Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

However, spiritualism is perfectly natural and rational human behavior, and has been for all of our existence.

Spiritualism (like ALL religions) is a response to the fear of death. The fear gene exists in both humans and other mammals. Your "70k years of evidence" are nothing more than an attempt to dispel fear of the unknown.

As I have demonstrated, spirituality did not follow fear of death. If that were the case, other animals would have this same insatiable fear of death which required inventions of the mind to cope with, and we see no such evidence in all of nature. It also doesn't follow fear of the unknown, or we would see precipitous decline in spirituality as the unknowns have been answered, and we don't. The fear of death and the unknown, stem FROM our spiritual connection, not the other way around. If not, you could prove otherwise.

 

[numan]

'
Well, people say all sorts of things on surveys that are not true -- you can't depend on them!!

You will need some other procedure to check the accuracy of people's descriptions of their inner states -- but any such procedure is part of the physical realm, and you have stated that spiritual things are part of the physical realm -- so it's hard to imagine how you could fix accurate -- or even approximate -- figures about people's spirituality.

Glad to have cleared that up for you!
.

 

[Boss]

Strange that someone who claims not to be "agitated" and "at peace" with his "spiritual self" has to make such frequent use of profanities.

Once again you your own hole ever deeper with your tissue of lies.

I use profanities for effect, which obviously works, hence your response.

The use of profanity demonstrates an intellectual shortcoming in not being able to express yourself cogently and coherently.

It's profane to say I am "making feeble attempts" and "espousing nonsense" when that is clearly not the case. It is profane to continue insinuating I have spoken of "deities" when that is not the case. It is also clear that you are unable to express your viewpoint coherently and cogently, so you may be onto something!

Remember, I don't believe in god of religion, I believe in god of nature. My god doesn't frown upon use of profanities.

You deny having a God and then you claim to have one. Obviously you are conflicted in your own beliefs. This probably explains your intense levels of frustration and confusion.

I have never denied having a god. I have said that my god doesn't conform to religious constructs and incarnations. This is something you can't seem to wrap your simple mind around. You repeatedly want to conflate spirituality with religion. You do this because it is much easier to win a theological debate... who's theology? His? Mine? Yours? I have removed this question from consideration of theology and religion, and dealt with just the aspect of human spiritual behavior, which has always existed in man... and your empty little brain is unable to cope with this.

So sorry that your self-righteous piety doesn't work on me.. go attack a Christian with it.

YOU are the one claiming to be "spiritual" and yet nothing in your posts shows any indication of "spirituality". Instead you come across as a bombastic arrogant blowhard. You really need to work on your marketing skills if you expect anyone to buy into your snake oil brand of "spirituality" that you are trying to sell in this thread.

Again, you seem confused. Spirituality is not Religion. Religion is a manifestation of human spiritual connection, and I am not a religious person. My behavior doesn't conform to your perceptions of how religious people should act, but I have never claimed to be religious. Am I a bombastic arrogant blowhard? Sure, especially when dealing with punks like you, I have found it is very effective.

 

[JimBowie1958]

'
Well, people say all sorts of things on surveys that are not true -- you can't depend on them!!

You will need some other procedure to check the accuracy of people's descriptions of their inner states -- but any such procedure is part of the physical realm, and you have stated that spiritual things are part of the physical realm -- so it's hard to imagine how you could fix accurate -- or even approximate -- figures about people's spirituality.

Glad to have cleared that up for you!
.

So there is no evidence of spirituality because they always just lie anyway?

huh?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The use of profanity demonstrates an intellectual shortcoming in not being able to express yourself cogently and coherently.

It's profane to say I am "making feeble attempts" and "espousing nonsense" when that is clearly not the case. It is profane to continue insinuating I have spoken of "deities" when that is not the case. It is also clear that you are unable to express your viewpoint coherently and cogently, so you may be onto something!




I have never denied having a god. I have said that my god doesn't conform to religious constructs and incarnations. This is something you can't seem to wrap your simple mind around. You repeatedly want to conflate spirituality with religion. You do this because it is much easier to win a theological debate... who's theology? His? Mine? Yours? I have removed this question from consideration of theology and religion, and dealt with just the aspect of human spiritual behavior, which has always existed in man... and your empty little brain is unable to cope with this.

YOU are the one claiming to be "spiritual" and yet nothing in your posts shows any indication of "spirituality". Instead you come across as a bombastic arrogant blowhard. You really need to work on your marketing skills if you expect anyone to buy into your snake oil brand of "spirituality" that you are trying to sell in this thread.

Again, you seem confused. Spirituality is not Religion. Religion is a manifestation of human spiritual connection, and I am not a religious person. My behavior doesn't conform to your perceptions of how religious people should act, but I have never claimed to be religious. Am I a bombastic arrogant blowhard? Sure, especially when dealing with punks like you, I have found it is very effective.

What designates a word as a 'profanity' has almost nothing to do with being profane.

Why does the word 'shit', taken from the German word 'sheiss' become profanity while 'excrement' doesn't because it isn't from German?

What we call 'cuss words' has more to do with Norman-French elitism in late middle Ages England than it has anything to do with what is profane.

 

[Boss]

'
Well, people say all sorts of things on surveys that are not true -- you can't depend on them!!

You will need some other procedure to check the accuracy of people's descriptions of their inner states -- but any such procedure is part of the physical realm, and you have stated that spiritual things are part of the physical realm -- so it's hard to imagine how you could fix accurate -- or even approximate -- figures about people's spirituality.

Glad to have cleared that up for you!
.

This is true, and I have often suspected that many of the 5% who claim to be Nihilists are not really as disbelieving as they claim. Still, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, since we really don't have a way to confirm actual spiritual beliefs.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The use of profanity demonstrates an intellectual shortcoming in not being able to express yourself cogently and coherently.

It's profane to say I am "making feeble attempts" and "espousing nonsense" when that is clearly not the case. It is profane to continue insinuating I have spoken of "deities" when that is not the case. It is also clear that you are unable to express your viewpoint coherently and cogently, so you may be onto something!




I have never denied having a god. I have said that my god doesn't conform to religious constructs and incarnations. This is something you can't seem to wrap your simple mind around. You repeatedly want to conflate spirituality with religion. You do this because it is much easier to win a theological debate... who's theology? His? Mine? Yours? I have removed this question from consideration of theology and religion, and dealt with just the aspect of human spiritual behavior, which has always existed in man... and your empty little brain is unable to cope with this.

YOU are the one claiming to be "spiritual" and yet nothing in your posts shows any indication of "spirituality". Instead you come across as a bombastic arrogant blowhard. You really need to work on your marketing skills if you expect anyone to buy into your snake oil brand of "spirituality" that you are trying to sell in this thread.

Again, you seem confused. Spirituality is not Religion. Religion is a manifestation of human spiritual connection, and I am not a religious person. My behavior doesn't conform to your perceptions of how religious people should act, but I have never claimed to be religious. Am I a bombastic arrogant blowhard? Sure, especially when dealing with punks like you, I have found it is very effective.

Once again your response proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are exactly as described. You are incapable of defending your position because it is a nebulous mishmash of bunkum and balderdash spouted by someone who is utterly vacuous. Have a nice day.

 

[JimBowie1958]

'
Well, people say all sorts of things on surveys that are not true -- you can't depend on them!!

You will need some other procedure to check the accuracy of people's descriptions of their inner states -- but any such procedure is part of the physical realm, and you have stated that spiritual things are part of the physical realm -- so it's hard to imagine how you could fix accurate -- or even approximate -- figures about people's spirituality.

Glad to have cleared that up for you!
.

This is true, and I have often suspected that many of the 5% who claim to be Nihilists are not really as disbelieving as they claim. Still, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, since we really don't have a way to confirm actual spiritual beliefs.

A whole bunch of people are categorized as agnostics when all that is truthfully said about them is that they do not belong to a religious group. Then some atheist militante will claim the agnostic as an atheist but too afraid to admit it.

 

[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.

how is that possible creationism is not science.
what nonsense have I posted ? the answer is none.
the more you claim it's nonsense the more factual it is.

Or maybe it makes sense to you and due to poor communication it makes NO sense to him?

I have yet to meet a single evangelical with a college degree who cannot admit the possibility of evolution and the Big Bang being true after just 15 minutes of discussing and listening to a person who wasn't trying to beat them over the head with what they regard as questionable science.

We do not reject micro-adaptations or micro-evolution whichever term you prefer,we do however reject humans being relatives to other primates other than homo sapiens.

Big Bang possible I have not seen anything to convince me of the theory. There are evidences that suggest it never happened.

 

[JimBowie1958]

how is that possible creationism is not science.
what nonsense have I posted ? the answer is none.
the more you claim it's nonsense the more factual it is.

Or maybe it makes sense to you and due to poor communication it makes NO sense to him?

I have yet to meet a single evangelical with a college degree who cannot admit the possibility of evolution and the Big Bang being true after just 15 minutes of discussing and listening to a person who wasn't trying to beat them over the head with what they regard as questionable science.

We do not reject micro-adaptations or micro-evolution whichever term you prefer,we do however reject humans being relatives to other primates other than homo sapiens.

God made man from the dust of the ground and then God gave us like Him, which I have long understood to be when humanity was ensouled and made capable of reflective, cognitive thought.

And what is dirt made from? A good part of it is single cell organisms in dormant state, a lot of it, so how else would God's writer from thousands of years prior to modern science, how would that writer describe evolution from single cell creatures? Maybe the dirt Goid mad us from is simply a reference to being made from animal forms that originated long ago?

Why do you feel it is legit to interpret a non-scientific literary form written by pastoral society scribes long long time ago as though Genesis were a modern scientific text?

Big Bang possible I have not seen anything to convince me of the theory. There are evidences that suggest it never happened.

Background cosmic radiation has features that are best/most easily explained by the Big Bang theory, at least for now.

 

[daws101]

'
Well, people say all sorts of things on surveys that are not true -- you can't depend on them!!

You will need some other procedure to check the accuracy of people's descriptions of their inner states -- but any such procedure is part of the physical realm, and you have stated that spiritual things are part of the physical realm -- so it's hard to imagine how you could fix accurate -- or even approximate -- figures about people's spirituality.

Glad to have cleared that up for you!
.

So there is no evidence of spirituality because they always just lie anyway?

huh?

depends on what lie they're telling .
if you assume that other life forms cannot lie ,then the ability to lie is part of spirituality

 

[Boss]

'
Well, people say all sorts of things on surveys that are not true -- you can't depend on them!!

You will need some other procedure to check the accuracy of people's descriptions of their inner states -- but any such procedure is part of the physical realm, and you have stated that spiritual things are part of the physical realm -- so it's hard to imagine how you could fix accurate -- or even approximate -- figures about people's spirituality.

Glad to have cleared that up for you!
.

This is true, and I have often suspected that many of the 5% who claim to be Nihilists are not really as disbelieving as they claim. Still, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, since we really don't have a way to confirm actual spiritual beliefs.

A whole bunch of people are categorized as agnostics when all that is truthfully said about them is that they do not belong to a religious group. Then some atheist militante will claim the agnostic as an atheist but too afraid to admit it.

Even more telling is how utterly offended they become with the label "nihilist." It seems they would proudly embrace the descriptor, but they almost always balk. I have often said, many Atheists are bigger believers in god than some Christians. They certainly believe in god, and their whole atheist shtick is about denouncing the god they definitely believe in. This is what prompts a 2.300+ post thread such as this, where the so-called "atheists" spend untold hours debating something they claim not to believe in.

Now, I think what is happening here, is religions have a rigorous standard of adherence to dogma, and these people are too spiritually weak to conform, so they attack these beliefs and institutions instead. It's like the high school dropout who throws bricks through the windows of the school in rebellion.

However, we can examine the question of spiritual nature and existence, without the distraction of religion or theological dogma. Human spirituality supersedes religions, and doesn't rely on any particular religious dogma. It is an attribute which has been present in our species as long as we've existed. Indeed, our most defining and unique attribute, which distinguishes us from all other living things.

 

[daws101]

It's profane to say I am "making feeble attempts" and "espousing nonsense" when that is clearly not the case. It is profane to continue insinuating I have spoken of "deities" when that is not the case. It is also clear that you are unable to express your viewpoint coherently and cogently, so you may be onto something!




I have never denied having a god. I have said that my god doesn't conform to religious constructs and incarnations. This is something you can't seem to wrap your simple mind around. You repeatedly want to conflate spirituality with religion. You do this because it is much easier to win a theological debate... who's theology? His? Mine? Yours? I have removed this question from consideration of theology and religion, and dealt with just the aspect of human spiritual behavior, which has always existed in man... and your empty little brain is unable to cope with this.




Again, you seem confused. Spirituality is not Religion. Religion is a manifestation of human spiritual connection, and I am not a religious person. My behavior doesn't conform to your perceptions of how religious people should act, but I have never claimed to be religious. Am I a bombastic arrogant blowhard? Sure, especially when dealing with punks like you, I have found it is very effective.

What designates a word as a 'profanity' has almost nothing to do with being profane.

Why does the word 'shit', taken from the German word 'sheiss' become profanity while 'excrement' doesn't because it isn't from German?

What we call 'cuss words' has more to do with Norman-French elitism in late middle Ages England than it has anything to do with what is profane.

well fuck you then or
originally pluck yew.

 

[Boss]

And what is dirt made from? A good part of it is single cell organisms in dormant state, a lot of it, so how else would God's writer from thousands of years prior to modern science, how would that writer describe evolution from single cell creatures? Maybe the dirt Goid mad us from is simply a reference to being made from animal forms that originated long ago?

It's interesting to note, one of the more popular abiogenic theories centers around chemical reactions in moisture found in clay... sounds very much like God spitting in the dust, doesn't it?

 

[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.

wow! talk about A COMPLETE DISCONNECT from reality...
only you would say this statement of fact:" and as always you be wrong...
genetics and microbiology are for all practical purposes the same : Genetic Microbiology is a sub discipline of microbiology dealing especially with genetic components of life such as DNA and RNA....
what we were actually discussing is your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.
you spend most of your time here looking for some fantasy breech in your detractors evidence or character you can exploit."- me IS IGNORANCE .

No what we were discussing was what Molecule were the earliest organisms constructed from. Then you claimed you learned this in High school in genetics and I am saying you're ignorant of the facts. The question I asked you was life from Biochemistry at the Molecular level.

So yes you're ignorant of the facts.

THE molecules of Rna and Dna are best learned in molecular biology.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dendrochronology (tree-ring counting) refutes a young earth, the old measurement being 11,000, which is higher than the 6,000 to 10,000 years posited by young earthers. How do you deal with this?

Tree-ring counting can be interpreted in several different ways with different factors being considered. I don't know how old the earth is and it's not that important to me.

lair liar pants on fire !
you've spent god knows (pun intended)how many pages on the creationist thread attempting to prove a young earth.
now you say it's not that important.. who's ass are you trying to kiss now?
if it isn't obvious to other posters by now ywc will latch on to any mention of god or Christianity that he imagines will bolster his bullshit.

Who is lying ? have I not stated no one knows how old the earth is ? yes. Have I said I don't believe the earth is as old as has been claimed by evolutionists ? yes Is there evidence supporting my view ? yes.

 

[Hollie]

And what is dirt made from? A good part of it is single cell organisms in dormant state, a lot of it, so how else would God's writer from thousands of years prior to modern science, how would that writer describe evolution from single cell creatures? Maybe the dirt Goid mad us from is simply a reference to being made from animal forms that originated long ago?

It's interesting to note, one of the more popular abiogenic theories centers around chemical reactions in moisture found in clay... sounds very much like God spitting in the dust, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't.

You've invented your own terms for religious belief you call "spiritual nature" so why not invent your own creation story?

 

[Hollie]

'
Well, people say all sorts of things on surveys that are not true -- you can't depend on them!!

You will need some other procedure to check the accuracy of people's descriptions of their inner states -- but any such procedure is part of the physical realm, and you have stated that spiritual things are part of the physical realm -- so it's hard to imagine how you could fix accurate -- or even approximate -- figures about people's spirituality.

Glad to have cleared that up for you!
.

This is true, and I have often suspected that many of the 5% who claim to be Nihilists are not really as disbelieving as they claim. Still, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, since we really don't have a way to confirm actual spiritual beliefs.

Similarly, we have no way to confirm this “spiritual nature” canard you toss about. And lets be honest, as much as you have tried to hide your religious fundamentalism behind slogans and canards, you're really just a mere, pedestrian hater.

It seems that spouting platitudes, regurgitating cliches’, and condemning other people who don’t share your religious beliefs is a simple matter for the religiously self-righteousness.

What’s interesting in your categorization of the heathen infidel revolves around the one constant that has driven religious belief: fear of the unknown and the second place finisher that drives faith: rewards in an afterlife. Those were, and are, the promise of religion in the first place! And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system makes you feel good about choosing "correctly" and it addresses your concerns about mortality. It just doesn't back them up with any authority. My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.

Overwhelmingly, people have simply inherited their religions and then go about their daily lives and it has minimal to no real impact. Billions go through their rituals and really their religious beliefs are more or less like a second nature they really give no second thought to. It simply is the way it is for them. Honestly, how many theists do you know who could even assess the problem of Pascal's Wager, let alone have even heard of it?

 

[Boss]

And what is dirt made from? A good part of it is single cell organisms in dormant state, a lot of it, so how else would God's writer from thousands of years prior to modern science, how would that writer describe evolution from single cell creatures? Maybe the dirt Goid mad us from is simply a reference to being made from animal forms that originated long ago?

It's interesting to note, one of the more popular abiogenic theories centers around chemical reactions in moisture found in clay... sounds very much like God spitting in the dust, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't.

You've invented your own terms for religious belief you call "spiritual nature" so why not invent your own creation story?

I haven't "invented" anything. Spiritual nature is what humans have always spiritually connected to, and you've not disproven it's existence. I've repeatedly asked you to present some evidence, make a case, show us some science... and all you continue to do, is spew the same "because I say so" arguments.

You have invented your own order of disbelief.... there is no clear physical evidence to support a spiritual nature, therefore, it doesn't exist. We can't presently verify or confirm spiritual nature with physical science, therefore, it doesn't exist and isn't possible. Your mind remains firmly closed to any possibility, completely defying the scientific method, which never ever draws such conclusions. Your explanations and reasonings defy science and what we do know about animal behavior. You've literally adopted this disbelief as your "spiritual religion," and you are determined to take the closed-minded viewpoint to your grave.

 

[daws101]

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.

wow! talk about A COMPLETE DISCONNECT from reality...
only you would say this statement of fact:" and as always you be wrong...
genetics and microbiology are for all practical purposes the same : Genetic Microbiology is a sub discipline of microbiology dealing especially with genetic components of life such as DNA and RNA....
what we were actually discussing is your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.
you spend most of your time here looking for some fantasy breech in your detractors evidence or character you can exploit."- me IS IGNORANCE .

bullshit !
we'll do this one more time.
the above is a refuting of your obsession with your own education about every 100 pages in the creationist thread you bring it up ,almost always when you're getting your ass handed to you.
it was in response to one of "those" post where I said I'd been taught a larger volume and verity of science the you had.

No what we were discussing was what Molecule were the earliest organisms constructed from. Then you claimed you learned this in High school in genetics and I am saying you're ignorant of the facts. The question I asked you was life from Biochemistry at the Molecular level.

So yes you're ignorant of the facts.

THE molecules of Rna and Dna are best learned in molecular biology.

bullshit !
we'll do this one more time.
the above is a refuting of your obsession with your own education about every 100 pages in the creationist thread you bring it up ,almost always when you're getting your ass handed to you.
it was in response to one of "those" post where I said I'd been taught a larger volume and verity of science the you had.
as always your hubris read it misshapen head.
that's when you decided to test me with molecule question. the rest is you being pissed off at the fact you'd failed find fault with my answer.
this is your second attempt to rewrite the facts.
I can only conclude it's because you're wrong.