Quote from: bl4kjaguar on April 16, 2015, 08:05:48 AM

Quote from: the joint on April 14, 2015, 06:01:20 PM

3) Yep, here you reinforce your inductive fallacy. You can't use "the Word of God" to prove God exists before proving that God exists. You're caught up in a "chicken-or-egg?" problem. If you haven't proven God to exist, then you don't know its the Word of God. If you know it's the Word of God, then that means you've already proven to yourself somehow that God exists before looking at the evidence in the first place.

No matter how you spin it, your method doesn't work. Sorry.

Get the truth from the source, and read the journal I referenced in totality before determining that you are right about scientific proof of God. Are you truly happy to read what I have referenced?

Quote from: the joint on April 14, 2015, 06:01:20 PM

4) There is no empirical proof of an afterlife, and you more-or-less acknowledge this by correctly describing the evidence as "suggestive." However, even if you somehow proved an afterlife exists, it does not in any way prove God exists.

Some have argued that there is no scientific way to prove anything, and that science only serves to disprove a thing.

You must yourself prove that God exists because God dwells within; that is where the proof will come from--within you! Does it bother you that I have proved to myself that God is real by reading Dharma's writings (and thinking upon the same)?

One can see from the AECES top 40, taken altogether, that a process conducive to survival (of some 'aspect') apparently exists. An adequate explanation of the Eisenbeiss case must be simple; it follows that professor Eisenbeiss is telling the 'truth' (valid message) by way of the 'surviving personality' (source) and medium (signal). The message (chess game) was transmitted; Hence, the afterlife is valid truth, and it is supported by the now-recognized fact that life is more than just complicated chemistry; belief in the afterlife is both scientific and in accord with 'information theory'. Actually, the elucidation of the content-source problem (so necessary for evaluation of inspired writings) is but an exercise in information and communication theory; the simplest and most adequate signal transmission mechanisms are posited because science evidences signal transmission all throughout nature, and in science the simplest explanation is best.

Joint, would you Kindly reference the bit about Pascal's Wager from this book? I advise you to search through the text:
http://library.atgti.az/categories/philosophy/R.Sorensen%20-%20A%20Brief%20History%20of%20the%20Paradox.pdf

Back to quoting Journals; once you have read about the Wager, you can see that the Journals are highly "suggestive"!

If MAN can keep you from communion with GOD, he can control you! If you are ever to find God and be WITH GOD--YOU MUST COME INTO COMMUNION WITH GOD--AND BYPASS THE INPUT OF MAN. Since your time as man is short indeed and your time with God is long indeed--infinite, would it not be worthy to learn to talk with God and get His instructions for passage and cease and desist listening to the misguided and misguiding ones from the pulpits and thrones of "authority" and "expert blatherings"? If they be MAN--THEY DO NOT KNOW! THEY ONLY PRESENT THAT WHICH IS ALREADY THRUST UPON THEM AND YOU--BY MAN! I AM NOT MAN IN FLESH--AND DHARMA IS NOT ME.

What is that you don't understand about the limits of empiricism precluding any logical possibility of forming empirical conclusions about God?