Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[edthecynic]

Wrong again, his creation transcends the physical. Long after Bach physically died he continues to move people spiritually, not physically, with his spirit still alive in his music.

I proved what I set out to prove, that existence begets essence. It is not my obligation to disprove your claims, the onus is on you to prove your claim that spirituality precedes existence, something you have yet to do. You have only pontificated that it is assumed. An assumption is not a proof. You then claim that I do not accept spiritual evidence even though I have repeatedly given you evidence of the spiritual created after man's existence, which you reject as spiritual evidence. Obviously you don't even pay attention to what YOU say, let alone what anyone else says.

Did you just actually make an argument that spiritual nature exists? That's a very important first step in understanding the definitive spiritual evidence. What you proved, is that some humans are capable of moving other humans spiritually. I don't have a bit of trouble with that argument, I think it is perfectly valid. I also have no problem with "existence begets essence" but the spiritual realm exists in a non-physical state. You see... "to exist" means two different things when talking about "physical" and "spiritual" so we have to make sure we are clear, a spiritual existence does not have physical characteristics or properties. Like when you are "moved" by Bach, there are no "physical" properties for this.

Since we are getting all philosophical and technical, I would go so far as to say, a spiritual nature most likely existed BEFORE a physical universe. I say "most likely" because we can't be for certain, it depends upon whether the Big Bang actually happened. If that is the case, something had to cause it. No physical universe existed, so nothing in the physical universe could have caused it.

Like I said, you don't even know what people have posted because you have decided no one but you knows anything about the spiritual realm, which you know nothing about. I had to teach you examples of the spiritual.

Sa far as the Big Bang, you know less about the physical than you do about the spiritual, and you know nothing about the spiritual.

The Big Bang happened, there is residual microwave evidence of it. Something physical existed before the Big Bang, the energy that went bang. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. What began at the Big Bang was time, physical energy always existed.

 

[edthecynic]

Could not find the article I read yet but it was from a couple of years ago.

Speaking in tongues: A Scientific study.wmv - YouTube

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/07brain.html?_r=0

First of all, you claimed these people spoke REAL languages, and you named 2 then added a 3rd. The people in the video spoke no KNOWN language and admitted such claiming God would understand them.

But more importantly, as a physicist, it was obvious to me that the claimed "scientific" study was not the least bit scientific. It lacked a control!!! There should have been a brain scan of an Atheist talking gibberish! I'm guessing the scan would be identical to the fake tongue talkers.

You're ignoring the fact the test was not just done on one person but several. I would find that interesting if the test was done on an atheist but it does not make their case any weaker because they didn't test an Atheist.

I have not been able to locate the study I read but in this case it may be no known language however the article I read about the study done they did confirm three known languages. Did you notice in the video where it showed that the brain revealed different activity when they spoke their known language from when they were speaking in tongues and someone else was supposedly speaking for them.

What kind of explanation can be given for the different brain activity ?

That is why you need the non-believing control group's brain scans! If they match the tongue talkers then it it shows that's the way the brain looks when anyone talks gibberish. That is why it was a useless "study" without the control group.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wrong again, his creation transcends the physical. Long after Bach physically died he continues to move people spiritually, not physically, with his spirit still alive in his music.

I proved what I set out to prove, that existence begets essence. It is not my obligation to disprove your claims, the onus is on you to prove your claim that spirituality precedes existence, something you have yet to do. You have only pontificated that it is assumed. An assumption is not a proof. You then claim that I do not accept spiritual evidence even though I have repeatedly given you evidence of the spiritual created after man's existence, which you reject as spiritual evidence. Obviously you don't even pay attention to what YOU say, let alone what anyone else says.

Did you just actually make an argument that spiritual nature exists? That's a very important first step in understanding the definitive spiritual evidence. What you proved, is that some humans are capable of moving other humans spiritually. I don't have a bit of trouble with that argument, I think it is perfectly valid. I also have no problem with "existence begets essence" but the spiritual realm exists in a non-physical state. You see... "to exist" means two different things when talking about "physical" and "spiritual" so we have to make sure we are clear, a spiritual existence does not have physical characteristics or properties. Like when you are "moved" by Bach, there are no "physical" properties for this.

Since we are getting all philosophical and technical, I would go so far as to say, a spiritual nature most likely existed BEFORE a physical universe. I say "most likely" because we can't be for certain, it depends upon whether the Big Bang actually happened. If that is the case, something had to cause it. No physical universe existed, so nothing in the physical universe could have caused it.

Like I said, you don't even know what people have posted because you have decided no one but you knows anything about the spiritual realm, which you know nothing about. I had to teach you examples of the spiritual.

Sa far as the Big Bang, you know less about the physical than you do about the spiritual, and you know nothing about the spiritual.

The Big Bang happened, there is residual microwave evidence of it. Something physical existed before the Big Bang, the energy that went bang. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. What began at the Big Bang was time, physical energy always existed.

Yes energy has always existed that energy would be the creator. Just a question, is a fire energy can it be created and then destroyed ?

It takes a leap of faith to believe that the universe is still expanding after 20 billion years or however long they are claiming the happened. Not only that but now that we know the universe is expanding and speeding up after slowing down it's rediculous.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=expanding-universe-slows-then-speeds

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you a "thread-sniper"? If not, that should be what your behavior is described as. You don't participate in the debate, at all, you simply dole out your evaluations when you think your friends win after all the action has already taken place. In this context, you'd be as delusional as boss for thinking he had in any way won this. Looks like you don't have the balls to enter the debate yourself, so you stand behind somebody else, and every once in a while, peer over their shoulder to shout things at the opponent, and then recede. It's totally pathetic, but quite entertaining.

I won this when I posted the thread, dummy, where have you been? Oh yeah, that's right, you've been here distracting and diverting, being an obtuse little twit, and misquoting everything you read. As I said way back, your strategy was to keep obfuscating, distracting, diverting, and being a twit, until your calvary arrived, and we see that they have. So now, you have people to slap you on the back and tell you how well you handled me, and you can chortle back and forth like pre-teen school girls, about us "delusional believers."

Now that you have reinforcements, you feel confident enough to strut around claiming you've refuted my points and defeated my arguments, and we're just having the after-party. I've about figured out how this works... you see, nobody is going to read through 10 or 20 pages of your distractions and diversions, they read the OP, and then see where you're doing victory laps, and mayyyyybe... you are hoping, they believe that you have defeated my argument! Because, substance wise, you have presented very little.

You are VERY delusional in almost every respect. All I know is, I am not going to play your games.

Typical reaction of someone that can't take the heat.

 

[G.T.]

nah ywc, God was n ot proven here in this thread bud. So the delusional are those claiming it so.

 

[Boss]

Are you a "thread-sniper"? If not, that should be what your behavior is described as. You don't participate in the debate, at all, you simply dole out your evaluations when you think your friends win after all the action has already taken place. In this context, you'd be as delusional as boss for thinking he had in any way won this. Looks like you don't have the balls to enter the debate yourself, so you stand behind somebody else, and every once in a while, peer over their shoulder to shout things at the opponent, and then recede. It's totally pathetic, but quite entertaining.

I won this when I posted the thread, dummy, where have you been? Oh yeah, that's right, you've been here distracting and diverting, being an obtuse little twit, and misquoting everything you read. As I said way back, your strategy was to keep obfuscating, distracting, diverting, and being a twit, until your calvary arrived, and we see that they have. So now, you have people to slap you on the back and tell you how well you handled me, and you can chortle back and forth like pre-teen school girls, about us "delusional believers."

Now that you have reinforcements, you feel confident enough to strut around claiming you've refuted my points and defeated my arguments, and we're just having the after-party. I've about figured out how this works... you see, nobody is going to read through 10 or 20 pages of your distractions and diversions, they read the OP, and then see where you're doing victory laps, and mayyyyybe... you are hoping, they believe that you have defeated my argument! Because, substance wise, you have presented very little.

You are VERY delusional in almost every respect. All I know is, I am not going to play your games.

Oh I know, I am delusional, religious people are delusional, spiritual people are delusional, anyone who doesn't agree with you is delusional... I get the picture. That is basically THE counter-argument to my OP. The problem is, us "delusionals" make up about 95% of the human race, and you're with the 5% who claim to believe in nothing.

My "game" is to present a compelling argument and defend it's points, which I have done. Your "game" has been to try and "win one for the team" and since I am doing so well at defending the argument, you've decided to pretend you've won and are now "moving on."

This marks the second, or maybe third time, you have attempted this. Let us hope, this really is your swan song, because I am starting to feel sorry for you here.

 

[Boss]

Wrong again, his creation transcends the physical. Long after Bach physically died he continues to move people spiritually, not physically, with his spirit still alive in his music.

I proved what I set out to prove, that existence begets essence. It is not my obligation to disprove your claims, the onus is on you to prove your claim that spirituality precedes existence, something you have yet to do. You have only pontificated that it is assumed. An assumption is not a proof. You then claim that I do not accept spiritual evidence even though I have repeatedly given you evidence of the spiritual created after man's existence, which you reject as spiritual evidence. Obviously you don't even pay attention to what YOU say, let alone what anyone else says.

Did you just actually make an argument that spiritual nature exists? That's a very important first step in understanding the definitive spiritual evidence. What you proved, is that some humans are capable of moving other humans spiritually. I don't have a bit of trouble with that argument, I think it is perfectly valid. I also have no problem with "existence begets essence" but the spiritual realm exists in a non-physical state. You see... "to exist" means two different things when talking about "physical" and "spiritual" so we have to make sure we are clear, a spiritual existence does not have physical characteristics or properties. Like when you are "moved" by Bach, there are no "physical" properties for this.

Since we are getting all philosophical and technical, I would go so far as to say, a spiritual nature most likely existed BEFORE a physical universe. I say "most likely" because we can't be for certain, it depends upon whether the Big Bang actually happened. If that is the case, something had to cause it. No physical universe existed, so nothing in the physical universe could have caused it.

Like I said, you don't even know what people have posted because you have decided no one but you knows anything about the spiritual realm, which you know nothing about. I had to teach you examples of the spiritual.

Sa far as the Big Bang, you know less about the physical than you do about the spiritual, and you know nothing about the spiritual.

The Big Bang happened, there is residual microwave evidence of it. Something physical existed before the Big Bang, the energy that went bang. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. What began at the Big Bang was time, physical energy always existed.

The physical universe didn't exist before the Big Bang created it. As for your argument that "physical energy" caused the Big Bang, you'll need to provide evidence of this. Oh... and the "evidence" is not that YOU proclaimed it, sorry.

 

[HUGGY]

I won this when I posted the thread, dummy, where have you been? Oh yeah, that's right, you've been here distracting and diverting, being an obtuse little twit, and misquoting everything you read. As I said way back, your strategy was to keep obfuscating, distracting, diverting, and being a twit, until your calvary arrived, and we see that they have. So now, you have people to slap you on the back and tell you how well you handled me, and you can chortle back and forth like pre-teen school girls, about us "delusional believers."

Now that you have reinforcements, you feel confident enough to strut around claiming you've refuted my points and defeated my arguments, and we're just having the after-party. I've about figured out how this works... you see, nobody is going to read through 10 or 20 pages of your distractions and diversions, they read the OP, and then see where you're doing victory laps, and mayyyyybe... you are hoping, they believe that you have defeated my argument! Because, substance wise, you have presented very little.

You are VERY delusional in almost every respect. All I know is, I am not going to play your games.

Oh I know, I am delusional, religious people are delusional, spiritual people are delusional, anyone who doesn't agree with you is delusional... I get the picture. That is basically THE counter-argument to my OP. The problem is, us "delusionals" make up about 95% of the human race, and you're with the 5% who claim to believe in nothing.

My "game" is to present a compelling argument and defend it's points, which I have done. Your "game" has been to try and "win one for the team" and since I am doing so well at defending the argument, you've decided to pretend you've won and are now "moving on."

This marks the second, or maybe third time, you have attempted this. Let us hope, this really is your swan song, because I am starting to feel sorry for you here.

Oh I know, I am delusional, religious people are delusional, spiritual people are delusional

I agree with you. Finally.

 

[HUGGY]

Like I said, you don't even know what people have posted because you have decided no one but you knows anything about the spiritual realm, which you know nothing about. I had to teach you examples of the spiritual.

Sa far as the Big Bang, you know less about the physical than you do about the spiritual, and you know nothing about the spiritual.

The Big Bang happened, there is residual microwave evidence of it. Something physical existed before the Big Bang, the energy that went bang. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. What began at the Big Bang was time, physical energy always existed.

The physical universe didn't exist before the Big Bang created it. As for your argument that "physical energy" caused the Big Bang, you'll need to provide evidence of this. Oh... and the "evidence" is not that YOU proclaimed it, sorry.

I just watched a program on the NatGeo channel where they said that they don't know what existed before the BB. You should give them a call and give them a head's up!

The "what was/is/will be after this/then" argument extends infinitely forever in both directions of the timeline we occupy. Maybe existance with a "start/finish" is just purely a human concept and we are incapable of considering any other possibility. There is no way of looking back before the Bang and no way to guess what "Is" after the projected Big Collapse. Most human beings have a little trouble just reflecting on how insignificant we really are in the big picture.

 

[Boss]

I just watched a program on the NatGeo channel where they said that they don't know what existed before the BB. You should give them a call and give them a head's up!

They haven't consulted with edthecynic, he says it was physical energy. I disagree, I am with NatGeo, they don't know what existed before the Big Bang. You'll notice, I said it was "most likely" the Big Bang was created by spiritual forces, since the physical universe didn't exist yet.

Now, if you happen to not believe in spiritual forces, you have a problem here.

 

[Boss]

The "what was/is/will be after this/then" argument extends infinitely forever in both directions of the timeline we occupy. Maybe existance with a "start/finish" is just purely a human concept and we are incapable of considering any other possibility. There is no way of looking back before the Bang and no way to guess what "Is" after the projected Big Collapse. Most human beings have a little trouble just reflecting on how insignificant we really are in the big picture.

If fascinates me, you can accept that mankind just isn't capable of comprehending existence of the universe, what was, is, will be after this/then... yet somehow, you know beyond any doubt, there is no spiritual realm that man can't comprehend.

 

[newpolitics]

What's hilarious about this little situation we have here, is that if you really had proof of the spiritual, you would have done what millennia of the most brilliant philosophical minds- St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes- couldn't do, and you would be catapulted into fame for the rest of recorded human history. Yet... Here you are, on an Internet debate forum, beating your chest.. It's depressing to see such grandiose self-delusion.

I implore you to run this by a philosophy professor. He or she will laugh his or her face off.

 

[newpolitics]

I won this when I posted the thread, dummy, where have you been? Oh yeah, that's right, you've been here distracting and diverting, being an obtuse little twit, and misquoting everything you read. As I said way back, your strategy was to keep obfuscating, distracting, diverting, and being a twit, until your calvary arrived, and we see that they have. So now, you have people to slap you on the back and tell you how well you handled me, and you can chortle back and forth like pre-teen school girls, about us "delusional believers."

Now that you have reinforcements, you feel confident enough to strut around claiming you've refuted my points and defeated my arguments, and we're just having the after-party. I've about figured out how this works... you see, nobody is going to read through 10 or 20 pages of your distractions and diversions, they read the OP, and then see where you're doing victory laps, and mayyyyybe... you are hoping, they believe that you have defeated my argument! Because, substance wise, you have presented very little.

You are VERY delusional in almost every respect. All I know is, I am not going to play your games.

Oh I know, I am delusional, religious people are delusional, spiritual people are delusional, anyone who doesn't agree with you is delusional... I get the picture. That is basically THE counter-argument to my OP. The problem is, us "delusionals" make up about 95% of the human race, and you're with the 5% who claim to believe in nothing.

My "game" is to present a compelling argument and defend it's points, which I have done. Your "game" has been to try and "win one for the team" and since I am doing so well at defending the argument, you've decided to pretend you've won and are now "moving on."

This marks the second, or maybe third time, you have attempted this. Let us hope, this really is your swan song, because I am starting to feel sorry for you here.

You simply are refusing to acknowledge reality. I have successfully refuted your argument on a number of different levels, citing blatant logical fallacies, which is all I need to do to show your proof is not proof of anything, but merely an assertion.

 

[HUGGY]

I just watched a program on the NatGeo channel where they said that they don't know what existed before the BB. You should give them a call and give them a head's up!

They haven't consulted with edthecynic, he says it was physical energy. I disagree, I am with NatGeo, they don't know what existed before the Big Bang. You'll notice, I said it was "most likely" the Big Bang was created by spiritual forces, since the physical universe didn't exist yet.

Now, if you happen to not believe in spiritual forces, you have a problem here.

If I was a cartoonist I would show a handfull of pilots happily flying thier airplanes over a small airport in the first frame. Frame two would be a picture of you standing next to your little airplane, looking up at the few real pilots, with your parachute (named god) already deployed. Frame three would be an infinite number of little prospective pilots standing there, loolking up, next to your little airplanes with your "god" shutes already uselessly on the ground making it impossible for any of you to get in your airplanes and explore the heavens.

 

[edthecynic]

Did you just actually make an argument that spiritual nature exists? That's a very important first step in understanding the definitive spiritual evidence. What you proved, is that some humans are capable of moving other humans spiritually. I don't have a bit of trouble with that argument, I think it is perfectly valid. I also have no problem with "existence begets essence" but the spiritual realm exists in a non-physical state. You see... "to exist" means two different things when talking about "physical" and "spiritual" so we have to make sure we are clear, a spiritual existence does not have physical characteristics or properties. Like when you are "moved" by Bach, there are no "physical" properties for this.

Since we are getting all philosophical and technical, I would go so far as to say, a spiritual nature most likely existed BEFORE a physical universe. I say "most likely" because we can't be for certain, it depends upon whether the Big Bang actually happened. If that is the case, something had to cause it. No physical universe existed, so nothing in the physical universe could have caused it.

Like I said, you don't even know what people have posted because you have decided no one but you knows anything about the spiritual realm, which you know nothing about. I had to teach you examples of the spiritual.

Sa far as the Big Bang, you know less about the physical than you do about the spiritual, and you know nothing about the spiritual.

The Big Bang happened, there is residual microwave evidence of it. Something physical existed before the Big Bang, the energy that went bang. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. What began at the Big Bang was time, physical energy always existed.

Yes energy has always existed that energy would be the creator. Just a question, is a fire energy can it be created and then destroyed ?

It takes a leap of faith to believe that the universe is still expanding after 20 billion years or however long they are claiming the happened. Not only that but now that we know the universe is expanding and speeding up after slowing down it's rediculous.

The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up: Scientific American

So you are saying that God is the physical entity called energy. That would make God an impersonal God.

Heat of a fire is energy, it cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can change form. The energy was potential energy in the fuel that was burned, it was kinetic energy as the fuel burned and heat energy in the end.

What we know about the universe is that the expansion from the Big Bang is slowing down, and the matter at the farthest distances from the Big Bang is accelerating, but just because it is accelerating does not mean it is still expanding. Many of us physicists theorize that at the farthest reaches of the universe the matter is accelerating towards a super massive universal black hole which would mean that that part of the universe was contracting to a "Big Crunch." So we agree with you that an expanding universe would not be accelerating.

 

[edthecynic]

Did you just actually make an argument that spiritual nature exists? That's a very important first step in understanding the definitive spiritual evidence. What you proved, is that some humans are capable of moving other humans spiritually. I don't have a bit of trouble with that argument, I think it is perfectly valid. I also have no problem with "existence begets essence" but the spiritual realm exists in a non-physical state. You see... "to exist" means two different things when talking about "physical" and "spiritual" so we have to make sure we are clear, a spiritual existence does not have physical characteristics or properties. Like when you are "moved" by Bach, there are no "physical" properties for this.

Since we are getting all philosophical and technical, I would go so far as to say, a spiritual nature most likely existed BEFORE a physical universe. I say "most likely" because we can't be for certain, it depends upon whether the Big Bang actually happened. If that is the case, something had to cause it. No physical universe existed, so nothing in the physical universe could have caused it.

Like I said, you don't even know what people have posted because you have decided no one but you knows anything about the spiritual realm, which you know nothing about. I had to teach you examples of the spiritual.

Sa far as the Big Bang, you know less about the physical than you do about the spiritual, and you know nothing about the spiritual.

The Big Bang happened, there is residual microwave evidence of it. Something physical existed before the Big Bang, the energy that went bang. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. What began at the Big Bang was time, physical energy always existed.

The physical universe didn't exist before the Big Bang created it. As for your argument that "physical energy" caused the Big Bang, you'll need to provide evidence of this. Oh... and the "evidence" is not that YOU proclaimed it, sorry.

What I said was that it was the energy of the universe that went bang at the Big Bang, and that it was SPACE/TIME that did not exist before the Big Bang and began at the Big Bang.

All the energy of the universe was concentrated into one point from the previous Big Crunch and went Bang at the Big Bang. The fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, which means that energy has always existed and will always exist, was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, it is called the First Law of Thermodynamics or more commonly the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. You do not need to take my word for it, you can repeat the experiment yourself just as I did in college.

 

[Boss]

What's hilarious about this little situation we have here, is that if you really had proof of the spiritual, you would have done what millennia of the most brilliant philosophical minds- St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes- couldn't do, and you would be catapulted into fame for the rest of recorded human history. Yet... Here you are, on an Internet debate forum, beating your chest.. It's depressing to see such grandiose self-delusion.

I implore you to run this by a philosophy professor. He or she will laugh his or her face off.

Philosophy? That's your basis for argument now? Really?

Yes, if I could ever provide emphatic physical proof of the existence of god, I would indeed be a famous man. I've not claimed this can be done, in fact, I have insisted it can't be done. My case for definitive proof relies on a combination of physical and spiritual evidence, but you reject spiritual evidence, therefore the argument is ridiculous to you. I've been over this numerous times, and we can go over it again if you need to, but as I've repeatedly said, unless you accept spiritual evidence, you will never be able to acknowledge the definitive proof.

This post from you, is not any different than 10 pages worth of posts by you. Nothing in it, discusses the topic or points made in the OP. It's about me and my personality, and what you think of me personally. This simply doesn't win debates, and if you were in a formal debate setting, they would have already disqualified you from participating further. You can't stick to the subject of the debate. But here, surrounded by all of your god-hating buddies, you can chortle it up, and make fun of "believers" and this makes you feel as if you have won.

 

[newpolitics]

What's hilarious about this little situation we have here, is that if you really had proof of the spiritual, you would have done what millennia of the most brilliant philosophical minds- St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes- couldn't do, and you would be catapulted into fame for the rest of recorded human history. Yet... Here you are, on an Internet debate forum, beating your chest.. It's depressing to see such grandiose self-delusion.

I implore you to run this by a philosophy professor. He or she will laugh his or her face off.

Philosophy? That's your basis for argument now? Really?

Yes, if I could ever provide emphatic physical proof of the existence of god, I would indeed be a famous man. I've not claimed this can be done, in fact, I have insisted it can't be done. My case for definitive proof relies on a combination of physical and spiritual evidence, but you reject spiritual evidence, therefore the argument is ridiculous to you. I've been over this numerous times, and we can go over it again if you need to, but as I've repeatedly said, unless you accept spiritual evidence, you will never be able to acknowledge the definitive proof.

This post from you, is not any different than 10 pages worth of posts by you. Nothing in it, discusses the topic or points made in the OP. It's about me and my personality, and what you think of me personally. This simply doesn't win debates, and if you were in a formal debate setting, they would have already disqualified you from participating further. You can't stick to the subject of the debate. But here, surrounded by all of your god-hating buddies, you can chortle it up, and make fun of "believers" and this makes you feel as if you have won.

You're talking about god and spirituality, and you think this isn't about philosophy? So, you think you are being scientific? That is delusional. First of all, all arguments employ philosophy, since logic is central to an argument, and logic is the methodology of philosophy. Secondly, don't act like a hapless victim when it comes to throwing personal insults. You are guilty of this as well. Lastly, please stop being so dishonest when it comes to me addressing the points in your OP. We have debated ad nauseum the few points you have in the OP, so stop acting like I am avoiding anything you are saying.

 

[HUGGY]

If "Boss" was an astronomer he would set his telescope up inside the Sistine Chapel..

 

[newpolitics]

I won this when I posted the thread, dummy, where have you been? Oh yeah, that's right, you've been here distracting and diverting, being an obtuse little twit, and misquoting everything you read. As I said way back, your strategy was to keep obfuscating, distracting, diverting, and being a twit, until your calvary arrived, and we see that they have. So now, you have people to slap you on the back and tell you how well you handled me, and you can chortle back and forth like pre-teen school girls, about us "delusional believers."

Now that you have reinforcements, you feel confident enough to strut around claiming you've refuted my points and defeated my arguments, and we're just having the after-party. I've about figured out how this works... you see, nobody is going to read through 10 or 20 pages of your distractions and diversions, they read the OP, and then see where you're doing victory laps, and mayyyyybe... you are hoping, they believe that you have defeated my argument! Because, substance wise, you have presented very little.

You are VERY delusional in almost every respect. All I know is, I am not going to play your games.

Typical reaction of someone that can't take the heat.

So theists such as Boss get to supply bogus arguments, ignore comprehensive and swift refutation, and proclaim victory, just because they desire this to be the case? This is rather solipsistic.