Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Vandalshandle]

My grandmother, who was born around the turn of the 20th century, always made sure that a knife was placed uder the birthing bed of any woman having a baby, because it would "cut the birthing pains". She was absolutely positive of this, and I am sure that she went to her grave in her late 80's believing it, just like she believed that God frequently spoke to Oral Roberts, and told him to tell her to send her money to him.

 

[Boss]

My grandmother, who was born around the turn of the 20th century, always made sure that a knife was placed uder the birthing bed of any woman having a baby, because it would "cut the birthing pains". She was absolutely positive of this, and I am sure that she went to her grave in her late 80's believing it, just like she believed that God frequently spoke to Oral Roberts, and told him to tell her to send her money to him.

One is superstition and the other is gullibility. Both are strong evidence of human spiritual connection. If humans were not spiritually moved by something, they simply wouldn't be gullible enough to send Oral Roberts money, or believe in knives under the beds, etc. They would be able to see through Oral and wouldn't see any physical evidence that knives were of value under the bed. You think that examples like this, somehow 'disprove' god or spiritual belief, because they are absurd examples, designed to poke fun.... but they are examples, and you found them. Examples of humans practicing their deeply-held spiritual beliefs.

No argument, humans spiritual connection is sometimes misplaced. After all, there are humans in this thread who appear to have adopted science as their spiritual bedrock. If it doesn't conform to their peer-reviewed dogma, it can't be possible, and those who dare to challenge conventional wisdoms are chortled and hooted down as kooks.

 

[Agent.Tom]

....there are humans in this thread who appear to have adopted science as their spiritual bedrock. If it doesn't conform to their peer-reviewed dogma, it can't be possible, and those who dare to challenge conventional wisdoms are chortled and hooted down as kooks.

Very well said. Some of my favorite books are written by true scientists who were tossed out on their bums by the "scientific community" for daring to think outside the box, especially when it comes to their theories on so-called "spiritual" matters. "Spiritual" unfortunately including any thoughts favoring the universe simply being created. Being blackballed by the "scientific community" means your funding is cut off and the established leaders in the field rebuke you and denounce your work. You are no longer able to publish any relevant journals and you are left with only one option and that is to write a book and hope that some people read it and get something from it.

"Established science" and the established "community" represent the very meaning of hypocrisy; they set boundaries--dogmatic boundaries--which, once crossed, earn even (formerly) well-respected scientists a scarlet letter and a severely tarnished reputation. Hypocritical because it's the Atheists--predominant in this so-called "community"--who fault religious groups for being dogmatic and narrow-minded in precisely the same way.

Thanks for your refreshing post, boss. Someone actually gets it.

Thumbs up.

 

[Agent.Tom]

the facts are simple, you believe in something you cannot prove ,so to fit your skewed POV you attempt to change the rules.

After glossing over a couple of pages, it seems to me that you and Hollie have collectively decided that because you haven't personally witnessed any evidence for spiritual things, they should get summarily dumped in the "disproven" bucket. That seems like a stretch to me.

There are countless otherwise completely credible and respectable people who have had what they are absolutely certain are spiritual experiences. Your only evidence against their claims, is that you both personally haven't witnessed such a thing and (I presume) these claims can't be re-created for you on demand in a test lab.

I can completely understand your skepticism. I'm skeptical of most claims regarding ghosts as well. But I certainly can't call myself reasonable if I go around saying all claims involving the existence of ghosts have been "disproven." All I can do is say I will remain skeptical until I observe or experience something that changes my mind. In the same vein, you and Hollie--if you want to be considered rational and reasonable--should do the same when it comes to spiritual matters.

Is it too much to ask that you not claim something "disproven" when the only evidence you have in support for such a claim is your personal lack of evidence? It occurs to me that this might be more a matter of humility--and the lack thereof--than actual, reasonable debate.

 

[Avatar4321]

You make the amateurish mistake of convincing yourself that your claims and claims of others which you wish to be trus are true until disproved.

So yes, I have proved that talking to gawds is a fictitious claim. You haven't disproved that.

No, you have insisted this is the case because you say so. You've proven nothing. Every claim I have made, is supported with evidence, while every claim you make, is supported by your opinion. Realizing the total vulnerability of your unfounded opinions, you've decided to stave off this criticism by claiming MY arguments are because "I say so."

You're wrong, of course. It's been proven that you're a fraud. You're nonsensical "because I say so" claims are pointless. You demonstrated that convincingly with the amateurish and juvenile claim that others are under some obligation to disprove your belllicose statements.

In the absense of you offering any positive evidence for what amounts to mere speculation on your part, your subjective opinions are dismissed as nothing more than juvenile " because I say so", argumentation.

Don't feel bad about being just an average juvrnile. It means you have an opportunity to learn and Improve.

His "because I say so" claims? You're the one claiming to have done something simply because you've said so.

As for opportunities to learn and improve. That's the problem with Atheism and certain brands of agnosticism. When you claim you can't know something, you never learn it.

 

[Hollie]

No, you have insisted this is the case because you say so. You've proven nothing. Every claim I have made, is supported with evidence, while every claim you make, is supported by your opinion. Realizing the total vulnerability of your unfounded opinions, you've decided to stave off this criticism by claiming MY arguments are because "I say so."

You're wrong, of course. It's been proven that you're a fraud. You're nonsensical "because I say so" claims are pointless. You demonstrated that convincingly with the amateurish and juvenile claim that others are under some obligation to disprove your belllicose statements.

In the absense of you offering any positive evidence for what amounts to mere speculation on your part, your subjective opinions are dismissed as nothing more than juvenile " because I say so", argumentation.

Don't feel bad about being just an average juvrnile. It means you have an opportunity to learn and Improve.

His "because I say so" claims? You're the one claiming to have done something simply because you've said so.

As for opportunities to learn and improve. That's the problem with Atheism and certain brands of agnosticism. When you claim you can't know something, you never learn it.

Your comment is fairly typical of religious fundamentalists. You share a revulsion for anyone who doesn’t embrace your religious dogma.

Few fundies, even the most “fundamentalist of fundies” are very closely connected to the realities of science and knowledge. Their “foundations” can usually be found elsewhere in the form of parents, culture, or overriding fears and prejudices. The various fundie creation ministries are usually able to promote whatever propaganda they choose, put whatever spin they prefer on their falsified claims because they have an audience that is primarily “sold” on the snake oil that the fundie ministries are preaching. Fundies are happy to follow such direction as a sheep would follow a shepherd. In actuality, only a small fraction of them ever actually try for themselves to draw reasonable connections between the lies, conspiracy theories and falsifications promoted by their ministries and the verified science.

If they did so more often, there would be a lot more doubt.

 

[Hollie]

You're wrong, of course. (because I say so) It's been proven that you're a fraud. (because I say so)You're nonsensical "because I say so" claims are pointless.(because I say so) You demonstrated that convincingly with the amateurish and juvenile (because I say so)claim that others are under some obligation to disprove your belllicose (because I say so)statements.

In the absense of you offering any positive evidence for what amounts to mere speculation on your part, your subjective opinions are dismissed as nothing more than juvenile " because I say so", argumentation.

Don't feel bad about being just an average juvrnile. It means you have an opportunity to learn and Improve.

You have not proven a thing I have said to be wrong. IF ANY OF YOU had done so, you would be posting it in every post, so that everyone could see it for themselves. You've not proven I am a "fraud" whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. These are your OPINIONS, and it's kind of important for you to know, that not everyone shares YOUR opinion. Because it happens to be an opinion possessed by your brain, doesn't mean it is an empirical and unassailable truth, and fact of life. I did present evidence, I did make my case, it's all in the OP argument, and anyone is free to go read it for themselves. You have yet to counter my argument, and in fact, continue to reaffirm the first point of the argument, that some people refuse to accept spiritual evidence.

Funny stuff, Boss. You're ranting like a petulant child who has been scolded for bad behavior. It's quite revealing.

What is curious is your dogmatic insistence that you have actually proven anything with you continued "because I say so" argumentation. Your false assumptions begin with the "appeal to emotion" style you have continued throughout the thread followed by the "appeal to supernaturalism" argument. These are boilerplate creationist tactics.

I'm afraid your "because I say so", tactics have fallen the way of snake oil sales tactics. As we see so often with religious fundamentalists, appeals to fear, supernaturalism and your silly "spiritual nature", thingy are convenient detours around reason and rationality when your limitations cause you to not to care for the effort required to actually learn about a subject that might conflict with your fundamentalist beliefs.

Just don't expect your "because I say so" argument to hold merit in the grown-up world.

 

[Hollie]

My grandmother, who was born around the turn of the 20th century, always made sure that a knife was placed uder the birthing bed of any woman having a baby, because it would "cut the birthing pains". She was absolutely positive of this, and I am sure that she went to her grave in her late 80's believing it, just like she believed that God frequently spoke to Oral Roberts, and told him to tell her to send her money to him.

One is superstition and the other is gullibility. Both are strong evidence of human spiritual connection.

Ain't that the truth, Boss. Which is why your certainty of belief regarding matters of superstition and gullibility are so laughable.

 

[Wake]

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking, nowhere did I state that Hollie and Daws are "evil" or "chuckleheads"

Of course you didn't. That was my somewhat hyperbolic emphasis. The way you speak of them is very much as if you view them that way. You went on a tirade lambasting them. It was funny, a bit rude, maybe even a bit informative. All in all, it was pointless, and now we're just discussing this tangent for the sake of entertainment.

Again, I never claimed either person was evil, and I didn't insinuate it or infer it. If you perceived it, that is a problem with your perception, not what I said. I can't be responsible for how you perceive my posts. I didn't go on a tirade, I merely explained to you why this question will always be without resolution. What I said was blunt, candid, and honest, and I am sorry if that hurt someone's feelings.



YOU said: "In general I don't give a damn who they may be or what they've said in the past—all that matters is their abilities to understand, reason, respect, and self-control."

NOW you say: "Beside the issue." Is it "all that matters" or is it "beside the issue?"



But I am very objective, which is why I have avoided allowing religious theocratic debates to taint the question. I've objectively dismantled every point they've raised, using science, nature and logic. I would be happy to objectively evaluate ANY evidence they have that god doesn't exist, but they haven't presented any.



We're not debating crayons. The huff, snuff, puff and fluff, is coming from Hollie, daws, ed, numan, and a few others, who are religiously committed to their disbelief. I get that, and it's why I started my OP argument by addressing it right off the bat. These people are NEVER going to be convinced, not by physical evidence and certainly not with spiritual evidence they don't accept.

Repeatedly, they have attempted to change the topic to a religious debate, so they can bash and rail on the god they believe in, but are angry at, for whatever reason. In spite of numerous attempts, by me, to keep the topic clear of religious debate, they insist on dragging us right back to yet another and then another... it never ends. Daws scours the net for anti-Christian rhetoric to cut and paste, in order to dilute the thread with garbage that is totally unrelated to the topic, because it's the only way Daws knows how to combat what he can't make an argument against. Hollie can't get a sentence out, without confusing spirituality with religious belief. The two of them are on a mission to denounce God, at all costs, they have absolutely NO desire to have an honest discussion.

I wish you guys could pull up your big boy and big girl pants and not squabble like children over the bigger picture.

That's how wars begin, Boss, and people don't like wars.

Well you need to talk to Hollie and daws, and the rest of the disbelievers, because they are the source of the juvenile behavior. I am not squabbling, I am pointing out how they are devoid of argumentative points, and acting like petulant children.

OK, I understand better the kind of person you are based on your actions here. You hold yourself in the highest esteem and can do no wrong. Look, I get it. Hollie and daws alone are the bad guys, and you're, like, totally not a part of the problem at all. That, and you're willing to double down on your immature finger-pointing while refusing to take responsibility for your own actions. You may be right about Hollie and daws. You may not. But, don't pretend your own crap doesn't stink, either.

All you're doing is screaming "It's them! It's them! Don't look at me! It's them! Look at the disbelievers!!!"

Please. Stop. You three have been less than civil during your discussion of this issue, which has been beaten into oblivion. If I didn't know better, you three are using this topic as a way to take petty & personal swipes at each other. And what really galls me is that you still refuse to acknowledge how annoying your personal and indirect swipes were at your enemies when I simply said: "I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.."

It's stupid how you then used that as a canvas to take your stupid little potshots at them, and then when it's pointed out how unsporting that is you actually try to defend your actions as if you think I won't see right through you. If you were wise, you would have responded to my actual comment with something that actually pertains to what I said, instead of repeatedly smearing them as if that'd pass as some sort of half-assed response to me. I make a comment about the immortality of lemonade, and you use it to say how dislikeable and dubious certain others are. That's essentially what you've done, and it's both annoying and amusing in the strangest way, especially considering your inability to admit when you've made mistakes. Leave your personal crap out of it if you're going to respond to an on-topic comment.

You are a moron.

Maybe your gawds are too busy with their administrative duties?

Or maybe, you're just a poster child for bluster and pretention.

I don't give a good goddamn WHAT you see, jackass. It's not my problem what your ignorant closed-minded ass sees and doesn't see. You must apparently believe YOU are GOD, judging by your self-aggrandizement.

wrong again ! my mind is open and it perceives that you are selling snake oil.

Look at you. You're all arguing like butthurt, angry children who are mad that they can't get their ways. Gee, youwerecreated, you're making laconic people look bad. Look at little miss Hollie, all sarcastic and wound up. Boss, with his superiority complex, argues with the self-righteousness of an angry Frasier Crane. And daws, for all you intellectual bluster you'd think you'd work on your spelling and grammar.

You've turned this discussion into nothing more than your petty little sandbox where you can attack and snipe the other children because you think you can. This isn't about you. It's not about your personal vendettas, your butthurt prescriptions, or your need to beat your opponents into submission. It's about whether there's definitive proof that God exists. You want a serious discussion with a lot of thought and an equal amount of respect and civility? Clean up your messes, and get back to me when you're ready to actually converse on God like grownups.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Of course you didn't. That was my somewhat hyperbolic emphasis. The way you speak of them is very much as if you view them that way. You went on a tirade lambasting them. It was funny, a bit rude, maybe even a bit informative. All in all, it was pointless, and now we're just discussing this tangent for the sake of entertainment.

Again, I never claimed either person was evil, and I didn't insinuate it or infer it. If you perceived it, that is a problem with your perception, not what I said. I can't be responsible for how you perceive my posts. I didn't go on a tirade, I merely explained to you why this question will always be without resolution. What I said was blunt, candid, and honest, and I am sorry if that hurt someone's feelings.



YOU said: "In general I don't give a damn who they may be or what they've said in the past—all that matters is their abilities to understand, reason, respect, and self-control."

NOW you say: "Beside the issue." Is it "all that matters" or is it "beside the issue?"



But I am very objective, which is why I have avoided allowing religious theocratic debates to taint the question. I've objectively dismantled every point they've raised, using science, nature and logic. I would be happy to objectively evaluate ANY evidence they have that god doesn't exist, but they haven't presented any.



We're not debating crayons. The huff, snuff, puff and fluff, is coming from Hollie, daws, ed, numan, and a few others, who are religiously committed to their disbelief. I get that, and it's why I started my OP argument by addressing it right off the bat. These people are NEVER going to be convinced, not by physical evidence and certainly not with spiritual evidence they don't accept.



Well you need to talk to Hollie and daws, and the rest of the disbelievers, because they are the source of the juvenile behavior. I am not squabbling, I am pointing out how they are devoid of argumentative points, and acting like petulant children.

OK, I understand better the kind of person you are based on your actions here. You hold yourself in the highest esteem and can do no wrong. Look, I get it. Hollie and daws alone are the bad guys, and you're, like, totally not a part of the problem at all. That, and you're willing to double down on your immature finger-pointing while refusing to take responsibility for your own actions. You may be right about Hollie and daws. You may not. But, don't pretend your own crap doesn't stink, either.

All you're doing is screaming "It's them! It's them! Don't look at me! It's them! Look at the disbelievers!!!"

Please. Stop. You three have been less than civil during your discussion of this issue, which has been beaten into oblivion. If I didn't know better, you three are using this topic as a way to take petty & personal swipes at each other. And what really galls me is that you still refuse to acknowledge how annoying your personal and indirect swipes were at your enemies when I simply said: "I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.."

It's stupid how you then used that as a canvas to take your stupid little potshots at them, and then when it's pointed out how unsporting that is you actually try to defend your actions as if you think I won't see right through you. If you were wise, you would have responded to my actual comment with something that actually pertains to what I said, instead of repeatedly smearing them as if that'd pass as some sort of half-assed response to me. I make a comment about the immortality of lemonade, and you use it to say how dislikeable and dubious certain others are. That's essentially what you've done, and it's both annoying and amusing in the strangest way, especially considering your inability to admit when you've made mistakes. Leave your personal crap out of it if you're going to respond to an on-topic comment.

I don't give a good goddamn WHAT you see, jackass. It's not my problem what your ignorant closed-minded ass sees and doesn't see. You must apparently believe YOU are GOD, judging by your self-aggrandizement.

wrong again ! my mind is open and it perceives that you are selling snake oil.

Look at you. You're all arguing like butthurt, angry children who are mad that they can't get their ways. Gee, youwerecreated, you're making laconic people look bad. Look at little miss Hollie, all sarcastic and wound up. Boss, with his superiority complex, argues with the self-righteousness of an angry Frasier Crane. And daws, for all you intellectual bluster you'd think you'd work on your spelling and grammar.

You've turned this discussion into nothing more than your petty little sandbox where you can attack and snipe the other children because you think you can. This isn't about you. It's not about your personal vendettas, your butthurt prescriptions, or your need to beat your opponents into submission. It's about whether there's definitive proof that God exists. You want a serious discussion with a lot of thought and an equal amount of respect and civility? Clean up your messes, and get back to me when you're ready to actually converse on God like grownups.

I am sorry I am a little rude sometimes. I have tried to be civil with Hollie and Daws it just does not work. Yes I have turned the tables on them and have given back what I have gotten. Someone calling you slapdick and those sorts of names then someone constantly talking about my background in a subject they know nothing about gets a little old so then yes I do get pleasure out of revealing their ignorance and dishonesty.

 

[Hollie]

Look at little miss Hollie, all sarcastic and wound up.

Wound up? Nah. Just having a little fun with the boy.

Sarcastic? Yes. I've found that sarcasm is among the most ingenious of literary devices.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look at little miss Hollie, all sarcastic and wound up.

Wound up? Nah. Just having a little fun with the boy.

Sarcastic? Yes. I've found that sarcasm is among the most ingenious of literary devices.

You are mistaken because you were seen as a Troll in the understanding Islam forum and this one as well.

You make the common mistake of trying to debate something you don't understand.

 

[Hollie]

Look at little miss Hollie, all sarcastic and wound up.

Wound up? Nah. Just having a little fun with the boy.

Sarcastic? Yes. I've found that sarcasm is among the most ingenious of literary devices.

You are mistaken because you were seen as a Troll in the understanding Islam forum and this one as well.

You make the common mistake of trying to debate something you don't understand.

I've refuted all of the falsified "quotes" you have mined from Harun Yahya and your various creation ministries.

I've found that facts have always sent you packing while you scour fundie websites for more lies.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wound up? Nah. Just having a little fun with the boy.

Sarcastic? Yes. I've found that sarcasm is among the most ingenious of literary devices.

You are mistaken because you were seen as a Troll in the understanding Islam forum and this one as well.

You make the common mistake of trying to debate something you don't understand.

I've refuted all of the falsified "quotes" you have mined from Harun Yahya and your various creation ministries.

I've found that facts have always sent you packing while you scour fundie websites for mire lies.

You think repeating the same nonsense adds validity to your claims ? Give me a list of falsified quotes I have used. Then show me how they were refuted.

 

[Hollie]

You are mistaken because you were seen as a Troll in the understanding Islam forum and this one as well.

You make the common mistake of trying to debate something you don't understand.

I've refuted all of the falsified "quotes" you have mined from Harun Yahya and your various creation ministries.

I've found that facts have always sent you packing while you scour fundie websites for mire lies.

You think repeating the same nonsense adds validity to your claims ? Give me a list of falsified quotes I have used. Then show me how they were refuted.

Refuting your falsified "quotes" was actually a simple matter.

It was also interesting to note that you posted the same falsified 'quotes" on more than one occasion. You had obviously forgotten that you were caught in an earlier lie but tried to lie again.

Why don't you find those lies you posted and link them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I've refuted all of the falsified "quotes" you have mined from Harun Yahya and your various creation ministries.

I've found that facts have always sent you packing while you scour fundie websites for mire lies.

You think repeating the same nonsense adds validity to your claims ? Give me a list of falsified quotes I have used. Then show me how they were refuted.

Refuting your falsified "quotes" was actually a simple matter.

It was also interesting to note that you posted the same falsified 'quotes" on more than one occasion. You had obviously forgotten that you were caught in an earlier lie but tried to lie again.

Why don't you find those lies you posted and link them.

You made the accusation now back it up. You must have me mistaken with yourself and daws.

 

[Youwerecreated]

HOLLIE,I will be waiting for the quotes I used, and how you supposedly refuted those quotes.

 

[Hollie]

You think repeating the same nonsense adds validity to your claims ? Give me a list of falsified quotes I have used. Then show me how they were refuted.

Refuting your falsified "quotes" was actually a simple matter.

It was also interesting to note that you posted the same falsified 'quotes" on more than one occasion. You had obviously forgotten that you were caught in an earlier lie but tried to lie again.

Why don't you find those lies you posted and link them.

You made the accusation now back it up. You must have me mistaken with yourself and daws.

Go to the "Creationist" thread. You can find them.

 

[Hollie]

HOLLIE,I will be waiting for the quotes I used, and how you supposedly refuted those quotes.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5781712-post6817.html

Here's one. Even on a smart phone these are easy to find.

Do you recall your "quotes" that were mined from the ICR?

Falsified "quotes" by Niles Eldridge and others that you routinely and dishonestly dumped in the thread. You have forgotten that your falsified "quotes", at least a dozen, were expised as frauds.

 

[Hollie]

HOLLIE,I will be waiting for the quotes I used, and how you supposedly refuted those quotes.

Here's another

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6666609

Would you like more? No problem.

You can thank me later.