The official "Proof" thread

[Xaqaria]

Chemical bonding? Funny you should mention it... Sometimes it seems to me that a bond between two atoms has become so real, so tangible, so friendly, that I can almost see it. Then I awake with a little shock, for a chemical bond is not a real thing. It does not exist. No one has ever seen one. No one ever will. It is a figment of our own imagination. - Charles A. Coulson

[Ynot]

Now, how about more traditional science? cutting & pasting quotes from people in the field is useless, as I doubt you or anyone else here can comment on anything "quantum" with any authority

[Xaqaria]

Now, how about more traditional science? cutting & pasting quotes from people in the field is useless, as I doubt you or anyone else here can comment on anything "quantum" with any authority Actually I've been studying it as a hobby for 6 years and through school for 2. And who else are you going to listen to if not people in the field? Coulson developed the principle of valence which is exactly what you are talking about; our current knowledge of chemical bonding. I know that it is common practice among atheists, and all other fanatics, to deny all evidence that doesn't support your beliefs but really now this is ridiculous. Denying a quote from one of the fathers of modern chemical bonding theory when talking about chemical bonding? How single-mindedly, consciously blind are you going to allow yourself to be?

[Ynot]

I didn't deny shit or confirm any, for that matter but anyhow...

[ThePhobiaViewed]

Oh really? And what is your scientific background? Give me something that science has proven and lets see if I can break it down to the point of irrationality. It doesn't matter what high level of science a person has (BTW I'm in high school). It's common sense. If you put an ice cube outside on a summer day it is going to melt and evaporate. That can be proven very easily. With religion you can't prove it. What are you going to do, tell God that you are going to flip and you want him to make it heads? You can't prove that it was God that did it. Science is about doing experiments to prove what we know for sure happens by doing controlled studies then using the results to design more experiments. All you are doing is attaking science instead of proving religion. I know that it is common practice among atheists, and all other fanatics, to deny all evidence that doesn't support your beliefs but really now this is ridiculous. You seem to be doing the exact same thing with science. Haha BTW nice sig Ynot

[Xaqaria]

Prove to me that it isn't god that melts an ice cube. You aren't describing proof of science, you are describing phenomena with no explanation. What process occurs to melt an ice cube? Why is it necessarily a scientific phenomena and not a religious one?

[Sornaensis]

Prove to me that it isn't god that melts an ice cube. You aren't describing proof of science, you are describing phenomena with no explanation. What process occurs to melt an ice cube? Why is it necessarily a scientific phenomena and not a religious one? This is easy: The ice cube: 32-24oF The air on a hot day: Roughly 90oF The ice is solid because: So much energy has been taken, the particles no longer move. The air is hot because: Heated photons from te sun are transferring energy to it. What happens when you place the ice cube in the heated air: The immediate air around the ice cube transfers energy to it, thus speeding up the particles, or "melting" the ice cube. PWNED AND DON'T REPLY WITH AN EFFING STRAWMAN OR RELIGIOUSLY PROTECTED P.O.S

[SilverZero]

Nope. I'm looking for answers. So, i thought i'd do this. If you can find ONE shred of VIABLE proof that god exists, i'll believe in him. Until then, there is this thread. So who decides if the proof is viable? I'm guessing that, if I told you about my experiences with healing and being healed through prayer (physically, visually healed, not just "I feel better"), you would not accept that. Maybe by "viable" you mean "testable," but that would be science, then. And science doesn't require God, from what I have read in most of these threads. The simple and logical belief in random chance bringing about us sitting here with amazingly complex technology, operating it through impulses of our even more complex brains, trumps the laughable belief that there is an actual, personable force behind everything. So, maybe the only thing left that might work is for you to actually see God, face to face. But every time that happened in the Bible, the guy died on the spot. . . . I can find plenty of viable, observable proof of God's existence, but just like your proof that water boils at 100 degrees, it's not proof to anybody else if they don't want to believe it.

[Xaqaria]

aww, but you didn't even touch on the second law of thermodynamics that states: 'The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium,' which is the real reason science gives for why your ice cube melts. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean much. How does an isolated system 'know' that it is not in equilibrium? The best answer to this question is that it communicates through force particles. Photons, as you brought up, are one example of these. Unfortunately thats not the only explanation science could give you. Science may also say that the particles of air surrounding the ice cube 'jostle' the particles of frozen water when they collide with them and knock them loose. This line of reasoning brings about a whole other mess of questions though because scientifically, the air never touches the water. Electroweak forces push these particles away from each other, never allowing them to actually jostle at all. These forces are of course transmitted by the W and Z bosons. Now, the question I have for you is still basically the same. How does the air surrounding the ice and the ice know to expel these force particles and thus communicate that they are not in thermal equilibrium with each other? What is the cause of the Electroweak force? Where do photons come from? Not only that, what is the mechanism that causes these force particles to change between acting as a wave when they are not effecting anything and as a particle when they come in to contact with something else, thus relaying their message. Are they aware of the interaction? Is energy aware?

[ThePhobiaViewed]

Thanks Seismosaur Xaqaria, the point of this thread is to prove religion. You're not proving anything besides that you don't believe in science (or something like that). Saying that theres no proof for science doesn't show that there is a God. You have shown no proof for religion at all. Why do we use science to show why the ice melts, because its been shown through experiments and is logical. Why is it not God who's melting the ice, uhh because theres nothing to show that it would be God. BTW you're last post was interesting but it doesn't really prove religion. Please give some proof for religion. I'm religious but I have no proof and apparently no one else does either because there have been no good replies with any evidence whatsoever.

[Sornaensis]

So who decides if the proof is viable? I'm guessing that, if I told you about my experiences with healing and being healed through prayer (physically, visually healed, not just "I feel better"), you would not accept that. Maybe by "viable" you mean "testable," but that would be science, then. And science doesn't require God, from what I have read in most of these threads. The simple and logical belief in random chance bringing about us sitting here with amazingly complex technology, operating it through impulses of our even more complex brains, trumps the laughable belief that there is an actual, personable force behind everything. So, maybe the only thing left that might work is for you to actually see God, face to face. But every time that happened in the Bible, the guy died on the spot. . . . I can find plenty of viable, observable proof of God's existence, but just like your proof that water boils at 100 degrees, it's not proof to anybody else if they don't want to believe it. Three things: 1. By viable i mean something that can be tested, yes. Such as Hopless Scenario #1. HS#1: You are Fatally ill, and have 0 cvhance of survival, but, by means never explained after years of looking through the record of the disease, you instantly lose the disease overnight, after a session of prayer. Unfortunatley, this has yet to happen. 2. The reason i can't take what you say about yourselfin total consideration is simply because i could tell you god sent me to the Star Wars universe, and i blew up the death star. Prove me wrong. You wouldn't be able to, but BY LOGIC, you could easily disregard this, because it is simply silly. Oi! You can?! Well then, SHOW US!!! MUUUSSSTTT.... WORSHIPP.... >.< Yes, but unlike the testable, logical statement that water boils at 100oC, god hasn't shed proof. That is like not accepting evolution, but it shouldn't matter, it WILL happen, no matter what silly idiot believes otherwise .

[TheUncanny]

To be the devils advocate, what if scientific principles themselves are proof of god via "his" handy work?

[Sornaensis]

To be the devils advocate, what if scientific principles themselves are proof of god via "his" handy work? Mneh. That's possible, but science makes no comment on the supernatural . Oh, and i find it strange that god wouldn't drop by every now nd then... Oh wait he "Works in mysterious ways"

[TheUncanny]

As I'm sure we do to beings of "lesser grandeur" than ourselves.

[SilverZero]

Three things: 1. By viable i mean something that can be tested, yes. Such as Hopless Scenario #1. HS#1: You are Fatally ill, and have 0 cvhance of survival, but, by means never explained after years of looking through the record of the disease, you instantly lose the disease overnight, after a session of prayer. Unfortunatley, this has yet to happen. 2. The reason i can't take what you say about yourselfin total consideration is simply because i could tell you god sent me to the Star Wars universe, and i blew up the death star. Prove me wrong. You wouldn't be able to, but BY LOGIC, you could easily disregard this, because it is simply silly. Oi! You can?! Well then, SHOW US!!! MUUUSSSTTT.... WORSHIPP.... >.< Yes, but unlike the testable, logical statement that water boils at 100oC, god hasn't shed proof. That is like not accepting evolution, but it shouldn't matter, it WILL happen, no matter what silly idiot believes otherwise . Alright, well, since I'm doubtful we'll ever meet, I'm going to suggest that, if you're really serious about finding "proof" of God's actions, you go seek out people in your community, or beyond, if necessary, who have experienced things like what you describe above. You might have to venture into a few churches, though. Look for people who want to tell you about their own, personal, direct experiences. Missionaries to other countries might be a good place to start. You will find a lot of skeptics, but if you take it seriously, you'll find people who can give you their own first-hand proof of God's existence. Stick around long enough, and you might see it yourself. Are you willing to do that? You said you're looking for answers. How hard are you looking? Are you serious about wanting to see for yourself? If you wanted proof that the Great Wall existed, would you go as far as traveling to touch it yourself? (By the way, I'll agree with you ahead of time that the smack-on-the-forehead faith healing rallies may be a waste of your time.) This isn't about making a public defense on this thread about God for everybody, this is me offering a real, practical way for you to find some viable evidence that you might be more willing to consider.

[Sornaensis]

Alright, well, since I'm doubtful we'll ever meet, I'm going to suggest that, if you're really serious about finding "proof" of God's actions, you go seek out people in your community, or beyond, if necessary, who have experienced things like what you describe above. You might have to venture into a few churches, though. Look for people who want to tell you about their own, personal, direct experiences. Missionaries to other countries might be a good place to start. You will find a lot of skeptics, but if you take it seriously, you'll find people who can give you their own first-hand proof of God's existence. Stick around long enough, and you might see it yourself. Are you willing to do that? You said you're looking for answers. How hard are you looking? Are you serious about wanting to see for yourself? If you wanted proof that the Great Wall existed, would you go as far as traveling to touch it yourself? (By the way, I'll agree with you ahead of time that the smack-on-the-forehead faith healing rallies may be a waste of your time.) This isn't about making a public defense on this thread about God for everybody, this is me offering a real, practical way for you to find some viable evidence that you might be more willing to consider. I'm not sure why you compared seeking god to seeking the great wall (of china?). I am looking for answers, yes. But as i said, any idiot can make up a story. I'd need proof that is 100% viable. The only way to find out if what someone says it true, is to figure out how to project their memories onto a screen. Oh and, for the record, the local church no longer accepts me in because they found out i was an athiest, so i doubt i will be able to "go out into the community" to find proofs, anyway.

[badassbob]

As far as believing goes, you take a huge gamble. If God is to punish athiests then he is being far from fair. How can God punish people for not taking a huge gamble in deciding that all the 100% definate scientific proof out there was planted by an omnipotent being of which we've never heard or seen or had any proof of whatsoever? Atheists aren't evil, unfaithful or close-minded. They're simply making a logical decision. There is no real scientifically prooven reason to believe in God, but there is every reason to believe in evolution and there is proof to support it. How can people be expected by this God to just decide that everything was created in seven days by some divine being? It makes no sense at all.

[TheUncanny]

Seismosaur, I see an ironic similarity between the religious testimonies of people you refuse to take seriously, and the psychokinetic testimonies of psions such as yourself. Both disciplines seem to rely solely on the personal experience, since neither have adequate empirical evidence backing their claims. And yet, though you find this as being fundamentally "lacking" when it comes to religion, you seem to look the other way when it comes to psionics. I don't mean to offend, but it seems rather hypocritical of you to reject the viability of the personal experience when it come to religion, yet accept the viability of the personal experience when it comes to psionics, wouldn't you agree? I only bring it up because hopefully understanding these connections will help you better empathize with those you criticize and/or help you better empathize with those that criticize you.

[Sornaensis]

As far as believing goes, you take a huge gamble. If God is to punish athiests then he is being far from fair. How can God punish people for not taking a huge gamble in deciding that all the 100% definate scientific proof out there was planted by an omnipotent being of which we've never heard or seen or had any proof of whatsoever? Atheists aren't evil, unfaithful or close-minded. They're simply making a logical decision. There is no real scientifically prooven reason to believe in God, but there is every reason to believe in evolution and there is proof to support it. How can people be expected by this God to just decide that everything was created in seven days by some divine being? It makes no sense at all. This may have been the most to-the-point post in the entire thread, thanks.

[Sornaensis]

Seismosaur, I see an ironic similarity between the religious testamonies of people you refuse to take seriously, and the psychokinetic testimonies of psions such as yourself. Both seem to rely soley on the personal experience, since neither have adequate empirical evidence backing their claims. And yet, though you find this as being fundamentally "lacking" when it comes to religion, you seem to look the other way when it comes to psionics. I don't mean to offend, but it seems rather hypocritical of you to reject the viability of the personal experience when it come to religion, yet accept the viability of the personal experience when it comes to psionics, wouldn't you agree? I only bring it up because hopefully realizing these connections will help you better empathize with those you criticize and/or help you better empathize with those that criticize you. And? I have proof for it, i have seen it, and preform it every now and then. I have never seen anything to even REMOTLEY suggest a god. I am rejecting the illogicalness of the whole religion, psionics makes sense, tho. You simply concentrate electromagnetic energy to ove objects.

[TheUncanny]

And like them, your proof is “personal proof” consisting solely of the subjective experience. To be frank, there is no more empirical evidence of PK than there is of intelligent design. Both are loosely based off of recognized science, but are otherwise lacking substantiation. Except there doesn’t seem to be a reasonable explanation for the lack of empirical evidence when it comes to PK, seeing as its observable (and furthermore testable), whereas God is "supernatural" and thus beyond the reach of science.

[Sornaensis]

And like them, your proof is “personal proof” consisting solely of the subjective experience. To be frank, there is no more empirical evidence of PK than there is of intellegent design. Both are loosely based off of what is otherwise valid science. two problems here: 1. Me and my friends all practice it together, so i wasn't alone... 2. Anyone can try it. Use the guide on my website because, unlike "spritual BS", you can display it to a crowd, but then you get skeptics, etc. Plus it is hard to un-randmize. But other than that, i believe, because i got proof, i have no, nor ever seen any convincing proof of, god.

[TheUncanny]

*Note I edited my post a tad* two problems here: 1. Me and my friends all practice it together, so i wasn't alone... 2. Anyone can try it. Use the guide on my website because, unlike "spritual BS", you can display it to a crowd, but then you get skeptics, etc. Plus it is hard to un-randmize. But other than that, i believe, because i got proof, i have no, nor ever seen any convincing proof of, god. This is exactly my point. Unlike claims of God, this can actually be observed and tested. This makes the lack of psychokinesis evidence even more suspicious than the lack of God evidence, which in turn makes your testimonies even more suspect.

[Sornaensis]

Yea, but look at my ava. I really don't. I'll videotape myself, and post it.

[TheUncanny]

Surely you realize that such a thing is far from credible evidence. Ive seen "video evidence" before and the best two I had witnessed were both declared to be fake by the maker (ASmattman on Youtube). When it comes to science and empirical evidence, obviously a video documentary doesn't cut it, as im sure you would quickly agree if someone attempted to pass off a "ghost video" as empirical evidence of the human soul. Tell me, why should I (or the world) have to settle for video evidence when actual, lab tested, empirical evidence is a perfectly reasonable option? Yea, but look at my ava. I really don't... I'm confused, you don't care about empirical evidence then...or is that only when it comes to you substantiating your own beliefs?