Spoiler alert: Badecker's "proofs" are nothing more than cleverly worded conjecture, and not proofs at all. In fact, proofs of god are a fallacy in themselves, as they can never be absolute proofs (like mathematical proofs can). Furthermore, proof of god is an oxymoron as the basis of believing in a god requires faith, which cannot by definition be scientifically proven.
A better word for these "proofs" would be "evidence", however the evidence is fallacious and misleading, often making false assumptions and tricking the reader into making connections that are unrelated, amongst using other misleading techniques.
If there was truly, irrefutable scientific proof for god, then why has no actual scientist published a paper in a reputable journal proving just that?! Guy would win a Nobel prize for sure.
So yeah, if you wanna believe in invisible supernatural beings that influence your life, go ahead, I don't have a problem with that. But don't believe for a second that these beings can be scientifically proven - you need to trust your blind faith.