the existence of god is a scientific fact

[Subduction Zone]

Observational evidence.

The testing of theories against reproducible (i.e. objectively verifiable) observation is a defining feature of science.

Yes, this is a better description than mine. But for @Thief here is a very simplified flow chart of the scientific method. This is not "written in stone", it is a general guideline:

The third step and fourth are perhaps the most important. But they are all needed to be followed in some manner.

 

[joe1776]

You've been misinformed. In every case the method for the test including the definition of success or failure was the subject of negotiation and agreement in advance between the parties. You can read about the procedure >here<.

I've read that article and I've also read articles criticizing the Randi offer which presents an entirely different picture.But the bottom line is this: James Randi was not only capable of deception but prone to deception and anyone who had no doubt as to the offer's authenticity doesn't understand the true nature of skepticism.

 

[ecco]

This planet appears to be so unique and so intricate, that one has to wonder about a higher power at some point in their life, even if for a moment.

Or, one has to realize that there are many other planets. Of all the exoplanets found thus far (~4000), most cannot support life. Let's arbitrarily say 99% cannot support life. That leaves 40 that we have already identified, that potentially can support life. Then consider...

List of potentially habitable exoplanets - WikipediaIn November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way,[5][6] 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.[7]
​

Our earth is not as unique and intricate as you seem to think it is.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is one of the more weirdly funny things I have
read here.

Nice to see you again Audie.

 

[exchemist]

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

How many of these pieces of research, or meta-studies, actually showed strong evidence of a phenomenon? I've had a look at a couple of them at random and they seem inconclusive.

It's good that science studies such things, as to simply ignore them could be construed as prejudice, but studying them is not the same thing as providing strong evidence they are real.

 

[Thief]

if your results cannot be associated to your experiment

you failed

 

[ecco]

I'm aware that Brian Josephson is an advocate for paranormal research in science. It happens that he and I were on the same side in a brief but interesting debate on the Psychology Today website. I realized from his remarks that he was a scientist but I had no idea of his credentials (Nobel physicist) until informed of it by a third party after the debate was over.

I'm absolutely certain that telepathy and precognition exist from one experience with each. Josephson is quite right that mainstream science is biased against paranormal research which makes funding such projects difficult.

Josephson is probably right that meditation could lead to scientific insights. I don't practice it but it may be a way to consciously gain access to the powerful unconscious.

I've never read that Josephson believes in levitation or a creator. What's your source for this information? You're aware that because of the way it's compiled Wikipedia can't be trusted on controversial topics, aren't you?

My apologies for not posting the link to the source of the article. Here it is...
Brian Josephson - Wikipedia



RE your comment:

Josephson is quite right that mainstream science is biased against paranormal research which makes funding such projects difficult.​

I believe you made a similar assertion in another thread, to which I replied: That sounds a lot like the complaints made by creationists. It did then, it does now. I have no interest in going over the same issues again.

Let me just say that Josephson apparently does not face a funding porblem...

The Dark Side Of The Nobel PrizesThe most bizarre post-Nobel career is undoubtedly that of Brian Josephson, who shared the 1973 physics prize for devising the eponymous solid-state junction. Afterwards Josephson became a follower of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and attempted to reconcile quantum physics with transcedental meditation. He is now director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project at Cambridge University, working hard to keep Britain at the “forefront of research” on telepathy.​

 

[ecco]

The science of the love of God is just as valid a science as any other when you consider it has transformed and changed entire civilisations and transformed the lives of billions of people just as any other material science has.

Adolph Hitler transformed and changed entire civilisations and transformed the lives of billions of people.
Mao Zedong transformed and changed entire civilisations and transformed the lives of billions of people.

What's your point?

 

[joe1776]

There is peer review and then there is the glamour press. Sadly most peer reviewed articles in well respected scientific journals cannot be read without a subscription or paying an outrageous rate per article. Those articles are in journals that do not make their money from advertisers or authors. They tend to be the most reliable since the articles have to be good enough so that people will pay to read them. Then there is the glamour press. It has far lower standards and they make their money by charging people to publish their work. They tend to be much less reliable. At least the first article on clicked on seems to be one of those sorts of articles.

Even though we won't be able to read it, it would be nice if you could find something in a well respected professional journal. The abstract at least would be available to us to read.

The link I provided offers dozens of links and also links to sites that offer more links. I offered this to combat the posters who argue that psi research can be compared to Bigfoot, etc. and make claims that there is no evidence. If they had claimed that there is no evidence accepted by mainstream journals, their claim would be true.

You won't find any from mainstream journals because there is a bias against psi research caused, in my opinion, by the fact that most scientists are philosophical materialists whose belief would be threatened. A year ago, about 100 scientists signed a petition to expose this bias but it won't change anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The link I provided offers dozens of links and also links to sites that offer more links. I offered this to combat the posters who argue that psi research can be compared to Bigfoot, etc. and make claims that there is no evidence. If they had claimed that there is no evidence accepted by mainstream journals, their claim would be true.

You won't find any from mainstream journals because there is a bias against psi research caused, in my opinion, by the fact that most scientists are philosophical materialists whose belief would be threatened. A year ago, about 100 scientists signed a petition to expose this bias but it won't change anything.

My point was that I do not have time to winnow the grist from the chaff. The very first article that I clicked on appeared to be the latter. Since you are claiming that there is valid research and papers on this topic the burden of proof is upon you. Your link has too much chaff to be called supporting your claim.

 

[ecco]

Of course is testable. If you can reproduce a Prophet with a Holy Book then you will be able to prove beyond any doubt that all religions are man made and God is an imaginary concept.

Man Made Gods:
Atlas
Athena
Thor
Satan
Ogun
Oba
Allah
Shiva
Christ
Moses' God
Okasta
Banaitja
Kahōʻāliʻi

...and many, many more. You do believe that most of these are man-made imaginary entities, don't you?

 

[Thief]

Man Made Gods:
Atlas
Athena
Thor
Satan
Ogun
Oba
Allah
Shiva
Christ
Moses' God
Okasta
Banaitja
Kahōʻāliʻi

...and many, many more. You do believe that most of these are man-made imaginary entities, don't you?

well then....

did God make Man in His image?
or did Man make God is his image?

 

[joe1776]

The Dark Side Of The Nobel PrizesThe most bizarre post-Nobel career is undoubtedly that of Brian Josephson, who shared the 1973 physics prize for devising the eponymous solid-state junction. Afterwards Josephson became a follower of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and attempted to reconcile quantum physics with transcedental meditation. He is now director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project at Cambridge University, working hard to keep Britain at the “forefront of research” on telepathy.​

This quote provides a good example of why Wikipedia can't be trusted to be objective on controversial issues. The manner in which its compiled allows one side of controversial issues to win the competition for publication.

Can you imagine Britannica or any other reputable encyclopedia trashing a man's career with words like "the dark side of the Nobel Prize" or "bizarre post-Nobel career?"

The amateur writers of that paragraph were not even bright enough to fake objectivity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well then....

did God make Man in His image?
or did Man make God is his image?

The latter appears to be the case. Not just once, but again and again.

 

[Thief]

This quote provides a good example of why Wikipedia can't be trusted to be objective on controversial issues. The manner in which its compiled allows one side of controversial issues to win the competition for publication.

Can you imagine Britannica or any other reputable encyclopedia trashing a man's career with words like "the dark side of the Nobel Prize" or "bizarre post-Nobel career?"

The amateur writers of that paragraph were not even bright enough to fake objectivity.

haven't read the item
but if your report is firm......good for you

 

[Thief]

The latter appears to be the case. Not just once, but again and again.

and the ongoing display...
Man forming God.....

is your cause to refute the existence of God?

 

[ecco]

Our religion teaches that any religion which does not agree with science is no religion.

What do you mean when you say "any religion which does not agree with science is no religion"?

On what would someone base an analysis? On Holy Scripture? If that is the case, then Christianity fails to meet Bahai's definition of a valid religion. Christianity unequivocally states that the entire world was flooded. That does not agree with science.

So you have a problem with consistency in your arguments. You reference Christ as a True God and then state that His religion "is no religion".

Care to explain?

 

[SkepticThinker]

From my experience studying various topics of science, most scientists assume materialism/physicalism. Thus, their science simply cannot prove God, by definition.

Some scientists want to extend the scope of scientific inquiry to include the social sciences -- basically to include all knowledge, anything knowable. So for them, if they discover "God", they will simply think "it" is a part of the universe.

For example, if they find evidence of intelligent design, they will postulate a teleological principle that guides matter.

But God can only be discerned via philosophy. Revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge.

If God can interact with the physical world, as some religious people have claimed, then theoretically, such a God should be testable/demonstrable/measurable in some way.

 

[ecco]

This quote provides a good example of why Wikipedia can't be trusted to be objective on controversial issues. The manner in which its compiled allows one side of controversial issues to win the competition for publication.

Can you imagine Britannica or any other reputable encyclopedia trashing a man's career with words like "the dark side of the Nobel Prize" or "bizarre post-Nobel career?"

The amateur writers of that paragraph were not even bright enough to fake objectivity.

If you had bothered, you would have found that the article in question was not from Wikipedia. Even if you didn't bother to check, your ESP should have sent up warnings that you making a mistake.

 

[viole]

This excerpt called ‘Science Discovers Intelligent Order’ is taken from page 6 of The Yoga of Jesus by Paramahansa Yogananda.

“The rise of science served to extend the range of nature’s marvels, so that today we have discovered order in the deepest recesses of the atom and among the grandest collection of galaxies,” writes Paul Davies, Ph.D., well-known author and professor of mathematical physics, in Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator (New York: Continuum Publishing, 1994).

Systems theorist Ervin Laszlo reports in The Whispering Pond: A Personal Guide to the Emerging Vision of Science (Boston: Element Books, 1999): “The finetuning of the physical universe to the parameters of life constitutes a series of coincidences – if that is what they are … in which even the slightest departure from the given values would spell the end of life, or, more exactly, create conditions under which life could never have evolved in the first place. If the neutron did not outweigh the proton in the nucleus of the atom, the active lifetime of the Sun and other stars would be reduced to a few hundred years; if the electric charge of electrons and protons did not balance precisely, all configurations of matter would be unstable and the universe would consist of nothing more than radiation and a relatively uniform mixture of gases … If the strong force that binds the particles of a nucleus were merely a fraction weaker than it is, deuteron could not exist and the stars such as the Sun could not shine. And if that force were slightly stronger than it is, the Sun and other active stars would inflate and perhaps explode … The values of the four universal forces (electromagnetism, gravity, and the nuclear strong and weak forces) were precisely such that life could evolve in the cosmos.”

Professor Davies estimates that if – as some scientists maintain – there were no inherent guiding intelligence and cosmic evolution were governed only by the chance operation of strictly mechanical laws, “the time required to achieve the level of order we now meet in the universe by purely random processes is of the order of at least 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 80 years – inconceivably longer than the current age of the universe. Citing these calculations, Laszlo wryly observes, “Serendipity of this magnitude strains credibility,” and concludes, “Must we then face the possibility that the universe we witness is the result of purposeful design by an omnipotent master builder?”

In addition, we found god’s existence in our world fifty-five years ago in the Higgs Boson, ‘the God particle,’ which scientists theorize has the ability to ‘end the universe.’ The Higgs Boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics that is continuously emitted by the quantum excitation of the Higg’s energy field, the field of god’s consciousness that holds our reality together. ‘The Higgs field is tied to the origin and fate of the universe.’ Quantum physics proves that reality is altered by our conscious perception of it; science calls this the ‘observation affect’ which shows that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.’ Therefore, all reality is psychic; quantum energy is psyche or ‘soul’ energy; consciousness is the only thing that truly exists.

God is, most basically, consciousness. God is best described as a prism, where a beam of white light (god) goes into the prism and bounces out in a rainbow (the colors being the multiple manifestations of god in material nature). In nature, god, manifests as balance and the cycle of birth-life-death-rebirth.

Humanity must start acknowledging god’s existence. Science can no longer ignore its own research. We are responsible to something greater than us that encompasses and is all of us. Human beings, as we run our civilization, are responsible for making god suffer through every starving child, every bullied teenager, every bomb victim, every mutilated farm animal, every animal test subject, every bird who dies choking on plastic – all the unnecessary grief and pain we cause from phallogocentric global capitalism. We are responsible for the disrespect and misuse of the earth, the home god gave us. We are responsible for the world that we live in as it is us who create it. We must take after god and honor god’s most basic principles of balance/equality and compassion. We must start teaching our children that all reality and experience is sacred. Alfred North Whitehead saw god as inextricably bound up in the world process. He describes god as ‘the great companion, the fellow-sufferer, who understands.’ He states:

‘I affirm that God does suffer as he participates in the ongoing life of the society of being. His sharing in the world’s suffering is the supreme instance of knowing, accepting, and transforming in love the suffering which arises in the world. I am affirming the divine sensitivity. Without it, I can make no sense of the being of God.’ - Karen Armstrong, A History of God, page 384.

What do you think?

You mean the same science that says we and trees have a common ancestor?

Cool. What God is that, exactly? I would hate to pray the wrong one.

Ciao

- viole