Well, we know actually a lot about outer space and unseeable stuff like air, different types of gas.

Because stuff exists, means god exists? That is not scientific in any way ^^. It is just an assumption. I could also say ... everything exists because of Chuck Norris.

if we can really! proof this one day this will be the last day for all of us

comedy gold
frikkin priceless my friend!!

Perhaps. But the scientific proof for the existence of God is not part of my delusion. Rather, that God does not exist is part of your science fiction.

I wonder if any of the God scoffers have any idea how science is made. There are scientific assumptions. They will not be verified if there will be noone willing to verify them. And most of the time you cannot verify the assumptions because it would destroy a lot of people job carriers.

Many times the assumptions are made on stochastics. That is a very unperfect method based on statistics. So please... first learn how it is done and then say if it is probable or unprobable for science to not be what it is called.

The most visible part of the unperfection of stochastic method is being seen in medical and farmaceutic science. The errors has make a lot of people die. How many have to die for a drug or medical procedure to be abandoned? A lot. Sometimes it is abandoned, but the statistical method stays the same.

Stochastic methods are very very very unreliable and should not be called science at all imho. There should be some division with empirical science, statistical science, matemathical model science etc, purely theoretical "science". Only the empirical science uses the scientific method of inquiry.

Badecker is baseing his statements only on the empiricly proven science that will be true forever. It can not be wrong all of your stochastic and theory based statements is probably dead wrong. Only time and eternity would tell.

Empirical science had said that the world have begining and an end, it proves that it loses complexity. Our science is too stupid to be sure about anything else. Yet. I hope that in the future we could have a bigger picture of things.

Yes we make assumptions, but we do not say that God is science do we?

You seem to say that God have to be science for science to point to God. It is just pointing out. But science in the current stage of affairs can only do that - to point out how everything began. And it had a begining. Most thing sugest it was a very rapid and quick.  

There are some stochastic theories that suggest it was not quick. Well.... Stochastics will not be empiricism. Show me empirical evidences or thing is not on the shelf for me.

If you want to believe those theories are true. It is your free will. I have nothing to it. I believe those are not true. And I guess we will not be convinced by the either side - so why waste time?

Couldnt have answered better my friend.

phreeksta showed us at https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/737322.msg22166759#msg22166759 that outer space exists. What wasn't shown was what outer space is. What is outer space?

Outer space is nothingness. It is emptiness. It is nothing.

Inside of nothing exists a whole bunch of materials and energies. We analyze these materials and energies, and how they react with each other. But we haven't found a way to analyze the "substance" that is nothing.

The only real thing we know about nothing is that it exists. Again, how do we know this? Because we can analyze the various materials and energies within nothing.

Same thing with God. We can analyze the fundamental science laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity. The only way these things can exist combined is that a Great, Intelligent, Power caused them to exist.

We have no other explanation for the combined existence of these 3 basic, fundamental, scientific laws. The word "God" fits the Great, Intelligent, Power that cause the universe to exist.

We can't see God, just like we can't see emptiness/nothing. But we understand that God exists in ways similar to understanding that nothing exists.

So you see, outer space - which is emptiness/nothing/lack of every "thing" - is the non-thing that helps to confirm that God exists.

Dig around in your evacuated box, and what do you find? Nothing? No, you find your digger. Remove your digger, and there is nothing in the box. It's empty space.

We have intelligence. Entropy shows that there was greater intelligence in the past. Cause and effect show that the intelligence was great enough to be way beyond the understanding of man's intelligence. How much closer do you want to go to demonstrate God?

Do you need to look at the fantastic machines of nature that we are only beginning to duplicate, and imperfectly I might add? How about looking at the language of mathematics that man develops to imperfectly explain the complexity of the universe to himself?

Find a place where this all comes from randomness. We haven't found pure random. It doesn't exist, except, perhaps, in God.

"God" is a word. But the identity of the Being behind the word is way beyond the word "God." So, yes, I am just saying it is God, because there is no way to explain how intelligent and powerful He is. He is beyond understanding, and the word "God" is simply man's imperfect word to describe Him a little.