Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[newpolitics]

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.

You have proved my point for me. Again, I never said you simply you proclaimed god's existence without some kind poor attempt at justification, I said that you failed to define god (which makes your argument non-sensical). Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth and continually misconstrue what I am getting at.

 

[Boss]

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?

I know this debate has been going on for years, and guess what? It will continue to always go on, because there will always be people who do not believe in spirituality or accept spiritual evidence.

Your last line is interesting: 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?

Seems you have this notion that "god" has to be a human-like being, and that it should somehow "care" whether you, a human, acknowledges it. Or that it is playing head games and being ambiguous, in not revealing itself to you. And here's the thing, if "god" is supposed to be this old man with a white beard, living in the clouds, who gets mad because we don't do what he wants, then I am with you... I don't believe such a man physically exists in this universe.

However, my mind is open to spiritual evidence and spiritual understanding. I realize, a spiritual entity does not have to possess physical attributes, or have evidence of physical presence. Nor is it required to have human feelings, emotions, or needs. It doesn't have to want us to worship it, or need to punish us if we don't. It can still exist as a spiritual entity, without having these (frankly illogical) characteristics.

But then... I can accept spiritual evidence.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Oh, so now you are defining god? Your a fucking joke. This is why debating you is pointless.

 

[Boss]

You have proved my point for me. Again, I never said you simply you proclaimed god's existence without some kind poor attempt at justification, I said that you failed to define god (which makes your argument non-sensical). Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth and continually misconstrue what I am getting at.

Was your point that you are a moron? If so, glad I could help prove it!

You DID say that I had "simply said god exists" and that's where you introduced Bloo-Bloo... the Imaginary God of Morons.

I've already corrected your false assertion, I did indeed define god, and repeated the definition to you twice, but still you are claiming I haven't defined god. Pay attention: "God" in this argument, is the metaphoric representation of whatever humans worship spiritually. That now makes the third time I have defined god for you. It may not be what you wanted, because it doesn't give you a specific incarnation of god to bash, in order to derail the thread, but it's all the definition needed to evaluate existence, as articulated in the OP.

[For those who haven't yet read the OP, please take a moment to do so. It's just over 5 paragraphs, and lays out the argument clearly. This thread has grown huge, and most of it is full of newpolitics kitty turds and obfuscation. The argument presented in the OP has not been addressed by this idiot, he just wants to troll the thread to death, and he seems pretty hell-bent on doing that, despite my efforts.]

 

[Boss]

Oh, so now you are defining god? Your a fucking joke. This is why debating you is pointless.

No, I defined god with emily back on page 1. Of course, you have proven you aren't reading the thread or what I post, because you keep misquoting me and claiming I've said things that haven't been said.

debating me is pointless, if by "debate," you mean, derailing my thread and trapping me in an argument I never made. You may as well give up.

 

[newpolitics]

You have proved my point for me. Again, I never said you simply you proclaimed god's existence without some kind poor attempt at justification, I said that you failed to define god (which makes your argument non-sensical). Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth and continually misconstrue what I am getting at.

Was your point that you are a moron? If so, glad I could help prove it!

You DID say that I had "simply said god exists" and that's where you introduced Bloo-Bloo... the Imaginary God of Morons.

I've already corrected your false assertion, I did indeed define god, and repeated the definition to you twice, but still you are claiming I haven't defined god. Pay attention: "God" in this argument, is the metaphoric representation of whatever humans worship spiritually. That now makes the third time I have defined god for you. It may not be what you wanted, because it doesn't give you a specific incarnation of god to bash, in order to derail the thread, but it's all the definition needed to evaluate existence, as articulated in the OP.

[For those who haven't yet read the OP, please take a moment to do so. It's just over 5 paragraphs, and lays out the argument clearly. This thread has grown huge, and most of it is full of newpolitics kitty turds and obfuscation. The argument presented in the OP has not been addressed by this idiot, he just wants to troll the thread to death, and he seems pretty hell-bent on doing that, despite my efforts.]

Good one... really? Are you in second grade? You have gotten almost everything wrong about what I've said so far. My point was as I explained in the quoted post above, clearly, yet somehow you've gotten that wrong even though its right in front of your face. My introduction of Bloo-Bloo had nothing to do with you saying "god exists," which again, I never said (show me). It was to demonstrate how non-sensical god is if you don't define it.

 

[newpolitics]

You have proved my point for me. Again, I never said you simply you proclaimed god's existence without some kind poor attempt at justification, I said that you failed to define god (which makes your argument non-sensical). Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth and continually misconstrue what I am getting at.

Was your point that you are a moron? If so, glad I could help prove it!

You DID say that I had "simply said god exists" and that's where you introduced Bloo-Bloo... the Imaginary God of Morons.

I've already corrected your false assertion, I did indeed define god, and repeated the definition to you twice, but still you are claiming I haven't defined god. Pay attention: "God" in this argument, is the metaphoric representation of whatever humans worship spiritually. That now makes the third time I have defined god for you. It may not be what you wanted, because it doesn't give you a specific incarnation of god to bash, in order to derail the thread, but it's all the definition needed to evaluate existence, as articulated in the OP.

[For those who haven't yet read the OP, please take a moment to do so. It's just over 5 paragraphs, and lays out the argument clearly. This thread has grown huge, and most of it is full of newpolitics kitty turds and obfuscation. The argument presented in the OP has not been addressed by this idiot, he just wants to troll the thread to death, and he seems pretty hell-bent on doing that, despite my efforts.]

If you have defined god three times, then why did you repeatedly claim that you don't need to define something in order to argue its existence, even attempting to cite Einstein and black holes as examples, all the while complaining about people asking you to define god. I KNOW you remember this, yet are acing like none of this took place. I think you are schizophrenic.

 

[newpolitics]

^again, for the fourth time, you are contradicting yourself

 

[Boss]

You have proved my point for me. Again, I never said you simply you proclaimed god's existence without some kind poor attempt at justification, I said that you failed to define god (which makes your argument non-sensical). Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth and continually misconstrue what I am getting at.

Was your point that you are a moron? If so, glad I could help prove it!

You DID say that I had "simply said god exists" and that's where you introduced Bloo-Bloo... the Imaginary God of Morons.

I've already corrected your false assertion, I did indeed define god, and repeated the definition to you twice, but still you are claiming I haven't defined god. Pay attention: "God" in this argument, is the metaphoric representation of whatever humans worship spiritually. That now makes the third time I have defined god for you. It may not be what you wanted, because it doesn't give you a specific incarnation of god to bash, in order to derail the thread, but it's all the definition needed to evaluate existence, as articulated in the OP.

[For those who haven't yet read the OP, please take a moment to do so. It's just over 5 paragraphs, and lays out the argument clearly. This thread has grown huge, and most of it is full of newpolitics kitty turds and obfuscation. The argument presented in the OP has not been addressed by this idiot, he just wants to troll the thread to death, and he seems pretty hell-bent on doing that, despite my efforts.]

If you have defined god three times, then why did you repeatedly claim that you don't need to define something in order to argue its existence, even attempting to cite Einstein and black holes as examples, all the while complaining about people asking you to define god. I KNOW you remember this, yet are acing like none of this took place. I think you are schizophrenic.

Because you were demanding a specific and detailed explanation of a particular incarnation of god, and I refused to give that to you. This is what you were arguing that we needed to "define" before we could evaluate existence, and I rejected your premise with the support of Mr. Einstein as well as black holes. Then you started some silly shit about Bloo-Bloo, and insisted I hadn't defined god. On and on this has gone, while the thread OP gets buried further and further, but ya know what, skippy? People can still, very easily, click on the little number 1 at the top and bottom right of the page, and it will take them right back to the OP. So your attempts to bury the argument will fail with most people who know how to navigate a forum.

Now, yesterday, about this time, actually, you proclaimed that you were finished debating with me. This was after you implied that S.J. and myself, were on some sort of "team" and revealed this whole forum is about "teams" and who is on whose side, from your perspective. But now, today, here you are again, rehashing the same shit from yesterday, making the same false claims, presenting the same bullshit, and NOT debating the topic.

I can't stop you from being a moron, you are free to continue as much as you please. I can't stop you from spewing lies and distortions about what I've said, you seem committed to do that for your "team" in spite of my efforts to correct you. And I already know, by your own admission, that you have no intention of actually engaging me in meaningful dialogue here, so what I CAN do, is chose to ignore what you have to say from this point on, unless it pertains to the thread topic. I will now begin exercising that option.

 

[newpolitics]

Was your point that you are a moron? If so, glad I could help prove it!

You DID say that I had "simply said god exists" and that's where you introduced Bloo-Bloo... the Imaginary God of Morons.

I've already corrected your false assertion, I did indeed define god, and repeated the definition to you twice, but still you are claiming I haven't defined god. Pay attention: "God" in this argument, is the metaphoric representation of whatever humans worship spiritually. That now makes the third time I have defined god for you. It may not be what you wanted, because it doesn't give you a specific incarnation of god to bash, in order to derail the thread, but it's all the definition needed to evaluate existence, as articulated in the OP.

[For those who haven't yet read the OP, please take a moment to do so. It's just over 5 paragraphs, and lays out the argument clearly. This thread has grown huge, and most of it is full of newpolitics kitty turds and obfuscation. The argument presented in the OP has not been addressed by this idiot, he just wants to troll the thread to death, and he seems pretty hell-bent on doing that, despite my efforts.]

If you have defined god three times, then why did you repeatedly claim that you don't need to define something in order to argue its existence, even attempting to cite Einstein and black holes as examples, all the while complaining about people asking you to define god. I KNOW you remember this, yet are acing like none of this took place. I think you are schizophrenic.

Because you were demanding a specific and detailed explanation of a particular incarnation of god, and I refused to give that to you. This is what you were arguing that we needed to "define" before we could evaluate existence, and I rejected your premise with the support of Mr. Einstein as well as black holes. Then you started some silly shit about Bloo-Bloo, and insisted I hadn't defined god. On and on this has gone, while the thread OP gets buried further and further, but ya know what, skippy? People can still, very easily, click on the little number 1 at the top and bottom right of the page, and it will take them right back to the OP. So your attempts to bury the argument will fail with most people who know how to navigate a forum.

Now, yesterday, about this time, actually, you proclaimed that you were finished debating with me. This was after you implied that S.J. and myself, were on some sort of "team" and revealed this whole forum is about "teams" and who is on whose side, from your perspective. But now, today, here you are again, rehashing the same shit from yesterday, making the same false claims, presenting the same bullshit, and NOT debating the topic.

I can't stop you from being a moron, you are free to continue as much as you please. I can't stop you from spewing lies and distortions about what I've said, you seem committed to do that for your "team" in spite of my efforts to correct you. And I already know, by your own admission, that you have no intention of actually engaging me in meaningful dialogue here, so what I CAN do, is chose to ignore what you have to say from this point on, unless it pertains to the thread topic. I will now begin exercising that option.

What team? Who am I with? You just make things up to sound good and make your opponent look bad. I came back because I don't like being mocked, and get into a defensive mode. I am about to leave this debate again (or try to) because this is all about your ego, and not any amount of truth that you can demonstrate, and this is isnt fun. you are creating all the rules, and then bending them when it suits you, kind of like a god... how ironic. The bottom line, is that you have not demonstrated anything to be true.

 

[edthecynic]

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?

Your only proof you provided of the spiritual is from after the existence of physical people. You have provided no proof of the spiritual existing before physical people.

The fact that the physical Earth existed before physical people in no way proves the existence of the spiritual, let alone God. What "logical" system are you using?

 

[Boss]

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?

Your only proof you provided of the spiritual is from after the existence of physical people. You have provided no proof of the spiritual existing before physical people.

The fact that the physical Earth existed before physical people in no way proves the existence of the spiritual, let alone God. What "logical" system are you using?

You've provided no proof physical preceded spiritual, nor have you proven spiritual was created by the physical. You've implied it, but you just can't prove it true. On the other hand, I have proven existence of god, it's laid out in the OP. You do need to be able to acknowledge spiritual evidence, but that's not really my problem.

 

[hobelim]

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.

The fact that people have held many different beliefs about God is not proof of spirituality or proof of God as your post claims. People have willingly suffered and died for a shot of heroin or a gold nugget. You have no proof of anything except that people are strange.

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.

a belief in something greater than self is not proof of spirituality or spiritual evidence or proof of God. People have unrestrained and irrational imaginations. Some people are so illogical that they will believe that anything they can imagine must be possible and what they cannot perceive does not exist. Some people think that a belief is proof of what they believe. And you wondered what a pure mind has to do with anything.....

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.

you are confused. 70 thousand years of people killing each other, mutilating their penises, and dying in holy wars in the name of their many gods is not proof of a spiritual existence, just proof that people are strange.

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.

Ugh.

psst! the clock is still ticking. It seems that as time goes by more and more people are discarding superstitious religions and the charlatans that go with them in favor of a more rational approach to life. It won't be long before there won't be anyone left on earth gullible enough to believe that God can be eaten. Darwin and Jesus for that matter, would be proud at their efforts to evolve.

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.

Everything people do has no fundamental purpose if everyone is insane. People have been doing stupid things since time began and mostly because of irrational beliefs in things they cannot explain or understand. What you call the spiritual realm is just a realm of conscious thought based in the brain. If your thoughts are not coherent and rational, and they are not, then what you conclude as spiritual is just a figment of a very confused mind.

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.

You claimed to have proven that God exists but then say it doesn't matter when I asked you about your experiences or lack of them with God.. Your arguments are irrational. Your definitive proof is a joke.


That you appear to really believe you have proven something is just proof that people with unrestrained imaginations are not that bright even if they are very strange.



congratulations!

 

[Boss]

If you have defined god three times, then why did you repeatedly claim that you don't need to define something in order to argue its existence, even attempting to cite Einstein and black holes as examples, all the while complaining about people asking you to define god. I KNOW you remember this, yet are acing like none of this took place. I think you are schizophrenic.

Because you were demanding a specific and detailed explanation of a particular incarnation of god, and I refused to give that to you. This is what you were arguing that we needed to "define" before we could evaluate existence, and I rejected your premise with the support of Mr. Einstein as well as black holes. Then you started some silly shit about Bloo-Bloo, and insisted I hadn't defined god. On and on this has gone, while the thread OP gets buried further and further, but ya know what, skippy? People can still, very easily, click on the little number 1 at the top and bottom right of the page, and it will take them right back to the OP. So your attempts to bury the argument will fail with most people who know how to navigate a forum.

Now, yesterday, about this time, actually, you proclaimed that you were finished debating with me. This was after you implied that S.J. and myself, were on some sort of "team" and revealed this whole forum is about "teams" and who is on whose side, from your perspective. But now, today, here you are again, rehashing the same shit from yesterday, making the same false claims, presenting the same bullshit, and NOT debating the topic.

I can't stop you from being a moron, you are free to continue as much as you please. I can't stop you from spewing lies and distortions about what I've said, you seem committed to do that for your "team" in spite of my efforts to correct you. And I already know, by your own admission, that you have no intention of actually engaging me in meaningful dialogue here, so what I CAN do, is chose to ignore what you have to say from this point on, unless it pertains to the thread topic. I will now begin exercising that option.

What team? Who am I with? You just make things up to sound good and make your opponent look bad. I came back because I don't like being mocked, and get into a defensive mode. I am about to leave this debate again (or try to) because this is all about your ego, and not any amount of truth that you can demonstrate, and this is isnt fun. you are creating all the rules, and then bending them when it suits you, kind of like a god... how ironic. The bottom line, is that you have not demonstrated anything to be true.

I can't demonstrate it to be true because you don't recognize spiritual evidence. No one ever can, that was pointed out in the OP. In order to establish definitive proof of a spiritual entity, we have to objectively evaluate spiritual evidence, and you refuse to accept that. I can't make you, dude. I don't have to, in order to establish definitive proof of spiritual existence. The evidence is there, plenty of it... it's overwhelming and irrefutable. You just refuse to open your closed mind to it, because you don't believe in spiritual evidence.

For you, if there is not some kind of physical evidence, you simply can't process it. This is why the notion of god is nonsensical to you, and I understand that... if I didn't personally comprehend spirituality, I might feel the same way... an imaginary guy in the sky! roflmao! chortle-snort-chortle!

But I happen to understand human-spiritual connection, so I accept spiritual evidence. This is the first prerequisite to comprehending my OP argument, which clearly does definitively prove a spiritual existence of god.

 

[numan]

'
On the one hand....

God is, after all, ultimate reality. And you can't argue that ultimate reality doesn't really exist. You can only ask what it's all about.
---Logan Pearsall Smith

....and on the other hand....

Shelley was an atheist.... He never trifled with the word "God"; he knew that it meant a personal First Cause, Almighty Creator, and Supreme Judge and Ruler of the Universe, and that it did not mean anything else, never had meant anything else, and never whilst the English language lasted would mean anything else. Knowing perfectly well that there was no such person, he did not pretend that the question was an open one, or imply, by calling himself an Agnostic, that there might be such a person for all he knew to the contrary. He did know to the contrary; and he said so.
---George Bernard Shaw

It all depends on what sort of thing you are talking about.

...of course, it is possible that "ultimate reality" is not a "thing". · ·
.

 

[Boss]

'
On the one hand....

God is, after all, ultimate reality. And you can't argue that ultimate reality doesn't really exist. You can only ask what it's all about.
---Logan Pearsall Smith

....and on the other hand....

Shelley was an atheist.... He never trifled with the word "God"; he knew that it meant a personal First Cause, Almighty Creator, and Supreme Judge and Ruler of the Universe, and that it did not mean anything else, never had meant anything else, and never whilst the English language lasted would mean anything else. Knowing perfectly well that there was no such person, he did not pretend that the question was an open one, or imply, by calling himself an Agnostic, that there might be such a person for all he knew to the contrary. He did know to the contrary; and he said so.
---George Bernard Shaw

It all depends on what sort of thing you are talking about.

...of course, it is possible that "ultimate reality" is not a "thing". · ·
.

Indeed, the implied incarnation of a deity is often made when we use the word "god." But this is why it is fundamentally important to not allow preconception to influence objectivity, when evaluating whether "god" exists. Once we become bogged down in this, we can't effectively evaluate anything, our judgement has been prejudiced, and we can't be objective in evaluating the evidence.

I am presenting a clean objective case, based on both physical and spiritual elements, theories of reasoning and logic, and evaluation of knowledge we do have, to form a compelling case for my argument, that god does exist. What version? Don't know! It doesn't matter in the question of whether a spiritual entity exists. What matters, is ability to comprehend spiritual existence, and spiritual evidence of spiritual existence.

Once you've met that criteria of open-mindedness, the evidence is stunningly clear. You have 70,000 years of a behavioral characteristic, present in a species since inception, which can't be beaten out, can't be driven out of hearts, can't be defeated or overcome, through thousands and thousands of years. Spirituality remains as strong in humans today as it ever has been.

Occam's razor says the simplest explanations are best... the simplest explanation, god exists.

 

[newpolitics]

Because you were demanding a specific and detailed explanation of a particular incarnation of god, and I refused to give that to you. This is what you were arguing that we needed to "define" before we could evaluate existence, and I rejected your premise with the support of Mr. Einstein as well as black holes. Then you started some silly shit about Bloo-Bloo, and insisted I hadn't defined god. On and on this has gone, while the thread OP gets buried further and further, but ya know what, skippy? People can still, very easily, click on the little number 1 at the top and bottom right of the page, and it will take them right back to the OP. So your attempts to bury the argument will fail with most people who know how to navigate a forum.

Now, yesterday, about this time, actually, you proclaimed that you were finished debating with me. This was after you implied that S.J. and myself, were on some sort of "team" and revealed this whole forum is about "teams" and who is on whose side, from your perspective. But now, today, here you are again, rehashing the same shit from yesterday, making the same false claims, presenting the same bullshit, and NOT debating the topic.

I can't stop you from being a moron, you are free to continue as much as you please. I can't stop you from spewing lies and distortions about what I've said, you seem committed to do that for your "team" in spite of my efforts to correct you. And I already know, by your own admission, that you have no intention of actually engaging me in meaningful dialogue here, so what I CAN do, is chose to ignore what you have to say from this point on, unless it pertains to the thread topic. I will now begin exercising that option.

What team? Who am I with? You just make things up to sound good and make your opponent look bad. I came back because I don't like being mocked, and get into a defensive mode. I am about to leave this debate again (or try to) because this is all about your ego, and not any amount of truth that you can demonstrate, and this is isnt fun. you are creating all the rules, and then bending them when it suits you, kind of like a god... how ironic. The bottom line, is that you have not demonstrated anything to be true.

I can't demonstrate it to be true because you don't recognize spiritual evidence. No one ever can, that was pointed out in the OP. In order to establish definitive proof of a spiritual entity, we have to objectively evaluate spiritual evidence, and you refuse to accept that. I can't make you, dude. I don't have to, in order to establish definitive proof of spiritual existence. The evidence is there, plenty of it... it's overwhelming and irrefutable. You just refuse to open your closed mind to it, because you don't believe in spiritual evidence.

For you, if there is not some kind of physical evidence, you simply can't process it. This is why the notion of god is nonsensical to you, and I understand that... if I didn't personally comprehend spirituality, I might feel the same way... an imaginary guy in the sky! roflmao! chortle-snort-chortle!

But I happen to understand human-spiritual connection, so I accept spiritual evidence. This is the first prerequisite to comprehending my OP argument, which clearly does definitively prove a spiritual existence of god.

Your "evidence" is that humans have always believed in some kind of spirituality. That doesn't mean that a spiritual realm actual exists. You can not make this logical leap. I used to be a theist, so I know what you are referring to when you try to say "spiritual evidence," and you are simply using the wrong label. "Special evidence" is simply ones subjective view of reality, whereby perceived unexplainable aspects of life are attributed to a spiritual realm, such as special emotions that one cherishes like love, and things which add meaning to ones life. However, it is fallacy to actually attribute this to a real spiritual realm, simply because you can't establish that it isn't just delusion, misattribution of causes, or a placebo effect, explainable naturalistically.

 

[Boss]

Everything people do has no fundamental purpose if everyone is insane.

Dang hobelim, I may have to use this as my sig line, do you mind?

...also, can you hook me up with some of that bud?

 

[newpolitics]

And again, you can not use Occam's Razor to arrive at god when looking humanities history with religious belief. This is a fallacy of attribution. Correlation does not imply causation. You have not been able to Establish that humans belief in the supernatural, is caused the supernatural, and Occam's Razor would necessitate that you not introduce an assumption (god) that is unfalsifiable, and about which nothing is known.

 

[Boss]

Your "evidence" is that humans have always believed in some kind of spirituality. That doesn't mean that a spiritual realm actual exists. You can not make this logical leap. I used to be a theist, so I know what you are referring to when you try to say "spiritual evidence," and you are simply using the wrong label. "Special evidence" is simply ones subjective view of reality, whereby perceived unexplainable aspects of life are attributed to a spiritual realm, such as special emotions that one cherishes like love, and things which add meaning to ones life. However, it is fallacy to actually attribute this to a real spiritual realm, simply because you can't establish that it isn't just delusion, misattribution of causes, or a placebo effect, explainable naturalistically.

My evidence is NOT JUST that humans have always had profound spiritual connection, but that's a part of it. There is no leap of logic, except for your demand/expectation of physical evidence. The spiritual evidence is overwhelming, billions and billions of people who fully believed in something spiritual that was worth dying for, because that's what happened to millions of them, through many thousands of years. It's not superstition, we ruled that out, because we would see spirituality in humans diminish greatly, just over the span of our lifetime, and that is not the case. As a species, we have consistently been spiritual, this has not deviated. So if we accept spiritual evidence, this becomes a no-brainer.

The problem, is getting YOU to accept and comprehend spiritual evidence, and no... it's not code words. It's simply a matter of opening your mind to the existence of a spiritual realm, or (if you prefer) another dimension of the universe. If your mind will not accept anything but physical evidence, it is impossible to prove a spiritual existence of god, or anything else.