Scientific proof that God exists?

[malikzfs]

God is real and i know JESUS Christ because Jesus revealed himself to me so many timed

[1714978088]

1714978088

[1714978088]

1714978088

[endenada]

yeah .. god is in reality, for sure, life is our experience which consists of the evolution and the god
evolution is technology and god is morality, internet is virtual, god is supra real, so, mundane and divine meet online
thus, god is real, virtual and suprareal (omnipresent) .... fiats, cryptos and divines ....
evolution (mundane technology) tends to dominate, on intrernet too, but god resists and reacts
axioms: "god is anything that is missing" and "god is reaction on the evolution's action"
join my websites over my profile, cheep lodging and divine account balances, bet all for all

[Horacewoodwood]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.

Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.

Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking.

Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links.

Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory.

You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.''

So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument

Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works.

You posted many times 4 links which supposedly are the proof of God, 3 of them are only about cause and effect and the other one also includes cause and effect. Then you say cause and effect doesn't prove God. If it doesn't why do you keep mentioning it?

The other ''proof'' is machine-like or the watchmaker argument, same thing really which is a very stupid argument anyways:

For those who are unfamiliar with the watchmaker analogy, it is a teleological argument for the existence of a Creator (in this case, God). A teleological argument is otherwise known as an “argument from design,” and asserts that there is an order to nature that is best explained by the presence of some kind of intelligent designer. The most current incarnation of this argument is, of course, Intelligent Design.

Anyway, the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this:

“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”
The point that Paley was trying to make is that a watch implies a watchmaker, and that the world is like a watch, in that the world implies a worldmaker. Obviously, there are many flaws to this analogy (the world isn’t even remotely comparable to a watch, for example), and in fact, Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Read it if you are looking for a wild time on a Saturday night.

In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved (ha ha) to include the notion of “irreducible complexity,” a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes.

But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree.

If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.

So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself.

By the way, reading this post from the start I found a really interesting post of yours badecker:

I agree with you. At present, we don't have a method that can prove the existence of God to anyone else. Least not that I am aware of. For whatever reason it seems you believe one way and I believe the opposite. You are not the one who has attempted the character assassination. Yours is more of a friendly reprimand; please pardon if I seemed to say more than that in a former post.
 

Thank you for the sort-of plus vote in red above.

Most of your talk, above, is in a religious or mystical direction. The science has not been rebutted. Common observation of nature has not been refuted.

Episode 9, 'A short story of an apologist who lied about his intentions and who was also stupid'. There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the stupidity of the religious idiot who believes we are somehow blind or as dumb as him not to see the hypocrisy of his 'proofs'. First off, he makes ridiculous claims that would even embarrass most creationists, claims that are not even backed up or believed by the religious people on this forum, they even think it is stupid and makes no sense. While anyone tries to start an argumentative conversation with him, he always labels things as 'religious' (although we all know that by definition he is religious) and considers it too low for his scientific knowledge (which tends to 0, he barely knows the definitions and proper usages of the laws he is talking about). Whatever anyone would say, he asks for 'scientific rebuttal' of his pseudo scientific proof. Here comes the hypocrisy, as you can see it clearly in the above quote (note that this happens absolutely each and every time): once someone completely debunks his pseudo scientific proof, he immediately ignores everything in the conversation and calls it 'religious', as you can see above, claiming his work has not been rebutted. He never uses counter argumentation, he just calls it religious and puts a smart ass smile in the end, as if he owned it. So the very own idiotic apologist that claims rebuttal for his pseudo science while promising a rebuttal of the rebuttal, never keeps his promise and always evades logical, rational, reasonable, scientific arguments because he can;t really face that, he is not prepared, he does not even own those ideas in the links, those are simple, fundamental creationist ideas copied from Bob Dutko cds. On the same cds you find guides on how to evade logical arguments, how to 'debate' with people that are intelligent in a hypocrite way in which you can take the public on your side with irrational arguments that seem 'well packaged'. Now we have proof that Badecker is even more and worse than an incredibly stupid man: he is a major hypocrite, he lies in his posts regarding his answers, he can not be trusted, he believes he is much smarter than almost anyone who does not agree with him (and I know exactly which church teaches those morals), he does not like religion but he is religious, and I am pretty sure we'll find out more disturbing things about our little retarded and hypocrite apologist, Badecker. Stay tuned for episode 10 boys, I'm not letting this dumb preacher go.

[stats]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.

Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.

Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking.

Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links.

Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory.

You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.''

So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument

Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works.

You posted many times 4 links which supposedly are the proof of God, 3 of them are only about cause and effect and the other one also includes cause and effect. Then you say cause and effect doesn't prove God. If it doesn't why do you keep mentioning it?

The other ''proof'' is machine-like or the watchmaker argument, same thing really which is a very stupid argument anyways:

For those who are unfamiliar with the watchmaker analogy, it is a teleological argument for the existence of a Creator (in this case, God). A teleological argument is otherwise known as an “argument from design,” and asserts that there is an order to nature that is best explained by the presence of some kind of intelligent designer. The most current incarnation of this argument is, of course, Intelligent Design.

Anyway, the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this:

“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”
The point that Paley was trying to make is that a watch implies a watchmaker, and that the world is like a watch, in that the world implies a worldmaker. Obviously, there are many flaws to this analogy (the world isn’t even remotely comparable to a watch, for example), and in fact, Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Read it if you are looking for a wild time on a Saturday night.

In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved (ha ha) to include the notion of “irreducible complexity,” a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes.

But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree.

If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.

So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself.

By the way, reading this post from the start I found a really interesting post of yours badecker:

I agree with you. At present, we don't have a method that can prove the existence of God to anyone else. Least not that I am aware of. For whatever reason it seems you believe one way and I believe the opposite. You are not the one who has attempted the character assassination. Yours is more of a friendly reprimand; please pardon if I seemed to say more than that in a former post.
 

Thank you for the sort-of plus vote in red above.

Most of your talk, above, is in a religious or mystical direction. The science has not been rebutted. Common observation of nature has not been refuted.

Episode 9, 'A short story of an apologist who lied about his intentions and who was also stupid'. There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the stupidity of the religious idiot who believes we are somehow blind or as dumb as him not to see the hypocrisy of his 'proofs'. First off, he makes ridiculous claims that would even embarrass most creationists, claims that are not even backed up or believed by the religious people on this forum, they even think it is stupid and makes no sense. While anyone tries to start an argumentative conversation with him, he always labels things as 'religious' (although we all know that by definition he is religious) and considers it too low for his scientific knowledge (which tends to 0, he barely knows the definitions and proper usages of the laws he is talking about). Whatever anyone would say, he asks for 'scientific rebuttal' of his pseudo scientific proof. Here comes the hypocrisy, as you can see it clearly in the above quote (note that this happens absolutely each and every time): once someone completely debunks his pseudo scientific proof, he immediately ignores everything in the conversation and calls it 'religious', as you can see above, claiming his work has not been rebutted. He never uses counter argumentation, he just calls it religious and puts a smart ass smile in the end, as if he owned it. So the very own idiotic apologist that claims rebuttal for his pseudo science while promising a rebuttal of the rebuttal, never keeps his promise and always evades logical, rational, reasonable, scientific arguments because he can;t really face that, he is not prepared, he does not even own those ideas in the links, those are simple, fundamental creationist ideas copied from Bob Dutko cds. On the same cds you find guides on how to evade logical arguments, how to 'debate' with people that are intelligent in a hypocrite way in which you can take the public on your side with irrational arguments that seem 'well packaged'. Now we have proof that Badecker is even more and worse than an incredibly stupid man: he is a major hypocrite, he lies in his posts regarding his answers, he can not be trusted, he believes he is much smarter than almost anyone who does not agree with him (and I know exactly which church teaches those morals), he does not like religion but he is religious, and I am pretty sure we'll find out more disturbing things about our little retarded and hypocrite apologist, Badecker. Stay tuned for episode 10 boys, I'm not letting this dumb preacher go.

This is definitely my favorite read.

Brings a smile to my face every time.

HA HA HA HA

[Astargath]

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.

[endenada]

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.

+1

Eventually, people would have to admit that belief in 'God' is essentially a mental disorder, a delusion.

It is no wonder people fight about who's 'God' is better.  Watching these debates Christian vs Muslim or Jews it is like watching mental patients arguing about their imaginary friends.  One guys tells the others "my guy flew to heaven on a winged horse", the other says that is nothing "my guy can walk on water", yet another guy would say "that is nothing my guy can separate waters and make a passage in the sea".  All equally ridiculous.

People who think they are proving the existence of God are really proving that they are insane.

That is very good text you sent to us ... thank you for not using emoticons and vulgar words! ... !
People need wonders and miracles (magical realism) for identify with or protract possibilities and abilities .... !
We all know about this kind of man made miracles .... style Harry Potter and David Copperfield .... !
I kid in US said to Zikalkis: "okay, when you say that you are secular god, well, revoke snow, so i can walk my dog!"
Another teenager said: "okay, if so, jump from airplane and make picture of yourself!" ... haha ... !
My broadest definition of the word god is: "god is anything that is missing!" ... thus, the first instance of the god is as chewing gum, against my intuition, as when your car's tank gets a hole you miss chewing gum to plug in ...!

[qwik2learn]

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.

[Astargath]

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=22550

Everything is debunked there, many times. Don't post shit like this please.

[qwik2learn]

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=22550

Everything 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.

[Astargath]

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=22550

Everything 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=22550
literally every story is debunked there.

[Prohodimec]

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=22550

Everything 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=22550
literally every story is debunked there.

I'm a bit shocked by how much the world's big movement of skeptics and atheists today is. The point is that the majority of people who live in faith is unshakable and it will be very difficult to convince them of something else and I do not understand why it will be necessary at all.

[af_newbie]

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=22550

Everything 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=22550
literally every story is debunked there.

I'm a bit shocked by how much the world's big movement of skeptics and atheists today is. The point is that the majority of people who live in faith is unshakable and it will be very difficult to convince them of something else and I do not understand why it will be necessary at all.

When you are schizophrenic or delusional you might never be able to cure yourself.  You will remain delusional until you die.

It does not matter that people are delusional when they do not cause harm to others or themselves.  But unfortunately, that is not the case when it comes to religious delusion.  These people are dangerous, borderline insane.

When people think they have the right to kill others because of their delusion, that is a problem.

In the future, religions will be treated as a medical issue.  We need to find the "religion" gene and eradicate it from the gene pool.

[qwik2learn]

Af newbie is an expert on mental health?
I am skeptical. 

[Astargath]

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]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.

Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.

Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking.

Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links.

Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory.

You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.''

So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument

Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works.

You posted many times 4 links which supposedly are the proof of God, 3 of them are only about cause and effect and the other one also includes cause and effect. Then you say cause and effect doesn't prove God. If it doesn't why do you keep mentioning it?

The other ''proof'' is machine-like or the watchmaker argument, same thing really which is a very stupid argument anyways:

For those who are unfamiliar with the watchmaker analogy, it is a teleological argument for the existence of a Creator (in this case, God). A teleological argument is otherwise known as an “argument from design,” and asserts that there is an order to nature that is best explained by the presence of some kind of intelligent designer. The most current incarnation of this argument is, of course, Intelligent Design.

Anyway, the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this:

“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”
The point that Paley was trying to make is that a watch implies a watchmaker, and that the world is like a watch, in that the world implies a worldmaker. Obviously, there are many flaws to this analogy (the world isn’t even remotely comparable to a watch, for example), and in fact, Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Read it if you are looking for a wild time on a Saturday night.

In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved (ha ha) to include the notion of “irreducible complexity,” a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes.

But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree.

If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.

So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself.

By the way, reading this post from the start I found a really interesting post of yours badecker:

I agree with you. At present, we don't have a method that can prove the existence of God to anyone else. Least not that I am aware of. For whatever reason it seems you believe one way and I believe the opposite. You are not the one who has attempted the character assassination. Yours is more of a friendly reprimand; please pardon if I seemed to say more than that in a former post.
 

Thank you for the sort-of plus vote in red above.

Most of your talk, above, is in a religious or mystical direction. The science has not been rebutted. Common observation of nature has not been refuted.

Episode 9, 'A short story of an apologist who lied about his intentions and who was also stupid'. There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the stupidity of the religious idiot who believes we are somehow blind or as dumb as him not to see the hypocrisy of his 'proofs'. First off, he makes ridiculous claims that would even embarrass most creationists, claims that are not even backed up or believed by the religious people on this forum, they even think it is stupid and makes no sense. While anyone tries to start an argumentative conversation with him, he always labels things as 'religious' (although we all know that by definition he is religious) and considers it too low for his scientific knowledge (which tends to 0, he barely knows the definitions and proper usages of the laws he is talking about). Whatever anyone would say, he asks for 'scientific rebuttal' of his pseudo scientific proof. Here comes the hypocrisy, as you can see it clearly in the above quote (note that this happens absolutely each and every time): once someone completely debunks his pseudo scientific proof, he immediately ignores everything in the conversation and calls it 'religious', as you can see above, claiming his work has not been rebutted. He never uses counter argumentation, he just calls it religious and puts a smart ass smile in the end, as if he owned it. So the very own idiotic apologist that claims rebuttal for his pseudo science while promising a rebuttal of the rebuttal, never keeps his promise and always evades logical, rational, reasonable, scientific arguments because he can;t really face that, he is not prepared, he does not even own those ideas in the links, those are simple, fundamental creationist ideas copied from Bob Dutko cds. On the same cds you find guides on how to evade logical arguments, how to 'debate' with people that are intelligent in a hypocrite way in which you can take the public on your side with irrational arguments that seem 'well packaged'. Now we have proof that Badecker is even more and worse than an incredibly stupid man: he is a major hypocrite, he lies in his posts regarding his answers, he can not be trusted, he believes he is much smarter than almost anyone who does not agree with him (and I know exactly which church teaches those morals), he does not like religion but he is religious, and I am pretty sure we'll find out more disturbing things about our little retarded and hypocrite apologist, Badecker. Stay tuned for episode 10 boys, I'm not letting this dumb preacher go.

HWW is not blind or dumb (well, maybe a little). Rather, he is a troll with an agenda.

I wonder if he will change on time to be saved.

[CoinCube]

When you are schizophrenic or delusional you might never be able to cure yourself.  You will remain delusional until you die. (True)

It does not matter that people are delusional when they do not cause harm to others or themselves.  But unfortunately, that is not the case when it comes to religious delusion.  These people are dangerous, borderline insane. (False)

When people think they have the right to kill others because of their delusion, that is a problem. (True)

In the future, religions will be treated as a medical issue.  We need to find the "religion" gene and eradicate it from the gene pool. (False)

Truth followed by falsehood. You af_newbie simply do not seem to understand religion.
Since we are on a bitcoin forum let me frame this in the language of bitcoin maybe that will help you understand.

What is bitcoin?
Bitcoin is an overarching consensus system organized around the concept of sound money. Those voluntarily participating in this consensus are required to behave transparently and do work with the ultimate aim of ensuring all network participants abide by the greater consensus. Nodes who choose not to follow the protocol, miners who submit invalid proof of work, and users who try to spend bitcoins without verified private keys, are simply ignored by the greater consensus.

Bitcoin is a form of group selection and group selection entails that group behavior be referenced to something outside the group. This something outside is the concept groups cohere and organize around. It is what they cooperate to promote. In the case of bitcoin the referenced object is the conceptual idea of a sound and ideal money.

What is religion (specifically ethical monotheism)?
Religion is also a form of group selection. It is the far more ambitious consensus that involves organizing humanity around the external concept of God. Once you understand this you understand the transformative nature of religion in both historic and modern human societies.

In any network some actors behave badly. They seek to impose their vision through force rather then consensus. In bitcoin we see this with the threat of a miner instigated contentious hardfork and also in the threat of nodes forcing change with a UASF. In religion we see it with certain sects seeking converts by the sword. In all cases this behavior is unhelpful and it will cease and fade out gradually over time as it becomes clear to all that voluntary consensus and cooperation not force is the ultimate path forward.

Religion is the proximate method of Group Selection in humans. Below is a nice article on this by Bruce Charlton if you are interested in reading more.
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/2015/11/religion-as-proximate-method-of-group.html?m=1

As an aside this may also be why you will notice that the very religious on this forum often seem to be the most optimistic about bitcoin and confident in it's long term success. The religious have an innate affinity for consensus networks as they are already active members of one.  

[Astargath]

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-debunked

You 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.

[BADecker]

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-debunked

You 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!

[Astargath]

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-debunked

You 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.

[qwik2learn]

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?

Did not find addressed the Eisenbeiss case listed as #1 on AECES. Many of the problems are not valid and rely on misdirection. For example it is a problem if a researcher "believes in God also" but prior beliefs are not exactly relevant to evaluating the presented evidence objectively. Also there was no plausible alternative hypothesis presented. Skeptics did not meet their burden of explaining the evidence simply and plausibly.