Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

If there is a realm where intelligence can exist without the physical , then spiritual existance could reside in such a realm.

The problem I am having is the realization of this realm as neither the physical nor the conceptual. I doubt that every civilization had contact with this extra-realm and derived absolute truth from it.

Especially since some of these absolute truths of one spiritualists differed wildly from another spiritualist.

On the other hand, where spiritualists seemed to agree on were general concepts of morality which could well be reconstructed from a conceptual basis. In my mind, this places doubt on wether or not a spiritual realm actually exist. It also tends to suggest that man, through the ages, have searched for rationality since the dawn of time. Different civilizations came to some of the exact conclusions in terms of some general issues but stumbled over more specific topics.

What is "absolute truth?" Do you think science provides absolute truths? Or does it not, make prediction of probability? Whether humans gain "absolute truth" from spirituality, it is clear they have this spiritual attribute, and believe they connect with spiritual forces.

I don't accept your argument about morality, I think it's preposterous that you believe morality was constructed on a conceptual basis, and you have nothing to base this on. If humans were capable of reasoning morality into existence, why did no other species of creature on the planet ever attempt this? It's not a natural attribute at all, we find very few examples of "moral" behavior in other animals. Morality stems from spirituality. It would not exist in humans if not for spiritual connection.

Many believe this may be why Neanderthal man became extinct. They lacked spirituality, and homo sapiens didn't.

 

[Boss]

You have no idea what philosophy, logic, or argumentation is. If you are making an argument, you are attempting use to logic, which is a concern of philosophy. So, to say your argument is not based on philosophy is an admission that you don't care about logic, and it shows.

Haha.. I have shown YOU to be the one demanding the illogical. You want physical proof of a spiritual entity. You expect physical evidence to support existence of an entity that is not physical. If spiritual things had physical properties, they would not be spiritual. There is no rational or logical reason to expect a spiritual entity to have physical properties or possess physical evidence of existence. And what does 'existence' mean, if you only believe in physical existence? How can a spiritual entity meet the criteria you demand? It's illogical.

Given your lack of response to my points, ill consider this a concession that you are not using logic, and that your entire argument is logically invalid, as I've shown over and over again through pointing out multiple logical fallacies with each argument you've presented. You don't understand logic or refuse to abide by it, so you can't or won't admit this.

You've not made any points in this thread, retard. Is that what you're going to do now, start pretending you've made points that I haven't responded to, so you win? As I said (in response to your idiocy) it is YOU who is being illogical in this argument.

 

[newpolitics]

Haha.. I have shown YOU to be the one demanding the illogical. You want physical proof of a spiritual entity. You expect physical evidence to support existence of an entity that is not physical. If spiritual things had physical properties, they would not be spiritual. There is no rational or logical reason to expect a spiritual entity to have physical properties or possess physical evidence of existence. And what does 'existence' mean, if you only believe in physical existence? How can a spiritual entity meet the criteria you demand? It's illogical.

Given your lack of response to my points, ill consider this a concession that you are not using logic, and that your entire argument is logically invalid, as I've shown over and over again through pointing out multiple logical fallacies with each argument you've presented. You don't understand logic or refuse to abide by it, so you can't or won't admit this.

You've not made any points in this thread, retard. Is that what you're going to do now, start pretending you've made points that I haven't responded to, so you win? As I said (in response to your idiocy) it is YOU who is being illogical in this argument.

What's with the personal insults? Where's SJ to police this thing?! This isn't a debate anymore!!

I've made points you can't even respond to, so you just make up the claim that I haven't made any. The reality on the ground is quite different.

 

[Boss]

I actually do debate. I've examined and logically deconstructed each one of Boss's points, so your claims about me not-debating is just baseless shit-talking for the purpose of making someone feel bad. You are in no position to accuse someone of "not debating" given your behavior on this very thread.

You have done no such thing, you are just outright LYING your ass off now, I guess, to save face, I have no idea why, because people can read the damn thread. Pretty much, all you have done, is try to derail the topic, distract from the argument, bring up things totally unrelated to the OP, and proclaim yourself victorious. Scroll back a page, bud, I outlined every point I have made in this thread, along with your response. You've deconstructed nothing, you've refuted nothing. Basically, the ONLY real "argument" you've presented is... 70,000 years of distinct human behavior, is because of mass delusion. Aside from that, you've just repeated the points I made in the OP, that people who don't accept spiritual evidence can't find definitive proof god exists. But more than anything, you've tried to create drama with other posters, derail the subject and tie up the forum with smarmy little remarks that have nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Boss]

What's with the personal insults? Where's SJ to police this thing?! This isn't a debate anymore!!

I've made points you can't even respond to, so you just make up the claim that I haven't made any. The reality on the ground is quite different.

No personal insult, you're a fucking retard. I figure you're maybe in your 20s, but you have the mental wattage of a 13-year-old. You've not made ANY rational point, in this entire thread! You've failed so badly, that all you can even try to do now, is LIE LIE LIE and hope no one notices the huge chunks of your ass missing. It's really quite funny to me, to watch you melt down like this, as if you believe this strategy is going to work for you.... just hold out... some of your god-hating buddies will be along at any time, to bail you out and make you feel validated again... just keep lying and distorting reality... they'll be here soon!

You are a joke, and I can't believe I have wasted as much time as I have, trying to have an honest conversation with you. It's just not worth it.

 

[newpolitics]

I actually do debate. I've examined and logically deconstructed each one of Boss's points, so your claims about me not-debating is just baseless shit-talking for the purpose of making someone feel bad. You are in no position to accuse someone of "not debating" given your behavior on this very thread.

You have done no such thing, you are just outright LYING your ass off now, I guess, to save face, I have no idea why, because people can read the damn thread. Pretty much, all you have done, is try to derail the topic, distract from the argument, bring up things totally unrelated to the OP, and proclaim yourself victorious. Scroll back a page, bud, I outlined every point I have made in this thread, along with your response. You've deconstructed nothing, you've refuted nothing. Basically, the ONLY real "argument" you've presented is... 70,000 years of distinct human behavior, is because of mass delusion. Aside from that, you've just repeated the points I made in the OP, that people who don't accept spiritual evidence can't find definitive proof god exists. But more than anything, you've tried to create drama with other posters, derail the subject and tie up the forum with smarmy little remarks that have nothing to do with the topic.

What you call "derailing" is actually refutation. You're 70,000 year old spirituality claims are nothing but an argumentum ad populum, and I've demonstrated why, and that's all I need to do. I don't care how my people believe a thing, that doesn't make it true until you can actually present evidence. The only evidence you have is spiritual evidence, which is begging the question, since you are trying prove the existence of the spirtual with the spiritual. You just can't handle logical refutation, so you go into denial and call it "derailing the thread" when I've done nothing but address your shit arguments. Funny that you would blame me for your asshole friends like SJ doing nothing but throw insults at me, and then you have the nerve to say "I'm starting drama?" You're a dishonest piece of shit.

 

[HUGGY]

OK...OK..I think I've got it!

If a herd of lemmings is jumping off a cliff into the sea then to understand the lemmings point of view you must hurl yourself off the precipice with them. Only then will you understand what a lemming "thinks". It is something missing in YOU if you do not interact with spirits. No ghosts in your closet? God doesn't talk to you personally? He doesn't give you an "atta boy" when you clean your plate and say your prayers? The reason YOU do not have these experiences is because YOU are defective!

Which post are you responding to? I think I missed gaining that intepretation from reading the posts in this thread....

I'm refering to "Boss" and his cadre of sychophants circular logic and thier references to a so-called proprietary understanding of "spiritual". They have this crazy notion in thier heads that "Yes..we will debate anyone but reserve the right to claim victory no matter what proof offered that we are just full of hot air." Wrong answer. Just believing you are right in spite of all available knowledge is the height of narcissism.

 

[newpolitics]

What's with the personal insults? Where's SJ to police this thing?! This isn't a debate anymore!!

I've made points you can't even respond to, so you just make up the claim that I haven't made any. The reality on the ground is quite different.

No personal insult, you're a fucking retard. I figure you're maybe in your 20s, but you have the mental wattage of a 13-year-old. You've not made ANY rational point, in this entire thread! You've failed so badly, that all you can even try to do now, is LIE LIE LIE and hope no one notices the huge chunks of your ass missing. It's really quite funny to me, to watch you melt down like this, as if you believe this strategy is going to work for you.... just hold out... some of your god-hating buddies will be along at any time, to bail you out and make you feel validated again... just keep lying and distorting reality... they'll be here soon!

You are a joke, and I can't believe I have wasted as much time as I have, trying to have an honest conversation with you. It's just not worth it.

If you actually had a good argument, and were an intellectually honest person, I would gladly have a civil debate with you. But you do not have a good argument, and are not an honest person. I suspect you lie to yourself, therefore are constitutionally incapable of being honest with anyone. If you only knew how ridiculous you are, you would be appalled. Here's how it works: when someone makes a claim, They have to back it up through reason and evidence. All anyone else has to do is point out flaws in your reasoning or evidence, and the claim or argument fails. You may think the conclusion is true, but you can no get there using your premises. I mention this because you seem to be expecting something different. When I show you why and how your conclusion can not be reached given your stated premises, your argument fails. That's it. End of story. Game over. Logic is objective, not subjective. You don't get to choose with arguments work and which ones don't. I don't expect you to understand any of this. I doubt if you even read my posts.

What's hilarious is that you think you have evidence of the supernatural, yet this has been attempted by the most serious minds for thousands of years and have failed. I disagree with your argument, point out why, and you insinuate that I am mentally defective? Looking at this thing from above, it is obvious who is actually mentally defective: the person on an Internet forum claiming definitive proof for god.

 

[Boss]

If you actually had a good argument, and were an intellectually honest person, I would gladly have a civil debate with you. But you do not have a good argument, and are not an honest person. I suspect you lie to yourself, therefore are constitutionally incapable of being honest with anyone. If you only knew how ridiculous you are, you would be appalled. Here's how it works: when someone makes a claim, They have to back it up through reason and evidence. All anyone else has to do is point out flaws in your reasoning or evidence, and the claim or argument fails. You may think the conclusion is true, but you can no get there using your premises. I mention this because you seem to be expecting something different. When I show you why and how your conclusion can not be reached given your stated premises, your argument fails. That's it. End of story. Game over. Logic is objective, not subjective. You don't get to choose with arguments work and which ones don't. I don't expect you to understand any of this. I doubt if you even read my posts.

Let's review , AGAIN, my points in synopsis, with your stated counterpoints:

1. God can never be proven to those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence.
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this point.

2. Physical evidence alone, can never prove existence of an entity that is not physical.
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this to be valid.

3. 70,000 years of human connection to a spiritual realm, confirm a spiritual belief that is inherent in the species and can't be defined as inconsequential or irrelevant.
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history.

4. Billions of people over time, attribute a thing called "blessings" to something greater than self.
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history.

5. Darwin says behavioral characteristics exist in a species for a reason and purpose.
---Your argument is, the reason and purpose is to "explain the unknown," even though, we see no dramatic decline in human spirituality with the advent of science, and in spite of nearly every unknown question of ancient man being answered.

6. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanations are most logical, and applied here, it means the simplest explanation for man's profound spirituality, is because spiritual nature does exist.
---Your argument, Occam's Razor can only apply to physical science problems, and can never be used for any other evaluation, even though it is a theory about evaluation.

What's hilarious is that you think you have evidence of the supernatural, yet this has been attempted by the most serious minds for thousands of years and have failed. I disagree with your argument, point out why, and you insinuate that I am mentally defective? Looking at this thing from above, it is obvious who is actually mentally defective: the person on an Internet forum claiming definitive proof for god.

I made the point, very first thing in the OP, that you can never have physical proof that god exists. It's illogical to expect it or demand it. I do have evidence, I presented it, but it's spiritual evidence which you reject. You can continue making my initial point, that those who don't recognize spiritual evidence can find no proof of god, but let it be known, that is MY point. You've failed to refute it, and instead, you've totally reinforced it.

I have posted my points, and what your rebuttals were, and I'm sorry, but you are a long way from refuting my argument. Now maybe, you are having a different debate inside your goofy head? That's possible! You keep misquoting me and claiming I've said things that weren't said, so that would make sense. But if we are going by the actual text posted in this thread, you simply haven't refuted anything.

 

[newpolitics]

If you actually had a good argument, and were an intellectually honest person, I would gladly have a civil debate with you. But you do not have a good argument, and are not an honest person. I suspect you lie to yourself, therefore are constitutionally incapable of being honest with anyone. If you only knew how ridiculous you are, you would be appalled. Here's how it works: when someone makes a claim, They have to back it up through reason and evidence. All anyone else has to do is point out flaws in your reasoning or evidence, and the claim or argument fails. You may think the conclusion is true, but you can no get there using your premises. I mention this because you seem to be expecting something different. When I show you why and how your conclusion can not be reached given your stated premises, your argument fails. That's it. End of story. Game over. Logic is objective, not subjective. You don't get to choose with arguments work and which ones don't. I don't expect you to understand any of this. I doubt if you even read my posts.

Let's review , AGAIN, my points in synopsis, with your stated counterpoints:

1. God can never be proven to those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence.
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this point.

2. Physical evidence alone, can never prove existence of an entity that is not physical.
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this to be valid.

3. 70,000 years of human connection to a spiritual realm, confirm a spiritual belief that is inherent in the species and can't be defined as inconsequential or irrelevant.
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history.

4. Billions of people over time, attribute a thing called "blessings" to something greater than self.
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history.

5. Darwin says behavioral characteristics exist in a species for a reason and purpose.
---Your argument is, the reason and purpose is to "explain the unknown," even though, we see no dramatic decline in human spirituality with the advent of science, and in spite of nearly every unknown question of ancient man being answered.

6. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanations are most logical, and applied here, it means the simplest explanation for man's profound spirituality, is because spiritual nature does exist.
---Your argument, Occam's Razor can only apply to physical science problems, and can never be used for any other evaluation, even though it is a theory about evaluation.

What's hilarious is that you think you have evidence of the supernatural, yet this has been attempted by the most serious minds for thousands of years and have failed. I disagree with your argument, point out why, and you insinuate that I am mentally defective? Looking at this thing from above, it is obvious who is actually mentally defective: the person on an Internet forum claiming definitive proof for god.

I made the point, very first thing in the OP, that you can never have physical proof that god exists. It's illogical to expect it or demand it. I do have evidence, I presented it, but it's spiritual evidence which you reject. You can continue making my initial point, that those who don't recognize spiritual evidence can find no proof of god, but let it be known, that is MY point. You've failed to refute it, and instead, you've totally reinforced it.

I have posted my points, and what your rebuttals were, and I'm sorry, but you are a long way from refuting my argument. Now maybe, you are having a different debate inside your goofy head? That's possible! You keep misquoting me and claiming I've said things that weren't said, so that would make sense. But if we are going by the actual text posted in this thread, you simply haven't refuted anything.

Making the argument a second or third time doesn't make it any more valid or sound. You're "synopsis" of my refutations are completely incorrect. I have repeatedly had to correct you on my take on Occam's Razor, yet you still misrepresent what I say. More importantly, I don't need to supply a counter argument to refute yours. I simply need to show that your conclusions do not follow logically from your premises. Stating humans' spiritual belief throughout history does not deductively give you god or a spirit world. A philosophy teacher would laugh at this illogic. This is wishful thinking. Yet, This is all I need to show. Your argument fails for this reason. To say I haven't addressed this point and your others is simply dishonest.

 

[S.J.]

You don't debate. You just try to put words in the other person's mouth, then pick apart what they didn't say. You make erroneous statements and call them facts, and when you fail at backing them up, you claim intellectual superiority and say your opponent isn't smart enough to understand your argument. Then as you become more desperate to win, you start with the personal attacks. You wouldn't last 15 minutes in a structured debate.

Neither do you. I actually do debate. I've examined and logically deconstructed each one of Boss's points, so your claims about me not-debating is just baseless shit-talking for the purpose of making someone feel bad. You are in no position to accuse someone of "not debating" given your behavior on this very thread.

Debating rule #1:-

Hmm, you must be one of those "snipers" NP was talking about. Somehow I don't think he'll call you on it though.

 

[S.J.]

Neither do you. I actually do debate. I've examined and logically deconstructed each one of Boss's points, so your claims about me not-debating is just baseless shit-talking for the purpose of making someone feel bad. You are in no position to accuse someone of "not debating" given your behavior on this very thread.

Debating rule #1:-

Indeed. Thanks for the reminder. SJ is perhaps the biggest troll on this website.

Hey, good strategy. Break out the "T" word to distract from the fact that you just got your ass handed to you several times.

 

[newpolitics]

Neither do you. I actually do debate. I've examined and logically deconstructed each one of Boss's points, so your claims about me not-debating is just baseless shit-talking for the purpose of making someone feel bad. You are in no position to accuse someone of "not debating" given your behavior on this very thread.

Debating rule #1:-

Hmm, you must be one of those "snipers" NP was talking about. Somehow I don't think he'll call you on it though.

No, SJ. Derideo has actually been debating and contributing to this debate, whereas you have done nothing but troll, probably because you are so insecure about your belief in something god, you compulsively need to rail on atheists to feel more secure about yourself.

 

[newpolitics]

Debating rule #1:-

Indeed. Thanks for the reminder. SJ is perhaps the biggest troll on this website.

Hey, good strategy. Break out the "T" word to distract from the fact that you just got your ass handed to you several times.

I care absolutely nothing of your opinion (in case you were under the delusion that I did).

 

[S.J.]

Debating rule #1:-

Hmm, you must be one of those "snipers" NP was talking about. Somehow I don't think he'll call you on it though.

No, SJ. Derideo has actually been debating and contributing to this debate, whereas you have done nothing but troll, probably because you are so insecure about your belief in something god, you compulsively need to rail on atheists to feel more secure about yourself.

I think you need to go back and read the thread over.

 

[newpolitics]

Hmm, you must be one of those "snipers" NP was talking about. Somehow I don't think he'll call you on it though.

No, SJ. Derideo has actually been debating and contributing to this debate, whereas you have done nothing but troll, probably because you are so insecure about your belief in something god, you compulsively need to rail on atheists to feel more secure about yourself.

I think you need to go back and read the thread over.

Try actually contributing something to this debate. Just a thought.

 

[S.J.]

No, SJ. Derideo has actually been debating and contributing to this debate, whereas you have done nothing but troll, probably because you are so insecure about your belief in something god, you compulsively need to rail on atheists to feel more secure about yourself.

I think you need to go back and read the thread over.

Try actually contributing something to this debate. Just a thought.

Go back and look, and you'll see that I did, when it was still a debate (until you derailed it when you started to lose).

 

[Boss]

If you actually had a good argument, and were an intellectually honest person, I would gladly have a civil debate with you. But you do not have a good argument, and are not an honest person. I suspect you lie to yourself, therefore are constitutionally incapable of being honest with anyone. If you only knew how ridiculous you are, you would be appalled. Here's how it works: when someone makes a claim, They have to back it up through reason and evidence. All anyone else has to do is point out flaws in your reasoning or evidence, and the claim or argument fails. You may think the conclusion is true, but you can no get there using your premises. I mention this because you seem to be expecting something different. When I show you why and how your conclusion can not be reached given your stated premises, your argument fails. That's it. End of story. Game over. Logic is objective, not subjective. You don't get to choose with arguments work and which ones don't. I don't expect you to understand any of this. I doubt if you even read my posts.

Let's review , AGAIN, my points in synopsis, with your stated counterpoints:

1. God can never be proven to those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence.
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this point.

2. Physical evidence alone, can never prove existence of an entity that is not physical.
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this to be valid.

3. 70,000 years of human connection to a spiritual realm, confirm a spiritual belief that is inherent in the species and can't be defined as inconsequential or irrelevant.
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history.

4. Billions of people over time, attribute a thing called "blessings" to something greater than self.
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history.

5. Darwin says behavioral characteristics exist in a species for a reason and purpose.
---Your argument is, the reason and purpose is to "explain the unknown," even though, we see no dramatic decline in human spirituality with the advent of science, and in spite of nearly every unknown question of ancient man being answered.

6. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanations are most logical, and applied here, it means the simplest explanation for man's profound spirituality, is because spiritual nature does exist.
---Your argument, Occam's Razor can only apply to physical science problems, and can never be used for any other evaluation, even though it is a theory about evaluation.

What's hilarious is that you think you have evidence of the supernatural, yet this has been attempted by the most serious minds for thousands of years and have failed. I disagree with your argument, point out why, and you insinuate that I am mentally defective? Looking at this thing from above, it is obvious who is actually mentally defective: the person on an Internet forum claiming definitive proof for god.

I made the point, very first thing in the OP, that you can never have physical proof that god exists. It's illogical to expect it or demand it. I do have evidence, I presented it, but it's spiritual evidence which you reject. You can continue making my initial point, that those who don't recognize spiritual evidence can find no proof of god, but let it be known, that is MY point. You've failed to refute it, and instead, you've totally reinforced it.

I have posted my points, and what your rebuttals were, and I'm sorry, but you are a long way from refuting my argument. Now maybe, you are having a different debate inside your goofy head? That's possible! You keep misquoting me and claiming I've said things that weren't said, so that would make sense. But if we are going by the actual text posted in this thread, you simply haven't refuted anything.

Making the argument a second or third time doesn't make it any more valid or sound. You're "synopsis" of my refutations are completely incorrect. I have repeatedly had to correct you on my take on Occam's Razor, yet you still misrepresent what I say. More importantly, I don't need to supply a counter argument to refute yours. I simply need to show that your conclusions do not follow logically from your premises. Stating humans' spiritual belief throughout history does not deductively give you god or a spirit world. A philosophy teacher would laugh at this illogic. This is wishful thinking. Yet, This is all I need to show. Your argument fails for this reason. To say I haven't addressed this point and your others is simply dishonest.

The argument is valid and sound unless you can refute it. The first two points, you have actually confirmed. The next two points are spiritual evidence, and you reject spiritual evidence as "subjective" or "delusional." Then, the final two pieces of 'physical science' introduced, you reject the usage and/or application. You've not adequately explained why, you keep trying, but you've not come up with anything rational. So the argument remains valid and sound, as presented.

Stating humans' spiritual belief throughout history does not deductively give you god or a spirit world.

It's not just their spiritual belief throughout history, it is their PROFOUND spiritual belief. If this attribute were unimportant and provided no advantage to the species, it would have long-since been discarded by humans. It actually defies Darwin, to make the argument you are making. Every living thing, from humans down to bacteria, exhibit inherent behaviors for some reason and purpose. If there is no reason or purpose, the behavior is illogical. This theory is of great help in studying life, because we know that inherent behaviors do exist for a logical reason. We may not be able to comprehend those reasons at this time, but we know this must be the case, because it always is the case.

Now this one single point alone, does not prove a spiritual god, but it does prove that humans derive a benefit from spiritual connection, which they profoundly believe in. It is such an important benefit, humans can not discard it, and it remains the most defining attribute of their species. Only humans worship and have inherent spiritual connection.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

People have reported religious experiences and communication with God since the beginning of mankind.

Atheists, not having any experience of God, argue from their ignorance that God doesn't exist.

It makes sense for atheists to claim that they have no experience or proof of God. It doesn't make sense for them to claim that others do not. They make an egocentric argument from ignorance.

It's best just to ignore them.

 

[S.J.]

People have reported religious experiences and communication with God since the beginning of mankind.

Atheists, not having any experience of God, argue from their ignorance that God doesn't exist.

It makes sense for atheists to claim that they have no experience or proof of God. It doesn't make sense for them to claim that others do not. They make an egocentric argument from ignorance.

It's best just to ignore them.

They have no experience with God because God requires us to come to him through faith, and atheists have no faith. Therefore, they will never see the light because they will never open the door.