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.
There are people all over the place who do not accept Big Bang Theory as truth... and for good reason. Even science doesn't know that it is fact. That's why they call it "theory."
Think out the understanding of the laws in the proof I give, and you will see that they prove the existence of God. Why? Because you nobody can show that those laws could exists in the same universe that God doesn't exist.
They don't prove much more that His existence. But if you don't understand that He exists, how are you ever going to look for and believe what He says?