Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

The physical properties exist, but how would we, as humans with no capacity to hear, recognize these properties? Not as "sounds" we currently understand. Perhaps we would recognize them through sense of touch? What if some humans believed in sound and some people believed it was all our imaginations because of our complex sense of touch? What if those who believed in sound, had developed their ability to appreciate different sounds, and although they couldn't actually hear them, could still gain great benefit from being in the presence of them? Would the non-believers in sound, still be pounding their keyboards, 3600+ posts in, to disprove the kakamamie notion of sound?

"The physical properties exist, but how would we, as humans with no capacity to hear, recognize these properties?"

I'll type this very slowly so you can understand it: "sound pressure waves".

Why don't you read to the end of the post, dear? Instead of emotively reacting to post some smart ass remark, as soon as you get to something that sets you off? I asked you how would humans interpret these "sound pressure waves" if we couldn't HEAR them?

We would have physical evidence of something we could feel, but we couldn't see it or taste it, and we don't know what hearing is.... so would it be "real" or a product of our imaginations, created by our complex ability to "feel" things? We can see which side of the argument you would be on, regardless of any evidence presented from those kooky "sound worshipers!"

Yes he does get set off easily and then his pure contempt gets revealed.

 

[Hollie]

You can skip most of the 3500 posts, and find all you need in the OP. The first point in the OP argument, is to establish parameters and understandings of the terminology. I intentionally removed "God" from the constraints of having to conform to any particular religious incarnation for a reason. We do not need to define every detail to determine if something exists. The next point is, whether or not an individual can accept existence or presence of spiritual nature. If you don't believe spiritual nature exists, you can't evaluate spiritual evidence, which means you can never find "definitive proof" of god. If you can overcome this closed-minded prejudice, and open your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable.

This thread is full of reactionary responses from people who don't believe in spiritual nature. As I predicted in the OP argument, they are incapable of evaluating the spiritual evidence because they disbelieve in spiritual nature. The thread can literally grow to 10,000 responses, they are never going to believe in spiritual nature or be able to evaluate spiritual evidence. For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists. Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

That's such a wonderful argument. In order to believe in something you call "spiritual nature™", we must first accept something you call "spiritual evidence".

What is "spiritual evidence"?

"Spiritual evidence" is proof of "spiritual nature™"

How do we know this?

Because Boss says so!

Because Boss says so, and billions of humans over the ages who profess to the miracles and blessings from spiritual nature, also say so. And because science confirms human behaviors say so. This is not refuted because Hollie says so.

As usual, you require that: "well, a lot of people believe it so it must be true", nonsense.

As it has been explained to you both repeatedly and tediously, lots of people believe, and have believed, in many things that were untrue. "A lot of people believe it" is an atrociously naïve reason to keep pressing your agenda for supernatural gawds.

Here’s a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesn’t really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?

For almost 70,000 years, humans believed that the earth was flat. I’m not convinced that their “spiritual nature” was entirely correct. Their spiritual nature™ was obviously misrepresented by their spiritual evidence™ thus rendering their spiritual existence™ one of fear and superstition.

Fear is a instinctual response to danger that is based upon chemical interactions in the brain. Emotions are not mysterious. Spiritual natures™, spiritual existence™ and
spirits™ in general are not functions of gawds. Human fears and emotions are functions of chemical processes in the brain -- they have very natural roots in instinctual responses from our biologic and evolutionary history and we see these behaviors common to both humans and lower animals. This is of course logical and rational with science and chemistry available to support the statement, but logic and reason don't always sell well. People much more prefer the comfort of their "supernatural" beliefs. That's why books on science sell poorly and nonsense books on Bermuda Triangles and space aliens sell well. The truth is not as comforting as myths, and generally speaking people shy away from truth in favor of their comfy little myths.

 

[Hollie]

The physical properties exist, but how would we, as humans with no capacity to hear, recognize these properties? Not as "sounds" we currently understand. Perhaps we would recognize them through sense of touch? What if some humans believed in sound and some people believed it was all our imaginations because of our complex sense of touch? What if those who believed in sound, had developed their ability to appreciate different sounds, and although they couldn't actually hear them, could still gain great benefit from being in the presence of them? Would the non-believers in sound, still be pounding their keyboards, 3600+ posts in, to disprove the kakamamie notion of sound?

"The physical properties exist, but how would we, as humans with no capacity to hear, recognize these properties?"

I'll type this very slowly so you can understand it: "sound pressure waves".

Why don't you read to the end of the post, dear? Instead of emotively reacting to post some smart ass remark, as soon as you get to something that sets you off? I asked you how would humans interpret these "sound pressure waves" if we couldn't HEAR them?

We would have physical evidence of something we could feel, but we couldn't see it or taste it, and we don't know what hearing is.... so would it be "real" or a product of our imaginations, created by our complex ability to "feel" things? We can see which side of the argument you would be on, regardless of any evidence presented from those kooky "sound worshipers!"

Why don't you proof read your own comments before pressing the "submit reply" button?

It was you who asked a juvenile question and when the obvious answer was given, you recoiled in shock surprise.

Sound pressure levels exist in the natural world. I'm at a loss to explain if they exist in your spirit worlds. In the natural, rational world, sound pressure is real whether or not it conflicts with your nonsensical attempt at argumentation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie Quote "Here’s a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesn’t really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?"

Sorry but this is your chemical reaction at work and it is pure BS unless you would like to prove otherwise which we both know you can't.

 

[Hollie]

"The physical properties exist, but how would we, as humans with no capacity to hear, recognize these properties?"

I'll type this very slowly so you can understand it: "sound pressure waves".

Why don't you read to the end of the post, dear? Instead of emotively reacting to post some smart ass remark, as soon as you get to something that sets you off? I asked you how would humans interpret these "sound pressure waves" if we couldn't HEAR them?

We would have physical evidence of something we could feel, but we couldn't see it or taste it, and we don't know what hearing is.... so would it be "real" or a product of our imaginations, created by our complex ability to "feel" things? We can see which side of the argument you would be on, regardless of any evidence presented from those kooky "sound worshipers!"

Yes he does get set off easily and then his pure contempt gets revealed.

Flailing your cheerleader pom poms, with nothing to contribute.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie Quote "Here’s a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesn’t really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?"

Sorry but this is your chemical reaction at work and it is pure BS unless you would like to prove otherwise which we both know you can't.

Believe the earth is flat if you choose. As usual, you're not to be taken seriously.

Here - have a refreshing drink of Kool Aid.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why don't you read to the end of the post, dear? Instead of emotively reacting to post some smart ass remark, as soon as you get to something that sets you off? I asked you how would humans interpret these "sound pressure waves" if we couldn't HEAR them?

We would have physical evidence of something we could feel, but we couldn't see it or taste it, and we don't know what hearing is.... so would it be "real" or a product of our imaginations, created by our complex ability to "feel" things? We can see which side of the argument you would be on, regardless of any evidence presented from those kooky "sound worshipers!"

Yes he does get set off easily and then his pure contempt gets revealed.

Flailing your cheerleader pom poms, with nothing to contribute.

Pay attention Ruggedtouch.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie Quote "Here’s a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesn’t really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?"

Sorry but this is your chemical reaction at work and it is pure BS unless you would like to prove otherwise which we both know you can't.

Believe the earth is flat if you choose. As usual, you're not to be taken seriously.

Here - have a refreshing drink of Kool Aid.

I am waiting for you to make your case for this claim.

 

[edthecynic]

No, they are properties that have been proven with a repeatable experiment, no theory or assignment about it.

But thank you for now admitting the the physical and spiritual are interchangeable after having vehemently denied it for this entire thread.

I haven't denied anything. In fact, I made the point that physical sciences have often come along to "explain" what was previously thought to be something spiritually guided. (Yet humans remain 'delusional with spirituality' for some odd reason.)

As Rocco points out, the THEORIES regarding indestructible energy are indeed being questioned. There is never any "conclusion" made by science, those are made by MAN!

But I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you have defined a physical entity as being indestructible, omnipotent, and omnipresent, with no beginning or ending, everlasting life. I think this is a monumental breakthrough, especially for a non-believer!

As I said, if you didn't actually prove god's existence, you made a very strong case for the possibility.

When you redefine a proven LAW of science as a "theory" you are unconsciously admitting you KNOW you are wrong and you have to change reality to fit your imagination. While the First LAW of Thermodynamics is being questioned, science questions everything, it has yet to be disproved and therefore still stands. You can play games all you want, but you have no spiritual existence without physical existence first.
It is self evident.

 

[Hollie]

Mans spiritual connection is not the only connection between God and man.

That's profound - and totally pointless.

Steal that from Harun Yahya, did ya"?

 

[Hollie]

Hollie Quote "Here’s a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesn’t really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?"

Sorry but this is your chemical reaction at work and it is pure BS unless you would like to prove otherwise which we both know you can't.

Believe the earth is flat if you choose. As usual, you're not to be taken seriously.

Here - have a refreshing drink of Kool Aid.

I am waiting for you to make your case for this claim.

What claim - that you're pointless? Anyone can read your nonsensical posts and come to their own conclusions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Believe the earth is flat if you choose. As usual, you're not to be taken seriously.

Here - have a refreshing drink of Kool Aid.

I am waiting for you to make your case for this claim.

What claim - that you're pointless? Anyone can read your nonsensical posts and come to their own conclusions.

Let me type it slow for you. You said that billions of believers believed in a flat earth I am asking you to provide something that supports your claim.

 

[Hollie]

No, they are properties that have been proven with a repeatable experiment, no theory or assignment about it.

But thank you for now admitting the the physical and spiritual are interchangeable after having vehemently denied it for this entire thread.

I haven't denied anything. In fact, I made the point that physical sciences have often come along to "explain" what was previously thought to be something spiritually guided. (Yet humans remain 'delusional with spirituality' for some odd reason.)

As Rocco points out, the THEORIES regarding indestructible energy are indeed being questioned. There is never any "conclusion" made by science, those are made by MAN!

But I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you have defined a physical entity as being indestructible, omnipotent, and omnipresent, with no beginning or ending, everlasting life. I think this is a monumental breakthrough, especially for a non-believer!

As I said, if you didn't actually prove god's existence, you made a very strong case for the possibility.

Here’s another bit of enlightenment for you: examination of the physical sciences have not “come along” to explain mans’ fears and superstitions. The physical sciences and the Scientific Method were the result of a process of discovery whereby observations of the natural world often conflicted with dogma furthered by the religious entities.

Speaking of dogma furthered by the religious entities, why not be honest and admit that the entire exercise of this thread was to press your religious agenda.

 

[Hollie]

I am waiting for you to make your case for this claim.

What claim - that you're pointless? Anyone can read your nonsensical posts and come to their own conclusions.

Let me type it slow for you. You said that billions of believers believed in a flat earth I am asking you to provide something that supports your claim.

I wrote "billions of people".

You are convinced that ignorance and not paying attention are a virtue, right?


Please. Drink the Kool Aid.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What claim - that you're pointless? Anyone can read your nonsensical posts and come to their own conclusions.

Let me type it slow for you. You said that billions of believers believed in a flat earth I am asking you to provide something that supports your claim.

I wrote "billions of people".

You are convinced that ignorance and not paying attention are a virtue, right?


Please. Drink the Kool Aid.

You're a disingenuous Ideologue.

Drink the kool aid.

 

[Hollie]

Let me type it slow for you. You said that billions of believers believed in a flat earth I am asking you to provide something that supports your claim.

I wrote "billions of people".

You are convinced that ignorance and not paying attention are a virtue, right?


Please. Drink the Kool Aid.

You're a disingenuous Ideologue.

Drink the kool aid.

Don't let your stupidity and ignorance be a challenge to your poor reading skills.

What I wrote (as opposed to your lies and false allegations) is in my prior post.

Use the "quote" function to accurately convey what others have written out. Otherwise stay away from the thread until you're able to offer coherent comments.

 

[numan]

'
Hollie is correct, and the devotees of voodoo are wrong.

Boss, I will ignore the blatant sexism in your postings -- "dear" -- and simply point out the obvious. If we had been utterly deaf all through our evolutionary history, we could still know a great deal about sound. Physical observation would reveal it (non-visible electromagnetic waves were discovered, weren't they?), and even more important, the consistencies in those observations would reveal much to us about the nature of the phenomenon.

We cannot know what, subjectively, it is like to detect things in water by means of pressure waves or electrical currents, as many marine organisms do, but we have learned that they have such senses and much about how they work. The same may be said about senses of heat radiation in snakes and perception of ultraviolet light in many insects.

Physical observation, rational construction of hypotheses and correlating the consistencies or non-consistencies in our observations -- these are the true magick which has permitted us to trancend the primal nescience of our animal subjectivity.

Boss -- "deary" -- I will quote the profound words of a very intelligent woman writer who, it seems to me has said it best:

"The point that leads me to favor realism over the theory of the observer-dependence of reality is that reality does consistently answer electron questions with electrons, and wave questions with waves, and that it refuses to answer certain other questions----for example, questions concerning phlogiston, or angels----consistently or at all.

"The evidence for the reality of the world is not that the appearances ---the data--- reveal the objects as they are in themselves [how could they?], but that the world is both selective and consistent in its answers to our questions. Moreover, from a knowledge of conceptual structures alone it would not be possible to predict which questions the world would answer or what answers it would give."
---Freya Mathews, "The Ecological Self"
.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I wrote "billions of people".

You are convinced that ignorance and not paying attention are a virtue, right?


Please. Drink the Kool Aid.

You're a disingenuous Ideologue.

Drink the kool aid.

Don't let your stupidity and ignorance be a challenge to your poor reading skills.

What I wrote (as opposed to your lies and false allegations) is in my prior post.

Use the "quote" function to accurately convey what others have written out. Otherwise stay away from the thread until you're able to offer coherent comments.

Hollie were these your words or not ?

"Here’s a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesn’t really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?"

False premise

"billions of people once believed that the earth was flat,"

Now where did you get your information ? The stupidity is not mine.

 

[Hollie]

You're a disingenuous Ideologue.

Drink the kool aid.

Don't let your stupidity and ignorance be a challenge to your poor reading skills.

What I wrote (as opposed to your lies and false allegations) is in my prior post.

Use the "quote" function to accurately convey what others have written out. Otherwise stay away from the thread until you're able to offer coherent comments.

Hollie were these your words or not ?

"Here’s a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesn’t really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?"

False premise

"billions of people once believed that the earth was flat,"

Now where did you get your information ? The stupidity is not mine.

Was this your comment or not:

"Let me type it slow for you. You said that billions of believers believed in a flat earth I am asking you to provide something that supports your claim."


False premise and false accusation.

The stupidity is, of course, yours, as usual.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Don't let your stupidity and ignorance be a challenge to your poor reading skills.

What I wrote (as opposed to your lies and false allegations) is in my prior post.

Use the "quote" function to accurately convey what others have written out. Otherwise stay away from the thread until you're able to offer coherent comments.

Hollie were these your words or not ?

"Here’s a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesn’t really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?"

False premise

"billions of people once believed that the earth was flat,"

Now where did you get your information ? The stupidity is not mine.

Was this your comment or not:

"Let me type it slow for you. You said that billions of believers believed in a flat earth I am asking you to provide something that supports your claim."


False premise and false accusation.

The stupidity is, of course, yours, as usual.

Did billions of people believe in a flat earth or not ?

Usually when you use this accusation who is it directed at ?