Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 185. (Read 845650 times)

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

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.

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

Here it is again:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.

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

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

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

This without badecker is pretty boring, then again he got destroyed so he can't really comeback to say anything. If a scientist were to prove the existence of God right now he would for sure get a Nobel prize and would be the world most famous man alive. That is, obviously, not the case. Try to post your research in any case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

apparently qwik2learn is not exactly too qwik2learn  

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

Did not find addressed the Eisenbeiss case listed as #1 on AECES. Many of the problems are not valid and rely on misdirection. For example it is a problem if a researcher "believes in God also" but prior beliefs are not exactly relevant to evaluating the presented evidence objectively. Also there was no plausible alternative hypothesis presented. Skeptics did not meet their burden of explaining the evidence simply and plausibly.

No no, you won't get away from this one.

''All around us, in nature and the universe we see machine-like operations. These operations are extremely complex inside life and the cells. Machines have makers.'' (Where did you get the idea of machines have makers, you said that a monkey using a rock is a machine, how does that tell you it has a maker, how exactly did you get to that conclusion)(You also still haven't defined what machine-like operations actually mean, then you post a bunch of videos explaining how cells work, ok?)

''The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker - God. Machines have makers.'' (Again assumptions for no reason, how do you know advanced machines of the universe have an advanced maker and how do you know the advanced maker is god)

1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

1A) Firstly this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition isn't always a pure pathway to truth (i.e. - intuition states that the Sun goes around the Earth). There may indeed always be a cause for anything and everything that has or ever will come into existence, including whatever came into existence at the Big Bang event (the postulated beginning of our Universe), but that cause isn't always evident. Some quantum physicists would in fact claim that there are uncaused things (i.e. - radioactivity).

1B) Whatever cause in itself that has come into existence has, IMHO, thus resulted from a previous cause, which had a previous cause which had a previous cause and that chain can be extended as far back as you wish. Stated another way, there is no such thing as a First Cause.

1C) Whatever thing that came into existence came into existence from a previous thing(s) which existed and which in turn came into existence from a previous thing(s) which in turn came into existence from yet a previous thing and so on as far back as you wish to go. Stated another way, you can only bring something into existence from a previous something. You cannot bring a material something into existence from pure nothingness or from anything immaterial.

2) Premise: The Universe began to exist.

2A) I need note here that the "Universe" is defined as the sum total of all the bits and pieces that collectively make up the, or our, "Universe". The "Universe" is just the label we give to all of those bits and pieces (particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks, planets, stars, etc.) that came into existence in-the-beginning or later emerged into existence out of simpler states (i.e. – molecules from atoms).

2B) The assumption here is that our Universe is the be-all-and-end-all of the Cosmos**. While that may be the case, it's not necessarily so. Just because you came into existence doesn't mean that others don't also exist. Our Universe could be one of many. There could be parallel universes or even a postulated Multiverse or Megaverse - maybe.

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

3A) The effect (resulting from the cause) of the Universe coming into existence or coming into being is called the Big Bang event, so the cause of the Universe (i.e. - the cause of the Big Bang event) was something prior to the Big Bang event. If the Universe had a cause then that cause was obviously pre-Universe or before the Big Bang event.

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

3C) In context all we can say is that our Universe came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang event and that the Big Bang event had a cause. That says nothing about the larger context as suggested in 2B. It could be that our Universe popped into existence from within a larger Cosmos just like a baby pops out of the womb at birth.

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

4A) Nearly all theists state that the cause of the Universe was due to an omnipresent (all-present), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), all-loving, perfectly moral, and perfectly benevolent Almighty Being (i.e. - God). However these traits along with an entity who is itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, and space-less; an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will, aren't verified; aren't all mutually inclusive and logical, with many an inherent philosophical inconsistency as well as many being actually contradicted by Biblical chapter-and-verse passages (i.e. - God is hardly all-loving).

4B) But a supernatural deity with some or all of these traits is also a total fallacy even if for no other reason than that the Cosmos has to be eternal (temporally infinite) since as I noted above there can be no First Cause and because you can't, and not even God can, create something material from the immaterial. It's a logical contradiction to postulate the creation / existence of an absolute something from an absolute state of pure nothingness and even God has to conform to logic (i.e. - God can't create a spherical cube). If you can't create something from nothing then something has always existed. If the Cosmos is infinite or endlessly cyclic, an infinitely repeating causal loop where A causes B and B in turn causes A, then what need for a God? If therefore, as theists want, that the Cosmos is finite since infinities aren't possible (i.e. - they tend to throw spanners into theistic philosophies - see 4D), then God too is temporally finite, therefore had a beginning and therefore had a cause. That of course contradicts the concept of an eternal deity and raises the obvious question, what caused God? If God is eternal then God created the Cosmos and our Universe an infinite time ago which is clearly not the case.

4C) Since science can't explain or actually identify the "cause" that caused the existence of our Universe, on the grounds that the cause preceded the Big Bang event and thus this cause can't be observed or measured, theists step into the gap and conclude that God is that cause. This God-of-the-gaps conclusion is also a fallacy since there are numerous other alternatives. The cause of the Universe could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any deity or deities from any of the world's hundreds of creation mythologies. Maybe it was just a natural Big Crunch (a contracting universe) turning inside out at crunch time into a Big Bang; maybe an unknown and perhaps unknowable other natural cause we haven’t imagined yet; perhaps a quantum fluctuation; even perhaps (and this is my bias) a mortal, fallible, flesh-and-blood computer / software programmer fills the gap. God is only one hypothesis of many.

4D) Theists, even some cosmologists mistakenly say that there can't be an infinite Cosmos due to entropy (the state of useable energy available). An infinite Cosmos would have attained a state of maximum entropy an infinite time ago but that is not what we observe. I contend that at the moment of the Big Bang the clock was reset to time equals zero; the Universe was restored to original factory settings (including a state of minimum entropy). Consider this analogy. You only started ageing, started running down, and started increasing your entropy, at your conception. That's when your clock started. That state of conception was your original factory condition. What came before was irrelevant since as far as you are concerned, there was no before (although clearly there was). You had a cause therefore there was a state that existed before you. That cause was your parents and their state of entropy is an irrelevance as far as you (their child) is concerned at conception.

There you go again, saying that you debunked something, without expressing the debunking.

I get it, however. You don't appear to even know how to look up the word "machine" in the dictionary or encyclopedia. So, how could you even understand enough about proof for anything to attempt to debunk it?

It's amazing you can even type anything into the computer at all!

So badecker ''proof'' has been debunked by himself and me. He said cause and effect alone is not enough to prove god existence and I debunked the rest :

https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-debunked

You assume the first cause, motor, etc... is God, which is that, only an assumption, there is no evidence for it.

You never explain what you mean by machines, then you say animals use machines like rocks and then you say machines that exist in nature are far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. So a rock is far more advanced than a TV by your understanding. Then you say, The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker. A wild assumption again but ok, however you do not stop there you also say it's God, another assumption with no evidence supporting it.

He ignored it, of course but can you blame him? He has nothing now.