Scientific proof that God exists?

[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.

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.

Here's your failing, puplet.

Simply stating that there is no proof doesn't make it so.

Rebutting proof might be difficult, although not impossible, if the proof is wrong.

Rebutting non-proof should be rather easy, and certainly easier than rebutting proof.

But you haven't rebutted anything.

At times you have simply said that you rebutted proof.

At other times you have said there isn't any proof to rebut.

You can't even make up your mind if there is proof or not. So, how could you do even the easy thing, and rebut any non-proof you might hope to find.

You do the only thing you can do. You blow hot air, and then print it up on this forum. All your talk is meaningless. The proof that all your talk is meaningless is in the previous few sentences.

[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.

Oh look at him, he can't even argue anymore, poor badecker. ''Most of it is simply information'' Ok? A tree doesn't have a maker or a rock or a mountain. Look it's ok, I know you feel bad that someone actually destroyed your arguments but don't be so low to post this crap. As I said in the long post, you assume many things without anything to back it either. You assume things are created by makers but assumptions aren't always right. Don't cry, shhh, it's ok.

Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over)

There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)

Through modern science, specifically physics, natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is impossible — according to our current understanding of physics — to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is stochastic and might be uncaused, providing an arguable counterexample to the assumption that everything must have a cause. An objection to this counterexample is that knowledge regarding such phenomena is limited and there may be an underlying but presently unknown cause. However, if the causal status of radioactive decay is unknown then the truth of the premise that 'everything has a cause' is indeterminate rather than false. In either case, the first cause argument is rendered ineffective.

All that typing, and still no rebuttal to the proof that God exists. Are you in the wrong thread?

[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.

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.

All that typing, and still no rebuttal to the proof that God exists. Are you in the wrong thread?

[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.

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.

Wow! The typing shrunk, but still no rebuttal to the proof that God exists. Are you still in the wrong thread?

[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.

Here's your failing, puplet.

Simply stating that there is no proof doesn't make it so.

Rebutting proof might be difficult, although not impossible, if the proof is wrong.

Rebutting non-proof should be rather easy, and certainly easier than rebutting proof.

But you haven't rebutted anything.

At times you have simply said that you rebutted proof.

At other times you have said there isn't any proof to rebut.

You can't even make up your mind if there is proof or not. So, how could you do even the easy thing, and rebut any non-proof you might hope to find.

You do the only thing you can do. You blow hot air, and then print it up on this forum. All your talk is meaningless. The proof that all your talk is meaningless is in the previous few sentences.

Wow.... all that writing and still no proof of your god's existence.

Are you in the wrong thread?

[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.

All that typing, and still no rebuttal to the proof that God exists. Are you in the wrong thread?

I will quote you again on something ''Simply stating that there is no proof doesn't make it so.'' So simply saying there is no rebuttal doesn't make it so. Thanks for helping me help you, I think your subconscious is betraying you. I don't know if you are trolling now or just unwilling to accept the truth. I don't think you are a troll but fuck, you would be the best troll ever but then again you are just probably too delusional at this point and you simply delete, anything that proves your God doesn't exist, from your brain. Well it was fun badecker. I guess it's time to move on, I don't think there is no reason for me to keep arguing with you at this point. Hopefully my posts helped people understand that God doesn't exist and that being a christian ( or any other religion really ) can be a ''mental illness'' not exactly like what we describe as a mental illness but close enough. It's pretty amazing the lengths someone would go, to deny 90% of science just so his belief can exist, this definitely can be dangerous.

[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.

Oh look at him, he can't even argue anymore, poor badecker. ''Most of it is simply information'' Ok? A tree doesn't have a maker or a rock or a mountain. Look it's ok, I know you feel bad that someone actually destroyed your arguments but don't be so low to post this crap. As I said in the long post, you assume many things without anything to back it either. You assume things are created by makers but assumptions aren't always right. Don't cry, shhh, it's ok.

Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over)

There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)

Through modern science, specifically physics, natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is impossible — according to our current understanding of physics — to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is stochastic and might be uncaused, providing an arguable counterexample to the assumption that everything must have a cause. An objection to this counterexample is that knowledge regarding such phenomena is limited and there may be an underlying but presently unknown cause. However, if the causal status of radioactive decay is unknown then the truth of the premise that 'everything has a cause' is indeterminate rather than false. In either case, the first cause argument is rendered ineffective.

All that typing, and still no rebuttal to the proof that God exists. Are you in the wrong thread?

I will quote you again on something ''Simply stating that there is no proof doesn't make it so.'' So simply saying there is no rebuttal doesn't make it so. Thanks for helping me help you, I think your subconscious is betraying you. I don't know if you are trolling now or just unwilling to accept the truth. I don't think you are a troll but fuck, you would be the best troll ever but then again you are just probably too delusional at this point and you simply delete, anything that proves your God doesn't exist, from your brain. Well it was fun badecker. I guess it's time to move on, I don't think there is no reason for me to keep arguing with you at this point. Hopefully my posts helped people understand that God doesn't exist and that being a christian ( or any other religion really ) can be a ''mental illness'' not exactly like what we describe as a mental illness but close enough. It's pretty amazing the lengths someone would go, to deny 90% of science just so his belief can exist, this definitely can be dangerous.

Your post, ^^^, made enough sense that I looked through it. No proof for or against the existence of God there. And no rebuttal of any proof or non-proof. Are you in the wrong thread? You are starting to prove that you are.

[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.

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.

Here's your failing, puplet.

Simply stating that there is no proof doesn't make it so.

Rebutting proof might be difficult, although not impossible, if the proof is wrong.

Rebutting non-proof should be rather easy, and certainly easier than rebutting proof.

But you haven't rebutted anything.

At times you have simply said that you rebutted proof.

At other times you have said there isn't any proof to rebut.

You can't even make up your mind if there is proof or not. So, how could you do even the easy thing, and rebut any non-proof you might hope to find.

You do the only thing you can do. You blow hot air, and then print it up on this forum. All your talk is meaningless. The proof that all your talk is meaningless is in the previous few sentences.

Wow.... all that writing and still no proof of your god's existence.

Are you in the wrong thread?

Oh that's right. You forgot to look above and click the links.   

[tayrey]

Well forgive me for simplying despite some of the long answers in previous posts but there will never be scientific proof that god exists because religion is a matter of faith, either you believe or you don't. The nature of faith is that if there were scientific proof there would be no such thing as faith and as such scientific proof of god contradicts the very nature of (most) religions.

[BADecker]

Well forgive me for simplying despite some of the long answers in previous posts but there will never be scientific proof that god exists because religion is a matter of faith, either you believe or you don't. The nature of faith is that if there were scientific proof there would be no such thing as faith and as such scientific proof of god contradicts the very nature of (most) religions.

Since atheists have a religion in atheism, but God isn't part of it, this shows that God and religion are two different things.

A person may simply believe in the existence of God because he does. It is his religion.

Another person may understand that God exists by looking at nature or through scientific proof. His religion might be believing things that God says, or it might be NOT believing the things that God says.

God exists. People have religion in whatever they believe. Proof for the existence of God simply places God into their understanding rather than their religion.

[endenada]

Well forgive me for simplyfing despite some of the long answers in previous posts but there will never be scientific proof that god exists because religion is a matter of faith, either you believe or you don't. The nature of faith is that if there were scientific proof there would be no such thing as faith and as such scientific proof of god contradicts the very nature of (most) religions.

Religion as faith in God is also a religion. Science can not proof god existence, because god is anything that is missing. They can verify it after it exists, something like "provably fair", but then it is not more god. Obviously god is cursed not to exist. So, i made a joke about it: "god comes to earth and said: hi, ppl, are you crazy, I do not exist!" .... and that is all truth about god, evolution, at science and religion ....you can understand what is god if you become one .... ask zikalkis! .... he is presuming to work as secular god for 20 years already .... and he has 64 email addresses...while trump, putin, castro and queen have no any email address .... join my sites .... lolz

[Horacewoodwood]

Well forgive me for simplying despite some of the long answers in previous posts but there will never be scientific proof that god exists because religion is a matter of faith, either you believe or you don't. The nature of faith is that if there were scientific proof there would be no such thing as faith and as such scientific proof of god contradicts the very nature of (most) religions.

Since atheists have a religion in atheism, but God isn't part of it, this shows that God and religion are two different things.

A person may simply believe in the existence of God because he does. It is his religion.

Another person may understand that God exists by looking at nature or through scientific proof. His religion might be believing things that God says, or it might be NOT believing the things that God says.

God exists. People have religion in whatever they believe. Proof for the existence of God simply places God into their understanding rather than their religion.

We have not been disappointed and we have material for episode 12 of 'The comeback of the retard as we knew him'. Of course his aggressive episode was a short one and we were actually considering him far more superior than he is by thinking he would have an evil plan. He doesn, he is simply as stupid as scientific laws allow it and tends to defy them by going even lower. This is strong evidence that Badecker is indeed a complete retard, a human being so stupid that scientists should open his skull, get the brain (or whatever shit he has in there) out and research on it. We might have found the missing link, the primitive idiot in the 21 century. First of all, our retard came back claiming that 'simply stating there is no proof doesn't make it so'. Well, no not always, but in this particular case it does and there is nothing he can do about it except for acting like a guy who has a piece of shit hanging from his beard while everyone tells him about it and he denies it. It's not really his choice, as much as he fights it. There is actually no proof in his shit links and anything he says, it's not his choice, in this case it really is the truth and he is overwhelmed by a majority.  The shit is on his face whether he likes it or not. That is how truth acts, fuck Badecker, he is completely irrelevant. Later on he bitches about how everyone is off-topic (a classic bitching method from Badecker and most apologists nowadays) and then, like always, he goes full retard by stating the following: '
Since atheists have a religion in atheism, but God isn't part of it, this shows that God and religion are two different things.' The stupidity of being religious and claiming that is tremendous, it is the damage that religion can actually do to a human brain (if he has one. IF) Let's do this in the simple way:
1. religion = the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. (although the apologists monkeys, just like Badecker, tried to give the term another meaning, this is the true and main meaning of religion and, of course, the one we are talking about)
2. atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
We encounter many problems here: first, religion sticks strictly to the belief in a God, regardless of the culture. Badecker is a religious guy, whether he likes it or not (he doesn't like it, that makes him even more stupid). Atheism is exactly the opposite of that. Calling atheism a religion is the same as calling abstinence a sex position. It simply isn't like that and what Badecker tries to do is a pseudo philosophy ( everything he does is a pseudo thing, including his pseudo God). What is a complete mind fuck is that Badecker believes religion and God are two different things. We all know that all of the religious cunts nowadays try to separate religion and God because it has been proven that religion has been and still is complete poison for the human race. What they fail in this procedure is the very fact that God can not exist without religion because religion is what defines a belief in a God, religion is what 'defined' each and every God, it brought 'evidence', books, teachings. Every God that existed in a culture on this planet was definitely tied and regulated by religion. Nobody and absolutely nobody is born and instantly knows about Jesus or Allah, or the great Juju on the bottom of the ocean. Everyone is raised in a culture, in the teachings of a religion that talks about a God. The stupidity in the claim that God has nothing to do with religion is bigger than the claim that God exists in the first place. My friends, we have a particular case here, our Badecker is more than a retard, he might be really sick, he could be suffering from a mental illness. My opinion is we should research this retard as much as we can. Fuck his opinions, we got used to him not being able to see the shit on his face, it is time to really use him as material. And don't worry, he is too stupid to actually understand, so we can all act as if nothing happened and we are really into his retarded claims. We're going hot on episode 13 fellas, hang on and have fun. Thanks to our retard, we might have precious material.

[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.

All that typing, and still no rebuttal to the proof that God exists. Are you in the wrong thread?

I will quote you again on something ''Simply stating that there is no proof doesn't make it so.'' So simply saying there is no rebuttal doesn't make it so. Thanks for helping me help you, I think your subconscious is betraying you. I don't know if you are trolling now or just unwilling to accept the truth. I don't think you are a troll but fuck, you would be the best troll ever but then again you are just probably too delusional at this point and you simply delete, anything that proves your God doesn't exist, from your brain. Well it was fun badecker. I guess it's time to move on, I don't think there is no reason for me to keep arguing with you at this point. Hopefully my posts helped people understand that God doesn't exist and that being a christian ( or any other religion really ) can be a ''mental illness'' not exactly like what we describe as a mental illness but close enough. It's pretty amazing the lengths someone would go, to deny 90% of science just so his belief can exist, this definitely can be dangerous.

Your post, ^^^, made enough sense that I looked through it. No proof for or against the existence of God there. And no rebuttal of any proof or non-proof. Are you in the wrong thread? You are starting to prove that you are.

Your links, made enough sense that I actually looked through them. No proof for the existence of God there, are you in the wrong thread? You are starting to prove you are.

[BADecker]

I commend you jokers^^^, doing the best you can to downplay and diminish the scientific proof that God exists. But in it all, no proof rebuttal. You just can't do it, can you?

 

[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.

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.

It is an old but good link because right in the OP it says that there is "nothing to suggest any fraud was committed" for this case! Skeptics never provided any evidence to support their beliefs about what happened in the Eisenbeiss case. These are pitiful arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof.

Some skeptics want to claim that Eisenbeiss was responsible for the hoax, this is also nonsense; there is no evidence for this claim whatsoever. Those arguing against the possibility of survival are simply refusing consider the possibility of new paradigms, they also fail to consider the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the possibility of survival.

The test in this case was to see whether or not the medium could contact the prior personality and relay the information to Eisenbeiss. The accuracy of the information and the chess game has been established; you should look at the references in the AECES paper for more details, note that some of the links can only be accessed through archive.org.

The realistic portrayal of the chess player by the medium is analogous to the "Events witnessed and heard by NDErs while in an out-of-body state [which] are almost always realistic. When the NDEr or others later seek to verify what was witnessed or heard during the NDE, their OBE observations are almost always confirmed as completely accurate. Even if the OBE observations include events occurring far away from the physical body, and far from any possible sensory awareness of the NDEr, the OBE observations are still almost always confirmed as completely accurate. This fact alone rules out the possibility that NDEs are related to any known brain functioning or sensory awareness. This also refutes the possibility that NDEs are unrealistic fragments of memory from the brain."
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a32

This thread is a great example of skeptical misdirection. Show me some hard evidence, please!

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

[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.

It is an old but good link because right in the OP it says that there is "nothing to suggest any fraud was committed" for this case! Skeptics never provided any evidence to support their beliefs about what happened in the Eisenbeiss case. These are pitiful arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof.

Some skeptics want to claim that Eisenbeiss was responsible for the hoax, this is also nonsense; there is no evidence for this claim whatsoever. Those arguing against the possibility of survival are simply refusing consider the possibility of new paradigms, they also fail to consider the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the possibility of survival.

The test in this case was to see whether or not the medium could contact the prior personality and relay the information to Eisenbeiss. The accuracy of the information and the chess game has been established; you should look at the references in the AECES paper for more details, note that some of the links can only be accessed through archive.org.

The realistic portrayal of the chess player by the medium is analogous to the "Events witnessed and heard by NDErs while in an out-of-body state [which] are almost always realistic. When the NDEr or others later seek to verify what was witnessed or heard during the NDE, their OBE observations are almost always confirmed as completely accurate. Even if the OBE observations include events occurring far away from the physical body, and far from any possible sensory awareness of the NDEr, the OBE observations are still almost always confirmed as completely accurate. This fact alone rules out the possibility that NDEs are related to any known brain functioning or sensory awareness. This also refutes the possibility that NDEs are unrealistic fragments of memory from the brain."
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a32

This thread is a great example of skeptical misdirection. Show me some hard evidence, please!

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

If you carry the idea of spiritual contact to some greater levels, you could add the idea that it is the complexity of the human spirit that keeps direct spiritual contact from happening easily. This is a protection for people, so that no strong spirit can easily take control of anybody.

By dabbling with spiritual contact, which we know very little about, one is tearing down his own guards against potentially strong spirits. For example, how do we know if there isn't some spirit that happens to know the answers we are questing for, and that is claiming to be someone that it isn't, and simply feeding the info so that the recipient(s) will force their protective defences to shut down. Then that spirit comes in and takes over the person.

We need to be very careful of not losing ourselves to other-spirit control, and thereby losing our selves and our lives. I mean, isn't this what may have happened to some of the wilder insane people in the asylums?

[Astargath]

I commend you jokers^^^, doing the best you can to downplay and diminish the scientific proof that God exists. But in it all, no proof rebuttal. You just can't do it, can you?

 

I commend you joker ^^^ doing the best you can to try to prove God. But in all, no scientific proof at all, you just can't do it, can you?

[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.

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.

Still no rebuttal to the proof that God exists. You jokers are soooo pathetic.

 

[BADecker]

I commend you jokers^^^, doing the best you can to downplay and diminish the scientific proof that God exists. But in it all, no proof rebuttal. You just can't do it, can you?

 

I commend you joker ^^^ doing the best you can to try to prove God. But in all, no scientific proof at all, you just can't do it, can you?

But you wouldn't know, would you? You don't understand much of anything except blabbing without any rebuttal.

[tikboyhere]

Because of the technology nowadays, there are lots of proof that God truly exist. If you are familiar with the series "Ancient Aliens" or the History channel there are many proof and evidence that God truly exist. The cloth that He used on wiping his bloody face and the big cloth for bury are one of the common and preserve proof that he truly exists. Im not telling this because Im Catholic I just simply want to share how His philosophy works and His story is truly unbelievable. Now its up to you if you want to believe because of these proof and evidences, or you want to believe because He is in your heart and His story makes you a better Christian and a person.