It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.
They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.
Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.
Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking.
Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links.
Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory.
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
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 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.
