The official "Proof" thread

[Sornaensis]

Bring all of the printable, and publisized proof that proves you religious ways are the right ones. Exceptions: Bible Koran Etc... I'll let someone else go first.

[skysaw]

My proof lies in the unlit pixels that lay beneath the period at the end of this sentence.

[Needcatscan]

My proof lies in the unlit pixels that lay beneath the period at the end of this sentence. You have to admit, that's better proof than Intelligent Design :p

[Sornaensis]

You have to admit, that's better proof than Intelligent Design :p lol. True dat.

[Funnel]

I hate to disapoint you all, but my faith is the one true faith and I can prove it. I am a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, an almighty and allnoodly being who created the universe, and purposely altered all information to lead us away from the truth. You can read about it here http://www.venganza.org/ May you all be touched by his noodly appendages.

[RooJ]

Funnel, Im guessing at church you eat the body and blood of monster? Tell me, is your pot noodle chicken or beef flavoured? In closing ill also say that I don't personally think its possible for a being to be all-noodly and create the universe. The universe contains water, and noodles in water go soft... a soft god simply couldn't use his noodly appendages in a skillful manner and therefore couldn't sculpt something as amazing as the human body.. your theory is flawed.

[ThePhobiaViewed]

OK let me say this, I believe there is a greater power but the FSM was a great idea because creationism shoudnt be taught in school because there is pretty much no proof. Faith is something that should be taught at home and should inspire spiritual growth. I think that its perfectly fine to have a religious class as an elective though. The only proof I would say is the Bible but I know for this thread thats not allowed for obvious reasons. Isn't the point of faith to believe in something even when there isn't much proof.

[Funnel]

"Isn't the point of faith to believe in something even when there isn't much proof?" That is probably the best answer there is to this topic. And water may soften the FSM, but it would just increase his deliciousness so more could enjoy his splendor.

[Sornaensis]

"Isn't the point of faith to believe in something even when there isn't much proof?" That is probably the best answer there is to this topic. And water may soften the FSM, but it would just increase his deliciousness so more could enjoy his splendor. That's my point to this thread, you CAN'T prove god, because that paradoxies your beliefs, so therefore, beliefs will NEVER be them same person-to-person because there isn't a common proof binding it, everyone has their own version.

[RooJ]

And water may soften the FSM, but it would just increase his deliciousness so more could enjoy his splendor. I completely didn't take this into consideration, I retract my statement... All the people who couldn't be created due to the FSM's lack of functional and hardened limbs can simply enjoy the taste of him instead.... hmm.. something still not right though... cant put my finger on it.

[Xaqaria]

OK let me say this, I believe there is a greater power but the FSM was a great idea because creationism shoudnt be taught in school because there is pretty much no proof. Faith is something that should be taught at home and should inspire spiritual growth. I think that its perfectly fine to have a religious class as an elective though. The only proof I would say is the Bible but I know for this thread thats not allowed for obvious reasons. Isn't the point of faith to believe in something even when there isn't much proof. The only difference between religion and science is scientists have built up so much doctrine that they are capable of 'proving' almost anything using the previous grid-work of doctrine. Follow any scientific principle down to the most basic level that humans currently try to explain and you reach utterly ridiculous and irrational nonsense. Religion is a pyramid scheme that works upward to to reach god. Science is the same pyramid scheme, only it works downward. To the creator of this thread; Show me proof that any scientific explanation is true. Since you exclude all religious texts, the same rules apply to you; You must show me proof referencing no scientific texts. My bet is it can't be done, and if it wasn't for scientists telling you what reality was, you would have no idea.

[Universal Mind]

To the creator of this thread; Show me proof that any scientific explanation is true. Since you exclude all religious texts, the same rules apply to you; You must show me proof referencing no scientific texts. My bet is it can't be done, and if it wasn't for scientists telling you what reality was, you would have no idea. http://youtube.com/watch?v=zpSIaPfIFsg

[Sornaensis]

The only difference between religion and science is scientists have built up so much doctrine that they are capable of 'proving' almost anything using the previous grid-work of doctrine. Follow any scientific principle down to the most basic level that humans currently try to explain and you reach utterly ridiculous and irrational nonsense. Religion is a pyramid scheme that works upward to to reach god. Science is the same pyramid scheme, only it works downward. To the creator of this thread; Show me proof that any scientific explanation is true. Since you exclude all religious texts, the same rules apply to you; You must show me proof referencing no scientific texts. My bet is it can't be done, and if it wasn't for scientists telling you what reality was, you would have no idea. Ok. This is a simple test. Go outside on a very cold day. Bring with you two thermometers, one for you, one for the air temperture. Stay outside, dressed in your normal, summer clothes, and observe your body tempereture resolving for the lack of insulation, and heat. The proves adaptation, which is an essential part of evolution. If you don't understand that, then you are ignorant . Here's to the comment on Religious texts vs. Sceintific papers, etc.: Holy texts: Most range from a few hundred to several thousand years old. All of them were written with the minute bit of knowledge the people had. None of them can be proved through: Math, physics, physical science or otherwise. Science "texts": Written based on lots of research, and fact. 90% of them (99.8% of evolutions "official" papers and experiments go there) are approved, and expanded on by a group of millions, knows as the scientific community. All of them can be proven through: Math, Physics, Physical science, and otherwise.

[Lord Toaster]

To the creator of this thread; Show me proof that any scientific explanation is true. Since you exclude all religious texts, the same rules apply to you; You must show me proof referencing no scientific texts. My bet is it can't be done, and if it wasn't for scientists telling you what reality was, you would have no idea. Normally I just watch these religious discussion threads from the side lines, but I have to step in to just say that that really is quite funny... I'm quite tempted to post it in the "Post something that made you laugh" thread :p

[skysaw]

The only difference between religion and science is scientists have built up so much doctrine that they are capable of 'proving' almost anything using the previous grid-work of doctrine. Except that all previous "doctrine" is mutable, based on current observations, which is quite contrary to religious texts. The grid-work you mention is built by hundreds of thousands of people, all of whom question each other's work, test for themselves to reproduce results, and struggle to better refine our knowledge. This relates to religion how, exactly? Follow any scientific principle down to the most basic level that humans currently try to explain and you reach utterly ridiculous and irrational nonsense. Such as? Example please.

[Sornaensis]

Except that all previous "doctrine" is mutable, based on current observations, which is quite contrary to religious texts. The grid-work you mention is built by hundreds of thousands of people, all of whom question each other's work, test for themselves to reproduce results, and struggle to better refine our knowledge. This relates to religion how, exactly? Such as? Example please. Niceley put, but i do really think he'll only understand if you do side-by-side comparisons, as i put . Yes, please give us an example.

[SilverZero]

Seismosaur, after reading your handful of "official ____" threads, I think it would be more expedient for you to just start one master "I hate the things other people believe" thread. You're not looking for debate, you're looking for conflict.

[ThePhobiaViewed]

I think its a pretty pathetic defense to say that science has as little proof as religion. I don't think this was made to be a troll topic but thats what all these turn into. So far it seems to be a bunch of atheists bashing one theist reply. Come on theists, I want to see some more of your proof, although inevitably your ideas will be shot down, remember as it says on one of the forum pages (yeah I actually read them, i admit it) attacks on your beliefs are not attacks on you. I want to see proof. OK I just (yes in the middle of writing this post) googled "proof of a creator" and looked around some of the results and didn't really find any satisfactory answers worth sharing. It was mostly stuff about the universe being a finite size and having a finite amount of energy (I'm not sure how that proves a God but if someone does please explain), and also about how an intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. I'm not really sure what God is but the way that I see God is not as much as like that guy from Power Rangers and more like something incomprehensible to our minds because of more demensions. The way I look at it is that we are 3D (keeping time out of this) so we can create a 2D world (Pacman). If we have that is front of us there is another demention so that we can stay out of that world and watch from. If God is 4D then he could do the same with a 3D world. BTW if you took Pacman out of his flat world and lifted him into the 3D world then set him back into his world then the ghosts would think that he teleported. If someone lifts us out of our 3D world into 4D then places us back in then it will look like we teleported. Anyway I'm just randomly typing now so I'll stop.

[Ynot]

You're not looking for debate, you're looking for conflict. Oh the irony....

[SilverZero]

Oh the irony.... Granted.

[Sornaensis]

Seismosaur, after reading your handful of "official ____" threads, I think it would be more expedient for you to just start one master "I hate the things other people believe" thread. You're not looking for debate, you're looking for conflict. 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.

[Xaqaria]

Ok. This is a simple test. Go outside on a very cold day. Bring with you two thermometers, one for you, one for the air temperture. Stay outside, dressed in your normal, summer clothes, and observe your body tempereture resolving for the lack of insulation, and heat. The proves adaptation, which is an essential part of evolution. If you don't understand that, then you are ignorant . Here's to the comment on Religious texts vs. Sceintific papers, etc.: Holy texts: Most range from a few hundred to several thousand years old. All of them were written with the minute bit of knowledge the people had. None of them can be proved through: Math, physics, physical science or otherwise. Science "texts": Written based on lots of research, and fact. 90% of them (99.8% of evolutions "official" papers and experiments go there) are approved, and expanded on by a group of millions, knows as the scientific community. All of them can be proven through: Math, Physics, Physical science, and otherwise. Oh really? Scientific texts can be proven through science? Go figure. Of course you missed the point entirely so let me lay it down for you. Science is a way of thinking. Religion is a way of thinking. Science can explain phenomena in the parameters of a scientific world view. Religion can explain phenomena in a religious world view. The fact that you demand that Religion also explain phenomena in a scientific world view is ridiculous. Are scientists required to give religious proof? Are scientists required to explain their findings through religious doctrine? No, so why should the opposite be true? As for your "adaptation" experiment, I see no proof of evolution in it. I see thermodynamics in action, nothing more. You can't even fulfill my request using only science.

[Xaqaria]

I think its a pretty pathetic defense to say that science has as little proof as religion. 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.

[Ynot]

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. Chemical bonding?

[Xaqaria]

Except that all previous "doctrine" is mutable, based on current observations, which is quite contrary to religious texts. The grid-work you mention is built by hundreds of thousands of people, all of whom question each other's work, test for themselves to reproduce results, and struggle to better refine our knowledge. This relates to religion how, exactly? Such as? Example please. Spontaneous generation, quantum foam, the observer effect, super-strings, chaos theory,etc. etc. etc. A few things that scientists have to say on the subject; 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 Quantum mechanics is magic. - Daniel Greenberger Every attempt to employ mathematical methods in the study of chemical questions must be considered profoundly irrational and contrary to the spirit of chemistry. If mathematical analysis should ever hold a prominent place in chemistry - an aberration which is happily almost impossible - it would occasion a rapid and widespread degeneration of that science. - A Compte (1830) Science as an existing, finished product is the most objective, most unpersonal thing human beings know. But science as something coming into being, as aim, is just as subjective and psychologically conditioned as any other of man's efforts. - Albert Einstein I think there is a moral to this story, namely that it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment. It seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty into one's equations, and if one has a really sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress. P. A. M. Dirac (1963) I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Einstein A philosopher once said, "It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results." Well they don't! Richard Feynman I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it possibly be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. Richard Feynman Any one who is not shocked by quantum mechanics has not fully understood it. Niels Bohr