Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Hollie]

If you have fossils dated back 500 million years or so and pictures of the same exact organisms today and there is no evolutionary change that refutes the theory how hard is that to understand ?

you don't believe that the earth is 500million years old.
that in and of it's self refutes your bullshit.

No what it shows evolutionist refuting their own theory by applying such dates and theory. You're correct I don't believe the earth is as old as claimed by your side.

How is "evolutionist" refuting their own theory?

Were you aware that "evolutionist" employ many different sciences in the study of evolution?

Even the terms you use ("evolutionist", when describing scientists - in the plural sense - from different fields), is a staple from Christian creationist ministries. I suppose you and the charlatans you are in thrall to view that as a not-so-subtle derogatory term. How stereotypical that you do nothing more than parrot the creationist ministry line as creationist form their arguments exclusively with efforts to refute evolutionary / biological science. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evilutionism". It simply is nothing more than the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “New evidence that proves science wrong and proves supernatural intervention!”

Your science-loathing / Christian fundamentalist agenda causes you to promote many goofy conspiracy theories which are comical but hardly worthy of serious consideration.

 

[Youwerecreated]

All one has to do is look at the creationists thread and see how disengenuous of the sciences you two are.

They won't have to look far at that nonsense Daws was posting the last couple of days lol. They can even see it here.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now this is the level of ignorance I am speaking of.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7346025-post16557.html

Now all you have to is go back from there and watch daws dance.

 

[numan]

If you have fossils dated back 500 million years or so and pictures of the same exact organisms today and there is no evolutionary change that refutes the theory how hard is that to understand ?

Google the Burgess shale fossils, you complete and utter ignoramus.

.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you don't believe that the earth is 500million years old.
that in and of it's self refutes your bullshit.

No what it shows evolutionist refuting their own theory by applying such dates and theory. You're correct I don't believe the earth is as old as claimed by your side.

How is "evolutionist" refuting their own theory?

Were you aware that "evolutionist" employ many different sciences in the study of evolution?

Even the terms you use ("evolutionist", when describing scientists - in the plural sense - from different fields), is a staple from Christian creationist ministries. I suppose you and the charlatans you are in thrall to view that as a not-so-subtle derogatory term. How stereotypical that you do nothing more than parrot the creationist ministry line as creationist form their arguments exclusively with efforts to refute evolutionary / biological science. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evilutionism". It simply is nothing more than the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “New evidence that proves science wrong and proves supernatural intervention!”

Your science-loathing / Christian fundamentalist agenda causes you to promote many goofy conspiracy theories which are comical but hardly worthy of serious consideration.

You were saying nitwit.


ev·o·lu·tion·ist
[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, esp. British, ee-vuh-] Show IPA

noun
1.
a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.

2.
a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.

adjective Also, ev·o·lu·tion·is·tic.
3.
of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists.

4.
believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, especially in biology.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1855–60; evolution + -ist

Related forms
ev·o·lu·tion·ism, noun

ev·o·lu·tion·is·ti·cal·ly, adverb

an·ti·ev·o·lu·tion·ist, noun, adjective

an·ti·ev·o·lu·tion·is·tic, adjective

non·ev·o·lu·tion·ist, noun

Evolutionist | Define Evolutionist at Dictionary.com

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you have fossils dated back 500 million years or so and pictures of the same exact organisms today and there is no evolutionary change that refutes the theory how hard is that to understand ?

Google the Burgess shale fossils, you complete and utter ignoramus.

.

Why ? So you ignore the living fossils presented lol.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Irony: A thread titled 'Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?' running strong after 128 pages and 29 days.







The only truth to this thread is that it's posed as a question.

`​

And The Beat goes on....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUOaNUES1g]Hooray for that Little Difference - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BreezeWood]

A deity whose very existence you just DENIED in your other post.

God does not automatically have to be a "deity." This seems to be where you are hung up. I am a spiritualist, I believe in spiritual nature and a spiritual energy which I refer to as "god" but which I don't believe has the qualities of any "deity" suggested by religion or theology. The "god" I believe in, doesn't have humanistic attributes, doesn't judge your actions, doesn't condemn you to hell, doesn't need you to worship it, doesn't love or hate you. I'm sorry that your brain apparently cannot comprehend such a god, but that's not my problem, is it?

Boss: Like I said, there is positive and negative spiritual energy. Both are present in our universe, and we as humans, have the capability to tap into either one.

"spiritual energy which I (Boss) refer to as "god" ...


how do you define Life ?

certainly you do not believe it is a combination of both positive and negative energy ?

the Living Spiritual Universe is not specifically defined ?

Boss: No, you were born a spiritual somebody, you have succeeded in becoming a Nihilist nobody... worm food in the making.

... worm food in the making.


so, the Boss does believe in life past a persons last breath - for some ?

 

[Boss]

Wow... It's hard to believe people who claim disbelief have spent an entire Saturday defending their disbelief. What a colossal waste of your time! Guys, look... read the OP, I said it very distinctly, you will NEVER be able to resolve the question. Don't waste any more time here, go out there and try to enjoy life and the part of nature you accept.

Boss? Yet you claim that this "spiritual.... something or other" Boss? has no physical or material existence. Boss?

Boss? You're describing "magic" existence. Boss?

It tells me that deep inside, you're just being silly.

Not 'magic' anymore than black holes, antimatter, dark energy... I said that we can't currently measure or verify this energy with physics and science, it is not material in existence, as far as we are aware at this time. I have no way of knowing what we don't yet know, sweetie. I'm not being silly, that's just a statement of fact here. There may well come a time when we stumble upon discovery and can confirm spiritual nature with physical science, or better yet, quantum physics, which is relatively new. It's possible.

But to continue denying that spirituality exists, when we have thousands of years of evidence from billions of people that it certainly does exist, is laughable to me.

So, are we to believe that black holes, antimatter, dark energy... have no physical or material existence. With black holes for instance, I had understood that the affects of gravity could be used to confirm their existence.

Really Boss, you should email NASA and explain that "spiritual nature" could be employed to confirm astronomical phenomenon. I don't know why they need to spend as much as they do on experimentation and such nonsense.

Hollie, as we can see, that is nowhere close to what I said. All I pointed out was, we don't currently possess ALL knowledge that can ever possibly be known. You keep calling something "magic" because there isn't scientific proof of it at this time. (actually, there is scientific and spiritual proof, you just reject the spiritual) I simply pointed out, once was the time, black holes were considered "magical" and the same with bacteria. Heck, a few hundred years ago... a mere blink in the eye of time... man thought the world was flat and Columbus was going to sail off the edge. It's backwards and mouth-breathing to sarcastically proclaim things you don't understand are "magic" and dismiss their possibility.

and this confirms god? no. this only confirms human existential insecurity, and the emotional need for a greater explanation to sooth the unanswerable. That's all you have.

Since there is no example or physical evidence that any other living thing emotionally needs a greater explanation to sooth the unanswerable, it is reasonable to believe this stems from our ability to spiritually connect. You have not demonstrated otherwise, and you can't.

You keep wanting to point to these things that our spirituality causes, as the reasons for our spirituality, and you literally have to abandon scientific principles to do so.

You keep on making a truth claim about the spiritual realm actually existing, without demonstration. BELIEF IS NOT EVIDENCE. End of thread.

It's not just belief, it can be spiritually demonstrated, you just refuse to accept spiritual evidence. If it didn't exist, humans wouldn't have been able to connect with it for all their existence.

God does not automatically have to be a "deity." This seems to be where you are hung up. I am a spiritualist, I believe in spiritual nature and a spiritual energy which I refer to as "god" but which I don't believe has the qualities of any "deity" suggested by religion or theology. The "god" I believe in, doesn't have humanistic attributes, doesn't judge your actions, doesn't condemn you to hell, doesn't need you to worship it, doesn't love or hate you. I'm sorry that your brain apparently cannot comprehend such a god, but that's not my problem, is it?

"spiritual energy which I (Boss) refer to as "god" ...


how do you define Life ?

certainly you do not believe it is a combination of both positive and negative energy ?

the Living Spiritual Universe is not specifically defined ?

Boss: No, you were born a spiritual somebody, you have succeeded in becoming a Nihilist nobody... worm food in the making.

... worm food in the making.

so, the Boss does believe in life past a persons last breath - for some ?

Life is created by spiritual energy, just like the universe. You said it best, way back in the thread... All life is spiritual.

As for afterlife, I was mostly jerking his chain, I don't know if our spirits live on, but since they aren't confined to physical nature, it's reasonable to presume they do. Death is something experienced in the physical realm. I suppose spirits can "die" or become so weak in energy as to become inconsequential, and absorbed by the rest of spiritual nature.

 

[Hollie]

No what it shows evolutionist refuting their own theory by applying such dates and theory. You're correct I don't believe the earth is as old as claimed by your side.

How is "evolutionist" refuting their own theory?

Were you aware that "evolutionist" employ many different sciences in the study of evolution?

Even the terms you use ("evolutionist", when describing scientists - in the plural sense - from different fields), is a staple from Christian creationist ministries. I suppose you and the charlatans you are in thrall to view that as a not-so-subtle derogatory term. How stereotypical that you do nothing more than parrot the creationist ministry line as creationist form their arguments exclusively with efforts to refute evolutionary / biological science. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evilutionism". It simply is nothing more than the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “New evidence that proves science wrong and proves supernatural intervention!”

Your science-loathing / Christian fundamentalist agenda causes you to promote many goofy conspiracy theories which are comical but hardly worthy of serious consideration.

You were saying nitwit.


ev·o·lu·tion·ist
[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, esp. British, ee-vuh-] Show IPA

noun
1.
a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.

2.
a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.

adjective Also, ev·o·lu·tion·is·tic.
3.
of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists.

4.
believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, especially in biology.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1855–60; evolution + -ist

Related forms
ev·o·lu·tion·ism, noun

ev·o·lu·tion·is·ti·cal·ly, adverb

an·ti·ev·o·lu·tion·ist, noun, adjective

an·ti·ev·o·lu·tion·is·tic, adjective

non·ev·o·lu·tion·ist, noun

Evolutionist | Define Evolutionist at Dictionary.com

Not surprisingly, you chose to sidestep any accounting of how evolutionary science employs disciplines from many other sciences. Evolutionary science is really the synthesis of many scientific fields (geology, biology, botany, population genetics, paleontology, microbiology, embryology, and more).


The reason why you devote such hatred toward science and knowledge is simple: Creationists are largely Christian Fundamentalists; literalists, who take every word of the various bibles to be the true and unalterable word of the gods. Many echo the sentiments of the thankfully dead Henry Morris:

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible."

-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey


The fundies view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology and the foundation of their worldview.

Their refutations to the demonstrated sciences are the most bizarre and contorted versions of conspiracy theories or based on misconceptions, hearsay, sloppy science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, -- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose if they insist on sticking to biblical literalism. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve means there is no original sin. No original sin means there is no need for salvation. No need for salvation means there is no need for their religion. This is why the fundies fight tooth and nail, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

 

[Boss]

The fundies view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology and the foundation of their worldview.

How do you explain Christians who certainly believe in the Bible, yet also believe in Evolution? According to what they have told me, the biblical references of "days" in the creation story are actually misinterpreted literally. In the Hebrew original, the word was "yom" which can mean a variety of periods of time. God doesn't actually create "days and nights" until like the fourth "day" which proves the literal interpretation is incorrect. Not that I want to turn this into a theological debate, spirituality doesn't have to be theological to exist.

 

[Hollie]

That was not the point of that post it was to expose the claim organisms are evolving.

and it was wrong...

If you have fossils dated back 500 million years or so and pictures of the same exact organisms today and there is no evolutionary change that refutes the theory how hard is that to understand ?

It's hard to understand how you know so little of the science you hope to denigrate.
Your description above is among the worst examples of someone who understands exactly nothing of what you are arguing against.

You make the truly mindless claim that “no evolutionary change that refutes the theory” which is astonishingly stupid, even for you. Do you think that evolution requires that organisms must “change”? That is not the case. Evolution is driven by species being well-adapted to their environments. Evolution does not predict the requirement of "change".

Otherwise, I think these kinds of discussions are important. They do expose the lack of science in creationism, the dishonest creationist tactics, that creationism is truly nothing more than fundamentalist Christianity and it does demonstrate that real science has been advancing of humanity while the fundies have much to hide.

 

[Hollie]

The fundies view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology and the foundation of their worldview.

How do you explain Christians who certainly believe in the Bible, yet also believe in Evolution? According to what they have told me, the biblical references of "days" in the creation story are actually misinterpreted literally. In the Hebrew original, the word was "yom" which can mean a variety of periods of time. God doesn't actually create "days and nights" until like the fourth "day" which proves the literal interpretation is incorrect. Not that I want to turn this into a theological debate, spirituality doesn't have to be theological to exist.

I'm not Christian so It's not up to me to offer explanations as you requested.

And no, spirituality doesn't have to be theological to exist. It just needs proponents who rattle on with self-refuting explanations of something they can't define except with "magic".

 

[Hollie]

Life is created by spiritual energy, just like the universe. You said it best, way back in the thread... All life is spiritual, [because I say so -ed].

.

 

[Boss]

Hollie, you are the one with "because I say so" as your only argument. I've repeatedly offered science to refute your arguments while requesting you to present some science to back your arguments, and as of yet, you have failed to do so. You can keep on insisting the opposite is the case, but you are not making your point, dear.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, you are the one with "because I say so" as your only argument. I've repeatedly offered science to refute your arguments while requesting you to present some science to back your arguments, and as of yet, you have failed to do so. You can keep on insisting the opposite is the case, but you are not making your point, dear.

I can't recall a single instance where you have offered science to support your claim to supernaturalism.

I understand you take issue with my reliance on science to explain the natural world, but your insistence that a spirit world exists but is not open to investigation is hardly worth serious consideration.

Science truths are open to investigation. Your gods are not, in spite of your continued " because I say so" wailing.

 

[Boss]

Hollie, you are the one with "because I say so" as your only argument. I've repeatedly offered science to refute your arguments while requesting you to present some science to back your arguments, and as of yet, you have failed to do so. You can keep on insisting the opposite is the case, but you are not making your point, dear.

I can't recall a single instance where you have offered science to support your claim to supernaturalism.

I understand you take issue with my reliance on science to explain the natural world, but your insistence that a spirit world exists but is not open to investigation is hardly worth serious consideration.

Science truths are open to investigation. Your gods are not, in spite of your continued " because I say so" wailing.

Spiritual nature is not "supernatural" because you say so, sweetie. Spirituality has existed in humans for all their existence and is our most defining characteristic as a species. Whether you believe it's "real" or not, it is certainly a part of nature. I have no problem with you using science to explain the physical world, but you've not used science to disprove spiritual nature. The spiritual nature is indeed open to investigation if you believe in spiritual nature and accept the overwhelming spiritual evidence. You don't, so you can't.

My OP argument uses both spiritual and scientific evidence to make the case, and you simply dismiss the physical evidence and reject the spiritual evidence, on the basis that "you say so." As I have pointed out, your "theories" of how spirituality came about, are not supported by physical nature or science. In fact, it completely defies Darwin's theories. You haven't explained why no other living thing makes spiritual connection, has no need to explain the unexplained or comfort fears of death. You can't demonstrate how this was an 'evolved' attribute, when it doesn't exist in any other living thing. All you can do is continue to insist that spiritual nature doesn't exist because there is no physical evidence and because you say so.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, you are the one with "because I say so" as your only argument. I've repeatedly offered science to refute your arguments while requesting you to present some science to back your arguments, and as of yet, you have failed to do so. You can keep on insisting the opposite is the case, but you are not making your point, dear.

I can't recall a single instance where you have offered science to support your claim to supernaturalism.

I understand you take issue with my reliance on science to explain the natural world, but your insistence that a spirit world exists but is not open to investigation is hardly worth serious consideration.

Science truths are open to investigation. Your gods are not, in spite of your continued " because I say so" wailing.

Spiritual nature is not "supernatural" because you say so, sweetie. Spirituality has existed in humans for all their existence and is our most defining characteristic as a species. Whether you believe it's "real" or not, it is certainly a part of nature. I have no problem with you using science to explain the physical world, but you've not used science to disprove spiritual nature. The spiritual nature is indeed open to investigation if you believe in spiritual nature and accept the overwhelming spiritual evidence. You don't, so you can't.

My OP argument uses both spiritual and scientific evidence to make the case, and you simply dismiss the physical evidence and reject the spiritual evidence, on the basis that "you say so." As I have pointed out, your "theories" of how spirituality came about, are not supported by physical nature or science. In fact, it completely defies Darwin's theories. You haven't explained why no other living thing makes spiritual connection, has no need to explain the unexplained or comfort fears of death. You can't demonstrate how this was an 'evolved' attribute, when it doesn't exist in any other living thing. All you can do is continue to insist that spiritual nature doesn't exist because there is no physical evidence and because you say so.

So yes, you have confirmed that nowhere did you offer science to support your specious claims to supernaturalism. That should be obvious as science has no mechanisms to test that which is unavailable to the natural, rational world.

And yes, your claim that I must first believe in your spirit world in order to accept the existence of your spirit world is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Boss]

So yes, you have confirmed that nowhere did you offer science to support your specious claims to supernaturalism. That should be obvious as science has no mechanisms to test that which is unavailable to the natural, rational world.

And yes, your claim that I must first believe in your spirit world in order to accept the existence of your spirit world is beyond ridiculous.

No, I have repeatedly used science to prove that humans do have a spiritual (not supernatural) connection. There is no "specious claim" being made, we have over 70k years of evidence that humans have connected spiritually. Physical science has no current mechanisms to measure spiritual existence, that is true, and I pointed this out in the OP... never have refuted that. However, spiritualism is perfectly natural and rational human behavior, and has been for all of our existence. It's not ridiculous to say, if you don't believe in something, it can never be proven to you. If I reject your scientific explanation for what causes rain to fall, and insist it's 'god crying', you can talk until blue in the face, I am never going to accept your scientific evidence and you can't prove it to me. That doesn't mean you can't prove your case to others who accept scientific evidence. The same principle applies with spiritual nature, you refuse to accept it, don't believe in it, therefore, it can never be proven to you. This is also pointed out in the OP, and you've spent an entire Saturday confirming it. Thanks!

 

[Hollie]

So yes, you have confirmed that nowhere did you offer science to support your specious claims to supernaturalism. That should be obvious as science has no mechanisms to test that which is unavailable to the natural, rational world.

And yes, your claim that I must first believe in your spirit world in order to accept the existence of your spirit world is beyond ridiculous.

No, I have repeatedly used science to prove that humans do have a spiritual (not supernatural) connection. There is no "specious claim" being made, we have over 70k years of evidence that humans have connected spiritually. Physical science has no current mechanisms to measure spiritual existence, that is true, and I pointed this out in the OP... never have refuted that. However, spiritualism is perfectly natural and rational human behavior, and has been for all of our existence. It's not ridiculous to say, if you don't believe in something, it can never be proven to you. If I reject your scientific explanation for what causes rain to fall, and insist it's 'god crying', you can talk until blue in the face, I am never going to accept your scientific evidence and you can't prove it to me. That doesn't mean you can't prove your case to others who accept scientific evidence. The same principle applies with spiritual nature, you refuse to accept it, don't believe in it, therefore, it can never be proven to you. This is also pointed out in the OP, and you've spent an entire Saturday confirming it. Thanks!

How strange that you keep insisting that you have supplied "scientific evidence" of your spirit worlds yet you refuse to identify where we can find this evidence.

Provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal. I'm just tingling with excitement to read of this spirit world you claim exists.

I'm a bit suspicious as you insist I must have a prior committment to believe In your spirit worlds In order to accept the evidence of your spirit worlds. That sounds a bit like someone who's either a fool or a religious zealot.

Therefore, give us a link to a reliable, peer reviewed journal. There's a good fellow.