[Jolly2]

One only needs to look at the world around them to see that only God can create life.

Define what your god is?

Actually anything can become a God to a person. It's what they value most or consider most important what they worship in ignorance or awareness.

Then they have redefined the word god. Many cultures don't consider their gods as the most important things in their lives.

noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

There is no redefinition.  From the day God gave Moses the 10 commandments
'You shall have no other Gods on my face".
Jews have always understood anything can become a God to a person.

[CliveG]

It is a jungle out there - and main stream media are clearly seen to have bias and opinion. Choose which one you want. CNN or Fox News for example. "......"...........

Clive, this series of posts appear to be off topic, can we bring the thread back to the main question rather than running 2 threads.
Thanks

I will take some care. Thanks for the civil prompt.

My motivation was about God wanting change using a pandemic, and making the pandemic more effective by lowering peoples immune systems. If I am right that God is giving me this information and it turns out to be accurate, then it is a boost towards "proving" (a higher probability) the existence of God. I have said that God guides me by events. I believe that my legal fight with the cell tower was to show me how the coming chaos would be facilitated. This requires a few years to pan out so I appreciate being allowed to document on the site.

[Colin2B]

If I am right that God is giving me this information and it turns out to be accurate, then it is a boost towards "proving" (a higher probability) the existence of God.

The problem is that it does not offer scientific proof. The only way you can do show accurate prior information is by being subject to rigorous double blind testing as explained previously. Even then it would not prove the source.
This is the whole problem with this thread, no one has approached the question of how you rigorously test and demonstrate the existence of God or any god. Using personal, after the fact, recollection is not a scientific method and offers no scientific credence to the experience which could be due to a number of causes including selective bias. This is also the problem with all personal testimonies.
Overall, I’m quite disappointed that this God sent opportunity has been studiously avoided. @hamdani yusuf did attempt to lay in some guidelines but it was ignored.  The question remains, how would you go about it, what tests or experiments would offer incontrovertible proof? How would you falsify the theory of the existence of God?

[Bored chemist]

I appreciate being allowed to document on the site.

You have consistently failed to do that when asked.

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.

[Bored chemist]

If I am right that God is giving me this information and it turns out to be accurate, then it is a boost towards "proving" (a higher probability) the existence of God.

The problem is that it does not offer scientific proof. The only way you can do show accurate prior information is by being subject to rigorous double blind testing as explained previously. Even then it would not prove the source.
This is the whole problem with this thread, no one has approached the question of how you rigorously test and demonstrate the existence of God or any god. Using personal, after the fact, recollection is not a scientific method and offers no scientific credence to the experience which could be due to a number of causes including selective bias. This is also the problem with all personal testimonies.
Overall, I’m quite disappointed that this God sent opportunity has been studiously avoided. @hamdani yusuf did attempt to lay in some guidelines but it was ignored.  The question remains, how would you go about it, what tests or experiments would offer incontrovertible proof? How would you falsify the theory of the existence of God?

To an extent we tried to do that here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79247.0
but teh thread got mangled.
Is it possible to sort out the formatting?

[alancalverd]

What gave the molecules their emergent property of being able to form such complex units?

Schrodinger.

Is he dead or alive?

Probably.

[alancalverd]

So back to the question. All we need is a definition of God as the thing which uniquely and predictably does X when Y. Then we do Y and see if  X happens.
That's science - or at least the beginning of science. We must continue by looking for instances of X occurring spontaneously or in response to Z, or not responding to Y. This will lead to either a redefinition of God as one  possible explanation of X, or not being consistent with the definition.
It's the same logic that allows us to prove the existence of everything from a neutrino to an elephant.
So it's up to the proponents of the God hypothesis to specify X and Y.

[hamdani yusuf]

There is no redefinition.  From the day God gave Moses the 10 commandments
'You shall have no other Gods on my face".
Jews have always understood anything can become a God to a person.

Was it OK to have other Gods before Moses receive 10 commandments?
Can a child become a God to his/her parents?

[Bored chemist]

So back to the question. All we need is a definition of God as the thing which uniquely and predictably does X when Y. Then we do Y and see if  X happens.
That's science - or at least the beginning of science. We must continue by looking for instances of X occurring spontaneously or in response to Z, or not responding to Y. This will lead to either a redefinition of God as one  possible explanation of X, or not being consistent with the definition.
It's the same logic that allows us to prove the existence of everything from a neutrino to an elephant.
So it's up to the proponents of the God hypothesis to specify X and Y.

One thing which would spoil this would be if the definition of God included a clause which meant that any attempt to establish if X happens is forbidden by God.

And there is such a clause.
- it's the "test not thy God" bit.

So, the existence of (at least) the Abrahamic God is not a question where science could have an answer.
If only someone had mentioned this earlier.

Oh!
It turns out that someone did.

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

And 25 pages on, it seems I was right.

[alancalverd]

Which makes prayer inadmissible at worst, and irrelevant at best. I guess at least half of all sacrifices, prayers and penances are in the form of "please let Y → X", so there is an implicit test.

Beware! Prayer displeases the Almighty - he said so!

[Bored chemist]

Which makes prayer inadmissible at worst, and irrelevant at best.

It always was.
If God has decided to wipe out lots of people with a virus, do you think He's going to change His mind, just because you ask Him to?

[CliveG]

If I am right that God is giving me this information and it turns out to be accurate, then it is a boost towards "proving" (a higher probability) the existence of God.

The problem is that it does not offer scientific proof. The only way you can do show accurate prior information is by being subject to rigorous double blind testing as explained previously. Even then it would not prove the source.
This is the whole problem with this thread, no one has approached the question of how you rigorously test and demonstrate the existence of God or any god. Using personal, after the fact, recollection is not a scientific method and offers no scientific credence to the experience which could be due to a number of causes including selective bias. This is also the problem with all personal testimonies.
Overall, I’m quite disappointed that this God sent opportunity has been studiously avoided. @hamdani yusuf did attempt to lay in some guidelines but it was ignored.  The question remains, how would you go about it, what tests or experiments would offer incontrovertible proof? How would you falsify the theory of the existence of God?

Is an epidemiological study accepted as proof? One that compares people with experiences of God and the supernatural with those in similar circumstances but do not believe in God.

A study that looks at events that have seemingly have no rational physical explanation, and do studies to determine whether these give plausibility to the existence of God.

I am well aware of scientific double blind studies. I just think that God, at this time, in not prepared to be tested and proved. He wants plausible deniability so as to give humankind free will. Free will to do evil things and be damned.

We have already agreed that it seems unlikely God will take part. Predictions have always been a powerful persuader that God might be giving information to some people. Let us see how bad this pandemic (and those that might follow) gets and whether society becomes much more spiritual and accepts the hypothesis I have put forward. A period of about five years should do it. It life does not change very much, then I guess I have to accept that I was mistaken about the information given to me.

That will still not change my belief that the supernatural exists. I have had too many experiences indicating the existence of the supernatural.

[CliveG]

How does one explain that this person had the genes of a male and yet the consciousness of a female? I have hypothesized that souls control the development of the wiring of our brains and have also said that our souls are non-gender specific that reincarnates. Can this person have had a soul that supposedly started out as a female and so programmed the brain to be female? Nothing in his/her upbringing could have influenced the feminine thinking.

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-51928077
When I was 16, I immersed myself in Jewish mysticism, called Kabbalah. That was where I first came across a religious text that justified my existence.
In a 16th Century study of human souls called The Door of Reincarnation, I read: "At times, a male will reincarnate in the body of a female, and a female will be in a male body."
It gave me hope that maybe I wasn't crazy.

This is an example of what I just wrote about. How does science explain this?

[CliveG]

What gave the molecules their emergent property of being able to form such complex units?

Schrodinger.

Is he dead or alive?

Probably.

Where is the thumbs up emoticon? You get one.

[duffyd]

So back to the question. All we need is a definition of God as the thing which uniquely and predictably does X when Y. Then we do Y and see if  X happens.
That's science - or at least the beginning of science. We must continue by looking for instances of X occurring spontaneously or in response to Z, or not responding to Y. This will lead to either a redefinition of God as one  possible explanation of X, or not being consistent with the definition.
It's the same logic that allows us to prove the existence of everything from a neutrino to an elephant.
So it's up to the proponents of the God hypothesis to specify X and Y.

Why are you playing games? What's the point? If you have already decided GOD doesn't exist, why bother asking the same questions? When you ask questions and they are answered, why do you change the subject and return to past topics to ask more questions that have already been answered?

If you don't believe, fine. But, if you don't want answers, why keep asking the same kinds of questions repeatedly? You already have the answers. What is your point? Control? I think so based on your documented history on this issue.

You bounce around, shifting from this to that to that and then this, always asking more questions until you recognize the answers you've received are more than you can handle. Is there some satisfaction in "controlling" Christians you get? You have said you despise us. I believe you. The evidence is abundant and crystal clear that you do.

That's fine. You should hate us. We are supposed to be hated as we follow HIM. HE was hated and HE was perfect. If we remind unbelievers of HIM, they will hate us. It is fulfilment of HIS promise to us. A prophecy proven true over and over. (Science)

If you have been seeking answers with an unfeigned spirit of genuine interest, then you already have enough information to seek HIM on your own. You don't need any more information. Based on that fact, it certainly appears you have other motivations for making observations and asking questions. But, the topic is, "can science prove GOD exists", not, "see if you humiliate people you despise by playing games with them."

Bear in mind that you don't really know very much about this topic. You may think you do, but you don't, if we are to go by your statements. You've been shown many times to be incorrect, but you flee that particular aspect of the topic and raise more questions, like it is a game, like it is fun.

With your excellent mind I think you could spend your time more productively. (Deep down, I Know you long to be in relationship with HIM as HE longs to shower you with HIS love. How do I Know? Because we all want that. We are made to love and to be loved. It is intrinsic. It's like breathing. Take children away from any source of loving influence in their lives and see what happens. Look at mankind. Not being in a loving relationship with GOD is disastrous.) It is all scientifically proven.

[duffyd]

I have no reason to doubt that he existed. As I said much earlier, he was a radical rabbi (addressed by his friends as such) who was killed for causing trouble. Nothing unusual about that, nor was the radical Judaism he preached beyond the very broad span of our ancient traditions.

Good football coaches teach something they refer to as "staying on your block" which simply means, keep driving your legs and keep jamming your body with full force into the defender until the Ref blows his whistle. The phrase is just a reminder, a term that stresses the importance to persist, to keep going all out, and not let anything, anything, no matter what, direct your efforts away from that single minded goal.
To wit, I have asked alan and his like-minded teammates to answer my questions which derive from the numerous and outrageous errors they make continuously. I am in no hurry. We have a long time before that whistle blows.
Be aware, and if you are intelligent and a good dude/dudess, you can't miss it: Our intellectual superheroes don't participate in these debates as though they have any confidence in the positions they hold.   

Again, my friend, what do you mean he was a radical rabbi? Where did you get that idea? You say his buds said that about him. What did they say? specifically, do you really know? (I don't think you do.)

Where is this text from?

Again, what radical form of Judaism did Jesus preach?

Karaitism.

"Nothing unusual about that,

Maybe not to another karaite.
But to the rabbinical groups like the pharisees of the time it was extremely radical.

nor was the radical Judaism he preached beyond the very broad span of our ancient traditions."

Completely incorrect.  Jesus in Mark 7 utterly spoke against the these traditions. These takanot.
Matthew 15.

What are you saying? Give several examples from his preaching. I don't believe you know.

Just did.

He preached HE HIMSELF was GOD ALMIGHTY

Show one place Jesus ever said that?

Just one...

I gave you a number of them. Referring to Israel as GOD's son as a comparison to JESUS being GOD's son is silly.

He wasn't murdered because HE performed a few magic tricks. Theudas and Judas The Galilean weren't crucified for proclaiming they were where it's at. If you don't believe his brethren thought HE was GOD, keep reading. They knew HE thought HE was GOD's son, too. No? Keep looking in the N.T. "I AM the resurrections and the life..." "No man comes to the Father except through Me." "This is my beloved SON..." Are you GOD's Son? It is as you say.

[alancalverd]

When I was 16, I immersed myself in Jewish mysticism, called Kabbalah. That was where I first came across a religious text that justified my existence.In a 16th Century study of human souls called The Door of Reincarnation, I read: "At times, a male will reincarnate in the body of a female, and a female will be in a male body."It gave me hope that maybe I wasn't crazy.

This is an example of what I just wrote about. How does science explain this?

In a word, bullshit.
Sex is what you are, gender is how you like to behave. The correspondence is generally about 95% but strongly determined by social pressure or lack of it. 
"Crazy" simply denotes a significant departure from local expectations. No big deal unless it is harmful. 

[alancalverd]

Is an epidemiological study accepted as proof?

No. It is evidence of correspondence but not necessarily proof of causation.

Epidemiology shows that the people who have taken the most breaths are most likely to die, but it doesn't suggest that breathing is dangerous.

Practically everyone has experienced the "fact" that the earth is flat, but very few believe it.

[Bored chemist]

Why are you playing games?

We aren.
We are trying to do science-- this is, after all, a science page.
If you don't like it, the door is over there.

What's the point? I

Answering questions.
That's the point of science; finding stuff out.

If you have already decided GOD doesn't exist, why bother asking the same questions?

There is nothing in the post you quoted which  implies in any way that the poster has assumed that God does not exist.

If anything, if you ascribe properties to a God, you tacitly imply that He alt least may exist.

Why pretend that it makes the assumption there's no God?

why do you change the subject and return to past topics

Because people drag things off topic.

to ask more questions that have already been answered?

The question has not been answered.
You have pretended that it has been- but that's because you either lie about it, or you don't know what proof is.

But, if you don't want answers, why keep asking the same kinds of questions repeatedly?

To get answers

But, if you don't want answers, why keep asking the same kinds of questions repeatedly?

We do want answers.
Please provide some.

You already have the answers.

No we don't.
That's why we keep asking.

If you think we have the answer please point out where that answer is
What is the action X?

What is your point?

Trying to get you to answer a question.

Control? I think so based on your documented history on this issue.

There is no documentation of a control issue.
There is also no answer to the question.
Your statement makes no sense.

You bounce around, shifting from this to that to that and then this,

Get a mirror.
You are the one introducing new random attempts at distraction.

asking more questions until you recognize the answers you've received are more than you can handle.

Nobody has provided an answer of any sort.

Is there some satisfaction in "controlling" Christians you get?

That's absurd.
There's no  suggestion of "control" here.
You are deluding yourself.
After all, we can't stop you simply walking away.
How could we be trying to control you?

You have said you despise us.

That's just not true.

I chalenge you to show where  anyone said it.

The evidence is abundant and crystal clear that you do.

No. There really is no evidence for the idea.
Please show us what you think is evidence of that.

That's fine. You should hate us.

Hard luck; we don't.

It is fulfilment of HIS promise to us. A prophecy proven true over and over. (Science)

It's not true.
You seem to have put the word "science" in there randomly.

If you have been seeking answers with an unfeigned spirit of genuine interest,

We are.
Please let us know what the action X is.

You don't need any more information.

Yes we do. Because you have not provided any relevant information.

. Based on that fact, it certainly appears you have other motivations for making observations and asking questions.

It's not a fact that you have based it on; it's made up stuff.

But, the topic is, "can science prove GOD exists", not, "see if you humiliate people you despise by playing games with them."

We know.

Bear in mind that you don't really know very much about this topic. You may think you do, but you don't, if we are to go by your statements.

The topic is about scientific  proof of God.
We know a lot about science, and you have provided none.
The evidence shows that it is you who knows little about the topic; not us.

You've been shown many times to be incorrect

Where?
You keep saying that, I keep asking where.
You keep not answering.

, but you flee that particular aspect of the topic and raise more questions, like it is a game, like it is fun.

No.
In the real world it is always you who refuses to answer questions and points.

Notably, you refuse to show where we were actually wrong- even though I have asked.
And I think it is fair to assume that you will ignore all the questions I have asked here.

It is all scientifically proven.

No. It is not.
If you disagree, just show us the proof.

[duffyd]

Epidemiology shows that the people who have taken the most breaths are most likely to die, but it doesn't suggest that breathing is dangerous. big al

everyone who breathes is just as likely to die as everyone else