Scientific proof that God exists?

[sirazimuth]

This is exactly why we can't use carbon dating to verify the age of things. The Bible record suggests that there might not have been any C-14 in the atmospher prior to the Great Flood of Noah's day.

The point isn't the Bible record. The point is that we can't go back very far with any certainty. We don't really know how much older than 5,000 years the universe is, through scientific observation.

Having fun yet?

and here we have yet another demonstration of the sheer ignorance of our buddy badecker.
he's probably never heard of anything other than carbon dating which only works back to 5000 years or so.
dude, you ever heard of all the other elements that dekay with known half lives? no didnt think so....
educate yourself... seriously educate yourself.
sometimes i think you really don't believe all the shit you spout, you've just gone so far down the road of delusion
with these threads ,that to take it all back now is impossible and you'd look foolish (you do anyway) ,so you  figure ....
"gone this far, might as well just carry on and go full retard!!!"

[Astargath]

Scientists critical of parapsychology state that its extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence if they are to be taken seriously.

Science works, the scientific method works and has been applied successfully to a lot of advancements we have today. Parapsychology has not.

The statement about "extraordinary evidence" IS A FALLACY; you should try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy, and try reading the links I posted in detail so that you see where you are going wrong; I have already addressed this in great detail with my own references.

Perhaps you have your references and I have mine. So be it; I have provided a lot to consider; anyone interested can ask me for the specific links relating the proof of GOD; I will summarize some of the best information right here:
Dozens of the brightest and most eminent researchers asserting their opinion, many lifelong and famous skeptics like Sartre, Ayers, Doyle, Flew.
The personality of a chess grandmaster; the prior personality was replicated by a medium.
Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.
A wide variety of information disclosed via mediumship and ET communication, many serious cases, particularly the Phoenix Journals.
Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics, a convincing disclosure that GOD is an infinite being and actually exists: www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm
40 top cases from AECES, 52 points of evidence from the near-death site, evidence of skeptical fallacies and skeptical misdirection, research from the meticulous Ian Stevenson, reference to other important books like Irreducible Mind which is to my knowledge the latest book on the parapsychology controversy.

Dude stop it. Live in the real life. There is no such thing as telekinesis or aliens or ghosts. You don't go to college to stupid how to move things with your mind, do you? Why is there no college degree for telekinesis or learning how to be a medium or study about ghosts? I will tell you why, because they are all bullshit, stop living in la la land. People go to college to study medicine, engineering, programming... things that actually work in real life and are actually useful. We haven't got this far thanks to telekinesis or ghosts, we got this far thanks to science, real science.

[ckorbba]

Scientists critical of parapsychology state that its extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence if they are to be taken seriously.

Science works, the scientific method works and has been applied successfully to a lot of advancements we have today. Parapsychology has not.

The statement about "extraordinary evidence" IS A FALLACY; you should try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy, and try reading the links I posted in detail so that you see where you are going wrong; I have already addressed this in great detail with my own references.

Perhaps you have your references and I have mine. So be it; I have provided a lot to consider; anyone interested can ask me for the specific links relating the proof of GOD; I will summarize some of the best information right here:
Dozens of the brightest and most eminent researchers asserting their opinion, many lifelong and famous skeptics like Sartre, Ayers, Doyle, Flew.
The personality of a chess grandmaster; the prior personality was replicated by a medium.
Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.
A wide variety of information disclosed via mediumship and ET communication, many serious cases, particularly the Phoenix Journals.
Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics, a convincing disclosure that GOD is an infinite being and actually exists: www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm
40 top cases from AECES, 52 points of evidence from the near-death site, evidence of skeptical fallacies and skeptical misdirection, research from the meticulous Ian Stevenson, reference to other important books like Irreducible Mind which is to my knowledge the latest book on the parapsychology controversy.

Dude stop it. Live in the real life. There is no such thing as telekinesis or aliens or ghosts. You don't go to college to stupid how to move things with your mind, do you? Why is there no college degree for telekinesis or learning how to be a medium or study about ghosts? I will tell you why, because they are all bullshit, stop living in la la land. People go to college to study medicine, engineering, programming... things that actually work in real life and are actually useful. We haven't got this far thanks to telekinesis or ghosts, we got this far thanks to science, real science.

Excuse me of course, but I really want to ask such a question. Do you believe in the human soul? I know that the human body is but but maybe there is still such a thing as the human soul. And I'm wondering whether someone believes in the fact that there is a person's soul. If the soul does exist then all these questions that raise regarding the evidence of God simply do not make sense.

[Astargath]

Scientists critical of parapsychology state that its extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence if they are to be taken seriously.

Science works, the scientific method works and has been applied successfully to a lot of advancements we have today. Parapsychology has not.

The statement about "extraordinary evidence" IS A FALLACY; you should try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy, and try reading the links I posted in detail so that you see where you are going wrong; I have already addressed this in great detail with my own references.

Perhaps you have your references and I have mine. So be it; I have provided a lot to consider; anyone interested can ask me for the specific links relating the proof of GOD; I will summarize some of the best information right here:
Dozens of the brightest and most eminent researchers asserting their opinion, many lifelong and famous skeptics like Sartre, Ayers, Doyle, Flew.
The personality of a chess grandmaster; the prior personality was replicated by a medium.
Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.
A wide variety of information disclosed via mediumship and ET communication, many serious cases, particularly the Phoenix Journals.
Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics, a convincing disclosure that GOD is an infinite being and actually exists: www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm
40 top cases from AECES, 52 points of evidence from the near-death site, evidence of skeptical fallacies and skeptical misdirection, research from the meticulous Ian Stevenson, reference to other important books like Irreducible Mind which is to my knowledge the latest book on the parapsychology controversy.

Dude stop it. Live in the real life. There is no such thing as telekinesis or aliens or ghosts. You don't go to college to stupid how to move things with your mind, do you? Why is there no college degree for telekinesis or learning how to be a medium or study about ghosts? I will tell you why, because they are all bullshit, stop living in la la land. People go to college to study medicine, engineering, programming... things that actually work in real life and are actually useful. We haven't got this far thanks to telekinesis or ghosts, we got this far thanks to science, real science.

Excuse me of course, but I really want to ask such a question. Do you believe in the human soul? I know that the human body is but but maybe there is still such a thing as the human soul. And I'm wondering whether someone believes in the fact that there is a person's soul. If the soul does exist then all these questions that raise regarding the evidence of God simply do not make sense.

I don't believe in anything based on faith. I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of the soul so I don't believe it. If the soul existed, it wouldn't prove God exists, there are plenty of religions who talk about the soul so you still wouldn't know which one is true.

[qwik2learn]

Why quote Wiki on parapsychology? Check wiki instead about the book Irreducible Mind , one of the authors has a book examining a CENTURY of evidence for survival, this research is certainly worth examining in detail, it is more proof that parapsychology is a legitimate field of inquiry validated by camera footage, a century of scientific observations, testing by the CIA, and many other varied forms of evidence.

"It is strong confirmation of any theory that proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it."

Even Turing believed in ESP, there is a long history of evidence and respectable research. Atheists should realize the scale of the evidence and have the courage to investigate thoroughly and weigh the explanations against each other.

[Horacewoodwood]

Scientists critical of parapsychology state that its extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence if they are to be taken seriously.

Science works, the scientific method works and has been applied successfully to a lot of advancements we have today. Parapsychology has not.

The statement about "extraordinary evidence" IS A FALLACY; you should try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy, and try reading the links I posted in detail so that you see where you are going wrong; I have already addressed this in great detail with my own references.

Perhaps you have your references and I have mine. So be it; I have provided a lot to consider; anyone interested can ask me for the specific links relating the proof of GOD; I will summarize some of the best information right here:
Dozens of the brightest and most eminent researchers asserting their opinion, many lifelong and famous skeptics like Sartre, Ayers, Doyle, Flew.
The personality of a chess grandmaster; the prior personality was replicated by a medium.
Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.
A wide variety of information disclosed via mediumship and ET communication, many serious cases, particularly the Phoenix Journals.
Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics, a convincing disclosure that GOD is an infinite being and actually exists: www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm
40 top cases from AECES, 52 points of evidence from the near-death site, evidence of skeptical fallacies and skeptical misdirection, research from the meticulous Ian Stevenson, reference to other important books like Irreducible Mind which is to my knowledge the latest book on the parapsychology controversy.

First of all, it is not a fallacy. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence not because we ask it but because that is what is needed. I can easily prove, for instance that water boils at 100 C. It's not an extraordinary claim, it's an ordinary claim and it is easy to prove. However, I can not prove that Mister Hankey the Christmas Poo created this universe because I am missing 99% of the information needed. I can't see mr hankey, can't feel him, can't hear him, can find absolutely no traces of him, can't calculate him, my story of mister hankey contradicts with actual science. All I have is that 1% which represents my testimonial and the testimonial of many other people who claim to have seen God in dreams. We also have a very old book that speaks about Mr Hankey, but we can't prove all of those stories because we have no evidence and some of them are miracles done by mr hankey that contradict the laws of our reality. So in order to prove that Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo created the universe, I must take it from the start, from that book, prove the stories are right, prove that it was indeed him and I must also contradict our actual scientific laws which are suspended in the eventuality of Mr Hankey being real, because that would mean that our whole system is flawed, our universe is not that old, our earth is not that old, stars are there to help us know what time it is, the sun is not supposed to keep life on this planet alive, his only role would be to let us know it's daytime, the moon would have the same role regarding the night, etc. How in the hell am I going to prove all of these without extraordinary evidence? It simply is necessary that the evidence is extraordinary, otherwise it is simple speculation, assumption.
Further on, parapsychology is missing this extraordinary evidence, it only has stories, nothing is observable. The worst type of evidence are testimonials, nothing can only be proved only by testimonial. Let us assume that parapsychology would be proved to be real, that would have nothing to do with the existence of God.

[qwik2learn]

Proving the soul or survival means that humanism is false. All rational atheists are humanists (since what else could they be).

[qwik2learn]

Actually you took this out of context, horace. Skeptics use often use a double standard, that is their fallacy:

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection#skeptical_misdirection_double_standard

The other common tactic is known as Misrepresenting The Scientific Evidence.

[Horacewoodwood]

Actually you took this out of context, horace. Skeptics use often use a double standard, that is their fallacy:

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection#skeptical_misdirection_double_standard

The other common tactic is known as Misrepresenting The Scientific Evidence.

I took what out of what context? Speak to me, explain, come up with arguments, enough with the links already. If you are not able to speak to me and you always need to give me links with what others think that us 'skeptics' are wrong about, then you do not understand anything of it. More than that, I can't understand what you are talking about because you solely posted a link. If you want to answer to what I have said, talk about that, you have it there, you can analyze it and tell me what do you believe is wrong and why. In that way, we can have a proper conversation. Otherwise it will be the same as it is with Badecker, everyone trying to have a conversation and a monkey saying anything that crosses his mind. Let's keep this simple and efficient.

[BADecker]

Anybody who researches the info in these links...
https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380,
and thinks about what he has researched, will understand that not only does God exist, but, also, the only way the universe and life can exist is through God creating/making it all.

[Horacewoodwood]

Proving the soul or survival means that humanism is false. All rational atheists are humanists (since what else could they be).

For the last time, humanism does not claim that categorically souls do not exist. Humanism considers there is no reason to believe it since the proof is very little, to nothing, and the possibility is the same so it centers its attention on something that it is more important: the human being, the one that really exists, something that we know for sure, a species that was also once on the verge of extinction, a species that we are part of. Science has worked until now, at this moment we communicate with its help, not through telekinesis, not through a miracle or any divine being. We can understand it, it is real and it helps us human beings to communicate. Proving the soul exists would not change that, it would not prove God exists and we should venerate him instead of taking care of us. We would only know that the soul exists and it might survive our death. Why? That would be left out to further research. But for now, we don't have the evidenced proof that the 'soul' exists.

[Astargath]

Anybody who researches the info in these links...
https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380,
and thinks about what he has researched, will understand that not only does God exist, but, also, the only way the universe and life can exist is through God creating/making it all.

https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376
https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390

Debunked and proven false there. Anyone who reads these links will understand that badecker hasn't proved at all God. Do not get brainwashed by religion people.

[BARADED]

I advise to read the book"The God Delusion; 2006 ,Book by Richard Dawkins"

[Horacewoodwood]

I advise to read the book"The God Delusion; 2006 ,Book by Richard Dawkins"

Very good choice, a truly masterpiece. 'The selfish gene' is also a good read.

[qwik2learn]

Actually you took this out of context, horace. Skeptics use often use a double standard, that is their fallacy:

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection#skeptical_misdirection_double_standard

The other common tactic is known as Misrepresenting The Scientific Evidence.

I took what out of what context? Speak to me, explain, come up with arguments, enough with the links already. If you are not able to speak to me and you always need to give me links with what others think that us 'skeptics' are wrong about, then you do not understand anything of it. More than that, I can't understand what you are talking about because you solely posted a link. If you want to answer to what I have said, talk about that, you have it there, you can analyze it and tell me what do you believe is wrong and why. In that way, we can have a proper conversation. Otherwise it will be the same as it is with Badecker, everyone trying to have a conversation and a monkey saying anything that crosses his mind. Let's keep this simple and efficient.

The extraordinary evidence (in favor of parapsychology and survival) has already been provided. I also linked to some examples where this evidence was deliberately ignored by skeptics. Since that information is in the link above, I am including it in our conversation by way of reference; surely you have the ability to read through an essay on the topic of skeptical misdirection because it clearly relates to our discussion about parapsychology.

Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.

I have posted a lot of other extraordinary evidence, yet skeptics insist there is no reliable evidence. Why keep up the charade? Skeptics should just come out and say what is so unreliable about the tests done to prove telekinesis.

Sources:
On-Camera test: http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/
Test by the United States CIA: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66xy95/zhang_baosheng_confirmed_cia_psychic_ability_to/

[BADecker]

I advise to read the book"The God Delusion; 2006 ,Book by Richard Dawkins"

Very good choice, a truly masterpiece. 'The selfish gene' is also a good read.

Cause and effect show us that God is the only way this universe could happen. Dawkins is becoming a delusion the more he writes crap like this.

[Horacewoodwood]

Let us learn something. Not only that man has evolved, but his system of thinking has evolved and it is still evolving. Whatever discoveries we've made, our greatest ideas have always came out of a 'cold thinking', which means detaching from what you find more likely to believe in and really measure the situation. Religious people, let's take Badecker for instance, automatically start from the conclusion that God exists. They never start from 0 thus their reasoning on this subject is corrupted from the beginning by their very own mind and system of belief. Let's observe something: a question that many religious ask atheists is 'If God would come and reveal himself, and you would see it with your own eyes, would you believe in him?' and of course most atheists say 'yes, but I find that very highly improbable'. However, religious people have many evidence in their face yet they do not believe in it, because of being biased, of course. They don't believe in evolution, although they could see it with their very own eyes, they don;t believe in a Big Bang, although they could see the traces of it with their very own eyes, etc. But why would our brain have these fallacies? Why is our brain learning and slowly evolving instead of getting all of the information from the beginning in a perfect system? Why do our 'divine' feelings are the same as the effects of many drugs? Could that not be another fallacy of the brain, a fail in the system? Of course it could be and it is not alone. Now, an intelligent design would not have these errors, not so many, not so diverse, not some that appear in different times. A random happening, on the other hand, could cause such diversity, such a beautiful happening as the human being is with such big flaws, errors. What was the cause for this Universe? A Big Bang, whether apologists like it or not. What was the cause of that Big Bang? We don't know, neither us, nor the apologists. Nobody knows and it will not be an easy answer. In this situation, believing God was the cause of the Big Bang is a fallacy in the system. It's the same as hearing about a death scene, knowing only it might be suicide and without any reason or further information calling it a crime and pointing to a killer that might exist or might have been made up at the moment.
P.S. we're not going to do episode 15 of Badecker because all he said is something about Dawkins and I'm not gonna get my hands dirty today with a piece of shit like Badecker. I'll let him post some more so I can give him a good blow on the empty head.

[BARADED]

Let us learn something. Not only that man has evolved, but his system of thinking has evolved and it is still evolving. Whatever discoveries we've made, our greatest ideas have always came out of a 'cold thinking', which means detaching from what you find more likely to believe in and really measure the situation. Religious people, let's take Badecker for instance, automatically start from the conclusion that God exists. They never start from 0 thus their reasoning on this subject is corrupted from the beginning by their very own mind and system of belief. Let's observe something: a question that many religious ask atheists is 'If God would come and reveal himself, and you would see it with your own eyes, would you believe in him?' and of course most atheists say 'yes, but I find that very highly improbable'. However, religious people have many evidence in their face yet they do not believe in it, because of being biased, of course. They don't believe in evolution, although they could see it with their very own eyes, they don;t believe in a Big Bang, although they could see the traces of it with their very own eyes, etc. But why would our brain have these fallacies? Why is our brain learning and slowly evolving instead of getting all of the information from the beginning in a perfect system? Why do our 'divine' feelings are the same as the effects of many drugs? Could that not be another fallacy of the brain, a fail in the system? Of course it could be and it is not alone. Now, an intelligent design would not have these errors, not so many, not so diverse, not some that appear in different times. A random happening, on the other hand, could cause such diversity, such a beautiful happening as the human being is with such big flaws, errors. What was the cause for this Universe? A Big Bang, whether apologists like it or not. What was the cause of that Big Bang? We don't know, neither us, nor the apologists. Nobody knows and it will not be an easy answer. In this situation, believing God was the cause of the Big Bang is a fallacy in the system. It's the same as hearing about a death scene, knowing only it might be suicide and without any reason or further information calling it a crime and pointing to a killer that might exist or might have been made up at the moment.
P.S. we're not going to do episode 15 of Badecker because all he said is something about Dawkins and I'm not gonna get my hands dirty today with a piece of shit like Badecker. I'll let him post some more so I can give him a good blow on the empty head.

Completely I agree with you!!!!

[Astargath]

I advise to read the book"The God Delusion; 2006 ,Book by Richard Dawkins"

Very good choice, a truly masterpiece. 'The selfish gene' is also a good read.

Cause and effect show us that God is the only way this universe could happen. Dawkins is becoming a delusion the more he writes crap like this.

You said yourself that cause and effect alone can't prove God, are you losing your memory? Why do you even comeback to this thread where all your crazy ideas have been debunked already. You come here just to say the same thing now, God did it. Save yourself the trouble, you are not convincing anyone, at this point it seems like you are trying to convince yourself.

[BADecker]

I advise to read the book"The God Delusion; 2006 ,Book by Richard Dawkins"

Very good choice, a truly masterpiece. 'The selfish gene' is also a good read.

Cause and effect show us that God is the only way this universe could happen. Dawkins is becoming a delusion the more he writes crap like this.

You said yourself that cause and effect alone can't prove God, are you losing your memory? Why do you even comeback to this thread where all your crazy ideas have been debunked already. You come here just to say the same thing now, God did it. Save yourself the trouble, you are not convincing anyone, at this point it seems like you are trying to convince yourself.

I said that cause and effect combined with universal entropy combined with complex universe prove God.

You aren't losing your memory on this. Why not? You never checked it out to remember it in the first place. Check it out:
https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380