Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[there4eyeM]

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.)

It appears my posts are being ignored.

The proof of a thought is that it is thought - by someone. It has no external existence. It needs none to exist. It exists in the universe because it exists in a human.

This is our magic and our mystery. We create from no thing.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I didn't argue that god was a deity.

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

 

[Boss]

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?

If people worshiped trees, or sacrificed daughters in volcanoes, only confirms they had strong spiritual belief in something greater than self. How that spirituality manifested itself into various human actions, is not relevant.

Evidence of spiritual belief alone, is not proof. It's the fact that this spirituality in humans has been present since humans were human, and through millenniums of time, people have endured brutal persecutions and death to maintain their spirituality. This proves that spirituality is fundamental to the species. If not, Darwin says it would have been discarded in favor of more desirable attributes, regarding survival of the species.

Spirituality is not superstition, I've already covered this. Superstition fades with knowledge and understanding, spirituality remains. It may rub religious people the wrong way, but I've already said, many religious beliefs are superstitious in nature. We have to "obey god" or we pay a consequence, "go to hell." Not much different than; we have to "avoid black cats" or we pay a consequence, "bad luck." But the fact that man can be superstitious about their spirituality, only reinforces the power and importance of spirituality to humans.

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.

That's exactly why I have avoided the argument over THEIR god or MY god, or YOUR god. I've not argued that I can prove existence of any particular manifestation of god. I've not argued that god is a deity, omnipotent, creator of everything, or any other attribute man may assign to god. Those are irrelevant to whether god exists. Michael Jackson existed... some people think he was brilliant and talented, some people thought he was sick and perverted, some people loved and admired him, some people were jealous of him, some people hated his guts... but he still existed. Of course, he existed in the physical world, and had a physical existence, and god is spiritual, with spiritual existence, but existence is not dependent on description.

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.

God has been incorporeal communicating with people for 70,000 years. Billions have testified to this connection and confirmed it. So what was your point again?

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?

I didn't claim to have proof of any specific incarnation of god. I presented a case for definitive proof that god exists. The "definitive proof" requires you to recognize spiritual evidence, and if you are unable to do that, you can't comprehend the evidence.

And... I am not here to "lead you to" anything. This is a religious philosophy, and doesn't have a thing to do with whether god exists. I also never said that I have never heard from god, I said my personal experience has nothing to do with the existence of god.

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.

No, that's exactly what I've spent most of the thread correcting pinheads about. I am not arguing for the existence of MY version of god. As proof, I offered the following argument;

1. Spiritual evidence has to first be acknowledged before evaluating existence of the spiritual. Depending on physical evidence alone, is completely illogical for a spiritual entity with no physical attributes.

2. 70,000 years (at least) of intrinsic and inherent human connection to spirituality. Testimony from billions and billions of people spanning all of human existence, that something greater than self is present, in a spiritual existence.

3. Darwin's theory, which confirms that species have inherent traits which are fundamental to the species, and discard traits which are not conducive to survival...plus, the fact that millions of spiritual people have been persecuted and put to death over their spiritual faith.

4. Observation of behavior in any living species, and the fact that no living thing just does things for the entirety of it's existence, with no fundamental reason or purpose. It's actually illogical to conclude spirituality serves no purpose.

Several posts later, I also added another point. Occam's razor is a theory regarding logic and evaluation of questions. newpolitics claims it can only be used on physical science and questions of physical nature, but I find nothing in the theory which states this, and if it applies to logic regarding physical questions, it applies to logic regarding spiritual questions as well. Occam's would deduce, the most logical and simplest explanation for this profound and inseparable human attribute of worship, is because something actually exists.

No one has presented a suitable refutation of this argument. Most of the thread has been devoted to attempts to derail and distract from the argument. Several people continue to miss the point that "definitive proof" relies on your ability to comprehend spiritual evidence. I can't force you to try and argue the points I made, in fact, I don't blame you for not attempting to. However, I really thought that someone would at least make an effort here.

 

[Boss]

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.)

It appears my posts are being ignored.

The proof of a thought is that it is thought - by someone. It has no external existence. It needs none to exist. It exists in the universe because it exists in a human.

This is our magic and our mystery. We create from no thing.

Like god... like spirituality! THANK YOU!!

 

[edthecynic]

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.

You provided proof of physical people being spiritual thus proving the physical precedes the spiritual.

You provided no proof of the spiritual preceding the physical to acknowledge or accept.

 

[Derideo_Te]

3. Darwin's theory, which confirms that species have inherent traits which are fundamental to the species, and discard traits which are not conducive to survival...plus, the fact that millions of spiritual people have been persecuted and put to death over their spiritual faith.

Your ignorance of Darwin and evolution in general is palpable. Birds still have genes in their DNA for producing teeth. Those genes are recessive in the majority of birds but they still appear for a few.

Birds have not "discard[ed] traits which are not conducive to survival". Instead they have adapted to where they no longer need them. But if the need for teeth proved useful once again any of their offspring who had them would survive while those without them not survive. In this way teeth would be common while toothless beaks would not.

You are fallaciously assuming that there is some "survival benefit" to spirituality. We still have the ability to climb trees but we don't. Does this mean that the ability to climb trees must be "discarded" since it is no longer needed for "survival"?

 

[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.

You provided proof of physical people being spiritual thus proving the physical precedes the spiritual.

You provided no proof of the spiritual preceding the physical to acknowledge or accept.

You need to take a logic class. Proof of physical people being spiritual does not prove physical precedes anything. Did the earth not exist until humans were here too?

 

[Boss]

3. Darwin's theory, which confirms that species have inherent traits which are fundamental to the species, and discard traits which are not conducive to survival...plus, the fact that millions of spiritual people have been persecuted and put to death over their spiritual faith.

Your ignorance of Darwin and evolution in general is palpable. Birds still have genes in their DNA for producing teeth. Those genes are recessive in the majority of birds but they still appear for a few.

Birds have not "discard[ed] traits which are not conducive to survival". Instead they have adapted to where they no longer need them. But if the need for teeth proved useful once again any of their offspring who had them would survive while those without them not survive. In this way teeth would be common while toothless beaks would not.

You are fallaciously assuming that there is some "survival benefit" to spirituality. We still have the ability to climb trees but we don't. Does this mean that the ability to climb trees must be "discarded" since it is no longer needed for "survival"?

You are the one who is misinterpreting me, and misapplying Darwin.

The endless trail of dead human bodies through history, who were killed because they refused to forsake their spiritual faith, is certainly NOT conducive to their survival. If this spiritual connection were an unimportant attribute, it would have disappeared thousands and thousands of years ago. If your birds with teeth had encountered a period of time where the teeth posed a threat to survival of the species, like spirituality often has, then I surmise the birds would have discarded teeth, for the sake of preservation. Darwin supports me on this.

 

[Derideo_Te]

3. Darwin's theory, which confirms that species have inherent traits which are fundamental to the species, and discard traits which are not conducive to survival...plus, the fact that millions of spiritual people have been persecuted and put to death over their spiritual faith.

Your ignorance of Darwin and evolution in general is palpable. Birds still have genes in their DNA for producing teeth. Those genes are recessive in the majority of birds but they still appear for a few.

Birds have not "discard[ed] traits which are not conducive to survival". Instead they have adapted to where they no longer need them. But if the need for teeth proved useful once again any of their offspring who had them would survive while those without them not survive. In this way teeth would be common while toothless beaks would not.

You are fallaciously assuming that there is some "survival benefit" to spirituality. We still have the ability to climb trees but we don't. Does this mean that the ability to climb trees must be "discarded" since it is no longer needed for "survival"?

You are the one who is misinterpreting me, and misapplying Darwin.

Ironic!

The endless trail of dead human bodies through history, who were killed because they refused to forsake their spiritual faith, is certainly NOT conducive to their survival. If this spiritual connection were an unimportant attribute, it would have disappeared thousands and thousands of years ago.

Your grasp of evolution is laughable. The survival of the entire human race did not depend upon faith in any deity. (If it did none of us would be here.) You are attempting to make a tenuous connection where none exists. Are you going to claim that the Neanderthals died out because they did not believe in God? Because that has as much credence as the rest on your nonsense.

If your birds with teeth had encountered a period of time where the teeth posed a threat to survival of the species, like spirituality often has, then I surmise the birds would have discarded teeth, for the sake of preservation. Darwin supports me on this.

Your ill-educated opinion does not match up with the facts.

 

[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.

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.

What a silly point of view. I've invented several good new products, tools mostly, and never felt any "hocus pocus" in the process. You believers do cling bitterly to your fantasies.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Technology's existence has nothing to do with god, nor corroborates its existence in any way.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

This was non-sensical. I never claimed that you simply said "god exists" and left it at that, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to clarify this. Now you are putting words in my mouth.

 

[MaryL]

You know, this debate has been going on for years, and for all the PROOF, there is always a different interpretation. This debate is a waste of time. Chicken or the egg, ad infinitum. Its fun to debate and slam folks, but this isn't going anywhere. When GOD wakes up, waves his little red hat and whistles Dixie backwards unarguably and without ANY ambiguity… untill then, I have to wonder, if God does exist, why hide in the shadows? Why the head games and ambiguity?

 

[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.

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.)

Chortling means "laughing gleefully." I'm not sure why you think I'm laughing, unless it is at your sheer stupidity, but I am not showing this I text. So, I am not sure what the hell you are asking. Again, and after a blatant contradiction, you are being entirely nonsensical.

As for the idea, that I am preening... No. I am pointing out that your reasoning ability is terrible, to offer credibility to the idea that you are not worth debating. You supply a blatant contradiction, and now are obfuscating around it.

 

[Boss]

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.)

Chortling means "laughing gleefully." I'm not sure why you think I'm laughing, unless it is at your sheer stupidity, but I am not showing this I text. So, I am not sure what the hell you are asking. Again, and after a blatant contradiction, you are being entirely nonsensical.

As for the idea, that I am preening... No. I am pointing out that your reasoning ability is terrible, to offer credibility to the idea that you are not worth debating. You supply a blatant contradiction, and now are obfuscating around it.

Usually, the acronym "ROFLMAO" is synonymous with "laughing gleefully," idiot.

Yes, you do need to offer some credibility to your ideas, that's for sure!

Points are in the OP, should you choose at some time to debate them. Thanks

 

[newpolitics]

Now, to address the evidence that thoughts exist. This does not require that we have show the contents of thoughts, simply that their activity is detectable. This is demonstrable, by machines such as fMRI machines, which correlate activity in the brain with Individual thoughts or emotions in response to some external stimuli, repeatedly and predictably. I was wrong to simply say "electric activity" since Neurological functioning is also chemically induced.

Never mind me. I'm not a neuroscientist. Here's a study that proves this:

"Scientists have discovered how to “read” minds by scanning brain activity and reproducing images of what people are seeing — or even remembering.

Researchers have been able to convert into crude video footage the brain activity stimulated by what a person is watching or recalling."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/psychic-computer-shows-your-thoughts-on-screen/16006



This study confirms not only that thoughts are happening in the brain and are detectable as physical manifestations, but are decipherable to into actual information.

 

[newpolitics]

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.)

Chortling means "laughing gleefully." I'm not sure why you think I'm laughing, unless it is at your sheer stupidity, but I am not showing this I text. So, I am not sure what the hell you are asking. Again, and after a blatant contradiction, you are being entirely nonsensical.

As for the idea, that I am preening... No. I am pointing out that your reasoning ability is terrible, to offer credibility to the idea that you are not worth debating. You supply a blatant contradiction, and now are obfuscating around it.

Usually, the acronym "ROFLMAO" is synonymous with "laughing gleefully," idiot.

Yes, you do need to offer some credibility to your ideas, that's for sure!

Points are in the OP, should you choose at some time to debate them. Thanks

You still fail to address or tease apart your contradiction. Instead, you focus on me.

btw. How do you know I was "laughing gleefully?" ROFLMAO would not denote this. I could have been just.. Laughing. In no possible world could you cause me to laugh gleefully.

You haven't presented anything in the OP, since you fail to define god, and you haven't convinced anyone that you don't need to define god.

 

[Boss]

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.

This was non-sensical. I never claimed that you simply said "god exists" and left it at that, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to clarify this. Now you are putting words in my mouth.

From your post #180: "Bloo-Bloo was not an attempt at mocking you, but showing you that simply that saying "god exists" without defining it at all is non-sensical."

I did define god, as spirituality in humans. The belief in something greater than self. It's an intrinsic characteristic of human behavior, it has been inherent in humans for as long as humans have been on earth. It's certainly not nonsense. What I did not do, is "simply say god exists, and leave it at that." I made a compelling case for why there is definitive proof that god exists, and you've not refuted one single point that was made.

You have continued the same tactics, distract and detract, insult and ridicule, nit pick and parse, obfuscate and change the subject, and proclaim yourself victorious. Over and over, this is what you have done, while consistently misquoting me, or insinuating total falsities about what I have said. You've even gone so far as to admit this is a "team" thing for you, and you see yourself as participating in a game or sport, by which you must behave this way, because that's apparently how your "team" keeps score.

You are quite simply, a pathetic spectacle.

 

[numan]

When someone believes something, it's true.

I believe Americans are idiots.
.

 

[Boss]

You still fail to address or tease apart your contradiction. Instead, you focus on me.

btw. How do you know I was "laughing gleefully?" ROFLMAO would not denote this. I could have been just.. Laughing. In no possible world could you cause me to laugh gleefully.

Sorry, I am not going to continue to debate what "chortle" means. Whenever I use the word, it is to describe little snot-nose know-it-all punks like you, who pop their mouth off while laughing at the same time, as if they are completely confident with the moronic shit coming out of their mouths. LOL, ROFLMAO, LMAO, LMFAO, are all synonymous with chortling.

Grow up, wipe your nose, get an education!

You haven't presented anything in the OP, since you fail to define god, and you haven't convinced anyone that you don't need to define god.

I actually did define god. It is a metaphoric representation of whatever humans spiritually worship. Further definition is not required or needed to evaluate existence. I don't care if you are convinced of something logical, at this point, it would amaze the fuck out of me for you to be convinced of any sort of logic.