All of your claims have been debunked badecker. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001) change of function addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004) gradual modification of parts All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939). Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example: The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist. In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references). The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system. http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/Stop spreading your lies badecker. |
|
|
|
Where do you think Islam hates other religions? Because there are events involving Islam. Sometimes arguments are always associated with religion because it is very vulnerable to make a commotion. If you think Islam is a bad religion try you occasionally learn to let you know that Islam is a peaceful religion.
Why do people keep saying that shit when in the quran clearly says to kill non-believers. I don't know why you delusional people insist to defend your shitty book, it's garbage, admit it. And so is the Bible, it's the same shit, it also commands to kill people for the most idiotic reasons. |
|
|
|
I commend you jokers^^^, doing the best you can to downplay and diminish the scientific proof that God exists. But in it all, no proof rebuttal. You just can't do it, can you?  I commend you joker ^^^ doing the best you can to try to prove God. But in all, no scientific proof at all, you just can't do it, can you? But you wouldn't know, would you? You don't understand much of anything except blabbing without any rebuttal.  But you wouldn't know, would you? You don't understand much of anything except pseudoscience and religious propaganda without any actual proof of God. Are you in the wrong thread? This one is about scientific proof of God. |
|
|
|
I commend you jokers^^^, doing the best you can to downplay and diminish the scientific proof that God exists. But in it all, no proof rebuttal. You just can't do it, can you? I commend you joker ^^^ doing the best you can to try to prove God. But in all, no scientific proof at all, you just can't do it, can you? |
|
|
|
Evolution is obvious - nature has so many variations, even in dog breeds, you can see evolution at work.
Cause and effect is science law that proves that the universe has been programmed. No it doesn't and we already discussed this in the other topic, stop spreading your bullshit, you can't even defend yourself anymore in the other thread. It's pathetic. Newton's 3rd law is not that anyways, I don't know where you got that definition from. ''The third law states that all forces between two objects exist in equal magnitude and opposite direction: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction: FA = −FB.[24] The third law means that all forces are interactions between different bodies,[25][26] or different regions within one body, and thus that there is no such thing as a force that is not accompanied by an equal and opposite force. In some situations, the magnitude and direction of the forces are determined entirely by one of the two bodies, say Body A; the force exerted by Body A on Body B is called the "action", and the force exerted by Body B on Body A is called the "reaction". This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with FA called the "action" and FB the "reaction". In other situations the magnitude and directions of the forces are determined jointly by both bodies and it isn't necessary to identify one force as the "action" and the other as the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous, and it does not matter which is called the action and which is called reaction; both forces are part of a single interaction, and neither force exists without the other.[24]'' Nowhere it says anything about everything having a cause and definitely it doesn't say that the cause for everything is God. |
|
|
|
So badecker ''proof'' has been debunked by himself and me. He said cause and effect alone is not enough to prove god existence and I debunked the rest : https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-debunkedYou assume the first cause, motor, etc... is God, which is that, only an assumption, there is no evidence for it. You never explain what you mean by machines, then you say animals use machines like rocks and then you say machines that exist in nature are far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. So a rock is far more advanced than a TV by your understanding. Then you say, The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker. A wild assumption again but ok, however you do not stop there you also say it's God, another assumption with no evidence supporting it. He ignored it, of course but can you blame him? He has nothing now. There you go again, saying that you debunked something, without expressing the debunking. I get it, however. You don't appear to even know how to look up the word "machine" in the dictionary or encyclopedia. So, how could you even understand enough about proof for anything to attempt to debunk it? It's amazing you can even type anything into the computer at all! No no, you won't get away from this one. ''All around us, in nature and the universe we see machine-like operations. These operations are extremely complex inside life and the cells. Machines have makers.'' (Where did you get the idea of machines have makers, you said that a monkey using a rock is a machine, how does that tell you it has a maker, how exactly did you get to that conclusion)(You also still haven't defined what machine-like operations actually mean, then you post a bunch of videos explaining how cells work, ok?) ''The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker - God. Machines have makers.'' (Again assumptions for no reason, how do you know advanced machines of the universe have an advanced maker and how do you know the advanced maker is god) 1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 1A) Firstly this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition isn't always a pure pathway to truth (i.e. - intuition states that the Sun goes around the Earth). There may indeed always be a cause for anything and everything that has or ever will come into existence, including whatever came into existence at the Big Bang event (the postulated beginning of our Universe), but that cause isn't always evident. Some quantum physicists would in fact claim that there are uncaused things (i.e. - radioactivity). 1B) Whatever cause in itself that has come into existence has, IMHO, thus resulted from a previous cause, which had a previous cause which had a previous cause and that chain can be extended as far back as you wish. Stated another way, there is no such thing as a First Cause. 1C) Whatever thing that came into existence came into existence from a previous thing(s) which existed and which in turn came into existence from a previous thing(s) which in turn came into existence from yet a previous thing and so on as far back as you wish to go. Stated another way, you can only bring something into existence from a previous something. You cannot bring a material something into existence from pure nothingness or from anything immaterial. 2) Premise: The Universe began to exist. 2A) I need note here that the "Universe" is defined as the sum total of all the bits and pieces that collectively make up the, or our, "Universe". The "Universe" is just the label we give to all of those bits and pieces (particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks, planets, stars, etc.) that came into existence in-the-beginning or later emerged into existence out of simpler states (i.e. – molecules from atoms). 2B) The assumption here is that our Universe is the be-all-and-end-all of the Cosmos**. While that may be the case, it's not necessarily so. Just because you came into existence doesn't mean that others don't also exist. Our Universe could be one of many. There could be parallel universes or even a postulated Multiverse or Megaverse - maybe. 3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause. 3A) The effect (resulting from the cause) of the Universe coming into existence or coming into being is called the Big Bang event, so the cause of the Universe (i.e. - the cause of the Big Bang event) was something prior to the Big Bang event. If the Universe had a cause then that cause was obviously pre-Universe or before the Big Bang event. 3B) That's where the cosmological buck has to stop since we can't observe or measure anything prior to the Big Bang event. 3C) In context all we can say is that our Universe came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang event and that the Big Bang event had a cause. That says nothing about the larger context as suggested in 2B. It could be that our Universe popped into existence from within a larger Cosmos just like a baby pops out of the womb at birth. 4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God. 4A) Nearly all theists state that the cause of the Universe was due to an omnipresent (all-present), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), all-loving, perfectly moral, and perfectly benevolent Almighty Being (i.e. - God). However these traits along with an entity who is itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, and space-less; an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will, aren't verified; aren't all mutually inclusive and logical, with many an inherent philosophical inconsistency as well as many being actually contradicted by Biblical chapter-and-verse passages (i.e. - God is hardly all-loving). 4B) But a supernatural deity with some or all of these traits is also a total fallacy even if for no other reason than that the Cosmos has to be eternal (temporally infinite) since as I noted above there can be no First Cause and because you can't, and not even God can, create something material from the immaterial. It's a logical contradiction to postulate the creation / existence of an absolute something from an absolute state of pure nothingness and even God has to conform to logic (i.e. - God can't create a spherical cube). If you can't create something from nothing then something has always existed. If the Cosmos is infinite or endlessly cyclic, an infinitely repeating causal loop where A causes B and B in turn causes A, then what need for a God? If therefore, as theists want, that the Cosmos is finite since infinities aren't possible (i.e. - they tend to throw spanners into theistic philosophies - see 4D), then God too is temporally finite, therefore had a beginning and therefore had a cause. That of course contradicts the concept of an eternal deity and raises the obvious question, what caused God? If God is eternal then God created the Cosmos and our Universe an infinite time ago which is clearly not the case. 4C) Since science can't explain or actually identify the "cause" that caused the existence of our Universe, on the grounds that the cause preceded the Big Bang event and thus this cause can't be observed or measured, theists step into the gap and conclude that God is that cause. This God-of-the-gaps conclusion is also a fallacy since there are numerous other alternatives. The cause of the Universe could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any deity or deities from any of the world's hundreds of creation mythologies. Maybe it was just a natural Big Crunch (a contracting universe) turning inside out at crunch time into a Big Bang; maybe an unknown and perhaps unknowable other natural cause we haven’t imagined yet; perhaps a quantum fluctuation; even perhaps (and this is my bias) a mortal, fallible, flesh-and-blood computer / software programmer fills the gap. God is only one hypothesis of many. 4D) Theists, even some cosmologists mistakenly say that there can't be an infinite Cosmos due to entropy (the state of useable energy available). An infinite Cosmos would have attained a state of maximum entropy an infinite time ago but that is not what we observe. I contend that at the moment of the Big Bang the clock was reset to time equals zero; the Universe was restored to original factory settings (including a state of minimum entropy). Consider this analogy. You only started ageing, started running down, and started increasing your entropy, at your conception. That's when your clock started. That state of conception was your original factory condition. What came before was irrelevant since as far as you are concerned, there was no before (although clearly there was). You had a cause therefore there was a state that existed before you. That cause was your parents and their state of entropy is an irrelevance as far as you (their child) is concerned at conception. Thanks for this nice long post. Most of it is simply information, or talk without anything to back it. About machines having makers. Show us an example of a machine that doesn't have a maker. How in the world silly are you, that you need me to express to you that all you need to do is look at any "label" on any machine to find out who its maker is? Did you skip elementary school? Or did you only flunk it. Oh look at him, he can't even argue anymore, poor badecker. ''Most of it is simply information'' Ok? A tree doesn't have a maker or a rock or a mountain. Look it's ok, I know you feel bad that someone actually destroyed your arguments but don't be so low to post this crap. As I said in the long post, you assume many things without anything to back it either. You assume things are created by makers but assumptions aren't always right. Don't cry, shhh, it's ok. Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over) There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S) Through modern science, specifically physics, natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is impossible — according to our current understanding of physics — to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is stochastic and might be uncaused, providing an arguable counterexample to the assumption that everything must have a cause. An objection to this counterexample is that knowledge regarding such phenomena is limited and there may be an underlying but presently unknown cause. However, if the causal status of radioactive decay is unknown then the truth of the premise that 'everything has a cause' is indeterminate rather than false. In either case, the first cause argument is rendered ineffective. All that typing, and still no rebuttal to the proof that God exists. Are you in the wrong thread? I will quote you again on something ''Simply stating that there is no proof doesn't make it so.'' So simply saying there is no rebuttal doesn't make it so. Thanks for helping me help you, I think your subconscious is betraying you. I don't know if you are trolling now or just unwilling to accept the truth. I don't think you are a troll but fuck, you would be the best troll ever but then again you are just probably too delusional at this point and you simply delete, anything that proves your God doesn't exist, from your brain. Well it was fun badecker. I guess it's time to move on, I don't think there is no reason for me to keep arguing with you at this point. Hopefully my posts helped people understand that God doesn't exist and that being a christian ( or any other religion really ) can be a ''mental illness'' not exactly like what we describe as a mental illness but close enough. It's pretty amazing the lengths someone would go, to deny 90% of science just so his belief can exist, this definitely can be dangerous. Your post, ^^^, made enough sense that I looked through it. No proof for or against the existence of God there. And no rebuttal of any proof or non-proof. Are you in the wrong thread? You are starting to prove that you are. Your links, made enough sense that I actually looked through them. No proof for the existence of God there, are you in the wrong thread? You are starting to prove you are. |
|
|
|
|
Religion infects people minds. Religious people can't think for themselves most of the times. For example when there was a huge debate about gay rights and gay marriage, a lot of religious people opposed to them ONLY because it was what their religion dictated. NOT because they thought about it and determined it was bad, they didn't even think for themselves and chose to blindly obey what an old book told them.
Same thing happens with abortion and I am personally against abortion but again most religious people are against abortion just because of their religion NOT because they studied the issue. This keeps happening and will keep happening because these people can't critically think (Note: not every religious person is like this but a lot are)
|
|
|
|
and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.
Christianity has not always been a peaceful religion. Ever wonder why there was a furore about Obama using the word 'crusade' against terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religionNo I didn't ever wonder about why Obama did some stupid thing, because that's, well, what he does. I assumed that since he was the US president, he would be considered as Mr Right by all Americans.  Wow.... No, people here I know form a solid line of he "Mr. Wronger than Wrong in his Wrongness". Lot of propaganda outside of the US on the subject of Obama. But consider, if Christianity erred when rulers and tyrants used it as a crutch for personal gain, then it is that much worst that Islam codifes the state and religion theocratically. Oh dear you make wrong interpretation about Islam... Even the muslims tends making wrong interpretation. The Prophet Muhammed never codifies politic in the Quran-- which many muslims sometimes wrongly interpreted it. The idea of hating people also wrong. Islam teach about peace and love, not war and hateful. If a muslim did that, he or she actually doing it for himself...not the religion order it to hate. There is no wrong interpretation. The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert. [Note: The verse says to fight unbelievers "wherever you find them". Even if the context is a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those "unbelievers" who are not on the battlefield. In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the 'fighting' of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield. This is only 1 passage, there are plenty more where it's clear what he orders and it happens the same with many other religions including Christianity. |
|
|
|
Back in the days when there was Bitcoin and just Satoshi testing it, how did other early adopters of bitcoins came to know about it? Did he advertise about btc somewhere to attract people's attention to this new technology? How did bitcoin users initially rose from zero to millions ?
He asked advice and testers on message boards and eventually bitcointalk sprung up out of that. I think when it really hit off was when mtgox started trading bitcoin, and more when a pizza got traded for 10000 bitcoins. Some groups and websites started accepting bitcoin at the start, like wikileaks which started accepting bitcoin as donations, there is also the infamous silk road deepweb site that sold all kinds of drugs and started accepting bitcoins. A lot of other criminals and criminal organizations started using it until today, a big part of bitcoin success is definitely thanks to criminals and even terrorists. |
|
|
|
So badecker ''proof'' has been debunked by himself and me. He said cause and effect alone is not enough to prove god existence and I debunked the rest : https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-debunkedYou assume the first cause, motor, etc... is God, which is that, only an assumption, there is no evidence for it. You never explain what you mean by machines, then you say animals use machines like rocks and then you say machines that exist in nature are far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. So a rock is far more advanced than a TV by your understanding. Then you say, The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker. A wild assumption again but ok, however you do not stop there you also say it's God, another assumption with no evidence supporting it. He ignored it, of course but can you blame him? He has nothing now. There you go again, saying that you debunked something, without expressing the debunking. I get it, however. You don't appear to even know how to look up the word "machine" in the dictionary or encyclopedia. So, how could you even understand enough about proof for anything to attempt to debunk it? It's amazing you can even type anything into the computer at all! No no, you won't get away from this one. ''All around us, in nature and the universe we see machine-like operations. These operations are extremely complex inside life and the cells. Machines have makers.'' (Where did you get the idea of machines have makers, you said that a monkey using a rock is a machine, how does that tell you it has a maker, how exactly did you get to that conclusion)(You also still haven't defined what machine-like operations actually mean, then you post a bunch of videos explaining how cells work, ok?) ''The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker - God. Machines have makers.'' (Again assumptions for no reason, how do you know advanced machines of the universe have an advanced maker and how do you know the advanced maker is god) 1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 1A) Firstly this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition isn't always a pure pathway to truth (i.e. - intuition states that the Sun goes around the Earth). There may indeed always be a cause for anything and everything that has or ever will come into existence, including whatever came into existence at the Big Bang event (the postulated beginning of our Universe), but that cause isn't always evident. Some quantum physicists would in fact claim that there are uncaused things (i.e. - radioactivity). 1B) Whatever cause in itself that has come into existence has, IMHO, thus resulted from a previous cause, which had a previous cause which had a previous cause and that chain can be extended as far back as you wish. Stated another way, there is no such thing as a First Cause. 1C) Whatever thing that came into existence came into existence from a previous thing(s) which existed and which in turn came into existence from a previous thing(s) which in turn came into existence from yet a previous thing and so on as far back as you wish to go. Stated another way, you can only bring something into existence from a previous something. You cannot bring a material something into existence from pure nothingness or from anything immaterial. 2) Premise: The Universe began to exist. 2A) I need note here that the "Universe" is defined as the sum total of all the bits and pieces that collectively make up the, or our, "Universe". The "Universe" is just the label we give to all of those bits and pieces (particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks, planets, stars, etc.) that came into existence in-the-beginning or later emerged into existence out of simpler states (i.e. – molecules from atoms). 2B) The assumption here is that our Universe is the be-all-and-end-all of the Cosmos**. While that may be the case, it's not necessarily so. Just because you came into existence doesn't mean that others don't also exist. Our Universe could be one of many. There could be parallel universes or even a postulated Multiverse or Megaverse - maybe. 3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause. 3A) The effect (resulting from the cause) of the Universe coming into existence or coming into being is called the Big Bang event, so the cause of the Universe (i.e. - the cause of the Big Bang event) was something prior to the Big Bang event. If the Universe had a cause then that cause was obviously pre-Universe or before the Big Bang event. 3B) That's where the cosmological buck has to stop since we can't observe or measure anything prior to the Big Bang event. 3C) In context all we can say is that our Universe came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang event and that the Big Bang event had a cause. That says nothing about the larger context as suggested in 2B. It could be that our Universe popped into existence from within a larger Cosmos just like a baby pops out of the womb at birth. 4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God. 4A) Nearly all theists state that the cause of the Universe was due to an omnipresent (all-present), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), all-loving, perfectly moral, and perfectly benevolent Almighty Being (i.e. - God). However these traits along with an entity who is itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, and space-less; an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will, aren't verified; aren't all mutually inclusive and logical, with many an inherent philosophical inconsistency as well as many being actually contradicted by Biblical chapter-and-verse passages (i.e. - God is hardly all-loving). 4B) But a supernatural deity with some or all of these traits is also a total fallacy even if for no other reason than that the Cosmos has to be eternal (temporally infinite) since as I noted above there can be no First Cause and because you can't, and not even God can, create something material from the immaterial. It's a logical contradiction to postulate the creation / existence of an absolute something from an absolute state of pure nothingness and even God has to conform to logic (i.e. - God can't create a spherical cube). If you can't create something from nothing then something has always existed. If the Cosmos is infinite or endlessly cyclic, an infinitely repeating causal loop where A causes B and B in turn causes A, then what need for a God? If therefore, as theists want, that the Cosmos is finite since infinities aren't possible (i.e. - they tend to throw spanners into theistic philosophies - see 4D), then God too is temporally finite, therefore had a beginning and therefore had a cause. That of course contradicts the concept of an eternal deity and raises the obvious question, what caused God? If God is eternal then God created the Cosmos and our Universe an infinite time ago which is clearly not the case. 4C) Since science can't explain or actually identify the "cause" that caused the existence of our Universe, on the grounds that the cause preceded the Big Bang event and thus this cause can't be observed or measured, theists step into the gap and conclude that God is that cause. This God-of-the-gaps conclusion is also a fallacy since there are numerous other alternatives. The cause of the Universe could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any deity or deities from any of the world's hundreds of creation mythologies. Maybe it was just a natural Big Crunch (a contracting universe) turning inside out at crunch time into a Big Bang; maybe an unknown and perhaps unknowable other natural cause we haven’t imagined yet; perhaps a quantum fluctuation; even perhaps (and this is my bias) a mortal, fallible, flesh-and-blood computer / software programmer fills the gap. God is only one hypothesis of many. 4D) Theists, even some cosmologists mistakenly say that there can't be an infinite Cosmos due to entropy (the state of useable energy available). An infinite Cosmos would have attained a state of maximum entropy an infinite time ago but that is not what we observe. I contend that at the moment of the Big Bang the clock was reset to time equals zero; the Universe was restored to original factory settings (including a state of minimum entropy). Consider this analogy. You only started ageing, started running down, and started increasing your entropy, at your conception. That's when your clock started. That state of conception was your original factory condition. What came before was irrelevant since as far as you are concerned, there was no before (although clearly there was). You had a cause therefore there was a state that existed before you. That cause was your parents and their state of entropy is an irrelevance as far as you (their child) is concerned at conception. Thanks for this nice long post. Most of it is simply information, or talk without anything to back it. About machines having makers. Show us an example of a machine that doesn't have a maker. How in the world silly are you, that you need me to express to you that all you need to do is look at any "label" on any machine to find out who its maker is? Did you skip elementary school? Or did you only flunk it. Oh look at him, he can't even argue anymore, poor badecker. ''Most of it is simply information'' Ok? A tree doesn't have a maker or a rock or a mountain. Look it's ok, I know you feel bad that someone actually destroyed your arguments but don't be so low to post this crap. As I said in the long post, you assume many things without anything to back it either. You assume things are created by makers but assumptions aren't always right. Don't cry, shhh, it's ok. Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over) There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S) Through modern science, specifically physics, natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is impossible — according to our current understanding of physics — to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is stochastic and might be uncaused, providing an arguable counterexample to the assumption that everything must have a cause. An objection to this counterexample is that knowledge regarding such phenomena is limited and there may be an underlying but presently unknown cause. However, if the causal status of radioactive decay is unknown then the truth of the premise that 'everything has a cause' is indeterminate rather than false. In either case, the first cause argument is rendered ineffective. All that typing, and still no rebuttal to the proof that God exists. Are you in the wrong thread? I will quote you again on something ''Simply stating that there is no proof doesn't make it so.'' So simply saying there is no rebuttal doesn't make it so. Thanks for helping me help you, I think your subconscious is betraying you. I don't know if you are trolling now or just unwilling to accept the truth. I don't think you are a troll but fuck, you would be the best troll ever but then again you are just probably too delusional at this point and you simply delete, anything that proves your God doesn't exist, from your brain. Well it was fun badecker. I guess it's time to move on, I don't think there is no reason for me to keep arguing with you at this point. Hopefully my posts helped people understand that God doesn't exist and that being a christian ( or any other religion really ) can be a ''mental illness'' not exactly like what we describe as a mental illness but close enough. It's pretty amazing the lengths someone would go, to deny 90% of science just so his belief can exist, this definitely can be dangerous. |
|
|
|
So badecker ''proof'' has been debunked by himself and me. He said cause and effect alone is not enough to prove god existence and I debunked the rest : https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-debunkedYou assume the first cause, motor, etc... is God, which is that, only an assumption, there is no evidence for it. You never explain what you mean by machines, then you say animals use machines like rocks and then you say machines that exist in nature are far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. So a rock is far more advanced than a TV by your understanding. Then you say, The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker. A wild assumption again but ok, however you do not stop there you also say it's God, another assumption with no evidence supporting it. He ignored it, of course but can you blame him? He has nothing now. There you go again, saying that you debunked something, without expressing the debunking. I get it, however. You don't appear to even know how to look up the word "machine" in the dictionary or encyclopedia. So, how could you even understand enough about proof for anything to attempt to debunk it? It's amazing you can even type anything into the computer at all! No no, you won't get away from this one. ''All around us, in nature and the universe we see machine-like operations. These operations are extremely complex inside life and the cells. Machines have makers.'' (Where did you get the idea of machines have makers, you said that a monkey using a rock is a machine, how does that tell you it has a maker, how exactly did you get to that conclusion)(You also still haven't defined what machine-like operations actually mean, then you post a bunch of videos explaining how cells work, ok?) ''The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker - God. Machines have makers.'' (Again assumptions for no reason, how do you know advanced machines of the universe have an advanced maker and how do you know the advanced maker is god) 1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 1A) Firstly this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition isn't always a pure pathway to truth (i.e. - intuition states that the Sun goes around the Earth). There may indeed always be a cause for anything and everything that has or ever will come into existence, including whatever came into existence at the Big Bang event (the postulated beginning of our Universe), but that cause isn't always evident. Some quantum physicists would in fact claim that there are uncaused things (i.e. - radioactivity). 1B) Whatever cause in itself that has come into existence has, IMHO, thus resulted from a previous cause, which had a previous cause which had a previous cause and that chain can be extended as far back as you wish. Stated another way, there is no such thing as a First Cause. 1C) Whatever thing that came into existence came into existence from a previous thing(s) which existed and which in turn came into existence from a previous thing(s) which in turn came into existence from yet a previous thing and so on as far back as you wish to go. Stated another way, you can only bring something into existence from a previous something. You cannot bring a material something into existence from pure nothingness or from anything immaterial. 2) Premise: The Universe began to exist. 2A) I need note here that the "Universe" is defined as the sum total of all the bits and pieces that collectively make up the, or our, "Universe". The "Universe" is just the label we give to all of those bits and pieces (particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks, planets, stars, etc.) that came into existence in-the-beginning or later emerged into existence out of simpler states (i.e. – molecules from atoms). 2B) The assumption here is that our Universe is the be-all-and-end-all of the Cosmos**. While that may be the case, it's not necessarily so. Just because you came into existence doesn't mean that others don't also exist. Our Universe could be one of many. There could be parallel universes or even a postulated Multiverse or Megaverse - maybe. 3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause. 3A) The effect (resulting from the cause) of the Universe coming into existence or coming into being is called the Big Bang event, so the cause of the Universe (i.e. - the cause of the Big Bang event) was something prior to the Big Bang event. If the Universe had a cause then that cause was obviously pre-Universe or before the Big Bang event. 3B) That's where the cosmological buck has to stop since we can't observe or measure anything prior to the Big Bang event. 3C) In context all we can say is that our Universe came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang event and that the Big Bang event had a cause. That says nothing about the larger context as suggested in 2B. It could be that our Universe popped into existence from within a larger Cosmos just like a baby pops out of the womb at birth. 4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God. 4A) Nearly all theists state that the cause of the Universe was due to an omnipresent (all-present), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), all-loving, perfectly moral, and perfectly benevolent Almighty Being (i.e. - God). However these traits along with an entity who is itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, and space-less; an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will, aren't verified; aren't all mutually inclusive and logical, with many an inherent philosophical inconsistency as well as many being actually contradicted by Biblical chapter-and-verse passages (i.e. - God is hardly all-loving). 4B) But a supernatural deity with some or all of these traits is also a total fallacy even if for no other reason than that the Cosmos has to be eternal (temporally infinite) since as I noted above there can be no First Cause and because you can't, and not even God can, create something material from the immaterial. It's a logical contradiction to postulate the creation / existence of an absolute something from an absolute state of pure nothingness and even God has to conform to logic (i.e. - God can't create a spherical cube). If you can't create something from nothing then something has always existed. If the Cosmos is infinite or endlessly cyclic, an infinitely repeating causal loop where A causes B and B in turn causes A, then what need for a God? If therefore, as theists want, that the Cosmos is finite since infinities aren't possible (i.e. - they tend to throw spanners into theistic philosophies - see 4D), then God too is temporally finite, therefore had a beginning and therefore had a cause. That of course contradicts the concept of an eternal deity and raises the obvious question, what caused God? If God is eternal then God created the Cosmos and our Universe an infinite time ago which is clearly not the case. 4C) Since science can't explain or actually identify the "cause" that caused the existence of our Universe, on the grounds that the cause preceded the Big Bang event and thus this cause can't be observed or measured, theists step into the gap and conclude that God is that cause. This God-of-the-gaps conclusion is also a fallacy since there are numerous other alternatives. The cause of the Universe could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any deity or deities from any of the world's hundreds of creation mythologies. Maybe it was just a natural Big Crunch (a contracting universe) turning inside out at crunch time into a Big Bang; maybe an unknown and perhaps unknowable other natural cause we haven’t imagined yet; perhaps a quantum fluctuation; even perhaps (and this is my bias) a mortal, fallible, flesh-and-blood computer / software programmer fills the gap. God is only one hypothesis of many. 4D) Theists, even some cosmologists mistakenly say that there can't be an infinite Cosmos due to entropy (the state of useable energy available). An infinite Cosmos would have attained a state of maximum entropy an infinite time ago but that is not what we observe. I contend that at the moment of the Big Bang the clock was reset to time equals zero; the Universe was restored to original factory settings (including a state of minimum entropy). Consider this analogy. You only started ageing, started running down, and started increasing your entropy, at your conception. That's when your clock started. That state of conception was your original factory condition. What came before was irrelevant since as far as you are concerned, there was no before (although clearly there was). You had a cause therefore there was a state that existed before you. That cause was your parents and their state of entropy is an irrelevance as far as you (their child) is concerned at conception. Thanks for this nice long post. Most of it is simply information, or talk without anything to back it. About machines having makers. Show us an example of a machine that doesn't have a maker. How in the world silly are you, that you need me to express to you that all you need to do is look at any "label" on any machine to find out who its maker is? Did you skip elementary school? Or did you only flunk it. Oh look at him, he can't even argue anymore, poor badecker. ''Most of it is simply information'' Ok? A tree doesn't have a maker or a rock or a mountain. Look it's ok, I know you feel bad that someone actually destroyed your arguments but don't be so low to post this crap. As I said in the long post, you assume many things without anything to back it either. You assume things are created by makers but assumptions aren't always right. Don't cry, shhh, it's ok. Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over) There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S) Through modern science, specifically physics, natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is impossible — according to our current understanding of physics — to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is stochastic and might be uncaused, providing an arguable counterexample to the assumption that everything must have a cause. An objection to this counterexample is that knowledge regarding such phenomena is limited and there may be an underlying but presently unknown cause. However, if the causal status of radioactive decay is unknown then the truth of the premise that 'everything has a cause' is indeterminate rather than false. In either case, the first cause argument is rendered ineffective. |
|
|
|
Firstly, you can fully understand bible because the one who know the truly meaning is the one who wrote it. Second, our mind is limited. That's why we can't understand God's mind. Third, YOU NEED TO LEARN BIBLE IN THE RIGHT WAY AND IN DEPTH. IF YOU JUST READ AND UNDERSTAND IT LITERALLY, THEN IT'S ALL NONSENSE AND CONTRADICTION. PLEASE READ WITHIN THE CONTEXT, TIME AND PLACE, WHAT KIND OF WRITTEN WORK IS THAT. BIBLE WRITTEN BY VARIOUS PEOPLE IN VARIOUS AGE. LEARN BIBLE IN THE RIGHT WAY. You cant understand the bible and you cant understand God but you believe in him and know he exists, this for me seems extremely contradictory. If you cant fully understand God or the Bible then what's the point? If the bible is really the word of God, then it should be clear to anyone, it should be easy to understand to everyone because that's the only thing the almighty God left humanity, a book. If I understand the book literally is garbage, you say. Why would God do that? To deceive us? |
|
|
|
God exist many scientist proven that! Try to find your research  This without badecker is pretty boring, then again he got destroyed so he can't really comeback to say anything. If a scientist were to prove the existence of God right now he would for sure get a Nobel prize and would be the world most famous man alive. That is, obviously, not the case. Try to post your research in any case. |
|
|
|
Oh yeah? PROVE IT. The Eisenbeiss case is listed at #1. How EXACTLY are you going to explain what happened without considering the survival hypothesis?  http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtmlDo you even know what it means to be rational? I urge you to give this evidence some rational consideration. If you searched it you would have find debates about it. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120669Everything else as I said has been debunked. They are all anecdotal cases, there is no real evidence. A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. How do we test any of this? I can easily find 2000 cases of people experiencing ghosts encounters and even videos, does that prove ghosts exist? |
|
|
|
So badecker ''proof'' has been debunked by himself and me. He said cause and effect alone is not enough to prove god existence and I debunked the rest : https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-debunkedYou assume the first cause, motor, etc... is God, which is that, only an assumption, there is no evidence for it. You never explain what you mean by machines, then you say animals use machines like rocks and then you say machines that exist in nature are far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. So a rock is far more advanced than a TV by your understanding. Then you say, The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker. A wild assumption again but ok, however you do not stop there you also say it's God, another assumption with no evidence supporting it. He ignored it, of course but can you blame him? He has nothing now. There you go again, saying that you debunked something, without expressing the debunking. I get it, however. You don't appear to even know how to look up the word "machine" in the dictionary or encyclopedia. So, how could you even understand enough about proof for anything to attempt to debunk it? It's amazing you can even type anything into the computer at all! No no, you won't get away from this one. ''All around us, in nature and the universe we see machine-like operations. These operations are extremely complex inside life and the cells. Machines have makers.'' (Where did you get the idea of machines have makers, you said that a monkey using a rock is a machine, how does that tell you it has a maker, how exactly did you get to that conclusion)(You also still haven't defined what machine-like operations actually mean, then you post a bunch of videos explaining how cells work, ok?) ''The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker - God. Machines have makers.'' (Again assumptions for no reason, how do you know advanced machines of the universe have an advanced maker and how do you know the advanced maker is god) 1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 1A) Firstly this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition isn't always a pure pathway to truth (i.e. - intuition states that the Sun goes around the Earth). There may indeed always be a cause for anything and everything that has or ever will come into existence, including whatever came into existence at the Big Bang event (the postulated beginning of our Universe), but that cause isn't always evident. Some quantum physicists would in fact claim that there are uncaused things (i.e. - radioactivity). 1B) Whatever cause in itself that has come into existence has, IMHO, thus resulted from a previous cause, which had a previous cause which had a previous cause and that chain can be extended as far back as you wish. Stated another way, there is no such thing as a First Cause. 1C) Whatever thing that came into existence came into existence from a previous thing(s) which existed and which in turn came into existence from a previous thing(s) which in turn came into existence from yet a previous thing and so on as far back as you wish to go. Stated another way, you can only bring something into existence from a previous something. You cannot bring a material something into existence from pure nothingness or from anything immaterial. 2) Premise: The Universe began to exist. 2A) I need note here that the "Universe" is defined as the sum total of all the bits and pieces that collectively make up the, or our, "Universe". The "Universe" is just the label we give to all of those bits and pieces (particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks, planets, stars, etc.) that came into existence in-the-beginning or later emerged into existence out of simpler states (i.e. – molecules from atoms). 2B) The assumption here is that our Universe is the be-all-and-end-all of the Cosmos**. While that may be the case, it's not necessarily so. Just because you came into existence doesn't mean that others don't also exist. Our Universe could be one of many. There could be parallel universes or even a postulated Multiverse or Megaverse - maybe. 3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause. 3A) The effect (resulting from the cause) of the Universe coming into existence or coming into being is called the Big Bang event, so the cause of the Universe (i.e. - the cause of the Big Bang event) was something prior to the Big Bang event. If the Universe had a cause then that cause was obviously pre-Universe or before the Big Bang event. 3B) That's where the cosmological buck has to stop since we can't observe or measure anything prior to the Big Bang event. 3C) In context all we can say is that our Universe came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang event and that the Big Bang event had a cause. That says nothing about the larger context as suggested in 2B. It could be that our Universe popped into existence from within a larger Cosmos just like a baby pops out of the womb at birth. 4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God. 4A) Nearly all theists state that the cause of the Universe was due to an omnipresent (all-present), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), all-loving, perfectly moral, and perfectly benevolent Almighty Being (i.e. - God). However these traits along with an entity who is itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, and space-less; an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will, aren't verified; aren't all mutually inclusive and logical, with many an inherent philosophical inconsistency as well as many being actually contradicted by Biblical chapter-and-verse passages (i.e. - God is hardly all-loving). 4B) But a supernatural deity with some or all of these traits is also a total fallacy even if for no other reason than that the Cosmos has to be eternal (temporally infinite) since as I noted above there can be no First Cause and because you can't, and not even God can, create something material from the immaterial. It's a logical contradiction to postulate the creation / existence of an absolute something from an absolute state of pure nothingness and even God has to conform to logic (i.e. - God can't create a spherical cube). If you can't create something from nothing then something has always existed. If the Cosmos is infinite or endlessly cyclic, an infinitely repeating causal loop where A causes B and B in turn causes A, then what need for a God? If therefore, as theists want, that the Cosmos is finite since infinities aren't possible (i.e. - they tend to throw spanners into theistic philosophies - see 4D), then God too is temporally finite, therefore had a beginning and therefore had a cause. That of course contradicts the concept of an eternal deity and raises the obvious question, what caused God? If God is eternal then God created the Cosmos and our Universe an infinite time ago which is clearly not the case. 4C) Since science can't explain or actually identify the "cause" that caused the existence of our Universe, on the grounds that the cause preceded the Big Bang event and thus this cause can't be observed or measured, theists step into the gap and conclude that God is that cause. This God-of-the-gaps conclusion is also a fallacy since there are numerous other alternatives. The cause of the Universe could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any deity or deities from any of the world's hundreds of creation mythologies. Maybe it was just a natural Big Crunch (a contracting universe) turning inside out at crunch time into a Big Bang; maybe an unknown and perhaps unknowable other natural cause we haven’t imagined yet; perhaps a quantum fluctuation; even perhaps (and this is my bias) a mortal, fallible, flesh-and-blood computer / software programmer fills the gap. God is only one hypothesis of many. 4D) Theists, even some cosmologists mistakenly say that there can't be an infinite Cosmos due to entropy (the state of useable energy available). An infinite Cosmos would have attained a state of maximum entropy an infinite time ago but that is not what we observe. I contend that at the moment of the Big Bang the clock was reset to time equals zero; the Universe was restored to original factory settings (including a state of minimum entropy). Consider this analogy. You only started ageing, started running down, and started increasing your entropy, at your conception. That's when your clock started. That state of conception was your original factory condition. What came before was irrelevant since as far as you are concerned, there was no before (although clearly there was). You had a cause therefore there was a state that existed before you. That cause was your parents and their state of entropy is an irrelevance as far as you (their child) is concerned at conception. |
|
|
|
So badecker ''proof'' has been debunked by himself and me. He said cause and effect alone is not enough to prove god existence and I debunked the rest : https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-debunkedYou assume the first cause, motor, etc... is God, which is that, only an assumption, there is no evidence for it. You never explain what you mean by machines, then you say animals use machines like rocks and then you say machines that exist in nature are far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. So a rock is far more advanced than a TV by your understanding. Then you say, The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker. A wild assumption again but ok, however you do not stop there you also say it's God, another assumption with no evidence supporting it. He ignored it, of course but can you blame him? He has nothing now. |
|
|
|
Af newbie is an expert on mental health? I am skeptical. Have you read the link or are you going to try to avoid talking about it. You asked for arguments against your shitty proof and I delivered, do you have questions or perhaps there is something there that you don't agree with? |
|
|
|
Badecker is a religious fanatic, of course he would deny evolution. He believes himself to be some kind of renowned scientist, he reinterprets and redefines scientific laws, he believes in God but he is not religious, he is a God himself as he knows God's will, he understands how God is and he is also kind to forgive us for our blasphemy. He might also talk to God and save us from his wrath if we maybe say that he is right and the rest of the world as we know it is not. He does with science the same that he does with his religion. He claims in its name but denies it. Some might say he is full of himself but I have to disagree. He is not full of himself. He is full of shit. It is a law of science that a simple theory is more plausible than a complicated one. Another law is that a plausible theory must adequately address the entire body of evidence. What is the plausible and simple theory/explanation for the 40 cases from AECES? Answer: Survival of the personality. I perceive that non-survival explanations given by you are neither adequate, nor simple. I'm sorry, but how did you link your answer with my post which was about Badecker? I need some time to read all those cases, research and give you my opinion on them, so you have no answer from me, yet you replied to my post about Badecker as if it were my opinion on that matter. Thanks for reading the cases, they really are, in my opinion, some of the strongest proof available. I am still waiting for a rebuttal for these cases, it must include an explanation that is simple and adequate, but to me it seems that survival is the most simple and adequate. I am still waiting for a rebuttal of the top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body. These observations strongly support the survival hypothesis. What do atheists and humanists have to say about the compelling evidence presented here? How could a rational atheist explain this evidence? There is not even one post of real discussion of the evidence by the pseudo-skeptics in this thread. The 'skeptics' in this thread are embarrassing themselves when they should be examining the ideas presented above. ''some of the strongest proof available.'' Give me a fucking break, they are all bullshit. There is no real testable evidence for any of them, they rely on eye witnesses. Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing. http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=22550Everything is debunked there, many times. Don't post shit like this please. Eyewitnesses who are reliable are a good source of evidence. Medical records are an example of evidence from reliable eyewitnesses. So are historical records like the ones presented. eyewitnesses who are reliable?? What does that mean? For further questions you can read it all on the link: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=22550literally every story is debunked there. |
|
|
|
Badecker is a religious fanatic, of course he would deny evolution. He believes himself to be some kind of renowned scientist, he reinterprets and redefines scientific laws, he believes in God but he is not religious, he is a God himself as he knows God's will, he understands how God is and he is also kind to forgive us for our blasphemy. He might also talk to God and save us from his wrath if we maybe say that he is right and the rest of the world as we know it is not. He does with science the same that he does with his religion. He claims in its name but denies it. Some might say he is full of himself but I have to disagree. He is not full of himself. He is full of shit. It is a law of science that a simple theory is more plausible than a complicated one. Another law is that a plausible theory must adequately address the entire body of evidence. What is the plausible and simple theory/explanation for the 40 cases from AECES? Answer: Survival of the personality. I perceive that non-survival explanations given by you are neither adequate, nor simple. I'm sorry, but how did you link your answer with my post which was about Badecker? I need some time to read all those cases, research and give you my opinion on them, so you have no answer from me, yet you replied to my post about Badecker as if it were my opinion on that matter. Thanks for reading the cases, they really are, in my opinion, some of the strongest proof available. I am still waiting for a rebuttal for these cases, it must include an explanation that is simple and adequate, but to me it seems that survival is the most simple and adequate. I am still waiting for a rebuttal of the top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body. These observations strongly support the survival hypothesis. What do atheists and humanists have to say about the compelling evidence presented here? How could a rational atheist explain this evidence? There is not even one post of real discussion of the evidence by the pseudo-skeptics in this thread. The 'skeptics' in this thread are embarrassing themselves when they should be examining the ideas presented above. ''some of the strongest proof available.'' Give me a fucking break, they are all bullshit. There is no real testable evidence for any of them, they rely on eye witnesses. Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing. http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=22550Everything is debunked there, many times. Don't post shit like this please. |
|
|
|
God is real and i know JESUS Christ because Jesus revealed himself to me so many timed
This is something that pretty much any religious person will tell you if you ask them how do they know god is real. The problem with this (and it's a big problem) is that you don't know for sure if it was God or a hallucination. A mentally ill person thinks he is superman, is he actually superman? Of course not but he definitely thinks he is. Another problem is that literally everyone claims that, whether is a christian or a muslim, so which one is right? Which God was the real one because it can't be both. What if what the muslim saw was something the devil did to deceive him. What if the christian is deceived by another devil from another religion. The bottom line is that you cannot test any of this and you gain nothing by using faith. If the islamic religion is right then everyone who is a christian goes to hell and vice-versa. So even if there is a God, you can't know which one is the real one so what's the point and why would God do something like that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
