How to prove God exists.

[Kylie]

Irrational quackery isn't science.

Of course not.

But then, if it can make testable predictions, and what happens always matches what the theory says will happen, then it's not really quackery, is it?

 

[Michael]

Of course not.

But then, if it can make testable predictions, and what happens always matches what the theory says will happen, then it's not really quackery, is it?

When the "theory" strikes out at LHC, LUX, PandaX, AMDX and everywhere else, and the original mass estimation techniques were shown to be a joke, it sure starts to look like dark quackery.

Which real experiment did they actually get right? Not one.

 

[Kylie]

When the "theory" strikes out at LHC, LUX, PandaX, AMDX and everywhere else, and the original mass estimation techniques were shown to be a joke, it sure starts to look like dark quackery.

Which real experiment did they actually get right? Not one.

Do you have some deep seated need to turn EVERY conversation you are in towards your pet theory? Because it's really annoying. Stop derailing threads.

 

[Michael]

Do you have some deep seated need to turn EVERY conversation you are in towards your pet theory? Because it's really annoying. Stop derailing threads.

LOL! You claim to want "evidence" to support the concept of "God". I can support a purely empirical definition of God as "all", better than you can provide evidence to support the current cosmological definition of 'all'. You can't handle it, so you don't like it.

 

[HitchSlap]

I passed a church today on my way to McDonald's.

You know what a church is, don't you?

God's house?

His houses are everywhere.

You support McDonald's?

 

[HitchSlap]

LOL! You claim to want "evidence" to support the concept of "God". I can support a purely empirical definition of God as "all", better than you can provide evidence to support the current cosmological definition of 'all'. You can't handle it, so you don't like it.

Define it how you like, but evidence is the thing we're looking for.

 

[HitchSlap]

Unfortunately, that's true.

I often think of England's greatest preacher ever (the Prince of Preachers) and the Metropolitan Tabernacle.

I'm looking forward to meeting him someday.

Rumor has it he made a deathbed deconversion. Either way, there's no possible way you will ever meet him... unless you did it while he was alive.

 

[Michael]

Define it how you like, but evidence is the thing we're looking for.

Sure, but what exactly are you calling "evidence", because "evidence" isn't limited to empirical cause/effect justification in the lab as you seem to insist on as it relates to the topic of God.

Atheists, scientific evidence, God, cause/effect demonstrations, and theoretical physics.

 

[AV1611VET]

Rumor has it he made a deathbed deconversion.

Ya ... and I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sure, but what exactly are you calling "evidence", because "evidence" isn't limited to empirical cause/effect justification in the lab as you seem to insist on as it relates to the topic of God.

Atheists, scientific evidence, God, cause/effect demonstrations, and theoretical physics.

I don't know. What are you calling evidence?

 

[HitchSlap]

Ya ... and I'm Genghis Khan.

I'm sorry to hear this. Which company did you have your DNA tested with?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which company did you have your DNA tested with?

Scientists Я Us.

 

[Michael]

I don't know. What are you calling evidence?

An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

 

[HitchSlap]

Scientists Я Us.

Hope you kept your receipt.

 

[HitchSlap]

An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

This is what convinced you a god/s exist and that you should worship it?

 

[Michael]

This is what convinced you a god/s exist and that you should worship it?

No, my personal experience of the Holy Spirit convinced me of that. I'm just offering you the simplest definition of the term 'God' and the easiest definition to defend scientifically.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hope you kept your receipt.

Now that's funny!

 

[Michael]

Now that's funny!

Ya, that is definitely funny.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, ...

Well, there you have it.

 

[Michael]

Well, there you have it.

That's a total cop out. I returned to theism and Christianity long before I ever heard of EU/PC theory, and until then, Panentheism didn't seem all that likely to me. Once I realized however that the universe is full of circuits and electrical energy, Panentheism made a lot more sense. It's no "sin" to see obvious reasons to change one's views, either about religion, or about science.

I gotta tell you, the moment I found Birkeland's work, my views about spacetime changed in short order, and that *eventually* (didn't automatically) cause me to reexamine the whole concept of Pantheism/Panentheism.

There's nothing wrong with that.