Scientific proof that God exists?

[Horacewoodwood]

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?

Episode 13 is here, it is a short one but any information is good. We'll call this episode 'The intellectual suicide of a bad apologist'. We've been reading Badecker's posts where he condemns bringing religion into the subject and telling everyone to stick to the 'scientific' part. Of course he was telling us to do that, he can go religious as many times as he wants because he believes himself to be special having God in his favors. Go ahead and read how our superior human Badecker goes completely nuts about spirits, the defense system of the spirits, other spirits that take over and other science fiction shit that in his mind must be the same as science. Not to be surprised since these fantasy fairy tales are as scientific as his machine theory is, or as his religion is. We conclude that there are two Badeckers: the one who is really scientific and hates religion being brought up (as he believes, the truth is that he knows little to nothing about physics, biology, cosmology, etc) and the one who is very spiritual, completely religious and indoctrinated. Maybe one of the Badeckers is the bad spirit who took over poor Badecker and is trying to make him look insane. I think this kind of a theory would be appreciated by him. The reality is that we know bad spirits are not the answer. The answer is simple: Badecker is really, really, really stupid. His level of stupidity increases with each and every word that he writes here. I am already enjoying our scientific proof of the stupidity of Badecker. Will we maybe get to see some unseen level of stupidity? Can't tell for sure, but it gets promising. Stick around for episode 14 dear folks.
P.S. You have to love how desperate he got by replying to everyone that they are jokers and they are sooooo pathetic.

Well, you continue to be a pathetic joker. and not only that, but you brag about it as well.

The proof for God's existence still stands unrebutted:
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.

Thanks for helping to spread it by continually speaking your drivel in the forum, here.

Which was debunked:

''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)

You are on the verge of showing yourself to be an idiot. Show us the car, or airplane, or ship, or computer, or any machine, that spontaneously jumped into being without at least one maker.

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).

Suggesting that radioactivity doesn't have a cause is getting even closer to showing yourself to be an idiot.

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.

Entropy shows that there was a beginning, by the simple fact that entropy that had existed forever would have reduced all complexity to pure simplicity by now.

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.

This is true: You cannot bring a material something into existence from pure nothingness or from anything immaterial. That is why God did it.

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.

God created it all.

3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

You are so good here. At this point, you have vindicated yourself from your former self-inflicted idiocy. However, what is below might change that.

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.

According to places in the Psalms, God thunders. So, you might say that His creation was a big bang.

Remember, scientific big bang is just theory. A mini BB has been made by scientists in the lab. Two points about this:
1. If scientists keep at it, they will be able to produce dozens of different forms of BB in the lab;
2. There still is no real scientific suggestion that a BB was what caused the universe. It's all guesswork when applying it to the universe.

3B) That's where the cosmological buck has to stop since we can't observe or measure anything prior to the Big Bang event.

Exactly what I have said at various times.

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.

At this stage of the game, BB is a fiction regarding the reality of the universe. Ask any scientist who is versed in BB. He will tell you that we have no certainty that BB is how our universe came into being. but if he says that it does, get him on tape and publish it. Then watch the turmoil.

4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God.

I thought #3 was the conclusion.

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).

Verification is done through the results that we see all around us today. God, whatever he/she/it is, created this stuff. We know that He must be extremely knowledgeable, intelligent, and powerful just to do it. But when you look at the way He did it through cause and effect, you see that He excels beyond understanding in knowledge, intelligence and power.

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.

Until you recognize that entropy destroys the idea that there is no beginning, you are missing it in a big way.

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.

Yet the scientific laws, cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us a lot about God.

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.

A believer in the existence of BB for the cause of the universe, puts the believer into a BB religion. There is no proof for BB.

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)

If you get a bunch of engineers together, and manufacturers, etc., they build a car. A car might last a long time if it is not used. But without replacing parts, it might last only 20 years.

The point is that this is the best the combined will of a bunch of people can do.

When we are talking about component parts of God, we could be talking about many spirits and minds working together. But, if this is the case, jointly, they are one God, just as there is one Ford or one GMC.

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.

This is exactly why we can't use carbon dating to verify the age of things. The Bible record suggests that there might not have been any C-14 in the atmospher prior to the Great Flood of Noah's day.

The point isn't the Bible record. The point is that we can't go back very far with any certainty. We don't really know how much older than 5,000 years the universe is, through scientific observation.

Having fun yet?

This read is a must dear fellas. Episode 14 is here, 'The return of the carbon dated retard'. This is a very special episode, as special as our subject, the idiot Badecker. After ignoring Astargath's rebuttal by saying it's just some words thrown in, Astargath posted it again, I ridiculed Badecker and he answered to the rebuttal, by throwing some words in, as you will be able to see next. It's easy to observe that absolutely every answer was superficial, but there is great humor in there. Let's see:
1. Notice the change in how Badecker took on things? He never called anyone an idiot, I have. Why change the style? Well, because he is too stupid to argue in his own manner, of course. On the first point he actually comes with information that the machines he was talking about are airplanes, cars, boats, computers, etc. He still did not understand the question and hasn't told us what nature machines he is talking about and how does that fact that airplanes have makers prove that God exists. The only idiot here is, of course, Badecker.
2. Sometimes, Badecker likes to jump onto subjects that he knows nothing about, just like the radioactive decay case. The radioactive decay of atoms is causeless and also random. We do know that by doing that he stabilizes his state, we don't know what causes it to destabilize. It can not be predicted if and when the decay will happen, that makes it random. The radioactive decay is in the field of quantum uncertainty, thus being causeless. The only idiot on this point is, again, Badecker. Clap clap.
3. For the next questions Badecker goes to his alter ego, going all religious and shit with phrases like 'God created it all' or 'That's why God made it'. Apologies.
4. Next, Badecker takes on the Big Bang again, a subject where he failed each and every time he came up with something about it. He lives in a complete different era, if we are talking about his knowledge on the subject. First, the pathetic apologist compares a thunder with the Big Bang, because the psalms say that God thunders. We'll help our little retard on this one and let him know that the thunder is the sound created by a lightning. Just the sound. But let's get back to the Big Bang and our retard, Badecker. He claims Big Bang is not a certainty, yet he knows that a mini replica of the process has been made and it successfully worked. Quite an idiot, right? He claims there is no scientific suggestion that the Big Bang created the Universe. Scientific suggestion. He just said that they even replicated it, yet there are no suggestions. As we can observe, the stupidity of Badecker grows with each and every post. Wait for it, there is more...
5. We will skip the 'scientists who are certain about the BB' part since it is still Badecker being a retard regarding the Big Bang. He simply does not understand it, why lose time? He goes a bit religious again, saying how intelligent and powerful God is (not so intelligent when he did the apple tree part) and then he replied to a very strong point of Astargath about a finite universe or a infinite one. Badecker did not understand anything so he simply replied with 'Until you recognize that entropy destroys the idea that there is no beginning, you are missing it in a big way.' He does not understand entropy, nor the fact that if let's say it was all infinite, the space would not be isolated and entropy would not raise and reach total. As Astargath said, it would be a Universe where A would cause B and B would cause A, having a loop. Badecker only shows us how much unprepared he is, how little he knows about science in general and how stupid he is for arguing over such subjects while he only reads the bible and the books wrote by pseudo scientists who only graduated in order to prove that scientists can also believe in God. This is not even the end, as we are used to, Badecker will go on a complete new level of stupid in the end.
6. He still babbles about the entropy, about the science which he believes in religion (no definition can help this poor retard, he simply does not understand that science is one thing and religion is another thing), says something about God being a Ford or a GMC (he did not understand what Astargath was talking about or he did understand and he dodged it, any case makes him stupid anyway), etc. Finally, he comes up with this, something even flat earthers might laugh at: This is exactly why we can't use carbon dating to verify the age of things. The Bible record suggests that there might not have been any C-14 in the atmospher prior to the Great Flood of Noah's day.

The point isn't the Bible record. The point is that we can't go back very far with any certainty. We don't really know how much older than 5,000 years the universe is, through scientific observation.

Having fun yet? I barely know what to start with. First of all, we have a retard who does not believe in the Big Bang but believes in the Great Flood and also believes the Bible record suggests there might not have been any C-14 in the atmosphere prior to that. He then goes even further with being a retard and states that we can't really know how much older than 5000 years the universe is...because we can't carbon date it. We actually have a retard that believes that we measure the universe by carbon dating it. Not only that, we have a retard who does not know that there are trees older that 5000 years, the earth is 4.5 billion years, yet he can not go past 5000. He ends it with 'Having fun yet?' Are you fucking kidding me? I've been laughing my ass of at this idiot for the last week, now I am really rolling on the floor and laughing. I showed it to my parents and my grandparents, they even laughed at the retard who believes everything is 5000 years old and universe and earth can be carbon dated to see the age.
Stay tuned for episode 15 fellas, this is going nuts!

[1713982366]

1713982366

[1713982366]

1713982366

[qwik2learn]

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.

That is a fallacy. Even if there is enough proof to say that Jesus existed, he did the miracles, he even died and came back to life, there is no actual proof that God exists and Jesus was his son.

All rational atheists reject the entire line of spiritual thinking, rebirth is denied by them because they are all humanists (since what else could they be). Therefore, an instance of reincarnation or spirit contact would demonstrate that humanism is false and that rational atheists are mistaken about god(s).

All rational people reject things that are not proven, period. Rebirth is denied because there is not a single piece of evidence or proof for it, only stupid personal stories that can't be tested. You have those for thousands of ''supernatural'' events, ghosts, demons, you name it. There is never evidence or proof for any of it tho.

Actually there is physical and medical evidence of a variety of kinds; let me see what you would tell me if I said to you "there is never evidence or proof for any claim that Trump is the president of the USA"? Past elections were rigged, this election could have been hacked; where is the proof that can be tested? Your only "proof" is based on testimony (of the Congress or CIA, for example), so do you reject the idea that "Trump is president" is proven?? Or do you say that there are "proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena [which] unite in establishing it"?

For the most part, skeptics have simply criticized from the sidelines, and have produced no experimental research of their own.

Ultimately, it is hypocritical for a skeptic who claims to require scientific evidence before accepting a belief to use this double standard to reject parapsychological research in order to maintain his belief that ESP does not exist.

Actually a rational person will be strongly inclined to accept a claim if it is from a reliable source and it provides a simple explanation of the evidence; in other words, you can be rational without carrying out your own testing. If you doubt the reliability of psychologists, the CIA, Alfred Wallace, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, there are certainly many others who were able to test the truth of these claims; there are replication studies and a great need for more research and testing to find out more about survival.

Chris French has also stated he believes that ESP has been proven to scientific standards. However, he does not accept that those results should be accepted by science until the results have been replicated by skeptical scientists. These results have been replicated by parapsychologists. What French is saying is that replications are not valid unless the researcher has a certain philosophical beliefs. That is unheard of in any other branch of science.

Easy, you can go yourself to the USA and visit Trump or go to one of his conventions. You also have thousands of videos about Trump. There is no evidence for any supernatural claims so far. The scientific method works and you can type this thanks to it because science works, pseudoscience, religion and other mystic things do not and can't be applied to anything. Sorry to burst your bubble and welcome to the real world.

I posted a text summary of a video from the Supehumans TV series, I posted documents from the CIA. Why is that not sufficient? Some humans seem to be medical anomalies capable of using mind power to move and see objects at a distance and there is also neurological evidence that the memory of an NDE experience is "more real" than normal memories. I also posted about how skeptics like to ignore compelling videos and experiments while failing to conduct their own experiments. There are some very long and well-referenced books filled with physical evidence, even horace has read about some of the children with birthmarks, deformities, memories, skills, odd behavior, phobias, etc.

Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology
A 1991 Paper that proves that tests show there is an anomalous effect that needs to be explained.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/UttsStatPsi.pdf

Parapsychology is not only stories and testimony, it is a science.
It is possible to obtain masters and doctoral degrees in psychology or physics with specialization in parapsychology.
https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Parapsychology/Dispute_over_Scientific_Status/Steigman
http://archived.parapsych.org/psiexplorer/parapsychology.htm

[Astargath]

You see the problem badecker is that at the end of my post I specifically said:

''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)''



''If you get a bunch of engineers together, and manufacturers, etc., they build a car. A car might last a long time if it is not used. But without replacing parts, it might last only 20 years.

The point is that this is the best the combined will of a bunch of people can do.

When we are talking about component parts of God, we could be talking about many spirits and minds working together. But, if this is the case, jointly, they are one God, just as there is one Ford or one GMC.''



You don't answer at all here, the point is simple, even if all your arguments were true you still don't know what the first cause is, there is no evidence pointing to anything. You have failed to address this question like 10 times by now.

The other huge problem as I mentioned is that when you say everything has a cause and then you say God did it the most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, “But what caused God?”. The standard answer is, “Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule”. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap. So you see, you basically say that everything has a cause and then you are saying that not everything has a cause, you understand this?

[Astargath]

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.

That is a fallacy. Even if there is enough proof to say that Jesus existed, he did the miracles, he even died and came back to life, there is no actual proof that God exists and Jesus was his son.

All rational atheists reject the entire line of spiritual thinking, rebirth is denied by them because they are all humanists (since what else could they be). Therefore, an instance of reincarnation or spirit contact would demonstrate that humanism is false and that rational atheists are mistaken about god(s).

All rational people reject things that are not proven, period. Rebirth is denied because there is not a single piece of evidence or proof for it, only stupid personal stories that can't be tested. You have those for thousands of ''supernatural'' events, ghosts, demons, you name it. There is never evidence or proof for any of it tho.

Actually there is physical and medical evidence of a variety of kinds; let me see what you would tell me if I said to you "there is never evidence or proof for any claim that Trump is the president of the USA"? Past elections were rigged, this election could have been hacked; where is the proof that can be tested? Your only "proof" is based on testimony (of the Congress or CIA, for example), so do you reject the idea that "Trump is president" is proven?? Or do you say that there are "proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena [which] unite in establishing it"?

For the most part, skeptics have simply criticized from the sidelines, and have produced no experimental research of their own.

Ultimately, it is hypocritical for a skeptic who claims to require scientific evidence before accepting a belief to use this double standard to reject parapsychological research in order to maintain his belief that ESP does not exist.

Actually a rational person will be strongly inclined to accept a claim if it is from a reliable source and it provides a simple explanation of the evidence; in other words, you can be rational without carrying out your own testing. If you doubt the reliability of psychologists, the CIA, Alfred Wallace, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, there are certainly many others who were able to test the truth of these claims; there are replication studies and a great need for more research and testing to find out more about survival.

Chris French has also stated he believes that ESP has been proven to scientific standards. However, he does not accept that those results should be accepted by science until the results have been replicated by skeptical scientists. These results have been replicated by parapsychologists. What French is saying is that replications are not valid unless the researcher has a certain philosophical beliefs. That is unheard of in any other branch of science.

Easy, you can go yourself to the USA and visit Trump or go to one of his conventions. You also have thousands of videos about Trump. There is no evidence for any supernatural claims so far. The scientific method works and you can type this thanks to it because science works, pseudoscience, religion and other mystic things do not and can't be applied to anything. Sorry to burst your bubble and welcome to the real world.

I posted a text summary of a video from the Supehumans TV series, I posted documents from the CIA. Why is that not sufficient? Some humans seem to be medical anomalies capable of using mind power to move and see objects at a distance and there is also neurological evidence that the memory of an NDE experience is "more real" than normal memories. I also posted about how skeptics like to ignore compelling videos and experiments while failing to conduct their own experiments. There are some very long and well-referenced books filled with physical evidence, even horace has read about some of the children with birthmarks, deformities, memories, skills, odd behavior, phobias, etc.

Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology
A 1991 Paper that proves that tests show there is an anomalous effect that needs to be explained.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/UttsStatPsi.pdf

Parapsychology is not only stories and testimony, it is a science.
It is possible to obtain masters and doctoral degrees in psychology or physics with specialization in parapsychology.
https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Parapsychology/Dispute_over_Scientific_Status/Steigman
http://archived.parapsych.org/psiexplorer/parapsychology.htm

I am not saying it, science and the scientific community is. Parapsychology has been criticised for continuing investigation despite being unable to provide convincing evidence for the existence of any psychic phenomena after more than a century of research.[4][5]

It has been noted that most academics do not take the claims of parapsychology seriously.

The scientific consensus is that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of psi phenomena.[140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147]

Scientists critical of parapsychology state that its extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence if they are to be taken seriously.[148] Scientists who have evaluated parapsychology have written the entire body of evidence is of poor quality and not adequately controlled.[149] In support of this view, critics cite instances of fraud, flawed studies, and cognitive biases (such as clustering illusion, availability error, confirmation bias, illusion of control, magical thinking, and the bias blind spot) as ways to explain parapsychological results.[150][151] Research has also shown that people's desire to believe in paranormal phenomena causes them to discount strong evidence that it does not exist.[152]


Science works, the scientific method works and has been applied successfully to a lot of advancements we have today. Parapsychology has not.

[allohha]

So there can not be any scientific proof of God, and it will not be, because religion practically contradicts science. The fact is that many scientists in their essence are already atheists And therefore very strongly will send any evidence that could be collected.

[qwik2learn]

Scientists critical of parapsychology state that its extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence if they are to be taken seriously.

Science works, the scientific method works and has been applied successfully to a lot of advancements we have today. Parapsychology has not.

The statement about "extraordinary evidence" IS A FALLACY; you should try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy, and try reading the links I posted in detail so that you see where you are going wrong; I have already addressed this in great detail with my own references.

Perhaps you have your references and I have mine. So be it; I have provided a lot to consider; anyone interested can ask me for the specific links relating the proof of GOD; I will summarize some of the best information right here:
Dozens of the brightest and most eminent researchers asserting their opinion, many lifelong and famous skeptics like Sartre, Ayers, Doyle, Flew.
The personality of a chess grandmaster; the prior personality was replicated by a medium.
Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.
A wide variety of information disclosed via mediumship and ET communication, many serious cases, particularly the Phoenix Journals.
Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics, a convincing disclosure that GOD is an infinite being and actually exists: www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm
40 top cases from AECES, 52 points of evidence from the near-death site, evidence of skeptical fallacies and skeptical misdirection, research from the meticulous Ian Stevenson, reference to other important books like Irreducible Mind which is to my knowledge the latest book on the parapsychology controversy.

[qwik2learn]

So there can not be any scientific proof of God, and it will not be, because religion practically contradicts science. The fact is that many scientists in their essence are already atheists And therefore very strongly will send any evidence that could be collected.

The brightest scientists and mathematicians believed in GOD, ESP, mind independent of brain, etc.
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

[sirazimuth]

This is exactly why we can't use carbon dating to verify the age of things. The Bible record suggests that there might not have been any C-14 in the atmospher prior to the Great Flood of Noah's day.

The point isn't the Bible record. The point is that we can't go back very far with any certainty. We don't really know how much older than 5,000 years the universe is, through scientific observation.

Having fun yet?

and here we have yet another demonstration of the sheer ignorance of our buddy badecker.
he's probably never heard of anything other than carbon dating which only works back to 5000 years or so.
dude, you ever heard of all the other elements that dekay with known half lives? no didnt think so....
educate yourself... seriously educate yourself.
sometimes i think you really don't believe all the shit you spout, you've just gone so far down the road of delusion
with these threads ,that to take it all back now is impossible and you'd look foolish (you do anyway) ,so you  figure ....
"gone this far, might as well just carry on and go full retard!!!"

[Astargath]

Scientists critical of parapsychology state that its extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence if they are to be taken seriously.

Science works, the scientific method works and has been applied successfully to a lot of advancements we have today. Parapsychology has not.

The statement about "extraordinary evidence" IS A FALLACY; you should try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy, and try reading the links I posted in detail so that you see where you are going wrong; I have already addressed this in great detail with my own references.

Perhaps you have your references and I have mine. So be it; I have provided a lot to consider; anyone interested can ask me for the specific links relating the proof of GOD; I will summarize some of the best information right here:
Dozens of the brightest and most eminent researchers asserting their opinion, many lifelong and famous skeptics like Sartre, Ayers, Doyle, Flew.
The personality of a chess grandmaster; the prior personality was replicated by a medium.
Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.
A wide variety of information disclosed via mediumship and ET communication, many serious cases, particularly the Phoenix Journals.
Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics, a convincing disclosure that GOD is an infinite being and actually exists: www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm
40 top cases from AECES, 52 points of evidence from the near-death site, evidence of skeptical fallacies and skeptical misdirection, research from the meticulous Ian Stevenson, reference to other important books like Irreducible Mind which is to my knowledge the latest book on the parapsychology controversy.

Dude stop it. Live in the real life. There is no such thing as telekinesis or aliens or ghosts. You don't go to college to stupid how to move things with your mind, do you? Why is there no college degree for telekinesis or learning how to be a medium or study about ghosts? I will tell you why, because they are all bullshit, stop living in la la land. People go to college to study medicine, engineering, programming... things that actually work in real life and are actually useful. We haven't got this far thanks to telekinesis or ghosts, we got this far thanks to science, real science.

[ckorbba]

Scientists critical of parapsychology state that its extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence if they are to be taken seriously.

Science works, the scientific method works and has been applied successfully to a lot of advancements we have today. Parapsychology has not.

The statement about "extraordinary evidence" IS A FALLACY; you should try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy, and try reading the links I posted in detail so that you see where you are going wrong; I have already addressed this in great detail with my own references.

Perhaps you have your references and I have mine. So be it; I have provided a lot to consider; anyone interested can ask me for the specific links relating the proof of GOD; I will summarize some of the best information right here:
Dozens of the brightest and most eminent researchers asserting their opinion, many lifelong and famous skeptics like Sartre, Ayers, Doyle, Flew.
The personality of a chess grandmaster; the prior personality was replicated by a medium.
Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.
A wide variety of information disclosed via mediumship and ET communication, many serious cases, particularly the Phoenix Journals.
Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics, a convincing disclosure that GOD is an infinite being and actually exists: www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm
40 top cases from AECES, 52 points of evidence from the near-death site, evidence of skeptical fallacies and skeptical misdirection, research from the meticulous Ian Stevenson, reference to other important books like Irreducible Mind which is to my knowledge the latest book on the parapsychology controversy.

Dude stop it. Live in the real life. There is no such thing as telekinesis or aliens or ghosts. You don't go to college to stupid how to move things with your mind, do you? Why is there no college degree for telekinesis or learning how to be a medium or study about ghosts? I will tell you why, because they are all bullshit, stop living in la la land. People go to college to study medicine, engineering, programming... things that actually work in real life and are actually useful. We haven't got this far thanks to telekinesis or ghosts, we got this far thanks to science, real science.

Excuse me of course, but I really want to ask such a question. Do you believe in the human soul? I know that the human body is but but maybe there is still such a thing as the human soul. And I'm wondering whether someone believes in the fact that there is a person's soul. If the soul does exist then all these questions that raise regarding the evidence of God simply do not make sense.

[Astargath]

Scientists critical of parapsychology state that its extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence if they are to be taken seriously.

Science works, the scientific method works and has been applied successfully to a lot of advancements we have today. Parapsychology has not.

The statement about "extraordinary evidence" IS A FALLACY; you should try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy, and try reading the links I posted in detail so that you see where you are going wrong; I have already addressed this in great detail with my own references.

Perhaps you have your references and I have mine. So be it; I have provided a lot to consider; anyone interested can ask me for the specific links relating the proof of GOD; I will summarize some of the best information right here:
Dozens of the brightest and most eminent researchers asserting their opinion, many lifelong and famous skeptics like Sartre, Ayers, Doyle, Flew.
The personality of a chess grandmaster; the prior personality was replicated by a medium.
Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.
A wide variety of information disclosed via mediumship and ET communication, many serious cases, particularly the Phoenix Journals.
Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics, a convincing disclosure that GOD is an infinite being and actually exists: www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm
40 top cases from AECES, 52 points of evidence from the near-death site, evidence of skeptical fallacies and skeptical misdirection, research from the meticulous Ian Stevenson, reference to other important books like Irreducible Mind which is to my knowledge the latest book on the parapsychology controversy.

Dude stop it. Live in the real life. There is no such thing as telekinesis or aliens or ghosts. You don't go to college to stupid how to move things with your mind, do you? Why is there no college degree for telekinesis or learning how to be a medium or study about ghosts? I will tell you why, because they are all bullshit, stop living in la la land. People go to college to study medicine, engineering, programming... things that actually work in real life and are actually useful. We haven't got this far thanks to telekinesis or ghosts, we got this far thanks to science, real science.

Excuse me of course, but I really want to ask such a question. Do you believe in the human soul? I know that the human body is but but maybe there is still such a thing as the human soul. And I'm wondering whether someone believes in the fact that there is a person's soul. If the soul does exist then all these questions that raise regarding the evidence of God simply do not make sense.

I don't believe in anything based on faith. I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of the soul so I don't believe it. If the soul existed, it wouldn't prove God exists, there are plenty of religions who talk about the soul so you still wouldn't know which one is true.

[qwik2learn]

Why quote Wiki on parapsychology? Check wiki instead about the book Irreducible Mind , one of the authors has a book examining a CENTURY of evidence for survival, this research is certainly worth examining in detail, it is more proof that parapsychology is a legitimate field of inquiry validated by camera footage, a century of scientific observations, testing by the CIA, and many other varied forms of evidence.

"It is strong confirmation of any theory that proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it."

Even Turing believed in ESP, there is a long history of evidence and respectable research. Atheists should realize the scale of the evidence and have the courage to investigate thoroughly and weigh the explanations against each other.

[Horacewoodwood]

Scientists critical of parapsychology state that its extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence if they are to be taken seriously.

Science works, the scientific method works and has been applied successfully to a lot of advancements we have today. Parapsychology has not.

The statement about "extraordinary evidence" IS A FALLACY; you should try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy, and try reading the links I posted in detail so that you see where you are going wrong; I have already addressed this in great detail with my own references.

Perhaps you have your references and I have mine. So be it; I have provided a lot to consider; anyone interested can ask me for the specific links relating the proof of GOD; I will summarize some of the best information right here:
Dozens of the brightest and most eminent researchers asserting their opinion, many lifelong and famous skeptics like Sartre, Ayers, Doyle, Flew.
The personality of a chess grandmaster; the prior personality was replicated by a medium.
Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.
A wide variety of information disclosed via mediumship and ET communication, many serious cases, particularly the Phoenix Journals.
Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics, a convincing disclosure that GOD is an infinite being and actually exists: www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm
40 top cases from AECES, 52 points of evidence from the near-death site, evidence of skeptical fallacies and skeptical misdirection, research from the meticulous Ian Stevenson, reference to other important books like Irreducible Mind which is to my knowledge the latest book on the parapsychology controversy.

First of all, it is not a fallacy. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence not because we ask it but because that is what is needed. I can easily prove, for instance that water boils at 100 C. It's not an extraordinary claim, it's an ordinary claim and it is easy to prove. However, I can not prove that Mister Hankey the Christmas Poo created this universe because I am missing 99% of the information needed. I can't see mr hankey, can't feel him, can't hear him, can find absolutely no traces of him, can't calculate him, my story of mister hankey contradicts with actual science. All I have is that 1% which represents my testimonial and the testimonial of many other people who claim to have seen God in dreams. We also have a very old book that speaks about Mr Hankey, but we can't prove all of those stories because we have no evidence and some of them are miracles done by mr hankey that contradict the laws of our reality. So in order to prove that Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo created the universe, I must take it from the start, from that book, prove the stories are right, prove that it was indeed him and I must also contradict our actual scientific laws which are suspended in the eventuality of Mr Hankey being real, because that would mean that our whole system is flawed, our universe is not that old, our earth is not that old, stars are there to help us know what time it is, the sun is not supposed to keep life on this planet alive, his only role would be to let us know it's daytime, the moon would have the same role regarding the night, etc. How in the hell am I going to prove all of these without extraordinary evidence? It simply is necessary that the evidence is extraordinary, otherwise it is simple speculation, assumption.
Further on, parapsychology is missing this extraordinary evidence, it only has stories, nothing is observable. The worst type of evidence are testimonials, nothing can only be proved only by testimonial. Let us assume that parapsychology would be proved to be real, that would have nothing to do with the existence of God.

[qwik2learn]

Proving the soul or survival means that humanism is false. All rational atheists are humanists (since what else could they be).

[qwik2learn]

Actually you took this out of context, horace. Skeptics use often use a double standard, that is their fallacy:

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection#skeptical_misdirection_double_standard

The other common tactic is known as Misrepresenting The Scientific Evidence.

[Horacewoodwood]

Actually you took this out of context, horace. Skeptics use often use a double standard, that is their fallacy:

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection#skeptical_misdirection_double_standard

The other common tactic is known as Misrepresenting The Scientific Evidence.

I took what out of what context? Speak to me, explain, come up with arguments, enough with the links already. If you are not able to speak to me and you always need to give me links with what others think that us 'skeptics' are wrong about, then you do not understand anything of it. More than that, I can't understand what you are talking about because you solely posted a link. If you want to answer to what I have said, talk about that, you have it there, you can analyze it and tell me what do you believe is wrong and why. In that way, we can have a proper conversation. Otherwise it will be the same as it is with Badecker, everyone trying to have a conversation and a monkey saying anything that crosses his mind. Let's keep this simple and efficient.

[BADecker]

Anybody who researches the info in these links...
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,
and thinks about what he has researched, will understand that not only does God exist, but, also, the only way the universe and life can exist is through God creating/making it all.

[Horacewoodwood]

Proving the soul or survival means that humanism is false. All rational atheists are humanists (since what else could they be).

For the last time, humanism does not claim that categorically souls do not exist. Humanism considers there is no reason to believe it since the proof is very little, to nothing, and the possibility is the same so it centers its attention on something that it is more important: the human being, the one that really exists, something that we know for sure, a species that was also once on the verge of extinction, a species that we are part of. Science has worked until now, at this moment we communicate with its help, not through telekinesis, not through a miracle or any divine being. We can understand it, it is real and it helps us human beings to communicate. Proving the soul exists would not change that, it would not prove God exists and we should venerate him instead of taking care of us. We would only know that the soul exists and it might survive our death. Why? That would be left out to further research. But for now, we don't have the evidenced proof that the 'soul' exists.

[Astargath]

Anybody who researches the info in these links...
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,
and thinks about what he has researched, will understand that not only does God exist, but, also, the only way the universe and life can exist is through God creating/making it all.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390

Debunked and proven false there. Anyone who reads these links will understand that badecker hasn't proved at all God. Do not get brainwashed by religion people.

[BARADED]

I advise to read the book"The God Delusion; 2006 ,Book by Richard Dawkins"