Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 259. (Read 845809 times)

Consider this:
"Presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?" --Atheism and Secularity, Page 10 (2009)
Humanists do not have an afterlife-concept, they only recognize human life "here and now".
Even so-called "Buddhist atheists" lack an afterlife-concept, this is contrary to what Buddha taught.
I have never found an atheist with an afterlife-concept, and presumably this is impossible because then the atheist in question would not be a humanist, so therefore not an atheist.

Survival hypothesis.

I was of the understanding that the only rule of being Atheist was their lack of belief in God. It doesn't say any rules about believing in the afterlife or not.

Scientfic proof of what?

Atheists lack a god-concept and they also lack an afterlife-concept, this is why all atheists are humanists.

The 52 points of evidence at near-death.com constitute a form of scientific proof; proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it.
The evidence cannot be refuted because the skeptical arguments are flawed to the point that the burden of proof now rests upon skeptics; for example, since there is no reason to believe that NDEs are the result of brain dysfunction, skeptics are left without a mechanism to explain the objective phenomena of NDE. From this state of affairs comes the conclusion that there are no better hypotheses than Survival.

Scientific method:- Observe a phenomenon. Ask questions about it. Create an hypothesis. Conduct experiments on the hypothesis. Draw conclusion from results.
Proof:- Evidence(s) that cannot be refuted.

The Survival hypothesis has been proven by way of a refutation of the "brain dysfunction" hypothesis. To believe in this latter hypothesis is to be mistaken and ignorant of the evidence. Rarely, a skeptic will admit that s/he is prejudiced against the evidence presented, but this is really a form of ignorance held up by a desire to cling to one's existing Belief-System (B.S.)

As scientists, we should evaluate the best available hypothesis, and Survival stands up to all scrutiny while skeptical (humanist) arguments do not. Therefore, I have posted the scientific proof that discredits humanism (atheism) and develops an afterlife-concept with the Survival hypothesis as a starting point. Another good starting point for understanding rebirth is the "Pleiades Connection" series of Phoenix Journals.

Glad you're okay.

1)  You have not posted a consistent definition for "science" (evident by the fact you interchangeably refer to it as both a method and a data set without knowing when you switch between the two), and the ones you have posted for "proof" do not match the evidence you describe as such.  Additionally the scientific method is precise and unchanging (i.e. it is absolutely certain to know when you have violated it).  In other words, the definition for the scientific method is also unchanging.

2)  Yes, some of us do absolutely know the rules of logic, and one of those rules is that it is concrete and unchanging -- if it weren't, then you could never be certain about anything, ever (i.e. if that were the case, you might as well just never think or speak).  If you don't know the rules -- and this much is absurdly clear --  then that's your own lack of understanding.  You would be wise to acknowledge that people know more about it than you do.  Sorry, but the truth doesn't care how right you think you are.  Think about the fact you don't even know what an inductive fallacy is, and that you thought it meant something about poor electrical superconductors.  You need to assume less and learn more.

3)  No.  It's more like you don't care about the truth, but only care that everything reinforces what you already believe is true.  Even the Christians and church-goers in this thread think you're totally off your rocker.  That in itself doesn't totally mean you are, but you'd have to be a fool to ignore the "evidence."  Nobody gets what you're saying because it doesn't make logical sense, and so what we do know is that whatever you are trying to say is wrong.  That which is logically inconsistent is irrelevant to reality.  This is another logical rule.

4)   Um, okay.

I have posted dictionary definitions that have more than one definition included within the definition.

Nobody knows entirely the rules of logic. Nor does anyone know for a fact that they don't change.

My posting isn't with the idea of writing a book. If someone doesn't get the gist of what I am saying from what I say, that's okay with me. Most of the time it is because they don't want to.

Don't worry about it too much. You'll survive.

Because there are generally multiple meanings for a given word in the dictionary, and in previous posts you have utilized multiple definitions for the same word without letting anyone else know that you're changing between them.  I can't look in the dictionary and just assume my selection is the one you selected.  The whole point of setting a definition is so that your argument stays consistent.  What doesn't change (and never has, nor ever will) are the rules of logic, and these rules state that consistency is of primary importance to a logical argument.  Inconsistency --> invalidity --> unsound.

That's the point. You want me to post every definition in the world just so that I can use it later when needed. Just take it as it stands. The definitions that are out there are the definitions that I use. I use them as I find them or need them. Certainly I don't know all the definitions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo

Because they might be different to those. Plus if you write them down now you cannot change them at a later date to win a losing argument.

Very disappointed.

I thought about that. But why waste the time posting a bunch of dictionary and encyclopedia and Youtube and Internet definitions when anybody who is forum savvy can look these things up themselves?

God wouldn't let him be a homosexual. If God was LGBT friendly he wouldn't have created Eve for Adams toy. He would have created Ed and given Adam a kinky plaything that actually enjoys sex and never gets a "headache".

Why not just use your own words as you was asked?

Who's to say Jesus wasn't homosexual?
Perhaps people found out and that's why he got pinned up on that cross.
We can only speculate.

Sure.

Evidence:- Possible proof of something.
Science:- Human pursuit of knowledge.
Scientific method:- Observe a phenomenon. Ask questions about it. Create an hypothesis. Conduct experiments on the hypothesis. Draw conclusion from results.
Proof:- Evidence(s) that cannot be refuted.


No doubt this post will be dug out in the future to shoot me down over something.

Yeah, that's probably right. It would be kind of rude for him to get married though. His wife would have urges and he couldn't do anything for her because his dad told him that thing was only to pee out of.

Those religious freakazoids believed sex was only for making babies. Jesus couldn't allow himself to have a kid so he couldn't have sex. How hard would a kids life be if he was known as, the son of the son of God. If he did get married, I hope he had a long tongue and could breathe through his ears.

That's easy. All language except legal language (in the U.S.) is subject to change based on common usage. Since this is so, simply use the dictionary definition that you want, or the common usage definition that has not made it to the dictionary yet.



EDIT: In this way, language is somewhat like quantum. You can use it in any way that you want, to get some idea across. And it can be used in any way to get any idea across. Some ways of using it may give you more difficulty getting your ideas across than others. Language is quantum.

To set the context, I don't mind if you define evidence, science, scientific method, and proof in your own way, so long as I know what you think they are.

Can you define each in your own way so that I can refer to the post in the future?

All right. I was too hard on the atheists. They are not really idiots. They are simply not sound of mind.

Of course. Who of sound mind wouldn't ignore fallacious evidence?