Scientific Proof of God

Originally posted by Kepler
Many people believe in a bunch of inconsistent fairy tales without any proof of them being true. I think you are mixing up evidence and proof. You will find it difficult to prove any scientific theory or any religious idea but you can find evidence for or against. I suggest you try to find some evidence instead of blathering on about non-existent proofs.

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, so I see no need to go find anymore, when the proof is in the pudding and available for anyone to easily find. 😏

Halleluyah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, so I see no need to go find anymore, when the proof is in the pudding and available for anyone to easily find. 😏

Halleluyah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Got any evidence that isn't in the aforementioned Big Book Of Fairy Tales? You could start with evidence for the Big Book Of Fairy Tales containing anything other than fairy tales.

Originally posted by Kepler
Got any evidence that isn't in the aforementioned Big Book Of Fairy Tales? You could start with evidence for the Big Book Of Fairy Tales containing anything other than fairy tales.

You would just dig a deeper hole up your arse to hide from the truth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You would just dig a deeper hole up your arse to hide from the truth.

I'll take that as a no then.

So there we have it, RJHindquarters has no evidence for gods, demons, angels, pixies or any other supernatural mythical beings other than a tatty collection of fairy tales.

Originally posted by Kepler
I'll take that as a no then.

So there we have it, RJHindquarters has no evidence for gods, demons, angels, pixies or any other supernatural mythical beings other than a tatty collection of fairy tales.

Did I mention the Shroud of Turin as proof? If I have, I guess you better go look for someone else then, for that is about all I can think of right now.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Did I mention the Shroud of Turin as proof? If I have, I guess you better go look for someone else then, for that is about all I can think of right now.

Yes you did and I commented that the image is known to be the sort of thing you get when cloth is in contact with a decaying corpse. I know a gentleman that performed an experiment that shows images of corpses can be imprinted into cloth left in contact with them. It's a chemical thing, something to do with the fluids produced by rotting flesh interacting with the cloth. In everyday parlance, it's a stain. I also asked if you had any evidence that it had ever been in contact with a dead god other than a bunch of god botherers believing that it had. You didn't reply.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I say you are just talking out of your arse.

BTW, you can stop using 'arse' when you mean ass, which has cleared the censors.

Originally posted by Kepler
Yes you did and I commented that the image is known to be the sort of thing you get when cloth is in contact with a decaying corpse. I know a gentleman that performed an experiment that shows images of corpses can be imprinted into cloth left in contact with them. It's a chemical thing, something to do with the fluids produced by rotting flesh interacting wit ...[text shortened]... with a dead god other than a bunch of god botherers believing that it had. You didn't reply.

One man's stain is another man's supernatural event. That is the way of humanity, which pretty much proves that for the most part, there is no intelligent life on Earth. Well maybe with the exception of Dolphins.....

Originally posted by Kepler
Yes you did and I commented that the image is known to be the sort of thing you get when cloth is in contact with a decaying corpse. I know a gentleman that performed an experiment that shows images of corpses can be imprinted into cloth left in contact with them. It's a chemical thing, something to do with the fluids produced by rotting flesh interacting wit ...[text shortened]... with a dead god other than a bunch of god botherers believing that it had. You didn't reply.

How do you account for the fact that the scientists say there is something more than the decaying body that is producing the image on the Shroud, and that they do not know what and that they can not reproduce all of the effects produced by the image?

Also if what you say is true and the image was produced by a corpse, then since that image on the cloth has all the features indicated in the Gospels of the unusual manner in which Christ was tortured and crucified, including the crown of torn marks and side wound, wouldn't it also be reasonable to deduce that this Shroud was a burial cloth of Christ? It seems that the people who kept this all these years felt it was important for some other reason than being a burial cloth of just any crucified man, since there is no other evidence of anything like this being done before.

After considering the preponderance of the evidence, many of those scientists that examined the shroud came to believe that it was the burial shroud of Christ. They have not been able to prove that it was a hoax as most of them said they thought they would be able to do before they actually examined the Shroud.

Originally posted by sonhouse
One man's stain is another man's supernatural event. That is the way of humanity, which pretty much proves that for the most part, there is no intelligent life on Earth. Well maybe with the exception of Dolphins.....

Did you expect God to use something other than the workings of the universe that he set up?

Originally posted by RJHinds
How do you account for the fact that the scientists say there is something more than the decaying body that is producing the image on the Shroud, and that they do not know what and that they can not reproduce all of the effects produced by the image?

Also if what you say is true and the image was produced by a corpse, then since that image on the cloth ha ...[text shortened]... st of them said they thought they would be able to do before they actually examined the Shroud.

I don't account for it because I haven't performed the experiment. It is likely there are many unknowns involved such as the oils and other goo that the body was embalmed with. The image also depends on how tightly the cloth was wound around the body. No doubt there are other factors involved as well. A scientist may say "I don't know how this works" but that doesn't me he can't know ever, it means he doesn't know yet. I'll ask the chap I know and see if he has any thoughts. I know he wasn't convinced that anything other than chemistry was required to produce quite detailed images.

As you say, the cloth was clearly important to someone for some reason. It may well have been the burial shroud of a man known in life as Jesus. Or it could have been some other person's shroud. Either way, I still see know evidence for divine intervention here. Death and chemistry yes, supernatural events no. As you said, one man's supernatural event is another's stain.

I do wonder if a god who is notably reluctant to show himself would actually use supernatural events and magic tricks to impress the peasantry. I have a feeling that God moving in mysterious ways may actually be him insisting on using the natural laws of his universe to achieve his ends. That way faith is necessary whereas an unequivocally magical, supernatural event witnessed by many produces instant proof of his existence. Which leaves one to wonder just why he set up his universe to give false evidence of its age etc. if your interpretation of the bible is correct.

Originally posted by Kepler
I don't account for it because I haven't performed the experiment. It is likely there are many unknowns involved such as the oils and other goo that the body was embalmed with. The image also depends on how tightly the cloth was wound around the body. No doubt there are other factors involved as well. A scientist may say "I don't know how this works" but that ...[text shortened]... give false evidence of its age etc. if your interpretation of the bible is correct.

That last statement of yours, about God setting up false ages, seems absurd to me. Just because people dream up these long time spands to account for their crazy ideas does not mean God is setting up false ages. To me it looks like the evil-lutionists are the ones setting up false ages. God tells us in Genesis about how old the universe is and that he stretched out the heavens to account for things like distance stars. So there is no deception on God's part. I think you would be good to look elsewhere. By the way there is a hypothesis by a creation scientists that explains how the stars could have been placed in the heavens and suddenly brought into view on the 4th day as recorded in Genesis. I have made reference to a youtube video on it before.

I don't think your friend is going to solve the mystery of the Shroud of Turin. There is a lot of material on Youtube about it. Of course there are those still saying it is a fraud and some that still believes that carbon dating proved it was a medieval forgery.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That last statement of yours, about God setting up false ages, seems absurd to me. Just because people dream up these long time spands to account for their crazy ideas does not mean God is setting up false ages. To me it looks like the evil-lutionists are the ones setting up false ages. God tells us in Genesis about how old the universe is and that he st t is a fraud and some that still believes that carbon dating proved it was a medieval forgery.

People aren't dreaming up long time spans to account for their crazy ideas, they are faced with evidence that says the earth is incredibly old. That's how science works. Evidence is gathered, a theory is formed to explain that evidence and more evidence is gathered to confirm or refute that theory.

Religion works in a different way. You already have the ironclad account of creation etc. and now any observations that are at odds with that account must be either declared false or forced to fit the account in the text.

Evolution followed the realisation that the earth was older than the biblical account by 70 years. The first evidence was identified by James Hutton, a geologist, who discovered Hutton's Unconformity at Siccar Point in Scotland. It is that rock formation that started the notion that the earth must be incredibly old. Maybe you should leave the sacred cow of evolution alone and try to refute Hutton's Unconformity? I wish you luck in that endeavour.

Originally posted by Kepler
People aren't dreaming up long time spans to account for their crazy ideas, they are faced with evidence that says the earth is incredibly old. That's how science works. Evidence is gathered, a theory is formed to explain that evidence and more evidence is gathered to confirm or refute that theory.

Religion works in a different way. You already have the ir ...[text shortened]... evolution alone and try to refute Hutton's Unconformity? I wish you luck in that endeavour.

I never heard of Hutton's Unconformity, so it must have never amounted to much. You seem to overlook that their are many scientists that say the earth is young and that evil-lution is hogwash, so I have scientists on my side of the argument too. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I never heard of Hutton's Unconformity, so it must have never amounted to much. You seem to overlook that their are many scientists that say the earth is young and that evil-lution is hogwash, so I have scientists on my side of the argument too. 😏

You can't "win" a scientific argument by weight of numbers, which is fortunate for you as your side is hugely outnumbered. From what I have seen of the work of the so called scientists who support the young earth idea they are not following proper scientific methods. They are just trying to force the evidence to fit the biblical text. That's not science.