[duffyd]

HE is the leading figure in history. More people are aware of who he is than any other human being. He's changed more lives than all the people who were alive when Nero ruled temporarily.

Not bad for a myth.
There's next to no actual physical or documentary evidence he existed.

considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century

By whom

Look it up.

OK, so you need to find out how the quote function works, and you need to work out who has the burden of proof (Hint: it's you in this case)

You base your opinion on what? Nothing. You made the claim he is a myth without documentation or physical evidence. It's your wild conjecture based on nothing but whim. 

You refuse to identify or define evidence. Evidence is identifiable and definable. You have no foundation to exclude anything.

No burden. You question it. Question it all you want.

[CliveG]

I spoke to my daughter who is a veterinary doctor in Virginia USA. She started describing neurological symptoms to me that she is having. They cannot find a cause. I am fairly sure it is electro-smog due to Wifi and cell phones. She is an incredibly bright young woman. Has some Jewish genes in her.  Got 100% for her university physics exam. Was asked to get into theoretical physics but loved animals and chose veterinary medicine. She loves quantum physics and is very knowledgeable in that area. Almost a hobby with her.

She took to wearing a mask early on, and insists that her staff (she owns the clinic together with her husband who is also a veterinary doctor) also wear masks. She said that in the early days she got a lot of negative comments and had to tell people her husband only had one lung and cannot risk infection. But she struggles with supply. They have to sterilize the masks so that they can get more usage from them. She also studied virology and epidemiology as key subjects. She, like me, also tried to get off the grid. And I think she is somewhat psychic also. Her husband was very ill recently and she told me that if she did not get involved with his care in hospital he would have died because of a lack of standards.

[Colin2B]

I spoke to my daughter who is a veterinary doctor in Virginia USA. She started describing neurological symptoms to me that she is having.

This thread has wandered way of topic, is promoting false news and turning into a slanging match.
Bring it back on topic.

[CliveG]

I spoke to my daughter who is a veterinary doctor in Virginia USA. She started describing neurological symptoms to me that she is having.

This thread has wandered way of topic, is promoting false news and turning into a slanging match.
Bring it back on topic.

Can science prove that God exists? She is a committed Christian who is very scientific but sees no contradiction in her belief in God and her love of science. Sometimes science does not know, but there are "coincidences" that save us. Yes, the law of large numbers say that almost nothing is impossible but these coincidences should be taken into account when doing the statistical study of whether God or the supernatural exists.

I have a long list of strange events that are hard for science to explain. In addition to that, I learned that I had histoplasmosis through a chain of coincidences, and this saved my life. My daughter has some serious health problems, and my information may just save her life.

My research into electrosmog was necessitated by a cell tower next door. I learned of many cases of cancer near towers in our area. Once more it is my belief that all this information, which came from just chatting to various people, is another way that God gives us information that cannot be found any other way.

For science to do a study of the probability that God exists, science should be aware of how God works and the "rules" of the game. Now, let us assume that I am right about electrosmog. It would not be because I am in the industry but I maintain it is because God has thrust it upon me. That should count as one more piece of anecdotal evidence that eventually is combined with all the other "anecdotes" that I have to say there is something going on.

I understand the pressure the forum may be getting from the Telco industry. They want any "stories" of harm to be branded as "Dangerous Crazy Nonsense". My fight with them in the courts indicates to me that they are aware of the danger of even one story being legally provable. As one of the largest Telcos said in their affidavit "We must intervene because if this case is successful it could destroy our industry" - I have paraphrased this from memory.

I think it is dangerous to discount any theory (especially one backed by science) at times like these. But again I say this is another bit of evidence of the possibility of God. If the electrosmog is a contributing factor then God wants no reduction. I agree it will not happen. I am trying to debate with intelligent people.

If you disagree, you can tell me what restrictions I have to abide by, and I will do so. Apart from some humorous "give and take" I do not think I am "slanging anyone off". But I can cut out that completely if you say so.

[Colin2B]

Can science prove that God exists? She is a committed Christian who is very scientific but sees no contradiction in her belief in God and her love of science.

Once more it is my belief that all this information, which came from just chatting to various people, is another way that God gives us information that cannot be found any other way.

The title of this thread is “Can science prove God exists?”.
I don’t see how beliefs such as these form scientific evidence, or answer the topic question. Surely it would be better to discuss what scientific methods might be used and what might be acceptable as evidence.
On the discussion so far I would have to say the answer is no, but that doesn’t mean s/he exists. Even proving Jesus was a historical figure can’t prove the question.
Even the question itself is pointless, because, as has been pointed out many times in this forum, science is not about proving things.

I understand the pressure the forum may be getting from the Telco industry.

This statement shows you don’t understand.
This forum is under no pressure from anyone. Our remit is science education and if we could see scientific evidence for any of your claims we would be duty bound to make these widely known.

...tell me what restrictions I have to abide by, and I will do so. Apart from some humorous "give and take" I do not think I am "slanging anyone off".

The comment on slagging off was a general observation on this thread, see a recent quote below. I appreciate feelings run high on areas of belief, but let’s keep this rational.
The restriction is keep the discussion on topic and keep it friendly.

If you believe the bible, you would believe his friends called him "rabbi". No rabbi was ever criticised for being mainstream. But it's pretty clear you haven't read the bible, so I can't criticise you for not understanding it.

Stay clear of religion and lead a good life, my friend. Farewell.

You better split. You were having your fanny for lunch. Excellent time to take cover, just as you brush off your premise with more generalized bull.

[CliveG]

Colin 2B.

I understand all your points.

In a few days I will make a couple of posts in the cell tower radiation harm thread and then probably give posting a rest for a while. Time will tell.

My posts in the other forum will be a summary of the long list of health problems I have personally endured and documented. If I help just one person it would be worth the effort.

I will end with this...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/06/bria...
In your book, you talk about the “majesty of religion”. What do you mean by that?
There’s a tendency, certainly among some scientists I know, to judge religion by whether or not it gives us factual information about an objective reality. That’s not the right yardstick. There are many others who recognise that the value of religion is found in its capacity to provide a sense of community, to allow us to see our lives within a larger context, to connect us through ritual to our forebears, to alleviate anxiety in the face of mortality, among other
thoroughly subjective benefits. When I’m looking to understand myself as a human, and how I fit in to the long chain of human culture that reaches back thousands of years, religion is a deeply valuable part of that story.

...If people take away one thought from your book, what should it be?
That there is great value in understanding how we fit into the largest possible landscape, the longest possible timeline. Seeing how we and our species fit in between the big bang and the closest science can take us to the end of time is something that gives us deeply illuminating context. It allows us to see the human search for meaning and purpose in a different light, and with that to recognise that there is no ultimate answer hovering in the depths of space
awaiting discovery. Instead, the context provided by the cosmological narrative frees us fully to develop our own, deeply and thoroughly subjective reasons for being.

[Bored chemist]

The link didn't work for me, but I presume it's this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/06/brian-greene-theoretical-physicist-interview-until-the-end-of-time

The headline is "‘Factual information is not the right yardstick for religion’".
which is fine.
The problem arises when people think it is, and act as if religion is factual.

[duffyd]

Her husband was very ill recently and she told me that if she did not get involved with his care in hospital he would have died because of a lack of standards.

So sorry Clive. Dear God, show your glory in this situation. Comfort the hurting

[duffyd]

Alice Cooper loves the Lord. One great dude. Lives near my sister. John Legend can sing.

Delighted to see them worship our God through Superstar. (He was anything but a superstar most of his life. Almost no one had any idea He was God.) Imagine growing up with God as your brother and not knowing it until you are an adult.

[hamdani yusuf]

There are many others who recognise that the value of religion is found in its capacity to provide a sense of community

The sense of community is seen within the same religion, but even in this narrow scope, we can still find communities divided by different sect/denomination within the same religion. The bridge between different religions is usually built from different ideologies, mostly politics, such as nationalism, globalism, humanism.

[hamdani yusuf]

Proving the existence of any god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking any god.
Proving the existence of one particular god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon (or a series of phenomena) which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking that particular god. Logically, it will also reject the involvement of other gods in those phenomena.

[duffyd]

Proving the existence of any god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking any god.
Proving the existence of one particular god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon (or a series of phenomena) which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking that particular god. Logically, it will also reject the involvement of other gods in those phenomena.

Receive the Holy Spirit in a charismatic church and see what happens.

[CliveG]

Proving the existence of any god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking any god.
Proving the existence of one particular god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon (or a series of phenomena) which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking that particular god. Logically, it will also reject the involvement of other gods in those phenomena.

Your post is quite logical and makes sense. But what happens if a God decides to involve a person in a phenomenon without being invoked? Like my knowing a biker would die about 5 minutes. I got the impression that God did that to demonstrate his existence to me. And what about when I was an atheist and experienced psychic phenomena?

I suppose it means that you lack the proof that God involved.

[hamdani yusuf]

Proving the existence of any god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking any god.
Proving the existence of one particular god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon (or a series of phenomena) which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking that particular god. Logically, it will also reject the involvement of other gods in those phenomena.

Your post is quite logical and makes sense. But what happens if a God decides to involve a person in a phenomenon without being invoked? Like my knowing a biker would die about 5 minutes. I got the impression that God did that to demonstrate his existence to me. And what about when I was an atheist and experienced psychic phenomena?

I suppose it means that you lack the proof that God involved.

It means that your proof is not scientific.

[hamdani yusuf]

Proving the existence of any god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking any god.
Proving the existence of one particular god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon (or a series of phenomena) which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking that particular god. Logically, it will also reject the involvement of other gods in those phenomena.

Receive the Holy Spirit in a charismatic church and see what happens.

Name one charismatic church. What makes you think that your particular church is charismatic, while many others are not?

[CliveG]

Proving the existence of any god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking any god.
Proving the existence of one particular god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon (or a series of phenomena) which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking that particular god. Logically, it will also reject the involvement of other gods in those phenomena.

Your post is quite logical and makes sense. But what happens if a God decides to involve a person in a phenomenon without being invoked? Like my knowing a biker would die about 5 minutes. I got the impression that God did that to demonstrate his existence to me. And what about when I was an atheist and experienced psychic phenomena?

I suppose it means that you lack the proof that God involved.

It means that your proof is not scientific.

I agree.

But when you go to a doctor and tell them you have neurological problems like pain and memory loss and tingling sensations, you do not expect them to tell you it should not be happening because all the current scientific tests do not indicate any known problem.

A few decades ago, many of these problems were dismissed by the medical fraternity as psychosomatic and psychological because they could not diagnose them or have a test for them. A large number of these have been shown to have an underlying cause, and some have treatments that give relief.

God is a thinking entity who knows that proof of his existence would change the world. He would ignore the test and not get involved - invoked or not. He will allow humankind to infer from the evidence he does supply that there is a good probability of his existence. There is no direct proof of the Big Bang, but most people accept it because it answers many questions. The existence of God also answers many questions - like my psychic events.

Remember the movie "The Truman Show". They used technology and spies and manipulation to prevent him from knowing what the truth of his existence was. God is like that, only almost infinitely greater.

[CliveG]

Her husband was very ill recently and she told me that if she did not get involved with his care in hospital he would have died because of a lack of standards.

So sorry Clive. Dear God, show your glory in this situation. Comfort the hurting

Thanks. God did answer my daughter's prayers when he got lung cancer and they were told he had a less than 10% chance. My daughter was comforted then by omens that indicated that he would survive. He is now over the worst and doing well. They just have to deal with the current Covid. They have two fantastic children and have a happy life despite some adversity now and then.

[Bored chemist]

Remember the movie "The Truman Show". They used technology and spies and manipulation to prevent him from knowing what the truth of his existence was. God is like that, only almost infinitely greater.

So, evil and exploitative then.
Nice.

[Bored chemist]

God did answer my daughter's prayers when he got lung cancer and they were told he had a less than 10% chance.

Perhaps God enjoyed the prayers He received as a result of giving that innocent man cancer.

[hamdani yusuf]

But when you go to a doctor and tell them you have neurological problems like pain and memory loss and tingling sensations, you do not expect them to tell you it should not be happening because all the current scientific tests do not indicate any known problem.

Have you tried fMRI tests?