Prove God exists through scientifical probability

[Lord Romanus III]

Do it. I want to see what you guys can do and what the response is... Entertain me.

[chriscase]

Define God.

[Каие]

Define God.

You win the thread. +rep

[Ummon]

God being the non-local system of reality-as-a-whole existing as the collection of all local realities appearing as entangled in space-time and organized in apparent subsystems governed by recursive causal-acausal relationships in the form of multiple layers of attractors, God can only exist and is the only existing thing.

It is arguable, that if this definition is applicable, He thinks as well.

[Manco]

God being the non-local system of reality-as-a-whole existing as the collection of all local realities appearing as entangled in space-time and organized in apparent subsystems governed by recursive causal-acausal relationships in the form of multiple layers of attractors, God can only exist and is the only existing thing.

It is arguable, that if this definition is applicable, He thinks as well.

That's just saying reality is god in an as complicated manner as possible.
Unfortunately that's not god, just reality.

God must be an intelligent and conscious entity. Otherwise pantheists can just claim the universe is god, without it actually being anything other than the universe.
So prove that there is an intelligent and conscious entity out there that can't be explained other than being a god.

[Helm]

Any evidence anyone can come up with can be applied equally as evidence for the FSM.

[Ummon]

Not.

Although the joke is appealing to our younger members, and we all have been young in our lives.

God has no form, or appearance, nor attributes which are not to the limit of human conceptualization. No spaghetti there.

[Helm]

Saying the FSM is made from real spaghetti and meatballs is like saying God is a real old man with a white beard.

[Ummon]

Exactly, thus the FSM is God, and the arguments using it are infact theistic.

It is certain that in some remotely understandable, unlikely and unfathomably rare mind, God can maybe appear as a FSM. The reason of this appearance is though to be looked for in the aforementioned mind's properties (namely young age, a bad sense of humour, polemic intent, etc.), not in God.

[Helm]

Exactly, thus the FSM is God, and the arguments using it are infact theistic.

It is certain that in some remotely understandable, unlikely and unfathomably rare mind, God can maybe appear as a FSM. The reason of this appearance is though to be looked for in the aforementioned mind's properties (namely young age, a bad sense of humour, polemic intent, etc.), not in God.

There's no mention of touching of noodly appendages in the Bible or references to pirates.

[Musthavename]

Surely in order to prove "God" exists by probability, you must show God to have probability 1, or to show everything else to have probability 0? Now, this is pretty much impossible to show, as there is no way we can totally dismiss a theory that doesn't involve God, so that must have a probability greater than 0, which means "God" cannot have a probability of 1, hence, you've not got a proof.

[Ummon]

1=1 has a probability of 1, as a statement. Because God ultimately, is an Identity of metaphysical nature.

[Fiyenyaa]

Doesn't matter if God(s) exists or not.

The point is that any specific God(s) are not provable to my knowledge, and I think that if it/they cared about humanity to any important degree, it would have been fairly obvious by now.

[basics]

" Do it. I want to see what you guys can do and what the response is... Entertain me."

Lord Romanus III,

For a start creation itself is the scientific probability that you seek. Just one example based on the account of the making of the two lights, one large and one lesser, is that the lesser never changes it's position in relation to the earth so that it always reflects light on the position it rests above. Everything else spins but not the moon the way of all else. So when you try to trap us with your question that is something that you must reflect on.

Then there is the problem that science has with sin and faith. It cannot measure either yet they scientifically exist if only because of the actions and reactions of them that are under one or the other. For example, if a man whose whole understanding leads him in one direction, due to the scientific makeup that makes him what he is and then for some reason that makeup changes in a flash turning upside down all that he was moments before can you dispute that science in his case has altered and that scientifically?

The proof is in what is seen of that man from what he was before and what he now is. If his whole character has changed and it will have, then something quite scientific has happened within him even though science itself cannot explain exactly what has, nor does it want to know why? Another example is that when someone has a stroke, scientifically we can see and explain the evidence of change by the outer signs of the afflicted person. There is no doubt that that person has changed.

But, when a man or woman outwardly is seen to have changed because of an act of God, why should that seen change be regarded as unscientific? His peers know that there has been a change, they can see it, but for some reason they go into a mode of self-denial, and fling out the change they see as one of affliction and not of God. In other words they don't like what they see but there is no denying they do see a change.

Finally, there is the person on whom the change has come. He or she knows that something wonderful has happened to them and yes when they consider what they felt moments before it did happen, they know that science has been turned on it's head, because their makeup, their whole mode of thought, has gone through a scientific change and they are the recipients of that.

Can it be measured? I say it already is measured by what is seen and were it possible to know of someone who is about to go through the wonderful works of God by tests before and then after, then science would be satisfied that God could well be proven. But then this is where science and faith separate because what the change brings about is faith, built on God revealing something to the recipient, that only they can feel and respond to and science is not a part of that sequence. But that doesn't mean that science is inconsequential, it's just that faith is a higher plain than it.

[Helm]

"

Finally, there is the person on whom the change has come. He or she knows that something wonderful has happened to them and yes when they consider what they felt moments before it did happen, they know that science has been turned on it's head, because their makeup, their whole mode of thought, has gone through a scientific change and they are the recipients of that.

That equally well happens when people are touched by the FSM's noodly appendage. As for the question on the existance of morals/sin and such, you'll notice that piranhas eat their prey but never each other, does mean piranhas like humans have a God given moral code?

[basics]

" That equally well happens when people are touched by the FSM's noodly appendage. As for the question on the existance of morals/sin and such, you'll notice that piranhas eat their prey but never each other, does mean piranhas like humans have a God given moral code?"

Helm,

Since I am not a fish, even a predatory one, I cannot speak for them, but I could imagine that a dead piranha would be just as delicious as any other piece of meat that they do consume. On that of course I could be wrong.

Animals are what the fall made of them and a hungry animal, hungry enough, will eat anything, morals having nothing to do with it at all. But then animals were not made in the image of God, that confined to humanity for the purpose of redemption, the reason we are here.

[Helm]

Since I am not a fish, even a predatory one, I cannot speak for them, but I could imagine that a dead piranha would be just as delicious as any other piece of meat that they do consume. On that of course I could be wrong.

Animals are what the fall made of them and a hungry animal, hungry enough, will eat anything, morals having nothing to do with it at all. But then animals were not made in the image of God, that confined to humanity for the purpose of redemption, the reason we are here.

It's not because animals of the same species evolved to not routinely kill and eat members of their own species? As that would be detrimental to the propagation of their species?

[basics]

" It's not because animals of the same species evolved to not routinely kill and eat members of their own species? As that would be detrimental to the propagation of their species? "

Helm,

From the beginning of time animals and humans have been killing the weak amongst their species. In the animal kingdom they were known to eat these. Perhaps in some human societies they did that also. It has nothing to do with propogation but of killing off the weak and retarded because it was their nature to do so.

I am quite sure that no animal when hungry ever thought to him or herself I shouldn't do this because it will affect my lineage, my own personal bloodline. That's just silly. Darwin saw the weak being killed hence his theory on survival of the fittest. He saw what was natural. It is only humans that could come up with such silly nonsense.

[Holger Danske]

Animals are what the fall made of them and a hungry animal, hungry enough, will eat anything, morals having nothing to do with it at all. But then animals were not made in the image of God, that confined to humanity for the purpose of redemption, the reason we are here.

Let's first throw this out of the window before continuing as the very notion is absurd. The reason as to why we act as we do is called intelligence and social behavior. They are not a God-given attribute, but a mere tool developed so our speices could survive and adapt in the first place.

[Chaigidel]

once you define the parameters of proof or probability I will give you what you want romanus

my favorite part of op is Scientifical

I am pretty sure that you can just say scientific.