times out of two.

I can carry on doing this a few times.
256 sites where I got it right 3 times in a row (odds about 1 in 8)
128 where I scored 4 out of 4 (16: 1 odds)
64  where I got 5 (32:1)
32 with 6 out of 6 (at odds of 64:1)
16 where I got  7 predictions right out of 7- That's pretty impressive.
The odds are better than 100:1

And now I advertise that anyone can have my prediction for next week- for a fee.
And the people who see my advert can check that I really did get all 7 predictions right.

Well,  you just claim to have predicted 1 50:50 shot. Trump won,
Do you want a medal?



Yes. He will do the right things. The outcome for the country will be very good.
LOL

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

My prediction is in the early stages where the die-off is not noticed. Some early warning signs are starting but it is too soon. Patience.

Amazing that you can take a prediction that is quite accurate and was not the least bit obvious at the time (in fact impossible was the opinion of the pundits) and still find a way to try to discredit it. You have to resort to accusing me of trickery and fraud.

So my question to you is: If, as I claim, I posted one and only one prediction about Trump how amazing is the accuracy? The only other public prediction is the coming die-off.

Many other personal private predictions have been totally accurate, but as everyone knows they do not count except as personal evidence for me.

Good for the country. Yes - economy and unemployment. Long term and foreign policy I worry about. Is he responsible for the political divide, or are the various factions?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/01/2020 11:17:47
You seem to clam that the pundits were saying it was impossible for Trump to win.
That's absurd.
So my question to you is: If, as I claim, I posted one and only one prediction about Trump how amazing is the accuracy?
It's  a roughly 50:50 split. He would win, or Hillary would.
The only other public prediction is the coming die-off.
Which didn't happen.
So, your success rate's pretty poor.

If I was that bad at predicting stuff, I'd keep quiet about it.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/01/2020 11:18:43
Is he responsible for the political divide,
He is doing his best to stoke it.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 28/01/2020 12:53:59
You seem to clam that the pundits were saying it was impossible for Trump to win.
That's absurd.
So my question to you is: If, as I claim, I posted one and only one prediction about Trump how amazing is the accuracy?
It's  a roughly 50:50 split. He would win, or Hillary would.
The only other public prediction is the coming die-off.
Which didn't happen.
So, your success rate's pretty poor.

If I was that bad at predicting stuff, I'd keep quiet about it.

Here we go again. Your lack of any grasp of facts and science continues to amaze me.

50:50 odds??? How on earth do you arrive at that? Why did the bookmakers and the pundits rate his chances at less than 1:100?

One book maker was so sure that Hillary would win they preemptively paid out - only to lose even more when Trump won.

What is it about the future that you do not understand? I say it will rain next week and you say I am wrong because "it did not happen"???

Sigh. Either you did not follow the US election of 2016, or your memory is atrocious. My prediction was detailed and accurate and what you fail to understand is that the Tarot cards were laying out on 5 tries to confirm over and over the outline of what would happen. Try estimating the odds of a random layout doing that!!! And getting it right!

Denial, denial, denial. How frightened are you that there just MIGHT be a God and the supernatural?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/01/2020 13:08:34
What is it about the future that you do not understand? I say it will rain next week and you say I am wrong because "it did not happen"

No
I am saying that you can not claim that you have made a correct prediction.
Yet, that's what you seem to be trying to do.
50:50 odds??? How on earth do you arrive at that?
You seem to have missed the fact that it was so close that she got more votes.
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2016/11/200758/us-election-close-call/

It was so close than many of the polls got it wrong.
That doesn't happen if there's a clear winner.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/01/2020 13:12:39
Try estimating the odds of a random layout doing that!!! And getting it right!
OK,
The odds of 5 hits from 5 on reading tarot cards is about 50:50 in this case.
Since you can interpret the cards to mean exactly what you want, it doesn't actually matter what card you draw.
So, you start by picking a position (Trump wins- that's about 50:50) and then you restate it 5 times.
Repeatedly restating the same thing doesn't change the odds.

You seem to clam that the pundits were saying it was impossible for Trump to win.
That's absurd.
So my question to you is: If, as I claim, I posted one and only one prediction about Trump how amazing is the accuracy?
It's  a roughly 50:50 split. He would win, or Hillary would.
The only other public prediction is the coming die-off.
Which didn't happen.
So, your success rate's pretty poor.

If I was that bad at predicting stuff, I'd keep quiet about it.

Here we go again. Your lack of any grasp of facts and science continues to amaze me.

50:50 odds??? How on earth do you arrive at that? Why did the bookmakers and the pundits rate his chances at less than 1:100?

One book maker was so sure that Hillary would win they preemptively paid out - only to lose even more when Trump won.

What is it about the future that you do not understand? I say it will rain next week and you say I am wrong because "it did not happen"???

Sigh. Either you did not follow the US election of 2016, or your memory is atrocious. My prediction was detailed and accurate and what you fail to understand is that the Tarot cards were laying out on 5 tries to confirm over and over the outline of what would happen. Try estimating the odds of a random layout doing that!!! And getting it right!

Denial, denial, denial. How frightened are you that there just MIGHT be a God and the supernatural?
Not at all.
For the same reason I'm not frightened of unicorns.
There's no evidence for them.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 29/01/2020 07:00:10
Try estimating the odds of a random layout doing that!!! And getting it right!
OK,
The odds of 5 hits from 5 on reading tarot cards is about 50:50 in this case.
Since you can interpret the cards to mean exactly what you want, it doesn't actually matter what card you draw.
So, you start by picking a position (Trump wins- that's about 50:50) and then you restate it 5 times.
Repeatedly restating the same thing doesn't change the odds.

You seem to clam that the pundits were saying it was impossible for Trump to win.
That's absurd.
So my question to you is: If, as I claim, I posted one and only one prediction about Trump how amazing is the accuracy?
It's  a roughly 50:50 split. He would win, or Hillary would.
The only other public prediction is the coming die-off.
Which didn't happen.
So, your success rate's pretty poor.

If I was that bad at predicting stuff, I'd keep quiet about it.

Here we go again. Your lack of any grasp of facts and science continues to amaze me.

50:50 odds??? How on earth do you arrive at that? Why did the bookmakers and the pundits rate his chances at less than 1:100?

One book maker was so sure that Hillary would win they preemptively paid out - only to lose even more when Trump won.

What is it about the future that you do not understand? I say it will rain next week and you say I am wrong because "it did not happen"???

Sigh. Either you did not follow the US election of 2016, or your memory is atrocious. My prediction was detailed and accurate and what you fail to understand is that the Tarot cards were laying out on 5 tries to confirm over and over the outline of what would happen. Try estimating the odds of a random layout doing that!!! And getting it right!

Denial, denial, denial. How frightened are you that there just MIGHT be a God and the supernatural?
Not at all.
For the same reason I'm not frightened of unicorns.
There's no evidence for them.

Once more you display your ignorance of a subject you have not bothered to research or find out more. There are many ways to use the cards to get information. The most precise is the 3 card spread in which Aces up mean yes and Aces reversed mean no and other cards add to the information. Shuffle and deal pile 1. If an ace turns up then start on the next pile to the left. If 13 cards have been dealt with no ace then start on the next pile. Do 3 piles and interpret from the right.

Here are two of the first readings. The down ace indicating the opposition to his swearing in. Notably Russia-gate and actually an over-all minority of overall votes. But the outcome was yes.  I got 5 up aces and 1 down ace. Given that any firm no (one ace down) to any of the five readings I would have to say I was not getting proper answers.

The results of the Trump predictions:

1. Will Trump win the nomination?

Eight of Cups (reversed) – This is a movement away from one place to another. In reverse it is a movement towards the material world of success. Into a less spiritual place.

Ace of Wands – Success in a project or business. Trump made getting the nomination a business project. He analysed how people think and he acted accordingly.

Four of Swords (reversed) – This is a card of conflict. It appears after the ace, and indicate what might follow. The most applicable one is social unrest.

The interpretation is that Trump is moving from the world of business that he is emotionally secure into the world of politics which for he sees as corrupt and somewhat immoral.

2. Will Trump become President?

The Hierophant - means being ruled by the conventional. To be accepted by one’s peers and socially acceptable. To follow convention.

Ace of Cups - Good beginnings from an emotional/spiritual point of view.

Ace of Wands (reversed) - Setbacks and delays. There might be a challenge involving the business of being sworn in.

The interpretation is that Trump has to win the acceptance of the majority of voters. He cannot continue to be seen in the very negative light that the media make out. The outcome of the vote will be cause for joy and celebration on his part, but then forces will try to derail the process with some unusual plan. Since this was a mixed answer of yes and no, one has to seek clarity, so I asked about the Ace of Wands (reversed). I saw this in my notes on the side when doing this detail. The answer was:

Page of Pentacles (reversed) - This indicates rebelliousness and being surrounded by people in opposition to his ideas.

Pentacles is money and the power that comes with King of Pentacles (reversed) — He will bull his way forward and overcome the opposition through force of character. Watch out.

Two of Cups — Here is balance and cooperation as the final outcome. The art of the deal?


My wife wanted to know what price to offer for the new house. I did three piles. First was less 5%, the next less 7.5% and the third was 10% less than the asking price. The middle one got it and was accepted. The agent said the seller who wanted a quick sale was adamant about not taking less.

Now we have to sell our old house. Do the same with three piles.

I asked if a worker was stealing from us because of his behavior. The cards said yes and I no longer used him. I then discovered that things were missing in rooms only he had been given unsupervised access to. Two old laptops and a an expensive compact car-vacuum. Plus power supplies for the two laptops and some other laptops. I found that he had put some medicines among some rags, and some of my mothers old jewellery behind some stuff I needed to throw out - no doubt looking for an opportunity to hand them over the fence to an accomplice.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/01/2020 07:25:35
I asked if a worker was stealing from us because of his behavior.
So, there was reasonable grounds to suspect he was a thief.
I then discovered that things were missing in rooms only he had been given unsupervised access to.
And you found that he stole stuff.

What have the cards got to do with it?

You really need to sort out what constitutes evidence.
There's none for tarot cards. (or, if I'm wrong, you should be able to make a lot of money on the lottery and move as far from any phones as you want.

You won't do that; you won't even try- because, deep down, you know it won't work.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/01/2020 07:26:44
Page of Pentacles (reversed) - This indicates rebelliousness and being surrounded by people in opposition to his ideas.
So, every single politician then.
But you chose to take it as specific.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/01/2020 13:07:48
The argument seems to have run a long way since I last looked, but to go back a few paragraphs to Clive's comments

1. Yes, there are plenty of Jewish atheists. I'm one of them. That's the point of "our people" - we are a tribe first, loosely held together by a mutual respect for rituals and traditions that not all of us actually practice. The faith bit is optional, but the tribal loyalty is genetic (ask any anti-Semite), which is why we don't evangelise or accept converts easily. Or criticise the beliefs of others - only their actions.

2. The Simpsons predicted Trump's presidency in 2000
 
Quote
The episode mentions that real estate mogul and millionaire Donald Trump became president, and caused a budget crisis that Lisa inherits.
It was in any case blindingly obvious in 2006 because the Democrats didn't have a slogan ("I'm a Woman" sold quite a few copies for Peggy Lee but doesn't stand out as an economic or social policy objective). Come to think of it, they still don't, just like the Labour Party.

3. Anyone who can consistently predict any outcome with 51% or even 50.001% accuracy will not be contributing to this board, but owning it.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/01/2020 19:02:49
1. Will Trump win the nomination?
Eight of Cups (reversed) – groper of many breasts, but they will come back to haunt him.
Ace of Wands – belief in magic, not science.
Four of Swords (reversed) – This is a card of conflict. It appears after the ace, and indicate what might follow. The most applicable one is social unrest. Agreed. Pity the rest of the world had no vote.

2. Will Trump become President?
The Hierophant - means being ruled by the conventional. To be accepted by one’s peers (yes - but what disgusting peers) and socially acceptable (no). Always wash your hands after meeting him. And count your fingers, too.
Ace of Cups - groper.
Ace of Wands (reversed) - Setbacks and delays. The interpretation is that Trump has to win the acceptance of the majority of voters. He didn't. Hillary had a clear majority of the popular vote.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 31/01/2020 07:04:19

1. Will Trump win the nomination?
Eight of Cups (reversed) – groper of many breasts, but they will come back to haunt him.
Ace of Wands – belief in magic, not science.
Four of Swords (reversed) – This is a card of conflict. It appears after the ace, and indicate what might follow. The most applicable one is social unrest. Agreed. Pity the rest of the world had no vote.

2. Will Trump become President?
The Hierophant - means being ruled by the conventional. To be accepted by one’s peers (yes - but what disgusting peers) and socially acceptable (no). Always wash your hands after meeting him. And count your fingers, too.
Ace of Cups - groper.
Ace of Wands (reversed) - Setbacks and delays. The interpretation is that Trump has to win the acceptance of the majority of voters. He didn't. Hillary had a clear majority of the popular vote.

I wondered why you quoted me without a comment. Then I looked more closely. Doing a shifty Schiff, eh?

I do not need to look at the cards to tell you not to give up your day job.

How about this reading from the cards:
Will the current outbreak in China become a deadly global outbreak:

1. Ace of swords up - Yes. With global discord and panic
2. Ace of cups down - This is saying that the virus will be beaten and die down.
3. Ace of pentacles up - This saying it will mutate and come back for another round.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 31/01/2020 07:09:43
(snip)

3. Anyone who can consistently predict any outcome with 51% or even 50.001% accuracy will not be contributing to this board, but owning it.
[/quote]

You forget the rules. The claim of psychic gifts can only get great financial benefit to fraudsters and charlatans. Those who truly have a gift cannot and do not except to a modest income for support.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 31/01/2020 17:38:37
In other words, you can't provide numerical evidence in support of a "gift", and the only people who can make money out of it are those who don't actually possess it.

Furthermore you are claiming that Tarot cards shuffled at random have the capacity to predict. If the prediction depends on your interpretation, any set of random numbers would do because it is actually your gift that is doing the job, since the person who shuffles them (the "mug") clearly doesn't have the gift, or he wouldn't be as asking for your help.

I think you are skating on logically thin ice here.

I  have no interest in horse racing but once visited Epsom out of curiosity. I had no money with which to bet, but I predicted the winner of  7 successive races. Scary. I've never been back.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 31/01/2020 17:46:36
Will the current outbreak in China become a deadly global outbreak:1. Ace of swords up - Yes. With global discord and panic2. Ace of cups down - This is saying that the virus will be beaten and die down.3. Ace of pentacles up - This saying it will mutate and come back for another round.

Just like every other corona virus, then. Avian flu, SARS.... Looks more like a scientific prediction than a psychic one.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/01/2020 18:23:02
2. Ace of cups down - This is saying that the virus will be beaten and die down.
That's not a prediction; it's an observation.
The mortality rate is estimated as about 2%  which means about 98% survive.
If nearly everybody survives then it's obviously going to be beaten back- by people's immune systems.
The claim of psychic gifts can only get great financial benefit to fraudsters and charlatans. Those who truly have a gift cannot and do not except to a modest income for support.

What is it with you and logical fallacies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Kryptid on 31/01/2020 20:51:54
Could you accurately predict the sequence of ten die rolls?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/02/2020 04:53:09
In other words, you can't provide numerical evidence in support of a "gift", and the only people who can make money out of it are those who don't actually possess it.
(snip)

I have made it quite clear that the supernatural and God have set of rules and these rules are applied by entities with intelligence and are not mechanical. A key rule is that there will be no proof of the existence. Only hints and only revelations to various individuals. The spiritual entities that assist people (the "gift" is not a super-power but assistance from the spirit-world) will not let their assistance be abused by greed and material values. This "rule" is not mine. It has been known for centuries.

Those in search of absolute proof are going to be disappointed and subjected to having to deal with people like me who offer personal experience.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/02/2020 05:44:21
(snip)

Furthermore you are claiming that Tarot cards shuffled at random have the capacity to predict. If the prediction depends on your interpretation, any set of random numbers would do because it is actually your gift that is doing the job, since the person who shuffles them (the "mug") clearly doesn't have the gift, or he wouldn't be as asking for your help.

I think you are skating on logically thin ice here.

(snip)

You are partly correct. My late wife tried the cards many times. Not only did she get the wrong cards but when I asked her to interpret my layouts before I did she also got it wrong.

Very occasionally I get a set of random cards. I recognize that I am not meant to do a reading for whatever reason.

There is little doubt the my prediction on the corona virus is also backed by a knowledge of past pandemics (the Spanish flu mutated and went round the world 3 times). But that would also be spirit in that I could have read an article which influences my thought pattern. Those past influences are no coincidence.

Interesting aside. I had just about finished my reply when I hit a wrong button and it disappeared. Darn. But I find this has happened a few times before and it was because my answer was not on target. I reread your response and am more accurate and concise. Spirit intervention to correct my lack of attention in misreading your response?

One has to get the correct cards in the correct sequence. This is just not physically possible given the laws of probability. The number gets astronomical when one considers that I do reading after reading for myself and for my later wife and current wife who trusts me because I get it right. There are 78 cards and each one can be up or down. To get the first card correct is then 1 in 156. The next card is 1 in 155 and the next is 1 in 154. The combination is 156 x 155 x 154 = 1 in 3 723 729. About 3 million to 1.

Each card has multiple meanings and the way they lay out invokes different interpretations. This is again where the person needs subtle hints and whispers and intuition from spirit.

One has to ask how can the shuffling can order the cars in just the right way. It is one I have pondered hard on. The only logical answer is that spirit "swops" out the cards which would have fallen to the cards that need to fall. How is this possible? The answer is that our universe is a virtual reality. It is in the mind of the Ultimate Intelligence. Everything and anything is possible if spirits intervene. But they do so subtly. Even the person doing the reading is not aware of any break to the laws of physics.

You can claim that this is so absurd as to be instantly dismissible. I would refer you to the seemingly impossibilities of quantum physics. Schrodingers cat - an animal both alive and dead at the same time in the box and only achieves a certain state once the box is opened as a measurement. Quantum entanglement also. Then there is dark energy and dark matter. These are supported by logic and observation. The same principles of science apply to discovering the rules of the spirit world.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/02/2020 06:17:30
(snip)

I  have no interest in horse racing but once visited Epsom out of curiosity. I had no money with which to bet, but I predicted the winner of  7 successive races. Scary. I've never been back.

You have had the same experience I did when I was just 14. The lesson was that the supernatural can permit such things but only as a one time demonstration. My brother's friend was just 13 but was six foot three inches and had a rough skin that aged him. He was a superb conman and I have a few tales there. He made money by going to the horse races and asking the stable boys to give him tips. They knew he was betting very small amounts. I went with him. We got in under the fence. Each race he would go to the stables and each race I would make a prediction. I got eight out of eight.

The first race was remarkable. The horse was "Island Runner". One remembers certain facts about strange and amazing happenings. The start happened. No gates in 1962. Island Runner turned around and ran the other way, jumped over the inner fence, then back again and crossed the starting line well behind the pack. Loser I thought. The speed at which he overtook the others was so remarkable that I knew the fix was in. They were all holding their horses back.

Okay. Wow. I can predict races. So let me test it. Total failure every time. This is how experiences have taught me the rules.

So you know how I felt when I said that as a teenager I abandoned hypnotizing people to see the future accurately. It was way too spooky. Now that I am more comfortable I would love to do such tests. The problem is that the volunteers would have to be seven to ten years old. And if set up as a test, it would probably fail anyway because of the no-testing rule.

An uncle could dowse water and gold in various ways. He made money and lived comfortably. I was still a teenager when I asked him why he was not rich. He said he could not abuse his gift and he could feel it waning if he started to charge too much. He had some remarkable success with the relatives such as divining a strong stream deep on a hill when the geologists ruled it out. It was not just deep groundwater either and he got the depth just right. He failed when the family tried to test him using sixteen holes dug and filled and only one had gold jewelry in it. He did not try to guess. He just said he got no indication inside.

I have tried divining. The rods move because one slightly tilts them. The brain is interpreting subtle hints and is able to move the muscles in a subconscious way. Information is rarely given as strong voices or as solid images. I know of one woman who visited Israel to get her grandmother into heaven and was told clearly that not all religions have all the answers and that her grandmother was okay. Another random woman I met during a airline transit stop was on her way back from India. She went there to do conversions and was told loudly (by a statue) she was being arrogant to think that that her religion was the only valid one. See how I get information that supports my hypothesis - indirectly and seemingly by chance.

Why did my prediction about Trump and the Coronavirus not break the rule? Because one is allowed some hints, and because most people do not believe it happened the way I said it did. They think there is trickery or some other coincidence.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/02/2020 06:19:12
Could you accurately predict the sequence of ten die rolls?

A guaranteed no. By the rules of spirit. They will not cooperate with test. Total bummer and cop-out, eh?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/02/2020 11:20:17
But you said "they"  never reveal the rules, for fear of their existence being proven - or was it disproven?

Anyway, to return the the question. Science is about investigating the disprovable. So if you want science to test the existence of something, you have to state a testable quality of that something, and how you would know  if it had failed that test.

So the simple answer is no, science isn't about proof, only disproof. And the other simple answer is yes, if you write down all the testable properties of your god, we can test them until you are satisfied that there is a single entity that possesses them - but it will take a very long time to do so!

On the other hand we can turn to pure mathematical logic to demonstrate that there cannot be a functional omnipotent and omniscient deity that created the universe. There being no other reason to suspect the existence of a god, Occam says we should dismiss the possibility. 
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2020 13:29:48
What, if anything, is the difference between
"Any attempt to prove that I can do this will fail"
and
" I can't do this (but suffer from the delusion that I can)"?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/02/2020 15:04:36
By the rules of spirit. They will not cooperate with test.
So we agree that prayer is a waste of time. Almost a denial of your fundamental belief of non-cooperation.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 02/02/2020 05:44:40
What, if anything, is the difference between
"Any attempt to prove that I can do this will fail"
and
" I can't do this (but suffer from the delusion that I can)"?

And what is the difference between applying those principles to spirit and to the physical world?

Prayer works as long as it is not provable. It has huge numbers of anecdotal evidence (what is the scientific name for masses of such evidence such as sicknesses around towers?)

And science says there must be a formula to tie the formulae of the very small to the very big but it seems beyond proof at this stage. Or that dark matter and dark energy MUST exist even though it seems unprovable because of lack of detection.

Not to mention string theory trying to show that multiple universes are possible but unprovable - which still begs the question of what caused it all. My hypothesis of an Ultimate Intelligence not only allows for multiple universes but also travel between them as well as time travel.

Why would you not excitedly embrace such a hypothesis. It has more "proof" than the others because it has personal observation. No formula and no mechanical means of detection but does that invalidate it? No. And it will permit you the luxury of prayer and religion without delusion. Yes. All you have to do is recognize the deficiencies of formal religion but accept that there elements of truth in each one.

It will require you to admit you have been wrong for a long time, so most atheists will resist. But resistance is futile against the mass, but subtle, anecdotal proof around you. And with the coming die-off, being an atheist is not a good quality for survival as the believing population looks for scrape-goats.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 02/02/2020 05:47:17
By the rules of spirit. They will not cooperate with test.
So we agree that prayer is a waste of time. Almost a denial of your fundamental belief of non-cooperation.

You miss entirely the premise that unprovable prayer works. Just because one does not know how it works does not invalidate it. A hundred years ago many things were mysterious because one did not know how they worked. They still worked.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 02/02/2020 06:12:57
But you said "they"  never reveal the rules, for fear of their existence being proven - or was it disproven?

Anyway, to return the the question. Science is about investigating the disprovable. So if you want science to test the existence of something, you have to state a testable quality of that something, and how you would know  if it had failed that test.

So the simple answer is no, science isn't about proof, only disproof. And the other simple answer is yes, if you write down all the testable properties of your god, we can test them until you are satisfied that there is a single entity that possesses them - but it will take a very long time to do so!

On the other hand we can turn to pure mathematical logic to demonstrate that there cannot be a functional omnipotent and omniscient deity that created the universe. There being no other reason to suspect the existence of a god, Occam says we should dismiss the possibility.
\

Okay. Let us start with Occam. The easy one. Wiki says:

Ernst Mach formulated the stronger version of Occam's razor into physics, which he called the Principle of Economy stating: "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."

This principle goes back at least as far as Aristotle, who wrote "Nature operates in the shortest way possible." The idea of parsimony or simplicity in deciding between theories, though not the intent of the original expression of Occam's razor, has been assimilated into our culture as the widespread layman's formulation that "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."


So what is the scientific hypothesis for the Prime Cause? There is none despite accepting that there MUST be one. The old and now discredited one that the Universe was always in existence took a knock with the Big Bang. The old principle has morphed into something similar that the laws of physics have always been in existence. But what caused the laws of physics.

So apply the Occam and I win. I have a perfectly simple, logical and observed hypothesis.

"They" have no fear of being exposed. The Game Rules for the Virtual Reality is that one is not supposed to prove one is in a virtual world. One may suspect it, and one may get unprovable hints, and somelike me may actually see the Virtual Reality end experience the Ultimate Intelligence which is also the Ultimate Reality. Occam tells us we have no need to complicate things by asking if the Ultimate Intelligence is also a Virtual Reality of yet other Ultimate Intelligences. Occam rejects turtles all the way down.

I have given you the attributes of my hypothesis. Virtual reality which permits breaking of the laws of physics. Miracles and psychic events are examples. So one has to examine examples. I have a bunch. I also am not suggestible and I have an excellent memory. I am an engineer. Cross examine each example and try to offer RATIONAL and logical explanations to each one. Some may be brain malfunctions although I have an argument against that.

There are two of the most notable predictions that people overlook. One was Joan of Arcs prediction that convinced people that she has spiritual insight and the other was the prediction of Muhammad and the camels which also was convincing. These were clear historical prophecies that stood out for being properly recorded and noted at the time.

You put too much faith in mathematics to rule out mystic events. Once more - please link the mathatics of large and small and the existence of dark matter and energy.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Hayseed on 02/02/2020 07:18:52
Man has progressed a lot.  A switch of a transmitter can build the largest and longest lasting structures in the universe.  Pretty cool. 

But when you understand the structure of matter and glue that binds it, and once you understand how light really flies thru space..........it will be hard to deny Design.

It's simple, it's neat and it's elegant.    If we just had the math to match it.   The math we use has an incorrect angular to linear V transform.  And therefore an incorrect momentum transform.  And on top of that.......pi is not pi with 3D rotations.  pi is larger and variable.   The arc remains at 360 degrees, but the diameter(or radius) to circumference ratio is not pi.  I wish people would remember this, when they use math to disprove something.  Realizing this would also account for a lot of anomalies.

I have had several posts moved and a few deleted for having new theories.  I don't have any new theories, I ain't that smart.  My theories are classical and started over one hundred years ago.   And I am not complaining about site policy.

When I discovered that Weber showed relativity 40 years before Einstein, I looked a lot closer.  His equations don't change time or length.

To make a long story short, there are perfectly good classical physical explanations for our experimental results.

Even better reasons.   For if you have two competing theories, and one explains the constants of the other......it is considered the superior theory.

When I find a model that can explain the periodic table with physical structural explanations that show the physical cause of constants........I use it.

My contributions are small.  Being a mechanic, I saw the purpose and correct placement of the neutron in the nucleus, but any mechanic would have spotted it.   And I immediately saw the answer for anti-matter.   But again, any mechanic would catch that too.

My only discernment was EM(light).  And that happened while trying to pin down antenna current.

When I realized what was happening.....I realized that emission happens at 2 times the V of light.

It's a snap.

As far as we are concerned, emission is instant.  That instant emission, makes it appear as a true point source.  It's also discreet.    Not continuous.    If you put those two facts together, and think about what that means...........you understand light.  And you can see that a change in phase.......is proof that light does have relative V.   Knowing that light is discreet, means that you have to change the way you measure it.

If you know the emitting period, then the change in absorption period can tell you the relative V.

And a dipole changing oscillation F while riding a G gradient(atomic clock), or under acceleration, doesn't mean time is changing,   It means the dipole is in a G gradient or under acceleration.

I feel no need for burden of proof.   For we all get the same math results.   And I seek no fame or fortune, my time is short.

But space-time is a mockery of adult intellect.

And it will be dis-proven.  I wish I could see it.




Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/02/2020 09:12:25
You miss entirely the premise that unprovable prayer works.
And you have missed the premise that that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The difference is that the premise about dismissal of unevenced stuff is actually true.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/02/2020 09:15:46
To make a long story short, there are perfectly good classical physical explanations for our experimental results.
OK, show me the classical explanation of this (and the more recent, better precision versions)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

But to avoid incurring thew wrath of the mods do it in a different thread.
This thread has quite enough nonsense in it already.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 02/02/2020 12:11:50
You miss entirely the premise that unprovable prayer works.
And you have missed the premise that that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The difference is that the premise about dismissal of unevenced stuff is actually true.

The difference between your evidence and my evidence is that yours is mechanical and limited and mine is personal and experienced by individuals. Yours may be a higher bar and more rigorous but it does not negate my evidence.

Your state as a confirmed absolute that I have no evidence simply because you reject my evidence. I am talking about spirit and about human interaction with spirit. You insist that the physical universe IS absolutely physical and that there is not possibility of it being a virtual reality. If you want mathematical proof that we do live in a virtual reality there was one given that "proved" that the odds of us being a virtual reality as greater than not.

You are so locked into seeing yourself and pinching yourself and talking to same minded people that your imagination and conceptualization has limited your ability to grasp such concepts. Have you ever had an hallucination where you think what you are experiencing is real and then realize it could not be? Or could be if we are in a virtual world?

Have you ever experienced lucid dreaming where one thinks it might be a dream but one has to struggle to find proof? Those experiences can make one seriously think about reality.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2020 12:21:50
This "rule" is not mine. It has been known for centuries.
Somebody made up that rule to take advantage from the gullibles.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2020 12:36:52
By the rules of spirit. They will not cooperate with test.
So we agree that prayer is a waste of time. Almost a denial of your fundamental belief of non-cooperation.

You miss entirely the premise that unprovable prayer works. Just because one does not know how it works does not invalidate it. A hundred years ago many things were mysterious because one did not know how they worked. They still worked.
By admitting that it is unprovable,  you have admitted that you don't know if it really works. Not knowing how it works does not invalidate it, but knowing that it doesn't make a difference is an evidence that it's useless.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/02/2020 13:13:27
The difference between your evidence and my evidence is that yours is mechanical and limited and mine is personal and experienced by individuals.
Do you understand what
Anecdote  <>  evidence
means?
Your state as a confirmed absolute that I have no evidence simply because you reject my evidence.
You have not put forward any evidence for me to reject.
You have told me stories.

Do you understand the difference?
You insist that the physical universe IS absolutely physical and that there is not possibility of it being a virtual reality.


If you think that's true then show me where I said it.
(spoiler alert; I didn't)

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/02/2020 14:19:40
I do recall one anecdote of prayer working. A visiting preacher told the congregation (I  used to sing in church choirs!) how he had prayed that his sick daughter could die in peace. His prayer was answered and just for one night no bombs fell on north London - the Luftwaffe destroyed Coventry Cathedral instead.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 03/02/2020 19:16:14
By the rules of spirit. They will not cooperate with test.
So we agree that prayer is a waste of time. Almost a denial of your fundamental belief of non-cooperation.

You miss entirely the premise that unprovable prayer works. Just because one does not know how it works does not invalidate it. A hundred years ago many things were mysterious because one did not know how they worked. They still worked.
By admitting that it is unprovable,  you have admitted that you don't know if it really works. Not knowing how it works does not invalidate it, but knowing that it doesn't make a difference is an evidence that it's useless.

There are very many stories of prayer working. The problem is that there are very many more stories of prayer not working.

One has to know how prayer works. Only a few deserving ones will be answered. A close relative was informed her husband had a large tumor in his lung and the chances of success were less that 10%. Being a committed Christian she prayed hard. What makes this different is that she got signs and omens that her prayers would be answered. They were. Her husband has been cancer free for 10 years.

People have a choice. Pray or do not pray. Many like you say it makes no difference. I get many small prayers answered. For example I am late for an appointment and know I will not make it. Pray hard and voila. I get clear roads and most the traffic lights are in my favor and I am just in time. Works frequently.

If there is a God then praying is very likely to work. I base my opinion (close to belief) that there is a God on all the very many spiritual experiences I have. Unless I have some serious mental malfunctions (and only in this realm) then I have to say that there is. You have a choice. Believe me or do not believe me.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 03/02/2020 19:18:51
I do recall one anecdote of prayer working. A visiting preacher told the congregation (I  used to sing in church choirs!) how he had prayed that his sick daughter could die in peace. His prayer was answered and just for one night no bombs fell on north London - the Luftwaffe destroyed Coventry Cathedral instead.

Hmmm. Interesting. Seems there was a price to pay - or at least make the man think carefully about what he prays for.

They say be careful what you wish for - you may just get it.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 03/02/2020 19:27:13
The difference between your evidence and my evidence is that yours is mechanical and limited and mine is personal and experienced by individuals.
Do you understand what
Anecdote  <>  evidence
means?
Your state as a confirmed absolute that I have no evidence simply because you reject my evidence.
You have not put forward any evidence for me to reject.
You have told me stories.

Do you understand the difference?
You insist that the physical universe IS absolutely physical and that there is not possibility of it being a virtual reality.


If you think that's true then show me where I said it.
(spoiler alert; I didn't)

Is psychology a science or not? And does it not rely heavily on the personal stories of what people are experiencing? Do you know of a meter that can measure thoughts and feelings to the extent they can pick up where an intuition is coming from.

You are so locked onto anecdote, anecdote, anecdote that it shows how afraid you are that you might just be wrong. All the years of denial wasted. However, don't sweat it too much. I was an atheist at 13 and only became an unbiased agnostic at 45. Then only swayed to serious consideration that there was a God when I was 60.

The interesting part is that I always believed in ghosts, mental telepathy and predicting the future. That belief never wavered because I had so much personal evidence from the time I was a small child.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2020 19:36:56
Is psychology a science or not?
Well, you refuse to accept that the cause of your problem is psychological.
So, you tell me.
Is it science- in which case you are wrong, or is it not, in which case you are wrong.
Do you know of a meter that can measure thoughts and feelings t
Several
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocardiography
https://www.healthline.com/health/cortisol-urine

s to the extent they can pick up where an intuition is coming from.
You made that condition up, and it makes no sense.
Psychology does not "pick up where an intuition is coming from."
So you are setting up a straw man
You really like logical fallacy don't you?
You are so locked onto anecdote, anecdote, anecdote
I'm not the one whose whole "point" depends on pretending that an anecdote is proof.

Then only swayed to serious consideration that there was a God when I was 60.

I was thinking about how people seem to read the Bible a whole lot more as they get older; then it dawned on me - they're cramming for their final exam.

George Carlin

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 03/02/2020 19:38:06
This "rule" is not mine. It has been known for centuries.
Somebody made up that rule to take advantage from the gullibles.

Spirit and religion are probably among the most abused areas of humankind. And that rule is tailor made as a Get out of Jail Card. Uri Geller - total fake. Made so much money that he could keep his detractors quiet with law suits. Easy to spot because blatant breaking of the laws of physics is not allowed. Preacher who sits in God's lap and has fireside chats. Total fake who has fooled many and become rich. I had to point out to a Christian that the Bible says that communication with God is very difficult and indirect.

No. The rule is made up by those who have gifts. They all know they cannot be tested because they all try testing themselves. I did. I have spoken to a number of people I believe to have a gift. They all had stories of testing themselves. The charlatans abuse the rules. Do you think they have a great afterlife? No. They do not believe in spirit or they would not abuse it.

Once more. The huge number of fakes discourages people who are natural skeptics but it does not disprove the truth of the rule.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2020 19:40:05
The interesting part is that I always believed in ghosts, mental telepathy and predicting the future. That belief never wavered because I had so much personal evidence from the time I was a small child.
I think the relevant passage is 1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2020 19:45:05
Easy to spot because blatant breaking of the laws of physics is not allowed.
I always believed in ghosts, mental telepathy and predicting the future.

When you have finished arguing with yourself, bring your conclusions back here.
I had to point out to a Christian that the Bible says that communication with God is very difficult and indirect.

And there was me thinking it said
"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Do you want "chapter and verse" on that?

They all know they cannot be tested because they all try testing themselves. I did.
So, did you pass or fail?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2020 19:46:21
Once more. The huge number of fakes discourages people who are natural skeptics but it does not disprove the truth of the rule.
The whole point of "the rule" is that it makes it impossible to prove it either way.
A damned good  rhetorical device, but bugger all actual use.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 04/02/2020 08:02:57
The interesting part is that I always believed in ghosts, mental telepathy and predicting the future. That belief never wavered because I had so much personal evidence from the time I was a small child.
I think the relevant passage is 1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

And what is childish about about observing the universe and strange events that happen? My belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny disappeared as childish but fun beliefs. The ghost stories and spirit only got more convincing as I got older and was better able to evaluate them. And had more of them.

You dismiss the events as told to you because you start by assuming they have no factual basis. THEN you round up the usual suspects - namely arguments typically used without thought to dismiss the observations as faulty.

These observations deal with the hard problem of consciousness and just how faulty a human brain can be. I am constantly amazed that more cars do not hit trees that jump in front of them. Trillions of hours of human brains working at a very consistent level without fault. And yet you have no problem pointing to "glitches" I have which only apparently occur with regard to the supernatural.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 04/02/2020 08:06:25
(snip)

They all know they cannot be tested because they all try testing themselves. I did.
So, did you pass or fail?

I failed because of the rule. I am surprized you even ask.

BTW. Wow. Did you study the Bible or do you get all your quotes from other sites? Was it beaten into you? If so, I am not surprized you are so strong an atheist. You are at the limits of the scale of non-believer to believer.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 04/02/2020 08:23:34
Once more. The huge number of fakes discourages people who are natural skeptics but it does not disprove the truth of the rule.
The whole point of "the rule" is that it makes it impossible to prove it either way.
A damned good  rhetorical device, but bugger all actual use.

The rule is very very useful. It allows those who know the rules to immediately dismiss claims by the charlatans. Another example is the book by the 12 year boy who died and claimed he went to heaven. I knew immediately it was a fake. The boy subsequently confessed to a total lie.

If you set up a game that was virtual reality and supposed to be highly realistic, would you want the avatars to know they are not real and that reality could be arbitrarily changed? No, of course not.

If you sent kids out on an adventure and told them they were on their own, would you then let them see the monitoring devices that are being used to keep tabs on them? No, of course not.

This is why you are so illogical with your arguments. And why the rules make sense and are logical. Another aspect of scientific study.

You refuse to concede even one minor point for fear your whole hypothesis that there absolutely are no Gods or supernatural beings might crumble. Your hypothesis only is logical if you start with the presumption that there is no God and that we are not in a virtual reality.

You use all the standard contradictions in the traditional religions without conceding that they need an update and a rationalization just as various branches of science needed. You are the one arguing with yourself.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 04/02/2020 08:38:53
I do recall one anecdote of prayer working. A visiting preacher told the congregation (I  used to sing in church choirs!) how he had prayed that his sick daughter could die in peace. His prayer was answered and just for one night no bombs fell on north London - the Luftwaffe destroyed Coventry Cathedral instead.

I had another thought. We keep thinking God is in total control and omni-all. As part of the game he has an adversary - namely Satan or the Devil. So while God gets to grant a few prayers, so does the Devil. In this case, there may have been a balancing of wishes where God granted the pray but Satan got to bomb a Cathedral.

I visited a psychic and asked her if she knows whether she gets informed by the good spirits or the bad spirits. She said she had never thought about it. She just gave answers that came to her. An evil person may get information from an evil spirit.

When Trump prays for a success in a military attack, and the target is praying for American disaster, who gets their prayers answered? The Devil wants as much conflict and destruction as possible (Shiva the God of Destruction) and God tries to mitigate it and have people strive to better themselves. It is under strife and conflict that one see the good in people come to the fore. So to the evil in others.

Remember it is all an illusion to entertain the Ultimate Intelligence. My most vivid memory of the experience of having the universe just end and then restart was that the Ultimate Intelligence was lonely and bored when compared to the life of a human. I have been blessed with an extraordinarily interesting life. Some see it as a curse. Not me. I also remember it had no human attributes such as form or emotion or sex and had no morals or ethics. It was neither good nor bad. No space or time. And much more real that our current reality.

But one plays the Game - and God is a part. Choose your side. It is difficult to remain neutral and on the sidelines.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/02/2020 19:36:53
The rule is very very useful. It allows those who know the rules to immediately dismiss claims by the charlatans.
It also allows me to dismiss claims by you- since you are making those claims to bolster your own personal standing.

I failed because of the rule.
So, you tried to predict things, and you failed.
Why are you bragging about your success?


I am surprized you even ask.
I guess you now see why I asked.
You set yourself up to fail.
You dismiss the events as told to you because you start by assuming they have no factual basis.
No, (for the millionth time f telling you), I dismiss them because there is no supporting evidence.

These observations deal with the hard problem of consciousness and just how faulty a human brain can be.
It's good to see we agree on something.

I am constantly amazed that more cars do not hit trees that jump in front of them.
And yet you have no problem pointing to "glitches" I have which only apparently occur with regard to the supernatural.
No
As usual, you are resorting to a straw man attack.
What I have said is things like you are looking at the placebo effect, but not recognising it or you are a victim of confirmation bias.
Those phenomena are well charted in all sorts of situations.
Yet you make up dross about me thinking they only apply to the supernatural.

That's your mistake, not mine.

I knew immediately it was a fake.
So do I- and I don't feel the need to pretend I can read tarot cards...

Did you study the Bible
I never studied it but it is daft to think that anyone who grows up in the UK doesn't have an idea what it says about stuff. And, from there's it's a quick Google job to find the actual quote.

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,

You refuse to concede even one minor point for fear your whole hypothesis
Do you remember that I pointed out that you were lying about that?



You insist that the physical universe IS absolutely physical and that there is not possibility of it being a virtual reality.


If you think that's true then show me where I said it.
(spoiler alert; I didn't)


Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/02/2020 06:33:32
Spirit and religion are probably among the most abused areas of humankind. And that rule is tailor made as a Get out of Jail Card. Uri Geller - total fake. Made so much money that he could keep his detractors quiet with law suits. Easy to spot because blatant breaking of the laws of physics is not allowed. Preacher who sits in God's lap and has fireside chats. Total fake who has fooled many and become rich. I had to point out to a Christian that the Bible says that communication with God is very difficult and indirect.

No. The rule is made up by those who have gifts. They all know they cannot be tested because they all try testing themselves. I did. I have spoken to a number of people I believe to have a gift. They all had stories of testing themselves. The charlatans abuse the rules. Do you think they have a great afterlife? No. They do not believe in spirit or they would not abuse it.

Once more. The huge number of fakes discourages people who are natural skeptics but it does not disprove the truth of the rule.
How do you distinguish between the fake from the real ones?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/02/2020 06:43:54
I had another thought. We keep thinking God is in total control and omni-all. As part of the game he has an adversary - namely Satan or the Devil. So while God gets to grant a few prayers, so does the Devil. In this case, there may have been a balancing of wishes where God granted the pray but Satan got to bomb a Cathedral.

I visited a psychic and asked her if she knows whether she gets informed by the good spirits or the bad spirits. She said she had never thought about it. She just gave answers that came to her. An evil person may get information from an evil spirit.

When Trump prays for a success in a military attack, and the target is praying for American disaster, who gets their prayers answered? The Devil wants as much conflict and destruction as possible (Shiva the God of Destruction) and God tries to mitigate it and have people strive to better themselves. It is under strife and conflict that one see the good in people come to the fore. So to the evil in others.
Does your God have a name? How do you know it?
Who gives the name of satan or devil? Did he choose his own names? Is he the same being as Shiva?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/02/2020 17:35:42
I do recall one anecdote of prayer working. A visiting preacher told the congregation (I  used to sing in church choirs!) how he had prayed that his sick daughter could die in peace. His prayer was answered and just for one night no bombs fell on north London - the Luftwaffe destroyed Coventry Cathedral instead.

Hmmm. Interesting. Seems there was a price to pay - or at least make the man think carefully about what he prays for.

They say be careful what you wish for - you may just get it.
I rather think that the good citizens of Coventry were simultaneously praying not to be bombed. But it seems your god works in mysterious ways, and not for the benefit of humanity. A proper god would not have created congenital syphilis, for example.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/02/2020 17:42:06
Easy to spot because blatant breaking of the laws of physics is not allowed.
So your god did not create the universe out of nothing. Or inseminate Mary, or resurrect his onlybegotten son. Nor, in his earthly form, turn water into wine. Or part the water for Moses.. Bummer.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 07/02/2020 15:20:18
Easy to spot because blatant breaking of the laws of physics is not allowed.
So your god did not create the universe out of nothing. Or inseminate Mary, or resurrect his onlybegotten son. Nor, in his earthly form, turn water into wine. Or part the water for Moses.. Bummer.

Quite right. MY God did MAY not have done such things. MY God was created with the Universe in a virtual reality. Since the universe is virtual, and truly comprises nothing, then the Ultimate Intelligence could have started the Game and allowed God almost unlimited (virtual) power.

If so then God of the Bible created the Big Bang out of nothing. Note that this was only the start of virtual time and space as well but was not the all important Prime Cause of True Reality.

There was no real need to inseminate Mary, or any other "Mother" of a God. The only need for this mythology and story is to emphasize that the God-man is different (having God for a father). The Bishops of Nicaea needed Jesus to be a God but Jesus never claimed to be a god. And sons of God we all are. Don't sweat the tiny details.

The resurrection probably occurred. Not physically but spiritually. It was needed to add emphasis to the story of Jesus. They could not tell the difference between a mental intervention by God and a real physical being.

Water into wine. One could suppose that such a miracle was allowed. Although if a rich admirer anonymously donated a lot of wine and food, it could have been left for people to gossip about a miracle. Even if a fully true miracle - where is the proof that laws of physics were broken. People accepted miracles in those days. The bar is very high in modern times.

Parting the water. Perhaps Moses had spiritual insight into a really low tide and a narrow hard pathway that the chariots sank when trying it. That alone would be miraculous. Not as exciting as the movie version, but the myth was born and endured.

I had a little miracle just 20 minutes ago. The weather was closing in and we have had heavy and continuous rains in late afternoon. I had committed to replacing my wife's exhaust support before going out in the car tonight. Car port and garage full of stuff so I was in the open. Struggled a little but despite my wife's fussing I said the rain will only start when I am done. A couple of drops otherwise. Despite a delay due to a tough nut and frequent trips to get another tool I got the job done and just as I walked in the house the rains came down. A minute later I would have been soaked.

My wife said to me "You cannot always rely on your luck". Not luck I said. It is reliable and predictable. Many many times. See, when it happens to me frequently and predictably the rule is not broken - you guys just scoff and call me a woo. Even I have to admit that the law of large numbers could allow me to be an exception, even in relying on and predicting these small "favors".

Just wish God would grant me a BIG favor and heal my medical problems. I suppose I should be grateful for not being dead. They say that when an old person wakes up without pain they can be sure they are dead.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 07/02/2020 15:33:13
(snip)
Does your God have a name? How do you know it?
Who gives the name of satan or devil? Did he choose his own names? Is he the same being as Shiva?

No name I know of for any of the gods/devils or angels/demons. Just know that is it highly likely they exist and can be dealt with. It may be that a Hindu has a separate reality to a Christian but I doubt it. Some small aspects could differ but when compared there will be not differences.

If one prays for war and destruction then Satan by any name is similar to Shiva. No need for names except to direct a prayer or to discuss a common element. I prefer addressing God directly as "God". Not my lord or any other title. Hardly ever address Jesus directly but have on the odd occasion.

Some people who see spirit see different ones. Gabriel might be one. I do not see spirits (only one when I was a teenager but I accept I might have seen shadows in the middle of the night).

When I was a teenager a man got run over and killed at about midnight. His spirit came down the passage with heavy thumping feet and then heavy breathing into my bedroom. Excited at first, I chickened out and closed my eyes and stopped breathing while under the sheets. I had heard of a bloody apparition visiting my mother's sick friend.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 07/02/2020 15:39:03
I do recall one anecdote of prayer working. A visiting preacher told the congregation (I  used to sing in church choirs!) how he had prayed that his sick daughter could die in peace. His prayer was answered and just for one night no bombs fell on north London - the Luftwaffe destroyed Coventry Cathedral instead.

Hmmm. Interesting. Seems there was a price to pay - or at least make the man think carefully about what he prays for.

They say be careful what you wish for - you may just get it.
I rather think that the good citizens of Coventry were simultaneously praying not to be bombed. But it seems your god works in mysterious ways, and not for the benefit of humanity. A proper god would not have created congenital syphilis, for example.

A "proper" God with no evil or sickness would defeat the object of the virtual reality Game. STDs keep people a little less promiscuous.

It is a straw man argument to say God is perfect and then say he created imperfection. I do not say that. MY God is limited and is a player in the Game. This is why I say religion should update their narrative (not for the masses but for the skeptics). The Bible contains wisdom that the masses can accept, as do the texts of other religions. The apparent contradictions should be rationalized and explained - again for the skeptics
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2020 17:56:52
STDs keep people a little less promiscuous.
So, you don't know what congenital means...
. It is reliable and predictable.
If that was true, you could prove it.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/02/2020 21:44:18
If the spirits are willing to predict the outcome of elections, that actually could be used to statistically determine its accuracy. Predict the outcomes of many elections over time then tally up the accuracy of the results. I doesn't have to just be presidents.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/02/2020 06:14:06
STDs keep people a little less promiscuous.
So, you don't know what congenital means...
. It is reliable and predictable.
If that was true, you could prove it.

Congenital. Once more you nit-pick and make assumptions. But since God is guiding you to make comments that I can use to give more advice I will thank you.

There are consequences to actions and consequences to sin. STDs are one consequence of promiscuity and sometimes the consequence can affect many people. The Bible has a collection of topics that give people pause for thought and give advice on living a good life. The sins of the fathers is one consequence.

This advice is quite relevant in today's times. The sin of greed of businessmen and politicians is having consequences that are seriously affecting the next generations. Over-population and global warming. And Greta Thunberg is quite right that it is her generation that will bear the immediate brunt.

The sins of unchecked capitalism and the lack of concern for one's fellow man is a key driver of the global policies. In my first 12 years in the USA I used to be an ardent Republican capitalist with little sympathy for the poor and the lower classes. Perhaps that is why I have to suffer so much loss and pain in my old age. I am now quite committed to social justice and humankind must adapt or die. The rise of Bernie is a symptom.

The whole point of my message (from God, I claim) is that he will allow Satan to spread mutated viruses to kill off much of the population to correct the situation. And allow cell-phone microwaves to lessen immune systems. No-one is safe, not even the faithful because the laws of nature/physics are allowed to take their course. Some might be favored by God and be spared.

What God wants is for humankind to move away from naked self-centered business as usual to a more spiritual outlook where the teachings of Jesus are truly a model to aspire to. Remember how Christianity got its start. The plagues in Roman Empire, where Christians cared for others irrespective of faith or ethnicity, were a major booster. The teachings of Buddha are also good ones. Tao and Confucianism have good rules but are not so spiritual. Animism teaches us the closeness of spirits.  Hinduism has some key truths such as reincarnation and the Braham (the Ultimate Intelligence) but it is so complicated and verbose.

The consequence of the Black Plague equally balanced the scales where the Church and rich landowners were excessively powerful and were abusing the population. The wipe-out of the Danish royalty set the stage for democracy in that country. So this modern die-off will adjust the "sins" of materialism and narcissism.

I am being allowed to see and learn how spirit works in order to tell people that not only does God exist but spirit is there to help fight evil and to help humankind in its quest for self-improvement. If we die-out completely that will defeat the objective - except that the Ultimate Intelligence may just start another Game and tweak the system slightly to avoid the inevitable. Or there may be multiple Games (parallel universes) where humankind succeeds. We live in interesting times.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/02/2020 06:18:21
(snip).
. It is reliable and predictable.
If that was true, you could prove it.

To me. it is a proof, yes. One of many many examples.To you. it is an anecdote that you have to take on faith - an informed decision that I am not out for money or power, and am genuine.

I have been trying to remain anonymous but it seems I will not be allowed to do that for much longer. Events are pushing me to a public stance in a number of areas.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/02/2020 06:34:19
If the spirits are willing to predict the outcome of elections, that actually could be used to statistically determine its accuracy. Predict the outcomes of many elections over time then tally up the accuracy of the results. I doesn't have to just be presidents.

At least you are getting the concept of statistical proof. One has to ask what interest the spirits (overseen by God) have of assisting in making predictions that are correct. The answer is "They do not". Most of the high profile clairvoyants have an interest in money and fame and this makes the spirits disinclined to give correct advice. No doubt Satan will also be affecting results to cause confusion.

Choose the person and their background and motivation carefully. I take the position that if God did actually give me a message, and if God exists he has a plan and the message may get some public attention. If God does not exist, and I did not get a message then the opposite will happen and I will have to die (for real) to find out what lie beyond. Although I have doubts about everything, and will admit to those doubts, I have never wavered from the objective of getting the message there for people so that changes can happen in religion and in society.

I would happily subject myself to being quizzed and tested by a panel of experts in law, religion and science. They will not be able to make definitive judgements that I am doing anything but telling the truth. And if my claims are true then God and spirit exist.

Joan of Arc was able to withstand the fake trial she was subjected to. Her tormentor were clearly motivate by Satan and God allowed her to be put to death by fire. We all die, some more painfully than others. I endure my pain and suffering as long as I have a purpose and am not a burden.

One question is why was I allowed to do a public test on a website and get it right? The answer is that I do need some public credibility to my claims, otherwise they are simply personal anecdotes that could be the wild imaginings of a random person.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 10/02/2020 18:13:19
On Saturday I went to a hydro to recover somewhat. I find that when I do, I get "information" on topics relating to the Ultimate Intelligence and Reality.

I met a man who was a Christian Scientist. I had not looked at this religion because I considered it a branch of Christianity. Yes it is, but is has some interesting concepts. Here is the key one.

The scientific statement of being
“ There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter. All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all. Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error. Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal. Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness. Therefore man is not material; he is spiritual. ”
Mary Baker Eddy,


This is derived from:
"God is All-in all."
"God is good."
"God is Mind, and God is infinite; hence all is Mind."
The conclusions are that humans  are all perfect spiritual ideas of the one divine Mind, and manifest Spirit, not a material body.


This logic starts with the assumption that God exists, and Mary's experience was proof to her that He/She (God to her was both male and female) existed. I think that God and Souls are neither make nor female and that souls can reincarnate as either.

I said before that many of my concepts were already truths in various religions - and this one that does not derive from Brahman of the Hindu religion. But does say we are illusions in the Mind of an Infinite Intelligence. Mary Eddy did not see God and the Infinite as separate as I do. She dealt with evil as "errors" in Man's perceptions. Here she claims that prayer can heal and do miracles. She rejects the concept of Jesus as God.

Interestingly she rejected spiritualism. So I Googled this and found another concept that is in agreement with my experience and that is this in Wiki:

Swedenborg, who claimed to communicate with spirits while awake, described the structure of the spirit world. Two features of his view particularly resonated with the early Spiritualists: first, that there is not a single Hell and a single Heaven, but rather a series of higher and lower heavens and hells; second, that spirits are intermediates between God and humans, so that the divine sometimes uses them as a means of communication.

The article mentioned Spiritism. Spiritism (Wiki) believes that spirits reincarnate.

Spiritist philosophy postulates that humans, along with all other living beings, are essentially immortal spirits that temporarily inhabit physical bodies for several necessary incarnations to attain moral and intellectual improvement. It also asserts that disembodied spirits, through passive or active mediumship, may have beneficent or malevolent influence on the physical world. Spiritism is an evolution-affirming religion.

My experience is that spirits are temporary intermediates to souls and that souls are not necessarily immortal and can be terminated. Also that there are good and evil souls/spirits.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 10/02/2020 18:46:00
At the hydro I casually looked at a section of the books they had. One caught my eye. "Pandemics Progress" by Arno Karlen ISBN 0 575 400129. Written in 1996 he talks about the coming impact of global warming and warns that this and over-population will make a die-off of populations almost inevitable.

What he shows is that many pathogens become activated into attacking both animals and humans when the balance of eco-systems is disturbed either destructively as in de-forestation or constructively as rehabilitation of areas. It is also clear the pathogens are both mutating and new ones are being introduced.

Some pandemics came about as a result of improvement in sanitation and health. Bugger. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I will have to Google some of the issues from 1996 and see what the modern thinking is. But worth a read.

One concept stands out from all of this. Our immune systems are key. If immune systems are compromised then disease is not far behind. One cause of lowered immune systems in early societies was agriculture leading to nutritional deficiencies that hunters did not have because of their access to protein in the form of meat. This and poverty and war gave pathogens opportunity.

If cell phones lower immune systems, then the human species is headed for problems. My prediction was that immune systems would indeed be compromised and then a whole host of pathogens will reduce the population. So the corona virus is just a foretaste of what is too come, including societal disruption.

As part confirmation, my wife happened to speak to a man while they both waited for their cars to be washed. His wife has cervical cancer. My wife mentioned that cell towers can cause health problems. The man confirmed that they had moved into a house close to a cell tower and they have decided to sell because they have had a series of health problems in that house. His wife also had right upper arm pains and issue and that side also faced the tower.

Now for the part that I find interesting - he scoffed at the idea that the cell tower radiation was to blame.

I now have a number of stories about illnesses (like cancer and death) around towers, and most are just by way of chatting to strangers in stores and malls.

Another person at the hydro told me her cousin dropped dead from a heart attack at a mall parking lot. He was 42 years old.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2020 19:38:19
No doubt Satan will
Rather  a lot of doubt really.
The logical fallacy you employed there is called "begging the question".
Do you understand that by saying things that are clearly illogical, you undermine any attempts you make to put your views across?

They will not be able to make definitive judgements that I am doing anything but telling the truth.
That's just the sort of thing where using fallacies undermines you.

You know that it's fundamentally dishonest to use lies to make a point, but you use them.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2020 19:39:46
There are consequences to actions and consequences to sin. STDs are one consequence of promiscuity and sometimes the consequence can affect many people.
Still missing the point of the word "congenital".
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 11/02/2020 06:14:04
No doubt Satan will
Rather  a lot of doubt really.
The logical fallacy you employed there is called "begging the question".
Do you understand that by saying things that are clearly illogical, you undermine any attempts you make to put your views across?

They will not be able to make definitive judgements that I am doing anything but telling the truth.
That's just the sort of thing where using fallacies undermines you.

You know that it's fundamentally dishonest to use lies to make a point, but you use them.

You are spending too much time on the "Logical Fallacy" site. Trotting out cliches does not stimulate debate.

I have to be one of the more honest people in this world. There are times one has to avoid the blunt truth in order not to offend people and those are the times I have to be careful with my words so I do not deceive (a knowing falsehood or lie).

I would not use fallacies in an interview but facts. The truth as I have experienced it. Under cross examination the inconsistencies of lies comes to the fore. I have many experiences to support my hypothesis and there are simply no laws of physics which would explain them adequately.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 11/02/2020 06:31:31
There are consequences to actions and consequences to sin. STDs are one consequence of promiscuity and sometimes the consequence can affect many people.
Still missing the point of the word "congenital".

Congenital - Passed on from mother to child at birth.

Another point about children. People will condemn themselves in swearing an oath. Eg "Do you swear up your life that you are not lying?" Yes. "Do you swear upon your child's life that you are not lying?" Um, cannot do that.

So it is a grievous consequence to get syphilis.

Often it was soldiers with their camp followers that got it. Paid mercenaries and paid prostitutes is the other way to look at many armies in historical times (and some armies not fighting wars of survival in modern times). The problem was that they both took it back when they dispersed.

So marriage had at least two  benefits. No syphilis and children were raised by two parents which was necessary in times without modern appliances and outsourcing to do the house work, cooking and child rearing. Human children need 8 years of care as their brains grow and develop. A human couple has ongoing erotic desires to keep them together during this time. I see examples of child rearing in one parent homes and they are problematic. If society experiences upheavals due to a die-off, the strongest units will be married families. Back to basics. The singles in Wuhan must be struggling without another human in the house.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2020 08:59:44
You are spending too much time on the "Logical Fallacy" site.
Not, it seems as much time as you. You keep on digging them out and trying to use them.
Trotting out cliches does not stimulate debate.
Especially when the cliches are fallacies.
So, why do you keep doing it?

There are times one has to avoid the blunt truth in order not to offend people and those are the times I have to be careful with my words so I do not deceive (a knowing falsehood or lie).
And yet, unless you are too dim to recognise that's what you are doing, you keep on doing exactly that.
And I can only conclude that it's deliberate on your part.
Because you keep doing it after you have been repeatedly told.
You can't claim that you "don't know".

And I see you are still missing the point, so I will try to spell it out for you.
IT'S NOT THE CHILD'S FAULT.

You have a God that punishes the child for something the child didn't do. That's a s***y way to behave.
Let's face it, given the circumstances, it's likely the father doesn't even know that the child exists. He's unlikely to be put off by the "risk" of suffering by someone he will never meet.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 11/02/2020 13:20:01
(snip)
And I see you are still missing the point, so I will try to spell it out for you.
IT'S NOT THE CHILD'S FAULT.

You have a God that punishes the child for something the child didn't do. That's a s***y way to behave.
Let's face it, given the circumstances, it's likely the father doesn't even know that the child exists. He's unlikely to be put off by the "risk" of suffering by someone he will never meet.

I think I must repeat the basics of my hypothesis every so often to remind you that you are using the strawman of the Biblical God and the strawman that every pain and illness is a punishment meeted out by the Biblical God.

My God is not omni- all but is limited and for the most part observes and helps in small ways except to do some course corrections that are not observable by humankind. He assists by informing some people of how it all operates and has a person like Jesus do some miracles and gives some really profound lessons about good behavior. He will occasionally stop Satan from going too far or causing a disruption that may end the world.

Note that I spoke of "consequences" to actions. Not punishment by any entity. The laws of physics and the laws of nature work quite well and there is a very delicate balance in the ecosystem that corrects behaviors and events that would otherwise spin out of control. I spoke of the Bible giving good advice in general and did reference the phrase the "sins of the fathers" but did not endorse the phrase as punishment. You have attached that.

What is the difference between punishment and consequence? In earlier times, giving a science lecture to someone about the disruption to the ecological balance causing a direct or indirect negative consequence will be met with a blank stare. The target audience will sit up and take note of being punished for a sin and that punishment being extended to family. Do you not see how a religious text works? Taking the text too literally to try to attack the message is not the way to go.

There are 613 Biblical commandments that the Jewish faithful are to rigidly follow. The scholarly interpretations of just how to follow them (some are just avoided) run into volumes of legal language. (Two Jewish rabbis in an argument results in three different opinions.) Serious reasons for updating. Does God really care if one does a little "work" like turning on the light switch in the Sabbath? No. Many intelligent Jews are put off religion and God by such nit-picking adherence to an ancient text. Update the religion and bring in some science but don't throw out all the laws - such as the Ten Commandments.

Jesus taught in parables. Love thy neighbor. Who is your neighbor? The tale of the Good Samaritan. Many religious people have a problem with this one, depending on the race, religion and creed. The world needs cooperation not war to solve population problems. It will not happen so God will sit by and let nature take it's course. Punishment by God. No, just the consequence of humankind's greed and selfishness and warring nature.

However, I think God is prepared to get involved to "steer" how the situation turns out. He wants people to be more spiritual and to work together to balance the ecology. To limit births means a cooperative rearing of the fewer children. Have a group of 5 couples agree to raise 3 children together and share in the triumphs, failures and sorrows.

This is why I think I had a series of "lessons" with none of them absolute proof for even me. I may be wrong and misguided but if it is to be then God will arrange for it to happen.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2020 13:47:55
Water into wine. One could suppose that such a miracle was allowed. Although if a rich admirer anonymously donated a lot of wine and food, it could have been left for people to gossip about a miracle. Even if a fully true miracle - where is the proof that laws of physics were broken.
No carbon atoms in water. You should have known that.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2020 13:59:10
Congenital syphilis is not a punishment - a fetus can do no wrong so it can't be punished. It is a burden inflicted by god's living creation (a bacterium) on an innocent child. God is despicable, and drivelling on about the sins of the father being visited on the child just makes it more so - that's how filthy old perverts persuade teenagers to kill "unbelievers".
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 12/02/2020 04:41:32
Water into wine. One could suppose that such a miracle was allowed. Although if a rich admirer anonymously donated a lot of wine and food, it could have been left for people to gossip about a miracle. Even if a fully true miracle - where is the proof that laws of physics were broken.
No carbon atoms in water. You should have known that.

Strangely, I do know that. But what is the point? Water into wine is not alchemy which was an early science before they understood atoms and molecules.

I am claiming that the physical Universe that we have thought of as solid and immutable is simply an illusion and we are in the dream of the Ultimate Intelligence. Nothing is impossible, but breaking the laws of physics is rare and unprovable.

When I was in a lucid dream I could not at first tell whether I was dreaming or not, although I had a suspicion I was. I pinched myself and it hurt so that test did not work. I then said that if it was MY dream I could change things and I changed the clouds into cauliflower. And of course, I woke up in the morning. In the dream of the Ultimate Intelligence one wakes up after one dies, and you find yourself saying "Of course it was all unreal. This is the real reality". How do I know? Because it happened to me. I came back to where I left off and the Ultimate Intelligence told me I would think I had an hallucination but I would remember my time there. Neat trick. Did I or didn't I? If not for all the many other breaks of reality in my life, I would have simply dismissed it as such.

So we have two realities. One is the physical reality of our everyday lives where the laws of physics can be relied upon. The other is the reality of interaction with spirit and the very small possibility that the laws of physics are broken not by scientific formula but by an intelligence that decides when and how the laws will be broken.

I keep going back to how I knew for certain a biker would die on the road ahead of me on a clear uneventful ordinary day. And he did. No accident. Possibly a heart attack. That was no idle thought and no trick of the mind.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 12/02/2020 05:21:52
Congenital syphilis is not a punishment - a fetus can do no wrong so it can't be punished. It is a burden inflicted by god's living creation (a bacterium) on an innocent child. God is despicable, and drivelling on about the sins of the father being visited on the child just makes it more so - that's how filthy old perverts persuade teenagers to kill "unbelievers".

The issue of punishment is a complex one.

But an aside. Your emotive language shows that "brotherly love" for all humankind is not something you try to practice. Every religion has its extremists - not only the Islamic religion but the Jewish and Christian religions as well. Some extremists are driven to extremes by circumstances (conflict and disruption mostly) and some by idealistic choice thinking they are doing something noble. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Could you put yourself in the other person's shoes and at least understand the motivations?

I am not a brotherly love type of person. I am a fighter and I want vengeance on those who do me wrong. I try not to be that way but it is hard. I see and experience so much evil and wrong that part of me says that a purge of humankind would have some benefits.

In my late teens and my twenties I had real hatred for those who wronged me. I had a mental (s)hit list and one by one those people suffered. One man got ill for a year and the foreman of the company he owned defrauded him and his wife of most of their money. They both got poetic justice because that is how they got rich - by defrauding the owner of the company they took over.  The lawyer for my second wife was a nasty piece of work and he was high on my list. Years after someone I was no longer friends with sent a newspaper clipping to the place I worked at. The lawyer had been disbarred, his wife divorced him, he had his leg broken and he got 15 years in jail.

But I realized that my wishes had a boomerang effect. There was a price to pay. It was not God answering my wishes but Satan. And yes, there is a spiritual consequence. I stopped wishing ill on my enemies but I did ask God to take note and to give them earthly retribution or at least judge them in the afterlife. It at least allowed me to move on. I do not forget and will only forgive when there is true repentance.

So does God punish evil doers? I think the answer is "Sometimes". It could also be that God allows Satan to punish them. So maybe God never gets his hands dirty so to speak and he remains the good guy. It is not only ecology that has a fine balance.

Now about the "punishment" of innocent children. This is a very strong motivator for hating God. Life is lessons we must all learn but the learning is that of the soul that evolves. Suffering is part of life. Buddha realized and taught that. So when a child dies or suffers, the soul that grew with that fetus goes through a learning process. That soul could have volunteered for that fetus knowing what was ahead, and knowing that a lesson would be learned by the parents.

Reincarnation was a belief of some Jews and Christians around the time of Christ if my memory serves me. It allows us to look at some of life's hardships in a different way. Although I am currently suffering very badly I endure it and take it as part of the spiritual lesson my soul must go through. I do not like it and pray to God to take it away. He has not and probably will not. So be it.

Here I will throw out another contentious matter. Some Jews believe that God punishes them. The God of the Old Testament was a vengeful God. God updated the Jewish religion by sending Jesus to give a new message. Some changed, some did not. What about the holocaust? Was that punishment? And if so - for what? What part did Satan play in all of that horror? Did God just permit Satan to subtly interfere to wreak such destruction? How does one judge God's non-involvement?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 12/02/2020 05:40:53
This is an aside. Sometimes I know things. And sometimes I am wrong because I have not sat down with the cards or gone through a process of trying to get information from spirit. I am human with human emotions and human frailties. I was however a very high performing human who was not subject to brain malfunctions. Now I am, as I age, and I can see the difference, even though I still perform at a much higher level than many I interact with.

A few weeks ago the name Amy Klobuchar just kept resonating in my head. I thought it was because of the sounding of the name. I now think that it might be that she could become the Democratic candidate. This might be because she has fewer negatives. I like Bernie and what he stands for and always have but he is a socialist and a number of Americans are not ready for socialism. Biden I never liked, and Bloomberg is too much of an elite billionaire. Not sure what to make of Buttigieg. Strange name and it is funny how names can affect judgment. Standing in the poll booth - Trump or Butter-who?

Let's not get off on a tangent. I am just explaining that I will not do the Tarot cards to see if my human feelings are correct (because it is a blatant test), and I will not take credit for a prediction if I am correct.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 12/02/2020 06:51:20
@Alan
Just another thought while I was having breakfast on our porch.

When I was young I was somewhat autistic. I did not understand why people got emotional about things. Things were logical. So was pain and death. Why did my mother and her sisters get hysterical when her father died. He was 77. Old. It was his time. He even cracked a joke on his death-bed. When people asked him how he felt he would say "I feel with my hands - how do you feel?". So as he lay dying with his children and doctor in attendance one asked him how he was feeling. They knew he could hear but could not talk. It was just something to say. But up came his hand and he rubbed his fingers together. The doctor had to give six sisters tranquilizers. I imagined him smiling inside - he knew his daughters.

When I was about 13 I was a hard atheist and believed that the world consisted of atoms and molecules and that we were just machines. So I could not understand the trauma of family when a dog savaged a kitten and they were too upset to take action. I took the kitten and held it in a bucket of water to end its suffering. Mostly to end the trauma of the family. It struggled and I just took the view it was a machine reacting to dying.

I have changed a heck of a lot and am now very empathetic. I still imagine pain to be simply electrical impulses going to my brain and to thus ignore them. I let the dentist work without anesthetic for example, and have burnt off growths with a soldering iron. But I feel other peoples pain and sorrow and my own loss of my late wife in 2011 (sixth wife).

So my question to atheists is: Why get upset about suffering of people and children? Surely, in your view, they and you are just a collection of unfeeling molecules with no meaning to life because it is simply an accident, why get upset? God or no God, why does it bother you? You may reply that you are programmed to feel and react but why not just overcome your programming because it causes you distress?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/02/2020 11:56:23
Please don't pretend to tell me what I think. Such arrogance is the mark of a Believer and is unbecoming to a gentleman.

Humans have evolved as particularly collaborative and social animals. You might "overcome your programming" and live a solitary, disconnected life,  but for most of us, society is fun and collaboration is more effective than adiabatic self-sufficiency. Empathy drives the social lubricant.

As Dawkins pointed out, the only thing all religions have in common is that they teach you to despise all the others.  And here we have the purest example: a theist having the unmitigated gall to tell another human what he thinks about his friends and family, simply because he doesn't share your bizarre superstition.

If you want to be taken seriously, acquire some intellectual humility and scepticism.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 12/02/2020 16:13:09
Please don't pretend to tell me what I think. Such arrogance is the mark of a Believer and is unbecoming to a gentleman.

Humans have evolved as particularly collaborative and social animals. You might "overcome your programming" and live a solitary, disconnected life,  but for most of us, society is fun and collaboration is more effective than adiabatic self-sufficiency. Empathy drives the social lubricant.

As Dawkins pointed out, the only thing all religions have in common is that they teach you to despise all the others.  And here we have the purest example: a theist having the unmitigated gall to tell another human what he thinks about his friends and family, simply because he doesn't share your bizarre superstition.

If you want to be taken seriously, acquire some intellectual humility and scepticism.

Oooff. You know how to hurt a guy.  I did not think you would take my comments so personally. You force me to apologize when I intended no disrespect personally. I am sorry you found my comments personally offensive.

I am not sure how to respond now, so I will leave it and give it some thought.

You are certainly intellectually formidable because you interpret my actions (incorrectly in my view) while bashing me as a believer and also bashing religion. I feel I am being forced to respond to a "Do you still beat your wife?" comment. Hmmm.

I will sleep on it and respond tomorrow.

Edited to add. Just a correction. I am very sociable and have been invited to many functions because people enjoy my interaction. Even when I was a teenager I was very popular and mixed well.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2020 19:06:56
My God is not omni- all but is limited
So, not actually God then.
Why are you cluttering up someone else's thread about God with your personal nonsensical opinions?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 13/02/2020 05:22:38
Please don't pretend to tell me what I think. Such arrogance is the mark of a Believer and is unbecoming to a gentleman.

Humans have evolved as particularly collaborative and social animals. You might "overcome your programming" and live a solitary, disconnected life,  but for most of us, society is fun and collaboration is more effective than adiabatic self-sufficiency. Empathy drives the social lubricant.

As Dawkins pointed out, the only thing all religions have in common is that they teach you to despise all the others.  And here we have the purest example: a theist having the unmitigated gall to tell another human what he thinks about his friends and family, simply because he doesn't share your bizarre superstition.

If you want to be taken seriously, acquire some intellectual humility and scepticism.

I see what happened. I wanted to respond to this post by Alan.
Congenital syphilis is not a punishment - a fetus can do no wrong so it can't be punished. It is a burden inflicted by god's living creation (a bacterium) on an innocent child. God is despicable, and drivelling on about the sins of the father being visited on the child just makes it more so - that's how filthy old perverts persuade teenagers to kill "unbelievers".

I was in a hurry and instead of quoting I used @Alan thereby making it personal. However, the point I made was this
So my question to atheists is: Why get upset about suffering of people and children? Surely, in your view, they and you are just a collection of unfeeling molecules with no meaning to life because it is simply an accident, why get upset? God or no God, why does it bother you? You may reply that you are programmed to feel and react but why not just overcome your programming because it causes you distress?

And then I get told I am telling people what they think - followed by various remarks.

I have to take some blame for the mistake and express regret, but I stand by my remarks as they apply to people who think we are simply machines and a collection of unthinking unfeeling dumb molecules that happened by some unremarkable mistake.

Alan pointed out (as I expected) that it was evolutionary programming to assist in human cooperation. I take the point but would add the following comments.

Why then the very emotive anger in this statement:
"God is despicable, and drivelling on about the sins of the father being visited on the child just makes it more so - that's how filthy old perverts persuade teenagers to kill "unbelievers""?
How does this assist in the international and religious cooperation that I have been saying is needed to reduce GLOBAL  population without war?

There are many times at two in the morning when I feel the cold touch of death close to me. It is at such times that I feel like a machine about to be turned off. I realize I have no faith - I have a chosen belief system that I retain skepticism about. My mood is that there is no meaning in life and that everything I have achieved in life is meaningless. And it is. When I was a young atheist having adventure and fun, I did not dwell in such things except in some of those dark hours that I got even then.

I have been blessed to be able to be the beneficiary of experiences that give me hope that there is a God and is an afterlife. I can see how a true believer can be inspired to do great things and strive to make the world a better place. This is a good for society and has helped humankind in an evolutionary way.

The mistake Christian religion makes is to make God omni-powerful and the creator of everything. This leads to the logical conclusion that God created evil and that God does evil despite being only good. It is a contradiction. The Ultimate Intelligence I experienced was amoral, asexual and bored. God was it's creation and so was Satan. And the rules of the Game/Dream are much the same as the entertainment world - good versus evil.

Religion needs constant updating, and this does not mean that people should not pray to God and get the rewards of a good life. Note - good atheists can get the afterlife rewards as well although I think that bashing believers will not be seen as "good". Offering criticism and pointing out inconsistencies in a respectful way is good. There has always been an small infection of evil people in the various priesthoods, and they need to be taken to task and exposed.

I think people like Dawkins may be going too far and and misleading people. By coincidence my wife said to me last night "Why am I getting this video?"  A short clip about "The Atheist Delusion". Dawkins is depicted as saying the universe came from nothing and people laughed because he could not see the conundrum. "Nothing from nothing".

And that is the weakness of atheism. It cannot explain the emergence of intelligence from nothing. Krauss admits there must have been something but then points to various mathematical theories that are not helpful.

Does this mean that religion should be scrapped? What should take its place? No rituals, no prayer, a belief that nothingness is all-powerful. I do not see the tenets of atheism assisting society when it most needs it.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 13/02/2020 05:26:16
My God is not omni- all but is limited
So, not actually God then.
Why are you cluttering up someone else's thread about God with your personal nonsensical opinions?

Yes - God. And as powerful as most religions see him. But not the Ultimate Creator. The Ultimate Intelligence may have allowed God to do the Creation but the purpose was set and so was the creation of Satan. For all intents and purposes it is the same God of believers and need not be diminished except for the slight caveat that I postulate.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2020 07:22:19
Yes - God
But not the Ultimate Creator.
Yeah, sure, OK.
Why get upset about suffering of people and children? Surely, in your view, they and you are just a collection of unfeeling molecules
Feeling is an emergent property.
Your failure to understand that may, in part, explain why you spout so much nonsense.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/02/2020 09:17:32
How does this assist in the international and religious cooperation that I have been saying is needed to reduce GLOBAL  population without war?
It is in the essential nature of nations and religions to despise each other!

Conflicts occur at boundaries. Nations are defined by boundaries.

Religions are about superstition outranking rational thought. Most religions give authority to old perverts who, like politicians, make their living by persuading otherwise normal people to fear difference.

War does very little to reduce population. Time was that it killed the fittest and cleverest  young men, but you don't need many males to repopulate, so the quality of the stock decreases as the numbers recover. Nowadays war is mostly about bombing those too old or poor to leave their homes, so again it has little effect on numbers but merely irritates and impoverishes the middle aged and  middle classes, who become refugees and improve the stock of their new host countries. But I digress.

Quote
And that is the weakness of atheism. It cannot explain the emergence of intelligence from nothing.
Time was that it couldn't explain thunder, microbial disease, or why the earth isn't flat. But the atheist starting position  has proved a lot more fruitful than "God did it for reasons we cannot understand, so we must sacrifice virgins to make the sun rise" or whatever anti-intellectual and dehumanising filth your local priest happened to be selling. So on the basis of proven performance to date, I suspect the atheist stance will get us a lot closer to understanding the origin of the universe than anything based on sky fairies. I don't have a problem with the principle of spontaneous ex nihilo creation but I'm not sure how to verify it.

One reason I enjoy science is that it transcends the boundaries erected by political and religious scum. The rainbow I see results from the same physics as the rainbow you see. But some old pervert tells me that the rainbow created by Allah is better than the one created by Jehova, so I have to kill you for believing otherwise and thus insulting Allah.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/02/2020 09:19:53
No name I know of for any of the gods/devils or angels/demons. Just know that is it highly likely they exist and can be dealt with. It may be that a Hindu has a separate reality to a Christian but I doubt it. Some small aspects could differ but when compared there will be not differences.

If one prays for war and destruction then Satan by any name is similar to Shiva. No need for names except to direct a prayer or to discuss a common element. I prefer addressing God directly as "God". Not my lord or any other title. Hardly ever address Jesus directly but have on the odd occasion.

Some people who see spirit see different ones. Gabriel might be one. I do not see spirits (only one when I was a teenager but I accept I might have seen shadows in the middle of the night).

When I was a teenager a man got run over and killed at about midnight. His spirit came down the passage with heavy thumping feet and then heavy breathing into my bedroom. Excited at first, I chickened out and closed my eyes and stopped breathing while under the sheets. I had heard of a bloody apparition visiting my mother's sick friend.
How do you determine that your god is the correct one?
How do you determine that many other gods are the wrong ones?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 13/02/2020 15:48:00
Yes - God
But not the Ultimate Creator.
Yeah, sure, OK.
Why get upset about suffering of people and children? Surely, in your view, they and you are just a collection of unfeeling molecules
Feeling is an emergent property.
Your failure to understand that may, in part, explain why you spout so much nonsense.

Okay, you got it. Finally!
Emergent property. Groan. To me this was such an easy one that I decided to search for a simple explanation from others who also understand what you are trying to do. And I got one which is wordy but gives a full explanation so we can end with my comment of "Emergent - sounds nice but says nothing".

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence (slightly shortened)

I have lost track of how many times I have heard people say, “Intelligence is an emergent phenomenon!” as if that explained intelligence. This usage fits all the checklist items for a mysterious answer to a mysterious question. What do you know, after you have said that intelligence is “emergent”? You can make no new predictions. You do not know anything about the behavior of real-world minds that you did not know before.

It feels like you believe a new fact, but you don’t anticipate any different outcomes. Your curiosity feels sated, but it has not been fed. The hypothesis has no moving parts—there’s no detailed internal model to manipulate. Those who proffer the hypothesis of “emergence” confess their ignorance of the internals, and take pride in it; they contrast the science of “emergence” to other sciences merely mundane.

And even after the answer of “Why? Emergence!” is given, the phenomenon is still a mystery and possesses the same sacred impenetrability it had at the start.

A fun exercise is to eliminate the adjective “emergent” from any sentence in which it appears, and see if the sentence says anything different:

    Before:Human intelligence is an emergent product of neurons firing.
    After:Human intelligence is a product of neurons firing.
    Before:The behavior of the ant colony is the emergent outcome of the interactions of many individual ants.
    After:The behavior of the ant colony is the outcome of the interactions of many individual ants.
    Even better:A colony is made of ants. We can successfully predict some aspects of colony behavior using models that include only individual ants, without any global colony variables, showing that we understand how those colony behaviors arise from ant behaviors.

Another fun exercise is to replace the word “emergent” with the old word, the explanation that people had to use before emergence was invented:

    Before: Life is an emergent phenomenon.
    After: Life is a magical phenomenon.
    Before: Human intelligence is an emergent product of neurons firing.
    After: Human intelligence is a magical product of neurons firing.

Does not each statement convey exactly the same amount of knowledge about the phenomenon’s behavior? Does not each hypothesis fit exactly the same set of outcomes?

“Emergence” has become very popular, just as saying “magic” used to be very popular. “Emergence” has the same deep appeal to human psychology, for the same reason. “Emergence” is such a wonderfully easy explanation, and it feels good to say it; it gives you a sacred mystery to worship. Emergence is popular because it is the junk food of curiosity. You can explain anything using emergence, and so people do just that; for it feels so wonderful to explain things.

Humans are still humans, even if they’ve taken a few science classes in college. Once they find a way to escape the shackles of settled science, they get up to the same shenanigans as their ancestors—dressed up in the literary genre of “science,” but humans are still humans, and human psychology is still human psychology.


Comprende amigo?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 13/02/2020 16:11:43
No name I know of for any of the gods/devils or angels/demons. Just know that is it highly likely they exist and can be dealt with. It may be that a Hindu has a separate reality to a Christian but I doubt it. Some small aspects could differ but when compared there will be not differences.

If one prays for war and destruction then Satan by any name is similar to Shiva. No need for names except to direct a prayer or to discuss a common element. I prefer addressing God directly as "God". Not my lord or any other title. Hardly ever address Jesus directly but have on the odd occasion.

Some people who see spirit see different ones. Gabriel might be one. I do not see spirits (only one when I was a teenager but I accept I might have seen shadows in the middle of the night).

When I was a teenager a man got run over and killed at about midnight. His spirit came down the passage with heavy thumping feet and then heavy breathing into my bedroom. Excited at first, I chickened out and closed my eyes and stopped breathing while under the sheets. I had heard of a bloody apparition visiting my mother's sick friend.
How do you determine that your god is the correct one?
How do you determine that many other gods are the wrong ones?

Nice question.

There is only one God who is good and does good. If one listens to the prophets and wise men whose teachings have endured you will find the common thread of Do Right and Do Good with the added Respect God. If you pray to any God (defined as a Higher Power) your prayer will get listened to. Whether it gets action is not predictable because we cannot know where the Game is taking us and are not privy to a full set of the rules.

There is however an Evil force with names such as Satan, the Devil and so on. If you have bad intentions and evil in your mind your prayers will be heard by both God and Satan and God may allow Satan to answer your prayer. But it comes at a price. There are many movies dealing with this theme. It is not just entertainment, it is a truism.

You may get someone you hate to be plagued by a curse and God may allow it because that person needs a lesson of some sort. Or God could just let it happen to a person who should not be harmed, but I do not think that happens. I take risks that others are fearful of, and I confront evil when I can. I do so because I take the position that God will protect me. Why me? Because I try to be good and spread good and help spread some of the concepts I am espousing here. I am also fatalistic saying that it I am wrong, well, so be it. It gives me confidence, but I am not reckless.

Just how many Gods are there? Not many, once one eliminates the gods of mythology. The Hindu and Buddhist gods one sees in literature and the temple have attributes so praying to a God of Fertility is generally a good thing and it means that the One God will hear the prayer. A Hindu professor told me that Hinduism has One God only, and the various minor gods are just aspects of the One God. See how one can update a religion so as to be consistent with others?

If one prays to Jesus or a Saint they are intermediaries and ultimately the One God hears.

When I do the Tarot I make sure my intentions and the questions are in line with good outcomes.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 13/02/2020 16:32:42
I will do more posting in response but I want to deal with something that has been in the back of my mind.

Proof of God. I have said that one should look for instances where the laws of physics are violated. There are two that I think are relevant.

One is the flagellum.

 https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex

It is a highly complex molecular machine. Protruding from many bacteria are long spiral propellers attached to motors that drive their rotation. The only way the flagellum could have arisen, some claim, is by design.

...It has been proposed that the flagellum originated from a protein export system. Over time, this system might have been adapted to attach a bacterium to a surface by extruding an adhesive filament. An ion-powered pump for expelling substances from the cell might then have mutated to form the basis of a rotary motor. Rotating any asymmetrical filament would propel a cell and give it a huge advantage over non-motile bacteria even before more spiral filaments evolved.

Finally, in some bacteria flagella became linked to an existing system for directing movement in response to the environment. In E. coli, it works by changing flagella rotation from anticlockwise to clockwise and back again, causing a cell to tumble and then head off in a new direction.

Without a time machine it may never be possible to prove that this is how the flagellum evolved. However, what has been discovered so far – that flagella vary greatly and that at least some of the components and proteins of which they are made can carry out other useful functions in the cells – show that they are not “irreducibly complex”.

More generally, the fact that today’s biologists cannot provide a definitive account of how every single structure or organism evolved proves nothing about design versus evolution. Biology is still in its infancy, and even when our understanding of life and its history is far more complete, our ability to reconstruct what happened billions of years ago will still be limited.


Guessing at the complexity of the evolution. Here we have an assumption that it HAD to be evolution so there must be a series of steps because it CANNOT be God's design.

Examine the complexity. Bearings, rotor, stator, energy driven, and a control system. For dumb molecules to craft such an entity is remarkable (magic - and not an emergent property - wink wink).

My hypothesis is that God knew that he would creating a biological entity so complex it could be used to argue Intelligent Design. Not absolute proof but a strong hint.

The only argument against it is - No, No, No - and why - because I said so.

The other is the built-in programming in various brains. Example - a deer is born and can run and avoid a tree and run away from a predator.

Tell me you can find the genetic sequence and alter it so that the deer runs into the tree because it thinks it is an escape route. I say the soul does the fine tweaking of the neural programming. What about the ability of humans to look at numbers and just do the math in their head. Change the sequence to make get the math wrong for any numbers with a zeros at the end.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 13/02/2020 16:40:41
(snip)
It is in the essential nature of nations and religions to despise each other!
(snip)
One reason I enjoy science is that it transcends the boundaries erected by political and religious scum. The rainbow I see results from the same physics as the rainbow you see. But some old pervert tells me that the rainbow created by Allah is better than the one created by Jehova, so I have to kill you for believing otherwise and thus insulting Allah.

This needs more time than I have at the moment to address. You are emoting based on false facts and fake news.

I will respond tomorrow.

(And possibly fears introduced at childhood if you attended religious ceremonies in the Jewish faith - but you would have to give some personal information about this. Instead of being insulted, you might learn something. My motivation is not malicious.)
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2020 19:57:51
You are emoting based on false facts
Says the man who posted this earlier
Why get upset about suffering of people and children? Surely, in your view, they and you are just a collection of unfeeling molecules with no meaning to life
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2020 20:02:19
Tell me you can find the genetic sequence and alter it so that the deer runs into the tree because it thinks it is an escape route.

OK, how about altering the brain chemistry of mice so that they are no longer repelled by the smell of cat urine (which is normally an innate response)?

Is that close enough to the idea of getting deer to run into trees?

If not, please explain the essential difference.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130918181110.htm
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/02/2020 22:06:52
Why get upset about suffering of people and children? Surely, in your view, they and you are just a collection of unfeeling molecules with no meaning to life because it is simply an accident, why get upset?

This is a bizarre argument. Assuming that atheists are not p-zombies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie), they would be well aware that they have the capacity to suffer. As such, they should assume that other humans can suffer too. Even if individual molecules can't feel, human beings obviously can.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/02/2020 04:41:46
You are emoting based on false facts
Says the man who posted this earlier
Why get upset about suffering of people and children? Surely, in your view, they and you are just a collection of unfeeling molecules with no meaning to life

No contradiction in my statements. I am pointing out a contradiction in those who claim that we are machines made up of unfeeling molecules and yet having some serious emotions about believers and evil. Would it not be logical for them to look at the world as just machines misoperating? Suffering is just electronic impulses. I can get into that state of mind even though I am of the opinion I have a soul. So I wonder why non-believers are so irrationally emotional.

I am given the answer that all of us are human and all of us are programmed by evolution and that evolution promotes empathy. I am okay with that. I just wonder where the innate programming comes from, and why an atheists belief system does not moderate their views. If I were to view the answer from the perspective of humans just being machines is that they are damaged goods. I suppose I could get mechanically emotional about the damage to society that they cause.

From the point of view of a believer I take the view that they would benefit from the better aspects of religion. Love they neighbor and so use cooperation to solve the worlds problems. There are organizations that solve human problems such as alcoholism, and the one I worked with my late wife where the methodology rehabilitated murderers and criminal. They ask people to rely on a Higher Power for help. The success rate is far better than if there were no spiritual aspect. One could argue that it is human psychology to use religion as a crutch. Well, the answer to that is that if religion works to heal and to bring cooperation then why abandon religion? Why not improve it as I am trying to do? One could retain their skepticism (as I do) and yet choose to believe and follow the good and pray for good and do good.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/02/2020 05:03:47
Why get upset about suffering of people and children? Surely, in your view, they and you are just a collection of unfeeling molecules with no meaning to life because it is simply an accident, why get upset?

This is a bizarre argument. Assuming that atheists are not p-zombies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie), they would be well aware that they have the capacity to suffer. As such, they should assume that other humans can suffer too. Even if individual molecules can't feel, human beings obviously can.

I was trying to show that a logical machine (which I once was) would view life as mechanical and therefore meaningless. If there is no meaning to life then killing it just switching off another machine. Which it how I viewed killing the cat when I was a teenager. I was still moral in that I did it to relieve the suffering. I could just as easily have let it die slowly on the basis that suffering is just electronic impulses. I am pointing out that if one takes atheism with a mechanical belief to its logical conclusion then morality and doing good are meaningless. If meaningless, why get emotional?

The response I get it that it helps society and is a survival trait. But this it just one step up from individuals. Why worry about survival and society if termination is just the non-functioning of machines? My feeling is that we have souls and God and Satan can decide to send us in a different direction.

When I was about 60 years old and much more emotional (I now cry and hurt emotionally very easily - although I can turn it off) I was faced with having to put some dying sheep out of their misery. A dog had savaged their rear ends and they were sitting and bleeding to death. I did not have a gun or a knife so I used a rock and crushed their skulls. Here I went into mechanical mode but I also felt I was releasing their souls. Same as when I had to stop the suffering of a cow dying from a horrendously bad birthing process. I cut its throat.

Somehow I had a built-in morality. I hated being embarrassed by doing something that others disapproved of. No doubt my parents and teachers had a role to play. I got a lot of spankings and be caned, but they did not really bother me after a while. In some, I had a choice mostly - do my homework or get beaten. I chose to get beaten - daily. It was over and done with in a few minutes as opposed to homework (which I did not need) taking hours.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/02/2020 05:16:39
Tell me you can find the genetic sequence and alter it so that the deer runs into the tree because it thinks it is an escape route.

OK, how about altering the brain chemistry of mice so that they are no longer repelled by the smell of cat urine (which is normally an innate response)?

Is that close enough to the idea of getting deer to run into trees?

If not, please explain the essential difference.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130918181110.htm

Surely you can see the essential difference without me having to explain. But I will help you:

One process damages a brain (cat's fear center damaged) and one involves changing the programming of a brain that started out as a single fertilized cell.

100 billion brain cells and 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. If we were deers, figure out how the information to construct the image of a tree is programmed in their genome.

You would have done better to cite the zombie fungus that affects the behavior of an ant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis
Of course, that example shows how a collection of spores is acting cooperatively to achieve a remarkable result. Do they have souls that communicate? That leads me to mental telepathy. I have lots of personal proof of that phenomenon.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2020 06:39:20
cat's fear center
That's essentially the same as a "don't run into trees" centre.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2020 06:40:11
. I have lots of personal proof
i.e. not "proof".
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/02/2020 08:24:18
There is only one God who is good and does good. If one listens to the prophets and wise men whose teachings have endured you will find the common thread of Do Right and Do Good with the added Respect God. If you pray to any God (defined as a Higher Power) your prayer will get listened to. Whether it gets action is not predictable because we cannot know where the Game is taking us and are not privy to a full set of the rules.
How do we know that when something good happens to an Indian citizen, it's the work of the same god as when something good happens to a Pakistani citizen?
How do we know if something is good or bad? What if a good thing for us is a bad thing for someone else?

Just how many Gods are there? Not many, once one eliminates the gods of mythology. The Hindu and Buddhist gods one sees in literature and the temple have attributes so praying to a God of Fertility is generally a good thing and it means that the One God will hear the prayer. A Hindu professor told me that Hinduism has One God only, and the various minor gods are just aspects of the One God. See how one can update a religion so as to be consistent with others?
Many people think that Yahweh is a god of mythology.

If one prays to Jesus or a Saint they are intermediaries and ultimately the One God hears.
Can't a real god listen to the prayer directly?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/02/2020 09:02:29
Scientists have continuously improved their understanding about consciousness. Here is one of newest results.
Quote
In a wild new experiment conducted on monkeys, scientists discovered that a tiny, but powerful area of the brain may enable consciousness: the central lateral thalamus. Activation of the central lateral thalamus and deep layers of the cerebral cortex drives pathways in the brain that carry information between the parietal and frontal lobe in the brain, the study suggests.
This brain circuit works as a sort-of “engine for consciousness,” the researchers say, enabling conscious thought and feeling in primates.

To zero in on this brain circuit, a scientific team put macaque monkeys under anesthesia, then stimulated different parts of their brain with electrodes at a frequency of 50 Hertz. Essentially, they zapped different areas of the brain and observed how the monkeys responded. When the central lateral thalamus was stimulated, the monkeys woke up and their brain function resumed — even though they were STILL UNDER ANESTHESIA. Seconds after the scientists switched off the stimulation, the monkeys went right back to sleep.

This research was published Wednesday in the journal Neuron.

“Science doesn’t often leave opportunity for exhilaration, but that’s what that moment was like for those of us who were in the room,” co-author Michelle Redinbaugh, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, tells Inverse.
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/3d-brain-models-crucial-stage-of-human-development
https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(20)30005-2
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/02/2020 12:14:31
This needs more time than I have at the moment to address. You are emoting based on false facts and fake news.
Nothing fake about pogroms, jihad, inquisition, crusades, regular sectarian bloodshed east of Suez, the knuckledraggers in Northern Ireland who throw stones at children whose parents are assumed to worship the same god through a different rite, or those perverts who practice celibacy with choirboys. 

Quote
And possibly fears introduced at childhood if you attended religious ceremonies in the Jewish faith - but you would have to give some personal information about this.
Interestingly, Jewish ceremonies and calendar events are mostly about celebration and feasting, from weekly Shabbat to serious Pesach nosh-ups, with Purim and Chanukah particularly for the kids, and all accompanied by singing, music, and good wine (not asserted to be the blood of a dead rabbi). Yom Kippur is about personal and group atonement for things actually done, not fear of retribution for things not done. Self-flagellation and walking up steps on your knees for fear of spending eternity in Hell because you haven't attended enough Masses, are inflicted by the perverted on the gullible, not us.   
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/02/2020 16:44:51
cat's fear center
That's essentially the same as a "don't run into trees" centre.

Did you get the difference between destroy the center and construct the center?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/02/2020 17:02:04
. I have lots of personal proof
i.e. not "proof".

Let me see. I hypnotize a young girl when I was a teenager and ask her to read minds. She says that Girl A has a crush on Boy B. Girl A blushed red-faced. The other girls break out laughing and say "But you say you dislike him a lot". Since I was aware of sub-vocalization I sent the others into another room. The mind reading still happened accurately.

I tested it by checking the time (about 10 minutes past 9 or so) and thinking hard that a friend should check the time and remember it. The next day I ask her if anything unusual happened last night that she remembers. "Yes. I felt I had to check the time. It was such a strong feeling that I got up and went to the kitchen to be sure the time was correct." Pretty much to the minute.

I went to stay with a friend. He said the woman next door was an exhibitionist who would have sex in front of the open window on the 11 floor and scream her heart out. The whole building watched and listened to her. From his window he had a very close view. I was in bed when I heard the screaming and my friend was not there. I went to the window and moved the curtains slightly. Sure enough she was on her back and very active. But the moment I saw her, she suddenly stopped and looked out her window to the window I was at. I was in darkness and had moved the curtain ever so slightly so there was no way she could see me. I moved away and heard her close the curtains and was quiet. No more exhibitionism from her from then on. Clearly there was a mental connection that was sudden and startlingly to her. What it was I have no idea. I was simply curious and not judgmental.

So I could on and on. But you surely get the idea. And what you would call that but personal proof?

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/02/2020 17:17:46
Scientists have continuously improved their understanding about consciousness. Here is one of newest results.
Quote
In a wild new experiment conducted on monkeys, scientists discovered that a tiny, but powerful area of the brain may enable consciousness: the central lateral thalamus. Activation of the central lateral thalamus and deep layers of the cerebral cortex drives pathways in the brain that carry information between the parietal and frontal lobe in the brain, the study suggests.
This brain circuit works as a sort-of “engine for consciousness,” the researchers say, enabling conscious thought and feeling in primates.

To zero in on this brain circuit, a scientific team put macaque monkeys under anesthesia, then stimulated different parts of their brain with electrodes at a frequency of 50 Hertz. Essentially, they zapped different areas of the brain and observed how the monkeys responded. When the central lateral thalamus was stimulated, the monkeys woke up and their brain function resumed — even though they were STILL UNDER ANESTHESIA. Seconds after the scientists switched off the stimulation, the monkeys went right back to sleep.

This research was published Wednesday in the journal Neuron.

“Science doesn’t often leave opportunity for exhilaration, but that’s what that moment was like for those of us who were in the room,” co-author Michelle Redinbaugh, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, tells Inverse.
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/3d-brain-models-crucial-stage-of-human-development
https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(20)30005-2

Thanks for those links. I will follow up and study the details for that is where the interpretation of results is critical.

I do not doubt the brain is a machine of sorts. I know I can be knocked unconsciously and a little bit of most chemicals can affect my thinking. What I am saying is that the bottom layer of fine tuning the consciousness MAY be assisted by the soul (using spirit as in intermediary). The soul is formless but the spirit takes the shape of the living physical organism. When the organism dies the soul leaves as does the spirit which also rapidly decays. But as I have experienced the spirit and soul might linger on as a ghost to try to do something. In my case it was a suicide who wanted me to apologize to a friend for the horror of finding a rotting corpse after a week in a pickup in the hot scrub. The spirit had enough energy to cause daily problems (hauntings) so it got my attention.

The delicate machine that is the brain can communicate to the spirit world. Because the communication is faint it usually takes place in calm surroundings when the brain is in idle mode. Unfortunately this means that the stress of testing disrupts any communications (not with fakes who are making it up as they go). It will be a while before consciousness and qualia are better understood. But I love the research and the investigations.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/02/2020 17:55:04
No more exhibitionism from her from then on.
What gave you the authority to spoil everyone else's harmless entertainment and shame a woman who was hurting nobody? Religious perversion, perhaps? 
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/02/2020 18:55:00
This needs more time than I have at the moment to address. You are emoting based on false facts and fake news.
Nothing fake about pogroms, jihad, inquisition, crusades, regular sectarian bloodshed east of Suez, the knuckledraggers in Northern Ireland who throw stones at children whose parents are assumed to worship the same god through a different rite, or those perverts who practice celibacy with choirboys. 

Quote
And possibly fears introduced at childhood if you attended religious ceremonies in the Jewish faith - but you would have to give some personal information about this.
Interestingly, Jewish ceremonies and calendar events are mostly about celebration and feasting, from weekly Shabbat to serious Pesach nosh-ups, with Purim and Chanukah particularly for the kids, and all accompanied by singing, music, and good wine (not asserted to be the blood of a dead rabbi). Yom Kippur is about personal and group atonement for things actually done, not fear of retribution for things not done. Self-flagellation and walking up steps on your knees for fear of spending eternity in Hell because you haven't attended enough Masses, are inflicted by the perverted on the gullible, not us.

I have just sat outside on out porch and enjoyed a lovely meal and wine with my wife. For some reason I have no pain today and did not take any pain tablets.

I am going to stress that your image of Islam, Christianity and Judaism is so distorted I would have trouble knowing where to start.

But most of all, you have no idea of Jewish history - particularly from the time of Christ to the present day. The bad stuff is suppressed and mostly out of public knowledge. The good stuff is fantastic and of course proudly bragged about and justly so.

My second wife was a woman whose father was Jewish and very wealthy. Her stepmother (originally a Christian nurse) married upwards to an even richer Jewish man. I nearly converted to Judaism in order to marry a Jewish woman in Hartsdale NY. I was with her for about 2 years. My third wife was a Jewish woman from Brooklyn NY from the very heart of Jewishdom. My son with her was raised in the Jewish faith although he later became an atheist.

God has led me to various publications, mostly by Jewish authors, and the bad stuff is really bad. I mean ugly and evil. There are so many facts (yes, facts - because Jews love to write and record stuff). Mostly, I admire Jews for what they have achieved and the advances that many brilliant Jewish men have brought to the world. The dark side mirrors that good where the talents are used for seriously destructive ends - to say the least.

The problem is that many of the Jewish authors and critics of the Jewish religion (and Israel as well) are targets of hate and are called self-hating Jews. I am not Jewish. Dare I bring up facts about Jews that most societies would rather ignore? The problem is that if Jews do not recognize their failings (religious and tribal) they will carry on bearing the consequences but, worst of all, the world will suffer because of the enormous power and influence that the Jewish people wield. The Jewish religion is the one most in need of reform in order to bring about a better and more harmonious world.

How does one go about that? I do not wish to get personal with you. I see the defensiveness rear up and it is not fair on a public platform even if I try my best to be moderate and be constructive in my views.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2020 18:59:12
But the moment I saw her, she suddenly stopped and looked out her window to the window I was at. I was in darkness and had moved the curtain ever so slightly so there was no way she could see me.
Nice bit of self- delusion there.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/02/2020 19:01:51
No more exhibitionism from her from then on.
What gave you the authority to spoil everyone else's harmless entertainment and shame a woman who was hurting nobody? Religious perversion, perhaps?

Physically, she had no idea I was there. You are admitting that mental telepathy communicated something in me to that woman. I am no prude or saint so what was it? How did I shame her? And what sort of religious perversion are you thinking about? Why even insinuate such a thing about me except to denigrate me? And why do that in a scientific debate?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/02/2020 19:06:07
But the moment I saw her, she suddenly stopped and looked out her window to the window I was at. I was in darkness and had moved the curtain ever so slightly so there was no way she could see me.
Nice bit of self- delusion there.

I was careful with my words to describe the situation. She was in the middle of something that even a bombing by an air force would hardly result in a distraction. Explain what you mean - I do not follow you. Maybe it is the only way you have to explain a very weird happening. Grasping at straws methinks.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/02/2020 22:17:00
I was trying to show that a logical machine (which I once was) would view life as mechanical and therefore meaningless. If there is no meaning to life then killing it just switching off another machine. Which it how I viewed killing the cat when I was a teenager. I was still moral in that I did it to relieve the suffering. I could just as easily have let it die slowly on the basis that suffering is just electronic impulses. I am pointing out that if one takes atheism with a mechanical belief to its logical conclusion then morality and doing good are meaningless. If meaningless, why get emotional?

I have sometimes wondered if this could be a solution to the Fermi paradox. Maybe sufficiently-advanced civilizations come upon some slam-dunk evidence that either existence is meaningless, free will doesn't exist or some other profoundly sobering truth. The ensuing existential crisis prompts them to either commit mass suicide or simply refrain from reproducing until they become extinct. However, given that there are people who already believe those things but still seem to live a happy life, I'm guessing that hypothesis is unlikely to be true.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 15/02/2020 04:38:16
I was trying to show that a logical machine (which I once was) would view life as mechanical and therefore meaningless. If there is no meaning to life then killing it just switching off another machine. Which it how I viewed killing the cat when I was a teenager. I was still moral in that I did it to relieve the suffering. I could just as easily have let it die slowly on the basis that suffering is just electronic impulses. I am pointing out that if one takes atheism with a mechanical belief to its logical conclusion then morality and doing good are meaningless. If meaningless, why get emotional?

I have sometimes wondered if this could be a solution to the Fermi paradox. Maybe sufficiently-advanced civilizations come upon some slam-dunk evidence that either existence is meaningless, free will doesn't exist or some other profoundly sobering truth. The ensuing existential crisis prompts them to either commit mass suicide or simply refrain from reproducing until they become extinct. However, given that there are people who already believe those things but still seem to live a happy life, I'm guessing that hypothesis is unlikely to be true.

My personal view it that the Fermi paradox is a modern example of the power of logical thought. Einstein used thought experiments very successfully.

You are aware that one answer to the Fermi paradox is that Earth is unique for one of two possible reasons. The mechanical reason is that it is so difficult to get life to evolve that only one planet namely Earth achieved all the conditions. The spiritual reason is that God (and the Ultimate Intelligence) did not need other planets for the drama that is life on Earth. Earth was the Garden of Eden.

I favor the second because one has to admit that the beauty (savage as it can get at times) is stunning. I admire the butterflies and the honey bee and the intricate landscapes of a planet forged by constant change and weathering to be able to support the abundance of life. My wife and I constantly visit Pilanesberg - a game reserve 2 hours from Johannesburg - and we never tire of the natural beauty and the creatures.

If Earth is truly God's (and the Ultimate Intelligence) creation then why would he want it to die? The logical conclusion is that he will allow natural forces to stop humankind from going too far in destroying this planet. A.I. is not a substitute for life. It truly is mechanical and truly is your P-zombie.

What bothers me is that I experienced one end of the Universe as we know it. The Ultimate Intelligence simply stopped the dream. Luckily it decided to continue the dream from where it left off, and I returned, wondering what I had experienced. It was not life-changing. I just thought that I knew what the universe was all about and it did not change my enjoyment of it. Only now do I see the profound implications.

So we could see a Petrie-dish die-off or dystopia and then have it end so that the Game Number XXXX can restart with slightly different initial conditions. But my feeling is that God wants humankind to change to become cooperative and spiritual. It will not happen without serious pain and social unrest unfortunately.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 15/02/2020 05:12:28
This needs more time than I have at the moment to address. You are emoting based on false facts and fake news.
Nothing fake about pogroms, jihad, inquisition, crusades, regular sectarian bloodshed east of Suez, the knuckledraggers in Northern Ireland who throw stones at children whose parents are assumed to worship the same god through a different rite, or those perverts who practice celibacy with choirboys. 

Quote
And possibly fears introduced at childhood if you attended religious ceremonies in the Jewish faith - but you would have to give some personal information about this.
Interestingly, Jewish ceremonies and calendar events are mostly about celebration and feasting, from weekly Shabbat to serious Pesach nosh-ups, with Purim and Chanukah particularly for the kids, and all accompanied by singing, music, and good wine (not asserted to be the blood of a dead rabbi). Yom Kippur is about personal and group atonement for things actually done, not fear of retribution for things not done. Self-flagellation and walking up steps on your knees for fear of spending eternity in Hell because you haven't attended enough Masses, are inflicted by the perverted on the gullible, not us.

A couple of comments. It seems I have embarked on a course I cannot change.

You are probably correct about some parts of the Christian religion and some parents putting the "fear of God" into children. Christianity has its abuses by those in power for almost the entire history. Child abuse by priest being its darkest shame in recent days. The lack of tolerance shown by Christians towards other races and religions and nations is a problem that needs to be resolved.

You need to read the Quran as it was written to see the wisdom and the tolerance preached by Muhammad. He was however a warrior who conquered and converted. He did not destroy cities as long as they were peaceful. He allowed Jews and Christians to practice their religion as children of the book. He did tax them because they did not contribute to the whole indirectly as others did. Almost all his teachings were from the Old and New Testaments. He introduced new laws and modified others so as to unify society. He was merciful to those he conquered and only taught that those who want to actively destroy Islam are the unbelievers who should be put to the sword. Their actual beliefs were immaterial - they were a threat.

The Jewish traditions seem like good fun and games on the surface. And for the most part they are. The problem is that the poison is administered with honey. The ceremonies are all about the near destruction of the Jewish people. Never again. The holocaust is a new element. Children hear how those non-Jews surrounding them cannot be trusted and will enslave or exterminate them given half a chance. I saw this result in fear and reclusive behavior in older Jews. It results in expressions of anger against Christians and Muslims.

Jews recognize the need to live and work in non-Jewish society. They are very sociable and affable and know how to fit in. But they retain the fear and the distrust. The leaders of the Jewish movements also are aware of this and they exploit it to keep Jews faithful to the tribe if not to the religion. It causes dissonance in people. Some Jews like Feinstein reject their Jewishness but it is very hard to do. Debate is suppressed and people are told that only Jews can debate among themselves. This means that outside objective opinions like mine are not heard - only rejected as further proof of insidious antisemitism.

Somehow I hope that there are Jews who will see the need for change if the world is to survive.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/02/2020 11:56:36
Are you writing from ignorance, which is lamentable, or prejudice, which is inexcusable, in a science forum?

Being a member of a race that has been attacked by Philistines, Romans, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Nazis, Communists (even though our brethren wrote their manifesto - talk about chutzpah!) and the Labour Party,  can make you just a teeny bit cautious. "By their deeds shall ye know them", said one of our rabbis, and was crucified by the Romans to prove the point.

However, unlike all the foregoing (except for sexually inadequate Muslims, who apparently are commanded to exterminate unbelievers including each other, and the Labour Party, which is just beginning to flush itself down the toilet), we are still here and doing our thing, so there's still something to celebrate.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2020 12:07:40
She was in the middle of something that even a bombing by an air force would hardly result in a distraction.
What you tacitly said was that she was in the middle of doing something she regarded as commonplace.
Of course she would be distracted.
If as you imply, she was an exhibitionist then her goal was actually to be noticed. She would have kept a very close eye on peoples curtains to see if they twitched.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 15/02/2020 14:43:59
She was in the middle of something that even a bombing by an air force would hardly result in a distraction.
What you tacitly said was that she was in the middle of doing something she regarded as commonplace.
Of course she would be distracted.
If as you imply, she was an exhibitionist then her goal was actually to be noticed. She would have kept a very close eye on peoples curtains to see if they twitched.

It is hard to believe that you continue to follow this line of argument. I can only think you find it entertaining. Or once more God wants me to respond and I will because there were some things I thought of afterward.

It was night time and the woman was on the kitchen table if I remember correctly. The kitchen was very brightly lit. A stage so to speak. Have you ever been on a brightly lit stage trying to look into the audience? It is a black hole. This was exactly that. The woman had her head tilted backward and was in full-throated scream - probably with eyes closed. Although she knew she had to have an audience she did not care about who and why.

But why stop so suddenly and abruptly and angrily? Something really disturbed her. And it had to be mental.

I was once at a crowded cafe and I was people watching. On the other side of the road, walking away from me, a well-dressed sexy woman caught my eye. I casually admired her from a distance but my mind was in "idle mode". She stopped and turned around to glare at me. Despite the crowds and the distance, it was still quite clear it was me she was glaring at. I have this happen often, except most woman give me a warm smile. I suppose I am judgmental in that the nice woman give me a nice smile and the "others" tend to glare angrily.

So I guess with the exhibitionist I was curious and looking forward to a sex show but I must have also had in the back of my mind that this was perverted behaviour on her part (yes, and a little on my part too to be honest). Who knows how many people she disturbed? And how many small children got exposed to something that most societies frown upon?

God is okay with sex and the enjoyment of sex. A certain amount of titillation is not bad. Perversion is not good. Sex is such a strong drive that it is understandable that things can go off the rails. But just as one must try to be a good person as far as theft and abuse of others, there must also be limits on behavior. The extreme is cutting up your partner and eating them afterward. The mild mannered husband who goes to a prostitute and then kills them in serial fashion has a serious moral problem. The line might be gray and blurred, but it is not a matter of anything goes - even between consenting adults.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 15/02/2020 15:39:46
Are you writing from ignorance, which is lamentable, or prejudice, which is inexcusable, in a science forum?

Being a member of a race that has been attacked by Philistines, Romans, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Nazis, Communists (even though our brethren wrote their manifesto - talk about chutzpah!) and the Labour Party,  can make you just a teeny bit cautious. "By their deeds shall ye know them", said one of our rabbis, and was crucified by the Romans to prove the point.

However, unlike all the foregoing (except for sexually inadequate Muslims, who apparently are commanded to exterminate unbelievers including each other, and the Labour Party, which is just beginning to flush itself down the toilet), we are still here and doing our thing, so there's still something to celebrate.

Strangely, I am writing from a position with a lot of knowledge, both personal and from extensive research. Some documents I happened upon while doing a search on something other than religion or Jewishness. The coincidence and serendipity I often refer to. I not only read them but some were hard to believe so I researched various parts and it turned out they were true.

You are quite right that the Jews have often been attacked and persecuted through history. Have you asked why that is? Are you familiar with histories that document the circumstances leading to the attacks and persecution. The truth may surprise you but it seems your fear will reject the truth.

As far as prejudice, this is the debate stopping accusation I was referring to. The problem is that while I am not prejudiced there are many who are - and the truth will give them ammunition. You rightly fear that, and it is a problem for me. I am choosing my words very carefully and feel I am walking in an emotional and intellectual minefield. I used to try to refer to Jews by avoiding the word Jew thinking it was offensive. I used references such as Jewish person, Jewish people and so on. A Jewish site pointed out that it is actually offensive to do that.

So how does one criticize the Jewish religion constructively? Most people get upset if this is done to them on a personal basis. "I would not wear that dress dear. It does not become you." Uh oh. Dog box time. Have a look at the insults you heap upon Christians and Muslims - why can you do that with impunity? There is little doubt you despise religion yet you treat any criticism of the Jewish people as a tribal criticism and antisemitic.

Jews are proud of some traits they regard as distinctly Jewish - but do not want others to critique whether such traits are helpful to them in the long run or to society. I did go to the Catskills - the Borscht Belt, or Jewish Alps - and listen to the Jewish comedians telling Jewish jokes which were not really complimentary. A Jew would be highly offended if the same joke were told by a Christian let alone a Muslim.

Let me give you an example of personal experience leading to knowledge when I researched the reasons. I went to a Christian dinner and I heard two German women disagreeing about the Americans. One hated them and the younger one loved them. Their post war stories were so different. My research showed that after the war the Morganthau Plan was implemented. Named after Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jnr. It aimed to turn Germany into a potato patch. He wanted them sterilized. Possibly two million Germans starved to death although many were in trouble anyway as a result of the war. But then the US saw that in East Germany there were soup kitchens and construction and feared the Communists. So the Marshall Plan was implemented. One woman told of the starvation and moldy food and one told of candy and plenty. It was a matter of a few years difference in age.

The Morganthau plan was known in Germany before the end of the war and was used to get Germans to fight to the bitter end. Other prominent voices did not help such as this publication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_Must_Perish!

Of course, historians disagree as to extent and intent. And there are discussions of antisemitism. Yes, the antisemites use it and distort it. But it was not a proud moment. It was worse than the Treaty of Versailles, and luckily people saw the folly of such a plan.

There are many other issues about the proof of God so I do not want to spend much time on this topic. It will get too emotional on the part of both readers and posters.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2020 18:03:09
Or once more God wants me to respond
Conceited; much.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2020 18:09:49
Perversion is not good.
So, for example, voyeurism...?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2020 00:09:49
you treat any criticism of the Jewish people as a tribal criticism and antisemitic.
Obviously, if you criticise "the Jewish people" you are indeed criticising a tribe. The odd thing is that "semitic" includes a whole raft of tribes, most of whom speak Arabic and very few of whom are Jews.

The Morgenthau Plan was about deindustrialisation of the Ruhr, not sterilisation of people - that was Nazi policy. But don't let the facts get in the way of whatever it is that you are arguing about.

Quote
I casually admired her from a distance but my mind was in "idle mode".
Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So that's one more passenger for the hellfire train, eh? Voyeurism, adultery, blasphemy.....this thread is turning into a confessional.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 16/02/2020 05:22:07
Perversion is not good.
So, for example, voyeurism...?

Depends. You realize that God, Satan and many spirits might be watching every sexual act that takes place? Ooohh the thought of it makes me shudder. Maybe God and the good guys turn their eyes away. I wonder how they deal with the other horrors that humankind visit upon each other and the planet.

A man stands by a window and exposes himself to a woman passing by. He gets arrested for exposing himself.
A woman stands by a window and exposes herself to a man passing by. He gets arrested as a Peeping Tom.

We are sexual beings and the desire to see others naked is in most of us. I am surprised at the number of ordinary folk who will take part in some skinny dipping as plain old fun. No funny business.

I visited Sandy Bay at its heyday when it was an exclusive nudist beach in Cape Town. I went because it was clean and beautiful. Nature at its best. Most of the nudists were bronzed and attractive. Models came there to get an overall tan. I did not see it as much different to going to an ordinary beach. Boats would come to the bay for a thrill. I am a strong swimmer and once I swam toward the boats. The people took fright and prepared to leave. The stories of a bunch strong naked men boarding the craft and throwing people and their cameras into the sea was well known.

I often went early before anyone got there. It was amazing. I swam in the surf with seals coming in the rolling waves, with one jumping over my shoulder. The long walk through the brush and the dunes made it magical.

But the perverts were there. They were generally young and dirty and perched on the rocks like vultures. They had dirty minds. Mostly they were ignored but sometimes a group of guys would approach them and chase them away.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2020 09:14:04
You realize that God, Satan and many spirits might be watching every sexual act that takes place?
No, of course not, I'm an atheist.
I don't imagine that Satan is watching and more than I imagine the Wizard of Oz is looking in on us.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 16/02/2020 10:12:06
(snip)
The Morgenthau Plan was about deindustrialisation of the Ruhr, not sterilisation of people - that was Nazi policy. But don't let the facts get in the way of whatever it is that you are arguing about.
(snip)

Morganthau may have personally wanted sterilisation (as I stated) but it was not part his official policy. Regrettably starvation was the clear outcome of his plan. That and slave labor. The US eugenics industry exported the sterilization philosophy to Germany.

Morganthau was very vindictive and vengeful. I say this from a position of fact and also because I wish to make the point that the Old Testament is about a vengeful and vindictive God who plays favorites - namely Jews and Israelites. I am criticising a religion that does not preach universal values of brotherly love and forgiveness. The religion needs a serious overhaul and update. It cannot be done from without but from within - by Jews who recognize that change is needed.

Here is a historical reference but I drew facts from many source to write my own summary.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p287_Kubek.html
...At a luncheon with Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson, Morgenthau brought up the Quebec agreement. Patterson said jokingly: "To degrade Europe by making Germany an agricultural country, isn't that offensive to you?" Morgenthau replied: "Not in the case of Germany.

...When Harold Gaston, the Treasury public relations officer, interrupted to ask whether this meant "driving the population out," Morgenthau replied: "I don't care what happens to the population... I would take every mine, every mill and factory and wreck it." "Of every kind?" inquired Gaston. "Steel, coal, everything. Just close it down," Morgenthau said. "You wouldn't close the mines, would you?" inquired Daniel Bell, one of the Secretary's assistants. "Sure," replied Morgenthau, and he reiterated that the only economic activity which should remain intact was agriculture -- and that could be placed under some type of international control. He was for destroying Germany's economic power first, he said, and then "we will worry about the population second."



Here is my summary of the FACTS. Your "deindustrialisation" is dismissive and sanitizes an ugly plan of vengeance. which was opposed by people as the war footing would down.

In the first half of 1944, the US Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau drafted a plan to reduce post-war Germany to only agriculture stating “all industrial plants and equipment not destroyed by military action shall either be completely dismantled and removed from the area or completely destroyed. All equipment shall be removed from the mines and the mines shall be thoroughly wrecked.”

Reparations included “(d) by forced German labor outside Germany; and (e) by confiscation of all German assets of any character whatsoever outside of Germany."

The Morgenthau plan was reluctantly agreed to by Churchill in September 1944.

US Secretary of War Stimson said of the Morgenthau plan to punish German “It is Semitism gone wild for vengeance and will lay the seeds of another war in the next generation."

Goebbels said that Morgenthau wanted to make Germany into a giant potato patch. A news headline stated, “Roosevelt and Churchill agree to Jewish murder plan.”

The plan was not formalized, but it formed the basis for policy. Four million Germans were in forced labor which sometimes meant clearing mines fields.

Germany couldn't produce goods to export to buy food and millions had starvation rations with 1947 being the worst year. The situation lasted from 1945 to 1947 with death and disease before the Allies feared that Germany might 'go Communist'.

President Herbert Hoover remarked in a report dated 18 March 1947: "There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it."

In July 1947, the Marshall Plan was implemented.

It seemed that Morgenthau had been influenced by a book self-published in 1941 entitled ‘Germany Must Perish’. The author was a Manhattan Jewish businessman named Theodore Kaufman. In it, he proposed sterilizing the entire population of Germany. Eugenics was all the rage in the US and they had been sterilizing people considered to be a burden to society. US scientists were training Germans in eugenics prior to the war.

The book was read by Joseph Goebbels. Kaufman uses the words ‘final solution’ which was only used by Himmler in 1942, but this phrase had been used by a number of people, Jewish and non-Jewish, with regard to finding solutions to problems that Jewish populations were experiencing.

The Holocaust was horrific and an abomination. This example simply shows the hatred and desire for vengeance on both sides that belongs in the past.

Raising young Jewish children in fear of others and telling them they are innocent victims whose only crime is being Jewish is not a positive strategy for the Jewish people and not for the world. One should learn the lessons of the past and move on. The lessons of history should not be forgotten, but incorporating distorted elements into religious dogma only worsen tensions.

An elite class, such as intelligent Jewish citizens, should use their status for the benefit of mankind. It would reduce antisemitism dramatically. At present, it is seen as a group motivated by narrow selfish interests that aggravate conflict around the world.



Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2020 10:25:37
I am criticising a religion that does not preach universal values of brotherly love and forgiveness.
So, that's all of them then, isn't it?
Did you somehow accidentally miss Christianity off that list?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 16/02/2020 11:21:37
I am criticising a religion that does not preach universal values of brotherly love and forgiveness.
So, that's all of them then, isn't it?
Did you somehow accidentally miss Christianity off that list?

You need to appreciate the difference between the basic tenets of religion and the practice of how well those are followed.

If one had to do a side by side comparison of the basic teachings you will see a massive comparative difference.

So if a Christian fails in brotherly love, he may still be somewhat aware of it and be somewhat tolerant.
If a Jew practices no love for anyone but a fellow Jew he is not really breaking any religious doctrine because the strict interpretation of "brother or fellow" is another Jew (reformists try to argue otherwise). Once more - an update to true and unequivocal universalism is needed. No need to dismiss Judaism, reform it to be in line with other religious teachings.

Hillel was being seriously disingenuous about the Golden Rule when explaining the teachings of Judaism - it was (and still is) propaganda to deflect criticism from non-Jews. The Zoroastrians were among the first to teach the Golden Rule. The concept of the Rule is codified in the Code of Hammurabi and the founding fathers were aware of this Code with at least one having a copy for reference. The Jews probably learned much from them while in captivity there.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2020 12:21:17
Morganthau may have personally wanted sterilisation (as I stated) but it was not part his official policy.
You may be a Martian invader bent on establishing the Fourth Reich under a Trump puppet (as I have just stated) but that's not part of your official policy. Farewell. 
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2020 13:49:55
You need to appreciate the difference between the basic tenets of religion
OK, You should have guessed I'd do this but...
It's the gospel truth. Here's what John says to the Jews.
John 8:44
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 16/02/2020 17:45:16
Morganthau may have personally wanted sterilisation (as I stated) but it was not part his official policy.
You may be a Martian invader bent on establishing the Fourth Reich under a Trump puppet (as I have just stated) but that's not part of your official policy. Farewell.

Strange sentence. I do not follow at all.

You seem to have an issue with personal views that were unworkable and unacceptable as policy as opposed to written and stated policy. Why get hung up on a minor detail that means little in the whole context?

I hope you are not thinking of leaving the debate.

The thread is about proof but also about the hints and messages that God, if he exists, seems to be leaving for us. Today, while working in the garage I thought about the justification the Israelis give for the establishment of the State of Israel. It is simple "God gave it to them".

Ben-Gurion was quoted in Nahum Goldmann’s book as saying:
“Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs."

And I thought about how proof of Santa was presented in a movie. The US Post Office with letters addressed to the man saying he was Santa. You guys know the one.

So if a country can use God as legal binding proof then surely God exists? (My tongue is somewhat in cheek but I am interested in the answers to this.) Note the reference to different Gods - and God not being the same.

I know I am stirring a bit. I am examining my motives and wondering if some demon is prodding me to be controversial. So I ask God to help out.

Let me point out something that is not debated and should be. There are good Jews and bad Jews and those in between. The same can be said about all groups. There were good Jews like Einstein and many others in Germany before the war. Many were at peace with society and made wonderful contributions to Germany and the world. But it seems that Germany had a large immigration of Jews who were not integrated and they changed the society for the worse. Why is it that the bad Jews cannot be taken to task? And why can one not point to religion as a possible problem in the emergence of some who give Jews a bad name? Defending all Jews out of fear of stoking antisemitism does not help society in general and Jews in particular.

Once more, let me state that I want improvement in religion and improvement in society because I am concerned about instability, war and inter-group fighting resulting from a variety of pandemics. The lesson of the Marshall Plan should be that constructive behavior is far better than destructive behavior. Good intentions got good results for all.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 16/02/2020 17:50:54
You need to appreciate the difference between the basic tenets of religion
OK, You should have guessed I'd do this but...
It's the gospel truth. Here's what John says to the Jews.
John 8:44
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Another strange one. Where is the relevance? Are you questioning whether I am being truthful? Also good at heart and want good things for all people? The answer is "I am not perfect. I do my best to do right and to be moral and ethical."
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2020 17:58:13
Where is the relevance?
It's what Christ said of the Jews.
It's part of
the basic tenets of religion
Did you not know that the Bible preaches hate?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 17/02/2020 05:24:54
Where is the relevance?
It's what Christ said of the Jews.
It's part of
the basic tenets of religion
Did you not know that the Bible preaches hate?

Having now read the passage carefully it seem to be a reference to Jews who reject him and are planning to have him eliminated. It is not hate. It is a statement that they are being influenced by evil. There is little doubt that there is evil in this world. Lots of it at the moment, despite our great scientific achievements.

Evil has to faced and fought. There are various ways to fight evil. Jesus taught that one fights with love. While I agree with that, I have a hard time doing so. I confront it and try to expose it and get people to realize they are the losers when evil is allowed to go unchecked. The early Christians took a pacifist approach to early Roman oppression.

The Jew went to the other extreme and fought bitterly. They were among the world's first terrorists because they were fighting an asymmetrical war.

https://historycollection.co/assassination-bureau-8-groups-assassins-history/2/
...The Hashshashin were not the first covert group in history. The Jewish Sicarii predate them and were most active in the ‘60s AD. Like the Hashshashin, the Sicarii were driven by religion and politics. In the Sicarii’s case, the aim was to drive out all Romans and Jewish collaborators from Judea.

...The name Sicarii is the plural of the Latin sicarius or ‘dagger man.’ Because of the Jewish assassins, the term also later became synonymous with an assassin or murderer. The group became most notably active under the leadership of Menahem, the grandson of Judah, a former Jewish dissident when it began a reign of terror in Jerusalem. Josephus in his ‘War of the Jews’ describes how the Sicarii would mingle with crowds at festivals, stalking their targets, then discretely stabbing them with their eponymous daggers which they hid under cloaks before melting away into the crowd.

...Meanwhile, the remaining Sicarii held Masada, and there they stayed until the Romans retook the fortress in 73AD. However, when the Romans entered the fort, they found only dead bodies. Defiant to the last, the Sicarii had chosen suicide to crucifixion or enslavement.


This revolt led the Romans to destroy the Second Temple and much of Jerusalem and expel the Jews (a diaspora). Jews were forced to re-evaluate their tactics and identity. They began cooperating but still maintained a tight-knit community wherever they went. Often they gathered together in areas. The ghettos usually were not some slum but often quite well-off and the Jews preferred being out of sight and having not to mix.

They used their talents to assist the royalty and the governing elites. Many times this resulted in desirable advances for such communities. The problems arose when the Jews got too powerful and became a negative influence. This cycle is not recognized by the Jewish historians or the Jewish intellectuals. Hence it has been repeated over and over again. This is what I mean by my motives of wanting to make Jewish society better.

I have a daughter who is an enthusiastic Christian but looks Jewish (from her Jewish Grandfather) and a Jewish son in New York. I do not wish to see them suffer from yet another cycle of violence. I also want the many Jewish academics put their talents to better use in correcting the path of Judaism. I would like to see the huge amounts in Jewish donations sent from the US to Israel to be put to better use in the USA and the world rather than military spending in a war-torn region.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2020 07:20:47
Having now read the passage carefully it seem to be a reference to Jews who reject him
The Jews who didn't reject him are called Christians so...

They were among the world's first terrorists because they were fighting an asymmetrical war.
LOL
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 17/02/2020 09:17:49
Having now read the passage carefully it seem to be a reference to Jews who reject him
The Jews who didn't reject him are called Christians so...

They were among the world's first terrorists because they were fighting an asymmetrical war.
LOL


You are quoting me out of context. I said "Jews who reject him and are planning to have him eliminated".

Note the use of the present tense. In other words, the Jewish plotters who succeeded in having Jesus crucified.

Priests and the higher clergy in all religions are somewhat like politicians. They plan to stay in power, and are often prepared to distort the message to do so. The extremists in all religions are extreme examples. They do not represent the original teachings.

The history of the Catholic Church is well-known and well-documented. Not too much censorship there. Prior to the Black Death the Church was abusing its power and selling indulgences. The pandemic seriously weakened the power of the Church who had no divine remedy. It also weakened the royalty and the landowners who were effectively enslaving the population. The inequality had become unsustainable. Currently the wealth inequality is getting out of hand. A pandemic will fix that pretty quickly. "Fix your toilet while I am avoiding the virus - no way, fix it yourself."

https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/refor-body.html
One particularly well-known Catholic method of exploitation in the Middle Ages was the practice of selling indulgences, a monetary payment of penalty which, supposedly, absolved one of past sins and/or released one from purgatory after death. It was the selling of indulgences that led the Reformer Martin Luther to post his famous 95 Theses - a document challenging Roman Catholic authority in theological matters, including indulgences and many others. Luther's opposition to the selling of indulgences was not new, however. In most of the Reformation movements stress lay not upon new understandings or doctrines, but on a return to the more authentic and original excellence of tradition.

Luther, one of the main Protestant Reformers, eventually arrived at the conclusion that divine relationship and salvation come by grace through faith, not by good works, belief in dogma, or economic propitiation. One's relationship to the divine is initiated by God, and one can only participate in this relationship by remaining open to it. Therefore, Luther's theology placed him in square opposition to the Roman Catholic practice of selling indulgenc
es.

That was an example of what I mean by updating religion. It has worked well.

The Catholic Church is too much of a business. They probably employ Jewish accountants, who as we all know are the best. I know of one Church here who does. They are trying to hide child abuse and pretend it does not happen. They have damaged the Church by the inaction and the silence. We are all human and the rotten ones should be exposed. Let God do any forgiving if he is so inclined. And marriage should be the solution to the child abuse.

When I was at the Methodist Church in Sunday School as a young boy there was a man who treated the kids to chocolate and candy afterwards. One girl referred to him as "creepy". In the light of experience, I now suspect he was a pedophile but I doubt he actioned any impulses. Fathers would have beaten him to a pulp.

The Catholic Church is afraid of the Mafia. They should be excommunicated, not given confession so they can go out and kill some more.

The Dali Lama is a serious example of a spiritual leader who is motivated by politics and power and self-aggrandizement. I never liked him even in the early days. My suspicions were well founded when I read the book by Stephen Batchelor titled "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist". The book was on sale at a Buddhist retreat not too far from Joburg. My trip there was part of my exploration of religion and spirit. Nice but not practical. The chapter on how the Dali Lama dealt with the sexual abuses and excesses of Western "gurus" showed this only too well.

A number of Jewish people have made businesses out of New Age beliefs and Eastern mysticism. They are intelligent and know how to make money.

One is James Swartz. I attended a lecture given by this self-appointed Vedanta guru. He was raised in the Jewish faith, and after initially living the life of a hippie taking drugs, he found a way to make money and make a living as a guru. He presents a confusing array of clichés such as enlightenment, spiritual freedom, non-duality, purifying the mind, self-inquiry and karma. The references to sages with long names, and concepts with foreign Sanskrit terminology add to the mystique. There is too much vague mystical imagery that defies definition. As James said, when I asked him to define God, he replied: “God is what you want him to be.” Oh, please!

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was an Indian guru. He had attracted Americans in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and a crashing world economy to his Indian lectures. He criticized Gandhi and the Hindu religion. He was known as the ‘sex guru’ because of his views about open sex. He tried to set up a spiritual encampment in Oregon in the 1980s. The ‘Orange People’, as they were known, worked without pay while the guru had about 93 Rolls-Royce cars. His chief of staff Sheela Patel was rotten to the core and tough as nails.

She organized the largest biological terror attack on US soil where over 700 people were poisoned with Salmonella to prevent them from voting. They intimidated local officials and tried bribery. They bused in homeless people and lied about what they were doing and how many people would live there. Murder plots involving bomb-laden planes and attempted murders were part of the power struggles.

These Hindu and Buddhist Western gurus took advantage of the ignorance of the West about these two religions. Indeed, the principles are hard to grasp. However, many people are searching for meaning and charismatic men (and women) can raise a following using any of the religions combined with strange, mystical and titillating beliefs and habits.

It is likely that Satan is behind these cults, which have sprung up at all time in all places and true religion needs to guard against them. Sure signs of such cults are those that have no morals, worship free sex, have no hard and fast principles, that talk in riddles and mystery; and where the leaders live lives of luxury.

----
I am not sure of the motivation of your LOL. The irony of it, or scorn and disbelief.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 17/02/2020 09:26:55
I left this site to read some internet news and what do I find:

Armed robbers in Hong Kong made off with hundreds of toilet rolls worth more than HKD1,000 ($130; £98). Toilet rolls are currently in short supply in Hong Kong due to shortages caused by panic-buying during the coronavirus outbreak. Knife wielding men robbed a delivery man outside a supermarket in the Mong Kok district, police said.

My comment about fixing toilets was accurate. Societal breakdown is no joke.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 17/02/2020 14:57:50
Some may be interested in reading some detail about two key psychic experiences I had.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZVj_GTKmA2qS7sxyO5el8w0C08de3XeR

If I am allowed to do more and if there is interest then I will.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2020 19:07:26
Some may be interested in reading some detail about two key psychic experiences I had.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZVj_GTKmA2qS7sxyO5el8w0C08de3XeR

If I am allowed to do more and if there is interest then I will.
Do you really not recognise that this is irrelevant?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2020 19:09:05
. In other words, the Jewish plotters who succeeded in having Jesus crucified.
Through many a dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ was
Betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 18/02/2020 04:47:24
Some may be interested in reading some detail about two key psychic experiences I had.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZVj_GTKmA2qS7sxyO5el8w0C08de3XeR

If I am allowed to do more and if there is interest then I will.
Do you really not recognise that this is irrelevant?

It may be irrelevant to you because you have your mind firmly made up. Perhaps someone who is more agnostic than hard atheist might find it of interest. I am an engineer and not inclined to make up stuff. As a high performing person (not so much lately) there is not much brain dysfunction going on. The events are lessons that are logical.

This is a just chat section. If people are not interested, they do not have to be here. But as you may have seen, I have researched religion and psychic stuff and sorted out what might be true and what is probably not.

These are the chapters.
Chapter 1 - Does God Talk to Us?
Chapter 2 - Confirmations
Chapter 3 - A Vision of Fire
Chapter 4 — Doomsday or New Age
Chapter 5 — Early Beliefs
Chapter 6 — Going Agnostic
Chapter 7 — Luck and Coincidence
Chapter 8 — Special Treatment
Chapter 9 - Increasing Spirituality
Chapter 10 — Intuitive Knowing
Chapter 11 — Psychic Connection
Chapter 12 — Spirit Help
Chapter 13 — Exploring spirit
Chapter 14 — Rituals
Chapter 15 — More Ghosts & souls
Chapter 16 — Some Hard Lessons
Chapter 17 — Frauds & Fakes
Chapter 18 — Spiritual Lessons
Chapter 19 — Suffering and Science
Chapter 20 — Predictions
Chapter 21 — The Ultimate Reality
Chapter 22 — Updating Religion
Chapter 23 — Conclusion
Chapter 24 - - - Addendum - Remarks & Facts
Chapter 25 - Christianity
Chapter 26 - Judaism
Chapter 27 - Atheists
Chapter 28 - Israel
Chapter 29 - Islam
Chapter 30 - The Rest
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 18/02/2020 05:11:20
. In other words, the Jewish plotters who succeeded in having Jesus crucified.
Through many a dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ was
Betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
And to end the song of Bob Dylan:

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
That if God's on our side
He'll stop the next war
Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: Bob Dylan
With God On Our Side lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, Audiam, Inc

Dylan makes some very good points. We all think we have God on our side - those that believe in God that is.

Even those that do not believe in God are still prepared to invoke him as an authority. Earlier I wrote:

Ben-Gurion was quoted in Nahum Goldmann’s book as saying:
“Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs."


Ben-Gurion was a Zionist but was an atheist. About 65% of Israelis are atheist but there is little doubt they will say God gave them the land of Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel
A Gallup survey in 2015 determined that 65 percent of Israelis say they are either "not religious" or "convinced atheists", while 30 percent say they are "religious".


Many see the contradictions in an old religion that has not been updated. Jews for Jesus is one way some Jews update.

God did stop WW1 by allowing the Spanish Flu. And many more wars were ended by disease. Did God allow it? Life on Earth is not a Garden of Eden. It is a struggle with lots of suffering. Humankind has made great technical advancements because war forces innovation. The Space Race was a cold war that did the same. Regrettably many atrocities have been done in God's name. The Inquisition was probably the worst. Demons infest people who have too much power in any arena of life, although some have resisted.

There are stories of tribes of monkeys that fight other tribes. It is horrific. They tear babies apart and eat them. No God or religion there.

The question is where are we going? Can humankind eventually achieve a balance and harmony? I believe that spirit will play a part in getting there. Recognizing the good spirits and shunning the bad ones is a good start.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 18/02/2020 05:34:12
The pandemic threat is not only direct. It can affect our food supply. Here is one. Even vegetables can be wiped out by a fungus. The great potato blight. Maybe God is stopping pathogens from going too far and in fact wiping us out.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/02/swine-fever-double-punch-countries-facing-covid-19-threat-200217050557166.html
African swine fever (ASF) is a contagious disease that affects domestic and wild pigs, causing high fever, respiratory problems, internal bleeding and skin haemorrhages. While it rarely infects humans, according to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), it kills 80 percent of the pigs it infects.

The disease is resistant to freezing, thawing and most commercial disinfectants, and there is no vaccine for it. It can spread through non-biological objects like shoes and clothing.

Last year, ASF wiped out 60 percent of domestic pigs in China and a quarter of all domestic pigs in the world, according to estimates by contagious disease experts, running into billions of dollars worldwide.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2020 07:14:54
It may be irrelevant to you because you have your mind firmly made up.
No, it is irrelevant to everyone because it's an anecdote, not evidence.
So the answer to my question was yes. You really don't understand what evidence is.
No wonder you make so many mistakes.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 18/02/2020 07:31:06
It may be irrelevant to you because you have your mind firmly made up.
No, it is irrelevant to everyone because it's an anecdote, not evidence.
So the answer to my question was yes. You really don't understand what evidence is.
No wonder you make so many mistakes.

You choose to exclude the evidence of the mind and the conscious despite knowing that it is poorly understood. You choose to exclude the one pathway that the spirit world uses to communicate.

Suppose I rejected everything unless the Pope told me in person that it was true. I would have to reject everything. Is there not the science of mind? Do they only believe graphs on a machine? Do not a group of anecdotes form the basis for science to start an inquiry into something they suspect but do not fully understand?

You can live your life on peer-reviewed evidence or you can use a bit of common-sense. Remember when most people rejected global warming and climate change? The mechanism, an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, seemed to be too small to have an effect. So it is with spirit communication but even more so. It does not make it false which is what you are arguing.

And you have no substitute hypothesis for the Prime Cause, nor any substitute for the good that religion does, despite the abuses of the clergy and the fraudsters who get rich.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2020 21:21:37
You choose to exclude the evidence of the mind and the conscious despite knowing that it is poorly understood.
It's not just me.
Science rejects anecdotes as evidence.
This is a science web page.
nor any substitute for the good that religion does
I am still waiting for evidence of good done by religion that couldn't be done without religion (and thus without the risk of the fraudsters you mention).
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2020 21:25:30
Remember when most people rejected global warming and climate change?
No, but that's beside the point
But do you recognise that what changed their minds was evidence, rather than gossip?
People came to recognise that this was unavoidably true.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fjtSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA382&lpg=PA382&dq=%22Circumstances+Affecting+the+Heat+of+the+Sun%E2%80%99s+Rays%22+foote&source=bl&ots=j5MLp3r_i4&sig=pfHXWv44uTHzjMyCAx_vjOnxlyU&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Circumstances%20Affecting%20the%20Heat%20of%20the%20Sun%E2%80%99s%20Rays%22%20foote&f=false
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2020 21:26:39
you can use a bit of common-sense.
From the man who is trying to tell me I should take his ghost stories as scientific evidence.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/02/2020 04:02:36
The thread is about proof but also about the hints and messages that God, if he exists, seems to be leaving for us. Today, while working in the garage I thought about the justification the Israelis give for the establishment of the State of Israel. It is simple "God gave it to them".
What makes you think that God is a male? What is the defining characteristics that makes him male instead of female of gender neutral? Can he change his own gender at will? Does he got female partners?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 19/02/2020 05:35:39
The thread is about proof but also about the hints and messages that God, if he exists, seems to be leaving for us. Today, while working in the garage I thought about the justification the Israelis give for the establishment of the State of Israel. It is simple "God gave it to them".
What makes you think that God is a male? What is the defining characteristics that makes him male instead of female of gender neutral? Can he change his own gender at will? Does he got female partners?

It is logical that when souls are in the afterlife that they have no gender. My experience of being with my late wife for a short time was that there were no forms. The closest I could describe it was it was like swirling colors of smoke. So male can reincarnate in female and vice versa. Makes sense since I have a feminine side to me - despite being a straight alpha male.

This would apply to God also. I use "he" because it is commonly used. God and Satan are neither male nor female and have no form.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 19/02/2020 05:45:17
you can use a bit of common-sense.
From the man who is trying to tell me I should take his ghost stories as scientific evidence.

I think this thread has run it's course. It took 45 years of experience to change me from an atheist to a de facto theist. Listing my experiences is only being meet with scoffing. Presenting a plausible hypothesis for the Prime Cause, and for the mystic experiences of many, and for religion has no traction. So far, no one following this thread has indicated any interest in my experiences. What will force change is an apocalyptic scenario where science has no answers. It is coming soon, and not just to a theater near you.

I will answer any questions if anyone has an interest.

At the moment, I am praying that the corona virus does not affect South Africa until we have our house sold. The market is already depressed and we cannot afford to hold on to the property.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2020 07:17:34
I think this thread has run it's course.
It ran its course the first time you decided that evidence didn't matter.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 19/02/2020 10:53:53
I think this thread has run it's course.
It ran its course the first time you decided that evidence didn't matter.

I was okay with you having the last word, but it seems God wanted me to reply to you.

He says you are a denialist  :) 8)

From Wiki:
In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.

The motivations and causes of denialism include religion, self-interest (economic, political, or financial), and defence mechanisms meant to protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2020 19:37:21
Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.
Your dreams are not empirically verifiable reality.
I have been pointing this out all along.
You are in denial about it.
The motivations and causes of denialism include religion, self-interest (economic, political, or financial), and defence mechanisms meant to protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas.
Perhaps God wanted you to post that so I could tell you to get a mirror, in order that you may see your own failing.

You pretend to yourself that your dreams are empirically verifiable in order to protect yourself from the disturbing reality that you are just making stuff up.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 20/02/2020 05:53:22
Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.
Your dreams are not empirically verifiable reality.
I have been pointing this out all along.
You are in denial about it.
The motivations and causes of denialism include religion, self-interest (economic, political, or financial), and defence mechanisms meant to protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas.
Perhaps God wanted you to post that so I could tell you to get a mirror, in order that you may see your own failing.

You pretend to yourself that your dreams are empirically verifiable in order to protect yourself from the disturbing reality that you are just making stuff up.

See what I mean about being in denial. There were about three experiences that could be classified as dreams. Even so the information gained in those dreams is a form of communication. How many people wake up at 2 am and have a eureka moment of clarity?

Now what about the rest? The mental telepathy, the Tarot cards, the seeing a future events, communicating with a ghost, getting prayers answered? Your avoidance of these strong experiences (and also the experiences of prophets such as Jesus and Muhammad) is a feature of denialism. You even deny that although you have no answer to the Prime Cause, my hypothesis has a lot of merit.

When a debater resorts to scorn and insults, as you often do, it is usually an indication they are losing the debate.

Do you still deny that you are a denialist?  ;)
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2020 20:00:38
See what I mean about being in denial.
See what I mean about a mirror?
Now what about the rest? The mental telepathy, the Tarot cards, the seeing a future events, communicating with a ghost, getting prayers answered? Your avoidance of these strong experiences
I didn't "avoid" them, did I?
I pointed out that they can be explained - often by confirmation bias.

But you don't see that because it conflicts with what you want to believe.

The difference is that I have evidence.
You can simply look back through the thread and see that I didn't "avoid" them, I addressed them at the time.


Do you realise that anyone else reading this will recognise that you are the one in denial?

You deny obvious things like the fact that I addressed those points.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 21/02/2020 05:40:37
Did!
Did not!
Did too!
Did not, did not!
Did, did, did...

So let us move on. Let me try something else.

Pascal's Wager. The odds of belief are better than the odds of disbelief. Plus side benefits that believers are less stressed and more able to deal with trying times.

You cannot prove me wrong. Admit it. You cannot deny this simple truth.

Do I take comfort in the hope that there is an afterlife? I have not up to now because my faith that it truly exists is just not there. Lately my health is getting very bad, and there are times that death would be a welcome relief. Now that death may be very close, I am finding that the possibility of an afterlife is comforting.

The comfort is in a sense of meaning - not of fear. I have never feared death even as a strong atheist. If life is mechanical then any of my achievements are no different to the formation of a stalactite caused by the dripping of water from a cave. Nice as it may be, it is meaningless. If, on the other hand, I have made the world a better place for generations of souls to come - that is much more meaningful. It is part of a grand scheme of an intelligence.

And compare the difference between you and I in the afterlife. You say - I wasted all that time criticizing the existence of an afterlife and here I am. I say - aah, just as I had experienced it.

Any contrived answer from you is just more denial.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2020 09:49:44
You cannot prove me wrong.
Now what about the rest? The mental telepathy, the Tarot cards, the seeing a future events, communicating with a ghost, getting prayers answered? Your avoidance of these strong experiences

I did not avoid them.

What I have said is things like you are looking at the placebo effect, but not recognising it or you are a victim of confirmation bias.


So it'snot a matter of "Did!
Did not!
Did too!
Did not, did not!
Did, did, did..."
It's a matter of "I did.Here is the quote that proves it."

So, let's not "move on" , let's just stop and wait for you to accept reality.
I did address those things, didn'tI?


Pascal's Wager. The odds of belief are better than the odds of disbelief.
The odds are that you pick the wrong religion and are held to account for worshipping a false idol (like Christ, or Mary).
Pascal's wager only works if there is only one religion.
You cannot prove me wrong. Admit it. You cannot deny this simple truth.
I just did.
I predict that you will deny it.
And then you will call me a denialist.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 22/02/2020 05:23:17
You cannot prove me wrong.
Now what about the rest? The mental telepathy, the Tarot cards, the seeing a future events, communicating with a ghost, getting prayers answered? Your avoidance of these strong experiences

I did not avoid them.

What I have said is things like you are looking at the placebo effect, but not recognising it or you are a victim of confirmation bias.


So it'snot a matter of "Did!
Did not!
Did too!
Did not, did not!
Did, did, did..."
It's a matter of "I did.Here is the quote that proves it."

So, let's not "move on" , let's just stop and wait for you to accept reality.
I did address those things, didn'tI?


Pascal's Wager. The odds of belief are better than the odds of disbelief.
The odds are that you pick the wrong religion and are held to account for worshipping a false idol (like Christ, or Mary).
Pascal's wager only works if there is only one religion.
You cannot prove me wrong. Admit it. You cannot deny this simple truth.
I just did.
I predict that you will deny it.
And then you will call me a denialist.

So let me see what we have here.

I say you cannot prove me wrong that God exists. You have not said you can prove me wrong.

I have said that God exists because I experience the supernatural and God. You say I am a) making things up b) dreaming c) guilty of confirmation bias d) having brain malfunctions such as hallucinations e) personal experience does not count.
To which I respond a) I am not a liar b) dreams can have meaning c) confirmation bias did not apply d) most events were clear and distinct and there was no substance abuse and I am a high performing individual e) the events happened and none of the usual explanations fit despite your round-pegging-in-a-square-hole.

Now I have given you a number of examples of my "reality". Your reality only differs from mine in that you do not experience mystic or psychic events. Have you ever thought that only some of us do - the real ones and not the many fakes?

Pascal's Wager. What an imaginative twist to a simple choice? Luckily you have me to guide you. I understand the way it works. It also shows you have not been paying attention to what I have been saying. Let me spell it out.

There is one God. So no matter what God you choose you get it right. God is not defined by religion and most religions that have survived recognize that there is one God. The key aspect to God is that he/she is good and if you pray for a good outcome you have a chance it will happen. You can direct your prayer through a representative such as Jesus or Saint Mary, although I think God will frown upon prayers to the Mother of God.

You can choose a ritual which is pleasant. A service with hymn and joint prayer and fellowship. Most will do. I have said most religions have some truth in them and that they all need updating. You could do some good work by assisting the various religions to update. Some ritual such as fastings and chanting and dancing as the Shamans do is one way to open oneself up to information.

You also have to realize that Evil exists and that you need to avoid religions that tend towards the dark side. The cults and the gurus. And there are religions that pray to Evil (Satan, Devil whatever). Choosing one of these might be worse than no choice at all. You do not need the ritual of a particular religion. Recognize what the spirit world can do and stay grounded.

You might say to yourself that if you stay an atheist it does not matter because you would get to the afterlife and find that you have an eternal soul. Sorry but this is where religions need an update. Souls can be terminated, and souls that have not evolved and have not achieved (either good or bad) are not needed. If there is a huge die-off, you can be sure there is an over-supply of souls.

So what have you got to lose. You simply say "Gee. God does not want scientific absolute proof of his existence, but is he is prepared to tell people how the spirit world works, and to give hints about a philosophical hypothesis that is as good (better actually) than any one relying on interpretation of mathematical symbols and formulae." And you might just get some benefit to "good luck" in the form of answered prayers. Even if you say it is all placebo, placebo works.

But no. Thinking you know it all (as I did when I was young) is a better ego trip for you. Pity.

I would add an addendum. The God of the Zoroastrians became the God of the Israelites which became the God of the Christians which became the God of the Muslims. The God of the Israelites was and is a vengeful God. Jesus updated the religion to one of unconditional love. Then it got a slight update to a God of mercy with Muhammad. The Jews do not believe in an afterlife so I would not chose Judaism as a model to go on. One could go with Hinduism or Buddhism (which is based on Hinduism). Tao and Confucianism are ways of living right and do not deal too much with the soul and God. Shamanism and tribal religions mostly believe in One God. The mythical religions are now seen as myths - stories of families living in a place not too different from Earth.

You now have a binary choice. Atheism or theism. With atheism, you risk the chance of getting what you expect - no soul in the afterlife.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 22/02/2020 05:51:41
Just saw these two articles. I am okay with atheism. I am not okay with the bigotry that is as bad if not worse than what some religious bigots espouse. In my opinion these four "horsemen" are ignorant of the religions they denigrate. Money is their God especially in the case of Sam Harris.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/atheists-case-devolving-bigotry-200220114842749.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/resurrection-atheism-190503132921871.html
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2020 10:03:41
So let me see what we have here.

I say you cannot prove me wrong that God exists. You have not said you can prove me wrong.

No
You made a false statement
Your avoidance of these strong experiences (and also the experiences of prophets such as Jesus and Muhammad) is a feature of denialism.
I pointed out that it was wrong.
You wasted time and bandwidth by saying
Did!
Did not!
Did too!
Did not, did not!
Did, did, did...

And I showed that you were, in fact wrong, because I hadn't "avoided" those issues, I had addressed them.

I never said anything about proving God one way or another.
You tried to prove it using an argument that was shown to be wrong shortly after Pascal put it forward.

It really would be better if you stopped saying things that were not true, particularly stop lying about what I have said or done- don't "bear false witness" as the book puts it.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 22/02/2020 13:21:20
The Jews do not believe in an afterlife
All of us? Really? It's mentioned in the Talmud. Get your facts straight, if you want to be taken seriously..
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2020 14:08:23
You simply say "Gee. God does not want scientific absolute proof of his existence, but is he is prepared to tell people how the spirit world works,
God is part of the "spirit world".
 If the "spirit world" worked then it would prove His existence.
So, you have contradicted yourself there.
I suggest you stop trying.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 22/02/2020 15:32:37
The Jews do not believe in an afterlife
All of us? Really? It's mentioned in the Talmud. Get your facts straight, if you want to be taken seriously..

I am glad you posted.

The problem I have is trying to get the basics of Judaism straight. There were and are many sects and the beliefs are wide-ranging. One does not hear of the rewards of heaven for those Jews who have lived a good life according to the Biblical laws. Not only that, my limited experience when a couple of older Jews died was that they clung fiercely to life because there was nothing after death for them. In one case, an old man lay like a skeleton for six months with the doctors saying he had only a few days left. I said he was afraid to die. Then one day I said to others "He has given up. He will die soon." They said they saw no difference but the next day he died.

I went to a Jewish site on basics: (Lost the reference) Contrary to popular belief, Judaism does believe in an afterlife, but it is not the primary focus of our religion and there is a lot of room for personal opinion about the nature of the afterlife.

Which I think sums it up.

Other sites show the variety of views but I stick to my statement that in general Jews fear death because they do not believe they will have an afterlife. The resurrection of the dead is not an afterlife as most people know it.
So I looked it up:
http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm
Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion. It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. Likewise, Orthodox Jews can believe that the souls of the wicked are tormented by demons of their own creation, or that wicked souls are simply destroyed at death, ceasing to exist.


I think this is a fudge for public consumption and so are the following on Wiki

Here are some issues indicating that Judaism has a wide ranging set of beliefs and one can cherry pick to suit almost any viewpoint. Here is extinction of the soul and reincarnation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife#Judaism
...Although there is no reference to reincarnation in the Talmud or any prior writings, according to rabbis such as Avraham Arieh Trugman, reincarnation is recognized as being part and parcel of Jewish tradition.

...According to the Talmud, extinction of the soul is reserved for a far smaller group of malicious and evil leaders, either whose very evil deeds go way beyond norms, or who lead large groups of people to utmost evil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_eschatology
...In the late Second Temple period, beliefs about the ultimate fate of the individual were diverse. The Essenes believed in the immortality of the soul, but the Pharisees and Sadducees, apparently, did not.

...Conservative Judaism both affirms belief in the world beyond (as referenced in the Amidah and Maimonides' Thirteen Precepts of Faith) while recognizing that human understanding is limited and we cannot know exactly what the world beyond consists of. Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism affirm belief in the afterlife, though they downplay the theological implications in favor of emphasizing the importance of the "here and now," as opposed to reward and punishment.


Well, there you go. Once more, I see that people will put aside religious teachings (all religions and sects mostly) if it gets in the way of getting ahead in life.

We have a sect called the Zionist Christian Church. They do not drink or smoke and do not eat pork. They are in high demand as domestic workers because they do not steal. It is well-known. Some bad ones try to say they are ZCC because they know it will get them work. They practice their religion daily and believe in Heaven.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 22/02/2020 15:53:32
You simply say "Gee. God does not want scientific absolute proof of his existence, but is he is prepared to tell people how the spirit world works,
God is part of the "spirit world".
 If the "spirit world" worked then it would prove His existence.
So, you have contradicted yourself there.
I suggest you stop trying.

God controls the spirit world. He does not want absolute proof of its existence. So everything is decided by an intelligence as to whether it will be allowed or not. Proof = not allowed. Hints = we can allow those. I think the contradiction is in your reasoning and not what I have been stating over and over again.

It is logical - if God wanted humankind to be certain of his existence his face would appear to all in the sky and he would demonstrate his powers by making us all float a few feet above the ground and then brand us and produce videos so that we would not argue about what happened.

On the other hand, if God did not exist, then there are a few logical problems. Humankind's propensity for mystic events, and a need to explain the emergence of intelligence as well as the emergence of the laws of physics that are truly remarkable in their beauty and simplicity. Do you not see that your best explanation for some of the events I have experienced is that you do not believe me in the slightest? That is weak.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 23/02/2020 18:02:24
I was sitting on our porch overlooking our pool while the sun went down. A spotted eagle owl has taken to sitting in the tree there. My wife's daughter-in-law said that it was an omen of death. I like it and it hangs about and goes from tree to roof to stump and so on.

I am worried that my wife has not sold the house next to the tower. We had a sale dependent on a mortgage but they pulled out. This corona virus has some nasty characteristics. Cases are spreading outside China and the death rate outside China is higher. The incubation is longer and is not easy to trace. Countries are beginning to close their borders. Even our local China mall is bare of customers. Now Bernie is surging.

The USA could get hit badly by not having a manufacturing base. The time could very well be right for socialism in the USA. The elite could take a beating and society could become more fair. That is what God wants anyway. People are mildly scared but I do not think they realize just how bad it could get in this age of globalization.

In SA we might not get spare parts for our electrical grid which is failing badly. We are having load shedding nearly every day for 4 hours and we are told it will stay that way for a year. The smelters have already shut down permanently. The effects of over-population are quite apparent to any student with any knowledge. Strife, poverty, societal breakdown as people compete for resources - and the rich get richer to compensate and pretend they can stay above the fray.

I need oxygen at night and that is when they are shutting off the power. 8pm to 12midnight, or 12 midnight to 4 am, or 4 am to 8am. And we have unplanned frequent breakdowns nearly all at night. I cannot run the generator at night (too noisy) and it draws too much power for my battery backups. So I am not in a good place - hence the pessimism.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2020 18:36:04
Do you not see that your best explanation for some of the events I have experienced is that you do not believe me in the slightest?
No
It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I believe you are mistaken.
So, what you write off as a weak explanation is just a straw man you made up.

Stop doing that. It makes you look silly.

if God did not exist, then there are a few logical problems. Humankind's propensity for mystic events, and a need to explain the emergence of intelligence as well as the emergence of the laws of physics that are truly remarkable in their beauty and simplicity.
OK, lets have another look at those.
Taking the third point last
It's much easier to get a few simple  laws to arise spontaneously than to have anything as complicated as a God.

The emergence of intelligence is entirely consistent with evolution.
We even have an indication of what the intermediate steps are like. Man is brighter than the other apes.
They are generally brighter than, for example, dogs and they, in turn, are brighter than worms. The worms are cleverer than plants, and so on.

So there's no mystery there- just you refusing to understand.

And it's true that people experience mystical things.
We can reproduce that in the lab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

And our research shows that it is more common in people with a known brain malfunction.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/temporal-lobe-epilepsy-religious-experiences.html

So, the actual evidence suggests that "mysticism"  is just another of those interesting features we have found in the brain like confirmation bias and the placebo effect.

So, there are no actual problems there; once again, it's just you not accepting the evidence.

God controls the spirit world. He does not want absolute proof of its existence. So everything is decided by an intelligence as to whether it will be allowed or not. Proof = not allowed. Hints = we can allow those. I think the contradiction is in your reasoning and not what I have been stating over and over again
And enough hints would (at any given level of significance) be interpreted as proof. So, if there was really proof of spirits it would be proof of God which you say is forbidden.
What you state " over and over again" misses this.
If you are right about proving that there are spirits then you have proved there's a God.

But you can't.
And, of course, you haven't.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/02/2020 23:18:09
The problem I have is trying to get the basics of Judaism straight.
It's none of your business, unless you were born into it. We don't evangelise or accept converts easily, so why bother?
The strength of the family is a "pick and mix" tradition. Two Jews = three opinions, but still two Jews. Belief is stultifying - argument is stimulating.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 24/02/2020 05:25:29
Do you not see that your best explanation for some of the events I have experienced is that you do not believe me in the slightest?
No
It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I believe you are mistaken.
So, what you write off as a weak explanation is just a straw man you made up.

Stop doing that. It makes you look silly.

if God did not exist, then there are a few logical problems. Humankind's propensity for mystic events, and a need to explain the emergence of intelligence as well as the emergence of the laws of physics that are truly remarkable in their beauty and simplicity.
OK, lets have another look at those.
Taking the third point last
It's much easier to get a few simple  laws to arise spontaneously than to have anything as complicated as a God.

The emergence of intelligence is entirely consistent with evolution.
We even have an indication of what the intermediate steps are like. Man is brighter than the other apes.
They are generally brighter than, for example, dogs and they, in turn, are brighter than worms. The worms are cleverer than plants, and so on.

So there's no mystery there- just you refusing to understand.

And it's true that people experience mystical things.
We can reproduce that in the lab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

And our research shows that it is more common in people with a known brain malfunction.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/temporal-lobe-epilepsy-religious-experiences.html

So, the actual evidence suggests that "mysticism"  is just another of those interesting features we have found in the brain like confirmation bias and the placebo effect.

So, there are no actual problems there; once again, it's just you not accepting the evidence.

God controls the spirit world. He does not want absolute proof of its existence. So everything is decided by an intelligence as to whether it will be allowed or not. Proof = not allowed. Hints = we can allow those. I think the contradiction is in your reasoning and not what I have been stating over and over again
And enough hints would (at any given level of significance) be interpreted as proof. So, if there was really proof of spirits it would be proof of God which you say is forbidden.
What you state " over and over again" misses this.
If you are right about proving that there are spirits then you have proved there's a God.

But you can't.
And, of course, you haven't.

Mistaken? I get a shock, not a "feeling" that the biker going past me in an ordinary way on an ordinary day will die just ahead. I slow down so as to not ride over him. He dies, and not because of an accident. How on earth can I be mistaken?
The exhibitionist who got upset with me. How on earth (or in hell) did that happen?
The "check the time" experiment, and the hypnosis experiments. How were they mistakes?

Spontaneous arising of simple laws? From what? The laws are simple but are extremely powerful. With regard to emergence and evolution, you need to go back to your first moment of "spontaneous emergence" . Why would they have the fine tuned properties that would cause dumb molecules to order themselves? Do a bit of reading to check how a cell manufactures a protein using proteins and enzymes and then assembles all those proteins. It is not just amazing it is mind-boggling. One can reduce any mind-blowing process or event to a simple "It happened, there is nothing mystical about it." Sure!

God Helmet: The foundations of his theory have been criticized in the scientific press. Anecdotal reports by journalists, academics and documentarists have been mixed and several effects reported by Persinger have not yet been independently replicated. It seems to me that you are reading and believe woo-science or fake-science. I can assure you that I never "felt a presence" or "felt mystical" at times I had events. They were not "flashes". There is no comparison what-so-ever. But you want to believe it and deny what I am telling you.

Of course if one messes with the brain function by external stimulation one is going to get all sorts of brain malfunctions. The key is how "intelligent" and "informative" are those malfunctions. I would say that a person could get memories stimulated, voices or music, or even see people. I have been saying that God and spirit do the same by subtly stimulating the brain and thereby causing communication. What is the difference between random radio signals from space and communication by alien life? Seems you would not know the answer so I will tell you. It is the "intelligence" contained in the information.

I fully accept confirmation bias and placebo effects in people. But because I am aware of them, I know when to discount them. I am one of those people who does not experience pareidolia. People tell me they see various patterns and I say I see a random collection of clouds, or sand or tree or whatever. If they point out the eyes, ears and nose and mouth I can say I see how the features can be interpreted. I have a superb memory down to details, so I remember events properly. I am amazed at how other people nearly always get a shared memory wrong, so I can understand that "ordinary" people can misinterpret some things. I am not in that ordinary percentile - not bragging, just a statement of fact.

You are right about the hints and proof. Fine tuning, the emergence of intelligence, the ability of some people to communicate with spirit and tell the future, mental telepathy, and a logical hypothesis where science has none. Jesus and Muhammad were prophets with amazing gifts and explanations and communications with God. Jesus foretold his own death and Muhammad foretold a key event (the camel bet) and Joan of Arc was inspired and foretold the outcome of a battle. Those events were not just once off either - these people made a huge impact.

But you deny the conclusion that the spirit world exists and hence God. Your choice - but you cannot disprove that I am experiencing the spirit world.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 24/02/2020 05:37:38
The problem I have is trying to get the basics of Judaism straight.
It's none of your business, unless you were born into it. We don't evangelise or accept converts easily, so why bother?
The strength of the family is a "pick and mix" tradition. Two Jews = three opinions, but still two Jews. Belief is stultifying - argument is stimulating.

It is my business. The power and influence of the Jewish communities in the world is undeniable. Their motivations and behavior are critical to the world survival. Reading the history it is easy to see that there was no central leadership and that there were many interpretations of the scriptures and many interpretations of the early writings.

Added to that was a need for secrecy because of antisemitism (and we all know the standard definition). In some cases there have been active disinformation to put a PR spin on the religion, but most Jews knew what was spin and how the religion operates.

But there is a price to pay - paranoia. While some people ARE actually out to harm Jews in general and some in particular, the worry is a mental burden and causes psychological problems. Not for nothing is psychiatry a Jewish specialty with many Jewish patients - but even super-intelligent people can have a distortion and bias that avoids a proper fix of certain problems.

Instead of taking offense at what I say, you should look at it as well-meaning advice for Jews in general and not an antisemitic criticism.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 09:49:15
Mistaken? I get a shock, not a "feeling" that the biker going past me in an ordinary way on an ordinary day will die just ahead. I slow down so as to not ride over him. He dies, and not because of an accident. How on earth can I be mistaken?
You are mistaken in thinking that it is anything but coincidence.

The exhibitionist who got upset with me. How on earth (or in hell) did that happen?
I already answered that.
Have you forgotten?

and so on.


I fully accept confirmation bias and placebo effects in people. But because I am aware of them, I know when to discount them.
You plainly do not.
Jesus foretold his own death
It's a miracle!
A man who protested against the Romans and their rules foretold his own death (alongside presumably all the others who protested).

And yet you think that's some sort of proof of divinity when it's just a statement of the obvious.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 09:52:05
What is the difference between random radio signals from space and communication by alien life? Seems you would not know the answer so I will tell you. It is the "intelligence" contained in the information.
How can you possibly think I don't know that?

On the other hand, without the mechanism to decode it, it may (like spread signal communication) be indistinguishable from noise.
That's the point.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 24/02/2020 15:26:50
Mistaken? I get a shock, not a "feeling" that the biker going past me in an ordinary way on an ordinary day will die just ahead. I slow down so as to not ride over him. He dies, and not because of an accident. How on earth can I be mistaken?
You are mistaken in thinking that it is anything but coincidence.

The exhibitionist who got upset with me. How on earth (or in hell) did that happen?
I already answered that.
Have you forgotten?

and so on.


I fully accept confirmation bias and placebo effects in people. But because I am aware of them, I know when to discount them.
You plainly do not.
Jesus foretold his own death
It's a miracle!
A man who protested against the Romans and their rules foretold his own death (alongside presumably all the others who protested).

And yet you think that's some sort of proof of divinity when it's just a statement of the obvious.

The atheist's guide to refuting examples of psychic events
1) Coincidence
2) Law of large numbers
3) Pareidolia
4) Confirmation bias
5) Placebo
6) Mistake
7) Hallucination
8 ) Brain malfunction
9) Other (for good measure)

and lastly a combination of all of the above just to be sure.

As a high performing individual who can evaluate his own (yes) possible non-psychic explanations I can tell that none of the above applied in many cases. The ones that may apply such as dreams or hallucinations gave information that fit like the pieces of a puzzle. It was as if I was being given each piece to work out with accompanying hints such as the coincidences (which God uses to remain hidden) of relevant texts and messages from various media, and the serendipity of a string of events.

The information gained was clear and understandable, although it took some years to know how it fit the other pieces. God did not sit me down and give me an iPhone with an App on it containing instructions. On the one occasion that I felt God spoke with me (no voices, but almost as if I was having a conversation with myself except different) it was clear English without an accent. And coincidentally there was not a person or animal in sight and no cars, buses or boats moving for about 20 minutes in a normally busy tourist town while I sat in front of the tourist information center.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 24/02/2020 15:39:13
What is the difference between random radio signals from space and communication by alien life? Seems you would not know the answer so I will tell you. It is the "intelligence" contained in the information.
How can you possibly think I don't know that?

On the other hand, without the mechanism to decode it, it may (like spread signal communication) be indistinguishable from noise.
That's the point.

Sometimes I feel when debating you that I am speaking to someone whose first and second languages are not English (tongue in cheek). This happens when instructing workers from tribal areas.

The mechanism to decode the psychic signals are part of the structure of our brains. Let me maybe rephrase that - some of us have a part of the structure of our brains as the mechanism. I was blessed with a fully functional high performing brain, although it took a while to learn to be able to use it properly. The social functions and figuring out the deviousness of some people (like some of my first wives) took quite a while. Sometimes I was like a child trying to drive a racing car. I did not understand sarcasm or envy until later in life.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 15:52:43
I was blessed with a fully functional high performing brain, although it took a while to learn to be able to use it properly.
Or you are deluded.
And your problem is that, from everyone else's point of view, it looks like the latter.


Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/02/2020 16:59:17
Added to that was a need for secrecy
Secrecy? There are plenty of books on Judaism, about half written by people who knew what they were talking about.

Quote
[But there is a price to pay - paranoia.
We do indeed suffer from the paranoia that demagogues induce in others, but the most balanced and rational people I have met were survivors of Nazi and Communist antisemitism.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 25/02/2020 09:08:46
I was blessed with a fully functional high performing brain, although it took a while to learn to be able to use it properly.
Or you are deluded.
And your problem is that, from everyone else's point of view, it looks like the latter.

What are we talking about. Here is a definition.
https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder#1
Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a psychotic disorder. People who have it can’t tell what’s real from what is imagined.


Interesting. You are putting the cart before the horse again. And you do not realize how often you do it. You assume the non-existence of God in order to do proofs of non-existence - just done in a vague and roundabout way. Here you first define my experiences as imaginary and then you apply the definition.

My experiences are as real as anything you have experienced. They are also rational in that they offer personal proof of a Prime Cause. The rationality goes further because all the experiences explain not only our existence and consciousness but also the many experiences of other people who have psychic or mystical experiences. The rationality explains how to differentiate the frauds and fakes from the real deal.

You could be called delusional for imagining that you can explain away any possible supernatural experience. You cannot. You simply apply a variety of labels in the hope that like-minded people cheer you on. You denialism borders on being delusional.

Just look at the current US situation regarding the elections. Probably 80% of the population could be labelled delusional by professionals for beliefs not based on reality.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2020 19:36:39
Here is a definition.
https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder#1
Yes, but it's not a definition of the right word.
This is
deluded
/dɪˈluːdɪd/

adjective
believing something that is not true.
"the poor deluded creature"


And yet, you thought it was.
So you believed something that isn't true.

You poor deluded creature.


They are also rational in that they offer personal proof of a Prime Cause.
That's not even true in the context of your beliefs.
How can you be sure that it's the same "God"?
The one that made the Universe might have died a million years ago and we are now under the supervision of His dimwitted Son.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 26/02/2020 04:51:33
Here is a definition.
https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder#1
Yes, but it's not a definition of the right word.
This is
deluded
/dɪˈluːdɪd/

adjective
believing something that is not true.
"the poor deluded creature"


And yet, you thought it was.
So you believed something that isn't true.

You poor deluded creature.

Your assumption is that I believe something that is not true. Imagined is assumed to be false although it could be unknown but true.

Either definition requires that you start with the assumption that my hypothesis is "not true" ie "falsely imagined".

So now I challenge you to prove me wrong. You can use inconsistency as one method but not lack of evidence on your part. Just because you have never seen a black swan does not mean they do not exist. You can also use a scientific proof of the Prime Cause to show that your Prime Cause is correct therefore mine must be false.

I am going to post a few examples of my logic and analytic ability to illustrate that I am capable of
1) creative thought
2) analytic ability
3) clear memory and
4) seem to have a "sixth sense."

"Poor deluded creature" is a poor description of what you think I am based on your false rationale and false imagery. You are engaging in mud-slinging, so I will counter that.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 26/02/2020 04:55:39
Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 09:08:46

    They are also rational in that they offer personal proof of a Prime Cause.

That's not even true in the context of your beliefs.
How can you be sure that it's the same "God"?
The one that made the Universe might have died a million years ago and we are now under the supervision of His dimwitted Son.

You are engaging in anthropomorphic imagery and an illogical train of thought. Equating your imaginings to my solid experiences is not even vaguely equivalent. To have a son, the God would have to have a wife and be capable of procreation, not to mention dying thereafter.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 26/02/2020 05:05:08
Here is one example of a possible "sixth sense". You could say I am unusually observant - which would also boost my credentials. Note that I accept that I could somehow have seen the hidden watch.

On a hike our group were camped by a field. I noticed a group of about ten hikers searching in the field as a distressed woman guided them. After about 45 minutes, they gave up one by one. The woman was left crying with her husband. I walked up and said I have a talent for finding missing things and have done so a number of times. I asked her what she lost and where she thinks she lost it. It was the center of the search area. I walked around for a couple of minutes and then bent down and moved a clump of grass to the side. There was the missing watch - an expensive heirloom. She ran at me and jumped onto me to hug me. I thought I was being grabbed by an octopus she held so tight.

So when I claim to be able to do something I can often deliver.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 26/02/2020 05:25:37
Another example of a "sixth sense". Although you could claim I am unusually analytical and remarkably stubborn.

I was about 25 years old and had the position of commissioning engineer. After construction of large electrical installations I would do a thorough check of everything and then power up and run tests. Distribution substations, power line series capacitor banks, power shunt capacitor banks, large mine hoist motors, smelting transformers, all the control circuits and so on. I never missed a fault because I was so thorough.

I tested a large smelting transformer and told them that the meggar test failed. They told me the capacitance of long cables to the distribution yard were stopping the meter from building up the voltage. I did not agree and would not sign off. They called my boss who called me and said if they wanted to go ahead it was their problem but I had to sign off which I would not do. The next week there was a meeting of eleven top engineers and my manager. They were seriously annoyed because they had lost a week of production. They had arranged to take off the cables (not so easy with one square inch of copper and insulation for 11,000 volts). The transformer tested fine. The cables did not. The cable test people were there and said they wold not retest because they had done so two weeks ago despite my meggar on the cable showing zero.

I was the one who had to power up. We drove the distance to the distribution yard. I told them my gut feeling was very bad and I did not recommend powering up. The resulting explosion in the yard caused flame and smoke and the fault caused a large portion of South Africa to black out. I had tested the yard six months earlier. The cable were connected to the equipment there. Six months without the warming of flowing electrical current had caused the equipment to absorb moisture and cause a short circuit. Our sales manager was very happy because they had bought the cheaper competitors current transformers.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 26/02/2020 05:51:03
An example of serendipity and an ability to visualize processes on an atomic scale. Is a machine (if we are such) capable of such creativity?

Plastic films and parts are treated with a flame to convert the surface to get a polar radical (an OH) so that they can be painted with a logo or a label glued on. It can be done with high voltage corona discharge, but that is not only dangerous to workers, it can punch through a tiny inclusion of dirt.

The problem was that the flame had to have just the right mixture of gas and air. Not too rich and not too lean. When tons of milk carton stock is being produced at a time it was costly and a disaster to find it had not worked. Flow meters were tried but failed because the natural gas composition varied and the air varied according to how much humidity there was. I was at a convention of some sort and they were demonstrating the emission of a car using a high temperature oxygen sensor. I got a sample and then had to find a way to use it and get a signal to drive a control motor connected to the gas mixing. It worked. We did not patent it because we said the competitors would not understand the concept (I was an electrical/electronics engineer working in the field of gas burners) and we would not have it copied. It was called a plasma analyzer. It was highly successful and made a lot of money for the company. I gave a conference paper to the paper making industry.

Not delusional and definitely not poor at that time. I was paid more than the top engineering manager at GM. My management skills were also good. I built a team by hiring and firing. I recommended and supervised the installation of a network of PCs where at a time that IBM had just brought out their first PC. The network and the custom Foxpro accounting program replaced the IBM main frame. This was despite another CEO telling the owner of the company (while I was there) that my ideas were rubbish and I would sink the company with my wild schemes. Delusional?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 26/02/2020 06:36:04
Here is one that you could say I know business and people and I was just plain lucky. However, it does not explain that once more I correctly interpreted Tarot cards.

I emigrated to the US and worked under two Italian salesmen who were intelligent, hard-working and knew how to sell. I backed them by doing quotes and technical support at first and then sub-contracting the more complex orders. Our sales sky-rocketed as we skimmed the cream of the market. Based on this success, the main Swedish company opened a factory in the US. I could see the egos and personalities involved. I got side-lined. Our sales were dismal for two years and money was pumped into a huge factory with 75 workers. Moral was low so one of the ltalians (then Director of Sales) got the main office American Corporate CEO to visit us and tell us they would persist for at least another 3 years. My personal opinion, which I only shared with an outside consultant, was that he was a hatchet man brought in to trim the main office and could not be trusted. Personally I thought they would stop the bleeding soon.

The Director of Sales invited me to his home soon after and said his wife wanted a demonstration of the Tarot cards I had spoken about. I did the a layout for them and focused on explaining how they worked and how I interpreted them. A week later I got an offer of employment via the consultant and took it. A month later the Sales Director resigned, and a week after he resigned the company fired everyone and closed. When I visited the family of the Sales Director, the wife asked me how the Tarot cards knew the company would close. The hatchet man was replaced by a Swede shortly after all the cuts had been made.

I had not paid much attention, and obviously had my own suspicions but the card layout was clear. I had told them the factory would close shortly. They trusted the cards and not my personal opinion.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 26/02/2020 07:01:10
Added to that was a need for secrecy
Secrecy? There are plenty of books on Judaism, about half written by people who knew what they were talking about.

Quote
[But there is a price to pay - paranoia.
We do indeed suffer from the paranoia that demagogues induce in others, but the most balanced and rational people I have met were survivors of Nazi and Communist antisemitism.

The secrecy was in place until very recently. Judaism used a "secret language," namely Hebrew, for its texts and writings and they were not available to others. Likewise with the ceremonies. When I visited a synagogue in NY there was a group of men talking business on the side. As I approached to walk past they all stopped and evaluated me. Despite my dark wavy hair I was seen as a goyim (non-Jew) and the talk stopped until I passed by. Now that there is wide-spread publication, the new tactic is disinformation and attacking any disseminators of the truth.

It stands to reason that the least paranoid were actual victims. They had survived and there was little chance of a repeat. The imaginings are worse than the actual experience - hard as that might be to believe. That is why the participation of little children in ceremonies that "celebrate" survival of a horrible event are terribly disturbing to a growing mind. Add "Jewish guilt" to that to compound it.

Which is why I think Judaism should update. For its own sake.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2020 08:06:05
To have a son, the God would have to have a wife and be capable of procreation, not to mention dying thereafter.
And, for all you actually   know, He does.

So, what was your point there?
Here is one example of a possible "sixth sense". You could say I am unusually observant - which would also boost my credentials. Note that I accept that I could somehow have seen the hidden watch.

On a hike our group were camped by a field. I noticed a group of about ten hikers searching in the field as a distressed woman guided them. After about 45 minutes, they gave up one by one. The woman was left crying with her husband. I walked up and said I have a talent for finding missing things and have done so a number of times. I asked her what she lost and where she thinks she lost it. It was the center of the search area. I walked around for a couple of minutes and then bent down and moved a clump of grass to the side. There was the missing watch - an expensive heirloom. She ran at me and jumped onto me to hug me. I thought I was being grabbed by an octopus she held so tight.

So when I claim to be able to do something I can often deliver.
Luck.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2020 08:09:23
The secrecy was in place until very recently.
No, not for a thousand years or so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_ibn_Abitur
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2020 08:15:15
Another example of a "sixth sense".
Or the ability to use (but not to spell) a Megger.

I tested a large smelting transformer and told them that the meggar test failed.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 26/02/2020 10:55:47
Another example of a "sixth sense".
Or the ability to use (but not to spell) a Megger.

I tested a large smelting transformer and told them that the meggar test failed.

I have been telling you my spelling is atrocious because of brain shrinkage and deterioration in my language center. I was not sure of the spelling and did not want to check it as I typically do.

Gold star for correcting my error. Not a spot the deliberate mistake.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 26/02/2020 11:01:12
The secrecy was in place until very recently.
No, not for a thousand years or so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_ibn_Abitur

Not exactly a wide publication. Perhaps to a sympathetic eye?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah
This so-called Baghdad Manifesto was read out in Friday mosques throughout the 'Abbasid domains accusing the Fatimids of Jewish ancestry. In addition, because of Al-Hakim's alleged Christian mother, he was accused of being over-sympathetic to non-Muslims, giving them more privileges than they should have been given under Islamic rule.


Do you think it disqualifies my statement about secrecy? Once more I refer to extensive historical reading on my part.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 26/02/2020 11:25:37
This morning I saw a news piece about the fungus destroying the tomato crops in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania because of record rains. The locust swarms in Ethiopia and Somalia are also due to heavy rainfalls. The Chinese pork industry has been hit hard by a pig virus.

I have said for a while that the world went through very calm centuries (about 10,000 years) where humankind had a chance to thrive and expand. God may have permitted that by limiting natural disasters (and allowing the one that wiped out the dinosaurs). Now he is sitting back and not intervening. Gods planned fix for global warming - do nothing. Except for an enlightened few.

The point of this. I have claimed that the world will experience a die-off due to a variety of causes. In 2009 I thought it would be a viral pandemic, then I thought it would be a fungal-virus combination that would weaken immune systems, but now I think that it will be cell towers weakening immune systems and causing mutations.

How about this scenario. The corona virus is fairly dormant until the host experiences cellular disruption due to being near higher and longer than usual cell microwaves. These cause the cells to have unbalanced VGCCs (voltage gated calcium channels) and these produce excess ROS (reactive oxygen species) which in turn make the cell vulnerable to attack by pathogens, and cause more mutations.

Support for my theory. No viral outbreak (yet) in poor regions. Outbreaks in hi-tech (hi-cell coverage) areas. High outbreak in a ship with lots of Wifi. Older people with compromised immune systems which are the people made worse by cell microwave. The virus seems to "hide" until activated - perhaps by cell microwave.

Why do I think this? Because I believe God wanted to teach me lessons. Why else make me suffer so much? I learned a lot, believe me. I think he allowed the cell tower next door to us with unusually high radiation and had me experience how the microwaves degrade the human system. We now have a great home - a blessing I believe.

Just some musings to make people think. Going to the country and leaving your cell devices at home might be a refuge. Of course Bored Chemist and the cell industry will be working hard to persuade you otherwise. Time will tell for those of us let alive.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2020 13:52:48
Do you think it disqualifies my statement about secrecy?
The definition of the word disqualifies your statement.
It's not as if that 1000 year old version is the only translation.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2020 13:53:40
How about this scenario.
It's bad sci fi.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 26/02/2020 14:31:41
Do you think it disqualifies my statement about secrecy?
The definition of the word disqualifies your statement.
It's not as if that 1000 year old version is the only translation.

So you think the general populace and the rulers of countries up until 1900 were aware of what the Jewish teachings were and what the rituals were all about? No way. Give me proof of what you say.

I say there were rabbinical edicts that Jews could put out false writings and false information if it served as self-protection. I do not blame them - it was a clever tactic, but did not resolve the suspicion of the religion.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 26/02/2020 14:52:02
How about this scenario.
It's bad sci fi.

Keep disputing it. My wife needs to sell the house next to the cell tower before any such theory gains traction.

As far as the impact on the economy you should not forget that the crash of 2008 (which I saw coming when my late wife asked my to check the Tarot cards) did not result in the correction that it should have. The toxic debt is still on the balance sheets of many banks. Not at market value but at whatever the banks think it is worth. A lot was bought by central banks. The current economy is smoke and mirrors - a giant Ponzi scheme and the government has no options left. The true correction will be a blood bath. Bad sci-fi? Some economists think it is inevitable. The internet may collapse and I will not be able to say "I told you so."

In 2008 she cashed in her provident fund at maximum value and sold her house which turned out to be a blessing.

I remember looking at the financials of Bear Sterns or Lehman that they put out just before the crash. I looked for the debt and could not find it. I realized that they classed debt as an "asset" but saying that these collateralized debt options were somehow income assets because they could be sold on at a higher value. And I am an engineer although I can read a financial statement.

I had some property investments with one of these companies just before the 1987 Black Monday crash (which I also saw) and tried to sell them. My third wife's brother who we bought them from kept stalling. I wanted solid post office investments. After the crash I wanted to sell them and was told they were worth twice what I paid. I said sell them. They said no-one will buy them. True value equals zero. We only just sold our Manhattan apartment in time - the same week as the crash.

Yes. Those God hints have a practical side.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2020 16:22:21
So you think the general populace and the rulers of countries up until 1900

The secrecy was in place until very recently.


Nice attempt there, but put the goalpost back where it was.

However, the answer to your question is demonstrably yes
"The unofficial visit of Prince George and his brothers to Jerusalem, including their participation at the Passover Seder held at the home of the the Chief Rabbi Raphael Meir Panigel, is also documented in the Hebrew booklet “The Visit of the Princes of England in Jerusalem” written by the famous writer and researcher Pinchas Graiewski (1873-1941) together with Baruch Priver."

from
https://blog.nli.org.il/en/king_george_v_pessach_1882/

And before that too
http://strangeside.com/adler-rabbi-nathan-and-queen-victoria/
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 27/02/2020 05:01:33
So you think the general populace and the rulers of countries up until 1900

The secrecy was in place until very recently.


Nice attempt there, but put the goalpost back where it was.

However, the answer to your question is demonstrably yes
"The unofficial visit of Prince George and his brothers to Jerusalem, including their participation at the Passover Seder held at the home of the the Chief Rabbi Raphael Meir Panigel, is also documented in the Hebrew booklet “The Visit of the Princes of England in Jerusalem” written by the famous writer and researcher Pinchas Graiewski (1873-1941) together with Baruch Priver."

from
https://blog.nli.org.il/en/king_george_v_pessach_1882/

And before that too
http://strangeside.com/adler-rabbi-nathan-and-queen-victoria/

One word answer - propaganda.

How many people (kings and queens included know this about the basics of Judaism). Practiced by Jews of many denominations.

All three Abrahamic religions stress charity. Giving to those less fortunate is mandated.
There are two charities I trust to use the contributions to the best of those who need them. One is the Salvation Army (Christian) and one is the Gift of the Givers (Muslim). There are two international aid organizations. One is the Red Cross (Christian) and one is the Red Crescent (Muslim).
There is no Jewish equivalent, despite massive philanthropic contributions by wealthy Jews. From what I can make out, most of their contributions go to Jewish charities for Jewish people, or they build universities and hospitals that benefit the Jewish community.
Jewish law has a priority of giving to the poor and needy.
1. Poor relatives (familial proximity)
2. Jewish people/Jewish community (religio-ethnic proximity)
3. People in local town or Israeli towns (geographic proximity)
4. People who live in another town
5. Non-poverty Jewish causes (religio-ethnic proximity)
6. Non-poverty local causes/Israeli causes (geographic proximity)
7. Non-poverty, non-local organizations e.g. Cancer, Greenpeace.
Gentiles come last and only if not giving would cause antagonism to Jews. This priority with regard to Jewishness is watered down the further one goes from Orthodox sites. Jewish people know that Jewish causes come first.

While charity begins at home and most people do so within their community there is a massive amount of Christian money that goes to the poorer Jews in Israel.

In 1940, British historian Arthur Bryant wrote a book entitled 'Unfinished Victory' about the German history between 1919 and 1939. It was well received at first. Then he was forced to withdraw it and buy back all 5,000 copies because it was seen as proposing a compromise. It was also seen as antisemitic. There are two viewpoints - one is that he self-censors because of the mood of the nation, the other is that he was pressured because it was seen as antisemitic. It does provide a very different perspective compared to the history of today.

https://www.unz.com/book/arthur_bryant__unfinished-victory/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0031322032000185569

My late wife told me she spoke with an older German who lived through the war. His comment about the German Jews before the war was "You should have seen how they treated us."

Once more I say that people should properly learn the lessons of history lest they be repeated. There are often two sides to any story.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2020 08:49:09
One is the Red Cross (Christian)
The Red Cross isn't Christian.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2020 08:50:07
One word answer - propaganda.
And that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed the same way.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 27/02/2020 16:09:39
One is the Red Cross (Christian)
The Red Cross isn't Christian.

Oh! Really!
https://christianheritagefellowship.com/the-christian-origin-of-the-red-cross
Like so many institutions, organizations, and benevolent agencies, the Red Cross had its origin in the Christian Faith. As noted below in the brief thumbnail sketch, the Christian faith of banker and businessman, Henry Dunant, was the impetus behind the compassion that has been and continues to be extended to millions around the world.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 27/02/2020 16:11:03
One word answer - propaganda.
And that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed the same way.

Not worth further debate, even to respond to this.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2020 16:18:35
One is the Red Cross (Christian)
The Red Cross isn't Christian.

Oh! Really!
https://christianheritagefellowship.com/the-christian-origin-of-the-red-cross
Like so many institutions, organizations, and benevolent agencies, the Red Cross had its origin in the Christian Faith. As noted below in the brief thumbnail sketch, the Christian faith of banker and businessman, Henry Dunant, was the impetus behind the compassion that has been and continues to be extended to millions around the world.

LOL
One word answer - propaganda.


Did you really think that presenting christianheritagefellowship as an independent source was going to fly on a science page?

However, if you look at what the Red Cross actually say they stand for here
https://www.redcross.org.uk/about-us/what-we-stand-for
You get this
Impartiality
The Movement makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions.

It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.

The fact that the bloke who founded it went to church on Sunday, rather than Saturday does not make it a Christian movement.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2020 16:19:04
One word answer - propaganda.
And that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed the same way.

Not worth further debate, even to respond to this.
So, you accept tat I'm right and there's no reason to suppose that it is proaganda?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 27/02/2020 16:25:39
Note a couple of cases that recovered have again tested positive. Uh oh.

I doubt it is a mutation this early in the game but with the mutant enhancing properties of cell microwave it just might be.

And the virus spreading in people without symptoms, and then something triggers the sudden growth in person.

How about if the virus is resident and spread without symptoms and then is triggered by exposure to cell phone radiation. Is my sci-fi so irrational and unbelievable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Andromeda_Strain_(film)
Meanwhile, the team realizes that the alien microbe would thrive on the energy of a nuclear explosion and would consequently be transformed into a supercolony that could destroy all life on Earth.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2020 17:00:12
And the virus spreading in people without symptoms
Do you think  that's unusual, or are you aware that some people don't get every cold that does the rounds?
mutant enhancing properties of cell microwave
Is that the plot of some sci fi film?
Viruses don't need help to mutate.

Is my sci-fi so irrational and unbelievable?
Yes, because it lacks a plausible mechanism
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2020 17:02:29
Meanwhile, the team realizes that the alien microbe would thrive on the energy of a nuclear explosion and would consequently be transformed into a supercolony that could destroy all life on Earth.
You have mistaken a nuclear bomb for a mobile phone.

Is there a grown-up who helps you with this sort of thing?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/02/2020 19:12:56
God may have permitted that by limiting natural disasters
Of course! The Ice Age, the Black Death, and the destruction of Pompeii, were all due to Man's disobedience in erecting microwave towers, not by God's faulty construction of the universe.

The idea that homo sapiens "flourished" for 10,000 years doesn't quite gel with the population statistics.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 28/02/2020 05:32:56
And the virus spreading in people without symptoms
Do you think  that's unusual, or are you aware that some people don't get every cold that does the rounds?
mutant enhancing properties of cell microwave
Is that the plot of some sci fi film?
Viruses don't need help to mutate.

Is my sci-fi so irrational and unbelievable?
Yes, because it lacks a plausible mechanism

Viruses can have animal reservoirs that carry the virus in a symptom-less manner. This means that the virus has an equilibrium state where it replicates and lives without excessive damage to the host. When the virus mutates in order to jump species, the new host (humankind) typically has no defense and often the effects are quite damaging and have a high mortality. But killing off too fast is self-limiting to the aggressive versions (except when carried by Spanish invaders who can keep spreading the bad stuff) and hence a balance is established. One can read this in the book I recommended "Pandemics Progress".

The worst virus is one that is slow so can spread but is also deadly. AIDS is one such virus. SA has huge number of people who are infected. They are probably at risk for this new COVID-19. We are also saturated in cell towers, if that is a needed factor.

With flu, people have immunity once they get it, and may have partial immunity to a different strain (mutation). The flu virus is mutating a lot in the last few years (the same years of massive increases in cell phones and other environmental toxins). H1N1 now has a variety of digits.

The corona virus has proteins that attach to the membrane of a cell. They need to penetrate the cell, and their surface protein is the key. If the cell is not fully functional then penetration is made easier. This is where the cell-phone microwave does its part. The voltage gated proteins that control calcium, sodium and potassium are affected by pulsed microwave and are not fully functional. They are the cells that are attacked by the corona virus. They are all cells - nerves, muscles, tissue, marrow and so on.

Now how do I know that cell microwave causes problems in people who have an underlying condition? Because of first hand experience over the last 18 months. Headaches, stomach upsets, knee pain - all were made worse by exposure to high levels (by natural standards and not legal standards) of cell radiation.

So the corona virus could be in equilibrium in people in undetectable amounts, but enough to pass on. If exposed to excessive radiation for a little while, which is happening in hi-tech centers, the cells are weakened and then the corona virus can multiply and damage the host. If the host recovers the situation goes back to equilibrium and waits for the next burst of high radiation to reactivate.

And all the time the cell-radiation is assisting in causing mutations in the virus. This virus may be such that a vaccine is problematic.

I am writing from memory so I stand to be corrected on some details but the basic scenario should be the same.

In direct answer. Mutations happen all the time. The rate of mutation depends on stressors. Cell-phone radiation is scientifically proven to be a powerful one. I have given you the scientific reasoning for the mechanism. You can reject it but it is very plausible.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 28/02/2020 05:44:33
God may have permitted that by limiting natural disasters
Of course! The Ice Age, the Black Death, and the destruction of Pompeii, were all due to Man's disobedience in erecting microwave towers, not by God's faulty construction of the universe.

The idea that homo sapiens "flourished" for 10,000 years doesn't quite gel with the population statistics.

None of those disasters resulted in the extinction of humankind. God may have limited anything that would. Why is the presence of evil and suffering an imperfect universe? You have your idea of perfection but I can tell you humankind would be lazy and get nowhere. The current "game" has permitted the evolution of a fantastic creature with both intelligence and athletic prowess. A Japanese sword is made by bending and folding and hammering over and over to get a perfect grain. The stressors on human evolution do something similar.

Your "less than perfect" argument is a straw man. We are entertaining an Ultimate Intelligence and God is in the game as a force for good. The religions know this and know the rules. They benefit. Atheism as an evolutionary advantage has yet to prove itself. I predict it will not serve its adherents well in the coming crisis and will be relegated to history.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2020 18:23:19
Now how do I know that cell microwave causes problems in people who have an underlying condition? Because of first hand experience over the last 18 months. Headaches, stomach upsets, knee pain - all were made worse by exposure to high levels (by natural standards and not legal standards) of cell radiation.

Is there a name for this specific  mental health problem?

The one where you can function as a normal human being, read, write, hold down a job etc.

But still not be able to understand that an anecdote is not the same as proof.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2020 18:25:03
I am writing from memory so I stand to be corrected on some details
And all the time the cell-radiation is assisting in causing mutations in the virus.
Viruses don't need help to mutate.

Your memory is frighteningly poor.
I suggest you seek urgent medical help.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 28/02/2020 19:21:39
I am writing from memory so I stand to be corrected on some details
And all the time the cell-radiation is assisting in causing mutations in the virus.
Viruses don't need help to mutate.

Your memory is frighteningly poor.
I suggest you seek urgent medical help.

This bit of strange logic makes me wonder about your state of mind. A real non-sequitur.

Remember what I said about a poster using insults instead of debating the issues?

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 28/02/2020 19:29:33
Now how do I know that cell microwave causes problems in people who have an underlying condition? Because of first hand experience over the last 18 months. Headaches, stomach upsets, knee pain - all were made worse by exposure to high levels (by natural standards and not legal standards) of cell radiation.

Is there a name for this specific  mental health problem?

The one where you can function as a normal human being, read, write, hold down a job etc.

But still not be able to understand that an anecdote is not the same as proof.

The name of this thread is can science prove God exists. Since God (and the Ultimate Intelligence) does not want scientific proof then it will not happen. But the hints can get quite convincing. Let us say that I am right about the corona virus and microwaves. I am possibly already right about predicting a coming die-off. Would that seem like I got divine inspiration (a message)?

When the scientists scramble for answers and people are dying and the world goes into panic mode, an anecdote that might have some answers seems better than none. Especially when so many people do believe that God works in such ways.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 28/02/2020 20:19:55
Here is how to check on the mechanism. Do a google search for "corona virus mechanism of action"

Note two points in the first. Calcium and pH. The cell microwave interferes with both. Your turn BC.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3397359/ (2012)

...Coronaviruses are able to exploit many cell surface molecules—proteins and carbohydrates alike—in order to gain entry into target cells. Host calcium dependent (C-type) lectins have been recognized to play a role in infection by SARS-CoV, IBV, and FCoV.

...Over time, coronaviruses have modified their spike proteins, leading to the diversity of triggers used to activate their fusion. These conformational changes can be initiated by receptor binding but may need additional triggers such as pH acidification or proteolytic activation. The mechanisms of coronavirus entry are complex and differ between coronavirus species and strains.

...The large size and replication strategy of the coronavirus genome also allows for frequent homologous recombination, a process that enables exchange of genetic material during co-infection. Persistent infection leads to the accumulation of adaptive mutations. The consequences of coronavirus species barrier jumping can be devastating and result in severe disease and mortality, as exemplified by the SARS outbreak. The spike protein is the major determinant of coronaviruses tropism. Modification of the spike can alter cell and tissue tropism and, in some cases, in association with other viral and host factors, may lead to change of virus pathogenicity. Zoonoses constitute a real risk for human health. In the past, coronaviruses have often demonstrated their propensity to infect new hosts, highlighting the capacity for viral evolution and the need for surveillance. Great progress has been made in the understanding of spike protein functions, however it remains impossible to predict the effect of mutations that a virus might acquire.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369385/ is more recent (2015)

...Owing to the lack of effective therapeutics or vaccines, the best measures to control human coronaviruses remain a strong public health surveillance system coupled with rapid diagnostic testing and quarantine when necessary. For international outbreaks, cooperation of governmental entities, public health authorities and health care providers is critical. During veterinary outbreaks that are readily transmitted, such as PEDV, more drastic measures such as destruction of entire herds of pigs may be necessary to prevent transmission of these deadly viruses.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/02/2020 11:22:07
Remember what I said about a poster using insults instead of debating the issues?
Pointing out that you had forgotten what I told you about 12 hours earlier is not an insult, it's advice; go and seek medical help.
Note two points in the first. Calcium and pH. The cell microwave interferes with both. Your turn BC.
No
It's not my turn unless  you can actually show that what you said is true.
So where's the proof of this claim?
The cell microwave interferes with both.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/02/2020 15:17:03
The stressors on human evolution do something similar.
An omniscient, omnipotent being would not  mess about with evolution - he would go straight to the ultimate product. Thus your god is either not omnipotent and omniscient, in which case he is not worth inventing, let alone worshipping, or he is reprehensible.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/02/2020 15:23:15
So you think the general populace and the rulers of countries up until 1900 were aware of what the Jewish teachings were and what the rituals were all about?
Your ignorance is not evidence of my secrecy. My neighbour is a Hindu. I can't read his sacred texts nor do I know what he does about them, and it's none of my damn business anyway. 
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 29/02/2020 18:47:09
The stressors on human evolution do something similar.
An omniscient, omnipotent being would not  mess about with evolution - he would go straight to the ultimate product. Thus your god is either not omnipotent and omniscient, in which case he is not worth inventing, let alone worshipping, or he is reprehensible.

If you were given the choice of doing a painting/sculpture/work of art or just snapping your fingers and getting instant results - which choice would you make if you were an artist? If you went to a movie theater to see a murder mystery and they screened "The butler did it with the knife in the kitchen", would you feel you missed out on experiencing the movie?

Let us say that your imagined omniscient, omnipotent God could just jump to the finished perfect product - what then? Boredom! Lumps of tissue without feeling or emotion or history.

You miss the point about God being a part of the dream of the Ultimate Intelligence. Almost omniscient and omnipotent, but not quite. Enough not to disturb the worship of the major religions, but having to follow the rules set by the Ultimate Intelligence. Do good, hint about your presence, but do not give absolute proof. Let the laws of physics have precedence. Fight Satan and evil.

The story of the Universe, God, Satan and Humankind is incredibly entertaining. That is what it is. An illusion as "real" as any movie. You can knock religion as much as you want but it will not change the Ultimate Truth - which is something I think (for good reason) I have had an insight into. The problem is that you have to assess my hypothesis on the basis of my credibility and how well my hypothesis fits not only science facts but religious and spiritual facts - namely the entire package of human experience and not a narrow artificial definition designed to support the anti-theism of a group of people.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/02/2020 19:05:39
If you were given the choice of doing a painting/sculpture/work of art or just snapping your fingers and getting instant results - which choice would you make if you were an artist?
Who cares what choice I would make?
I'm not an all powerful, everlasting God.

Things like boredom only apply to mortals.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 29/02/2020 19:11:10
So you think the general populace and the rulers of countries up until 1900 were aware of what the Jewish teachings were and what the rituals were all about?
Your ignorance is not evidence of my secrecy. My neighbour is a Hindu. I can't read his sacred texts nor do I know what he does about them, and it's none of my damn business anyway.

Judaism is the only religion that I know that is reluctant to tell people what they believe and how their religion guides their daily lives. Ask your Hindu neighbour. No doubt he will take pride in explaining in detail why his beliefs are and what his rituals are and why they are. Same with other religions. They are happy to have converts because they believe their beliefs are universal.

The hidden side of Judaism is that the Jewish beliefs see the world as Jew and non-Jew. Here is an extreme example but one few know about. Can you imagine the public outrage if it was anyone else?

The Times of Israel reported on problematic quotes from Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who died at 93, and was a revered halachic scholar. He was also the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel from 1973 to 1983 and the founder and long-time spiritual leader of Israel's ultra-Orthodox Shas party. His funeral in Jerusalem was the largest in Israel's history, with an estimated attendance of 850,000. Yet he was recorded as saying in sermons:

Year 2000 (the Holocaust): “The six million Holocaust victims were reincarnations of the souls of sinners, people who transgressed and did all sorts of things which should not be done. They had been reincarnated in order to atone.”

Year 2010 (Gentiles): “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”

Year 2000 (regarding peace with Arabs): “How can you make peace with a snake?...Those evildoers, the Arabs — it says in the Gemara (Talmud) that God is sorry he ever created those sons of Ishmael.”

Year 2009 (regarding Muslims): “They’re stupid. Their religion is as ugly as they are.”

Is Orthodox Judaism an errant sect or does it represent the true values of Judaism? Are these values only for the Jewish faithful and are kept out of sight of non-Jews? Are his quotes representative of the basic religious values? Or are they seen as the personal musings of an old man?

Once more, I think that the biggest update required of Judaism is universality. Put aside the "us and them". I cannot see it happening except in a time of extreme crisis. Perhaps it is one of the outcomes God wants to see with a global die-off.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 29/02/2020 19:13:30
If you were given the choice of doing a painting/sculpture/work of art or just snapping your fingers and getting instant results - which choice would you make if you were an artist?
Who cares what choice I would make?
I'm not an all powerful, everlasting God.

Things like boredom only apply to mortals.

For a mortal you seem to know a lot about God and gods and vastly superior beings. How?

I was in the mind of the Ultimate Intelligence and that is how I know it was bored.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 29/02/2020 19:15:15
(snip)
So where's the proof of this claim?
The cell microwave interferes with both.

Tomorrow. It is late and past my bedtime.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/02/2020 19:45:20
The hidden side of Judaism is that the Jewish beliefs see the world as Jew and non-Jew.
Nonstandard meaning of "hidden", I think. It's as overt as Christian and heathen, or muslim and infidel. Or Arsenal (red shirts) and  visitors.

The outstanding aspect of Judaism is that it does not seek to convert or exterminate people of other faiths. "By their deeds shall ye know them" was said by the most famous Jew of all time.

You can probably trace your family back a few generations. Whilst many of the paper records have been destroyed, my maternal DNA irrevocably links me with (almost*) every other Jew that ever lived, regardless of his belief or none, so scientifically speaking you are either in or out of the tribe.

*The few genuine converts include Sammy Davis Jr and Nelson Mandela, neither of whom was under any pressure to join but both were welcomed.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/03/2020 05:48:07
The hidden side of Judaism is that the Jewish beliefs see the world as Jew and non-Jew.
Nonstandard meaning of "hidden", I think. It's as overt as Christian and heathen, or muslim and infidel. Or Arsenal (red shirts) and  visitors.

The outstanding aspect of Judaism is that it does not seek to convert or exterminate people of other faiths. "By their deeds shall ye know them" was said by the most famous Jew of all time.

You can probably trace your family back a few generations. Whilst many of the paper records have been destroyed, my maternal DNA irrevocably links me with (almost*) every other Jew that ever lived, regardless of his belief or none, so scientifically speaking you are either in or out of the tribe.

*The few genuine converts include Sammy Davis Jr and Nelson Mandela, neither of whom was under any pressure to join but both were welcomed.

Hidden as in not open or not seen. In Germany the opulence and wealth of the Jewish population was on open display contrary to earlier times when it was more discreet. The Rothschilds had more palaces than all of Europes royalty. One of these was the Palais Rothschild, built in Vienna in 1872 and was a showcase of their wealth. Waddesdon Manor was the Buckinghamshire English showpiece. However, their banking was completely secretive relying on 5 brothers in 5 capital cities and then intermarrying with cousins and then later with royalty. It seems that their fortunes were made on funding war, often both sides. The holocaust changed that and the Rothschilds now maintain a very low profile.

In most of the professions - such as medicine, science, engineering, law, art, politics, and media - there are many Jews who have made significant contributions. There are many Jewish websites proudly listing the achievements of Jews. It is an undeniable fact. When one looks at history, many of these achievers were born into the elite of society with professional parents who could send their children to good schools.

Two examples are Albert Einstein and John von Neumann. They were truly amazing people and likable characters. They share the background of having being taught in Christian schools. Fine with me. Society needs gifted talented people and talented people need nurturing. This did not occur in backstreet poverty-stricken ghettos, as many would have the world believe.

A group of super-achievers  was the example of the group of German scientists forced to flee Germany - fourteen Nobel laureates and 26 of the 60 professors of theoretical physics in the country. Contributions to the atomic bomb came from Robert Oppenheimer, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Leo Slizard, Edward Teller, Klaus Fuchs, Hans Bethe, John von Neumann, Lise Meitner, Victor Weisskopf – all either Jewish or with a Jewish parent.

Von Neumann was born to a wealthy, assimilated and non-observant Jewish family, and was taught by governesses. He learned English, French, German and Italian. At age 8,  von Neumann was familiar with differential and integral calculus. The school he went to in Budapest was one of the best, part of a  brilliant system designed for the elite. It was run by the Lutheran Church, but the school was predominately Jewish students. The school system produced a generation of scholars known for intellectual achievement.”

But we have the really bad. Murder Incorporated, which was co-founded by Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel in the USA, was as evil as anything could get. They turned murder into a profit making business, doing contract killings for mobsters. Other Jews had to know it was happening and did nothing.

Bugsy Siegel took over a project and built the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas, the first luxury hotel on the strip. He was welcome in Hollywood. The Hollywood movie 'Bugsy' has Warren Beatty portray Siegel as a likable romantic semi-hero. The Mafia was organized into a business by Jewish gangsters who got out once they made their money.

My point is that the Jews have fantastic skills of intellect and financial ability that mostly benefit society except when it becomes very unbalanced. But the religion still instills moral values, and those moral values permit or even encourage "us versus them". Usury is forbidden in Judaism contrary to popular belief. But the exception is when the other party is non-Jewish.

How can you justify and defend Jewish religion when it causes inequality and discrimination? Especially among the High Priests of the Religion. To retreat to the tribal excuse is a rationalization. Speak up and reform the religion.

Who are the 1% who own much of the worlds assets? It is likely there are a number of Jewish names in that, but that will not matter to the mob when they want retribution and redistribution. The mob wants a target they can identify. Hence I fear another pogrom on a massive scale if a mass die-off occurs.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2020 08:45:24
I was in the mind of the Ultimate Intelligence
And that's the point where common sense stops.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/03/2020 10:31:28
Secretive banking! How dare they?

The first question I ask any prospective banker is "Please make sure that my financial affairs are public knowledge", so I can be assured that my businesses will fail in the true spirit of Christian humility.

Your anti-Semitic advisors (and you seem to be extensively, if not well, informed) will probably have pointed out the extreme bias of the Nobel committees in favour of British Jews from Trinity College, Cambridge. Obvious conspiracy, and so secretive that it makes the headlines every year. 
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/03/2020 11:42:48
Secretive banking! How dare they?

The first question I ask any prospective banker is "Please make sure that my financial affairs are public knowledge", so I can be assured that my businesses will fail in the true spirit of Christian humility.

Your anti-Semitic advisors (and you seem to be extensively, if not well, informed) will probably have pointed out the extreme bias of the Nobel committees in favour of British Jews from Trinity College, Cambridge. Obvious conspiracy, and so secretive that it makes the headlines every year.

No advisors or even confidants. It is all my own personal experience or serendipitous articles and my buying of many books on not just Judaism but any other religious or spiritual topic. I would say that almost all my information on Judaism came for Jewish authors and sources. There are a few Jews who do fight the religion and the way of life and are prepared to do the research and to write about it. One has to be selective and apply common sense. Some of these are called self-hating Jews and are pilloried.

One author (or group of authors) chose to remain anonymous and publish a vast amount of fully referenced material. The site was clearly hacked with Swastikas and hate speech although it was clear it was meant to have just the one publication. The tone of the document was quite antisemitic despite the attempt to remain factual. Yes, that Jew was not a happy person because they felt that history was being re-written and sanitized to portray the Jewish people as long suffering victims when they were actually often aligned with the various rulers of the day in various countries.

"Business is business" is a saying I have heard from Jews when they are asked about religion being applied to business ethics. Shrug. You can choose to believe my interpretation or you can reject it as antisemitic. With the accompanying sarcasm.

Issac Shahak's book "Jewish History Jewish Religion" is one of the books I saw and read.

Another is by a psychiatrist named Theodore Isaac Rubin who wrote a book entitled 'Antisemitism – A disease of the Mind'. I was astounded at the lack of understanding. How can a supposedly intelligent man publish such a book?

I was in Brooklyn NY when the anti-Jewish riots broke out by blacks protesting Hasidim block-busting tactics and pressure. I lived close by and understood the dynamics. The characterization of a pogrom was so false I was stunned. The statement was made for political gain.

I take issue with other religions - I do not discriminate except to say that some might have better concepts that others. It is my opinion that it is God who wanted me to learn and guided the path.

If God exists and sent prophets in the past to inform people, why would he stop 2,000 years ago? Why could he not give some people some updated information, and help it spread? I may be wrong but my experience is too strange to think it is all coincidence.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/03/2020 12:20:44
Manipulation of the news and control of the media is currently a hot topic. The stocks took a beating last week and on Friday the SARS-CoV-2 (the official name for the pathogen with Covid-19 as the name of the disease it causes) was headlines on many of the news outlets I read or watched.

On Saturday and now Sunday the coverage dropped and was a lot calmer. In my opinion there is a global recognition that fear and panic could become out of control. The economic panic is not helpful.

It is a SARS variant, and it could become very nasty. The slow spread is interesting. I wondered since 2009 whether the die-off would be fast and hard or slow and long-lasting. I think it is the latter. God seems to want to give humankind a chance to adjust. That adjustment will need global cooperation and a reduction of bellicose talk and action. But it will be painful and a big change to life as we know it.

My wife got an offer to purchase the house we moved out of. The offer that fell through has somehow managed to get a mortgage. I hope it happens. I was seriously worried in case of an economic collapse. So I got two prayers answered. Slow spread and a drop in panic.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/03/2020 12:34:08
(snip)
So where's the proof of this claim?
The cell microwave interferes with both.

Tomorrow. It is late and past my bedtime.

You can reread my posts in the topic about cell towers and health problems in the "That CAN'T be true" section. I gave references to the science. You can once more reject it but those interested can look up Dr Martin Pall and the VGCC and cell biology where the pH changes when ion channels open or the ion pumps operate. Pulsed cell microwave studies show the effects on ROS and mutations as well as calcium involvement which mediates the enzyme and cell regulation. There is clearly an effect on MW on cells and it is not good. It logically has to be harmful.

Bottom line is "time will tell".
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2020 12:54:00
You can reread my posts in the topic about cell towers and health problems in the "That CAN'T be true" section.
What would be the point?
They still can't be true.
Bottom line is "time will tell".
It already did.
And the outcome is simple.
Science works.
Magic doesn't.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2020 13:00:33
I wondered since 2009 whether the die-off would be fast and hard or slow and long-lasting. I think it is the latter. God seems to want to give humankind a chance to adjust.
If God created a virus that leaves well over 90% of the population alive, and which essentially only kills significant numbers among people who are well over reproductive age then, whatever His plan may be, it's not population control.
If, as you claim, you know the mind of God, you should probably better stop portraying Him as an idiot.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/03/2020 14:24:04
I was seriously worried in case of an economic collapse. So I got two prayers answered.
So you could sell the house before the price collapses. I wonder what the buyer is praying for?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2020 14:40:00
I was seriously worried in case of an economic collapse. So I got two prayers answered.
So you could sell the house before the price collapses. I wonder what the buyer is praying for?
He's presumably praying that he gets a cheap house.
But as Clive has pointed out, "spirit" doesn't work that way.

So the moral of the story is that you shouldn't pray for things you actually want.
That seems consistent.
The world is full of people praying for things like coronavirus dying out.
The virus is doing well.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/03/2020 14:40:28
religion being applied to business ethics.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" - a famous saying by the most famous rabbi of all.

Like your man said, business is business, that is, it has nothing to do with religion.

My secretary came into the office one Monday morning and announced that she had just agreed her church wedding date. The vicar had been very diffident, pointing out that she was not a regular attender and her fiancé wasn't even a confirmed Christian.
"How did you get round that?"
"I took a leaf from your book. I said 'Second Saturday in November, 2 pm, seventy-five quid. Do you want the gig or not?' "
Star pupil.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/03/2020 16:21:02
My wife asked me to read the Tarot cards to see if she take the current offer for her house which is the same one she accepted before. I said that my gut feeling was move ahead as quickly as possible before an economic crash.

This morning I did two layouts of the cards and told my wife that although there was some relation to home and money there was definitely no answer. I said that the cards do not want people using them to make all their decisions and that there are times to think hard about what to do.

This afternoon I took a break from tidying up in the garage and did some random clicking on sites for anything mildly interesting. I came across this site and got a good laugh. I asked my wife to come and also have some comic relief.


At the end, I told my wife that she had just seen a spirit message regarding the house. Sell before the crunch hits. Can anyone see how relevant the message is to the question we want answered? This is sometimes how I get information from the spirit world - a serendipitous interaction from a news piece, a movie, a conversation, a book, or hearing two people discussing something.

So have a laugh and let us see how accurate the information is. It seems SA will have a market crash, and selling the house will be difficult if we wait.

I should ask for donations - visitors to this site are getting a free fortune telling appointment. But making money would be not be the reason spirit would help. The reason in this case is a demonstration of omens and portents - albeit with more direct information.

So far these events have worked for me. In New Zealand, I watched a Indian movie about a man having to deal with the death of his father who appears as a ghost. There had been a long breakup between them. I clearly took it as a sign to make peace with my father and apologize for my actions despite the breakup of a number of years having been engineered by the wife of my younger brother. The timing was right and so was my having to take my father's anger about a bad situation. So much went right after that. If I did not take the advice of the movie to be humble and bear the anger it would not have worked.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2020 16:33:11
This morning I did two layouts of the cards and told my wife that although there was some relation to home and money there was definitely no answer.
My wife said to me "You cannot always rely on your luck". Not luck I said. It is reliable and predictable. Many many times.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/03/2020 18:23:25
religion being applied to business ethics.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" - a famous saying by the most famous rabbi of all.

Like your man said, business is business, that is, it has nothing to do with religion.

My secretary came into the office one Monday morning and announced that she had just agreed her church wedding date. The vicar had been very diffident, pointing out that she was not a regular attender and her fiancé wasn't even a confirmed Christian.
"How did you get round that?"
"I took a leaf from your book. I said 'Second Saturday in November, 2 pm, seventy-five quid. Do you want the gig or not?' "
Star pupil.

Strange phrasing " the most famous rabbi of all." Jesus, was my first reaction but I did some searches and once more I had a serendipitous strike. Here is a book I will try to buy or read on-line. Two excerpts. So far I like what I read.

The Great Partnership: God, Science and the Search for Meaning
By Jonathan Sacks

...Science is about explanation. Religion is about  meaning. Science analyses, religion integrates. Science breaks things down to their component parts. Religion binds people together in relationships of trust. Science tells us what is. Religion tells us what ought to be. Science describes. Religion beckons, summons, calls. Science sees objects. Religion speaks to us as subjects. Science practises detachment. Religion is the art of attachment, self to self, soul to soul. Science sees the underlying order of the physical world. Religion hears the music beneath the noise. Science is the conquest of ignorance. Religion is the redemption of solitude.

...The final chapter of the book sets out my personal credo, my answer to the question, ‘Why do I believe?’ It was prompted by the advertisement, paid for by the British Humanist Association, that for a while in 2009 decorated the sides of London buses: ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.’ I hope the British Humanists will not take it amiss if I confess that this is not the most profound utterance yet devised by the wit of man. It reminds me of the remark I once heard from an Oxford don about one of his colleagues: ‘On the surface, he’s profound, but deep down, he’s superficial.’ Of course you cannot prove the existence of God. This entire book is an attempt to show why the attempt to do so is misconceived, the result of an accident in the cultural history of the West. But to take probability as a guide to truth, and ‘stop worrying’ as a route to happiness, is to dumb down beyond the point of acceptability two of the most serious questions ever framed by reflective minds. So, if you want to know why it makes sense to believe in God, turn to chapter 14.


There are many people who are Christians and Muslims who believe that ethics and principles should guide their behavior in business. It seems you do not, and your example shows that some clerics also have money as their God and can be "bought." If I had business dealings with you I would be careful about trust issues.

In my opinion, trust is a cornerstone of society. Despite laws and rules, people need to trust others in their everyday dealings. When a group does not integrate and remains separate there is suspicion. This can be seen all over the world in many societies with groups that do not integrate. The European Muslim is under pressure to integrate. I saw a cartoon by Jim Carey. He depicted Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 saying “People just submitted it. I don’t know why. They trust me. Dumb f**ks.” Zuckerberg’s deception of the Winklevoss twins is a movie. Of course, the twins should have considered that Zuckerberg had a website called 'Facemash' which breached privacy, security and violated copyright. It was not a very trusting resume. Zuckerberg had the business savvy and intelligence and the twins had not tied him down with a solid agreement. Nevertheless, it was pure arrogance, greed and deceit to steal the idea while sabotaging the project he was hired to work on. Facebook is currently under scrutiny for privacy ethics. Zuckerberg is not a good role model.


Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/03/2020 18:25:19
This morning I did two layouts of the cards and told my wife that although there was some relation to home and money there was definitely no answer.
My wife said to me "You cannot always rely on your luck". Not luck I said. It is reliable and predictable. Many many times.

Explain please. Or am I supposed to be a mind reader to your convoluted mental processes?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 01/03/2020 18:28:41
I was seriously worried in case of an economic collapse. So I got two prayers answered.
So you could sell the house before the price collapses. I wonder what the buyer is praying for?

The buyer wants the house because of the prime location to good schools. They pray they get it. It may still be right for them. It is on the low end of the valuations we got and we could maybe do better but...
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2020 18:30:14
This morning I did two layouts of the cards and told my wife that although there was some relation to home and money there was definitely no answer.
My wife said to me "You cannot always rely on your luck". Not luck I said. It is reliable and predictable. Many many times.

Explain please. Or am I supposed to be a mind reader to your convoluted mental processes?
It really isn't convoluted.
You say it always works.
And you say it doesn't always work.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 02/03/2020 05:30:27
This morning I did two layouts of the cards and told my wife that although there was some relation to home and money there was definitely no answer.
My wife said to me "You cannot always rely on your luck". Not luck I said. It is reliable and predictable. Many many times.

Explain please. Or am I supposed to be a mind reader to your convoluted mental processes?
It really isn't convoluted.
You say it always works.
And you say it doesn't always work.

Yes it works. I said that there are times the answer is "No Answer". It is not a wrong answer.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2020 07:15:05
This morning I did two layouts of the cards and told my wife that although there was some relation to home and money there was definitely no answer.
My wife said to me "You cannot always rely on your luck". Not luck I said. It is reliable and predictable. Many many times.

Explain please. Or am I supposed to be a mind reader to your convoluted mental processes?
It really isn't convoluted.
You say it always works.
And you say it doesn't always work.

Yes it works. I said that there are times the answer is "No Answer". It is not a wrong answer.
Giving no answer is not working.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 02/03/2020 08:25:47
This morning I did two layouts of the cards and told my wife that although there was some relation to home and money there was definitely no answer.
My wife said to me "You cannot always rely on your luck". Not luck I said. It is reliable and predictable. Many many times.

Explain please. Or am I supposed to be a mind reader to your convoluted mental processes?
It really isn't convoluted.
You say it always works.
And you say it doesn't always work.

Yes it works. I said that there are times the answer is "No Answer". It is not a wrong answer.
Giving no answer is not working.

You make up definitions to suit your agenda. Sigh!

Contact is made with the spirit world. You do not have to like the response. The reason there was no Tarot card answer was that the spirits had decided to use an omen to do a better communication. If you set the confidence factor in any experiment to be a perfect score the bar would be so high that nothing would be proved. Have I effectively communicated to you? Even if I got answers 80% of the time, would that prove to you that spirit communication happens? If spirit communication happens then God exists.

BTW - The realtor was quite worried about the effect of the corona virus on house sales. He hoped it would be short-lived - 3 months or less.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2020 09:46:30
BTW - The realtor was quite worried about the effect of the corona virus on house sales. He hoped it would be short-lived - 3 months or less.
Really? Or was he worried about the effect of falling rates of house sale, or falling prices, on his commission?

In almost every survey of public trust in professionals, realtors score just above politicians and below journalists.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 02/03/2020 15:52:34
BTW - The realtor was quite worried about the effect of the corona virus on house sales. He hoped it would be short-lived - 3 months or less.
Really? Or was he worried about the effect of falling rates of house sale, or falling prices, on his commission?

In almost every survey of public trust in professionals, realtors score just above politicians and below journalists.

The housing market here is very bad. We know of two realtors who have not made a sale in a year. In our area one of the major reasons for selling is that the owners are emigrating. We have already knocked the realtors commission down. They must also take some of the hit.

The Tarot cards tell me that the agents are pressuring both parties in order to get the sale. Yes, no revelation there but it does confirm that we have to put up with the "maneuvering".

I have tried twice to buy surgical masks. They are sold out everywhere. My wife today started buying long-lasting food items such as baked beans and pasta. When the rush hits, it is too late.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2020 18:34:44
If spirit communication happens then God exists.
And, because God refuses to prove that He exists, or to allow any such proof- it follows that spirit communication doesn't happen.
I already pointed that out.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2020 22:29:04
If spirit communication happens then God exists.
Non sequitur.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 03/03/2020 12:06:23
If spirit communication happens then God exists.
And, because God refuses to prove that He exists, or to allow any such proof- it follows that spirit communication doesn't happen.
I already pointed that out.

Finally. You agree that God refuses to prove that he exists. We are making progress.

But with spirit communication being mostly anecdotal then the rule is not broken because you say it is not proof.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 03/03/2020 12:08:36
If spirit communication happens then God exists.
Non sequitur.

Sort of a non-sequitur, yes. I thought that when I wrote it. But spirit communication appears to be guided by a central intelligence to prevent certainty (proof). The central intelligence is God.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 03/03/2020 12:46:58
So where to from here? Just wait to see how corona virus progresses?

I would add that in December when working at the house next to the cell phone tower I started to get a burning pain in my right upper thigh muscle. It started after about a half-hour there, and ended a few hours after leaving the house. I thought it would be a good indicator of the presence of cell tower microwaves, but in January the pain became persistent. I looked up burning sensation and found it was associated with nerve damage or excessive stimulation.

Eventually I figure out that something was affecting the nerve. My hypothesis was that the elastic band on my underwear was pressing on a soft piece of leg tissue. I changed things and the burning has disappeared except when I visit the house. So here we have two pieces of information.

The MW affect nerves most of all. That is why low intensity urban background radiation gives me pain all over, mostly in the muscle tissue. The neuroma (a spot of damaged nerve tissue without myelin sheath) in my side gave me direct sharp pain from high intensity MW after 5 minutes.

The other bit of information is confirmation of what I said last year about July which is MW affects cells that are damaged or have depressed functionality. The healing is retarded, or an existing condition is made worse. This is why I say that cell phone radiation can predispose cells to being attacked by the corona virus.

I have met with a number of people who claim to be EHS. The problem I have with most of them is that they are not consistent - and also decline to participate in tests. This reduces my credibility because others can use them to show that people are not feeling what they claim to be feeling. I do think they are genuine in their claim to have pain and illness. Some MW is involved, but there are other factors.

I suppose God will allow hints that MW can make illnesses worse and maybe stimulate COVID-19 but will let others dispute it to the point that my claim has no credibility for a while. Got to let the die-off continue to grow and expand.

I am just musing at the moment. I have had nearly 2 to 3 weeks of headaches and illness and yet have not had much cell tower exposure. My wife said she is getting headaches in the morning also. Two nights ago at 2 am I had an insight or revelation. The house we moved into has pink glass fiber insulation in the ceiling. It is very old and dirty and I said from the first sight that I needed to remove it and then vacuum out all the dust.

I knocked together two home-made filters that I put before a wet-dry vacuum. One is a cyclone filter (made with an upside-down traffic cone) and one is a water-filter with various sizes of bent pvc pipe to get good water to air interaction. Plus boric powder to decrease the water tension. Both with large plastic drums. Glue, pvc pipe, and duct tape. No dirt or dust gets to the final vacuum. I use 50 mm PVC piping running from the roof to the outside to ensure that no dirty air is inside. Just pushed together. I also seal all the ceiling to wall joints tight with silicone especially at the cornices. Opened up windows at night. Must just knock together some mosquito screens. So far so good. I did our other house and now must do this one.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2020 14:11:46
The Tarot cards tell me that the agents are pressuring both parties in order to get the sale.
Since that is their job, the cards are only telling you what everyone knows. Or did you hire an agent for some other purpose?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 03/03/2020 15:18:32
The Tarot cards tell me that the agents are pressuring both parties in order to get the sale.
Since that is their job, the cards are only telling you what everyone knows. Or did you hire an agent for some other purpose?

If you came to me for a reading and I told you that the cards are saying that we can trust the realtors to tell you the truth, and then said you should accept the offer, would you feel you were getting correct advice? No, because a portion of the advice is clearly incorrect. So when the cards say the realtor cannot be trusted to give you the correct advice but that the bottom line is that you should nevertheless accept the advice then you have more confidence that the unknown part of accept or reject, which is the answer you are looking for, is correct.

One could flip a coin and get a simple yes (heads say) or no (tails). One could do two out of three, with 3 heads being a much stronger "yes". The way I ask for a yes or no is to lay out three packs of no more than 13 cards and those with an Ace-up are yes and those with an Ace-down are no. The type of Ace (Cups, Wands, Pentacles or Swords) gives more meaning. Where the aces are gives even additional information meaning, and same with other cards that are not aces.

If the "story" is not consistent, then one has to wonder if the advice is accurate, or whether there are some kind of agenda that needs further investigation. When there appears to be randomness (which is actually easy to spot) then the cards do not want to give an answer. It does not happen often with me. I do not try to "craft" an answer to make it fit.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 03/03/2020 15:31:08
Corona virus. Well, I was right about a market Monday bounce. Sometimes seeing the direction is as easy as seeing the trends.

When I saw it was time to sell the Manhattan apartment it was because of the huge number of signs advertising real estate. It was a veritable explosion - a sign (not very psychic) that the market was overheated. It was easy to do some research to confirm my unease. But doing the Tarot cards is always one way to be sure.

My question is. Some people are saying the market is bouncing because of fear. They are quite right. If some powerful behind-the-scenes people decide (or if the mob mentality shifts) then a lot of media can jump on the bandwagon and move sentiment.

I saw this with the first Iraq war when I was in New York. A couple of weeks of doubt and debate and then a rapid swing so hard that the nay-sayers were silenced. Censored. That is when I realized just how powerful a propaganda machine the USA had. I had seen propaganda in South Africa in the 70s but it was crude and easy to figure out, although effective for the target audience.

What I want to know is - what is it about the corona virus that is scaring people? My feeling is that it is similar to SARS and MERS and has the POTENTIAL to kill vast numbers, and that it may do so without being stopped.

How about some input here? Or must I go to the Tarot cards.  ::)
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2020 18:33:57
Finally. You agree that God refuses to prove that he exists. We are making progress.
Finally you notice that I already said that.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77240.msg591363#msg591363

You are making slow progress.

But with spirit communication being mostly anecdotal then the rule is not broken
Either it is or it isn't.
Which of your statements was wrong?
"If spirit communication happens then God exists."
or
"But with spirit communication being mostly anecdotal then the rule is not broken because you say it is not proof."?

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2020 18:47:15
Eventually I figure out that something was affecting the nerve. My hypothesis was that the elastic band on my underwear was pressing on a soft piece of leg tissue. I changed things and the burning has disappeared except when I visit the house. So here we have two pieces of information.
How would you distinguish that from a psychosomatic effect?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 04/03/2020 04:53:15
Eventually I figure out that something was affecting the nerve. My hypothesis was that the elastic band on my underwear was pressing on a soft piece of leg tissue. I changed things and the burning has disappeared except when I visit the house. So here we have two pieces of information.
How would you distinguish that from a psychosomatic effect?

A psychosomatic effect is usually accompanied by an expectation. "Here take this pill. We expect you may feel better." Some who take placebos feel better. Some who are extremely susceptible to suggestion may have quite marked physiological effects. I had no expectation of a burning sensation. I am not susceptible to suggestion. The chances of a psychosomatic effect are very low.

On the other hand pulsed cell microwave has been shown in numerous studies to affect cells and even disrupt them. And both myself and three other people have experienced numerous ill effects from the tower. The higher the radiation the worse the effects, and also the longer the duration, the worse the effects.

What are the chances that a psychosomatic effect is the phenomenon causing a burning sensation? I would say that the odds are extremely low and you just want to have an excuse to deny the effect I am proposing.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 04/03/2020 10:43:03
Just a reminder of the effects of living next to a tower. Here is a list of the symptoms I experienced.
1. Tinnitus in after a couple of weeks.
2. Drop in hearing shortly afterward. (having to ask people to repeat themselves)
3. Disturbed sleep (waking up tired and dreams were hazy and erratic - stopped immediately when I started wearing aluminium headgear.
4. Memory loss and problems spelling.
5. Mental confusion.
6. Clumsiness and dyslexia
7. 4 episodes of brief full body convulsions
8. Nausea
9. Headaches (that occur at the back of the top of the head).
10. Anxiety and irritability.
11. Irregular heatbeat at times.
12. Higher than usual blood pressure.
13. Peripheral neuropathy in feet and toes.
14. A 3 week episode of diarrhea.
15. Skin growths on my forehead.
16. Severe and sharp pain in my right eye socket near my nose
17. 3 metal tooth fillings fractured and broke
18. My knee replacement took a serious turn for the worst until I put foil over and then moved out of the house.

My wife experienced similar problems and also
1. Facial basal cell carcinoma
2. Hand tremors.

The neighbors on the other side got similar problems. They moved out of their home 3 months ago. We moved out of our home 2 months ago. I had moved out to an apartment 6 months prior to that.

Many of the symptoms have either gone or have abated now that we are away from the tower. But our dogs are partially deaf and my wife's hearing is quite bad now.

I do not think that psychosomatic explains the problems and the illnesses. Go to
https://bioinitiative.org/rf-color-charts/
for a list of scientific studies and the level of exposure.
Also
https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/
Try

Perhaps better is



Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 04/03/2020 15:33:19
Hey BC. I see you also post comments on Fox News. Or are there more like you?

https://www.foxnews.com/science/air-pollution-causing-pandemic-shaving-nearly-three-years-from-peoples-lives

Comment:
Air pollution causing 'pandemic,' shaving 'nearly three years' from people's lives
It's a psychosomatic condition suffered by the believers of the myth.

I was at the house with the tower. A phone call came in and I stopped to take it. Ten minutes later my upper thigh is burning quite severely. Moved out of the high radiation area and it lessened considerably. Almost not noticeable an hour later after leaving.

Imagine I told you that I was blindfolded and someone held my hand over a hot stove plate. Ow - it burns. Psychosomatic se foot. (An Afrikaans way of saying Yeah right).
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2020 19:19:55
A psychosomatic effect is usually accompanied by an expectation.
Well, yes, obviously and once again, it's time for you to look in the mirror.

An expectation like, maybe expecting to feel bad in a particular place, and then actually feeling bad when you get there.

except when I visit the house.

A psychosomatic effect is usually accompanied by an expectation. "Here take this pill. We expect you may feel better."
Or "wear this tinfoil hat; we expect you to feel better"

Disturbed sleep (waking up tired and dreams were hazy and erratic - stopped immediately when I started wearing aluminium headgear.
Oh look! it worked.

Then there's confirmation bias, and the attribution of normal changes (like tinnitus which is noted for coming and going) to some imagined "cause"
You can go through your list and remove the ones where those might explain your observations.
Come back if there's anything left.


Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2020 19:21:18
Hey BC. I see you also post comments on Fox News. Or are there more like you?

https://www.foxnews.com/science/air-pollution-causing-pandemic-shaving-nearly-three-years-from-peoples-lives
That's got nothing to do with me or with psychosomatic illness.
Did you think you had some sort of point?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 05/03/2020 05:54:23
My wife was the one who suggested I wear foil on my head when I took an afternoon nap. I felt it was as silly as most of us think it is, but I did know that foil is an excellent reflector. What surprised me was how effective it was. I was not expecting the really good sleep I had, with clear dreams that at least held a theme for a while before changing to a new theme. And after two hours I woke refreshed. It is hard to overstate just how different it was. And it was repeatable. You would argue that psychosomatic placebo effects are also repeatable. You would be repeating yourself - convincing yourself even more at the same time.

No doubt you want me to have an EEG test under both conditions. I would be more than happy to be tested. The problem is finding researchers who would do such tests. Perhaps Naked Scientist would do so - but maybe they would get pressured not to. Regrettably my health is quite bad and my wife wants me to get on with projects that are urgent - and not try to convince a bunch of unconvincibles of something.

Upon checking the spelling of unconvincibles I came across this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=25&v=7uVcgtQTSb4&feature=emb_logo
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/03/2020 07:28:17
OK,
Given that, in fact (it has been measured) tin foil hats increase the microwave dose in your head, do you accept that it must be the placebo effect?

https://www.howtogeek.com/114037/researchers-prove-tin-foil-hats-boost-receptivity-to-government-signals/
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 05/03/2020 13:46:14
OK,
Given that, in fact (it has been measured) tin foil hats increase the microwave dose in your head, do you accept that it must be the placebo effect?

https://www.howtogeek.com/114037/researchers-prove-tin-foil-hats-boost-receptivity-to-government-signals/

False fact. A real porker of a misleading article. There is so little information and it is so garbled that it was definitely put out as a "prank". And you believe such garbage as opposed to what I tell you?

Note: They include signals emanating FROM the cranium. I do not have any electronics in my head. Do you?

The bottom line is that signals do not get through the foil hat - at all. The exposed face, if facing the source of the signals, will of course be exposed. But the "tower headache" that my wife and I get is top and back - at the position of maximum reflection of signal away from the head.

Must be paid cell industry trolls - aiming to discredit any credible evidence. And, of course, you do your bit to spread it some more. I should try this experiment with my meter. Take half a water melon with the inner stuff removed. Put my meter into it with the small non-directional aerial. Put a foil cap on. How much are you willing to bet that there is significant attenuation?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 05/03/2020 13:54:29
Humankind is paying the price of greed and capitalism. Most scientists have been very afraid of a major pandemic and have been saying it is just a matter of time. Yet what has been done? As soon as SARS and MERS died out, so did the research and the funding. Yet these corona viruses were the most obvious threat.

As previous stated, God has to just watch as humankind facilitates its own die-off. Will humankind learn the lessons? Does not seem likely. After all, here I am, giving you some information and people do not change or think about the implications. I hope I am around to see if some change does occur. I would prefer to observe it here on Earth rather than in the afterlife.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/03/2020 20:26:58
They include signals emanating FROM the cranium. I do not have any electronics in my head. Do you?
Yes (assuming that you consider anything which produces a signal as "electronics")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography
And, if you are not dead, so do you.



Thanks for clarifying your level of ignorance.
And you believe such garbage as opposed to what I tell you?
Are you sure you really want to ask that?
Do I believe the outcome of a study  by researchers at MIT or a man who believes in tarot cards?
The bottom line is that signals do not get through the foil hat
Nobody said they did. Nobody said they needed to
The real bottom line is a higher exposure (in some cases) with than without.

I suspect you don't understand how resonance  affects this sort of thing.

Must be paid cell industry trolls - aiming to discredit any credible evidence.
You are claiming that your unsupported observation and guesswork are more credible than MIT's PHD researchers.
Do you have any idea how funny that is?
I should try this experiment with my meter. Take half a water melon with the inner stuff removed. Put my meter into it with the small non-directional aerial. Put a foil cap on. How much are you willing to bet that there is significant attenuation?
Well, obviously it depends on a whole lot of things.
But you are making the tacit claim that it can never be amplified.
Are you sure about that?


Yet these corona viruses were the most obvious threat.
Not really.
Until last December coronavirus was pretty much restricted to some (about 17%) common colds and SARS and MERS- which are betacoronoviridae and had died out.
On the other hand, influenza- which is not a coronavirus but a orthomyxovirus- kills thousands every year (in spite of mass vaccination).

What you are saying is that it was obvious that we should focus our limited resources on the viruses that had died out, rather than the one that was killing people.

Were you expecting to be taken seriously?
After all, here I am, giving you some information and people do not change or think about the implications.
That's because your "information" is wrong, and this is a science site.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 06/03/2020 06:00:39
Are you sure you really want to ask that?
Do I believe the outcome of a study  by researchers at MIT or a man who believes in tarot cards?

I am an electrical engineer who has experience with radio. I worked in a company that had its own testing room for radio emissions to check that the devices we produced (such as the first LED truck brake lights) met the emissions standards. I understand resonance, reflection and absorption. I was one who did the testing, and worked with outside labs for qualification testing.

Your criteria for acceptance of evidence and facts is woefully lacking in this example. Where are the peer-reviewed publications?

I notice you are not prepared to donate a large sum of money to charity should my test prove me right. One of your tactics is avoidance of facts you do not like. Avoidance is the cousin of denial (not deniece of denephew).
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 06/03/2020 06:16:18
Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 13:46:14

    Must be paid cell industry trolls - aiming to discredit any credible evidence.

You are claiming that your unsupported observation and guesswork are more credible than MIT's PHD researchers.
Do you have any idea how funny that is?
Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 13:46:14

    I should try this experiment with my meter. Take half a water melon with the inner stuff removed. Put my meter into it with the small non-directional aerial. Put a foil cap on. How much are you willing to bet that there is significant attenuation?

Well, obviously it depends on a whole lot of things.
But you are making the tacit claim that it can never be amplified.
Are you sure about that?

To be amplified the signal must either be actively strengthened by input from an amplifier or there must be resonance or combination of signals. Resonance does not take place if there is a lossy medium absorbing the signal - in this case a head and brain. Combination can take place if the signal is directed upward toward the chin and what will happen is that the inner curve of the helmet will focus (combine or concentrate) the photons toward the center. But once more we have to deal with the case with a helmet that has a lossy head in it. The signal will be absorbed before it gets to be reflected. Besides, in our home the signal came from above. I also had my face turned away from the tower.

Just because it is possible (and I accept that it is) to get resonance and concentration under some very specific circumstance does not mean you can apply the principle to a simple head shield which does the work of severely attenuating the microwaves in one's head. It is possible that a ball bounced against a wall may just pass through it, given the principles of quantum physics, but would you apply that everyday common sense tennis?

Why not accept you are wrong and admit it?

The article you cited talks about various frequencies, and this is one of the criteria which they do not specify. There is not description of what they did. Do you have a link that details that?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 06/03/2020 06:32:06
Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 13:54:29

    After all, here I am, giving you some information and people do not change or think about the implications.

That's because your "information" is wrong, and this is a science site.

I am forced to repeat myself because you are so stubborn about what you believe and why. Science is about observations of how our universe works and how it evolved. You choose to limit yourself to common everyday provable areas of science and ignore anything that is still not fully understood.

You make a blunt statement that I am wrong - an absolute based on what? You will not admit that there is a possibility that I am right.

You cannot point out contradictions in anything I say. And I am a grounded engineer who makes no money from psychic events or reading Tarot cards. I started reading Tarot cards to explore whether they work or not. With me reading them, they give results that are better than making an uniformed decision where the choices look equally good or equally bad.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 06/03/2020 07:17:35
Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 13:54:29

    Yet these corona viruses were the most obvious threat.

Not really.
Until last December coronavirus was pretty much restricted to some (about 17%) common colds and SARS and MERS- which are betacoronoviridae and had died out.
On the other hand, influenza- which is not a coronavirus but a orthomyxovirus- kills thousands every year (in spite of mass vaccination).

What you are saying is that it was obvious that we should focus our limited resources on the viruses that had died out, rather than the one that was killing people.

Do you accept that in the last decade the scientific community was saying that a pandemic was overdue and was not a case of "if" but "when".

Look at the impact. Not just of lives but of economic disruption. One needs to read about the towns in the USA impacted by the Spanish Flu. Only one third of people in some cases died of the disease. Others died of lack of food and a collapse of infrastructure like fire and ambulance services.

You say it was not economic at the time. No-one wants to make hard decisions to save the planet. It will be a matter of waiting for the inevitable. Part of the information I am giving is why God is not preventing it. It is not because he does not exist. It is because humankind must learn a lesson. The analogy of God being like a father is appropriate - a father lets his children make mistakes - but tries to prevent the mistakes from being fatal.

Over-population is the main cause of many problems. Climate change and pollution are a direct result. Destruction of the environment is another. The old systems of natural crop rotation is preferable but the population demands volume rather than quality. Paul Erlich was right about the population bomb but wrong in the predicting that limited food would cause the die-off. Science found ways to increase food yields - but it was profitable and hence succeeded.

How does humankind limit its own population? The expected improvement in living standards has not come about and the population is growing exponentially. Even the one-child policy that China had did not work although it could be said it was a key driver to growth. Instead of feeding 8 children, the parents gave the one child the best.

One needs a family of about five to ten couples to share in the raising of five to ten children. That would ease the desire to breed. It would help the children to grow in communal caring. But it would need special skills to avoid conflict. Religion would help but must adapt without becoming cults.

My information removes the barriers between religions. They can still practice but be less ritualistist and less rigid. It would allow skeptics to see some rationale and to deal with some of the so-called anomalies. Humankind MUST cooperate if it is to survive.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/03/2020 07:20:39
Where are the peer-reviewed publications?
What, the ones about tarot cards?
Or have you forgotten what we are comparing here.

Do you realise that there are frequencies where a brain isn't a good absorber?

In those cases your claim
Resonance does not take place if there is a lossy medium absorbing the signal - in this case a head and brain
is irrelevant.



I notice you are not prepared to donate a large sum of money to charity should my test prove me right.
I don't recall being asked.
One of your tactics is avoidance of facts you do not like.
Like what?

Cite examples please.

Avoidance is the cousin of denial (not deniece of denephew).
When push comes to shove; they measured a real effect.
You are seeking to deny it.
You are not in a position to lecture me about denial.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/03/2020 07:22:38
Do you accept that in the last decade the scientific community was saying that a pandemic was overdue and was not a case of "if" but "when".
Yes.
But people were, understandably focussing on the bugs that were actually killing people (and mutating rapidly- as they do).

Yet you tried to claim this.


Yet these corona viruses were the most obvious threat.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/03/2020 07:29:03
Look at the impact. Not just of lives but of economic disruption. One needs to read about the towns in the USA impacted by the Spanish Flu. Only one third of people in some cases died of the disease. Others died of lack of food and a collapse of infrastructure like fire and ambulance services.
At the time of the Spanish flu epidemic, nobody even knew what a virus was.
Nobody is denying that this outbreak will cause major problems.
It will not kill all the people. And it's essentially killing grandparents and great-grandparents.

So it's sod all use as population control.

Yes we need to curb our population.
But choosing (as the Pope and others do) to rely on plague and famine to achieve it, while opposing contraception tells you all you need to know about their "God".
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2020 11:44:24
At the time of the Spanish flu epidemic, nobody even knew what a virus was.
But they knew what it did! And wasn't it a corona virus? Nasty little buggers, created by a just and merciful god to punish the innocent.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/03/2020 18:52:53
And wasn't it a corona virus?
No.
I think it was an orthomyxovirus, also "created by a just and merciful god to punish the innocent."
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 04:57:07
Do you accept that in the last decade the scientific community was saying that a pandemic was overdue and was not a case of "if" but "when".
Yes.
But people were, understandably focussing on the bugs that were actually killing people (and mutating rapidly- as they do).

Yet you tried to claim this.


Yet these corona viruses were the most obvious threat.

I made the claim based on plain logic - pure and simple. No Tarot cards needed.

Here is the proof that I am right.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/07/coronavirus-epidemic-prediction-policy-advice-121172
...The news of a highly contagious new virus jumping from China to the U.S. has caught many Americans by surprise. For us, the outbreak was more like déjà vu: Last October, we convened a group of experts to work through what would happen if a global pandemic suddenly hit the world’s population. The disease at the heart of our scenario was a novel and highly transmissible coronavirus.

...We chose a new strain of coronavirus for our scenario because scientists agreed that this was a likely pathogen for a future epidemic; recent outbreaks such as SARS and MERS were also caused by the coronavirus family. The future we described was based on the research of deep subject matter experts who have studied recent epidemics, including our colleagues in the Center for Strategic and International Studies Global Health Security program and researchers with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

...In our scenario, the virus was highly transmissible and had a 3.125 percent lethality rate. So far, the true rate of the new virus is unknown, but according to the World Health Organization about 3.4 percent of reported COVID-19 cases have died.

...Our experts also projected that travel bans could have the unintended effect of worsening international cooperation and disrupting trade.

...We also assumed that nations would begin turning to fiscal and monetary stimulus to calm markets and prop up growth—a response we’re already seeing in the real world
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 05:25:01
As with most disasters, governments and various agencies try to manipulate facts and present distortions while telling people not to accept fake news. Here is one that is once more plain logic.

Myth - Face masks are not effective.

This propaganda has a clear purpose. To stop panic buying of masks. There are news articles that reveal the truth - namely that masks are needed for the professionals.

When I first heard this two day ago I thought of why professionals wear masks. In the operating room the purpose IS to cut down on any pathogens breathed out. And yes, it helps dramatically to stop those who are infected from spreading droplets.

But when professionals go into an area suspected of infections they wear masks. It is logical that a mask will reduce the chance that droplets will go into one's lungs. This will reduce the "viral loading". It does not have to be perfect and it is not but it is effective.

So last night they said that the difference between professional and ordinary person is that the ordinary person does not know how to use the mask. Yeah right!

Six months ago our gardener was wearing a face mask because he was sick. And this went on for weeks. Eventually I figured out that the mask was capturing droplets which then built up and the germs multiplied in the moist material. I told him the masks were for one-time use.

I will not wear a face mask except in a really crowded area that may have problem other than corona virus. One reason is that I will eventually get the virus so delaying it does not seem meaningful. If one member of a household does delay it then they can look after others.

If I need a face mask I will wear a handkerchief with rubber bands. I will spray colloidal silver onto it. The silver is an excellent anti-pathogen. The pathogens have not been able to build resistance to it. Silver salts were the original antibiotics. The term "born with a silver spoon in the mouth" came from the rich putting silver spoons into the mouths of babies as a antibiotic. I can wash and reuse.

Have I got colloidal silver on hand? Of course. I prepared for what I knew was coming. But I will get more this morning for other family members.

Colloidal silver gel would probably be an excellent hand sanitizer - lasting while the silver stayed on.

To stop the rush on what I think is this product:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-televangelist-jim-bakker-silver-solution-coronavirus
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 05:37:03
At the time of the Spanish flu epidemic, nobody even knew what a virus was.
But they knew what it did! And wasn't it a corona virus? Nasty little buggers, created by a just and merciful god to punish the innocent.

No created by God but humans in time of war. In Kansas. And spread by crowded troop trains and aided by war-time censorship.

God watched as he let man's freedom to kill himself do just that. Plus it aided in stopping WW1. AND was a message to humankind - here is a lesson about crowding and pathogens and fixes. Those who ignore the lessons of history, especially the God given ones, are bound to repeat them. Here we go again.

It is not just the corona virus. It is also about climate change and over-population and rape of the planet. How many scientists were, and still are, paid money by industry to put out fake science for people like Bored Chemist to use to reject and deny?

God help is in limiting these disasters. Spanish Flu died out so effectively that it ceased to exist - not even as a seasonal flu.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 05:43:11
A family member my age said that if the corona virus killed him he was okay with that. He had lived a great and eventful life. I agreed.

In my thread about cell towers I talked about various strategies I have to beat infections - particularly viruses. Bored Chemist may remember how he scoffed. So I am not too worried for myself. The younger members will not take my advice, and I worry about them. I am on oxygen anyway so if things get tough I do not need to go to hospital.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 09:42:24
Colloidal silver supposedly a myth:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51735367

I have no problem with people thinking so. Survival of the fittest is the mechanism. The stubborn rejectionists go first. The side effects only apply to people who drink gallons a week for years. Silver is used in the expensive dressings as a germicide.

I have lots of anecdotal evidence (including my own stories) that it works. One guy said that his dogs were always getting wounds for various reasons. When he used colloidal silver gel they healed up fast compared to the veterinary interventions. I just bought a 2.5 liter bottle to supplement the stock I have.

When I have a chest infection I use a nasal spray bottle and inhale the spray deeply. I also make sure I keep my temperature up and breathe warm air while keeping hydrated. I get rid of the occasional attack of flu in 24 hours.

A fever is part of the bodies mechanism for the immune system. There is an enzyme that is only activated at elevated body temperatures. Staying warm reduces the need for the body to produce fuel to maintain the temperature above ambient. Just stay out of hot cars parked in the baking sun and the body will be able to self-regulate.

How many of the readers here are going to take my advice? Not too many. So many people have been sensitized to avoid any alternative cure that could be labelled as "woo". I have found many cures for various issues, and it is my belief that God is helping me. When they said avoid red meat, eggs and salt I said "Farmers needed their breakfasts and soldiers were not paid their "salarium" in salt without good reason". The animal parks and farms put out salt licks.

I have other "cures" that "science" pooh-poohs. Why? Too simple and no profit is a basic motivation - and just because many "woos" use this against Big Pharma does not mean that there is no truth whatsoever in the statement. I have seen a lot of "science" that is clearly scare tactics against simple cures that have traditionally worked quite well.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 09:47:16
God watched as he let man's freedom to kill himself do just that.
And then God decided to kill even more.
Nice guy, isn't He?
I am on oxygen anyway so if things get tough I do not need to go to hospital.
True.
I'm in reasonably good heath- luck me.
If I'm taken ill in such a way that my lungs are unable to extract enough oxygen from air then (with luck) I will get taken to hospital and supplied with pure oxygen.
That gives me roughly 5 fold more "leeway" on oxygen capacity.

If you are already on oxygen and you get the same level of lung damage, you will die.
So, yes, you will need to go to hospital- specifically the morgue.

Being on oxygen already is not a benefit in this case.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 09:49:51
Silver is used in the expensive dressings as a germicide.
And the important distinction is that the dressings go OUTSIDE the patient.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 10:03:59
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/02/here-is-what-coronavirus-does-to-the-body/
...After the SARS outbreak, the World Health Organization reported that the disease typically attacked the lungs in three phases: viral replication, immune hyper-reactivity, and pulmonary destruction.
...These holes are likely created by the immune system’s hyperactive response, which creates scars that both protect and stiffen the lungs.

I have lung scarring from both childhood pneumonia and from histoplasmosis. So my lungs will not be so affected with liquid. Plus the oxygen I am on already. So it seems God may be protecting me - and here I am complaining about the pain and problems I have.

It is interesting that Spanish Flu killed mainly people in their prime. 20 to 40 years olds. The immune system over-reacted with a cytokine storm flooding the lungs and drowning people. It seems that SARS-CoVid-2 (the corona virus) works in a similar fashion. But that does not explain the older people dying. Their immune systems are supposed to be weaker. There is a lack of information about how the virus kills. Science is battling to find answers.

Could it be that the young babies do not use cell phones yet to activate the virus? (Tongue in cheek on this one)  :o
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 10:13:16
Silver is used in the expensive dressings as a germicide.
And the important distinction is that the dressings go OUTSIDE the patient.

Yes. I agree. I would not recommend eating the dressings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_uses_of_silver

...Though toxicity of silver is low, the human body has no biological use for silver and when inhaled, ingested, injected, or applied topically

...Hippocrates in his writings discussed the use of silver in wound care. At the beginning of the twentieth century surgeons routinely used silver sutures to reduce the risk of infection. In the early 20th century, physicians used silver-containing eyedrops to treat ophthalmic problems, for various infections, and sometimes internally for diseases such as tropical sprue, epilepsy, gonorrhea, and the common cold. During World War I, soldiers used silver leaf to treat infected wounds.

...Prior to the introduction of modern antibiotics, colloidal silver was used as a germicide and disinfectant. With the development of modern antibiotics in the 1940s, the use of silver as an antimicrobial agent diminished.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 10:20:47
The demographic of the victims of spanish flu, on one hand and corvid 19 , on the other is instructive.

One killed mainly the "fit  young adults" the other mainly the elderly.
Which shows that they are rather different conditions (albeit with some similarity).
That's supported by the fact that they are different families of viruses.

So why do you keep trying to conflate them?

With the development of modern antibiotics in the 1940s, the use of silver as an antimicrobial agent diminished.
There's a reason for that; it's not as good.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 10:22:04
sometimes internally for diseases such as tropical sprue, epilepsy,
Their use for epilepsy (which is not an infection) shows that they didn't really know what they were doing.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 10:22:46
God watched as he let man's freedom to kill himself do just that.
And then God decided to kill even more.
Nice guy, isn't He?
I am on oxygen anyway so if things get tough I do not need to go to hospital.
True.
I'm in reasonably good heath- luck me.
If I'm taken ill in such a way that my lungs are unable to extract enough oxygen from air then (with luck) I will get taken to hospital and supplied with pure oxygen.
That gives me roughly 5 fold more "leeway" on oxygen capacity.

If you are already on oxygen and you get the same level of lung damage, you will die.
So, yes, you will need to go to hospital- specifically the morgue.

Being on oxygen already is not a benefit in this case.

Have you considered that without God the world could be far worse off?

God is a force for good. Humankind has a propensity for evil - just look at our history. We can blame Satan, but greed and destruction of enemies is a rather strong evolutionary trait.

Rather than try to find contradiction and tear down institutions whose overall impact has been beneficial, why not be more tolerant and accept the benefits?

The oxygen concentrator gives nearly pure oxygen. I use the same nose-piece as in the hospital. I have an oximeter to check my oxygen levels and can adjust from low (2 liters per minute) to a higher (6 liters per minute) amount if needed.

Perhaps my biggest defense is that I have really great genes and have been able to survive some things that kill others.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 10:23:59
sometimes internally for diseases such as tropical sprue, epilepsy,
Their use for epilepsy (which is not an infection) shows that they didn't really know what they were doing.

You may be right. It was hit and miss. Perhaps it had a small effect by altering the ionic balance in the neurons slightly
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 10:29:28
The demographic of the victims of spanish flu, on one hand and corvid 19 , on the other is instructive.

One killed mainly the "fit  young adults" the other mainly the elderly.
Which shows that they are rather different conditions (albeit with some similarity).
That's supported by the fact that they are different families of viruses.

So why do you keep trying to conflate them?

With the development of modern antibiotics in the 1940s, the use of silver as an antimicrobial agent diminished.
There's a reason for that; it's not as good.

One - Learn from history using the parts that give comparative analysis.
Two - As antibiotics become less effective and silver has not lost any effectiveness there may come a point that silver has an advantage over antibiotics.

You do know that the immune system is reduced when treating a virus with an antibiotic - although this may indirectly help by lessening the cytokine response. I do not take antibiotics unless I have to, and then I only take the least amount needed to allow my immune system to do the rest. Have done so for ages.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 10:31:38
Have you considered that without God the world could be far worse off?
Have you considered that , if He cared about us it would, necessarily be be better off, but  it isn't.


We can blame Satan,
But, as in the crusades or ISIS or the Nazi persecution of Jews, it's generally more sensible to either blame God, or leave Him out of it.
Rather than try to find contradiction and tear down institutions whose overall impact has been beneficial, why not be more tolerant and accept the benefits?
And... once again...  get yourself a mirror and stop trying to undermine science.

Then have a look at which side of history  religion has been on.
By telling Christians that they are in God's image, it promoted racism.
By  publicising Leviticus, it encouraged encourages homophobia.
And by telling people  where to get their slaves it set back the anti slavery  movement.
And  by proclaiming stupid nonsense about witches (among other things) it set back the sex equality movement.

So, yes, sure; look to "institutions whose overall impact has been beneficial,".

You will not find the churches there.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 10:32:09
As antibiotics become less effective and silver has not lost any effectiveness
Got evidence?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 10:33:12
You do know that the immune system is reduced when treating a virus with an antibiotic
Nobody with appropriate education treats viral infections with antibiotics.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 10:34:29
You may be right. It was hit and miss. Perhaps it had a small effect by altering the ionic balance in the neurons slightly
Or, like yout silver hat, it was a really good placebo (placebos work better if they are something exotic)
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 10:39:35
The same point I made about masks. Choose your source and use common sense.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/07/is-coronavirus-mutating-into-a-more-deadly-strain-face-masks-covid-19-myths-busted
Claim: ‘Face masks don’t work’
Wearing a face mask is certainly not an iron-clad guarantee that you won’t get sick – viruses can also transmit through the eyes and tiny viral particles, known as aerosols, can penetrate masks. However, masks are effective at capturing droplets, which is a main transmission route of coronavirus, and some studies have estimated a roughly fivefold protection versus no barrier alone (although others have found lower levels of effectiveness).

If you are likely to be in close contact with someone infected, a mask cuts the chance of the disease being passed on. If you’re showing symptoms of coronavirus, or have been diagnosed, wearing a mask can also protect others. So masks are crucial for health and social care workers looking after patients and are also recommended for family members who need to care for someone who is ill – ideally both the patient and carer should have a mask.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 10:41:52
You do know that the immune system is reduced when treating a virus with an antibiotic
Nobody with appropriate education treats viral infections with antibiotics.

Go to your local GP and complain about a chest infection and see if you first get tested before you get your antibiotic. Does the doctor even ask the questions to differentiate the bacterial from viral?
However, the bottom line is that you agree.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 10:45:00
You do know that the immune system is reduced when treating a virus with an antibiotic
Nobody with appropriate education treats viral infections with antibiotics.

Go to your local GP and complain about a chest infection and see if you first get tested before you get your antibiotic. Does the doctor even ask the questions to differentiate the bacterial from viral?
However, the bottom line is that you agree.
I did not say that I agreed.
I pointed out that, since there are no good clinical settings in which the process would happen, there can be no evidence of what the consequence would be.

I don't agree, and I think you (or others)  have made it up
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 10:46:46
Go to your local GP and complain about a chest infection and see if you first get tested before you get your antibiotic.
I get told it's probably viral.
I might get offered antibiotics to prevent secondary (bacterial) infection.

Did you not understand why antibiotics are sometimes prescribed in those circumstances?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 10:47:11
Have you considered that without God the world could be far worse off?
Have you considered that , if He cared about us it would, necessarily be be better off, but  it isn't.


We can blame Satan,
But, as in the crusades or ISIS or the Nazi persecution of Jews, it's generally more sensible to either blame God, or leave Him out of it.
Rather than try to find contradiction and tear down institutions whose overall impact has been beneficial, why not be more tolerant and accept the benefits?
And... once again...  get yourself a mirror and stop trying to undermine science.

Then have a look at which side of history  religion has been on.
By telling Christians that they are in God's image, it promoted racism.
By  publicising Leviticus, it encouraged encourages homophobia.
And by telling people  where to get their slaves it set back the anti slavery  movement.
And  by proclaiming stupid nonsense about witches (among other things) it set back the sex equality movement.

So, yes, sure; look to "institutions whose overall impact has been beneficial,".

You will not find the churches there.

The current popular history of the Churches emphasizes the faults and diminishes the benefits. The global rise of anti-Christians in the media adds greatly to the distortions.

And a biased emotive mind just makes the overall picture worse. Either you educate yourself in a objective way, or you keep spouting the same anti-religious (mostly anti-Christian) rhetoric.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 10:51:33
Go to your local GP and complain about a chest infection and see if you first get tested before you get your antibiotic.
I get told it's probably viral.
I might get offered antibiotics to prevent secondary (bacterial) infection.

Did you not understand why antibiotics are sometimes prescribed in those circumstances?

I educate myself to tell the difference now. When I need antibiotics I know it. Usually because I cannot get a room hot enough to get rid of it by myself, or am on holiday. I do not take antibiotics as a prophylactic.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 10:53:02
The same point I made about masks. Choose your source and use common sense.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/07/is-coronavirus-mutating-into-a-more-deadly-strain-face-masks-covid-19-myths-busted
Claim: ‘Face masks don’t work’
Wearing a face mask is certainly not an iron-clad guarantee that you won’t get sick – viruses can also transmit through the eyes and tiny viral particles, known as aerosols, can penetrate masks. However, masks are effective at capturing droplets, which is a main transmission route of coronavirus, and some studies have estimated a roughly fivefold protection versus no barrier alone (although others have found lower levels of effectiveness).

If you are likely to be in close contact with someone infected, a mask cuts the chance of the disease being passed on. If you’re showing symptoms of coronavirus, or have been diagnosed, wearing a mask can also protect others. So masks are crucial for health and social care workers looking after patients and are also recommended for family members who need to care for someone who is ill – ideally both the patient and carer should have a mask.

That rather misses the point.
Yes, a mask is a good idea if you are with someone who is infected.
But virtually nobody is actually infected.
South Africa currently has 3 reported cases (if I read the news correctly) in a population of 60 million.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 10:53:39
I educate myself ....
Badly, judging by what you have posted.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 10:55:38
The current popular history of the Churches emphasizes the faults and diminishes the benefits. The global rise of anti-Christians in the media adds greatly to the distortions.

And a biased emotive mind just makes the overall picture worse. Either you educate yourself in a objective way, or you keep spouting the same anti-religious (mostly anti-Christian) rhetoric.
And, when you have finished wittering meaninglessly, it will still be the case that the churches encouraged or supported racism, sexism, homophobia, slavery and so on.

There is no evidence that the churches per se did much good.
There is plenty that they did harm.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 12:55:50
The current popular history of the Churches emphasizes the faults and diminishes the benefits. The global rise of anti-Christians in the media adds greatly to the distortions.

And a biased emotive mind just makes the overall picture worse. Either you educate yourself in a objective way, or you keep spouting the same anti-religious (mostly anti-Christian) rhetoric.
And, when you have finished wittering meaninglessly, it will still be the case that the churches encouraged or supported racism, sexism, homophobia, slavery and so on.

There is no evidence that the churches per se did much good.
There is plenty that they did harm.

Is it just possible that the whole of society around the world supported racism, sexism, homophobia, slavery and other norms now considered immoral? And not very long ago either. Do you not see the need for historical context? Was secular and atheist society any better? Their only saving grace is that they essentially have no history - good or bad.

I can tell you that in my research on various religions I also took another look at Christianity. And found that a number of stories that paint the Church in a bad light are often distorted.

Once more you set up a straw-man of expecting perfection and then tarring everything with the same jaundiced brush. You do it with God and you do it with the Christian and Muslim religions. The others you give a pass for various reasons.

What are your solutions to get humankind to work cooperatively? Or are you an anarchist destructionist who sees no meaning to life and therefore destruction is not problematic?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 13:03:35
The same point I made about masks. Choose your source and use common sense.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/07/is-coronavirus-mutating-into-a-more-deadly-strain-face-masks-covid-19-myths-busted
Claim: ‘Face masks don’t work’
Wearing a face mask is certainly not an iron-clad guarantee that you won’t get sick – viruses can also transmit through the eyes and tiny viral particles, known as aerosols, can penetrate masks. However, masks are effective at capturing droplets, which is a main transmission route of coronavirus, and some studies have estimated a roughly fivefold protection versus no barrier alone (although others have found lower levels of effectiveness).

If you are likely to be in close contact with someone infected, a mask cuts the chance of the disease being passed on. If you’re showing symptoms of coronavirus, or have been diagnosed, wearing a mask can also protect others. So masks are crucial for health and social care workers looking after patients and are also recommended for family members who need to care for someone who is ill – ideally both the patient and carer should have a mask.

That rather misses the point.
Yes, a mask is a good idea if you are with someone who is infected.
But virtually nobody is actually infected.
South Africa currently has 3 reported cases (if I read the news correctly) in a population of 60 million.

The point was that there is media distortion to say masks offer no protection and are a waste of time. They then backtrack a bit to say the reason is that they are not used correctly. If that is the case, the solution is to educate people to use a mask properly. Once more - the motivation is to prevent an excessive demand on masks. Do what China did and set up a factory to churn them out. The media make themselves untrustworthy at a time trust is needed.

We have 3 confirmed cases. Who knows how many more? And when it takes hold, the huge numbers with AIDS are at extreme risk I would think.

Because no-one has immunity there is no reason that every person on the planet will get one or both of the current strains (L and S). And if (perhaps when) it mutates, it will go around one more time, or perhaps more. I fully expect to get it. And that everyone I know will get it.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 08/03/2020 13:08:11
I said that my personal feeling (not backed by Tarot) was that Amy Klobuchar might have a shot at the presidency. When she failed so badly I thought that was the end of that thought. But if she becomes Biden's running mate and he gets ill at a critical stage then she might just end up as the Democratic contender. Is it possible? Life is strange. I like her as a good middle of the road contender.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 13:30:38
Once more - the motivation is to prevent an excessive demand on masks. Do what China did and set up a factory to churn them out.
The media created the excessive demand for masks (and other goods that are now in short supply).
We have plenty of masks, it's just that they were bought by people who had been conned into thinking that they needed one.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 13:36:01
Once more you set up a straw-man of expecting perfection
"Perfection" is an interesting description for having the basic human decency to not actively support slavery, sexism, homophobia and racism.


You do it with God and you do it with the Christian and Muslim religions.
The Jews are pretty much in the same boat. The Old Testament is essentially the same in all 3  major Abrahamic religions.
But, given your previous displays of ignorance, it doesn't shock me that you missed that.
Is it just possible that the whole of society around the world supported racism, sexism, homophobia, slavery and other norms now considered immoral?
Yes, and when the rest of the world tried to shake off those abhorrent traits, the Churches told them that they needed  to continue them- because the scriptures say so.

Religions retard progress.

Look at your history books.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 13:38:23
Was secular and atheist society any better?
The people (in the West) saying " We should not keep slaves" did so in direct contradiction of the scriptures.
So, yes, those people were atheists or secular.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 13:43:59
What are your solutions to get humankind to work cooperatively?
If the book doesn't agree with the observation one of two things happens.
Religion rejects the observations and keeps the book.
Science keeps the observations and updates the book.

Don't you understand how, even if there was a God, the people would be better off following facts than old myths?

If you want people to cooperate the thing you need to avoid doing is splitting them into groups by race, sex, religion sexuality or anything else.
So, do you see how ditching a book that divides them on all those categories would be a good thing?


I can tell you that in my research on various religions
Given that your research didn't even let you know that Judaism and Islam also rely on the Old Testament, your research is pretty poor, isn't it?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2020 13:45:54
I said that my personal feeling (not backed by Tarot) was that Amy Klobuchar might have a shot at the presidency. When she failed so badly I thought that was the end of that thought. But if she becomes Biden's running mate and he gets ill at a critical stage then she might just end up as the Democratic contender. Is it possible? Life is strange. I like her as a good middle of the road contender.
That may be many things, but it is not scientific proof of the existence of God.
Why did you post it?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 09/03/2020 05:13:39
Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 12:55:50

    What are your solutions to get humankind to work cooperatively?

If the book doesn't agree with the observation one of two things happens.
Religion rejects the observations and keeps the book.
Science keeps the observations and updates the book.

Don't you understand how, even if there was a God, the people would be better off following facts than old myths?

If you want people to cooperate the thing you need to avoid doing is splitting them into groups by race, sex, religion sexuality or anything else.
So, do you see how ditching a book that divides them on all those categories would be a good thing?


Your only comment worth responding to. The others are fake facts which can be show to be fake by reading my various posts.

Finally you get it. Update the religions. But why ditch the book(s) when there is so much good stuff in them? And when 90% of people get benefits from religion despite the bad guys misusing religion for their own purposes.

Let's get specific. Are the ten commandments good? Should we keep them? If you want to modify them, which ones and why?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 09/03/2020 05:19:08
I said that my personal feeling (not backed by Tarot) was that Amy Klobuchar might have a shot at the presidency. When she failed so badly I thought that was the end of that thought. But if she becomes Biden's running mate and he gets ill at a critical stage then she might just end up as the Democratic contender. Is it possible? Life is strange. I like her as a good middle of the road contender.
That may be many things, but it is not scientific proof of the existence of God.
Why did you post it?

They say God works in mysterious ways. Getting Klobuchar elected as the first woman president in a very round-about way might be one of those ways. Biden has serious flaws. So get him a good running mate who will take over when he fails.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/03/2020 06:28:21
Let's get specific. Are the ten commandments good? Should we keep them? If you want to modify them, which ones and why?
Let's get more specific. What makes something considered as good? What is the most reliable method/criteria to determine that something is good?
Why the number is limited to ten? Are they listed in the correct order based on priority? Is there something more important than those ten which are not included in the list?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Numbering
Quote
The Ten Commandments
T   R   LXX   P   L   S   A   C   Main article   Exodus 20:1-17   Deuteronomy 5:4-21
1   (1)   —   —   —   —   —   1   I am the Lord thy God   2[28]   6[28]
2   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   Thou shalt have no other gods before me   3[29]   7[29]
2   2   2   2   1   1   1   1   Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image   4–6[30]   8–10[30]
3   3   3   3   2   2   2   2   Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain   7[31]   11[31]
4   4   4   4   3   3   3   3   Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy   8–11[32]   12–15[33]
5   5   5   5   4   4   4   4   Honour thy father and thy mother   12[34]   16[35]
6   6   6   7   5   5   5   5   Thou shalt not murder   13[36]   17[36]
7   7   7   6   6   6   6   6   Thou shalt not commit adultery   14[37]   18[38]
8   8   8   8   7   7   7   7   Thou shalt not steal   15[39]   19[40]
9   9   9   9   8   8   8   8   Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour   16[41]   20[42]
10   10   10   10   9   9   10   10   Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's house)   17a[43]   21b[44]
10   10   10   10   10   9   9   9   Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's wife)   17b[45]   21a[46]
10   10   10   10   10   9   10   10   Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's slaves, animals, or anything else)   17c[47]   21c[48]
—   —   —   —   —   10   —   —   You shall set up these stones, which I command you today, on Mount Gerizim.   14c[49][50]   18c[49][51]
All scripture quotes above are from the King James Version unless otherwise stated.

Quote
I am the Lord thy God.
Is this a command at all?
Quote
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
  Many societies have/had different gods without much problems. This one is dispensable.
Quote
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
This one is dispensable for the same reason.
Quote
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
This one is dispensable for the same reason.
Quote
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
This one is dispensable for the same reason. To apply this commandment to firefighters and other public servants is detrimental to the society.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 09/03/2020 10:09:45
The old church was not necessarily a pass at true Christian practice.

The revised, enlightened and new churches are different.

WW1 and 2 were secular.

William Wilberforce wrote True Christianity supporting that true Christians don't want slavery. With correct exegesis. Lots of false debates can use Bible quotes, or other writers quotes.

The Bible is not a science book. It is about revealing the supernatural is with us for relationship. It is a summary.

The ancients loved the idea that, the love between the gods, "agape" was something they could have with each other, and a real God that loved them with interest was new. If they had seen the demise of Christianity, either they would ready to avoid the cold church or they would not turn to it.

Faith in Christ rests on power, not rationality.

Other beliefs systems are different.

How can people go wrong worshipping love? Somehow they did, there were challenges. Nero then Constantine, later Islam, then schism... But if God was war, things would be worse. Ireland may not exist, she could have become an English colony... A lot of evil would have happened. Maybe an enlightenment with weapons at the forefront. Instead of expression, science, good character, dualism...

People can go more wrong worshipping Mars...

I think God wanted us independent to some extent for free will. He really wanted interdependence. With free choice the jealous adversary damaged things. The Garden of Eden means the Garden of pleasure. We lost it. There are rewards for faith amidst the darkness of our times. If Christ were to appear now to fix the injustice and darkness in the world, He would also have to judge us, that before most have a chance to repent. As it was in Noah's day.

There is purpose in life for slow learning. Instead of things being spelled out for us. But it could have been in pleasures instead of suffering, however suffering enables us to better appreciate the pleasures of the afterlife.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/03/2020 18:12:49
Let's get specific. Are the ten commandments good? Should we keep them? If you want to modify them, which ones and why?
There are many more than ten, but these are considered by most faiths to be the most important.

About half of them make  good sense: honouring parents, not committing murder, theft, adultery, or dishonesty, are the basis for almost any form of cohesive society, though a few pay less attention to adultery or consider property to be communal.

The other stuff  defines a monotheistic religion and thus sets its adherents apart from other groups. This can be the excuse for eternal conflict between groups who have nothing of value to fight about, and the social dominance of old perverts.

If you take the sky fairy out of Leviticus, you end up with some pretty good rules for maintaining health and social order.

Keeping the sabbath makes sense in employment law, provided everyone can have his own sabbath - it's a worker's right, not a universal duty to all down tools on the same day. 
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 09/03/2020 19:25:01
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:13:39

    Let's get specific. Are the ten commandments good? Should we keep them? If you want to modify them, which ones and why?

Let's get more specific. What makes something considered as good? What is the most reliable method/criteria to determine that something is good?

This is where science fails. Goodness is hard to define using a set of rules. The rules for goodness flow from a human understanding of what is good. Trying to debate it often fails because of the complexity.

Here is how one defines good. Take a group of older wise people and ask them to give examples of what is good. Their experience of the human condition and their common sense and an innate sense of right and wrong.

This will allow a set of rules such as the ten commandments.

When these wise people are restricted to priests and clerics their human failings (such as ego and a desire for power) color their judgment and some rules serve the religion and not the people.

Clearly some rules are common sense such as murder. Lies and distrust cause communities to fail. The reason for the commandment to have one God without earthly characteristics that are seen in idols is the unity and the threat (a real threat if God exists which most religions claim) of punishment. Some people say "It is not illegal if there is no consequence". God sees all and God gives judgment to all. Hence respect for God is a very necessary component to a moral society. The Old Testament was God fearing. The New Testament was God loving. The Quran incorporated both but stressed mercy. Mercy for those who failed and mercy for those who were conquered.

Jesus used parables to teach how to live a good life. The Quran and the Old Testament incorporated a set of laws for a just society. Muhammad taught that a house cannot have two captains and the default was man. But the man had responsibilities with regard to the woman, even in divorce.

Today there is no reason a woman cannot be the captain. I told my sixth wife that she was the captain and I was the advisor. She had been abused by men her whole life and could not believe that a strong leader such as myself would be a follower. But it made sense - and it worked so well. We had a marvelous marriage. Unfortunately she died. My current wife is also the captain. This is an example of an update. Do not throw out the one captain rule but instead modify it.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 10/03/2020 08:07:37
One simple rules for good would be "Do no harm" which is similar to the Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Many of the religious laws were dietary and sanitary - intended to prevent death and disease. A number of those are outdated. A well-known one is the prohibition on pork.

Muhammad said that alcohol in moderation could be beneficial but was too often abused so he decided a blanket prohibition was in the best overall interest.

A big problem is how to treat enemies. Killing in battle is accepted by secular and religious morality. Killing civilians is frowned upon. The fire bombing of Dresden was an obvious war-crime even at the time, and the guy in charge was quietly side-lined. The Islamic extremists  do not follow the Quran in treating their prisoners with mercy. Not do some ultra-Orthodox Israeli soldiers who consider some of their enemies to be Amalekites who have to be killed - even unarmed women and children.

Combat teaches a nation to treat an enemy as vermin - cockroaches to be killed and destroyed without conscience. The rules of war were intended to stop outright crimes, but it happens in all nations.

There is a modern problem with strict rules of morality. "Consenting adults" eats away at some rules. "There was no harm" is another. This last one is extended to financial fraud where it is argued that the insurance money pays, or that the investors were greedy and should have known the rule of "high return means high risk".

Once more, there is a tendency to label all rules as inapplicable because others are brought into question.

BTW - To label all clergy as "old perverts" shows an intolerance that borders on bigotry. Change religion - do not attempt wholesale destruction.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/03/2020 15:47:46
Here is how one defines good. Take a group of older wise people and ask them to give examples of what is good. Their experience of the human condition and their common sense and an innate sense of right and wrong.
Hence pogroms, the Inquisition, the Crusades, forcible "conversion" by the Conquistadores, prohibition of contraception, covering up child sex abuse, and every fatwah and jihad ordained by other old perverts.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2020 22:21:28
Combat teaches a nation to treat an enemy as vermin
So does religion; that's the problem.
And it explicitly requires the murder of some groups
whether that's stoning homosexuals or not "suffering witches to live"
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/03/2020 22:39:45
He really wanted interdependence.
It is nonsense to say "God wanted X". The omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything, creates exactly what he wants.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 11/03/2020 05:10:08
Combat teaches a nation to treat an enemy as vermin
So does religion; that's the problem.
And it explicitly requires the murder of some groups
whether that's stoning homosexuals or not "suffering witches to live"

Be specific. Which religions and which parts of the religious texts? The only one I am aware of is the interpretation of the Old Testament to slay the Amalekites.

And what do you mean by murder? The death penalty has been used until very recently for many crimes. Society decides on the crimes and the punishments. With the exception of the Inquisition which was a distinct aberration the Church has not been at the forefront of "murdering" groups.

You often conflate societal norms with religious norms. Do some reading about the punishments meted out by judges in London in the middle ages. They were horrific. They were designed to deter crime - partly because crime was so rife because of desperation.

Why are you so determined to dump all of societies crimes on religion? Religion was often a force for good, yet you want to ascribe the bad to religion and thus do away with religion.

There have been many hospitals run by nuns. They have been fantastic. Hospitals today are businesses - and are poorer for it in terms of caring. Look at the history of hospitals in New York where nuns made such a difference in caring for the victims of various disasters that come into the city by sea.

One often sees the statement that more wars are started by religion than other reasons. That is outright rubbish and nonsense. There are simple reasons for war. Among these are territorial conquest; to control borders; secure trade routes; or respond to an internal challenge to political authority. In recent decades there is a new one, namely ‘national self-interest’.

Religion was always secondary and was a requirement to justify the war and to ensure solidarity of the nation. The encyclopedia of war states that only 7% of the 1763 wars listed had religion as their primary cause and caused only 2% of all war deaths. 3,000 died in the Inquisition, 3 million died in the Crusades and 35 million died in World War 1. The Mongol Asian rampage killed 30 million and had no religious component whatsoever. According to Steven Pinker, religion accounts for only 13 out of 100 of the world's worst atrocities in the history of the world.

The Iraq war is blamed on Bush being a ‘born-again Christian’. Give me a break! Oil was the key reason.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 11/03/2020 05:53:22
Here is how one defines good. Take a group of older wise people and ask them to give examples of what is good. Their experience of the human condition and their common sense and an innate sense of right and wrong.
Hence pogroms, the Inquisition, the Crusades, forcible "conversion" by the Conquistadores, prohibition of contraception, covering up child sex abuse, and every fatwah and jihad ordained by other old perverts.

Strange answer to my statement about wise men. I never inferred that the wise men were religious - in fact I inferred the opposite.

There are many wrongs in history. Many are due to men in power who, by the way, were mostly kings and emperors. Religion actually modified the actions of some of these rulers to be less harsh. Religion is not perfect but there are only two clear examples of wrongs by clerics - the Inquisition and the sex abuse. Yet you tar every religion and every cleric with the same brush.

A fatwah is a legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar. So why say "every fatwah... ordained by old perverts". One or two have condemned someone to death. A bit extreme, but so are some of the "Dead or Alive" US bounties. The extrajudicial assassinations of the Israeli secret service are even more deadly and abhorrent. Even then I would not ascribe them to religion. State terrorism it the standard term which applies to all nations.

Jihad is an Arabic word for "struggle". There are two struggles according to the Quran. One is the struggle for inner purity and the other is a struggle against the enemies of Islam. The latter is only invoked for enemies actively seeking the downfall of Islam. Even then, there are rules for this "defensive" struggle - with mercy to the defeated.

Your use of "older perverts" is bigotry. "The definition of bigotry is prejudice and the state of being intolerant. An example of bigotry is disliking people because of their culture." The term is similar to "dirty old man", and is meant in your context to evoke a similar reaction. It is an example of what is "bad". It is bad because it fosters conflict and wars.

You use pogrom as your first example. Most, if not all, pogroms were had little to do with religion, and were in effect part of revolutions where the ruling class were targeted along with their financial advisors and the wealthy bankers/tax collectors/land owners. Check your history carefully and drill down into older existing documents such as Estate Duties levied to confirm "facts". In some cases, the rulers avoided being deposed by giving in to societal pressure to get rid of the Jewish elite. Even during the Black Plague, the pogroms were a matter of using a convenient excuse to target a hated group who did the tax collecting. When I was in Brooklyn NY, the latest Crown Heights "pogrom" was a result of the block busting tactic of the Hassidim in displacing blacks. The blacks were suffering the effects. The Hassidim made their distain for the blacks quite clear. No doubt you will dispute my interpretation but please state what it is about the religion (and not the tribe) that made the Jews targets? I have said that the religion treated non-Jews differently but rioters did not know that as a religious concept but a social fact.

The conversion of Spanish Jews was in lieu of a pogrom - and it worked. A number of Jews were assimilated and many kept their fortunes and were still able to contribute. It may even have been a relief to them to not be associated with the hardliners.

The Crusades had societal pressures and origins. Apparently many knights had taken to collecting "taxes" and were giving the locals a hard time. Send them away on a mission. Once more religion was used as a pretext and took the blame.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 11/03/2020 06:06:57
He really wanted interdependence.
It is nonsense to say "God wanted X". The omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything, creates exactly what he wants.
With free will at work, and Satan deceiving, God does not get what he wants every time. God has to use what he did not choose.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2020 09:38:54
The death penalty has been used until very recently for many crimes. Society decides on the crimes and the punishments.

And they make that decision which says the Bible is wrong.

Humanity does a better job of being good then the Book does.

why can't you accept that?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 11/03/2020 15:08:54
The death penalty has been used until very recently for many crimes. Society decides on the crimes and the punishments.

And they make that decision which says the Bible is wrong.

Humanity does a better job of being good then the Book does.

why can't you accept that?

Why can't you accept that there are exceptions to every rule. Principles are basic - common sense is needed to decide when the rule does not apply but exceptions require exceptional circumstances.

Why can't you also accept that religion needs updating - not trashing. The texts are not inerrant, although changes need to be very carefully thought out. Some times a simple addendum to put the teachings in context is sufficient. The New Testament updated the Old Testament to move from a violent vengeful God to a loving forgiving God. The Quran balanced that to say that one could fight to preserve a just and merciful God as long as there was balance. One could live in peace with other faiths as long as they did not pose a threat. Muhammad put this into practice very successfully.

Lying and deceit is forbidden. Yet there are times it is justified. If a man holds a gun to your head and demands to know where your wife has hidden then you lie your head off.

I notice that once more you assail the Bible and not the Torah or the Quran. What is it about Christians that you are so bitter about? Your lack of tolerance does not help your case that an atheist can be just as moral as a Christian.

Is there some unethical behavior that you indulge in, or want to indulge in, that makes you attack religions that preach morality? Morality changes with the times and with needs. God guides wise men to revise the teachings, but not to toss out all the basics. Common sense and logic should prevail.

The Catholic Church should let priests marry, and allow contraception. They are man-made rules that have served their purpose. They should concentrate on communication with God and take issue with those who sin. No blanket forgiveness - unrepentant repeaters should be told they will be judged and suffer in the afterlife - or even have their souls terminated.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 11/03/2020 15:27:15
Well, so far my prayers are being answered. The corona virus is not yet collapsing the SA market and we have a buyer for the house we left. The problem my wife faces is how to invest the money. In what? So far she has a balanced portfolio in anticipation - unlike some who promote one strategy or the other.

I tried to buy some surgical face masks. I had to reserve 3 in an incoming shipment. The price was exorbitant. I was told that they had sold out before the hit the shelves. The Muslims wash themselves and are cleaner than if they used toilet paper. But the ordinary person finds that gross. My wife said people will turn to newspapers. I had a little devil whisper in my ear and have me ask what source of paper an atheist would use. :P

One family told me that they would ask their domestic not to come in to work and put her on half pay and do the work themselves. Wow, that is serious!

So far the death rate seems to be between 3 and 4 percent in many places. What I find surprising is that there are small outbreaks in various places. Dots on the map. Often 1 or 2 which then may become an epicenter. I would have thought that there would be a spread from a cluster although this has happened in Italy and Korea.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2020 17:38:59
The conversion of Spanish Jews was in lieu of a pogrom - and it worked. A number of Jews were assimilated
….and a greater number were tortured to death and/or had their assets seized. Interesting definition of "worked", worthy of Goebbels himself.

Quote
I notice that once more you assail the Bible and not the Torah
anyone who knew anything about the Bible would know that the Torah constitutes the first five books thereof.

Jesus died about 600 years before toilet paper was invented, and about 1800 years before it became commercially available in the West. I guess his followers did pretty much whatever atheists did. The muslim tradition derives from Matthew 6:3 "Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth" and is still sensibly observed in desert conditions. In times of national crisis I take comfort from my father's sergeant major, who announced at one morning parade "The hobservant among you will 'ave noticed that we 'ave run aht of toilet paper. Don't panic, gentlemen. I 'ave horganised a workin' party wiv scissors, tailorin'  the Daily Mirror to fit your dainty little arse'oles."
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 11/03/2020 17:44:12
It is official. We have a pandemic. And eventually everyone will get it.

Here are two really informative videos. Must watch.

The Differences Between the Coronavirus and the Spanish Flu w:Michael Osterholm | Joe Rogan

How Serious is the Coronavirus? Infectious Disease Expert Michael Osterholm Explains | Joe Rogan

Bored Chemist made the point that God could simply reduce the fertility of people to reduce the population explosion. It is an option and guess what - it is already happening. Cell phones and cell towers.

So why a nasty pandemic? To get humankind to wake up and change.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 11/03/2020 17:54:34
The conversion of Spanish Jews was in lieu of a pogrom - and it worked. A number of Jews were assimilated
….and a greater number were tortured to death and/or had their assets seized. Interesting definition of "worked", worthy of Goebbels himself.

Give me your references to support your claim? I was talking from memory of the vast amount of material I have read on the internet. Amazing place. One can drill down to scans of public records to perform a check on facts put out. Here is a summary of part of the book I spoke about earlier where I gave a few chapters. While it is a reference to the history of Israel, it is generally applicable to the whole of Jewish history.

Finding Truth - When dealing with Jewish history, the media and activists make it hard to establish how much is factual, how much is an exaggeration and how much is an outright falsehood. The fuzziness favors Israel, who says that adverse interpretations are antisemitic.

Many unpleasant facts or unflattering versions of history are side-lined while the official version that instills pride is widely repeated and disseminated. The accepted version of the history of the establishment of Israel is that it was a wondrous feat of almost superhuman struggle against the adversity of the land and the surrounding Arabs. It is well-publicized – and so is some of the criticism.

The average person is aware of the versions of the ‘Old Israeli Historians’ who were not only biased for but had a censored version of the documentation. The ‘New Israeli Historians’ accept that there are new facts. They, however, fall into two categories, biased for or biased against. Benny Morris is pro-Israel and will not use any Arab documents. Ilan Pappe is sympathetic to the Arabs.

I chose to focus on the basics and some key statements that show the truth of what and why some events occurred. They should be a concern for the future. It was a real struggle to look past the emotional statements of all side. It required a lot of cross-referencing to eliminate ‘false facts’ or ‘alternative facts’.


And please stop the antisemitic smears. A few posts ago you mentioned that I should have some humility and behave like a gentleman. How about you take some of your own advice? If God wants all religions to update and improve then Judaism is not an exception.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2020 18:00:45
If God wants all religions to update and improve then Judaism is not an exception.
Please get this straight. There is no evidence for a god that wants anything, or even exists. Religion is an excuse for doing things that would otherwise be considered pointless or positively evil.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 11/03/2020 18:02:49
Best explanation so far. Makes sense.

Hand Sanitizer & Face Masks, Will They Help Against the Coronavirus? w:Michael Osterholm
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 11/03/2020 18:07:32
If God wants all religions to update and improve then Judaism is not an exception.
Please get this straight. There is no evidence for a god that wants anything, or even exists. Religion is an excuse for doing things that would otherwise be considered pointless or positively evil.

I have personal evidence. You reject that. Okay, but why is wrong for me to want religions to improve? I am being constructive and looking for truth. I am trying to help ALL people irrespective of faith or race or ethnicity. I do not think it coincidental that I have a very diverse grouping of these (faith and race and ethnicity) in my family in order to give me personal interaction with different groups.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: pensador on 11/03/2020 18:19:50
He really wanted interdependence.
It is nonsense to say "God wanted X". The omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything, creates exactly what he wants.

Are you sure ? :)

I would have to take the Pantheist view of god, a god which is an automaton. The universe is the way it is because that is how it responds. Any other definition of a god is a fraction of the universe, ie a demi god, or an attempt to explain aspects of the universe in terms a peasant can understand. Hinduisms supreme deity if you read up about it, is pantheist. All the little gods like shiva etc are attempts to explain to peasants different aspects of the supreme deity.

I would also raise the question of where do people think their consciousness/soul resides. ?

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 11/03/2020 19:19:01
I only have about 4 old movie channels on TV. TNT was showing the 1995 movie "Outbreak" with Dustin Hoffman.

Then I switch to the news. Felt just like being in the movie. Quarantine, fear and the army.

BTW - History repeats. No science cure, so people rush to alternative cures. Iran had 26 people die from methanol poisoning thinking it might cure them. If there is civil unrest, who will the people target for scapegoats?

Hmm. My browser just popped up an advert for GermTex N95 facemask - listed as an Anti-virus facemask. My wife's company just bought a few boxes for her factory.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2020 22:36:16
The Muslims wash themselves and are cleaner than if they used toilet paper.
I am always impressed by the breadth and depth of specialist knowledge in this forum. Comparative theoproctological hygeine! Whatever next?
But seriously. My muslim friends buy toilet paper. Are they building some fiendish weapon with it, or just destabilising western society by causing panic?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 12/03/2020 05:18:02
The Muslims wash themselves and are cleaner than if they used toilet paper.
I am always impressed by the breadth and depth of specialist knowledge in this forum. Comparative theoproctological hygeine! Whatever next?
But seriously. My muslim friends buy toilet paper. Are they building some fiendish weapon with it, or just destabilising western society by causing panic?

No specialist knowledge here. It is no secret that water (ie washing) is required. But alternatives are not forbidden. Even if toilet paper is available and used, water should be the final cleansing. The amount of toilet paper can be reduced. Crisis requires people to examine even the most basic of daily routines. I was told that in the SA army in the bush war troops were given 1 sheet of toilet paper a day.

As for panic, the thought of being without toilet paper can send some people into serious dread. I am old and my body has been subjected to all sorts of "indignities" in hospital and in illness. One adapts. I have learned alternatives to modern cures from nursing sisters that are unmentionable but thoroughly practical. I can hear it now from some - "I would rather die".

I think the US has had a sudden shift away from denial. I used to work in the suburb of New Rochelle.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/03/2020 05:20:34
Well, so far my prayers are being answered. The corona virus is not yet collapsing the SA market and we have a buyer for the house we left. The problem my wife faces is how to invest the money. In what? So far she has a balanced portfolio in anticipation - unlike some who promote one strategy or the other.
Have you prayed for the virus to be eradicated altogether? Or at least, the vaccine to be successfully developed and tested?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Europan Ocean on 12/03/2020 06:05:47
He really wanted interdependence.
It is nonsense to say "God wanted X". The omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything, creates exactly what he wants.

Are you sure ? :)

I would have to take the Pantheist view of god, a god which is an automaton. The universe is the way it is because that is how it responds. Any other definition of a god is a fraction of the universe, ie a demi god, or an attempt to explain aspects of the universe in terms a peasant can understand. Hinduisms supreme deity if you read up about it, is pantheist. All the little gods like shiva etc are attempts to explain to peasants different aspects of the supreme deity.

I would also raise the question of where do people think their consciousness/soul resides. ?


The Hindu's first god still worshiped by 20,000,000 people is Purusha, the Cosmic man. A lot like Elohim. But it is taught there that other gods came out of him. With truths for Christians like the feminine principle and threeness. It is not pantheism.

I would say consciousness resides in the head and belly. Mind and heart consecutively.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 12/03/2020 09:59:46
Well, so far my prayers are being answered. The corona virus is not yet collapsing the SA market and we have a buyer for the house we left. The problem my wife faces is how to invest the money. In what? So far she has a balanced portfolio in anticipation - unlike some who promote one strategy or the other.
Have you prayed for the virus to be eradicated altogether? Or at least, the vaccine to be successfully developed and tested?

Interesting question. Since God told me there would be a pandemic or disasters that would cause a huge die-off and solve not only the climate change crisis but other issues as well. Those other issues include greater spirituality, greater cooperation between religions and nations, and a recognition of the limitations of science. Science just cannot know the inner deeper workings even if God did not exist. Since we are all just an illusion the realization that God controls everything will help mankind in the next phase of the adventure.

So when the "boss" tells you what the grand plan is, then I am not going to put in a request to do otherwise. What I have done is ask that my family and friends are spared. He might decide I have done what he has asked (spread the information about him and the universe) and so grant me a special favor. I do not expect any favors but will be grateful if this one is granted.

What I can tell you is that there are probably many people who welcome a die-off (meaning no vaccine) because they also see that there is no other solution. Some are atheists and some are theists. I have no problem with death because I think we reincarnate. I accept that suffering is part of life, and humankind will never be free of suffering. Some wanting the die-off hope that they will be spared and that some of their enemies (including disliked politicians or a ruling class or an under-class) takes the biggest hit.

People will reassess their beliefs and values - that is for sure.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 12/03/2020 16:34:59
So my wife has to baby-sit the granddaughter, and I have to feed the dogs - and myself. A power-outage began so no TV. Our Ethernet is not yet connected to our TV so I am left with the internet. I have deep-cycle batteries, a battery charger and solar panels so I can get through an evening on the computer. The power cut happened as I started watching a movie called "The East". I though it might be on Netflix and so logged in for the first time in quite a few months. Skipping through, I found a dcoumentary called "Pandemic". How serendipitous is that? See how God guides me to information.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/feb/05/pandemic-netflixs-new-series-about-global-outbreaks-is-eerily-
timed-and-moved-me-to-tears
While coronavirus dominates news headlines, Netflix is streaming its six-part series on how prepared (or not) the world is to deal with a new pandemic.
Pandemic: How to Prevent an Outbreak starts with a theory: that we’re due for a new, fast-moving deadly virus. It’s been 100 years since a deadly influenza virus killed 50 to 100 million people, at a time when the global population was just two billion (cue black and white footage of people in old timey face masks, with loads of mass graves being dug).
Now there are nearly eight billion people in the world, as expert Dr. Dennis Carroll, director of USAID’s Emerging Threats Unit, warns in Pandemic: “When we talk about another flu pandemic happening, it’s not a matter of if, but when.”
Could the “when” that haunts this scary series be now?


Just started watching. I see they have episode 5 called "Prayers Might Work".
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 12/03/2020 16:57:13
Skipping and jumping. So so.

Episode 2 at 14 min. Muslim lady doctor praying. "Do no harm and help others." Do not drink. Seems good to me.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 12/03/2020 17:23:09
Netflix. Jumps around a lot and so do I. But some good stuff.

Episode 3 at 22 min. How trials test faith and build maturity.

Episode 2 at 16 min. Special pathogen. 1) High mortality 2) Causes panic 3) Hard to treat 4) Very contagious
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 12/03/2020 17:59:53
Putin is a patient man. And patient men make dangerous enemies. They will wait for their chance.

The US deep state has pushed Trump into a conflict with Russia. Sanctions hurt Russia. Oil is Russia's biggest non-nuke weapon - and they are now using it. They will push US shale producers into bankruptcy. They have the ability to do it. Do you think it is coincidence that they are making US stock markets even worse?

Logic applied to facts can sometimes be simple.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 13/03/2020 06:03:19
This articles illustrates some of the issues I have been talking about regarding scientific disinformation to discredit faith based methodologies. While atheists have a part to play in keeping religion "honest", it often goes too far and tries to destroy anything connected to faith.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/11/alcoholics-anonymous-aa-helps-people-stay-sober-longer-study-finds/5008835002/
The well-known program that seeks to help people with alcohol use disorder, Alcoholics Anonymous, has long been criticized for not having the medical research to back up its efficacy. Until now.

A new study published by the medical journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Review found the peer-led program not only helps people get sober, but it also has higher rates of continuous sobriety compared with professional mental health therapy, such as cognitive behavioral therapy.

The study is important because it dispels misinformation about the program, said lead author Dr. John Kelly, a professor of psychiatry and addiction medicine at Harvard Medical School.

“In the popular press, there’s been reports of AA not working or being even harmful for people,” he said. “So, we wanted to clarify the scientific picture to the highest scientific standard.”

The study had the opposite findings of a similar study published by Cochrane in 2006 that found “no experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF (twelve-step facilitation) approaches for reducing alcohol dependence of problems." The 2006 review included eight trials with about 3,400 people, while the new review included 27 studies of more than 10,500 people.

Psychologist Keith Humphreys, co-author of the study and a Stanford University psychiatry professor, said mental health professionals – including him early in his career – are frequently skeptical of AA's effectiveness. Psychologists and psychiatrists are often trained to provide cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational enhancement therapy to treat patients with alcohol-use disorder.  He recalled thinking, “How dare these people do things that I have all these degrees to do?”

It is the spiritual aspect of AA that turns people off and sends them to alternatives, said Smart Recovery executive director Mark Ruth. AA and other 12-step programs recommend the use of a higher power to help members recognize something, even if it isn't God or any religious deity, has a power greater than they are.

"We believe in faith as part of a person’s personal choice, not as part of a program or a tool," he said.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/03/2020 08:16:46
Just started watching. I see they have episode 5 called "Prayers Might Work".
We already have studies which show that placebo effect does work. We also know that people are susceptible to confirmation bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
 
Quote
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or strengthens one's prior personal beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply-entrenched beliefs.

People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way. However, even scientists and intelligent people can be prone to confirmation bias.[2]

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political, organizational and scientific contexts.[3][4]. For example, confirmation bias produces systematic errors in research based on inductive reasoning.
When prayer doesn't work, they tend to forget it. But when it does work, they strengthen their believe to the power of their prayer. Hence, no matter how low the probability of their prayer to work, they tend to strengthen their believe to the power of their prayer.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/03/2020 11:11:11
a recognition of the limitations of science.
So far, science has been the only thing working in our favour. A medic diagnosed the disease and was promptly silenced by a government more interested in conformity than common sense - just like the Pope in former times.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2020 15:59:49
Crisis requires people to examine even the most basic of daily routines. I was told that in the SA army in the bush war troops were given 1 sheet of toilet paper a day.
They were not the only ones.
Fortunately the daily written orders came to the rescue.
In doing so, they coined a new word for useless information.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+bumph&oq=define++bumph&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.5229j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Just started watching. I see they have episode 5 called "Prayers Might Work".

Well, if that's true, the Bible's wrong.
Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 13/03/2020 17:15:34
When prayer doesn't work, they tend to forget it. But when it does work, they strengthen their believe to the power of their prayer. Hence, no matter how low the probability of their prayer to work, they tend to strengthen their believe to the power of their prayer.

There are times I pray hard for certain little favors and I get them. I have (used to have an even better) excellent memory. I remember most occasions. Mine works most of the time - too many times for randomness.

Just because confirmation bias exists and can be used to explain a number of beliefs does not negate the fact that something works - irrespective of the bias in memory.

My late wife ran therapy courses for ex-combatants which changed hardened criminals into productive integrated citizens. She also used a belief in a higher power. Day one was when everyone spoke of their expectations. Many skeptical and with low expectations. Day two was the 24 hour solo bush immersion. Day 3 was speaking of the experiences. When one heard of the amazing things that happened and saw the changes in people, one did not need confirmation bias. She achieved about 85 per cent success.

One woman would not go into the bush because she was scared of snakes. They let her sit in front of the fence on the property in sight of assistants. Darned if a cobra did not come and lie in front of her. She was frozen, then turned slowly, only to find a second one behind her. They stayed the whole day. She came to accept that her ancestors had visited her in that form to protect her and she used the time to meditate about what she wanted in life.

You can use all the scientific theories you like and apply them to all sorts of situations. It does not make you right. You have to first assume the experiences are false and that makes your assumptions correct.

If you had even one-tenth the experiences I have had you would be arguing that you did not have confirmation bias.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 13/03/2020 17:18:28
Have a nice day.

Thanks for your thoughts and prayers. Very nice of you to think of me.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2020 17:40:24
I have (used to have an even better) excellent memory. I remember most occasions. Mine works most of the time - too many times for randomness.
Post a diary.
That will unequivocally show which side is right.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/03/2020 07:52:53
I have (used to have an even better) excellent memory. I remember most occasions. Mine works most of the time - too many times for randomness.
Post a diary.
That will unequivocally show which side is right.

I had to double check who the poster was. Such a logical common sense post.

Interestingly, I have been doing that for about 9 years in an informal way. I am terrible at routine so it ebbs and flows. The results are very good. At the moment with my health I am even worse at disciplined routine and very disinclined to present a proof which will not be accepted anyway because of a lack of controls. I will be accused of making the diary up.

It struck me that the Alcoholics Anonymous requirement for faith in a Higher Power is one example of the statistical method to prove God exists. The latest result is also an example of where I say the results of polls and statistical analysis depends on the framing of the questions and also the filtering that is done. It is interesting to note the change of heart of the people doing the tests. It seemed that they were possibly influenced by seeing how faith is a force for good.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that God does not exist and the results are some kind of placebo effect. A placebo effect that is far more powerful than the placebo effect of going to a scientific clinic where they impress people with their knowledge. That is a force for good. Why try to destroy religion by emphasizing the negatives? The Pascal Wager applies. One is better off making a bet on the unprovable by taking it on faith that God exists and that prayer can help. One has the double assurance of the teachings of the great prophets. People here have the assurance of a ordinary (but intelligent and grounded) person affirming what works and what does not, and how it all works as a whole.

Will even one person change as a result of my postings? Doubt it. But once the world goes into social breakdown on a material basis, then a lot of people here will have time to sit at home and reassess their beliefs. And if they see people dying slowing around them and that science is helpless then a further reassessment may take place.

However, my message about cooperation and the need for religious updates is going to go nowhere on this forum. All I am doing is refining the message. If God exists and if indeed I am supposed to spread a message then it will happen somehow. I accept I could be wrong. I am not a very good example of a believer in that I have not been totally convinced. My health is really preventing me from doing much and seems to be getting worse. But I retain hope.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/03/2020 08:08:14
Humans having a innate sense of good and bad is illustrated in the latest Dilbert cartoon.

Dogbert:  Now that I am managing the cloud it is time to make some social changes. I will transfer any remaining money from the low-income people to the rich.
Dilbert: That feels wrong.
Dogbert: I am just adding efficiency to the inevitable.

Dogbert is right. Without the social upheavals of the past, the rich get richer for a number of reasons. One is that they influence the government to do things to benefit them. I used to be a conservative Republican who was a committed capitalist. I now see that while there are benefits to capitalism, governments need to regulate to remove the inequities. They also need to limit pollution, climate change and over-population. They cannot do this in good times. Hopefully they have the leadership to do it in bad times.

One simple regulation. Do away with computer trading. It is the mechanism that does indeed do wealth transfer and nothing else. There should be a rule that one has to hold stock for at least a week, and give a weeks notice of intention to sell. Or something similar. It would decimate the financial sector but it would provide stability. How many times do the experts say "Take a long term view. Do not panic sell". The rich are informed and make tactical decisions. They sell ahead of the curve and then wait for the bottom to buy. They may even control the public sentiment to choose their moment. The rich have the assets to do so and some get very rich with market collapses.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/03/2020 08:29:10
While on the topic of what is the best type of government, my research into religion also took me into research on types of government.

Interestingly, one really good one is Fascism. The concept comes from the Italian for "bundle". The reasoning is that a bundle of sticks is far stronger than a individual sticks. The initial Italian concept of Fascism was that there were two classes in society. The workers and the bureaucrats. The workers produced goods and services and the bureaucrats ensured that systems were balanced and worked in harmony. It achieved a great economic result. The problem was that military pressure by Germany moved Italy away from the basic concepts, and Fascism got a bad name.

The USA (and other supposedly democratic countries) are not really democratic. The rich influence the elections and one cannot become a candidate if one has certain views. AIPAC is one organization with so  much financial and political clout that they must be "wooed" in order that they do not destroy a candidate. The African countries get a president and ruling party and they just rig the elections. A benevolent dictatorship would be the best, but the problem is where to get a good one and how to support it.

A Great Die-Off may solve some of these problems IF leadership is forced to act cooperatively and key people can do what is good and right. This is what I mean about "a group of wise men/women" who know what is just and equitable. They will have no authority unless they invoke the backing of God (and major religions). And I presume that God will indeed back them. The snake oil salesmen and frauds may spring up like weeds but will wither and die.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/03/2020 12:22:42
It struck me that the Alcoholics Anonymous requirement for faith in a Higher Power is one example of the statistical method to prove God exists.
Then you need to re-read the stuff about confirmation bias.

Dogbert is right. Without the social upheavals of the past, the rich get richer for a number of reasons.
One such social upheaval is is the reduction of the influence of the churches.
If their scriptures still held sway, we would still have slaves and witch burning.

They also need to limit pollution, climate change and over-population. They cannot do this in good times. Hopefully they have the leadership to do it in bad times.
You have that the wrong way round.

You seem to be suggesting that we need to wait until it is raining before we fix the roof.

Even the bible recognised the importance of storing goods during the 7 fat years to tide them over in the 7 lean years.

While on the topic of what is the best type of government, my research into religion also took me into research on types of government.

Interestingly, one really good one is Fascism.
And there goes any remaining credibility you may have had.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/03/2020 14:49:35
Quote
from: CliveG on Today at 07:52:53

    It struck me that the Alcoholics Anonymous requirement for faith in a Higher Power is one example of the statistical method to prove God exists.

Then you need to re-read the stuff about confirmation bias.

You need to re-read my post. You are saying that any statistically proven evidence of God HAS to be confirmation bias (or another brain malfunction) BECAUSE science has proven that there is no God. Am I correct that you are saying that science has proven there is no God? You keep using that in your logic.

You are so convinced that there is no God that you put all your faith in logical fallacies such as confirmation bias, faulty memories, pareidolia, hallucination and plain human imagination. What do you call your absolute faith in these explanations that leave not the slightest possibility for God or spirit as a possible explanation?

Could I claim that your logic and objectives (destroy religion) are proof that Satan exists - ergo God? (Once more - tongue in cheek  ::))

Maybe some-one could reduce your argument to a series of logical statements and see if I am correct that you incorporate the non-existence of God into your logic to arrive at the conclusions you do?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/03/2020 15:19:01
I am saying that the effect of confirmation bias is so large (and impossible to measure independently) that it would mask any effect from God's intervention.
ou are saying that any statistically proven evidence of God HAS to be confirmation bias (or another brain malfunction) BECAUSE science has proven that there is no God
No.
I never said that.
Am I correct that you are saying that science has proven there is no God?
No you are , as usual, wrong..

You keep using that in your logic.
No
I have never used it.
You are so convinced that there is no God that you put all your faith in logical fallacies such as confirmation bias, faulty memories, pareidolia, hallucination and plain human imagination. What do you call your absolute faith in these explanations that leave not the slightest possibility for God or spirit as a possible explanation?
No.
I'm using Occam's razor.
Given that we can explain the observed data without invoking God's existence, it makes no sense to claim that he exists (on the basis of the data).

You seem to forget that (at least on a science web page) the burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/03/2020 15:20:28
Maybe some-one could reduce your argument to a series of logical statements and see if I am correct that you incorporate the non-existence of God into your logic to arrive at the conclusions you do?
No, they could not.
Because I'm not starting from God's non existence.
I'm starting from the position that there are other explanations for the observations and thus no need to assume some God's existence.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/03/2020 15:45:59
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 08:08:14

    Dogbert is right. Without the social upheavals of the past, the rich get richer for a number of reasons.

One such social upheaval is is the reduction of the influence of the churches.
If their scriptures still held sway, we would still have slaves and witch burning.

People have believed in evil forces and people who do evil long before organized religion. In Zimbabawe, only a few decades ago the tribes would put a group of people (men, woman and children) into a hut and burn it down in order to remove the evil that was causing their crops to fail.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?s=bibles&q=witch
The worship and seeking of supernatural powers other than God has been around since the beginning. Satan has used witchcraft to prevent people from finding holy spirituality in God alone. He uses witchcraft such as mediums, horoscopes, and games to entice people away from God and toward a power that gives self enlightenment. The Bible speaks often of the consequences of following false idols and falsehood. Read the Scripture verses below to better understand the importance of seeking God alone.


I ask God to guide me when I engage in contact with the spirit world using various methodologies including Tarot cards. So I pass the test of not using witchcraft. The key is also truth versus falsehoods. I connect to truth, and I speak the truth.

Exodus {22:18} Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

This is one of the Commandments handed out by Moses. These commandments are part of the Five Books of the Torah and not the New Testament. Many of these "laws" are acknowledged as out dated. How many times do I have to say that the religions need updating  - and that many laws followed by religions are indeed in need of updating - and that society has some of the practices as part of their cultural beliefs irrespective of any direction from religion. The term witch applies to some-one using the supernatural for evil. The punishment in those days was death. We have done away (mostly) with death penalty but why would you want an evil person to live next to you when they put evil curses upon people?

Deutoronomy {18:9}  When  thou  art  come  into  the  land  which  the LORD  thy  God  giveth  thee,  thou  shalt  not  learn  to  do  afterthe  abominations  of  those  nations.  {18:10}  There  shall  not be  found  among  you  [any  one]  that  maketh  his  son  or  his daughter  to  pass  through  the  fire,  or  that  useth  divination,[or]  an  observer  of  times,  or  an  enchanter,  or  a  witch,{18:11} Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, ora  wizard,  or  a  necromancer.
... {18:15}  The  LORD  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a Prophet  from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy  brethren,  like  unto me;  unto  him  ye  shall  hearken;
...{18:21} And  if  thou  say  in  thine  heart,  How  shall we  know  the  word  which  the  LORD  hath  not  spoken?{18:22}   When   a   prophet   speaketh   in   the   name   of   the LORD,  if  the  thing  follow  not,  nor  come  to  pass,  that  [is]the  thing  which  the  LORD  hath  not  spoken,  [but]  the prophet  hath  spoken  it  presumptuously:  thou  shalt  not  be afraid of him.


This part deals with false prophets as well as contact with the spirit world. Note that miracles and messages from God ARE allowed as long as the prophet can demonstrate credentials. Moses was trying to move a group of people away from superstition and the from the influence of people who may have been contacting evil spirits.

I already said that when I asked a clairvoyant if she knew whether she was connecting with good or bad spirits she said she had no idea, nor did she limit her contact with only good. I know the rules and the rules are that contact done with the help of God is good and allowed. Once more - some update to the Old Testament and also to the teachings of the Christian church. I do not deny that the priesthood has egos that sometimes get in the way. They want the Bible to be the only inerrant word of God so as not to be challenged. But the time has come to challenge and for the Churches (and other religions) to take notice).

In SA, there are good witchdoctors (Sangomas) and bad witchdoctors. The bad ones kill people for body parts and they get paid to cast evil spells on others. There is a very definite need to separate the good from the bad. But why throw the baby out with the bathwater and stop good ones from practicing? Even if you do away with religion you will not do away with the need for people to seek supernatural help. Unfortunately the area is ripe for frauds and they are as numerous as the internet scam artists.


Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 14/03/2020 15:51:40
You seem to forget that (at least on a science web page) the burden of proof is on you.

And I gave you a statistical scientific study that appears to prove that faith in God works. Is it not statistically possible that God does exist?

The burden of proof is now on you to prove that the study is in someway flawed - and the faith element is NOT due to the existence of God. All you have done is suggest another mechanism. Prove it is the only mechanism - and not God.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/03/2020 17:01:38
And I gave you a statistical scientific study that appears to prove that faith in God works.
remind me- where did you think you had done that?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/03/2020 17:11:48
Many of these "laws" are acknowledged as out dated.
Christ didn't.
He said they were here until the end of time.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

People have believed in evil forces and people who do evil long before organized religion. In Zimbabwe, only a few decades ago the tribes would put a group of people (men, woman and children) into a hut and burn it down in order to remove the evil that was causing their crops to fail.
You seem not to realise that those beliefs- that burning the people in the hut will help - are religion.
It's especially ironic given this
You do it with God and you do it with the Christian and Muslim religions. The others you give a pass for various reasons.

Well that's exactly my point.
I treat all the religions the same.
You pretend that some are "good" and others aren't " organized religion".


The burden of proof is now on you to prove that the study is in someway flawed - and the faith element is NOT due to the existence of God. All you have done is suggest another mechanism. Prove it is the only mechanism - and not God.
That's absurd.
If I said " Pixies did it - prove I'm wrong" you would recognise that it's not your job to explain away my fantastic idea.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 15/03/2020 06:30:18
Many of these "laws" are acknowledged as out dated.
Christ didn't.
He said they were here until the end of time.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

First let me confirm my statement that some of the "Laws" are acknowledged as outdated.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/541686/jewish/How-Many-of-the-Torahs-Commandments-Still-Apply.htm
While many of us know that there are 613 mitzvot, (248 do's, and 365 don'ts) it is less widely known just how many mitzvot we can actively apply in our time, outside of Israel, when the Temple (Beit HaMikdash) no longer stands. For example, all the various sacrificial offerings are no longer able to be brought.

Of the 248 positive commands, only 126 are currently applicable. And of the 365 negative commands, only 243 are still applicable. So in total, nowadays, 369 mitzvot are still operative.


I never said that the Bible and therefore sayings attributed to Christ were inerrant. Christ was only raised to the status of God by the Nicaean bishops. When you look at the entirety of the Matthew verse you quote I note that Jesus goes on to be explicit about the interpretation of the laws and does not detail the minor ones. I see no problem with his interpretation of the various laws. He does not speak kindly of false prophets. Rather than nit-pick one should look at the whole of what he said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
The Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the co-essential divinity of the Son, applying to him the term "consubstantial". ... The earlier Apostles' Creed does not explicitly affirm the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but in the view of many who use it, this doctrine is implicit in it.


By the way, I never studied the Bible, having been a confirmed atheist from age 12 to 17 and then a confirmed agnostic from 18 to about 50 or 60. The way I learned about the Nicaea was that we had an electrical cable explode and I went to a person two houses away. We got to talking and he told he had written a book about Jesus not being God. He gave me a copy of his book. He used to teach Christianity. Once more God created an event to teach me something very important. That Jesus is not God.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 15/03/2020 06:55:39

People have believed in evil forces and people who do evil long before organized religion. In Zimbabwe, only a few decades ago the tribes would put a group of people (men, woman and children) into a hut and burn it down in order to remove the evil that was causing their crops to fail.
You seem not to realise that those beliefs- that burning the people in the hut will help - are religion.
It's especially ironic given this
You do it with God and you do it with the Christian and Muslim religions. The others you give a pass for various reasons.

Well that's exactly my point.
I treat all the religions the same.
You pretend that some are "good" and others aren't " organized religion".

You treat all religions (and the supernatural) the same as in "they are all bad". A blanket dismissal for the sake of your atheistic beliefs.

I do not think that a belief in the supernatural is a religion.

While one cannot have religion without a belief in the supernatural I do think one can have a belief in the supernatural without a belief in religion or God. Although I was a confirmed atheist I took it as "natural" that ghosts, mental telepathy, clairvoyance and the like existed. They were part of the world I was brought up in.

Many African tribes believed in ancestor worship. The tribes is South Africa and Zimbabwe had no Gods that I am aware of. The witchdoctor was all-powerful and feared. He communicated with the spirits and knew which ones were good and which ones were evil. Evil spirits could infect and inhabit people and the cure was death (same as the Old Testament).

I have experienced demons in others, and heard them try to compel me to do something evil. Not quite a voice in my head but certainly an outside thought intruding in commanding an action. Only about 4 distinct occasions. I suspect that many people who commit suicide or do something really strange may have been commanded to do so by demons.

When Christianity came to Southern Africa, they accepted Jesus and God, but kept their ancestor and spirit beliefs. They did learn that one can cast out demons, and I know a person (named John) who does just that. So there was no need to kill the "witches". An update of their religion.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 15/03/2020 07:12:41
The burden of proof is now on you to prove that the study is in someway flawed - and the faith element is NOT due to the existence of God. All you have done is suggest another mechanism. Prove it is the only mechanism - and not God.
That's absurd.
If I said " Pixies did it - prove I'm wrong" you would recognise that it's not your job to explain away my fantastic idea.

Break it down to the basics. There are two methodologies to "cure" alcoholics. One insists on a belief in a Higher Power (God for all intents and purposes), and the secular scientific way. Both have a placebo effect.

But the first has a very clear statistical success rate. The second studies the first and tries to emulate them and their methods but does away with the faith requirement.

It is clear that faith and prayer are the differential. The question you are faced with is "Is a belief in a non-existent God just as powerful as a belief in an existent God?"

Now you have to first explain why belief alone is so powerful, especially when a belief in science does not give the same result. Then you have to show that your explanation applies to the AA.

Scoffing and dismissal are not very scientific.

Your straw-man of Pixies is another atheist tactic. Just why do you keep equating God to a mythical creature clearly invented to entertain children? Oh, maybe you think God is a mythical creature invented to control the masses. Just because both religion and science had various "myths" and both have improved their understanding does not mean that religion is totally wrong and science is totally right.

If you told me a Pixie had created the universe I would certainly scoff because we all know Pixies are an imaginary creature. If you told me that the universe and its laws arose from nothing I would also scoff because we all know nothing comes from nothing.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/03/2020 09:38:48
Just why do you keep equating God to a mythical creature
Because He is.
The evidence in support of Him  could equally well be used to support the existence of pixies.

It's not an "atheist tactic".
It's a logical equivalence that you can't seem to grasp.
a mythical creature clearly invented to entertain children
The Pixies were not invented to entertain children.
They were part of an established religion.
So, once again we find ourselves wondering how bad your research must have been.

I can tell you that in my research on various religions I also took another look at Christianity.


The tribes is South Africa and Zimbabwe had no Gods that I am aware of. The witchdoctor was all-powerful
All powerful- so... a God then?

Did they have a creation myth?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/03/2020 09:40:15
I suspect that many people who commit suicide or do something really strange may have been commanded to do so by demons.
I'm now trying to work out if that's  a bigger confession than
my research into religion also took me into research on types of government.
Interestingly, one really good one is Fascism.

Do you advocate drilling holes in the head to let the demons out?
Are demons somehow allergic to antipsychotic drugs or something?

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/03/2020 09:43:32
And I gave you a statistical scientific study that appears to prove that faith in God works.
remind me- where did you think you had done that?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 15/03/2020 13:52:37
An article about the power of prayer in fighting covid19. The rest of the article is not noteworthy.

As a  person of faith and a journalist I have been confronted many times by skeptics who do not believe in the power of prayer, who see it as just the antiquated thinking of an uneducated mind.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 15/03/2020 14:06:20
Just why do you keep equating God to a mythical creature
Because He is.
The evidence in support of Him  could equally well be used to support the existence of pixies.

It's not an "atheist tactic".
It's a logical equivalence that you can't seem to grasp.
a mythical creature clearly invented to entertain children
The Pixies were not invented to entertain children.
They were part of an established religion.
So, once again we find ourselves wondering how bad your research must have been.

I can tell you that in my research on various religions I also took another look at Christianity.


The tribes is South Africa and Zimbabwe had no Gods that I am aware of. The witchdoctor was all-powerful
All powerful- so... a God then?

Did they have a creation myth?

Pixies part of a religion! Which one would that be then?
How many people experience or believe in God - including famous scientists? How does that number compare to the Pixie believers?
"Because He is". Thus spake Bored Chemist - the All-Knowing. (Yes - sarcasm)
Logical equivalence. If I said that Bored Chemist is a viral artificial internet demon would that be considered a valid logical equivalence?
All-powerful witchdoctor. As humanly all-powerful as one can get. He decides who lives and who dies. Don't mess with him (or her). Is this another attempt at a logical equivalence?

Must be a boring news day for you. Just corona virus and more corona virus, eh?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 15/03/2020 14:21:01
I suspect that many people who commit suicide or do something really strange may have been commanded to do so by demons.
I'm now trying to work out if that's  a bigger confession than
my research into religion also took me into research on types of government.
Interestingly, one really good one is Fascism.

Do you advocate drilling holes in the head to let the demons out?
Are demons somehow allergic to antipsychotic drugs or something?

So you have never experienced a compelling thought that does not seem to be your own, commanding you to do something that you would not even consider? Like a blind man telling me I have no idea of what color is like.

Drilling holes. Well at least they got the right organ - the brain. How do you think surgery advanced? Trial and much error. Apparently the medical knowledge gained from Nazi concentration camps is considered valuable research although so unethical that doctors find it hard to use the results as references.

But to answer your question. Mess with the brain and demons and spirits have a hard time trying to influence thoughts. They do not "take over" like some zombie virus. They operate by quietly whispered suggestions, and the occasional forceful command. It fits right in with the rest of my hypothesis as to how the brain communicates with spirit. So blind man, why do you scoff at something others experience? It seems you operate on the basis of "If I have not experienced such things then they do not exist." Ever seen a ghost? Heard a ghost? Had an vivid hallucination (with and without drugs)?

Some people seem to communicate with spirit when the conscious is somehow damaged or impaired. Others require quiet time and letting the conscious brain go idle.

Perhaps you should calm down and try to absorb some of what I am writing.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 15/03/2020 14:29:04
Some behavior that seems to be demon-inspired is simply the result of a weak mind and smoking too much pot. See the link below. Most insanity is simply insanity. One cannot always blame the demons. Harvey Weinstein certainly has only himself and his ego to blame. Too much unchecked power.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/south-african-king-ax-rampage

The nephew of the late Nelson Mandela – who happens to be a South African king – was arrested after allegedly going on an ax rampage in the palace, reports claim.
Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo reportedly broke into the Thembu royal palace early Friday morning searching for his son, the regent, the BBC reported.
Dalindyebo’s son, Azensthi Zanelizwe Dalindyebo, had been acting as king while his father was serving a 12-year prison sentence for kidnapping, assault, and arson.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/03/2020 15:01:48
If I said that Bored Chemist is a viral artificial internet demon would that be considered a valid logical equivalence?
No.
Because, of course, it doesn't depend on someone saying it (that's how religion "works") it depends on whether there is evidence for it (that's how science works).

Now, rather than ranting about kings, why not try explaining the fundamental difference between a God (or a demon) and a Pixie?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/03/2020 15:14:48
Pixies part of a religion! Which one would that be then?
Celtic paganism.
Presumably you knew that because of your "research".
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/03/2020 15:17:25
It seems you operate on the basis of "If I have not experienced such things then they do not exist."
It seems that way to you.
To everyone else it seems that I believe in things for which there is sound evidence.
The disparity is due to you not recognising the difference between an anecdote, and evidence.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/03/2020 16:35:42
Apparently the medical knowledge gained from Nazi concentration camps is considered valuable research
Apparent to whom? Can you cite one such fact that was previously unknown, published between 1936 and 1945, verified, and of future value to medical practice? Or does this just consist with your earlier assertion that fascism is a good form of government?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/03/2020 16:55:29
Apparent to whom? Can you cite one such fact that was previously unknown, published between 1936 and 1945, verified, and of future value to medical practice? Or does this just consist with your earlier assertion that fascism is a good form of government?
There might be some such data.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/06/do-doctors-use-nazi-data-in-their-research.html

But it's totally irrelevant.
It was just a dead cat that Clive threw on the table because he didn't want to answer a question.
So, here's the question again.

Do you advocate drilling holes in the head to let the demons out?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/03/2020 20:36:05
I knew about the hypothermia studies, but as the article states, that was probably the only remotely interesting finding and quite irrelevant to the problem of survival of well fed, fit young men. Plenty of seafarers and arctic explorers had fallen into freezing seawater before 1936, and the ambient temperature at 30,000 ft is well below that of the North Sea. They also studied decompression and hypoxia, but again did not add to the common knowledge that people need oxygen - there were plenty of more relevant volunteer studies on insidious and sudden loss of control, which determines the survival of aircrew and passengers.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 17/03/2020 06:57:02
Finally, the world is coming to realize what a pandemic might do. The morgues and hospitals in Italy have trouble coping with the number of patients and the dead.

Humankind may beat this round of corona virus but if the message I got is correct, the die-off has started. The world needs a die-off in the billions to stop global warming and not just a few thousand. I do not know if it will take a few years or a few decades. I am quite convinced it will happen.

So what one should be asking is how credible my message is. I got it two days before I got news of the Swine Flu. A week later, and despite the dire predictions about Swine Flu, I said that it was not the big one. The big one would wait until I finished my book and would occur soon after. The timing is just about right. When one looks at my history of psychic events, and the rest of my life, there is a tale of learning.

So how many want to read my book? You got two chapters of the second half. I am not out to make money. The only reason I put a price on it is that people do not value something that is given away. The whole point is to get the message out. God seems to be controlling the distribution, and I am assuming it will go viral when it is supposed to. Let us see if staying at home gives some people time to read.



Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/03/2020 07:28:09
Finally, the world is coming to realize what a pandemic might do.
The world knew.

I am quite convinced it will happen.
The current death rate is about 1%
I doubt there will be a single day where more people die than are born.
(Typically 360,000 are born each day.)

You being "convinced" does not trump the actual evidence.

So what one should be asking is how credible my message is.
It is laughable.

One reason you lack credibility (in addition to thinking a disease with a goss lethality less than 1% is going to control our population) is that you are unable to defend your position on anything.
When challenged you just write some irrelevant dross.
So, for the third time of asking

Do you advocate drilling holes in the head to let the demons out?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 17/03/2020 07:47:00
So, for the third time of asking

Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/03/2020 09:40:15

    Do you advocate drilling holes in the head to let the demons out?

No. Do you think it is an option since you seem so desperate for an answer?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 17/03/2020 07:56:28
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 06:57:02

    So what one should be asking is how credible my message is.

It is laughable.


Still in denial. I take it you are not in a "hot" zone.

So we need to give it some more time. Okay. Fox News had nothing but corona stories.

1%. Can you back that with statistics? A link perhaps. Why is the medical profession the most worried?

How about the collapse of economies? Not just in the USA but around the world. And the deaths that will result from malnutrition? And local diseases such as cholera and the like.

How about a major war which gets out of hand? Started by a nation desperate to divert attention, or thinking that their survival is at stake. Take Iran. They do not want a war under normal circumstance but if the country is desperate for goods and needs to break sanctions? And then a nuclear war follows? I had an image of Iran catapulting bodies into Israel.

Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 17/03/2020 11:38:32
There is no vaccine for stupidity. However, this does provide some comic relief. (PS - Corn Cob? Ouch)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/17/coronavirus-oregon-police-says-stop-calling-911-toilet-paper/5065874002/
An Oregon police department is dealing with an odd emergency of its own during the coronavirus outbreak: Too many people calling 911 because they’ve run out of toilet paper. The Newport Police Department reminded local residents that there are more urgent issues than being short on toilet paper.
“It’s hard to believe that we even have to post this,” the department wrote on its Facebook page early Sunday morning. “Do not call 9-1-1 just because you ran out of toilet paper. You will survive without our assistance.”
Toilet paper shortages are rampant, both in big-box stores such as Walmart and Costco, and on Amazon, which is working "around the clock" to restock the necessity.
The police department listed some toilet paper alternatives out of history, citing the fact that both Mayans and colonial-era Americans used corn cobs.
For what it’s worth bidets — the bathroom appliance that sprays water in its user’s rear — are also gaining in popularity.
In any case, the Newport Police Department advises residents to be “resourceful” and “patient” during these tough times. “There is a TP shortage,” they write. “This too shall pass. Just don’t call 9-1-1. We cannot bring you toilet paper.”
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 17/03/2020 12:04:54
Max Keiser did an interview of John Rubino (DollarCollapes.com).
https://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/483230-vaccine-covid-19-pandemic/
at 22 minutes:
John says that there are two scenarios to fix a broken financial system. The 1930s deflationary depression where all the debt gets wiped off through default, or a Wiemar Germany hyperinflation where one attempts to wipe out the debt by inflating it away. Both are extremely painful. No other way to normality. But BC will come to the rescue - we hope.

Before 2008, the Fed said it knew how to break the cycle of boom and bust. Alan Greenspan was revered as such a guru and financial expert, but he was trying to flout the basics of economics - as if the second law of thermodynamics could be ignored and entropy reversed. They are still trying to keep a zombie economy afloat.

My wife and I do not know how or where to invest at a time like this. We have just not put all our eggs in one basket, and are hoping that diversification will help. The long lines at the supermarkets are quite clear in Joburg. Traffic in the streets is down. How does one quarantine a squatter camp? How do people who live from day to day stay in a 2 x 2 meter tin shack for 30 to 60 days?

But why are such people not among the explosion of cases as they normally are? They are the drivers, the porters, the cleaners and so on.

While I agree with Max on many things, cryptocurrency is not one of them. It is interesting that gold is not rising. For two reasons - those who have bought in 2008 and are holding on, and those who need to sell to pay their margin calls.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 17/03/2020 14:54:43
The current death rate is about 1%

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/17/health/us-coronavirus-updates-tuesday/index.html
"scenario similar to the one facing Italy. The European country went on total lockdown last week and has been hit harder than any other country in the region, with at least 24,747 cases of coronavirus and 1,809 deaths."


This is 7.3%. Is your math as bad as your logic?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/03/2020 20:00:04
Fox News had nothing but corona stories.
Citing faux news does not improve your credibility.
1%. Can you back that with statistics? A link perhaps. Why is the medical profession the most worried?
It's an order of magnitude estimate. Yes I have stats.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0320_article


Abstract
We estimated the case-fatality risk for 2019 novel coronavirus disease cases in China (3.5%); China, excluding Hubei Province (0.8%); 82 countries, territories, and areas (4.2%); and on a cruise ship (0.6%). Lower estimates might be closest to the true value, but a broad range of 0.25%–3.0% probably should be considered.


Why is the medical profession the most worried?
Because 1% of people dying is a bad thing.
Of course they are worried. What a silly question.

But it isn't what you are talking about.
It is not some biblical plague that will reset the world's population.
if the message I got is correct, the die-off has started. The world needs a die-off in the billions to stop global warming and not just a few thousand.
has been hit harder than any other country
So, you deliberately pick the hardest hit case and resent it as if it's some sort of "typical" figure.

Nice try, but the grown ups here will spot it. It won't impress anyone.



Still in denial. I take it you are not in a "hot" zone.
So, remind me, what have I "denied"?
It's not clear how "hot" this zone (The UK) is. I have been sent home from work.
It is interesting that gold is not rising.
Err. yes... if you like...
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/03/2020 20:01:48
Max Keiser did an interview of John Rubino (DollarCollapes.com).
https://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/483230-vaccine-covid-19-pandemic/
at 22 minutes:
John says that there are two scenarios to fix a broken financial system. The 1930s deflationary depression where all the debt gets wiped off through default, or a Wiemar Germany hyperinflation where one attempts to wipe out the debt by inflating it away. Both are extremely painful. No other way to normality. But BC will come to the rescue - we hope.

Before 2008, the Fed said it knew how to break the cycle of boom and bust. Alan Greenspan was revered as such a guru and financial expert, but he was trying to flout the basics of economics - as if the second law of thermodynamics could be ignored and entropy reversed. They are still trying to keep a zombie economy afloat.

My wife and I do not know how or where to invest at a time like this. We have just not put all our eggs in one basket, and are hoping that diversification will help. The long lines at the supermarkets are quite clear in Joburg. Traffic in the streets is down. How does one quarantine a squatter camp? How do people who live from day to day stay in a 2 x 2 meter tin shack for 30 to 60 days?

But why are such people not among the explosion of cases as they normally are? They are the drivers, the porters, the cleaners and so on.

While I agree with Max on many things, cryptocurrency is not one of them. It is interesting that gold is not rising. For two reasons - those who have bought in 2008 and are holding on, and those who need to sell to pay their margin calls.
It's a bit like worship; you can post about God or Mammon, but not both.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/03/2020 23:10:30
Why is the medical profession the most worried?
Professionally, because an epidemic is reputationally harmful.
Personally, because the best way to get infected is to get up close and personal to someone with a disease. Kinda goes with the job.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 18/03/2020 06:26:56
Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 12:04:54

    It is interesting that gold is not rising.

Err. yes... if you like...

I follow gold. It was steady for a number of years, and then started to rise with the corona virus fears. But, instead of a sharp rise the last week because of a flight to safety, gold bounced around. People are selling to pay for their stock losses. Do some reading and check the general consensus.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 18/03/2020 06:33:07
Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 07:56:28

    Fox News had nothing but corona stories.

Citing faux news does not improve your credibility.

Fox News had the most corona stories compared to other networks who paid no attention. In one week, all news outlets are solid corona related. In one week, the enormity of what we face has hit home. Yet I still hear people saying it will be no worse than the ordinary flu. Yeah right.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 18/03/2020 06:42:21
It's a bit like worship; you can post about God or Mammon, but not both.

Huh? God does not like the worship of money. I am pointing that out.

At the same time, I am pointing out that even if God does not exist, the laws of economics apply. But common sense and a look at the overall situation is the best guide.

I often imagine countries to be like a family in a house. A large family moves into a large house with expensive fittings and they start stripping the house to live well. It cannot last. This was seen many times as wealthy areas declined.

In South Africa we had a country full of assets and potential. The politicians are busy stripping it bare. Same as Zimbabwe. In the USA, they live on debt. And one cannot cure a debt problem with more debt. Just as the afterlife judgement will surely come to pass, so will an economic correction will also surely come to pass. So sayeth Clive (using the spirit of common sense)   ;)
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 18/03/2020 06:53:54
Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 07:56:28

    Still in denial. I take it you are not in a "hot" zone.

So, remind me, what have I "denied"?
It's not clear how "hot" this zone (The UK) is. I have been sent home from work.

My wife's son has decided to start stocking. He had talked to colleagues in Europe who had been quarantined at home who said they wished they had stocked up. My wife is now asking me whether we have enough. The spare room has to first bulge at the seams I said. But I need to fast for a while so it may be a blessing in disguise. Fasting is good but not when one is ill.

I have some unusual aches and pains, including a headache. Both my wife and I have had tight chests with a bit of difficulty breathing. Highly unlikely to be corona but it indicates we must be vigilant. I told my wife not to take me to the hospital if I collapse and cannot talk. Put me to bed. We are looking after our grandchild because her school is closed. Her chest is a bit congested.

This morning I go to hand out a notice to all workers that my wife's factory will close. I have said for a couple of years she should close. Finally she has agreed. 4 weeks notice and 6 weeks severance pay for each worker. Plus they get their provident fund and unemployment insurance. The trouble is selling the equipment and renting the building is tough in there times. Praying that God helps.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/03/2020 11:44:19
Huh? God does not like the worship of money. I am pointing that out.
So, nothing to do with the topic then.
Why did you preach it at us?
Don't bother to answer that, just try to stick to the point in future. This thread's long enough.
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/03/2020 11:45:30
Just as the afterlife judgement will surely come to pass
No it won't.
Stop begging the question
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/03/2020 11:49:46
In one week, all news outlets are solid corona related. In one week, the enormity of what we face has hit home.
It has been on the news here for months.

However, if you look at the video here, you can see that Fox started off by belittling the threat, and only recently caught up with the rest of the world.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/17/media/fox-news-coronavirus-reliable-sources/index.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/17/media/fox-news-coronavirus-reliable-sources/index.html
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/03/2020 14:28:17
Praying that God helps.
Come off it, Clive. God created COVID inter alia to put your wife's employees on the breadline (not that there's any bread). An omniscient being has no defence of "unintended consequences" - this is deliberate impoverishment and murder on a global scale. Why on earth should he change his mind in response to your petty grumbling?
Title: Re: Can science prove God exists?
Post by: CliveG on 18/03/2020 15:29:01