Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[RoccoR]

Boss, et al,

I see what you are saying, but doesn't everything require some faith? I mean, we rely on the properties of nature to be consistent tomorrow the same as they are today, do we not? Doesn't that require some degree of faith? Of course, the properties of nature have remained unchanged for a very long time, so our faith they will continue doesn't have to be much, but we do have to have it. Everything in the universe is a probability, nothing is totally impossible or totally absolute. A gamma ray burst could vaporize our planet in a few seconds, and where are any philosophical or scientific questions then?

(COMMENT)

That is absolutely correct. We have "faith" that the planet will be here tomorrow. But that is based upon the implication that we have no information to the contrary. There is no Empirical Evidence (observation or experimental data) that a life extinction event is going to occur. That "faith" is not based on any "definitive proof" (the central theme to our topic).

Science, and the concept of "definitive proof" are not based on faith.

This statement sounds so "right" yet is so very "wrong."

• "Everything in the universe is a probability, nothing is totally impossible or totally absolute."

Not everything in the universe (what we know of it) is based on some probability [Probability "p" Quantum Mechanics (QM) theme]. We are not even sure that we have a handle on QM. As Eugene Wigner said: "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences."

“The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.”

And let me make this very clear, not everything you read in the science columns these days is "science." String Theory (as an example) is not science.

We do not have to "define" in order to confirm presence. I covered this early in the thread, if not in the OP itself. I gave the courtyard example: I can see a figure standing in the courtyard, I see it is a person... I do not need to define if it is male, female, up to no-good, or anything else, to confirm what appears to be a person in the courtyard. From there, I can begin to examine various aspects, is the object moving? If not, it could be a statue which appears to be a person, but if it is animated, it's most likely not a statue. But all of this will come after the confirmation of SOMETHING present. It does not require further definition.

(COMMENT)

But you did define it. You said it. "I see it is a person." But even if you did not recognize it as a "person," you would have to describe it in some manner even to convey it was detected. Yes, it is something. What is the something would always be the next question. It is a matter of resolution. It would have been unusual if you had said:

"I sensed something but it wasn't there."​

That is much different from saying:

"I had faith something was there." OR "I'm sure something was there, but I don't know what it is."​

We have to approach the question in step-by-step analytical fashion, in order to get to a definitive answer of any kind. The first step is to confirm that 70k years of humans being spiritual is not a fluke, not a delusion, not imaginations run wild, but an unassailable fundamental attribute humans can't function without, or never have been able to do for any broad length of time in all of human civilization. It is what distinguishes us from the rest of the living world, our ability to spiritually connect. Before the further discussion of God can happen, we have to first establish the spiritual connection humans have the ability to make, is legitimate and real, and not simply "in their heads" as has been suggested.

(COMMENT)

This has been done. The VMAT2 Gene has just now been discovered. And we still don't understand what consciousness (state of being aware) is and the impact it plays on religion and religious belief.

I think 70k years of history confirms that humans have always been believers in a spiritual nature of some kind, and this is so diverse across so many various cultures found in all corners of the world, that we can't dismiss it as superstition or imagination. The "figments of imagination" arguments go out the window with Darwinist theory, because the primates in our ancestry who weren't hindered by their 'superstitions' and rituals, would have eliminated us, or become superiors to us. We would have abandoned superstition with the advent of science, and as we can see, people did abandon superstitions, they don't dominate the lives of people as they once did, they still exist, but mostly in a quaint and novel version for a laugh. Human spirituality is different, it has persisted through the ages, and it always will be our most defining attribute, really, our ONLY defining attribute, as a species. Anything else you can name, is driven BY our spiritual attribute.

(COMMENT)

Yes, we are back to the genetics and consciousness. But it is also important to understand that not everyone believes in the spiritual or supernatural. You don't have 70K years of the belief in the supernatural. What you have is an evolution in the attempt by humans to explain the "why." The concept of the Supreme Being (faith in a deity) is that of the "unseen hand."

"God" for the purposes of definition in my argument, is a metaphoric representation of spiritual nature that humans connect with. I don't have to assign attributes to God, in order to prove presence. Humans do spiritually connect to something, and it appears to be God.

(COMMENT)

However, this description could also be a figment of the imagination.

[ame=http://youtu.be/Bgaw9qe7DEE]Richard Feynman - The Pleasure Of Finding Things Out - YouTube[/ame]
Richard Feynman - The Pleasure Of Finding Things Out​

What is a "spiritual connection?" You have a connection with what?

It would be most interesting if you had been brought-up in Qom, Iran and indoctrinated in the Islamic belief. Would it make a difference? What if you had been brought-up in a culture that had no deity? What is the nature of the belief. Is it something learned?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[hobelim]

Wow, you are such a condescending little fuck.

And just why do you think that your grasp of God as a concept is so much superior to everyone elses?

Fuck you.

LOL... what was it? The three dollar bill remark about believers like you?


Fuck yourself.....

 

[RoccoR]

JimBowie1958, et al,

Not exactly.

So what Matthew wrote and what Paul wrote and what Jeremiah wrote, all that was hearsay? Really?

(COMMENT)

You are not privy to what Matthew, Paul, and Jeremiah actually wrote. You are privy to an interpretation (many times over) and selectively applied by the The Septuagint, from Aramaic, thru Hebrew, Koine Greek, Latin, and then --- various disputes.

God as a concept can be discussed and 'defined' forever.

(COMMENT)

Or, we can define what we believe in and attempt to prove exists.

He needs to be defined only to the degree that it is relevant in similar fashion to how mathematicians defined things incompletely unknowingly for millennia and yet did so in a useful way.

You don't have to have a 100% perfect crystal clear definition of God to think rationally on who and what He is.

(COMMENT)

But if you are so believing in the existence, than you must have some understanding in the scope and nature of the belief. What is it that you think "God" is? Or is it an indoctrination?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boss]

What a great argument. A similar version has been used by scam artists, carnival barkers, snake oil salesmen and Kool Aid drinkers for as long as there have been those gullible enough to mouth the bait:
"What I'm telling you is the truth. You must believe me. You can confirm I'm telling the truth by believing I'm telling the truth. There are rewards if you do."

Well, I am sorry you interpret the argument that way, but there is nothing at all similar about my arguments and those of scam artists and carnival barkers.

What I am telling you, is the truth. You can confirm it is the truth if you are able to evaluate the spiritual evidence. You do not need to take my word for this, you can prove it to yourself, if you can evaluate spiritual evidence. I have not promised you a reward if you do, and I personally don't care if you do. My argument takes your viewpoint into account, within the first two paragraphs, and I have not deviated from that argumentative point. You have the inability to analyze things through a spiritual perspective, you lack understanding of spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual evidence. You continue to illustrate how my point is made, that some people are unable to accept spiritual evidence, and thus, are unable to answer the question of god's existence.

The fact that some people are unable to wrap their minds around something, doesn't mean that it's not real. Others, who have not closed their minds to spirituality, are able to objectively evaluate the argument I have made, and it definitively proves the existence of god... or something we can generally relate to as a supreme spiritual force, greater than man. You don't have to believe this, I don't care if you do, it your own loss if you don't. The evidence is still there, the case has still been made, and you've not refuted it. You can't refute it with anything more than "I say so" arguments you accuse me of. That's pathetic.

The Creator ... physiology

ok then, are the physical and spiritual nature of an individual separable ?

This is the whole problem, there is not a good way to explain what we don't fully understand. I don't think humans are anything more than physical beings who have the ability to connect spiritually. Think of us as "bluetooth compatible" and some people have discovered this feature and fully believe and respect the feature, while others don't know what the hell "bluetooth" means. Those of us who attempt to explain our experience, are met with hoots and chortles, what's all this mumbo-jumbo... you expect me to believe that?

Spiritual and physical nature both exist. There may even be various dimensions of both, or even other natures we can't define as spiritual or physical, because we aren't aware of them. The arrogance in the wisdom of man is astounding sometimes, we operate on this conception of reality we have, without any sort of comprehension there may be things we don't know about in the universe, that aren't apparent to the physical reality we experience. I once gave the analogy, we are like small infants in a crib, sitting in a dimly lit room. We are aware of things familiar in the room, and our crib. We may even catch glimpse of the outside hallway, or see outside the window to another place. We can ponder and speculate what may be there, beyond the door of our room, but we have absolutely no knowledge of anything beyond what we can comprehend around us. The only things we can relate to are what is familiar, what we do know. Yet sometimes, people act as if we have it all figured out, there are no more questions to ponder, no more discoveries to be made, we know it all right now!

 

[Boss]

Boss, et al,

I see what you are saying, but doesn't everything require some faith? I mean, we rely on the properties of nature to be consistent tomorrow the same as they are today, do we not? Doesn't that require some degree of faith? Of course, the properties of nature have remained unchanged for a very long time, so our faith they will continue doesn't have to be much, but we do have to have it. Everything in the universe is a probability, nothing is totally impossible or totally absolute. A gamma ray burst could vaporize our planet in a few seconds, and where are any philosophical or scientific questions then?

(COMMENT)

That is absolutely correct. We have "faith" that the planet will be here tomorrow. But that is based upon the implication that we have no information to the contrary. There is no Empirical Evidence (observation or experimental data) that a life extinction event is going to occur. That "faith" is not based on any "definitive proof" (the central theme to our topic).

Oh, but indeed there IS evidence, observable evidence, that life extinction events have most certainly occurred in the past, and will likely occur again in the future. I've had some rather chilling conversations from people who study NEOs, they tell me, by the time we see the fatal bullet coming, it will be too late, it then becomes a moral question of whether to inform the masses. Another one tells me we are about 10,000 years overdue. And I am sure, as the planet is tearing itself apart due to the cataclysmic impact, people like Hollie and Dorito will be frantically typing away to disprove God!

Science, and the concept of "definitive proof" are not based on faith.

This statement sounds so "right" yet is so very "wrong."

• "Everything in the universe is a probability, nothing is totally impossible or totally absolute."

Not everything in the universe (what we know of it) is based on some probability [Probability "p" Quantum Mechanics (QM) theme]. We are not even sure that we have a handle on QM. As Eugene Wigner said: "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences."

“The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.”

And let me make this very clear, not everything you read in the science columns these days is "science." String Theory (as an example) is not science.

Again, let me explain... "definitive proof" is when you have definitely proven. Nothing is ever really definitely proven, if you think about it. From a philosophical perspective, reality can't even be definitively proven. But in our general grammatical context, we typically say "definitively proven" to mean the question has sufficiently been answered beyond reasonable doubt.

Now you say, but there IS reasonable doubt, because there is no physical evidence... but a spiritual entity doesn't produce physical evidence, you have to look at spiritual evidence. This is why it was so crucial to the argument to establish this from the start, you can't find "definitive" proof if you can't accept the evidence.

(COMMENT)

But you did define it. You said it. "I see it is a person." But even if you did not recognize it as a "person," you would have to describe it in some manner even to convey it was detected. Yes, it is something. What is the something would always be the next question. It is a matter of resolution. It would have been unusual if you had said:

"I sensed something but it wasn't there."​

That is much different from saying:

"I had faith something was there." OR "I'm sure something was there, but I don't know what it is."​

But you are taking the analogy for one point, and attempting to make another point with it. I defined spiritual nature. I did not detail specific gods or religious incarnations of god, but I don't have to do that to establish spiritual existence. We're not talking about physical nature, there is no physical existence of God that I am aware of. The analogy was to demonstrate that details of description are not needed to evaluate presence. It's as valid when evaluating spiritual presence as physical.

(COMMENT)

This has been done. The VMAT2 Gene has just now been discovered. And we still don't understand what consciousness (state of being aware) is and the impact it plays on religion and religious belief.

I think 70k years of history confirms that humans have always been believers in a spiritual nature of some kind, and this is so diverse across so many various cultures found in all corners of the world, that we can't dismiss it as superstition or imagination. The "figments of imagination" arguments go out the window with Darwinist theory, because the primates in our ancestry who weren't hindered by their 'superstitions' and rituals, would have eliminated us, or become superiors to us. We would have abandoned superstition with the advent of science, and as we can see, people did abandon superstitions, they don't dominate the lives of people as they once did, they still exist, but mostly in a quaint and novel version for a laugh. Human spirituality is different, it has persisted through the ages, and it always will be our most defining attribute, really, our ONLY defining attribute, as a species. Anything else you can name, is driven BY our spiritual attribute.

(COMMENT)

Yes, we are back to the genetics and consciousness. But it is also important to understand that not everyone believes in the spiritual or supernatural. You don't have 70K years of the belief in the supernatural. What you have is an evolution in the attempt by humans to explain the "why." The concept of the Supreme Being (faith in a deity) is that of the "unseen hand."

I admit, I don't know much about VMAT2, so I googled it. I found that there is a big dispute over the theory and hypothesis, and it's not as clearly understood as you have presented.

We do understand consciousness, a lot of animals are conscious. They don't have spiritual awareness and ability to connect to spiritual nature. Perhaps this is due to a special gene we have, but then the question becomes, where did this evolve from?

Why are humans compelled to explain the why? Other animals express curiosity all the time, we see no evidence of them creating imaginary playmates to comfort their concerns about why. It's the spiritual connection that humans can make, which no other living thing has the ability to make, which enables us to ask why. If there is a gene causing it, God is a pretty clever Creator.

"God" for the purposes of definition in my argument, is a metaphoric representation of spiritual nature that humans connect with. I don't have to assign attributes to God, in order to prove presence. Humans do spiritually connect to something, and it appears to be God.

However, this description could also be a figment of the imagination.
What is a "spiritual connection?" You have a connection with what?

It would be most interesting if you had been brought-up in Qom, Iran and indoctrinated in the Islamic belief. Would it make a difference? What if you had been brought-up in a culture that had no deity? What is the nature of the belief. Is it something learned?

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, I am fortunate to have been raised in a free society, where religious freedom flourished, and throughout my lifetime, have had the experience of numerous teachings.

I don't dispute that humans often use their spiritual connection to practice unwarranted actions they've perceived as 'holy' from their spiritual connection. They do this through organized religions, and there are good and bad things about that, it's a mixed bag. That's why it's not important to derail this topic for the sake of religious arguments.

Whether it is Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca, or even Atheism, humans are intrinsically hard-wired to worship something greater than self, and they generally do. This fact is science, it can't be tossed aside and dismissed as a fluke.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wow, you are such a condescending little fuck.

And just why do you think that your grasp of God as a concept is so much superior to everyone elses?

Fuck you.

LOL... what was it? The three dollar bill remark about believers like you?

.

If I have to spell it out then there is no point.

douchebag bitch.

God will judge us all one day I do believe, and people like you are going to be shocked at how many walk through the Pearly Gates while people like you have to crawl through the gutter to get in.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie1958, et al,

Not exactly.

So what Matthew wrote and what Paul wrote and what Jeremiah wrote, all that was hearsay? Really?

(COMMENT)

You are not privy to what Matthew, Paul, and Jeremiah actually wrote. You are privy to an interpretation (many times over) and selectively applied by the The Septuagint, from Aramaic, thru Hebrew, Koine Greek, Latin, and then --- various disputes.

The NT books and letters have been found that date to the early second century. That is not enough time for a drift in meaning of the texts. To put much doubt on it you would have to argue that there were deliberate changes which is highly unlikely because the people of the time doing the copying believed that they would go to Hell if they changed one small character of the texts. The Jewish copyists were also similarly guided. The Masoretic text is almost 100% consistent with found text of OT books.

Nah, there is little reasonable doubt about the veracity of the Biblical text, with nearly zero change in meaning. Interpret that all you like.

God as a concept can be discussed and 'defined' forever.

(COMMENT)

Or, we can define what we believe in and attempt to prove exists.

But we know we do not understand God 100%, so I guess our best understanding is all we can do.

He needs to be defined only to the degree that it is relevant in similar fashion to how mathematicians defined things incompletely unknowingly for millennia and yet did so in a useful way.

You don't have to have a 100% perfect crystal clear definition of God to think rationally on who and what He is.

(COMMENT)

But if you are so believing in the existence, than you must have some understanding in the scope and nature of the belief. What is it that you think "God" is? Or is it an indoctrination?

Most Respectfully,
R

I have answered this question several times already. How many times do I have to answer it? Besides, the best answer would come from a catholic theologian, not a diletante lay person like myself.

But what is the point in answering your questions if you don't read the answers?

 

[hobelim]

Boss, et al,

I see what you are saying, but doesn't everything require some faith? I mean, we rely on the properties of nature to be consistent tomorrow the same as they are today, do we not? Doesn't that require some degree of faith? Of course, the properties of nature have remained unchanged for a very long time, so our faith they will continue doesn't have to be much, but we do have to have it. Everything in the universe is a probability, nothing is totally impossible or totally absolute. A gamma ray burst could vaporize our planet in a few seconds, and where are any philosophical or scientific questions then?

(COMMENT)

That is absolutely correct. We have "faith" that the planet will be here tomorrow. But that is based upon the implication that we have no information to the contrary. There is no Empirical Evidence (observation or experimental data) that a life extinction event is going to occur. That "faith" is not based on any "definitive proof" (the central theme to our topic).

Oh, but indeed there IS evidence, observable evidence, that life extinction events have most certainly occurred in the past, and will likely occur again in the future. I've had some rather chilling conversations from people who study NEOs, they tell me, by the time we see the fatal bullet coming, it will be too late, it then becomes a moral question of whether to inform the masses. Another one tells me we are about 10,000 years overdue. And I am sure, as the planet is tearing itself apart due to the cataclysmic impact, people like Hollie and Dorito will be frantically typing away to disprove God!



Again, let me explain... "definitive proof" is when you have definitely proven. Nothing is ever really definitely proven, if you think about it. From a philosophical perspective, reality can't even be definitively proven. But in our general grammatical context, we typically say "definitively proven" to mean the question has sufficiently been answered beyond reasonable doubt.

Now you say, but there IS reasonable doubt, because there is no physical evidence... but a spiritual entity doesn't produce physical evidence, you have to look at spiritual evidence. This is why it was so crucial to the argument to establish this from the start, you can't find "definitive" proof if you can't accept the evidence.



But you are taking the analogy for one point, and attempting to make another point with it. I defined spiritual nature. I did not detail specific gods or religious incarnations of god, but I don't have to do that to establish spiritual existence. We're not talking about physical nature, there is no physical existence of God that I am aware of. The analogy was to demonstrate that details of description are not needed to evaluate presence. It's as valid when evaluating spiritual presence as physical.



I admit, I don't know much about VMAT2, so I googled it. I found that there is a big dispute over the theory and hypothesis, and it's not as clearly understood as you have presented.

We do understand consciousness, a lot of animals are conscious. They don't have spiritual awareness and ability to connect to spiritual nature. Perhaps this is due to a special gene we have, but then the question becomes, where did this evolve from?

Why are humans compelled to explain the why? Other animals express curiosity all the time, we see no evidence of them creating imaginary playmates to comfort their concerns about why. It's the spiritual connection that humans can make, which no other living thing has the ability to make, which enables us to ask why. If there is a gene causing it, God is a pretty clever Creator.

"God" for the purposes of definition in my argument, is a metaphoric representation of spiritual nature that humans connect with. I don't have to assign attributes to God, in order to prove presence. Humans do spiritually connect to something, and it appears to be God.

However, this description could also be a figment of the imagination.
What is a "spiritual connection?" You have a connection with what?

It would be most interesting if you had been brought-up in Qom, Iran and indoctrinated in the Islamic belief. Would it make a difference? What if you had been brought-up in a culture that had no deity? What is the nature of the belief. Is it something learned?

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, I am fortunate to have been raised in a free society, where religious freedom flourished, and throughout my lifetime, have had the experience of numerous teachings.

I don't dispute that humans often use their spiritual connection to practice unwarranted actions they've perceived as 'holy' from their spiritual connection. They do this through organized religions, and there are good and bad things about that, it's a mixed bag. That's why it's not important to derail this topic for the sake of religious arguments.

Whether it is Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca, or even Atheism, humans are intrinsically hard-wired to worship something greater than self, and they generally do. This fact is science, it can't be tossed aside and dismissed as a fluke.

People being 'hard wired' to worship something greater than themselves is simply a consequence of evolution as social pack animals.

Many people crave being told what to do by their perceived superior, not because they have some innate mystical quality but simply because they lack the self respect and confidence to think for themselves.

People claim to believe in islam Christianity wicca, etc, etc, not because they have great faith but because they have no courage to stand up to whatever alpha demon of whatever make believe God (the alpha of all alphas) frightened them into pusillanimous submission..

That's why is against the law to eat the flesh of brown nosed dorks.

 

[Youwerecreated]

so they do have genitals?
I can't imagine a heaven (if one existed ) being populated by GIjoe and Barbie knockoffs!

I would guess that that means that angels at least have penises and testes to impregnate human women with.

The group labeled 'sons of God' does not equal the group labeled 'angels'.

You are being presumptive, no surprise there.

I do believe the sons of God were angels. A study on who they were.

Sons of God - Genesis 6 - Here a little, there a little - Spirit Realm

 

[Youwerecreated]

Boss, et al,


(COMMENT)

That is absolutely correct. We have "faith" that the planet will be here tomorrow. But that is based upon the implication that we have no information to the contrary. There is no Empirical Evidence (observation or experimental data) that a life extinction event is going to occur. That "faith" is not based on any "definitive proof" (the central theme to our topic).

Oh, but indeed there IS evidence, observable evidence, that life extinction events have most certainly occurred in the past, and will likely occur again in the future. I've had some rather chilling conversations from people who study NEOs, they tell me, by the time we see the fatal bullet coming, it will be too late, it then becomes a moral question of whether to inform the masses. Another one tells me we are about 10,000 years overdue. And I am sure, as the planet is tearing itself apart due to the cataclysmic impact, people like Hollie and Dorito will be frantically typing away to disprove God!



Again, let me explain... "definitive proof" is when you have definitely proven. Nothing is ever really definitely proven, if you think about it. From a philosophical perspective, reality can't even be definitively proven. But in our general grammatical context, we typically say "definitively proven" to mean the question has sufficiently been answered beyond reasonable doubt.

Now you say, but there IS reasonable doubt, because there is no physical evidence... but a spiritual entity doesn't produce physical evidence, you have to look at spiritual evidence. This is why it was so crucial to the argument to establish this from the start, you can't find "definitive" proof if you can't accept the evidence.



But you are taking the analogy for one point, and attempting to make another point with it. I defined spiritual nature. I did not detail specific gods or religious incarnations of god, but I don't have to do that to establish spiritual existence. We're not talking about physical nature, there is no physical existence of God that I am aware of. The analogy was to demonstrate that details of description are not needed to evaluate presence. It's as valid when evaluating spiritual presence as physical.



I admit, I don't know much about VMAT2, so I googled it. I found that there is a big dispute over the theory and hypothesis, and it's not as clearly understood as you have presented.

We do understand consciousness, a lot of animals are conscious. They don't have spiritual awareness and ability to connect to spiritual nature. Perhaps this is due to a special gene we have, but then the question becomes, where did this evolve from?

Why are humans compelled to explain the why? Other animals express curiosity all the time, we see no evidence of them creating imaginary playmates to comfort their concerns about why. It's the spiritual connection that humans can make, which no other living thing has the ability to make, which enables us to ask why. If there is a gene causing it, God is a pretty clever Creator.

However, this description could also be a figment of the imagination.
What is a "spiritual connection?" You have a connection with what?

It would be most interesting if you had been brought-up in Qom, Iran and indoctrinated in the Islamic belief. Would it make a difference? What if you had been brought-up in a culture that had no deity? What is the nature of the belief. Is it something learned?

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, I am fortunate to have been raised in a free society, where religious freedom flourished, and throughout my lifetime, have had the experience of numerous teachings.

I don't dispute that humans often use their spiritual connection to practice unwarranted actions they've perceived as 'holy' from their spiritual connection. They do this through organized religions, and there are good and bad things about that, it's a mixed bag. That's why it's not important to derail this topic for the sake of religious arguments.

Whether it is Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca, or even Atheism, humans are intrinsically hard-wired to worship something greater than self, and they generally do. This fact is science, it can't be tossed aside and dismissed as a fluke.

People being 'hard wired' to worship something greater than themselves is simply a consequence of evolution as social pack animals.

Many people crave being told what to do by their perceived superior, not because they have some innate mystical quality but simply because they lack the self respect and confidence to think for themselves.

People claim to believe in islam Christianity wicca, etc, etc, not because they have great faith but because they have no courage to stand up to whatever alpha demon of whatever make believe God (the alpha of all alphas) frightened them into pusillanimous submission..

That's why is against the law to eat the flesh of brown nosed dorks.

If a majority of students in the colleges believe as you do,I believe they are in store for a major shock someday.

I find it really funny you thinking believers are not able to think for themselves.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Boss, et al,


(COMMENT)

That is absolutely correct. We have "faith" that the planet will be here tomorrow. But that is based upon the implication that we have no information to the contrary. There is no Empirical Evidence (observation or experimental data) that a life extinction event is going to occur. That "faith" is not based on any "definitive proof" (the central theme to our topic).

Oh, but indeed there IS evidence, observable evidence, that life extinction events have most certainly occurred in the past, and will likely occur again in the future. I've had some rather chilling conversations from people who study NEOs, they tell me, by the time we see the fatal bullet coming, it will be too late, it then becomes a moral question of whether to inform the masses. Another one tells me we are about 10,000 years overdue. And I am sure, as the planet is tearing itself apart due to the cataclysmic impact, people like Hollie and Dorito will be frantically typing away to disprove God!



Again, let me explain... "definitive proof" is when you have definitely proven. Nothing is ever really definitely proven, if you think about it. From a philosophical perspective, reality can't even be definitively proven. But in our general grammatical context, we typically say "definitively proven" to mean the question has sufficiently been answered beyond reasonable doubt.

Now you say, but there IS reasonable doubt, because there is no physical evidence... but a spiritual entity doesn't produce physical evidence, you have to look at spiritual evidence. This is why it was so crucial to the argument to establish this from the start, you can't find "definitive" proof if you can't accept the evidence.



But you are taking the analogy for one point, and attempting to make another point with it. I defined spiritual nature. I did not detail specific gods or religious incarnations of god, but I don't have to do that to establish spiritual existence. We're not talking about physical nature, there is no physical existence of God that I am aware of. The analogy was to demonstrate that details of description are not needed to evaluate presence. It's as valid when evaluating spiritual presence as physical.



I admit, I don't know much about VMAT2, so I googled it. I found that there is a big dispute over the theory and hypothesis, and it's not as clearly understood as you have presented.

We do understand consciousness, a lot of animals are conscious. They don't have spiritual awareness and ability to connect to spiritual nature. Perhaps this is due to a special gene we have, but then the question becomes, where did this evolve from?

Why are humans compelled to explain the why? Other animals express curiosity all the time, we see no evidence of them creating imaginary playmates to comfort their concerns about why. It's the spiritual connection that humans can make, which no other living thing has the ability to make, which enables us to ask why. If there is a gene causing it, God is a pretty clever Creator.

However, this description could also be a figment of the imagination.
What is a "spiritual connection?" You have a connection with what?

It would be most interesting if you had been brought-up in Qom, Iran and indoctrinated in the Islamic belief. Would it make a difference? What if you had been brought-up in a culture that had no deity? What is the nature of the belief. Is it something learned?

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, I am fortunate to have been raised in a free society, where religious freedom flourished, and throughout my lifetime, have had the experience of numerous teachings.

I don't dispute that humans often use their spiritual connection to practice unwarranted actions they've perceived as 'holy' from their spiritual connection. They do this through organized religions, and there are good and bad things about that, it's a mixed bag. That's why it's not important to derail this topic for the sake of religious arguments.

Whether it is Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca, or even Atheism, humans are intrinsically hard-wired to worship something greater than self, and they generally do. This fact is science, it can't be tossed aside and dismissed as a fluke.

People being 'hard wired' to worship something greater than themselves is simply a consequence of evolution as social pack animals.

Many people crave being told what to do by their perceived superior, not because they have some innate mystical quality but simply because they lack the self respect and confidence to think for themselves.

People claim to believe in islam Christianity wicca, etc, etc, not because they have great faith but because they have no courage to stand up to whatever alpha demon of whatever make believe God (the alpha of all alphas) frightened them into pusillanimous submission..

That's why is against the law to eat the flesh of brown nosed dorks.

What can you provide as evidence that believers are hardwired to believe in something greater than themselves and it came about through evolution ?

 

[BreezeWood]

...............................

Boss: Now you say, but there IS reasonable doubt, because there is no physical evidence... but a spiritual entity doesn't produce physical evidence, you have to look at spiritual evidence. This is why it was so crucial to the argument to establish this from the start, you can't find "definitive" proof if you can't accept the evidence.


Boss: But you are taking the analogy for one point, and attempting to make another point with it. I defined spiritual nature. I did not detail specific gods or religious incarnations of god, but I don't have to do that to establish spiritual existence. We're not talking about physical nature, there is no physical existence of God that I am aware of. The analogy was to demonstrate that details of description are not needed to evaluate presence. It's as valid when evaluating spiritual presence as physical.

but a spiritual entity doesn't produce physical evidence, you have to look at spiritual evidence. ........... We're not talking about physical nature, there is no physical existence of God that I am aware of.


but a spiritual entity doesn't (produce) physical evidence ...

were you not thinking ? what is produce .... does not include your assertion of having created the physical universe ?



We're not talking about physical nature, there is no physical existence of God that I am aware of.

is it because you are an Atheistic Spiritualist - for the religious, the Garden is the Physical Presence and Proof of the Creators existence ....



simply put Boss - tangentially, a denial of physicality for a Spiritual Entity is itself a denial of its "existence" - other than for the wind.

 

[daws101]

et al,

Very strange question.


(RUMOR)

Goliath of Gath and Samson were believed to be a Nephilim, offspring of a fallen angel (not a Seraphim).



Most Respectfully,
R

so they do have genitals?
I can't imagine a heaven (if one existed ) being populated by GIjoe and Barbie knockoffs!

I would guess that that means that angels at least have penises and testes to impregnate human women with.

seems that way

 

[daws101]

JimBowie1958, et al,

Not exactly.

So what Matthew wrote and what Paul wrote and what Jeremiah wrote, all that was hearsay? Really?

(COMMENT)

You are not privy to what Matthew, Paul, and Jeremiah actually wrote. You are privy to an interpretation (many times over) and selectively applied by the The Septuagint, from Aramaic, thru Hebrew, Koine Greek, Latin, and then --- various disputes.

God as a concept can be discussed and 'defined' forever.

(COMMENT)

Or, we can define what we believe in and attempt to prove exists.

He needs to be defined only to the degree that it is relevant in similar fashion to how mathematicians defined things incompletely unknowingly for millennia and yet did so in a useful way.

You don't have to have a 100% perfect crystal clear definition of God to think rationally on who and what He is.

(COMMENT)

But if you are so believing in the existence, than you must have some understanding in the scope and nature of the belief. What is it that you think "God" is? Or is it an indoctrination?

Most Respectfully,
R

bump

 

[daws101]

Wow, you are such a condescending little fuck.

And just why do you think that your grasp of God as a concept is so much superior to everyone elses?

Fuck you.

LOL... what was it? The three dollar bill remark about believers like you?

.

If I have to spell it out then there is no point.

douchebag bitch.

God will judge us all one day I do believe, and people like you are going to be shocked at how many walk through the Pearly Gates while people like you have to crawl through the gutter to get in.

false declarative based on a completely bias and bigoted pov.

 

[daws101]

Oh, but indeed there IS evidence, observable evidence, that life extinction events have most certainly occurred in the past, and will likely occur again in the future. I've had some rather chilling conversations from people who study NEOs, they tell me, by the time we see the fatal bullet coming, it will be too late, it then becomes a moral question of whether to inform the masses. Another one tells me we are about 10,000 years overdue. And I am sure, as the planet is tearing itself apart due to the cataclysmic impact, people like Hollie and Dorito will be frantically typing away to disprove God!



Again, let me explain... "definitive proof" is when you have definitely proven. Nothing is ever really definitely proven, if you think about it. From a philosophical perspective, reality can't even be definitively proven. But in our general grammatical context, we typically say "definitively proven" to mean the question has sufficiently been answered beyond reasonable doubt.

Now you say, but there IS reasonable doubt, because there is no physical evidence... but a spiritual entity doesn't produce physical evidence, you have to look at spiritual evidence. This is why it was so crucial to the argument to establish this from the start, you can't find "definitive" proof if you can't accept the evidence.



But you are taking the analogy for one point, and attempting to make another point with it. I defined spiritual nature. I did not detail specific gods or religious incarnations of god, but I don't have to do that to establish spiritual existence. We're not talking about physical nature, there is no physical existence of God that I am aware of. The analogy was to demonstrate that details of description are not needed to evaluate presence. It's as valid when evaluating spiritual presence as physical.



I admit, I don't know much about VMAT2, so I googled it. I found that there is a big dispute over the theory and hypothesis, and it's not as clearly understood as you have presented.

We do understand consciousness, a lot of animals are conscious. They don't have spiritual awareness and ability to connect to spiritual nature. Perhaps this is due to a special gene we have, but then the question becomes, where did this evolve from?

Why are humans compelled to explain the why? Other animals express curiosity all the time, we see no evidence of them creating imaginary playmates to comfort their concerns about why. It's the spiritual connection that humans can make, which no other living thing has the ability to make, which enables us to ask why. If there is a gene causing it, God is a pretty clever Creator.



Well, I am fortunate to have been raised in a free society, where religious freedom flourished, and throughout my lifetime, have had the experience of numerous teachings.

I don't dispute that humans often use their spiritual connection to practice unwarranted actions they've perceived as 'holy' from their spiritual connection. They do this through organized religions, and there are good and bad things about that, it's a mixed bag. That's why it's not important to derail this topic for the sake of religious arguments.

Whether it is Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca, or even Atheism, humans are intrinsically hard-wired to worship something greater than self, and they generally do. This fact is science, it can't be tossed aside and dismissed as a fluke.

People being 'hard wired' to worship something greater than themselves is simply a consequence of evolution as social pack animals.

Many people crave being told what to do by their perceived superior, not because they have some innate mystical quality but simply because they lack the self respect and confidence to think for themselves.

People claim to believe in islam Christianity wicca, etc, etc, not because they have great faith but because they have no courage to stand up to whatever alpha demon of whatever make believe God (the alpha of all alphas) frightened them into pusillanimous submission..

That's why is against the law to eat the flesh of brown nosed dorks.

If a majority of students in the colleges believe as you do,I believe they are in store for a major shock someday.

I find it really funny you thinking believers are not able to think for themselves.

true but not the shock you wish it would be.
believers thinking for themselves ?now that is funny your whole belief system is based on not questioning your gospels and believing they are the literal truth.
what you call thinking for yourself is not!

are you putting yourself up as a thinking for yourself representative,if so your arrogance is palpable.

 

[Wake]

God... may or may not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

On one hand religious people can't provide unrefutable evidence that a god(s) exist. On the other, atheists cannot prove the non-existence of God.

Because of this philosophical rift where neither side can ever "win," we're left with each side arguing their beliefs based on no unrefutable evidence whatsoever. Round and round they go... where it stops, nobody knows.

This debate will likely continue until aliens conquer planet Earth, or cockroaches inherit the planet.

 

[Boss]

People being 'hard wired' to worship something greater than themselves is simply a consequence of evolution as social pack animals.

It's simply not that. This is simply an excuse your simple mind has come up with, to simply explain away the attribute. Your theory simply fails as soon as we look at other evolved social pack animals, who show no signs of spirituality. So what you are saying, simply defies Darwin.

Many people crave being told what to do by their perceived superior, not because they have some innate mystical quality but simply because they lack the self respect and confidence to think for themselves.

People claim to believe in islam Christianity wicca, etc, etc, not because they have great faith but because they have no courage to stand up to whatever alpha demon of whatever make believe God (the alpha of all alphas) frightened them into pusillanimous submission..

That's why is against the law to eat the flesh of brown nosed dorks.

Again, if your simple excuses were true, the homosapiens who weren't hindered by the weakness of a "crutch" would have eventually prevailed over those who were "weak" and needed the "crutch." Since 95% of the species is not Nihilist, we can observe that your theory is not true. Unless you are again refuting Darwinism?

 

[daws101]

People being 'hard wired' to worship something greater than themselves is simply a consequence of evolution as social pack animals.

It's simply not that. This is simply an excuse your simple mind has come up with, to simply explain away the attribute. Your theory simply fails as soon as we look at other evolved social pack animals, who show no signs of spirituality. So what you are saying, simply defies Darwin.

Many people crave being told what to do by their perceived superior, not because they have some innate mystical quality but simply because they lack the self respect and confidence to think for themselves.

People claim to believe in islam Christianity wicca, etc, etc, not because they have great faith but because they have no courage to stand up to whatever alpha demon of whatever make believe God (the alpha of all alphas) frightened them into pusillanimous submission..

That's why is against the law to eat the flesh of brown nosed dorks.

Again, if your simple excuses were true, the homosapiens who weren't hindered by the weakness of a "crutch" would have eventually prevailed over those who were "weak" and needed the "crutch." Since 95% of the species is not Nihilist, we can observe that your theory is not true. Unless you are again refuting Darwinism?

your number are incorrect.
A new survey shows that 51 percent of people in the world believe in God. Only 18 percent don’t and 17 percent are undecided.

More than 18,000 people participated in the London-based poll in 23 countries conducted by global research company, Ipsos Social Research Institute.

The Ipsos/Reuters poll also found that 51 percent believe that there is an afterlife while 23 percent believe they will just "cease to exist." Around a quarter (26 percent) simply don’t know what will happen after death.



Read more at Global Poll: Most Believe in God, Afterlife

making your favorite term "Nihilist" incorrect.

 

[Boss]

...............................

Boss: Now you say, but there IS reasonable doubt, because there is no physical evidence... but a spiritual entity doesn't produce physical evidence, you have to look at spiritual evidence. This is why it was so crucial to the argument to establish this from the start, you can't find "definitive" proof if you can't accept the evidence.


Boss: But you are taking the analogy for one point, and attempting to make another point with it. I defined spiritual nature. I did not detail specific gods or religious incarnations of god, but I don't have to do that to establish spiritual existence. We're not talking about physical nature, there is no physical existence of God that I am aware of. The analogy was to demonstrate that details of description are not needed to evaluate presence. It's as valid when evaluating spiritual presence as physical.

but a spiritual entity doesn't produce physical evidence, you have to look at spiritual evidence. ........... We're not talking about physical nature, there is no physical existence of God that I am aware of.


but a spiritual entity doesn't (produce) physical evidence ...

were you not thinking ? what is produce .... does not include your assertion of having created the physical universe ?

We're not talking about physical nature, there is no physical existence of God that I am aware of.

is it because you are an Atheistic Spiritualist - for the religious, the Garden is the Physical Presence and Proof of the Creators existence ....

simply put Boss - tangentially, a denial of physicality for a Spiritual Entity is itself a denial of its "existence" - other than for the wind.

You are shifting paradigm on me. Of course the physical universe is created by spiritual nature, and the physical universe does exist, but there is no physical proof to support spiritual creation if you don't believe in spiritual nature. When I say "spiritual entities don't provide physical evidence" it is directed to people who don't accept spiritual nature. As I said, those who do believe in spiritual nature, find overwhelming and undeniable evidence.