Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[JimBowie1958]

I've seen GOD, spoken with GOD, and GOD spoke to me. GOD was very clear about being a manifestation of the mind, the result of neuro-chemical processes. *There is the proof your looking for. *Definitive proof that GOD only exists in your head.

Do you think that human memories exist?

Do you think that human memories exist?

So why do you dodge the question? Yes, I think memories exist, DO YOU?

Its an easy fucking question; why don't you answer it?

 

[Hollie]

It certainly is NOT about religion which was invented as the result of spiritual connection, and there is nothing obtuse or ambiguous about this spiritual connection humans have. Now watch as I completely dismantle and destroy your entire argument...

My anticipation with such pompous claims as “Now watch as I completely dismantle and destroy your entire argument...” , typically indicates that what follows is going to be composed of similarly pompous piffle.

Unfortunately for you, you confirmed the stereotype. We were once again drenched in your empty claims to “spirituality”, “spiritual nature”, not so vague references to gods / theology / religion and metaphysics.

It’s a shame because the entirety of your posts amount to false claims, unsupported assertion, slogans and re-hashed religious claims.

So… let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity (something you call “spiritual nature”) that cannot be tested, cannot be confirmed except with “because I say so” demands, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we cannot understand or even describe, which has no physical attributes we can confirm but, according to you exists -- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

The fact that you reject your spiritual nature, doesn't mean it is non-existent. You continue to illustrate the burr in your saddle, is RELIGION. You don't like religion or religious people, probably because you don't like feeling as if your are being judged or condemned for your immorality, I don't know your personal reasons, but that is common. Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality, which has always existed in man.

The fact that you make claims to something you call ("spiritual nature", ie: gods) which you cannot define, demonstrate or confirm makes me perfectly fine with rejecting your false claims.

Your personal hatred with being held to a definable standard doesn't negate your responsibility to present a defendable argument. Supernaturalism, metaphysics and bluster doesn't make a defendable argument.

 

[Boss]

It certainly is NOT about religion which was invented as the result of spiritual connection, and there is nothing obtuse or ambiguous about this spiritual connection humans have. Now watch as I completely dismantle and destroy your entire argument...

My anticipation with such pompous claims as “Now watch as I completely dismantle and destroy your entire argument...” , typically indicates that what follows is going to be composed of similarly pompous piffle.

Unfortunately for you, you confirmed the stereotype. We were once again drenched in your empty claims to “spirituality”, “spiritual nature”, not so vague references to gods / theology / religion and metaphysics.

It’s a shame because the entirety of your posts amount to false claims, unsupported assertion, slogans and re-hashed religious claims.

I have made no religious claims, nor have I failed to support anything I have asserted. However, you continue to try and make this a religious argument, and you continue to fail to support your viewpoint with ANY valid evidence, aside from your profound opinions. This is extremely ironic that you continue to accuse me of exactly what you have done here.

So… let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity (something you call “spiritual nature”) that cannot be tested, cannot be confirmed except with “because I say so” demands, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we cannot understand or even describe, which has no physical attributes we can confirm but, according to you exists -- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

But here's what you don't seem to comprehend, since you reject spiritual evidence... Not everyone sees things the same as you. Spiritual nature can indeed be tested and confirmed spiritually, by those who accept and acknowledge spiritual nature. Spiritual nature does not exist outside the natural realm, it is indeed a part of nature itself, you just don't recognize it. There is no physical attributes because it is spiritual, it defies logic for there to be physical or material evidence for it, because then, it would be physical and not spiritual in nature. You continue to demand illogical evidence.

Even a complete retard, should be able to realize, our species has not mistakenly adopted a delusional attribute for all of it's existence, out of fears and doubts that are not present anywhere else in nature.

The fact that you reject your spiritual nature, doesn't mean it is non-existent. You continue to illustrate the burr in your saddle, is RELIGION. You don't like religion or religious people, probably because you don't like feeling as if your are being judged or condemned for your immorality, I don't know your personal reasons, but that is common. Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality, which has always existed in man.

The fact that you make claims to something you call ("spiritual nature", ie: gods) which you cannot define, demonstrate or confirm makes me perfectly fine with rejecting your false claims.

Your personal hatred with being held to a definable standard doesn't negate your responsibility to present a defendable argument. Supernaturalism, metaphysics and bluster doesn't make a defendable argument.

I have defined spiritual nature, numerous times. It is NOT supernatural, it is very natural. Humans have connected to spiritual nature for all of their existence, that is evidence enough that it exists, and it's hard to argue with the results of human spirituality. Now, religious incarnations of god, is a different debate. I've made no claim that any particular incarnation of god exists, because I don't know. Throughout the 2,200+ posts in this thread, I have certainly defended my argument, mostly against people who want to conflate religion and spirituality and make this into a religious debate. The fact that I refuse to submit to your demands to define a specific god you can attack, is frustrating the bejesus out of you. It's making you spew unreasonable shit and repeat yourself.

Now... Where the hell is all your evidence of chemical reactions and wild neurons in humans brains that are vastly different from other upper primates, which caused man to imagine a delusion for all of our existence, without which, we could have never achieved what we have? I'm not seeing that in your posts, I see you dodging this, and insisting on "because I say so" as your basis for argument.

 

[itfitzme]

Subjective v objective

 

[itfitzme]

Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.*

I have made no religious claims, nor have I failed to support anything I have asserted.

Playing language games.
**{"God exists", "spiritual"} <> {"religious"}

Subjective proof?

 

[Hollie]

I have made no religious claims, nor have I failed to support anything I have asserted. However, you continue to try and make this a religious argument, and you continue to fail to support your viewpoint with ANY valid evidence, aside from your profound opinions. This is extremely ironic that you continue to accuse me of exactly what you have done here.

It's clear that the entirety of your argument is drenched in religious undertones. Your claims to this undefined phenomenon you call "spiritual nature" has all the earmarks of religion, yet you're unable to be honest with yourself and others regarding your agenda.

And yes, my viewpoint has been supported. The physical properties of brain activity (electro-chemical activity), can obviously be observed and measured. Similarly, stimulation or alteration of that electro-chemical activity can be used to induce or modify behaviors. The medical practice of psychiatry uses drugs to alter chemical processes or activities in the brain as a means to modify behavior.

See? My argument is readily supportable. Not so with your falsified claims to metaphysics which you admit are not open to testing in any meaningful way. How convenient.

But here's what you don't seem to comprehend, since you reject spiritual evidence... Not everyone sees things the same as you. Spiritual nature can indeed be tested and confirmed spiritually, by those who accept and acknowledge spiritual nature. Spiritual nature does not exist outside the natural realm, it is indeed a part of nature itself, you just don't recognize it. There is no physical attributes because it is spiritual, it defies logic for there to be physical or material evidence for it, because then, it would be physical and not spiritual in nature. You continue to demand illogical evidence.

Even a complete retard, should be able to realize, our species has not mistakenly adopted a delusional attribute for all of it's existence, out of fears and doubts that are not present anywhere else in nature.

How convenient. In order to believe in "spiritual nature", I have to believe in "spiritual nature". I suppose the same could be said for "magic", gods, Leprechauns and fairies. Similarity, and to borrow your completely silly delusion sputtered as follows:
"There is no physical attributes because it is spiritual, it defies logic for there to be physical or material evidence for it, because then, it would be physical and not spiritual in nature. You continue to demand illogical evidence".

Rarely have I seen greater absurdity, such utter incoherence and less meaningful prattle.

For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from such perceptions as gods, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your “feelings” of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of more serious consideration.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against science rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing.

I have defined spiritual nature, numerous times. It is NOT supernatural, it is very natural. Humans have connected to spiritual nature for all of their existence, that is evidence enough that it exists, and it's hard to argue with the results of human spirituality. Now, religious incarnations of god, is a different debate. I've made no claim that any particular incarnation of god exists, because I don't know. Throughout the 2,200+ posts in this thread, I have certainly defended my argument, mostly against people who want to conflate religion and spirituality and make this into a religious debate. The fact that I refuse to submit to your demands to define a specific god you can attack, is frustrating the bejesus out of you. It's making you spew unreasonable shit and repeat yourself.

Now... Where the hell is all your evidence of chemical reactions and wild neurons in humans brains that are vastly different from other upper primates, which caused man to imagine a delusion for all of our existence, without which, we could have never achieved what we have? I'm not seeing that in your posts, I see you dodging this, and insisting on "because I say so" as your basis for argument.

I see it as tragically comic that you insist on arguing a viciously circular claim. We are to accept your claims to mysticism because you believe your claims are true.

I found the "chemical reactions and wild neurons", comment to be a bit on the juvenile side. Your lack of a science vocabulary seems to coincide with a lack of ability to understand medical science. I addressed this previously and would suggest you first acquaint yourself with the subject matter before arguing against something you know nothing of.

As I noted previously, you utterly contradicted yourself regarding human vs. primate brain structure and the ascension of human sentience. Our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants --yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.

We have evolved a sense of survival, it is evident in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go.

What I find amusing is your continued insistence that some mumbo-jumbo you call "spiritual nature" is to be taken seriously.

 

[itfitzme]

But

... religion which was invented as the result of spiritual connection

Playing language games.
**{"spiritual"} = {"religious"}

 

[itfitzme]

spiritual evidence...*

Subjective proof!!

 

[itfitzme]

I've made no claim that any particular incarnation of god exists

Not "any particular god"

Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god.

Just some particular god: "proof that god exists".

Language games.

 

[itfitzme]

Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god.

It is NOT supernatural, it is very natural. Humans have connected to spiritual nature

"supernatural" <> "natural"
"spiritual" = "nature"
"supernatural" <> "spiritual"*

-------
Except;

Google("spiritual supernatural natural")
Supernatural - Wikipedia ...
Wiki-
"not subject to the laws of physics"
*"In philosophy, popular culture and fiction, the supernatural is associated with the paranormal, religions and occultism."

"In Catholicism... the “Supernatural Order” is the gratuitous production, by God..."

"..."spiritual facts”...referred to as “supernatural” by those who specifically preclude the “extrinsic concurrence” of God..."

"supernatural"="religious"
{"Catholicism","Supernatural"} ={"God"}

----
Also;
Google("Natural Spiritualism")*
Wiki-
"Book searches for the two find no usage for Naturalistic Spirituality before 1956[1] whereas Spiritual Naturalism may have first been proposed by Joris-Karl Huysmans in 1895 in his book En Route - “Huysmans was the first to defect to 'Spiritual Naturalism' and eventually to a form of mysticism;"*he was followed by Maupassant:” and “In 'En Route' Huysmans started upon the creation of what he called ‘Spiritual Naturalism,’ that is, realism applied to the story of a soul. ...”.

Google("natural law in spiritual")
Natural Law in the Spiritual World

Author: Drummond, Henry (1851-1897)
As well as an evangelist and missionary, Henry Drummond was a naturalist. He studied physical and mathematical science before dedicating himself fully to Christian ministry. In 1877, he became a lecturer on natural science at the Free Church College. He used his position to share his faith as often as he could. While he studied in preparation for his lectures, Drummond wrote Natural Law in the Spiritual World, in which he explores how the world of religion and spirituality relates to the physical world. He argued that the disconnect between the spiritual and the physical was entirely illusory and that faith was by no means in conflict with science. Written just a few decades after Darwin’s landmark On the Origin of Species, Drummond’s reconciliation of the theory of evolution with God’s purposes ranks among the most important and influential books concerning Christian faith and scientific progress.*

{"Spiritual Naturalism","Joris-Karl Huysmans","mysticism"}

{"Natural Law in the Spiritual World","evangelist","Christian ministry","religion and spirituality","spiritual and the physical","Christian faith"}


-----
Ergo;

"supernatural"="spiritual"="religion"="Christian"="God"

"supernatural"="spiritual"

------

Conclusion;

If we just string enough terms together with fuzzy definitions such that they overlap, eventually we can get the "logical proof" that we want.**It's just a set theory thing where sets overlap.

a is an element of A and B. *A is like B. c is an element of B and C. B is like C. *Ergo, A is like C.

Do not highlight where*b is not an element of A and B. *A is not like B. b is an element of B and C. B is not like C. *And A <>B <> C.

Ergo, A = C

At best;
All we have to do is say spiritual is natural, that God is natural, therefore physical. *Just ignore the "subject to the laws of physics" part. Then we can say "subjective" is "objective" and we have proof. *Afterall, people are naturally subjective and spiritual.

At worst;
The language is meaningless as there is no distinction between "natural", "physical", "objective", "spiritual", "subjective" which means words can be strung together in any *manner we want and everything is "logical"

Why not, afterall subjective natural, nature is physical, physical is objective. *So, subjective is objective. Formal proofs and informal proofs ar proofs therefore informal proofs are formal*proofs.

And that is, at least, my subjective opinion which by definition cannot be prove wrong and is therefore right. *Given that subjective is objective as subjective is natural, then it is naturally physical and a lack of proof of not being subject to the laws of nature is a failure to prove what is already locigally deduced.

 

[BreezeWood]

Boss: You don't like religion or religious people, probably because you don't like feeling as if your are being judged or condemned for your immorality, I don't know your personal reasons, but that is common. Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality, which has always existed in man.

Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality ...


it is religion, the "Bible" that negates spirituality by substituting a false premise as you have of a primacy for mankind to the exclusion of all other forms of life ...

spirituality is life within the physical form.

Boss the Thumper - immorality ?

 

[daws101]

Do you think that human memories exist?

Do you think that human memories exist?

So why do you dodge the question? Yes, I think memories exist, DO YOU?

Its an easy fucking question; why don't you answer it?

only in the minds of humans with the exception of writing film or video.
the odd thing about that is humans usually remember those pov's more often then the total event...

 

[Boss]

spiritual evidence...*

Subjective proof!!

Whew... did you get all of that out of your system up there? Nasty shit... that happens to me sometimes when I eat asparagus and drink absinthe at the same time... I break out in talking with formulas.

Let me see if I can tackle this one in a way even you can comprehend...

{Proof = Subjective}

The problem here, is outlined in the first two paragraphs of the OP. As long as you continue to reject spiritual nature, you will never view the spiritual evidence as proof. See, just like you can show me physical "proof" of something you think is objective, and I can either accept it as "proof" or not, the same applies to you with spiritual evidence. Proof is ALWAYS subjective, it relies on you acknowledging the evidence is actual proof.

To illustrate this, let's look at the O.J. Simpson trial... The prosecution really believed they presented objective proof that he did it, but the jury did not share the prosecution's view of the evidence, they subjectively decided it wasn't proof.

There is no semantics games or tricks being played here, it all boils down to whether or not you accept spiritual evidence. If you don't accept spiritual evidence, you can never acknowledge it as proof of anything. However, those who can accept spiritual evidence, find the proof is overwhelming.

 

[numan]

In the grand scheme of things, does it matter?

In the grand scheme of things, does it matter if some people believe Mt. Rushmore is the result of nature instead of the product of design? Does it matter that we have strong and compelling evidence it was carved by men, and not some bizarre phenomenon found nowhere else in nature?

Are you FINALLY getting to the Argument from Design? !!

.

 

[daws101]

In the grand scheme of things, does it matter?

In the grand scheme of things, does it matter if some people believe Mt. Rushmore is the result of nature instead of the product of design? Does it matter that we have strong and compelling evidence it was carved by men, and not some bizarre phenomenon found nowhere else in nature?

Are you FINALLY getting to the Argument from Design? !!

.

had a feeling it was going that way.
it presupposes even more then the original post.. and that's goin' some.

 

[Boss]

Boss: You don't like religion or religious people, probably because you don't like feeling as if your are being judged or condemned for your immorality, I don't know your personal reasons, but that is common. Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality, which has always existed in man.

Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality ...


it is religion, the "Bible" that negates spirituality by substituting a false premise as you have of a primacy for mankind to the exclusion of all other forms of life ...

spirituality is life within the physical form.

Boss the Thumper - immorality ?

I like your posts, Breeze, they really make a man think. It is such a refreshing change from the typical empty-headed rhetoric normally seen in these types of threads, and I can appreciate that.

I think you make a brilliant point, that ALL life is spiritual. I have no argument against that, but it's apparent that humans happen to possess the ability to connect to spiritual nature through human spirituality, which other living things lack.

Now, my mentioning of "immorality" is not a personal judgment, just a suggested reason why Hollie is so hung up on religion, and unable to distinguish between religion and spirituality. I don't know that is the reason, which is why I prefaced the comment with "probably."

The whole moral/immoral thing as it relates to my personal spiritual beliefs, has more to do with disrupting the positive energy flow of spiritual nature. Many things that man has defined as "immoral" are simply disruptive to the spiritual energy, and results in bad things happening. Not all things, but many. It is certainly the case that man has made things "immoral" which have little or no effect on spiritual energy flow, men are often wrong.

This goes back to the point, God does not necessarily have to be a judgemental god, or one that even gives a crap what we do as humans. People like Hollie can't comprehend this, because to them, the word "god" automatically means The God of Abe...the Bible God. I have left the question of what type of god open, because I have no evidence to support any particular incarnation of god. It's even a possibility that "god" is a physical entity, as in, an alien life form from another galaxy. We simply recognize the connection as spiritual because we have yet to figure it out. Just throwing out this possibility, not saying that is the case. In any event, humans seem to have the ability to connect to some force greater than self, and always have. We do not have to define it specifically, in order to determine it does exist.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Boss: You don't like religion or religious people, probably because you don't like feeling as if your are being judged or condemned for your immorality, I don't know your personal reasons, but that is common. Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality, which has always existed in man.

Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality ...


it is religion, the "Bible" that negates spirituality by substituting a false premise as you have of a primacy for mankind to the exclusion of all other forms of life ...

spirituality is life within the physical form.

Boss the Thumper - immorality ?

I like your posts, Breeze, they really make a man think. It is such a refreshing change from the typical empty-headed rhetoric normally seen in these types of threads, and I can appreciate that.

I think you make a brilliant point, that ALL life is spiritual. I have no argument against that, but it's apparent that humans happen to possess the ability to connect to spiritual nature through human spirituality, which other living things lack.
Now, my mentioning of "immorality" is not a personal judgment, just a suggested reason why Hollie is so hung up on religion, and unable to distinguish between religion and spirituality. I don't know that is the reason, which is why I prefaced the comment with "probably."

The whole moral/immoral thing as it relates to my personal spiritual beliefs, has more to do with disrupting the positive energy flow of spiritual nature. Many things that man has defined as "immoral" are simply disruptive to the spiritual energy, and results in bad things happening. Not all things, but many. It is certainly the case that man has made things "immoral" which have little or no effect on spiritual energy flow, men are often wrong.

This goes back to the point, God does not necessarily have to be a judgemental god, or one that even gives a crap what we do as humans. People like Hollie can't comprehend this, because to them, the word "god" automatically means The God of Abe...the Bible God. I have left the question of what type of god open, because I have no evidence to support any particular incarnation of god. It's even a possibility that "god" is a physical entity, as in, an alien life form from another galaxy. We simply recognize the connection as spiritual because we have yet to figure it out. Just throwing out this possibility, not saying that is the case. In any event, humans seem to have the ability to connect to some force greater than self, and always have. We do not have to define it specifically, in order to determine it does exist.

How do you KNOW that dolphins don't consider a life after death? How do you KNOW that dogs don't pray?

How do you KNOW so fucking much about the Great UNknown?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Moral is as moral does... Morality is what the Monkey with the biggest stick says it is.

This is why Civil Law MUST trump Religious Law whenever the two come in conflict.

 

[daws101]

Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality ...


it is religion, the "Bible" that negates spirituality by substituting a false premise as you have of a primacy for mankind to the exclusion of all other forms of life ...

spirituality is life within the physical form.

Boss the Thumper - immorality ?

I like your posts, Breeze, they really make a man think. It is such a refreshing change from the typical empty-headed rhetoric normally seen in these types of threads, and I can appreciate that.

I think you make a brilliant point, that ALL life is spiritual. I have no argument against that, but it's apparent that humans happen to possess the ability to connect to spiritual nature through human spirituality, which other living things lack.
Now, my mentioning of "immorality" is not a personal judgment, just a suggested reason why Hollie is so hung up on religion, and unable to distinguish between religion and spirituality. I don't know that is the reason, which is why I prefaced the comment with "probably."

The whole moral/immoral thing as it relates to my personal spiritual beliefs, has more to do with disrupting the positive energy flow of spiritual nature. Many things that man has defined as "immoral" are simply disruptive to the spiritual energy, and results in bad things happening. Not all things, but many. It is certainly the case that man has made things "immoral" which have little or no effect on spiritual energy flow, men are often wrong.

This goes back to the point, God does not necessarily have to be a judgemental god, or one that even gives a crap what we do as humans. People like Hollie can't comprehend this, because to them, the word "god" automatically means The God of Abe...the Bible God. I have left the question of what type of god open, because I have no evidence to support any particular incarnation of god. It's even a possibility that "god" is a physical entity, as in, an alien life form from another galaxy. We simply recognize the connection as spiritual because we have yet to figure it out. Just throwing out this possibility, not saying that is the case. In any event, humans seem to have the ability to connect to some force greater than self, and always have. We do not have to define it specifically, in order to determine it does exist.

How do you KNOW that dolphins don't consider a life after death? How do you KNOW that dogs don't pray?

How do you KNOW so fucking much about the Great UNknown?

ARE you mad ..he's the great and powerful OZ..!~

 

[Boss]

In the grand scheme of things, does it matter if some people believe Mt. Rushmore is the result of nature instead of the product of design? Does it matter that we have strong and compelling evidence it was carved by men, and not some bizarre phenomenon found nowhere else in nature?

Are you FINALLY getting to the Argument from Design? !!

.

had a feeling it was going that way.
it presupposes even more then the original post.. and that's goin' some.

I really don't understand how you people extrapolate this stuff from what I say. However, since the subject has been raised regarding intelligent design, I don't believe you have offered a better explanation for origin of life or creation of the universe. I don't accept Abiogenesis as a theory, because of several reasons, most notably, the incredible number of variations on the theory itself. And.. even IF we break it all down to the simplest explanations, there is no explanation for why properties of elements react the way they did. Natural forces of wind and water did not create Mt. Rushmore, but even if they did, it does not negate god or intelligence in design. God controls nature, god caused the Big Bang, and you haven't proven otherwise, because you can't.

Finally, there is no presupposition here, I don't have a hidden religious agenda. You people seem to be very paranoid about this, and I have addressed it repeatedly throughout this thread. I am not a Christian, I am not a religious person. Religious people call me an Atheist because I don't subscribe to their incarnations of god. Now... here's the deal, if I really AM a Christian trying to play tricks on you, then I have inadvertently condemned myself to eternal damnation by denying Christ. Why in the hell would I do this, just to trick you? It makes no sense at all. If I really were a Christian believer in the Bible, I would have NO inclination to deny it, and I would spend a lot of time defending and supporting the Biblical incarnation of god in this thread, that's not happening. You can cajole me and ridicule all you like, but you're barking up the wrong tree.