Scientific proof that God exists?

[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.

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.

Episode 10, 'The retard always proves the point' is as short as it can get and as simple as it can get: The idiot took on a religious point of view (
I wonder if he will change on time to be saved.) although he always blames it. No reason to spend more time on this, he just proved that my last analysis regarding his hypocrisy was on track. Yes, he is dumb, of course he does not realize it.

[1714193888]

1714193888

[1714193888]

1714193888

[1714193888]

1714193888

[1714193888]

1714193888

[1714193888]

1714193888

[1714193888]

1714193888

[sirazimuth]

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.

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.

apparently qwik2learn is not exactly too qwik2learn  

[qwik2learn]

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.shtml

Do you even know what it means to be rational? I urge you to give this evidence some rational consideration.

[qwik2learn]

To be "rational" is synonymous with a "sane" or "functional" way of thinking. If one is "rational," then in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.
Earlier discussion here:
https://archive.is/SPxit

The survival hypothesis is a new idea that is being presented here with over 100 points of evidence to support it:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a35
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Cases_Suggestive_of_Reincarnation

Many eminent researchers agree that the brain cannot yield the mind, this strongly suggests that the mind is independent of physical reality and that mind may survive without the brain as a vehicle.
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

Skeptics use misdirection and fallacious reasoning in order to deny the truth of survival:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection

Why do you lost irrelevant one-liners, sirazimuth? It seems to me that you choose NOT to use rational thinking!

[Astargath]

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.shtml

Do 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=120669

Everything 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?

[stats]

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.

You always call out others for not staying on topic.....

Where in your statement above is your "Scientific proof the god exists?"

Come on puddle duck, if you are going to point out the flaws in others, you might want to make sure you don't commit the same act.

Otherwise, that would condemn you to be a hypocrite. "Shock Horror"

[Lieldoryn]

Scientific evidence that God exists is not and cannot be because God is a fiction. All "miracles" which says religion is not possible to verify because they only. The religious leaders specifically do not allow scholars to facts that their myths have not been debunked. Religion is fake and nothing more.

[jerry23]

Ofcourse god exist! do you think why you have your conscience huh your feeling and of course the love, scientific proof that god exist

[peter23]

God exist many scientist proven that! Try to find your research

[Astargath]

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.

[Horacewoodwood]

God exist many scientist proven that! Try to find your research

I have such a strong feeling that this is Badecker posting from alts. It happened before, he also uses the smiley at the end. But I have no evidence, I'm no Badecker to claim things without evidence, so it might just be in my head.

[shelly154]

Day to night- night to day without any machinery that was a strong proof that god exist

[BADecker]

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.

You always call out others for not staying on topic.....

Where in your statement above is your "Scientific proof the god exists?"

Come on puddle duck, if you are going to point out the flaws in others, you might want to make sure you don't commit the same act.

Otherwise, that would condemn you to be a hypocrite. "Shock Horror"

What's the matter, puplet? You haven't ever posted any proof for or against God. Even your links haven't shown any rebuttable against the proof that God exists. Yet, I have even explained the proof, which you say you have rebutted, but have never shown rebuttal against.

Here it is again:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Come on. At last give us an attempt at rebuttal.

[BADecker]

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.shtml

Do 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=120669

Everything 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?

What is the exact point of your link? A little of it talks about people believing in God. This doesn't have anything to do with scientific proof for or against.

Since you don't understand the rebuttal you are speaking of, how can you know if anything is actually rebutted?

You are talking about testing scientific hypotheses. What does that have to do with proof that God exists?

There are many things you can ask me about the proof for that I will not be able to answer, because I don't know. But the proof for the existence of God is so extremely clear, that only people with an agenda wouldn't understand it... on purpose.

[BADecker]

Episode 10, 'The retard always proves the point' is as short as it can get and as simple as it can get: The idiot took on a religious point of view (
I wonder if he will change on time to be saved.) although he always blames it. No reason to spend more time on this, he just proved that my last analysis regarding his hypocrisy was on track. Yes, he is dumb, of course he does not realize it.

Finally, you are speaking about yourself with near clarity. One little step further, and you will be saved.

[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!

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.

[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.

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.

[Horacewoodwood]

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.

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.

Episode 11, 'The useless struggle of a comeback from an apologist that uses his brain against himself' or 'When retard takes on a whole new level'. As we can all see, Badecker grabbed his pair of balls and said 'Today I'll wreck them', he started getting aggressive, answering to everyone (I still don't understand why he keeps replying to me, but fuck it, it's his right to do so) and feeling proud for his deeds. He now believes he won a battle. Of course, in all this struggle he forgot he is stupid, but I am here to remind him and everyone else. No need for thanks, not all heroes wear capes. I won't quote every shit he posted, it's not worth it. But his reply to Astargath is priceless. Now, remember when I described how Badecker is a hypocrite for asking rebuttal and always ignoring everything because he is actually not capable of debating over his own 'proof'? Well, look at this one. Astargath came with a clean, on point rebuttal, as scientific as it can get considering Badecker's 'proof' is lucky to be considered pseudo science since 90% of it is just pure assumption and has absolutely nothing scientific in it. What did Badecker do? He said most of it is simply information, as if Astargath should of came with some mind blowing theories, accompanied by numbers and calculations as a reply to his shit post that he considers proof. He couldn't reply to anything Astargath wrote except for the machine part. Out of a huge rebuttal he could only reply regarding one sentence: machines have makers. Of course, it is easy to understand what Astargath was talking about. Badecker never defined the term machine used in his shit proof, never explained what he is talking about when saying 'advanced machines of the universe' so it is not understandable how he concluded that 'all machine have makers' since it is not clear what he is talking about. But instead of understanding that and explaining it to Astargath, Badecker went aggressive and tried to mock him for apparently not being able to see how all machines have makers since you can just look at the 'label'. Apart from laughing at this poor idiot that compares the Universe with whatever he defines as machines (he is talking about human made machines, of course) we can see how desperate this idiot is of controlling the situation, of mocking the truth in order to implement his religious immoral view, in order to rule as he wants. He does not obey moral rules, logic rules, rational rules, he only obeys his immoral cause, of repeating a lie until someone gives up and calls it truth just to have him back off. We can of course, make a little joke and see why he is named Badecker, since he is a Bad Decker (a decker is a man who believes to be a God among others) but the worrying truth is that our idiot who is also a hypocrite is also really bad intentioned. We must come to terms in the remaining 89 episodes and decide if he is more of an idiot, hypocrite or a son of a bitch. What is certain is that rebuttals for his shit 'proof' is useless since he will always ignore it and find a way to move attention from everyone to something else, as you can see in this case or any other cases in the pages before. With proper attention, good humor and nerves of steel we can see this hypocrite idiot son of a whore gone once and forever. Stay tuned, dear friends, episode 12 is coming sooner than we think.

[Horacewoodwood]

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.

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.

That was beautiful and incredibly well argumented. Bravo, sir. As I was saying, not all heroes wear capes.

[stats]

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.

You always call out others for not staying on topic.....

Where in your statement above is your "Scientific proof the god exists?"

Come on puddle duck, if you are going to point out the flaws in others, you might want to make sure you don't commit the same act.

Otherwise, that would condemn you to be a hypocrite. "Shock Horror"

What's the matter, puplet? You haven't ever posted any proof for or against God. Even your links haven't shown any rebuttable against the proof that God exists. Yet, I have even explained the proof, which you say you have rebutted, but have never shown rebuttal against.

Here it is again:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Come on. At last give us an attempt at rebuttal.

Try and read this slow..... it might help your understanding Puddleduck.

"You have provided no proof, therefore there is nothing to disprove".

Many people have pointed this out to you, but you fail to understand.

I believe that this may be my fault, that I gave you too much credit, when in actual fact you are a simpleton. That is my fault and I am sorry for over estimating your ability.

P.S. Thanks for the pet name. I like it.

P.S.S Thanks for not denying that you are a hypocrite.