Top 10 Scientific Proofs of God’s Existence

[BreezeWood]

Which is not a citation for your boomerang theory. Do you have a citation for your boomerang theory?

the celestial bodies are wrapping themselves back to their origin - and will do so without changing direction, along a finite angle of trajectory.

visual proof for the theory is provided -

they say serpents do have poor vision, try squinting.

 

[ding]

View attachment 601888

visual proof for the theory is provided -

View attachment 601886

they say serpents do have poor vision, try squinting.

Do you have a citation for your boomerang theory? Yes or no?

 

[BreezeWood]

Do you have a citation for your boomerang theory? Yes or no?

open your eyes, serpent.

 

[Colin norris]

Many atheists want to have proofs of God's existence.
In my opinion the information from below is one of the bests in internet
Also, guys, read, think about and ask God for forgiveness of your sins
And begin to read the Holy Bible

Gods Existence-
I often get the “Prove to me God exists” question, usually from people who really do not desire any answers. However, there is occasionally a few who really want to know…This info is based upon about 6 hours of condensed note taking…Hopefully it will be instrumental in your ministry as well…
Technically, “Proof” (like a picture or video tape) is non-existent any more than I can technically “prove” that Washington was president…There are writings that can be cited that will support his presidency and are accepted as fact but technically I believe that Washington was president because I have read the accounts and writings of those present in that day who have documented the history and I believe what has been presented to me as fact. It is a given however, that History is MUCH different than Science.
I have had many of the same questions myself that people ask me concerning science and God. I am an analytical person and am not satisfied with only someone else’s experience and faith as a basis for my own beliefs. I believe that there is nothing wrong with faith, but blind faith without logical analysis or deductive reasoning can be very dangerous and even naïve in some circumstances. I have studied extensively on the subject of God’s existence and actually have a lot of material to reference (books, audio series, notes, etc)…Some of which is so deep that I don’t really understand it completely myself with examples dealing with Quantum Physics and such…but in my studies I have never been diligent enough to write down or organize my notes…Until now…
I do not take credit for any of this material, most all of it is taken from my notes and personal recollection of information that I have listened to and read from several sources…Some of the commentary is mine, but nearly all of the information in this outline comes from an audio series titled Top Ten Proofs by a Detroit radio host named Bob Dutko. If you are interested in owning the audio CD teachings on this subject, they can be purchased at this web-site (www.toptenproofs.com). There are several other topics of study that he addresses in this series but much of the “info” below comes from his audio CD titled top 10 proofs of God’s Existence.
I wrote this info in outline form in an attempt to shorten it and still relay the content. The content is almost completely referencing scientific justifications for God’s existence and not simply “faith based” revelation.
I believe, in order to establish any “faith” in God, there must first be an understanding of TRUTH that there IS A GOD…If a person has never had an “experience” justifying that “truth” then, for many, there must be legitimate scientific evidence presented in order for faith to have a foundation on which to build…Hopefully, this outline will be a basis for that.
So I start with the most simple of scientific questions:
What is science?
Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
I am convinced that a belief in God is, IN FACT, Scientific and that science DOES back up and prove that there is a God…Here are some of my reasoning’s for that belief system
1. The Scientific law –The First Law of Thermodynamics…
a. Scientific conservation of energy law which states that in the universe we have matter and energy and that matter or energy can be converted into each other but cannot be created from nothing. This law also states that matter or energy cannot be destroyed to the point where it ceases to exist, it can only take on different forms…
b. Now consider the entire universe and all of the matter and energy in it…if there is NO GOD…then Scientifically, the universe cannot exist…otherwise it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics because science states that “something” in our universe and within the laws of science cannot come from “nothing”…This is the FIRST law of thermodynamics and all scientific law about matter and energy are based upon this first laws foundation.
c. The Big Bang theory does not support this law. Science has proven that the universe is expanding and theorize that everything came from a small “dot” of compressed matter which exploded into what is now our expanding universe…The reason that they teach this theory and the fact that the universe came from the explosion of this compressed “Dot” is because of the first law of thermodynamics…without that compressed dot, the first law of thermodynamics collapses. But still, that theory is self defeating because the compressed “dot” that held the universe and exploded, still contradicts The First Law of Thermodynamics, because matter, regardless of how small or compact, according to scientific law, cannot come from nothing…
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics-
a. Scientific Heat law- which states that everything will move toward a state of equilibrium. For instance, take a cup of hot coffee and a cup of ice and set them together on the same table…Assuming there are no outside influences (which is called a “closed system” in science and scientists who do not believe in God’s existence or influence would concur that the universe is a closed system), over time, both will equalize to the same temperature and reach a state of heat equilibrium.
b. Also within the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a principle that states that things move from order to chaos, degrade, become sloppier and ultimately move toward a state of entropy. A simple example of this is, if you were to have a stack of papers on your desk at work, as people walk by, and the wind blows, over time your desk will become messier as the papers slowly move from a state of order to mess, they will NEVER become straighter or neater over time as this would become a violation of the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics…with this law understood scientifically, if there were no God, and the universe is a closed system with no outside influence, when the “big bang” took place 15 billion years ago, the universe could not have gone from an explosion to order…this argument violates scientific law…Explosions cannot turn into order scientifically.
i. Considering these first 2 laws, occasionally scientists who believe in a closed system will argue under the first law of thermodynamics that perhaps all the matter in the universe always existed…However, the second law of thermodynamics invalidates that theory because if everything in the universe always existed, we would no longer have disparity of heat in the universe. Over the course of “forever” we would have achieved heat death and everything in the universe would be the same temperature based upon the second law of thermodynamics…But as we know, that is not the case in the universe…there are stars that burn at different temperatures and galaxies with varying heats depending upon their distance from their star. We also see comets which are balls of icy matter existing in the same universe …which are the equivalent of the hot coffee and ice cups on the same table…so they could not have been here forever because the second law of thermodynamics disproves that within a closed system without having reached a place of equilibrium by now not to mention the fact that the universe could not have reached this level of complexity from an explosion based upon the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics…
3. Based upon scientific law, “Life cannot come from Non-life”
a. This is called A-biogenesis and is unscientific.
i. Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
1. Discredit 1- Science is a hypothesis based upon observation- has anyone ever observed life coming into existence from non-life? The answer is no, it has never been observed in any laboratory in history.
2. Discredit 2- Is there any test that can be done that will produce life from non-life? The answer again is No.
3. Discredit 3- Is there any predictions that can be made that will produce life from non-life…Again, No…so based upon scientific law A-biogenesis is an unscientific hypothesis.
b. With this said, based upon the definition of science, the scientists who hold strongly to the belief that Life came from Non-life (a-biogenesis) are not being “scientific’ at all in their assessment of what they say they believe. But what seems even more controversial, is that they then accuse Christian beliefs of being unscientific.
c. Because life has NEVER came into being from non-life scientifically, believing that there is a God is in fact scientific because we know scientifically that the laws of science will not allow life to come from non-life. So it is a scientific conclusion that there must be a “being” capable of creating life from non-life.

.................................
...............................

You can continue to read here:

Top 10 Scientific Proofs of God’s Existence

tattoopreacher.com

The OP is an oxymoron.
There is no proof whatsoever science proved a God. It's desperate to link yourself to science to maintain relevance in modern society. Telling lies is not the answer.

 

[ding]

open your eyes, serpent.

They are open and I don't see a link provided by you at all. Where's the link?

 

[BreezeWood]

They are open and I don't see a link provided by you at all. Where's the link?

no, they are closed -

as well, and readily associated with the boomerang theory is the diagram could also indicate an ultimate, mathematically calculated, breech in the side of a black hole than a general explosion to explain the cone shape presently considered for our universe.

 

[ding]

no, they are closed -

View attachment 602158

as well, and readily associated with the boomerang theory is the diagram could also indicate an ultimate, mathematically calculated, breech in the side of a black hole than a general explosion to explain the cone shape presently considered for our universe.

 

[FA_Q2]

boomerang theory - matters finite angle of trajectory returns it to the origin at singularity. without changing direction.

the matter of the cyclical bb to revert back to energy travels at a finite angle of trajectory that at the same time without changing direction returns to the point of origin for recompaction back into energy to complete the cycle ...

Oddly, there is no link in that very short and simple description...

 

[FA_Q2]

What shape is the universe?

As far as cosmologists can tell, space is almost perfectly flat. But what does this mean?

astronomy.com

See, this is called a link. And it is a very simplified source that tells us all current evidence points to a flat universe. Ergo, your assertion that the universe is closed is based on old theories that no longer have any merit until such time there is a single shred of evidence for them.

 

[BreezeWood]

What shape is the universe?

As far as cosmologists can tell, space is almost perfectly flat. But what does this mean?

astronomy.com

See, this is called a link. And it is a very simplified source that tells us all current evidence points to a flat universe. Ergo, your assertion that the universe is closed is based on old theories that no longer have any merit until such time there is a single shred of evidence for them.

Ergo, your assertion that the universe is closed is based on old theories

not an assertion I have made - than for the serpent and their vision ...

your link is not a holy grail, surprise ...

Oddly, there is no link in that very short and simple description...

... is based on old theories that no longer have any merit until such time there is a single shred of evidence for them.

that's a joke ...

boomerang disputes the basis for recoil - projecting on a finite angle of trajectory in a vacuum will lead to the recreation of new energy by recompaction of all matter's reconvention at the same time from their point of origin.

 

[FA_Q2]

not an assertion I have made - than for the serpent and their vision ...

your link is not a holy grail, surprise ...




that's a joke ...

boomerang disputes the basis for recoil - projecting on a finite angle of trajectory in a vacuum will lead to the recreation of new energy by recompaction of all matter's reconvention at the same time from their point of origin.

Still more claims.

Still no link.

Still ignoring the actual scientific data.

Matter will never 'recompaction of all matter's reconvention at the same time from their point of origin.'

The 'point of origin' is nonsensical as well. It makes no scientific sense considering the 'point of origin' of matter is everywhere.

There is no central point in the universe. Do you understand what is meant by the universe is expanding? It does not mean that all matter is moving away from a singular point of origin.

 

[BreezeWood]

Still more claims.

Still no link.

Still ignoring the actual scientific data.

Matter will never 'recompaction of all matter's reconvention at the same time from their point of origin.'

The 'point of origin' is nonsensical as well. It makes no scientific sense considering the 'point of origin' of matter is everywhere.

There is no central point in the universe. Do you understand what is meant by the universe is expanding? It does not mean that all matter is moving away from a singular point of origin.

The 'point of origin' is nonsensical as well. It makes no scientific sense considering the 'point of origin' of matter is everywhere.

the bb - moment of singularity ... the cyclical transfer.

 

[FA_Q2]

the bb - moment of singularity ... the cyclical transfer.

What are you babbling about now?

It is clear you have not the first clue what you are talking about.

We all wait with bated breath for the ensuing link that describes something, anything, you are babbling about.

 

[BreezeWood]

What are you babbling about now?

It is clear you have not the first clue what you are talking about.

We all wait with bated breath for the ensuing link that describes something, anything, you are babbling about.

who's we ... the fundamental issues you are lacking can readily be acquired probable around the 4th grade level of an average public elementary school - good luck.

 

[FA_Q2]

who's we ... the fundamental issues you are lacking can readily be acquired probable around the 4th grade level of an average public elementary school - good luck.

And what fundamental issue is that?

You have yet to point one out. Other than grossly misunderstanding BB theory, you have said virtually nothing.

 

[BreezeWood]

And what fundamental issue is that?

You have yet to point one out. Other than grossly misunderstanding BB theory, you have said virtually nothing.

The 'point of origin' is nonsensical as well. It makes no scientific sense considering the 'point of origin' of matter is everywhere.

without doubt, beyond reproach - your understanding of the "bb" ...

 

[edthecynic]

Correct. It wasn't nothing. Can you tell me what this not nothing was?

If it is not nothing then it is SOMETHING! Get it?

 

[edthecynic]

Paired particles pop into existence and then annihilate each other.

So particles are SOMETHING.

 

[edthecynic]

Everyone else in the cosmological and physics community

BULLSHIT! Only fools say you can get something from nothing

 

[ding]

If it is not nothing then it is SOMETHING! Get it?

I get that it was a quantum event where paired particles popped into existence.