Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

Talk, talk, talk. All you have there is political science. Like the others, you haven't shown any unrebutted rebuttal to the scientific proof that God exists. That's okay, though. We all know that God exists.

I already did and you just ignored it and said that i turned aliens into God?? I mean, it's clear that you won't accept that there is no evidence for the existence of god and you are now desperately trying to convince yourself. It's ok, give it some time maybe you will awake one day.

The only thing you did was to SAY that you did it.   

You said it has to be god, what else and then you asked me what else could it be. I gave you 2 examples and then you just went full retard and said that I turned aliens into God.

But the language that I used was showing you that if aliens made cause and effect, entropy and complexity, then the aliens are God.

But, we are not the same as God. We might be His children, but because we are not the same, God is alien to us... at least in some ways. Also, God is so complex that He at least looks like many - even though He is One. So, God is "aliens" in a strange sense of the language.

The point is that you are agreeing that God exists. And that is part of what this thread is about.

[ceremonita]

God is there, if you have a religion must believe god, god only one and have no family, be it father, mother, child, grandchild or grandfather

Yes I think in the same way. Nobody needs to prove something.

[Astargath]

Talk, talk, talk. All you have there is political science. Like the others, you haven't shown any unrebutted rebuttal to the scientific proof that God exists. That's okay, though. We all know that God exists.

I already did and you just ignored it and said that i turned aliens into God?? I mean, it's clear that you won't accept that there is no evidence for the existence of god and you are now desperately trying to convince yourself. It's ok, give it some time maybe you will awake one day.

The only thing you did was to SAY that you did it.   

You said it has to be god, what else and then you asked me what else could it be. I gave you 2 examples and then you just went full retard and said that I turned aliens into God.

But the language that I used was showing you that if aliens made cause and effect, entropy and complexity, then the aliens are God.

But, we are not the same as God. We might be His children, but because we are not the same, God is alien to us... at least in some ways. Also, God is so complex that He at least looks like many - even though He is One. So, God is "aliens" in a strange sense of the language.

The point is that you are agreeing that God exists. And that is part of what this thread is about.

God is also a virtual reality program?

[BADecker]

Talk, talk, talk. All you have there is political science. Like the others, you haven't shown any unrebutted rebuttal to the scientific proof that God exists. That's okay, though. We all know that God exists.

I already did and you just ignored it and said that i turned aliens into God?? I mean, it's clear that you won't accept that there is no evidence for the existence of god and you are now desperately trying to convince yourself. It's ok, give it some time maybe you will awake one day.

The only thing you did was to SAY that you did it.   

You said it has to be god, what else and then you asked me what else could it be. I gave you 2 examples and then you just went full retard and said that I turned aliens into God.

But the language that I used was showing you that if aliens made cause and effect, entropy and complexity, then the aliens are God.

But, we are not the same as God. We might be His children, but because we are not the same, God is alien to us... at least in some ways. Also, God is so complex that He at least looks like many - even though He is One. So, God is "aliens" in a strange sense of the language.

The point is that you are agreeing that God exists. And that is part of what this thread is about.

God is also a virtual reality program?

The universe is a virtual reality program that God put together. The "almightyness" of God is exceedingly far beyond understanding. But we virtual machines can understand a little of Him.

[sonia jr]

Although I have never seen God, I believe that God exists

[BADecker]

Although I have never seen God, I believe that God exists

This is an extremely great sentiment. If you maintain it, and find out about Jesus salvation, you will be saved.

However, this topic has to do with scientific proof for the existence of God. Simply believing places it into a religious light. So, to get back on-topic, the scientific proof for the existence of God once 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.

[Astargath]

Talk, talk, talk. All you have there is political science. Like the others, you haven't shown any unrebutted rebuttal to the scientific proof that God exists. That's okay, though. We all know that God exists.

I already did and you just ignored it and said that i turned aliens into God?? I mean, it's clear that you won't accept that there is no evidence for the existence of god and you are now desperately trying to convince yourself. It's ok, give it some time maybe you will awake one day.

The only thing you did was to SAY that you did it.   

You said it has to be god, what else and then you asked me what else could it be. I gave you 2 examples and then you just went full retard and said that I turned aliens into God.

But the language that I used was showing you that if aliens made cause and effect, entropy and complexity, then the aliens are God.

But, we are not the same as God. We might be His children, but because we are not the same, God is alien to us... at least in some ways. Also, God is so complex that He at least looks like many - even though He is One. So, God is "aliens" in a strange sense of the language.

The point is that you are agreeing that God exists. And that is part of what this thread is about.

God is also a virtual reality program?

The universe is a virtual reality program that God put together. The "almightyness" of God is exceedingly far beyond understanding. But we virtual machines can understand a little of Him.

So if it could be aliens or something that is not even sentient why call it God? Unless your definition of god is something else it makes no sense to call anything that created the universe a god.

[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.

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.

The extraordinary evidence (in favor of parapsychology and survival) has already been provided. I also linked to some examples where this evidence was deliberately ignored by skeptics. Since that information is in the link above, I am including it in our conversation by way of reference; surely you have the ability to read through an essay on the topic of skeptical misdirection because it clearly relates to our discussion about parapsychology.

Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.

I have posted a lot of other extraordinary evidence, yet skeptics insist there is no reliable evidence. Why keep up the charade? Skeptics should just come out and say what is so unreliable about the tests done to prove telekinesis.

Sources:
On-Camera test: http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/
Test by the United States CIA: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66xy95/zhang_baosheng_confirmed_cia_psychic_ability_to/

Skeptics in this thread consistently ignore the evidence I posted and it demonstrates that they are not here to learn, instead they like to argue and pat themselves on the back.

Ha!  welcome back my friend!  great episode as always.
thread was starting look to to like the Astergath smackdown of BADecker (no contest)
with a sprinkling of parapsychology nonsense.
 sorry qwik,  but telekinesis not even worth discussing, akin to debating a flat earth

How can you say it is not even worth discussing when I have just posted 2 very serious scientific experiments? You do not even have an answer. Prove to me that you are rational and address this.

The pseudo-skeptics went full retard again and actually admitted to being pseudo-skeptics, because according to the skeptic above, there isn't anything else besides scientism! To be more specific, because he has no answer to what was the cause of the experimental results, he believed in scientism because he learned about it in his youth.

Why is it that atheists in this thread all deny experiments that prove telekinesis but never explain what is  wrong with these trials?

[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.

The extraordinary evidence (in favor of parapsychology and survival) has already been provided. I also linked to some examples where this evidence was deliberately ignored by skeptics. Since that information is in the link above, I am including it in our conversation by way of reference; surely you have the ability to read through an essay on the topic of skeptical misdirection because it clearly relates to our discussion about parapsychology.

Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.

I have posted a lot of other extraordinary evidence, yet skeptics insist there is no reliable evidence. Why keep up the charade? Skeptics should just come out and say what is so unreliable about the tests done to prove telekinesis.

Sources:
On-Camera test: http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/
Test by the United States CIA: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66xy95/zhang_baosheng_confirmed_cia_psychic_ability_to/

Skeptics in this thread consistently ignore the evidence I posted and it demonstrates that they are not here to learn, instead they like to argue and pat themselves on the back.

Ha!  welcome back my friend!  great episode as always.
thread was starting look to to like the Astergath smackdown of BADecker (no contest)
with a sprinkling of parapsychology nonsense.
 sorry qwik,  but telekinesis not even worth discussing, akin to debating a flat earth

How can you say it is not even worth discussing when I have just posted 2 very serious scientific experiments? You do not even have an answer. Prove to me that you are rational and address this.

The pseudo-skeptics went full retard again and actually admitted to being pseudo-skeptics, because according to the skeptic above, there isn't anything else besides scientism! To be more specific, because he has no answer to what was the cause of the experimental results, he believed in scientism because he learned about it in his youth.

Why is it that atheists in this thread all deny experiments that prove telekinesis but never explain what is  wrong with these trials?

First of all, they are not very serious, they are mildly serious and unsolved. There is no conclusion after two experiments and that's they way things work. Phenomenons that claim to suspend the way our reality works need greater observation, experimentation and theory than the laws of science that we understand. It's not even close to conclude anything so we can talk about it but we will never reach a common point which shall make the discussion in vain. Not having an answer yet to some questions or results of experiments does not conclude that it must be paranormal. Some things need a greater time of research, some things may be faux, some we may never find out. Also, science is not an -ism, the only idiots calling it that are the ones that try to find different answers for questions we already have answered. Science is not a system of belief, it works, you are posting now with the help of scientific research in the domain of technology, so for once, please, cut the crap off and pay a bit of respect to the ones who have dedicated their lives into researching something that actually helps you at the moment, you mindless prick. Thank you for your consideration, if there is any.

[BADecker]

Talk, talk, talk. All you have there is political science. Like the others, you haven't shown any unrebutted rebuttal to the scientific proof that God exists. That's okay, though. We all know that God exists.

I already did and you just ignored it and said that i turned aliens into God?? I mean, it's clear that you won't accept that there is no evidence for the existence of god and you are now desperately trying to convince yourself. It's ok, give it some time maybe you will awake one day.

The only thing you did was to SAY that you did it.   

You said it has to be god, what else and then you asked me what else could it be. I gave you 2 examples and then you just went full retard and said that I turned aliens into God.

But the language that I used was showing you that if aliens made cause and effect, entropy and complexity, then the aliens are God.

But, we are not the same as God. We might be His children, but because we are not the same, God is alien to us... at least in some ways. Also, God is so complex that He at least looks like many - even though He is One. So, God is "aliens" in a strange sense of the language.

The point is that you are agreeing that God exists. And that is part of what this thread is about.

God is also a virtual reality program?

The universe is a virtual reality program that God put together. The "almightyness" of God is exceedingly far beyond understanding. But we virtual machines can understand a little of Him.

So if it could be aliens or something that is not even sentient why call it God? Unless your definition of god is something else it makes no sense to call anything that created the universe a god.

You are not complex enough to be sentient, are you.

Entropy shows us that for there to be "A" amount of complexity, there has to be "B" amount of complexity that is more complex than A.

Anybody or anything that is complex enough to make the universe as we know it, should probably be termed "God." But anybody or anything that has the ability to set up the thousands of years worth of tremendous complexity through cause and effect, definitely IS God.

[Astargath]

Talk, talk, talk. All you have there is political science. Like the others, you haven't shown any unrebutted rebuttal to the scientific proof that God exists. That's okay, though. We all know that God exists.

I already did and you just ignored it and said that i turned aliens into God?? I mean, it's clear that you won't accept that there is no evidence for the existence of god and you are now desperately trying to convince yourself. It's ok, give it some time maybe you will awake one day.

The only thing you did was to SAY that you did it.   

You said it has to be god, what else and then you asked me what else could it be. I gave you 2 examples and then you just went full retard and said that I turned aliens into God.

But the language that I used was showing you that if aliens made cause and effect, entropy and complexity, then the aliens are God.

But, we are not the same as God. We might be His children, but because we are not the same, God is alien to us... at least in some ways. Also, God is so complex that He at least looks like many - even though He is One. So, God is "aliens" in a strange sense of the language.

The point is that you are agreeing that God exists. And that is part of what this thread is about.

God is also a virtual reality program?

The universe is a virtual reality program that God put together. The "almightyness" of God is exceedingly far beyond understanding. But we virtual machines can understand a little of Him.

So if it could be aliens or something that is not even sentient why call it God? Unless your definition of god is something else it makes no sense to call anything that created the universe a god.

You are not complex enough to be sentient, are you.

Entropy shows us that for there to be "A" amount of complexity, there has to be "B" amount of complexity that is more complex than A.

Anybody or anything that is complex enough to make the universe as we know it, should probably be termed "God." But anybody or anything that has the ability to set up the thousands of years worth of tremendous complexity through cause and effect, definitely IS God.

No, as you said, it just has to be more complex lol

[Horacewoodwood]

Talk, talk, talk. All you have there is political science. Like the others, you haven't shown any unrebutted rebuttal to the scientific proof that God exists. That's okay, though. We all know that God exists.

I already did and you just ignored it and said that i turned aliens into God?? I mean, it's clear that you won't accept that there is no evidence for the existence of god and you are now desperately trying to convince yourself. It's ok, give it some time maybe you will awake one day.

The only thing you did was to SAY that you did it.   

You said it has to be god, what else and then you asked me what else could it be. I gave you 2 examples and then you just went full retard and said that I turned aliens into God.

But the language that I used was showing you that if aliens made cause and effect, entropy and complexity, then the aliens are God.

But, we are not the same as God. We might be His children, but because we are not the same, God is alien to us... at least in some ways. Also, God is so complex that He at least looks like many - even though He is One. So, God is "aliens" in a strange sense of the language.

The point is that you are agreeing that God exists. And that is part of what this thread is about.

God is also a virtual reality program?

The universe is a virtual reality program that God put together. The "almightyness" of God is exceedingly far beyond understanding. But we virtual machines can understand a little of Him.

So if it could be aliens or something that is not even sentient why call it God? Unless your definition of god is something else it makes no sense to call anything that created the universe a god.

You are not complex enough to be sentient, are you.

Entropy shows us that for there to be "A" amount of complexity, there has to be "B" amount of complexity that is more complex than A.

Anybody or anything that is complex enough to make the universe as we know it, should probably be termed "God." But anybody or anything that has the ability to set up the thousands of years worth of tremendous complexity through cause and effect, definitely IS God.

Episode 24 - 'The Second Law of Thermoretardis'
At the moment, the complexity of Badecker's stupidity can be properly measured, since there are less probabilities of stupid shit he might spew out. But among all, there is one thing he kept repeating: cause and effect, entropy combined with complexity, etc. We never understood what the actual fuck is he talking about because he would never explain anything, but now he did. And as expected, the fail is greater than ever. Badecker has no idea what entropy is, what complexity refers to. What I believe he meant to say is that the second law of thermodynamics requires that the total entropy of a system can not decrease other by increasing the entropy of another system. The entropy of our system increases, due to the irreversible processes along the time. That is the arrow of entropy. The complexity of a system does not define intelligence, will, power or knowledge. It only refers to the number of microstates available in a system, the more microstates, the harder to understand and predict the system and its state. That is something that happens with our system because of the increase in entropy. The second law of thermodynamics along with entropy are fields that require lots of knowledge, observation, dedication, intelligence, etc. The superficial way in which our idiot Badecker talks about them shows how much he knows about physics in general. The shit he stated earlier is the proof: he is affected by the Second Law of Thermoretardis, where the entropy of his stupidity is decreasing because of his cold brain. His heat of stupidity is flowing to the cold brain, thus decreasing its entropy while increasing his brain's entropy. See you next time, after our retard decides to share some more retarded facts. Much love!

[bitkilo]

Talk, talk, talk. All you have there is political science. Like the others, you haven't shown any unrebutted rebuttal to the scientific proof that God exists. That's okay, though. We all know that God exists.

I already did and you just ignored it and said that i turned aliens into God?? I mean, it's clear that you won't accept that there is no evidence for the existence of god and you are now desperately trying to convince yourself. It's ok, give it some time maybe you will awake one day.

The only thing you did was to SAY that you did it.    

You said it has to be god, what else and then you asked me what else could it be. I gave you 2 examples and then you just went full retard and said that I turned aliens into God.

But the language that I used was showing you that if aliens made cause and effect, entropy and complexity, then the aliens are God.

But, we are not the same as God. We might be His children, but because we are not the same, God is alien to us... at least in some ways. Also, God is so complex that He at least looks like many - even though He is One. So, God is "aliens" in a strange sense of the language.

The point is that you are agreeing that God exists. And that is part of what this thread is about.

Please don't put religion and children together, history has shown us that religion has no place anywhere near a child

Edit: I should have added that religion is the cause of all wars and the world would be a much better off place without it.
Ban all religions.

[adel hmdt]

If bible, koran, torah and other holy scriptures are wrong this will not prove that there is no God. If there is a God there is no way we can prove his existence if he don't want to. Our civilization is still very young, still many things we cannot explained.

what this guy said, is what i think it is, maybe all religions are wrong but there is a god, to me believing in god
is the most important thing, if you really believe in god you, you don't have to pray for him, he knows what you need, i guess.

[BADecker]

Talk, talk, talk. All you have there is political science. Like the others, you haven't shown any unrebutted rebuttal to the scientific proof that God exists. That's okay, though. We all know that God exists.

I already did and you just ignored it and said that i turned aliens into God?? I mean, it's clear that you won't accept that there is no evidence for the existence of god and you are now desperately trying to convince yourself. It's ok, give it some time maybe you will awake one day.

The only thing you did was to SAY that you did it.    

You said it has to be god, what else and then you asked me what else could it be. I gave you 2 examples and then you just went full retard and said that I turned aliens into God.

But the language that I used was showing you that if aliens made cause and effect, entropy and complexity, then the aliens are God.

But, we are not the same as God. We might be His children, but because we are not the same, God is alien to us... at least in some ways. Also, God is so complex that He at least looks like many - even though He is One. So, God is "aliens" in a strange sense of the language.

The point is that you are agreeing that God exists. And that is part of what this thread is about.

Please don't put religion and children together, history has shown us that religion has no place anywhere near a child

Edit: I should have added that religion is the cause of all wars and the world would be a much better off place without it.
Ban all religions.

Actually, it is the religion of the parents that is the greatest protection for children. It's called the religion of love.

Lack of the religion of love is the cause of the religion of war.

This is a science thread. Get back on topic.

[BADecker]

If bible, koran, torah and other holy scriptures are wrong this will not prove that there is no God. If there is a God there is no way we can prove his existence if he don't want to. Our civilization is still very young, still many things we cannot explained.

what this guy said, is what i think it is, maybe all religions are wrong but there is a god, to me believing in god
is the most important thing, if you really believe in god you, you don't have to pray for him, he knows what you need, i guess.

Do you have scientific proof there is a God?   

[BADecker]

No, as you said, it just has to be more complex lol

Are you really trying to say that the universe and cause and effect are barely more complex than you are?

Try tossing countless numbers of electrons, protons, and neutrons into existence in a cause and effect "pattern" and producing intelligence thousands of years later. Do you even know how to start to do this? God did it. His complexity is way beyond that of the resulting Universe He made.

[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.

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.

The extraordinary evidence (in favor of parapsychology and survival) has already been provided. I also linked to some examples where this evidence was deliberately ignored by skeptics. Since that information is in the link above, I am including it in our conversation by way of reference; surely you have the ability to read through an essay on the topic of skeptical misdirection because it clearly relates to our discussion about parapsychology.

Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.

I have posted a lot of other extraordinary evidence, yet skeptics insist there is no reliable evidence. Why keep up the charade? Skeptics should just come out and say what is so unreliable about the tests done to prove telekinesis.

Sources:
On-Camera test: http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/
Test by the United States CIA: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66xy95/zhang_baosheng_confirmed_cia_psychic_ability_to/

Skeptics in this thread consistently ignore the evidence I posted and it demonstrates that they are not here to learn, instead they like to argue and pat themselves on the back.

Ha!  welcome back my friend!  great episode as always.
thread was starting look to to like the Astergath smackdown of BADecker (no contest)
with a sprinkling of parapsychology nonsense.
 sorry qwik,  but telekinesis not even worth discussing, akin to debating a flat earth

How can you say it is not even worth discussing when I have just posted 2 very serious scientific experiments? You do not even have an answer. Prove to me that you are rational and address this.

The pseudo-skeptics went full retard again and actually admitted to being pseudo-skeptics, because according to the skeptic above, there isn't anything else besides scientism! To be more specific, because he has no answer to what was the cause of the experimental results, he believed in scientism because he learned about it in his youth.

Why is it that atheists in this thread all deny experiments that prove telekinesis but never explain what is  wrong with these trials?

First of all, they are not very serious, they are mildly serious and unsolved. There is no conclusion after two experiments and that's they way things work. Phenomenons that claim to suspend the way our reality works need greater observation, experimentation and theory than the laws of science that we understand. It's not even close to conclude anything so we can talk about it but we will never reach a common point which shall make the discussion in vain. Not having an answer yet to some questions or results of experiments does not conclude that it must be paranormal. Some things need a greater time of research, some things may be faux, some we may never find out. Also, science is not an -ism, the only idiots calling it that are the ones that try to find different answers for questions we already have answered. Science is not a system of belief, it works, you are posting now with the help of scientific research in the domain of technology, so for once, please, cut the crap off and pay a bit of respect to the ones who have dedicated their lives into researching something that actually helps you at the moment, you mindless prick. Thank you for your consideration, if there is any.

I considered your post but the fact remains that psychics have undergone rigorous testing by psychologists and by the CIA, and I have sourced that claim for you, so therefore to call these tests "mildly serious" would be a colossal error. Nor are these experiments "unsolved" because the conclusion is straightforward and is already suggested by a variety of other phenomena.

You did not try to explain these results, your model does not account for all of the evidence, indicating that it is a rather weak model of reality. Survival can explain these results, you should read more about it:
 Survival is a theoretical model designed to describe observed phenomena and results of considerable study by many researchers. Even though metaphysics has been around for centuries, this current view is based at least in part on research enabled by the introduction of instrumental forms of transcommunication (communication across the veil).
http://ethericstudies.org/trans-survival-hypothesis/

Will you ever explain what specifically is unscientific about these trials? The methods seem quite sound to me, and the astonishing results should be explained.

[sirazimuth]

Episode 24 - 'The Second Law of Thermoretardis'
At the moment, the complexity of Badecker's stupidity can be properly measured, since there are less probabilities of stupid shit he might spew out. But among all, there is one thing he kept repeating: cause and effect, entropy combined with complexity, etc. We never understood what the actual fuck is he talking about because he would never explain anything, but now he did. And as expected, the fail is greater than ever. Badecker has no idea what entropy is, what complexity refers to. What I believe he meant to say is that the second law of thermodynamics requires that the total entropy of a system can not decrease other by increasing the entropy of another system. The entropy of our system increases, due to the irreversible processes along the time. That is the arrow of entropy. The complexity of a system does not define intelligence, will, power or knowledge. It only refers to the number of microstates available in a system, the more microstates, the harder to understand and predict the system and its state. That is something that happens with our system because of the increase in entropy. The second law of thermodynamics along with entropy are fields that require lots of knowledge, observation, dedication, intelligence, etc. The superficial way in which our idiot Badecker talks about them shows how much he knows about physics in general. The shit he stated earlier is the proof: he is affected by the Second Law of Thermoretardis, where the entropy of his stupidity is decreasing because of his cold brain. His heat of stupidity is flowing to the cold brain, thus decreasing its entropy while increasing his brain's entropy. See you next time, after our retard decides to share some more retarded facts. Much love!

The Second Law of Thermoretardis ...lmfao!  frikkin epic episode  dude! thanx

I considered your post but the fact remains that psychics have undergone rigorous testing by psychologists and by the CIA, and I have sourced that claim for you, so therefore to call these tests "mildly serious" would be a colossal error. Nor are these experiments "unsolved" because the conclusion is straightforward and is already suggested by a variety of other phenomena.

You did not try to explain these results, your model does not account for all of the evidence, indicating that it is a rather weak model of reality. Survival can explain these results, you should read more about it:
 Survival is a theoretical model designed to describe observed phenomena and results of considerable study by many researchers. Even though metaphysics has been around for centuries, this current view is based at least in part on research enabled by the introduction of instrumental forms of transcommunication (communication across the veil).
http://ethericstudies.org/trans-survival-hypothesis/

Will you ever explain what specifically is unscientific about these trials? The methods seem quite sound to me, and the astonishing results should be explained.

good lord!! what kind of retarded pseudo-science bullshit nonsense are you reading anyway?  try googling James Randi just for starters.
Paranormal ESP  garbage or whatever it's called these days has all long since been debunked and its not even discussed anymore in the real scientific community .
But hey... go visit the bigfoot, alien kidnapping, ufo , talking to the dead etc, etc websites. they will welcome you with open arms!!

[Astargath]

No, as you said, it just has to be more complex lol

Are you really trying to say that the universe and cause and effect are barely more complex than you are?

Try tossing countless numbers of electrons, protons, and neutrons into existence in a cause and effect "pattern" and producing intelligence thousands of years later. Do you even know how to start to do this? God did it. His complexity is way beyond that of the resulting Universe He made.

When did I say ''barely'' You said the thing that created the universe has to be more complex than the universe and I said, ok, then that thing only has to be more complex, that still doesn't show it's god, it just shows the thing that created it has to be more complex.