Do you believe in God?

[Exorcet]

There is a comfort blanket being clung to, all right, but not on the life after death side.

There is zero evidence for the afterlife. Not only that, but there is no reason for a comfort blanket in this case. The afterlife has nothing to do with God (unless you assume a particular religion that includes both is true). Atheism has nothing to say about the afterlife.

I wouldn't mind there being an afterlife at all, and I don't need some god to make it enticing. There is just the problem of no one ever even being able to get a confirmed glimpse of it.

 

[homeforsummer]

When all the matter in the universe was at that point space, time, matter, and energy came into being. If you oppose these conclusions you are opposing the progress of science.

That couldn't be further from the truth. If you oppose them and can supply evidence both to support your conclusions and strong enough to disprove existing theories, then you're doing the exact opposite of opposing the progress of science. You're furthering the progress of science.

Talk about assumptions, it doesn't get any more classic than this.

Actually, no. You can lay a body on a slab and watch it slowly rot. You can systematically collect whatever is left - solids, gases, liquids, all accountable from the body's mass. We can quantify everything that rots away, but it's impossible to quantify a "soul" leaving the body. And as others have suggested, no real evidence of life after death has been gathered - people seeing "a light" at death's door isn't really conclusive.

 

[BobK]

Evidence for God. Hmm. Where to being, there are so many ways to show this. How about why is there anything rather than nothing at all? The answer is, God Blammed it.

What does "blammed" mean?

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause;
2. The Universe had a beginning of its existence;
3. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.

The logic is sound, but the first premise isn't necessarily true. Virtual particles come to mind here.

Science and general relativity tell us that when the universe began to exist so did space, time, energy, and matter. So the cause of the universe was a spaceless, timeless, energy-less, object of great power. Sounds like God to me.

I don't see why the bolded part necessarily has to be so, even conceding for the sake of argument that the universe does have a cause.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

There is zero evidence for the afterlife. Not only that, but there is no reason for a comfort blanket in this case.

There is plenty of evidence, you just dismiss it as such.

Your Atheism is your comfort blanket, thin and uninsulated as it maybe.

The afterlife has nothing to do with God.

You better hope so.
You've made a eternal miscalc if not.

Personally never, I do have one friend who was unfortunate enough to be in that situation. His total experience was of nothing. However from a proof point of view its meaningless.

I never said everyone.
That doesn't discount the overwhelming numbers that have.
You mean from your point of view its meaningless.
They are two different things.

You will also notice that I have not claimed the existence of anything, no assumption has been made be me at all. The energy contained within your body can't be destroyed and as such returns to the universe at large upon your death (that I'm sure you will not dispute).

That also is an assumption, but not the one I was referring too.
Claiming to know what takes place after physical death is, as said a classic assumption example.
Amazingly, those that have experienced it, and are great in number, you totally discount their relevance to the subject.

Now if you have actual evidence for an afterlife feel free to provide it..

Already have.
As the saying goes you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

As I said scientific explinations:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=peace-of-mind-near-death.

Like I said earlier, if the rapture were to take place, these same people would explain it away in a matter of days.

It also makes it a lot less mystical when the exact same occurances can be experienced without being close to death at all, but rather with the aid of 'substances', something that is well documented and pre-dates Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Teachings_of_Don_Juan

There is a big difference between being "alive on Hallucinogens", and "clinically dead".
Your such a stickler about "scientific method", I shouldn't have to point that out.
BTW, isn't that based on someone's testimony?

Explain. As I don't see a lot of atheists committing acts of a horrific nature to ensure they are doing 'insert deity' work and end up in 'insert afterlife'..

See above.

I will take my own morality and the need to be accountable for my own actions right here and now

Certainly a noble stance.
Eternally speaking however you will fall far short of the mark.

over those imposed by an unproved being and a desire to live in the clouds with him/her. No comfort blanket exists if I have to be accountable for all my actions,

Thats no problem, it's what the plan is all about.

a bloody big one exists if I can rationalise it into 'going to' heaven if I make God happy.

It's not just for his benefit but yours as well.

One of these things is not like the other.

Tell that to the thousands of people sent to prison every day on the commonality of the two.

I guess you are saying there was no real evidence, in these cases.

Incidentally, the same testimonies have been reported from people at no risk of death undergoing high-g centrifuge experiments (you know, in experimental conditions) indicating that surreal visions are a symptom of anoxia rather than death. And no-one's yet been able to say what's on top of the cupboards in the long-standing out-of-body experience experiment.

As I mentioned above, that does not dismiss the accounts of a overwhelming number of people who were "clinically dead" at the time of the experience.

As to that last statement, a experiment in several British hospitals was to have taken place in an effort to prove that very point.
However, I've been unable to find a follow-up to it.

At any rate, there have been numerous accounts of the patient knowing, what was said and done in the room, while being "clinically dead".


While in this thread, I'm always perplexed by the attitude of the Agnostic, Atheist, etc.

If any of you fellows have any type of insurance, I wish you would explain to me why you have it.

 

[theotherspongey]

Above post just goes to show how much in denial people who believe in God are.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Above post just goes to show how much in denial people who believe in God are.

I was going to say the same thing but was going to let someone else beat me to it.

 

[alexlam24]

This is not going to end well

 

[Dennisch]

This is not going to end well

Fixed.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

If any of you fellows have any type of insurance, I wish you would explain to me why you have it.

Are you saying we should believe "just in case".

What was that movie, where the dying man had a cross, star of david and other religious items and prayed to them all before he died?

 

[Azuremen]

While in this thread, I'm always perplexed by the attitude of the Agnostic, Atheist, etc.

If any of you fellows have any type of insurance, I wish you would explain to me why you have it.

Worst logic I've seen to date.

Accidents and environmental events are clearly documented and cause damage, thus why people have insurance. No one would buy insurance if there were no accidents to merit it.

 

[Scaff]

There is plenty of evidence, you just dismiss it as such.

Odd that you have utterly failed to supply this evidence. Lots of conjecture and 'testimony' but zero evidence.

You better hope so.
You've made a eternal miscalc if not.

What makes you think I would want to go to your heaven if it did exist?

I never said everyone.
That doesn't discount the overwhelming numbers that have.
You mean from your point of view its meaningless.
They are two different things.

No I mean it scientific explications for it exist, you simply chose to ignore it in favour of magic.

That also is an assumption, but not the one I was referring too.
Claiming to know what takes place after physical death is, as said a classic assumption example.
Amazingly, those that have experienced it, and are great in number, you totally discount their relevance to the subject.

No its not an assumption. Your body (and everyone's) contains energy, when we die that energy can't be destroyed and as such returns to the universe. That is not an assumption at all its one of the laws of thermodynamics.

Like I said earlier, if the rapture were to take place, these same people would explain it away in a matter of days.

Well when the rapture occurs we can have a nice chat about it can't we, until then lets keep it to events that have actually occurred.

There is a big difference between being "alive on Hallucinogens", and "clinically dead".
Your such a stickler about "scientific method", I shouldn't have to point that out.
BTW, isn't that based on someone's testimony?

It is based on someone's testimony, testimony that happens to be backed up with countless studies of the effects of hallucinogens on the body and the body;s ability to produce its own at times of stress. You seem to have ignored the other piece I linked to or you would already be aware of that.

Certainly a noble stance.
Eternally speaking however you will fall far short of the mark.

How do you know I fall short of the mark. On what grounds do you hold your moral compass as being superior to mine?

That's a statement that goes beyond arrogant and quite frankly if its an example of Christian behavior I would want no part of it.

It's not just for his benefit but yours as well.

How exactly would it benefit me?

If any of you fellows have any type of insurance, I wish you would explain to me why you have it.

The other way around I think, your the one with the man with the plan, why would you then need insurance (or massive great tax breaks for churches - but don't get me started on that from a moral point of view).

 

[Exorcet]

There is plenty of evidence, you just dismiss it as such.

If these experiences are better explains by things other than souls, they aren't evidence for souls.

The belief in spirits is the same as the belief in the tooth fairy, but unfortunately the soul has been given an unfair boost in creditability because it has been around long enough that people don't remember who made up the idea or when. So in the minds of many, it's not some baseless fantasy but a long standing idea. That couldn't be anymore wrong.

Your Atheism is your comfort blanket, thin and uninsulated as it maybe.

Again, comfort from what? The afterlife is harmless. I don't see why someone would be in denial over that. Even gods aren't so bad when they're not cruel or crazy like in mainstream religions. I'm not in denial, I'm just trying not to be gullible.

You better hope so.
You've made a eternal miscalc if not.

What kind of petty god sends people to hell for not believing in him or following rather stupid rules?

Also, I don't have to hope. It's pretty clear that an afterlife and a god are not the same thing. You can have one without the other. Or you can have neither, which is what current evidence points to.

That doesn't discount the overwhelming numbers that have.

No matter how many mistakes have been made, they are still mistakes. They will never be worth more than one correct answer. Overwhelming numbers of people convinced that what they saw was what they saw just because they were conditioned into believing doesn't prove much except that misconceptions can become very widespread.

Claiming to know what takes place after physical death is, as said a classic assumption example.

No assumptions. What Scaff said is true. You on the other hand assume there is an afterlife apparently.

Amazingly, those that have experienced it, and are great in number, you totally discount their relevance to the subject.

The only ones who experienced death have died. No one has ever heard from them.

Like I said earlier, if the rapture were to take place, these same people would explain it away in a matter of days.

Another assumption, and it's again very flawed. The natural response to the rapture would be to assess it and come to conclusion regarding it. I'd rather be raptured than live in the world where every survivor automatically assumed that what happened was divine intervention without stressing a single brain cell over the event.

While in this thread, I'm always perplexed by the attitude of the Agnostic, Atheist, etc.

If any of you fellows have any type of insurance, I wish you would explain to me why you have it.

Insurance is for protection against unlikely things that can happen. I don't have volcano insurance, God insurance, or unicorn insurance for a reason. I might get the first one if I moved near a volcano though.

 

[Famine]

Tell that to the thousands of people sent to prison every day on the commonality of the two.

Certainly. A custodial conviction on the basis of word vs. word is something that belongs in the nastiest backwaters of the planet.

I guess you are saying there was no real evidence, in these cases.

Correct.

As I mentioned above, that does not dismiss the accounts of a overwhelming number of people who were "clinically dead" at the time of the experience.

It doesn't dismiss them. It provides a clearly documented and tested mechanism for their experiences, rooted firmly in reality.

As to that last statement, a experiment in several British hospitals was to have taken place in an effort to prove that very point.
However, I've been unable to find a follow-up to it.

It was just the one British hospital. The ten year experiment is yet to provide a single example of someone reading the document on top of the cupboard.

At any rate, there have been numerous accounts of the patient knowing, what was said and done in the room, while being "clinically dead".

"Clinically dead" just means the heart has stopped. It doesn't mean all your sensory organs have shut down.

 

[Atomics]

I was going to say the same thing but was going to let someone else beat me to it.

Insulting smug responses require no intelligence whatsoever. If you disagree with a post why not explain why?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Insulting smug responses require no intelligence whatsoever. If you disagree with a post why not explain why?

I was simply agreeing with him. No explanation needed. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[BobK]

Talk about assumptions, it doesn't get any more classic than this.

How many times have you died and then returned to actually test your assumption?

The only evidence regaurding this, save one informal experiment, is from those who have done just that, being clinically dead and were resuscitated.

Their testimonies estimated at now over a million, are consistent with the Biblical explanation, that we are living souls.

When their spirits left the body they were still cognizant, but in a altered state of exsistence, and invisible to those in the physical.
Having re-entered their bodies, they were able to relate the experience.
The similarities are very consistent among them, in spite of diversity of beliefs.

There is a comfort blanket being clung to, all right, but not on the life after death side.

A couple things here. You're implying that these testimonies are somehow as valid as testimony sworn to in a courtroom under penalty of perjury (and even courtroom testimony isn't always reliable). Then you're conflating "clinical death" with actual ready-for-burial/cremation death; they're not the same thing at all.

 

[Villain]

It's hard work being honest intellectually while remaining stoutly religious in an increasingly scientific society.

 

[niky]

I'd pipe in about near-death experiences, but it's too much trouble to re-type something I typed hundreds of pages ago...

Been there, done that, anoxia, apnea. The funny thing is, the only time I actually almost died, I saw nothing.

 

[TJC_69]

If a frog had wings..............

God has indicated being referred to in the male gender by his label of Father(Heavenly).

However he has all the attributes of male and female.
Thats where we get them from.

What female attributes does he have ? In an emotional sense maybe ?

 

[Villain]

Do you beleive in unicorns?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

[

Above post just goes to show how much in denial people who believe in God are.

Just remember, "denial" is a two way street.

Worst logic I've seen to date.

Accidents and environmental events are clearly documented and cause damage, thus why people have insurance. No one would buy insurance if there were no accidents to merit it.

While your explanation sounds logical, there is absolutely no evidence, it will happen to you.
Yet, in light of "no evidence", you still act to protect yourself.

This is the same stringent standard of evidence that many of you apply in your stance, that there is no evidence that God exsists.
But in that case, you zealously resist any inclination to act upon it.

Insurance is for protection against unlikely things that can happen. I don't have volcano insurance, God insurance, or unicorn insurance for a reason. I might get the first one if I moved near a volcano though.

See above.

 

[Bobalob]

Theres plenty of evidence for accidents, what are you on about?

Insurance against accidents is not blind faith.

 

[Scaff]

While your explanation sounds logical, there is absolutely no evidence, it will happen to you.
Yet, in light of "no evidence", you still act to protect yourself.

This is the same stringent standard of evidence that many of you apply in your stance, that there is no evidence that God exsists.
But in that case, you zealously resist any inclination to act upon it.



See above.

An utter and complete strawman argument. Insurance is based upon the probability of an event occurring and while the event doesn't have to have occurred before the vast majority of insurance is taken out against know risks (i.e. events that have occurred and been documented), in most causes unknown events are not covered specifically by insurance.

As most insurance is taken out against events that are known to happen, we have thousands of documented cases of car accidents to know that when we drive a probability exists that an accident could occur, so we insure against the fallout from such an event occurring.

To date not a single shred of evidence for God as been presented by you or anyone else.


Now for your argument to hold water we would need to be seeing evidence of God to make it a valid comparison, and I'm fairly certain you are aware of the difference between the two.

 

[Exorcet]

While your explanation sounds logical, there is absolutely no evidence, it will happen to you.
Yet, in light of "no evidence", you still act to protect yourself.

This is the same stringent standard of evidence that many of you apply in your stance, that there is no evidence that God exsists.
But in that case, you zealously resist any inclination to act upon it.

I can look up statistics any time and find out what the probability is of needing insurance for just about anything insurance covers. I can even look up those statistics by region or my own traits like ethnicity.

Car accidents, for example, are documented and real. I drive a car. That's enough to make car insurance worthwhile. God on the other hand has never been linked to anything in the real world so taking any action based on God or what God may or may not do is completely pointless. And taking any God driven action degrades to being detrimental when it interferes with common sense and every day life.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

And taking any God driven action degrades to being detrimental when it interferes with common sense and every day life.

This is why religious thinking is bad.

Imagine the countries controlling the nukes during the cold war truly believed there was an amazing afterlife.

When someone believes truly in an afterlife you don't even need a psychopath to do what anybody else would consider insane.

 

[dylansan]

While your explanation sounds logical, there is absolutely no evidence, it will happen to you.
Yet, in light of "no evidence", you still act to protect yourself.

This is the same stringent standard of evidence that many of you apply in your stance, that there is no evidence that God exsists.
But in that case, you zealously resist any inclination to act upon it.

If believing in god is like insurance, doesn't that imply God existing is akin to some kind of disaster?

What you're talking about it Pascal's wager, something that has been shown to be inaccurate many, many times.

For example, let's say I am worried that I might be punished when I die. Which god should I believe in? If I believe in the Christian God, don't I risk being sent to hell for not being Muslim, if that ends up being the correct religion? Doesn't the same apply to any religion which punishes people for not following them, including religions that died out many years ago, or even theoretical religions that no one has concieved of of believed in? They all could possibly be true, so how do I pick? Or should I just believe in all of them?

You're also assuming anyone can choose to believe in God if they have a reason to. Let me ask you, how often do you "choose" what to believe? If the bible said you couldn't go to heaven unless you believed 2 + 2 = 5, could you force yourself to think that? To ignore all of known mathematics because it would benefit you?

Well I'm telling you, I cannot believe something because it is convenient to believe it, even if I'm required to believe it. Believing is not a choice, it is an assessment of all your prior knowledge, and unless you are intentionally dishonest with yourself, you cannot change it.

Considering all the talk you've made about believing "just in case" because it might be worth it, you might want to ask yourself if God would think that was honest faith. Even if you think you honestly believe, even without the benefits, you should at least realize that no atheist would ever get away with lying to himself about the existence of a God in order to get into heaven. As such, there is simply no reason for us to waste our time trying.


ALSO, I know you've said you don't have time to respond to every post, but way to completely ignore your entire argument for people seeing the afterlife being utterly destroyed by Famine. Come on. At the very least you completely failed to understand what clinical death is, despite it being the basis of your evidence. If you had really cared to understand what the evidence was, you would have looked up clinical death to find out what it means, rather than assuming it supported your beliefs and then claiming it supported your beliefs when it didn't.

That is embarrassing. You need to seriously consider your objectivity after making a mistake like that, and at least admit to us that you've made a mistake at all, instead of just moving on as if it never happened. That's really poor form. I think most of us can agree we'd rather you take a long time to answer all of our points than quickly answer the ones convenient to you.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Odd that you have utterly failed to supply this evidence. Lots of conjecture and 'testimony' but zero evidence.

One way or the other all evidence is established through testimony.
You cite testimonies, explanations, as you call them and then declare that testimony is not evidence.
You discredit your own in the process.
Well which is it?

What makes you think I would want to go to your heaven if it did exist?

Better yet, why wouldn't you want to go?
Sounds pretty wonderful, to me.

No I mean it scientific explications for it exist, you simply chose to ignore it in favour of magic.

As I said earlier, there are known but not fully understood associations, none of which, exclude my point.
Explanations, but not full explanations.

No its not an assumption. Your body (and everyone's) contains energy, when we die that energy can't be destroyed and as such returns to the universe. That is not an assumption at all its one of the laws of thermodynamics.

Only partially.
Thermodynamics deals with heat energy.
Obviously when we die physically, our temperature lowers.
However this is an over simplification, based on a limited observable.
There is also heat energy called "latent heat".
There is nothing to confirm that the spirit(energy) does not return to him that gave it.

It is based on someone's testimony, testimony that happens to be backed up with countless studies of the effects of hallucinogens on the body and the body;s ability to produce its own at times of stress. You seem to have ignored the other piece I linked to or you would already be aware of that.

As I said earlier, there are known but not fully understood associations, none of which, exclude the realities or the validity of the clinically dead experiences.

How do you know I fall short of the mark. On what grounds do you hold your moral compass as being superior to mine?

Thats God's assertion, not mine.

Carnally, our moral compass is the same
Spiritually, again by his assertion, it is vastly superior.

But bear in mind it is not of me.
Ephesians 2:9
Not because of works [not the fulfillment of the Law’s demands], lest any man should boast. [It is not the result of what anyone can possibly do, so no one can pride himself in it or take glory to himself.]

That's a statement that goes beyond arrogant and quite frankly if its an example of Christian behavior I would want no part of it.

Again, its not my assertion, it's God's.
Speaking of arrogant, by what do you hold your moral compass as so virtuous?

How exactly would it benefit me?

I think we just touched on that.

An utter and complete strawman argument.

My sentiments exactly.
I'm just applying the same standard of evidence to this, that you do, to the exsistence of God.

Insurance is based upon the probability of an event occurring and while the event doesn't have to have occurred before the vast majority of insurance is taken out against know risks (i.e. events that have occurred and been documented), in most causes unknown events are not covered specifically by insurance.

While all that is understood, as I stated, there is absolutely no evidence that a future loss occurance will befall you.
None whatsoever.
It's only a possibility
Yet you act to protect yourself, and others possibly.
BTW most insurance policies exempt coverage on "acts of God".
People in the insurance business, must think there is enough evidence to believe God exsists.
Pretty ironic huh?

As most insurance is taken out against events that are known to happen, we have thousands of documented cases of car accidents to know that when we drive a probability exists that an accident could occur, so we insure against the fallout from such an event occurring.

Thats a individual possibility, not an individual probability.
Once again there is absolutely no evidence to suggest you will have an accident.

To date not a single shred of evidence for God as been presented by you or anyone else.

There is a difference between evidence, and refusal by individual choice to consider what is evidence.
I must submit, that if you applied the same standard to insurance, you do to the exsistence of God, you wouldn't have any.

Now for your argument to hold water we would need to be seeing evidence of God to make it a valid comparison, and I'm fairly certain you are aware of the difference between the two.

Evidence?
By your standard?
What a joke.
Thank God, you alone do not determine the whole of that which is evidential.
You might try out an arrogance meter on yourself.
Just be sure to use the highest scale.

That which is needed, is what has been provided.
As with insurance, the need of it, at least for most, is recognized as a possibility.
However the loss incurred is immeasurably catastrophic, as compared.

For a valid comparison, you have to have unprejudiced, and objective analysis, which in your case is conspicuously absent.
I must admit, a scooch of faith wouldn't hurt.


Psalm 14:1
King James Version (KJV)

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Proverbs 1:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

 

[Scaff]

One way or the other all evidence is established through testimony.
You cite testimonies, explanations, as you call them and then declare that testimony is not evidence.
You discredit your own in the process.
Well which is it?

Do we really have to go over this again, evidence to a scientific standard, which word of mouth testimony doesn't reach.[/quote]

Better yet, why wouldn't you want to go?
Sounds pretty wonderful, to me.

Mass murders get in if they repent but Ghandi's not getting in because he wasn't a Christian.

No thanks.

Only partially.
Thermodynamics deals with heat energy.
Obviously when we die physically, our temperature lowers.
However this is an over simplification, based on a limited observable.
There is also heat energy called "latent heat".
There is nothing to confirm that the spirit(energy) does not return to him that gave it.

You might want to recheck the definition of Thermodynamics:

"Thermodynamics is the branch of natural science concerned with heat and its relation to other forms of energy and work."

So no I'm not wrong and as you say nothing proves a spirit and that burden would be on those making the claim for one.

Now are you in all seriousness claiming that the energy stored within a body doesn't not all eventually return to the universe at large? If you are please explain exactly how you car works.

As I said earlier, there are known but not fully understood associations, none of which, exclude the realities or the validity of the clinically dead experiences.

And as has been said these are all explainable scientifically, you are simply choosing to ignore that reality.

Thats God's assertion, not mine.

Carnally, our moral compass is the same
Spiritually, again by his assertion, it is vastly superior.

But bear in mind it is not of me.
Ephesians 2:9
Not because of works [not the fulfillment of the Law’s demands], lest any man should boast. [It is not the result of what anyone can possibly do, so no one can pride himself in it or take glory to himself.]

You said it not God, so explain to me how you can be so sure of this, or do you claim to speak on behalf of God?

Again, its not my assertion, it's God's.
Speaking of arrogant, by what do you hold your moral compass as so virtuous?

I didn't say I held my moral compass at any level, I questioned how you could be so sure that you would reach the required standard and I would not.

Don't try and turn this around, I made no claim of moral superiority, that was all your doing.

I think we just touched on that.

No we didn't so please answer the question.

My sentiments exactly.
I'm just applying the same standard of evidence to this, that you do, to the exsistence of God.

So no evidence exists at all for the main events people insure against?

While all that is understood, as I stated, there is absolutely no evidence that a future loss occurance will befall you.
None whatsoever.
It's only a possibility
Yet you act to protect yourself, and others possibly.
BTW most insurance policies exempt coverage on "acts of God".
People in the insurance business, must think there is enough evidence to believe God exsists.
Pretty ironic huh?

I've already covered this in detail and you have simply ignored it. Insureable events occur and can be widely proven (unless you don't believe car accidents happen), that's a substantial larger body of evidence than exists for God (of which none exists).

There is a difference between evidence, and refusal by individual choice to consider what is evidence.
I must submit, that if you applied the same standard to insurance, you do to the exsistence of God, you wouldn't have any.

Utter nonsense and a total strawman argument still and once more a major distraction to the point at hand, that you can't provide any evidence (to a scientific standard) for God.

Evidence?
By your standard?
What a joke.
Thank God, you alone do not determine the whole of that which is evidential.
You might try out an arrogance meter on yourself.
Just be sure to use the highest scale.

Not by my standard but that of scientific evidence, something you are well aware (as it has been mentioned numerous times before) of but seem to want to ignore. The standards I am using are not subject to change based upon my own desires, yours most certainly seem to be.

Keep the insults up and you will be taking a holiday from GTP (but nice to see those Christian values again)

 

[Exorcet]

You might want to recheck the definition of Thermodynamics:

"Thermodynamics is the branch of natural science concerned with heat and its relation to other forms of energy and work."

So no I'm not wrong and as you say nothing proves a spirit and that burden would be on those making the claim for one.

Now are you in all seriousness claiming that the energy stored within a body doesn't not all eventually return to the universe at large? If you are please explain exactly how you car works.

This bears repeating. The first law is a sum of energies. Not just heat. This is the same thing that happened when you (SuperCobraJet) used the wrong definition of clinical death.

However, there is no spirit energy term in Thermodynamics. Or science. Actually, I'd like to know what kind of energy spiritual energy is, as in, does it even fit the definition of energy. If it doesn't, it's not energy, and in that case I'd like to know what it is. Then I'd like to know where I can find some.

 

[Quackjack]

Alright boys, who wants 1,000,000$?
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html
Disproove the afterlife to this man. (NOT GOD I DOUBT HE EXISTS)