Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[HUGGY]

A lot of words. Much tap dancing. Still...no god.

 

[Boss]

Look! Even your butt buddy SJ thanked you already! See, you two are a team!

I have demonstrated that you are an asshat that is not worth debating.

LOL... You have demonstrated you don't have much reading comprehension skill, but chortle well, and you are a terrible quoter. You've demonstrated that you are tenacious when it comes to trying to sabotage a thread or topic you can't debate.

I only have limited patience with idiots who can't be honest.

I think you should work on having more patience with yourself.

 

[Boss]

A lot of words. Much tap dancing. Still...no god.

The only one tap dancing is newpolitics.... and maybe emily, if she gets the right beat.

The OP answers the thread topic question, I stick by every word of it, and it hasn't been refuted.

There will never be a god for you, because you do not recognize spiritual evidence. I can't prove god to you any more than you can prove climate to someone who believes god controls it. You and they, are in the same boat of ignorance, refusing to acknowledge logical evidence.

In the case of a spiritual entity, logical evidence must be spiritual, not physical. It is illogical to expect or assume physical evidence of something not physical. Yet that is the only evidence you will accept, since you don't believe in spiritual evidence.

 

[S.J.]

A lot of words. Much tap dancing. Still...no god.

The only one tap dancing is newpolitics.... and maybe emily, if she gets the right beat.

The OP answers the thread topic question, I stick by every word of it, and it hasn't been refuted.

There will never be a god for you, because you do not recognize spiritual evidence. I can't prove god to you any more than you can prove climate to someone who believes god controls it. You and they, are in the same boat of ignorance, refusing to acknowledge logical evidence.

In the case of a spiritual entity, logical evidence must be spiritual, not physical. It is illogical to expect or assume physical evidence of something not physical. Yet that is the only evidence you will accept, since you don't believe in spiritual evidence.

You might as well be talking to the wall. These jerks are incapable of thinking outside the box.

 

[Boss]

You might as well be talking to the wall. These jerks are incapable of thinking outside the box.

I am seeing that. A little bit stunned at the total lack of depth so far. It seems there is a contingent of posters who think, popping in and popping off a disagreeable retort, is all the 'debate' we need. Just the mere fact they blessed us with their 'wisdom', is enough that we should just accept it and move on.

 

[there4eyeM]

Much of the 'problem' here is the lack of definition and refusal to accept inherent human attributes. The realities of consciousness, the mind and how perceptions and learning work have not been sufficiently integrated into the calculations. Emotion and desire to believe are very great and, for objectivity and accuracy, must be mastered.

If you love your mother, you don't need the world to confirm it. If everyone says she doesn't exist and the love you feel is imaginary, you have yourself as judge of which is the 'reality'; what your perceptions carry into your mind of what the world says or what you perceptions transmit to your interior about the love of your mother.

Belief is choice. Accepting facts or not is a choice. In fact, deciding what facts are is a choice. But it all goes on inside one, not outside anywhere. Even if it does go on 'outside', that is irrelevant. The only thing one truly possesses is one's interior world.

 

[edthecynic]

We often hear the God-haters chortle... you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy. I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. 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.

You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?

As you can see, the "existence" of something can be physical or nonphysical, or even spiritual. So in order to evaluate the existence of something spiritual, we have to use spiritual evidence, since physical evidence doesn't logically apply. We don't demand spiritual evidence to prove the physical.... if you demonstrate how rain is caused with physical science, and someone says...well God tells me that rain is His tears... what would you say to that? It's backward, mouth-breathing and knuckle-dragging? Right? Well, that is someone applying spiritual evidence to the physical, and rejecting physical evidence. Yes, it's kind of stupid, isn't it? Just as stupid as demanding physical evidence to support a spiritual entity, and rejecting spiritual evidence.

Now to the "definitive proof" part. Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence, we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient people of Lake Mungo, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony. This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality. We can trace this human connection with spirituality all through mankind's history to present day religions. Mankind has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. Since our very origins.

Perhaps this is where we can interject some relative physical science, from none other than the father of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin points out that behavioral traits which are inherent in a species, exist for some fundamental reason pertaining to the advancement of the species, otherwise they are discarded over time through natural selection. No species of animal we have ever studied, just does something inherently, with no fundamental reason. Salmon swim upstream for a reason. Dogs wag their tails for a reason. We may not understand the reason, but Darwin tells us, there has to be one.

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!

Sorry, but you have not proven the existence of God. All you have proven is physical people are spiritual. The physical people exist first and from them comes the spiritual.

To prove the existence of God you must prove that the spiritual precedes the physical. That you assume without proof. An assumption is not a definitive proof!

 

[HUGGY]

You might as well be talking to the wall. These jerks are incapable of thinking outside the box.

I am seeing that. A little bit stunned at the total lack of depth so far. It seems there is a contingent of posters who think, popping in and popping off a disagreeable retort, is all the 'debate' we need. Just the mere fact they blessed us with their 'wisdom', is enough that we should just accept it and move on.

That's it pretty much. Some of you remind me of a child that needs to be put to bed. You think up every excuse you can imagine to avoid the inevitable.

 

[newpolitics]

.

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!

Here. You state definitively that you have proof that.... GOD EXISTS.

 

[newpolitics]

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!"

Here you are implying that you didn't say "GOD EXISTS" even thought it is clearly aim of your OP and stated explicitly at to end, as I quotes above. Here is ANOTHER contradiction. You can't be both proving god and not-proving god. The problem
with your squirrelly tactics of avoiding definition of terms, is that you get to move the goal posts whenever you want, which you've done.

You don't even know what apologetics are, and yet this is what you are attempting, albeit poorly. That is really... Sorry.

You really are impossibly stupid.

 

[there4eyeM]

We might also point out that this question has not been satisfactorily resolved in hundreds of years of discussion amongst the world's greatest minds. How likely is it that it will be proved for the first time here?

 

[newpolitics]

! 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.
!

When talking about the physical universe, you don't use definitions to talk about things. Things are defined by themselves, of themselves. Is there a definition for the Rocky Mountains other than its attributes and location? No. Definitions are formulated A priori (I know you don't know this term, so look it up) . A posteriori knowledge is not gotten through definition but through observation, therefore, you are making a category error as I've already pointed out, when you talk about "defining the inside of a black hole." This is non-sensical. I've already pointed this out to you, but you are too dumb to understand this. Einstein did not so this either, and you haven't shown any examples. You tried with black holes, but all you said was, "we don't know what was in black holes, so couldn't define it... Yet we know it exists, so there!" We know the inside of a black hole exists, because the outside of it exists. This is LOGIC. Something can not have an outside and not an inside. Are you suggesting that something can have an outside but not an inside? please demonstrate this. If you can not, then you concede this point about not needing to define something, and must define your god. I have said all of this ready, and you have failed to respond to ANY of it. You simply resort to personal attacks or changing the subject.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

I think this one is my favorite.

"I never said there is no physical proof of X's existence. I said there is no physical proof of X."

Another blatant contradiction. X can not exist without its existing, or its being in a condition of existence. So what you really just said is:

"I never said there is no physical proof of X. I said there is no physical proof of X."

ROFLMAO.

This is why I don't want to debate you. Because you are an idiot who thinks he is smarter than everyone. All I have done is clean up your logical messes only to have you deny it like a little kid. Grow up and come back when your brain has done a little growing.

 

[LittleNipper]

Technology is proof positive of Creation and a Creator. All the advancements of techology are directly the result of intelligent design. And intelligent design must have a designer. Technology has never advanced without a designer directly involved. Techology didn't advance of its own accord. In fact "inspired" has been used time and again in association with technological advances. The automobile didn't design or construct itself. The computer didn't come to be of its own accord. Each advancement is the direct result of man's desire to make life easier/enjoyable/safer/rewarding for himself. Likewise man has a purpose in the universe. He is here for a reason that is known only to God. And as God is creative, so too man is creative.

 

[HUGGY]

Technology is proof positive of Creation and a Creator. All the advancements of techology are directly the result of intelligent design. And intelligent design must have a designer. Technology has never advanced without a designer directly involved. Techology didn't advance of its own accord. In fact "inspired" has been used time and again in association with technological advances. The automobile didn't design or construct itself. The computer didn't come to be of its own accord. Each advancement is the direct result of man's desire to make life easier/enjoyable/safer/rewarding for himself. Likewise man has a purpose in the universe. He is here for a reason that is known only to God. And as God is creative, so too man is creative.

Nonsense. You have obviously never invented anything.

As in nature a need arises which is recognizd and filled. Sometimes the need is forseen.

There is no "divine" intervention. There are only gaps that develope or will develope and in nature nitches open up and they are exploited. Sometimes these nitches are forced as in the act of survival.

Many scientific discoveries are accidents that are observed while the "inventer" is doing something entirely different as in the "discovery" of X-Rays..AKA radioactivity... and Rubber.

 

[hobelim]

For the vast majority of those 70,000 years most peoples spirituality was nothing more than superstition. Sacrificing virgins to the sun god to insure a good harvest is hardly evidence of anything except ignorance.

Again you have failed to define spirituality as anything more than superstitious beliefs based on ignorance about reality and consequent deranged and illogical behavior.

And all of these speculations you are making, they are recorded where and by whom? What we have evidence of, is human spiritual belief.

evidence of spiritual belief is not evidence of anything spiritual. Does the fact that people used to worship trees prove the existence of God or spirituality or is it evidence that people were superstitious?

How that may have manifested itself into various "superstitious" actions, is not relevant to this discussion of existence. In a sense, we can say that all religious belief is superstitious in nature, that's why it's totally not important to include it in the evaluation of whether a spiritual god exists. These are only examples of man dealing with a spiritual entity they can't understand.

Don't you even have an inkling how absurd it seems to me for you to agree that religion is superstition but not relevant to the discussion whether the God of their superstitious beliefs exists.

The fact remains, as long as humans have been human, they have been spiritually connected. Superstition is often confused with spirituality, but they are simply not the same. We can observe modern history of man, and see a precipitous drop in purely superstitious beliefs, as science has evolved to explain things. With spirituality, we see no drop-off whatsoever, as many humans are spiritual now as ever. Over thousands and thousands of years, this spiritual attribute in man has not changed.

You might as well have said that mans ability to confound himself is unchanged. Confusing yourself and driving each other insane with superstitious gobbledygook is not a spiritual experience.

Presence means what? Because, god's spiritual presence has been known for ages, and testified to by BILLIONS of people, many who gave their lives for acknowledging their spiritual beliefs. That's one of the main points of my argument, you refuse to accept spiritual evidence and demand physical evidence of a spiritual entity. Here, you seem to vainly be implying that IF this spiritual entity is real, "he" should at least show you a hologram or something, so that you can believe in "him." Why do you believe spiritual god cares whether you believe or not? Why would any spiritual entity be inclined to manifest itself in physical form? Tell ya what, why don't you manifest yourself as a spiritual entity and go make these illogical complaints to god?

the conscious mind, thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, feelings, emotions, dreams, suffering pain joy love etc etc, are all incorporeal in nature. If God is incorporeal communicating with the human mind would not be a physical manifestation. Jesus said ' Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God. "In his day people thought the seat of consciousness was in organ of the heart. We now know that conscious is seated in the brain. Pure of heart means pure of mind.



]

I didn't ask you about any personal interpretations or beliefs about God.

I asked whether you ever seen or heard a word from the living God in your entire life and if so how do you know it was God and not an overactive imagination, and what did you perceive and hear?

Again, my personal experience is not the issue here.

yes it is. If you claim to have proof of God but have never heard from him in your entire life, how could you possibly lead anyone else to him? How could you make such a c;claim without validation from God? Isn't important to seek proof for the truth of what you claim?



You are trying to offer your belief as proof. You might as well be trying to convince people to believe in the easter bunny because people celebrate easter.


try again.

 

[Boss]

Sorry, but you have not proven the existence of God. All you have proven is physical people are spiritual. The physical people exist first and from them comes the spiritual.

To prove the existence of God you must prove that the spiritual precedes the physical. That you assume without proof. An assumption is not a definitive proof!

1. You are assuming physical came before spiritual.

2. You are not accepting or acknowledging the spiritual evidence.

 

[Boss]

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!"

Here you are implying that you didn't say "GOD EXISTS" even thought it is clearly aim of your OP and stated explicitly at to end, as I quotes above. Here is ANOTHER contradiction. You can't be both proving god and not-proving god. The problem
with your squirrelly tactics of avoiding definition of terms, is that you get to move the goal posts whenever you want, which you've done.

You don't even know what apologetics are, and yet this is what you are attempting, albeit poorly. That is really... Sorry.

You really are impossibly stupid.

I'm implying that I did not ONLY say "GOD EXISTS" as you claimed I had. I am implying that instead of ONLY saying "GOD EXISTS," a case was presented that you have not addressed.

I also never implied I didn't know what apologetics were. I asked you what I was apologizing for, and you haven't answered.

All through this thread, this is what we've seen from you. One useless unfounded turd of an argument after another, tossed into the thread to get my response, so that you can keep people distracted, like a rodeo clown, until your posse shows up.

 

[Boss]

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.

I think this one is my favorite.

"I never said there is no physical proof of X's existence. I said there is no physical proof of X."

Another blatant contradiction. X can not exist without its existing, or its being in a condition of existence. So what you really just said is:

"I never said there is no physical proof of X. I said there is no physical proof of X."

ROFLMAO.

This is why I don't want to debate you. Because you are an idiot who thinks he is smarter than everyone. All I have done is clean up your logical messes only to have you deny it like a little kid. Grow up and come back when your brain has done a little growing.

How about stop the fucking chortling and preening and show us PROOF of a thought?
(Electric impulses in the brain are not a thought, they are electric impulses.)

 

[LittleNipper]

Technology is proof positive of Creation and a Creator. All the advancements of techology are directly the result of intelligent design. And intelligent design must have a designer. Technology has never advanced without a designer directly involved. Techology didn't advance of its own accord. In fact "inspired" has been used time and again in association with technological advances. The automobile didn't design or construct itself. The computer didn't come to be of its own accord. Each advancement is the direct result of man's desire to make life easier/enjoyable/safer/rewarding for himself. Likewise man has a purpose in the universe. He is here for a reason that is known only to God. And as God is creative, so too man is creative.

Nonsense. You have obviously never invented anything.

As in nature a need arises which is recognizd and filled. Sometimes the need is forseen.

There is no "divine" intervention. There are only gaps that develope or will develope and in nature nitches open up and they are exploited. Sometimes these nitches are forced as in the act of survival.

Many scientific discoveries are accidents that are observed while the "inventer" is doing something entirely different as in the "discovery" of X-Rays..AKA radioactivity... and Rubber.

There is HUMAN CREATIVE intervention, which sometimes produce accidental design. In nature there is DIVINE intervention but that purpose is without accident, only divine will.