Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 254. (Read 845582 times)

Comparing gold and air?  That's the most illogical argument I've heard all day 

Where the hell have you been? The last post I read of yours was like in April or May.


On topic: God, bible, religion, super good fun stuff, right? ok.

Air, water, sunlight....all abundant and free, yet very valuable.  Price is what you pay for something and value is what you get out of something.  A breath of air, a gulp of water, a bar of gold....what's more valuable and what costs most?  When it comes down do it, which would you rather have, a bar of gold or a breath of air?

This whole thread is unsound reasoning.  BD thinks memories form before the brain does - how do you argue against such stupidity?

Well, now that's unsound reasoning.  But, you are right about the agreement part...logic only works if the definitions are agreed upon.

Well, you'll find a lot of people don't agree your god is life.

So it follows necessarily that your god does not exist.

Yup, sound reasoning, "IF" we all agree that the Tooth Fairy is life AND life does exists then it follows necessarily that the Tooth Fairy does exist.

Small pox has a steep price if you speak to the right person.  


The Tooth Fairy is life.
Life exists.
Therefore, Tooth Fairy exists.

 

My definition:
A supreme being who is the founder and guarantor of knowledge.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.5300

You are confusing survival in terms of bodily functions with the "survival hypothesis", which is the best explanation for the evidence and is defined as "Some part of the personality 'survives' upon death of the physical body."

OK, death is how nature renews itself; no argument there. However, the survival hypothesis has been proven without a doubt, so it is not certain that all personalities will die along with the body.

How is that relevant to me today? And what if I have earned my way aboard God's spaceship???

If you disbelieve the survival hypothesis, then what is your alternative explanation for all of the evidence that I posted?

For anyone who dies, it is possible that "some part of the personality 'survives' after the death of the physical body". The evidence points strongly in favor of the survival hypothesis, but we do not know the details about life and death.
This kind of question (about Alzheimer's) is not relevant to our discussion of the survival hypothesis. You are talking about purpose and it is not necessary to bring that into a discussion of the evidence in favor of the survival hypothesis. First you have to understand and accept the survival hypothesis, then by careful study of the evidence you can form your own hypothesis regarding purpose, mechanism, etc.

Not everything, everything with demand. Small pox is scarce now, yet has no market value because nobody wants it.
Then we would have to go by analysis of liquidity. If the market for a scarce good is too small, regardless the value will be hard to cash out.  

Qualifier: New to this discussion

First, what definition of God are we beginning this discussion to argue?  All good proofs begin with an agreed upon definition, develop with sound reasoning, and conclude with what necessarily follows.  Right?  So, what is the agreed upon definition of God here?  Creator? Omnipotent? Omnipresent? Living? Natural? Physical? Spiritual...etc

Hint: The simpler the definition, the more likely it is to find an affirmative proof.

Example: Definition-God is life.

Proof:        God is life.
                 Life exists.
                 Therefore, God exists.
                    

Wouldn't it be like anything else - more valuable as it becomes scarce?  If there are an unlimited number of something, then it's not valuable at all.

1aguar,

To "survive" is much more than just re-implant your soul somewhere else. To survive requires that your basic functions, namely your brain functions, to be still functional. Hardly you can say that someone in the terminal stages of Alzheimer disease or in vegetation is "alive", to best it "still breath".
I know that humans always had issues with death and never got convinced on why it happens; well, it's needed for development of the species and Nature doesn't give a damn if you like it or not. Anyway, with or without reincarnation when that big orange ball in the sky turns red and explodes we will go for good.
If believing on reincarnation makes you feel good... well... good for you, keep on it.

But, btw, if someone with Alzheimer dies, then what use will have their soul, taken they lost awareness of reality prior to die?

Vod,

IDK, seams some guy named Devil is buying them, but IDK at which market or rate!

Who are you to judge the value of a soul?

Do you think that Man is the founder and guarantor of knowledge? Is that why you think that you can make such a judgment?

If so, then you are mistaken! In fact, all humanists are mistaken; the weight of the evidence shows that humanism is false.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.5300

So you are saying there is an unlimited stock of souls?

Well, if there are an unlimited amount, that would make each one worthless, wouldn't it?

I have trouble understanding you...

I want to remind you that the survival hypothesis is rather simple: Some part of the personality "survives" upon death of the physical body.

These 52 points, along with the AWARE study, the Eisenbeiss case, and other lines of evidence are most easily explained by the survival hypothesis. The hypothesis is so powerful that it is a sufficient explanation all by itself; a hypothesis about the purpose or mechanism is not necessary to explain the data.

Therefore, philosophical materialism and humanism have been proven false on empirical grounds; these theories are insufficient, and like I said: The idea that "you only live once", i.e. the basis of humanism, has been falsified.

It is easy to prove that God exists once the idea that "you only live once" is rejected.

But why in hell would that would add something to survival?!
There is no limited stock of souls.

Again you are wrong; this experience is universal just like NDE; you can reference "European Cases of the Reincarnation Type"...

OK, how will you use suggestion to explain the results of the AWARE study, the Eisenbeiss case, and the fact that scientific discoveries have been brought back by people having an NDE?

Not only is that a non-sequitor, it is also FALSE; here, we are discussing the survival hypothesis!

I can see that you did not read very many of my 52 points, or else you would have seen that NDE happens to everyone.

"Regardless of their prior attitudes - whether skeptical or deeply religious - and regardless of the many variations in religious beliefs and degrees of skepticism from tolerant disbelief to outspoken atheism - most of these people were convinced that they had been in the presence of some supreme and loving power and had a glimpse of a life yet to come."
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a29

"No matter what the nature of the NDE, it alters lives. Alcoholics find themselves unable to imbibe. Hardened criminals opt for a life of helping others. Atheists embrace the existence of a deity, while dogmatic members of a particular religion report 'feeling welcome in any church or temple or mosque.'"
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a31

Atheists have deathbed experiences and near-death experiences just like everyone else does. The philosophy of Positivism, founded by the famous atheist named A. J. Ayer, is the philosophy that anything not verifiable by the senses is nonsense. Because NDEs mark the end of the senses, Positivists believe the survival of the senses after death is nonsense. But this philosophy has been challenged by its founder A. J. Ayer himself. Later in life, Ayer had an NDE where he saw a red light. Ayer's NDE made him a changed man: "My recent experiences, have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death ... will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be." (Ayer, 1988 a,b) (Read more about it from an article in the National Post and an article by Gerry Lougrhan: Can there be life after life? Ask the atheist! (by Gerry Lougrhan, Letter From London, March 18, 2001.)
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a50

In India, where people is more akin to believe on reincarnation, 1:500 recalls past lives... likewise on Catholic countries 1:500 claims to had some sort of miracle, but none even thinks of a previous life to start with.

My hypothesis to this is rather simple: the power of suggestion.
As I said early, no Jesus appears to Muslims as no Muhammad appears to Christians.