Quote from: bl4kjaguar on April 05, 2015, 11:12:23 PM

Quote from: the joint on April 05, 2015, 01:45:40 AM

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on April 05, 2015, 01:38:52 AM

Yo 'joint', how about adequately addressing this thread and the comments I have made about the Eisenbeiss case and other comments? Do you need a recap? I never heard an adequate reply to my comments either. The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is the Phoenix Journal called "Human the Science of Man" and supporting evidence in the rest of these volumes.

Is anyone on the same page? There is no adequate reply nor conversation on these topics that I bring up.

I am sure this thread deserves adequate discussion on the topic of God and that is why I am pointing out the banned Pleiades Connection series of Phoenix Journals. I will appreciate discussion of this topic by referencing the poster to evidence of the WORD which gives TRUTH.

Yes, I would need a recap to thoroughly reply to it.

Based upon this sentence, however...:

Quote

The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is...

...I would say that any reply I would make would likely be generally condensed to something along the lines of, "Any after-life evidence, or any empirical evidence in general, could only be used as corollary or suggestive evidence of God's existence if there previously exists some 'a priori' philosophical proof for God's existence, and the evidence would need to be framed within the context of that philosophical proof."

Hi joint, you may wish to read my latest posts and references to better understand the form of the proof.

All atheists are humanists; also, the Eisenbeiss case strongly supports survival, which humanists reject, so I conclude that all atheists are mistaken.

Further, we now know that life is more than just complicated chemistry and this also undermines humanism.

I'll take a look at it. But again, it's a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to be empirical proof of God. Empirical proof or "evidence" is only relevant to things that are observable. By definition, an "intelligent designer of reality" has non-observable components. Therefore, you can't prove God with evidence. The best you can do is a logical proof, and then find suggestive or corollary evidence to support it after the fact.

To make an analogy, when you have a thought you are exposed to the non-observable content and meaning of that thought. Others around you might be able to do an empirical neurological analysis of your brain at the time you're having a thought, and certain types of electrical and neuronal activity will suggest that you are indeed having a thought. As a result, they can find suggestive, corollary evidence that you are having a thought, but they wouldn't be able to make this suggestion if you didn't know your thought existed in the first place so as to be able to link brain activity to it.