Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

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.

I am familiar with the site but what quote did I use that was refuted ? and do you believe everyone who attacks creationists ?

You're silly.

 

[Hollie]

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

Even when you were caught in a lie, you tried to lie you way out of your lie.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6668336-post14182.html

You're welcome. More?

"Shirley" you don't think we're done yet.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

Even when you were caught in a lie, you tried to lie you way out of your lie.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6668336-post14182.html

You're welcome. More?

"Shirley" you don't think we're done yet.

You're such a silly fool.

Hollie it's a proven fact Finches were produced through micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution that is not macro-evolution dummy. They are still birds and they are still finches lol.

SMALL CHANGES WITHIN A FAMILY IS NOT LARGE SCALE EVOLUTION GOT IT !

 

[BreezeWood]

... and your silly "spiritual nature", thingy are convenient detours around reason and rationality

Surly Hollie, what living creature does not have a Spiritual Nature ?

why would there be a need for reason and rationality without it - for discovering the unknown and discerning Good from Evil?

Agent.Tom:

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.

"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.


that simply is not true - or rather religious text has been proven otherwise and the their community is irrationally unwilling to accept the results.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie you still have yet to show a quote I used and how it has been refuted.

 

[Surfer]

Some of the best doctors are Christians and Jews.
Some great preachers have degrees in science.
Some of the really good scientists are/were Christians and Jews.
I don't know much but I do know Jesus Christ died for my sins, God is The Great I Am, the earth is round and science is awesome.

 

[Hollie]

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

Even when you were caught in a lie, you tried to lie you way out of your lie.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6668336-post14182.html

You're welcome. More?

"Shirley" you don't think we're done yet.

You're such a silly fool.

Hollie it's a proven fact Finches were produced through micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution that is not macro-evolution dummy. They are still birds and they are still finches lol.

Those falsified 'quotes" you posted are once again coming back to haunt you.

How strange that you had forgotten about the lies you posted and which are again exposing you as a liar.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Even when you were caught in a lie, you tried to lie you way out of your lie.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6668336-post14182.html

You're welcome. More?

"Shirley" you don't think we're done yet.

You're such a silly fool.

Hollie it's a proven fact Finches were produced through micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution that is not macro-evolution dummy. They are still birds and they are still finches lol.

Those falsified 'quotes" you posted are once again coming back to haunt you.

How strange that you had forgotten about the lies you posted and which are again exposing you as a liar.

You have yet to show one you ignoramus.

 

[Hollie]

You're such a silly fool.

Hollie it's a proven fact Finches were produced through micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution that is not macro-evolution dummy. They are still birds and they are still finches lol.

Those falsified 'quotes" you posted are once again coming back to haunt you.

How strange that you had forgotten about the lies you posted and which are again exposing you as a liar.

You have yet to show one you ignoramus.

You're angry. I understand you had hoped your history of lies would not come back to haunt you.

They did. Does Harun Yahya pay you by the falsified quote?

 

[daws101]

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.

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

No, your mind is CLOSED to any possibility of spiritual nature. You've repeatedly made this clear in the thread. "Snake oil" is yet another smug insult, designed to imply that what I have presented is phony and fake. You've not proven it to be, you are simply claiming it is, and we're all supposed to genuflect toward your amazing brilliant wisdom.

Meanwhile, I have presented billions of human testimonials, who attest to strength and blessings received from spiritual nature, I have presented scientific evidence of animal behaviors, and how they don't exist because they are made up, or as placebos for knowledge and security blankets for irrational fears. You've not been able to counter that point, you continue to ignore it and try desperately to derail the thread topic, so no one can have a dialogue.

billions my ass! you've present your opinion on on the subject ..

 

[Hollie]

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

Pure comedy gold.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6668480-post14186.html

 

[Youwerecreated]

Those falsified 'quotes" you posted are once again coming back to haunt you.

How strange that you had forgotten about the lies you posted and which are again exposing you as a liar.

You have yet to show one you ignoramus.

You're angry. I understand you had hoped your history of lies would not come back to haunt you.

They did. Does Harun Yahya pay you by the falsified quote?

I am still waiting Ruggedtouch.

 

[daws101]

Daws I will give you hint we discussed it earlier in the thread and you don't believe in intelligent design.

we did and like always you were wrong.
I don't believe in intelligent design because there is no evidence for it. if there were intelligent design,I would not need to believe:be·lieve [bih-leev] Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
verb (used with object)
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

because it would be fact.

Daws didn't you claim to have an engineering degree but yet you had to look up the term Polar spherical triangle ?if you had an engineering degree you would have taken Trigonometry and would have been familiar with the term. However you would have still not known the chemical Molecule because I don't think you would of had Biochemistry.

Anyways you should have done what Hollie did and avoided it like the plague.

too many meds at dinner ?
this answer has nothing to do with the statement.
and no slapdick I never "claimed" an engineering degree because I have one!
as always you're making false assumptions.
I looked up Polar spherical triangle because I'd never seen it used in a chemistry context.
btw you've not produced it yet.
I'm highly familiar with Polar spherical triangle in a design context.
so once again in your quest to find fault with others the fault is in you.

 

[Boss]

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.

Regardless of how your imagination perceives my tone, I am neither angry or petulant. You should read it again, and this time, imagine me as a condescending professor, making you feel very small at mid-semester, for the inadequate work you've turned in so far.

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.

Insisting I have proven something? Where? I stated very clearly in the OP, the question of god's existence can't be proven to you. Not in 3k posts, not in 10k posts, not EVER. You are one of those who reject spiritual nature, and I acknowledged you in the first paragraph. I've never claimed to be able to prove anything to you, and openly admitted it was impossible to ever prove god to you.

You've misinterpreted my argument completely, if you thought it was me trying to prove something to you. Perhaps you think so highly of yourself, you believe that I am trying to "win your soul" or something? That I have some "calling" to bring you over to God? I assure you, I couldn't care less. I actually think God is coming out on the better end of the deal by you not believing. I know I would be better off if I didn't have to keep correcting your wrong-headed assumptions and assertions. Why can't you just not believe in me? Just pretend this thread is a figment of your imagination, caused by your massively complex brain? It's not really here, you're just weak and need some security blanket to ease your fears, so you've made this all up in your head!

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.

As the OP shows, and everyone can read, I have laid out a case, complete with physical and spiritual evidence to support it. There is nothing in my argument which is there because I proclaim it has to be so, it is all supported by either science or spiritual evidence. Meanwhile, you've presented nothing from science to disprove God, you continue to use pejorative context when speaking of spirituality, and act as though you have some hubris enlightenment the rest of us don't have, and are too ignorant to gain. It is totally hypocritical for you to be accusing others of making "because I say so" arguments, when that is essentially ALL you have presented.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

Pure comedy gold.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6668480-post14186.html

Hollie punctuated equilibrium refutes gradualism it is stasis in the fossil record.

In other words organisms appear to have suddenly appeared not that they gradually evolved over a large time span that your theory say's happened.

I ask you what theory of evolution do you believe lol ?

 

[daws101]

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.

thanks ..but you assume too much.

 

[daws101]

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.

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.

the above statement is false.

 

[Youwerecreated]

we did and like always you were wrong.
I don't believe in intelligent design because there is no evidence for it. if there were intelligent design,I would not need to believe:be·lieve [bih-leev] Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
verb (used with object)
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

because it would be fact.

Daws didn't you claim to have an engineering degree but yet you had to look up the term Polar spherical triangle ?if you had an engineering degree you would have taken Trigonometry and would have been familiar with the term. However you would have still not known the chemical Molecule because I don't think you would of had Biochemistry.

Anyways you should have done what Hollie did and avoided it like the plague.

too many meds at dinner ?
this answer has nothing to do with the statement.
and no slapdick I never "claimed" an engineering degree because I have one!
as always you're making false assumptions.
I looked up Polar spherical triangle because I'd never seen it used in a chemistry context.
btw you've not produced it yet.
I'm highly familiar with Polar spherical triangle in a design context.
so once again in your quest to find fault with others the fault is in you.

You're contradicting yourself. If you knew what it was why couldn't you point out the picture of the molecule that was is in that form ?

 

[hobelim]

No other rational explanation exists for human spirituality, other than the belief that something greater than self exists. I never claimed definitive proof of a specific kind of god, or god of a specific incarnation. Only that something greater than self (god) must exist, or we couldn't and wouldn't exist as an inherently spiritual species. The fact that we've always existed as spiritual worshiping creatures, is definitive proof, whether you believe it or not.

No, bec ause there are other explanations for why we are spiritual.

You ignored them, but several posters provided them.

Therefore, since there ARE other explanations for WHY we are spiritual, it cannot be LOGICALLY SAID that spirituality is definitive proof of god. But you don't follow.

No, there have been no other explanations for spirituality, other than the belief in something greater than self, which requires our spiritual understanding. Spirituality, coupled with the very important fact that we're inherently tied to this attribute, is definitive proof that something greater than self must exist, otherwise, this attribute would have been discarded as unimportant to the species, and it hasn't.

I told you on the first or second day that you posted this nonsense that just because people heard thunder and thought God was bowling in the sky is not evidence of anything except ignorance fueled by a very vivid imagination which is simply a function of the mind attempting to resolve the fear of the unknown.

 

[daws101]

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

Pure comedy gold.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6668480-post14186.html

Hollie punctuated equilibrium refutes gradualism it is stasis in the fossil record.

In other words organisms appear to have suddenly appeared not that they gradually evolved over a large time span that your theory say's happened.

I ask you what theory of evolution do you believe lol ?

another so what statement by Ywc ...
there is no evidence linking punctuated equilibrium to creationism.
punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism:the actual differences between the various evolution theorists were not as large as they were made to appear. Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

Misconceptions

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with quantum evolution, saltationism, catastrophism, and with the phenomenon of mass extinction, and is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism. It is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism (in the strict and literal sense of biological continuity). This is because even though the changes are considered to be occurring relatively quickly (relative to the species geological existence), changes are still occurring incrementally, with no great changes from one generation to the next. This can be understood by considering an example: Suppose the average length of a limb on a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches, a large amount) over 70,000 years (a geologically short period of time). If the average generation is seven years, then the given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. Thus, on average, the limb grows at the minute, gradual rate of only 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000 generations).

Punctuated Equilibrium is frequently contrasted with phyletic gradualism, though critics, notably Richard Dawkins, have argued that phyletic gradualism is merely a straw man. Eldredge and Gould's advocacy of the theory brought punctuated equilibrium much attention, especially since they phrased it in terms that made it appear to be a radical re-thinking of evolutionary theory. The resulting debate stirred up in evolutionary circles was misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis." Some detractors among evolutionary biologists wryly termed punctuated equilibrium "evolution by jerks." (It is now sometimes referred to by the slang "punk eek," with no negative connotations implied.) The actual differences between the various evolution theorists were not as large as they were made to appear. Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.
PALEAUTONOMY.COM: Evolution - Punctuated Equilibrium

liar liar pants on fire!