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.shtmlDo 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=120669Everything 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#a32This 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_fallacieshttps://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirectionIf 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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.
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)
1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
1A) Firstly this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition isn't always a pure pathway to truth (i.e. - intuition states that the Sun goes around the Earth). There may indeed always be a cause for anything and everything that has or ever will come into existence, including whatever came into existence at the Big Bang event (the postulated beginning of our Universe), but that cause isn't always evident. Some quantum physicists would in fact claim that there are uncaused things (i.e. - radioactivity).
1B) Whatever cause in itself that has come into existence has, IMHO, thus resulted from a previous cause, which had a previous cause which had a previous cause and that chain can be extended as far back as you wish. Stated another way, there is no such thing as a First Cause.
1C) Whatever thing that came into existence came into existence from a previous thing(s) which existed and which in turn came into existence from a previous thing(s) which in turn came into existence from yet a previous thing and so on as far back as you wish to go. Stated another way, you can only bring something into existence from a previous something. You cannot bring a material something into existence from pure nothingness or from anything immaterial.
2) Premise: The Universe began to exist.
2A) I need note here that the "Universe" is defined as the sum total of all the bits and pieces that collectively make up the, or our, "Universe". The "Universe" is just the label we give to all of those bits and pieces (particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks, planets, stars, etc.) that came into existence in-the-beginning or later emerged into existence out of simpler states (i.e. – molecules from atoms).
2B) The assumption here is that our Universe is the be-all-and-end-all of the Cosmos**. While that may be the case, it's not necessarily so. Just because you came into existence doesn't mean that others don't also exist. Our Universe could be one of many. There could be parallel universes or even a postulated Multiverse or Megaverse - maybe.
3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
3A) The effect (resulting from the cause) of the Universe coming into existence or coming into being is called the Big Bang event, so the cause of the Universe (i.e. - the cause of the Big Bang event) was something prior to the Big Bang event. If the Universe had a cause then that cause was obviously pre-Universe or before the Big Bang event.
3B) That's where the cosmological buck has to stop since we can't observe or measure anything prior to the Big Bang event.
3C) In context all we can say is that our Universe came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang event and that the Big Bang event had a cause. That says nothing about the larger context as suggested in 2B. It could be that our Universe popped into existence from within a larger Cosmos just like a baby pops out of the womb at birth.
4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God.
4A) Nearly all theists state that the cause of the Universe was due to an omnipresent (all-present), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), all-loving, perfectly moral, and perfectly benevolent Almighty Being (i.e. - God). However these traits along with an entity who is itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, and space-less; an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will, aren't verified; aren't all mutually inclusive and logical, with many an inherent philosophical inconsistency as well as many being actually contradicted by Biblical chapter-and-verse passages (i.e. - God is hardly all-loving).
4B) But a supernatural deity with some or all of these traits is also a total fallacy even if for no other reason than that the Cosmos has to be eternal (temporally infinite) since as I noted above there can be no First Cause and because you can't, and not even God can, create something material from the immaterial. It's a logical contradiction to postulate the creation / existence of an absolute something from an absolute state of pure nothingness and even God has to conform to logic (i.e. - God can't create a spherical cube). If you can't create something from nothing then something has always existed. If the Cosmos is infinite or endlessly cyclic, an infinitely repeating causal loop where A causes B and B in turn causes A, then what need for a God? If therefore, as theists want, that the Cosmos is finite since infinities aren't possible (i.e. - they tend to throw spanners into theistic philosophies - see 4D), then God too is temporally finite, therefore had a beginning and therefore had a cause. That of course contradicts the concept of an eternal deity and raises the obvious question, what caused God? If God is eternal then God created the Cosmos and our Universe an infinite time ago which is clearly not the case.
4C) Since science can't explain or actually identify the "cause" that caused the existence of our Universe, on the grounds that the cause preceded the Big Bang event and thus this cause can't be observed or measured, theists step into the gap and conclude that God is that cause. This God-of-the-gaps conclusion is also a fallacy since there are numerous other alternatives. The cause of the Universe could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any deity or deities from any of the world's hundreds of creation mythologies. Maybe it was just a natural Big Crunch (a contracting universe) turning inside out at crunch time into a Big Bang; maybe an unknown and perhaps unknowable other natural cause we haven’t imagined yet; perhaps a quantum fluctuation; even perhaps (and this is my bias) a mortal, fallible, flesh-and-blood computer / software programmer fills the gap. God is only one hypothesis of many.
4D) Theists, even some cosmologists mistakenly say that there can't be an infinite Cosmos due to entropy (the state of useable energy available). An infinite Cosmos would have attained a state of maximum entropy an infinite time ago but that is not what we observe. I contend that at the moment of the Big Bang the clock was reset to time equals zero; the Universe was restored to original factory settings (including a state of minimum entropy). Consider this analogy. You only started ageing, started running down, and started increasing your entropy, at your conception. That's when your clock started. That state of conception was your original factory condition. What came before was irrelevant since as far as you are concerned, there was no before (although clearly there was). You had a cause therefore there was a state that existed before you. That cause was your parents and their state of entropy is an irrelevance as far as you (their child) is concerned at conception.
Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over)
There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)
Through modern science, specifically physics, natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is impossible — according to our current understanding of physics — to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is stochastic and might be uncaused, providing an arguable counterexample to the assumption that everything must have a cause. An objection to this counterexample is that knowledge regarding such phenomena is limited and there may be an underlying but presently unknown cause. However, if the causal status of radioactive decay is unknown then the truth of the premise that 'everything has a cause' is indeterminate rather than false. In either case, the first cause argument is rendered ineffective.
