Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 186. (Read 845582 times)

You posted many times 4 links which supposedly are the proof of God, 3 of them are only about cause and effect and the other one also includes cause and effect. Then you say cause and effect doesn't prove God. If it doesn't why do you keep mentioning it?

The other ''proof'' is machine-like or the watchmaker argument, same thing really which is a very stupid argument anyways:

For those who are unfamiliar with the watchmaker analogy, it is a teleological argument for the existence of a Creator (in this case, God). A teleological argument is otherwise known as an “argument from design,” and asserts that there is an order to nature that is best explained by the presence of some kind of intelligent designer. The most current incarnation of this argument is, of course, Intelligent Design.

Anyway, the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this:

“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”
The point that Paley was trying to make is that a watch implies a watchmaker, and that the world is like a watch, in that the world implies a worldmaker. Obviously, there are many flaws to this analogy (the world isn’t even remotely comparable to a watch, for example), and in fact, Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Read it if you are looking for a wild time on a Saturday night.

In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved (ha ha) to include the notion of “irreducible complexity,” a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes.

But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree.

If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.

So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself.

By the way, reading this post from the start I found a really interesting post of yours badecker:

I agree with you. At present, we don't have a method that can prove the existence of God to anyone else. Least not that I am aware of. For whatever reason it seems you believe one way and I believe the opposite. You are not the one who has attempted the character assassination. Yours is more of a friendly reprimand; please pardon if I seemed to say more than that in a former post.
 

Eyewitnesses who are reliable are a good source of evidence.
Medical records are an example of evidence from reliable eyewitnesses. So are historical records like the ones presented.

''some of the strongest proof available.'' Give me a fucking break, they are all bullshit. There is no real testable evidence for any of them, they rely on eye witnesses.

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=22550

Everything is debunked there, many times. Don't post shit like this please.

How could a rational atheist explain this evidence?
There is not even one post of real discussion of the evidence by the pseudo-skeptics in this thread.
The 'skeptics' in this thread are embarrassing themselves when they should be examining the ideas presented above.

I am still waiting for a rebuttal of the top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body.

These observations strongly support the survival hypothesis. What do atheists and humanists have to say about the compelling evidence presented here?

Thanks for reading the cases, they really are, in my opinion, some of the strongest proof available.
I am still waiting for a rebuttal for these cases, it must include an explanation that is simple and adequate, but to me it seems that survival is the most simple and adequate.

I'm sorry, but how did you link your answer with my post which was about Badecker? I need some time to read all those cases, research and give you my opinion on them, so you have no answer from me, yet you replied to my post about Badecker as if it were my opinion on that matter.

God is real and i know JESUS Christ because Jesus revealed himself to me so many timed

You posted many times 4 links which supposedly are the proof of God, 3 of them are only about cause and effect and the other one also includes cause and effect. Then you say cause and effect doesn't prove God. If it doesn't why do you keep mentioning it?

The other ''proof'' is machine-like or the watchmaker argument, same thing really which is a very stupid argument anyways:

For those who are unfamiliar with the watchmaker analogy, it is a teleological argument for the existence of a Creator (in this case, God). A teleological argument is otherwise known as an “argument from design,” and asserts that there is an order to nature that is best explained by the presence of some kind of intelligent designer. The most current incarnation of this argument is, of course, Intelligent Design.

Anyway, the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this:

“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”
The point that Paley was trying to make is that a watch implies a watchmaker, and that the world is like a watch, in that the world implies a worldmaker. Obviously, there are many flaws to this analogy (the world isn’t even remotely comparable to a watch, for example), and in fact, Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Read it if you are looking for a wild time on a Saturday night.

In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved (ha ha) to include the notion of “irreducible complexity,” a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes.

But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree.

If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.

So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself.

By the way, reading this post from the start I found a really interesting post of yours badecker:

I agree with you. At present, we don't have a method that can prove the existence of God to anyone else. Least not that I am aware of. For whatever reason it seems you believe one way and I believe the opposite. You are not the one who has attempted the character assassination. Yours is more of a friendly reprimand; please pardon if I seemed to say more than that in a former post.
 

Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works.

Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works.

You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.''

So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument