Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

Occam's razor and evolutionary theory doesn't give you a creator.

Where did I mention a creator? Where did I say Occam and evolution give one? Once again, you seem to want to read shit into what I have posted, or read something entirely different than what I am posting. I am not sure how to have a conversation with you on these terms, I can't be responsible for whatever is making your brain imagine these things that I haven't said or argued, and you seem to be unable to overcome this affliction.

You can't assert something without defining it.

You most certainly can. You can not only assert it, you can definitively prove it exists, without ever having to define it. (See Einstein)

Bloo-Bloo was not an attempt at mocking you, but showing you that simply that saying "god exists" without defining it at all is non-sensical.

I agree... and if my OP simply said... "GOD EXISTS!" then you'd have a point. However, anyone who has the intellect to read the OP in this thread, can clearly see I have laid out a case, with numerous points, which you have yet to address or refute. You have instead, nonsensically repeated that "GOD DOESN'T EXIST!"

We keep on going around in circles with you continually claiming that I'm avoiding the OP when all I've done is deconstruct it.

We keep going in circles because you keep derailing the topic so we can hash out what is an analogy, when can you apply a theory about logic, or if something needs to be defined to prove existence. Then we have your misquotes and miscomprehension about what I've posted, and we have to stop and clean up your mess. You've not deconstructed a thing, you might THINK you have, but your case has simply not been made.

I have addressed most of the bullshit in the OP: the stupid idea that thoughts and feelings don't exist an are evidence of a "spiritual realm" ( really??)

You must really have a serious reading comprehension problem. I never said that dreams and thoughts don't exists or are evidence of a spiritual realm. I presented dreams and thoughts as examples of things we do know exist, but have no physical proof of. You presented examples of physical evidence to show that thought happened or emotion was felt, but you failed to prove existence physically, because thoughts and dreams are not physical things, and do not "physically" exist.

, the idea that Occam's razor and natural selection point to a creator... These two giant blunders form the your "six paragraphs" is enough to cripple your argument.

Well I didn't use Occam's razor in the OP, but it applies to any question or hypothesis. I never said it "pointed to" anything, just that it supports my argument. Natural selection also supports my argument, and you have YET to refute that point. HERE you simply proclaim that I am wrong, laughably wrong, and that's all there is to it! That's not a suitable rebuttal to ANY argument, as far as I know.

You no longer have "spiritual evidence" and you no longer have a basis for god in humanity.

Really? Because you proclaimed it? Weren't you the one who was complaining earlier (falsely) about argument by assertion? Didn't you just get through stating that it was "nonsensical" to just proclaim "god exists?" Isn't that what you are doing now? Because I am not seeing a presentation of evidence here, I am seeing you ridicule and scoff at things I've said, dismiss and blow off the points I've made, and chortle yet another proclamation that you are right and have proven me wrong.

I've done more than enough to refute this amateur attempt at proving god. It is simply your arrogance and ego that disallow to face this truth. No doubt you will come back as if I have done none of what I claimed. Just more "chortling" from a delusional theist. (Btw, "chortle" means to laugh gleefully. Why did you use it in this discussion? Nothing about your sad display of apologetics incites laughter)

Dude, you've done nothing but bluster and spew. Not a single point I made has been adequately addressed. Even in this paragraph, you attempt to divert the conversation and talk about what "chortle" means, instead of staying on topic. When I can get you to stay on topic, all you do is proclaim I am wrong and you are right, and that's all there is to it, and you've refuted me and I just can't deal with it.... then you go right back to trying to divert the topic, ridiculing, obfuscating, find other things to criticize, grossly misquoting me, pretending I've said shit I never said, whatever the fuck you can think of besides presenting your case.


Apologetics? What have I apologized for???

 

[newpolitics]

What is the name of this thread?

"Definitive proof that GOD EXISTS"

Now, you are back pedaling away from that claim? It's a little too late for that. Besides, you fail to define god, so what do you care if I call god a "creator"?

You absolutely were trying to establish that god exists because of natural selection. Again, given you lack of definition for any of your terms in the OP, you have no right to complain. Again, you are backpedaling away from your claims because they are untenable. By the way, I NEVER claimed god doesn't exist, so don't be a hypocrite and accuse me of making things up. First of all, I haven't. Secondly, it appears that you are. How fucking ironic.

You are honestly the dumbest theist I've ever encountered. Your justification for claiming something to exist without definition is "see Einstein"? So you just mention Einstein's name in the hope that I will shutter with fear and back off? You are an IDIOT.

This is possibly the worst argument for nothing I've ever heard. In fact, the only one. So far, you aren't even a theist, because you haven't claimed anything regarding a theistic god, since you can't define it. Perhaps you are a theological non-cognitivist and you don't even realize it. This would explain why you can't define god, because god is undefinable. Might want to look into that.

 

[newpolitics]

In the OP, You said there is no physical proof for a thoughts existence. This is false, but never mind, since you don't have the ability to reason. So, I ask you, if there is no physical proof for something which manifests in the physical realm, how can it exist in the physical at all? This is one of those pesky contradictions I was talking about. You claim thoughts exist in the physical, yet have no physical evidence. Something can not be physical and non-physical at the same time, yet this is what you are implying.

 

[Boss]

What is the name of this thread?

"Definitive proof that GOD EXISTS"

Now, you are back pedaling away from that claim? It's a little too late for that.

But I haven't backpedaled from anything. The thread title is articulated in the OP, where a case is made which definitively proves that god exists. You refuse to accept the spiritual evidence to support the argument, but that does not mean it wasn't definitively proven.

Besides, you fail to define god, so what do you care if I call god a "creator" and you absolutely were trying to establish that god exists because of natural selection.

Well it matters because I never claimed god was a creator. When you say I claimed something I didn't claim, it's important to point that out. I did not try to "establish that god exists because of natural selection." I offered as evidence for human spirituality, the intrinsic and inherent human trait that has always existed in the species, and then I told you what Darwin says about this. You haven't offered anything to refute my point.

Again, you are backpedaling away from your claims because they are untenable.

I have not backed away from anything except for the statements I have never made, which you continue to post as if they are present here. Again, I can not be responsible for your imagination, or conversations happening inside your head. No telling what all I am saying there!

By the way, I NEVER claimed god doesn't exist, so don't be a hypocrite and accuse me of making things up. First of all, I haven't. Secondly, it appears that you are. How fucking ironic.

Really, that's not what you are saying? "there is no proof god exists..." Those aren't your words? Seems to me, you are going to some mighty extreme lengths to flood the thread with superfluous nonsense and obfuscation, to NOT be saying this.

You are honestly the dumbest theist I've ever encountered, ever. Your justification for claiming something to exist without definition is "see Einstein"? So you just mention Einstein's name in the hope that I will shutter with fear and back off? You are an IDIOT.

Well, thank you! Since I have never claimed to be or wanted to be a theist, it's good to know I wouldn't be a very smart one! I didn't mention Einstein to scare you, but rather, because Einstein proved things can certainly be shown to exist, without defining them. I have presented several other physical examples, like the inside of black holes, which we know, do exist, but can't define. You even presented evidence that we know when thought exists because of electrical impulses in the brain, yet the thought is undefined. So even an abject idiot like yourself, can grasp this concept. Things can exist, and we can prove they exist, without ever having to define them.

This is possibly the worst argument for nothing I've ever heard. In fact, the only one. So far, you aren't even a theist, because you haven't claimed anything regarding a theistic god, since you can't define it. Perhaps you are a theological non-cognitivist and you don't even realize it. This would explain why you can't define god, because god is undefinable. Might want to look into that.

Again, I can define my interpretation of god, I have no trouble doing so, and will be happy to do so in a thread about interpretations of god. This thread is definitive proof that god exists, which is a different topic. There is no need to examine my personal view of what god is or get into a theological debate over various incarnations of god. This has never been an argument over theology, and I have repeatedly pointed that out to you. However, you continue to want to try and MAKE the argument about theology, because you KNOW you can dismantle whatever theology is presented. The problem you are having is, I am not playing. I continue to refuse to give you red meat, and it's driving you nuts. How can you destroy my argument if I don't give you any ammo? Poor pinhead!

 

[newpolitics]

You are clearly incapable of an honest debate.

 

[Boss]

In the OP, You said there is no physical proof for a thoughts existence. This is false, but never mind, since you don't have the ability to reason. So, I ask you, if there is no physical proof for something which manifests in the physical realm, how can it exist in the physical at all? This is one of those pesky contradictions I was talking about. You claim thoughts exist in the physical, yet have no physical evidence. Something can not be physical and non-physical at the same time, yet this is what you are implying.

Again.... (god i'm getting tired of typing 'again') I never said there is no physical proof of a thought's existence, I said there is no physical proof of a thought, because a thought is not a physical element. You countered with the "electrical impulses" argument, which simply does not prove anything except that thought happened. This kind of obtuse parsing is what you seem to enjoy pulling. You can not prove or disprove what any given person is thinking. No machine or technology exists to do this. You can not define things like "inspiration" in physical terms, because there are things like this, which are not physical in nature. That was the point being made, and all you want to do is act like a jackass and be obtuse.

I agree that something can't be physical and non-physical at the same time... so why do you keep insisting it means something, that there is no physical evidence for god? Are you saying that because god doesn't defy all logic and reason, you can't believe in him?

Sounds like it to me.

 

[newpolitics]

In the OP, You said there is no physical proof for a thoughts existence. This is false, but never mind, since you don't have the ability to reason. So, I ask you, if there is no physical proof for something which manifests in the physical realm, how can it exist in the physical at all? This is one of those pesky contradictions I was talking about. You claim thoughts exist in the physical, yet have no physical evidence. Something can not be physical and non-physical at the same time, yet this is what you are implying.

Again.... (god i'm getting tired of typing 'again') I never said there is no physical proof of a thought's existence, I said there is no physical proof of a thought, because a thought is not a physical element. You countered with the "electrical impulses" argument, which simply does not prove anything except that thought happened. This kind of obtuse parsing is what you seem to enjoy pulling. You can not prove or disprove what any given person is thinking. No machine or technology exists to do this. You can not define things like "inspiration" in physical terms, because there are things like this, which are not physical in nature. That was the point being made, and all you want to do is act like a jackass and be obtuse.

I agree that something can't be physical and non-physical at the same time... so why do you keep insisting it means something, that there is no physical evidence for god? Are you saying that because god doesn't defy all logic and reason, you can't believe in him?

Sounds like it to me.

Your an idiot dude. I'm done debating you. Have fun convincing nobody of nothing.

 

[Boss]

You are clearly incapable of an honest debate.

No... I am clearly incapable of letting a half-wit moron manipulate what I said, and pretend to have refuted my points through a series of misquotes and misconceptions, unrelated topics and diversions. I am clearly incapable of being baited into a discussion about my personal beliefs, when that isn't the argument. I am clearly incapable of accepting things I never said, as if I had said them, or agreeing that some moron is correct because he proclaims himself to be.

Honest debate? When is that going to happen with you? Soon???

 

[newpolitics]

I never said there is no physical proof of a thought's existence, I said there is no physical proof of a thought.

This is why I am not debating you. You are either an idiot, or are completely stupid. In not sure which, but either way, its not looking good.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I know for a fact God exists.

 

[newpolitics]

I know for a fact God exists.

Define god.

 

[Boss]

Your an idiot dude. I'm done debating you. Have fun convincing nobody of nothing.

Debating me? When have you done that? Do you think you have been debating me? Is this going on inside your head, where all these things I never said or posted are happening?

Let the record show, you have not refuted any point made in the OP. The few times you have even touched on what is actually stated in the OP, it was with arguments already refuted in the OP. For the most part, you have continually misquoted me, or taken things completely out of context, you've attempted numerous times, to derail the conversation with unrelated arguments, and you've sprinkled in a good helping of self-proclaimed hubris and correctness, that is not supported with anything other than your opinion. You've finished up with a flurry of insults and putdowns and even more ridicule and denigration. Now you are going to run away, acting as if you are just frustrated with my "idiocy" and can't take it anymore.

Chalk one more up for the Boss!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Boss and Newpolitics:
If you are still debating points about the logistics, structure or set up of the proof
and what points/steps are unnecessary or wrong etc, can we agree to
distinguish the different types of objections so we don't lose
track of the side points and never get to the content part?
some of the points DO need to be resolved before proceeding
some do not, and some can noted and be resolved later, etc.

May I suggest the following categories of types of objections
or conflicts (and as these come up in the discussion, if
we get stuck on a point, we can label that issue
point A1, A2, B1, B3, etc.

Can we agree to set up some Rules of the Game
[or "Les Regles du Jeu" for IrishRam and Company]

First of all, can we agree the point is to resolve points
not to try to snag each other in a technical deadlock, but to prevent each
other or the process from getting snagged up where we can't reach agreement.
If we don't agree on a sticking point, can we agree to either table
it as something that may or may not be resolved later
and work on the content or the other points we can solve,
then try to go back and resolve the other side points afterwards.

Here are some types of points, if we can track
the issues and not let the side points get inthe way of content:

A. for points of disagreement or objection to the
structure, format, logistics, or set up of the Arguments or proof and process

B. for issues regarding a Bias that excludes someone or something,
either personal bias or someone else, the useage of a word or system that carries bias.
such as someone objecting to using the word Jesus if this leaves people out, can we agree to discuss the concept of Justice or Salvation or some other meaning that is close enough

C. for issues of actual Content
like why would it help to discuss "justice" or "spiritual healing" or
which concepts are universal within the "meaning" of the Bible or Constitutional laws
[B and C run together, but we will try to distinguish when
the problem is coming from content and when the verbal presentation is conflicting]

D. issues or conflicts with other people or groups outside the actual participants that
are causing division blocking people from believing reconcilation is possible. such as asking for proof or examples that "Muslims Christians and Jews can reconcile by following this same process", etc. which may need outside assistance to resolve. someone may need to forgive or reconcile with a member of such group before believing it is possible.

E. emotional reactions or personal limitations affecting the communication
or process (such as being frustrated at work and not finishing,
or projecting anger from something else, or hitting on a personal topic
that just attaches added emotions requiring more time and space for the person)
sometimes this can be resolved, sometimes people have a limit or the timing is off

F. general failure for other reasons not always known, if we can't sort out
where the objection is coming from as a specific issue or reason under A-E)
this can be that pressure from outside sources is blocking the process,
or the omission of someone who could come in and sort out a deadlock, etc.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I didn't argue that god was a deity.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: can we agree that "God" represents the infinite source of all goodness, life, love, and truth/wisdom in the world, whether this "God" is self-existent as a "God of being" or "creation/universe" itself, or had a beginning or steps in the process of realizing the universal laws or processes going on in the world.

Does this cover everything that people generally mean by God?

I know for a fact God exists.

Define god.

OK so Boss does not want to limit God to "creator"
and suggested metaphoric level meanings instead.

Can we start there please?

And Newpolitics, yes, the argument or conversation is bound to shift,
if we are going to be successful, since clearly the current approach deadlocked
and is not working too well. so we may have to hit control-alt-delete
on this and go back and restart. both you and Boss can be right at the same time,
but if you are coming at each other as skew lines, and we only have a flat
blackboard to work with, we may need to reset this up on the same plane
as the common frame of reference to work within.

Boss suggested starting a new thread, are you okay just
starting here? can we start by examining what metaphoric
meanings or aspects of God are open enough where
we don't have to fear getting snagged on some issue
someone may have with the terms discussed.

Boss, can I invite Derideo Te and Numan to help us
pick terms or meanings general enough
that won't cause issues with nontheists/atheists.

Newpolitics asked for a definition of God
can we throw out some ideas and start there?
does not have to be perfect, let's go through
all the possible angles and find one that works for now. Thanks!

And if you prefer to start a new thread, to brainstorm and
go over different terms/manifestations of God or universal laws,
please do so, and please link the thread back here, so we can
still proceed with this thread as well if you want! I do want to see this through to
a logical conclusion. I am very interested in what you both
have to say, and don't want this disrupted over a technical
issue of how to set up the arguments to begin with. Yours truly, Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

Chalk one more up for the Boss!

So far this only shows that the previous exchange
did not succeed in either proving or disproving God.

Can we try again please?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your an idiot dude. I'm done debating you. Have fun convincing nobody of nothing.

Debating me? When have you done that? Do you think you have been debating me? Is this going on inside your head, where all these things I never said or posted are happening?

Let the record show, you have not refuted any point made in the OP. The few times you have even touched on what is actually stated in the OP, it was with arguments already refuted in the OP. For the most part, you have continually misquoted me, or taken things completely out of context, you've attempted numerous times, to derail the conversation with unrelated arguments, and you've sprinkled in a good helping of self-proclaimed hubris and correctness, that is not supported with anything other than your opinion. You've finished up with a flurry of insults and putdowns and even more ridicule and denigration. Now you are going to run away, acting as if you are just frustrated with my "idiocy" and can't take it anymore.

Chalk one more up for the Boss!

One more what? Self gratification that you are incapable of comprehending logic and reason? Denial that your nonsense was thoroughly debunked? Feeling "holier than thou" because your idiocy and ignorance drives others to distraction? Being completely close minded and obstinate in the face of facts and evidence? All of the above?

 

[Derideo_Te]

RE: can we agree that "God" represents the infinite source of all goodness, life, love, and truth/wisdom in the world, whether this "God" is self-existent as a "God of being" or "creation/universe" itself, or had a beginning or steps in the process of realizing the universal laws or processes going on in the world.

Does this cover everything that people generally mean by God?

I know for a fact God exists.

Define god.

OK so Boss does not want to limit God to "creator"
and suggested metaphoric level meanings instead.

Can we start there please?

And Newpolitics, yes, the argument or conversation is bound to shift,
if we are going to be successful, since clearly the current approach deadlocked
and is not working too well. so we may have to hit control-alt-delete
on this and go back and restart. both you and Boss can be right at the same time,
but if you are coming at each other as skew lines, and we only have a flat
blackboard to work with, we may need to reset this up on the same plane
as the common frame of reference to work within.

Boss suggested starting a new thread, are you okay just
starting here? can we start by examining what metaphoric
meanings or aspects of God are open enough where
we don't have to fear getting snagged on some issue
someone may have with the terms discussed.

Boss, can I invite Derideo Te and Numan to help us
pick terms or meanings general enough
that won't cause issues with nontheists/atheists.

Newpolitics asked for a definition of God
can we throw out some ideas and start there?
does not have to be perfect, let's go through
all the possible angles and find one that works for now. Thanks!

And if you prefer to start a new thread, to brainstorm and
go over different terms/manifestations of God or universal laws,
please do so, and please link the thread back here, so we can
still proceed with this thread as well if you want! I do want to see this through to
a logical conclusion. I am very interested in what you both
have to say, and don't want this disrupted over a technical
issue of how to set up the arguments to begin with. Yours truly, Emily

Emily, if this was Oldguy or FA_Q2 there would be every reason to do so as you suggest but sometimes you have to know when to pick your battles. In this instance more than one poster has attempted to reason with Boss and run headlong into a brick wall of obstinacy and obfuscation. This is a lost cause and there is far more fertile ground for your talents elsewhere in my opinion.

 

[Boss]

I didn't argue that god was a deity.

Why the fuck is it digging a hole to deny I said what was claimed? Maybe you can find an emoticon showing a guy uncovering himself from a pile of bullshit dumped on him... that would be more appropriate. I never said a thing about a "deity" of any kind. If you want to claim otherwise, you need to use the fucking quote feature and show us the post where I said it, THEN you can post your hole digging icon. Unless you do this, you just look like a moron who hasn't read the thread.

 

[Boss]

Chalk one more up for the Boss!

So far this only shows that the previous exchange
did not succeed in either proving or disproving God.

Can we try again please?

Emily, on Page 1 of this thread, at the very top, is the OP. In the OP, I have laid out the case and argument for the thread title. Now, maybe things are different here, I'm still new, am I just supposed to copy and paste the OP over and over, until someone addresses the points made in it? I assumed people would actually READ the OP, and then post a reasoned response to the points made, that's usually how debate works everywhere else, are the rules and conditions different here?

I have already told you, I am not interested in a debate about "what kind" of god exists. I have no interest in your Build-A-God game. I already have my own idea of god, I don't need to have others validate my idea. I made a thread to outline definitive proof that god exists. At this point, no one has refuted the points made. I'm still patiently waiting for that, but so far, we seem to have an abundance of chortling morons who like to proclaim themselves victorious without offering anything more than their opinions of me. The more I point this out and refuse to be derailed from the topic, the more angry and vitriolic they have become. I guess they aren't used to people standing up to their ridicule and not allowing their distractions to derail the topic.