Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[newpolitics]

Not to mention that different theistic notions are mutually exclusive, such as those between Christianity and Islam. Therefore, they can't all be right. Yet Boss seems satisfied in reducing all religious beliefs down to spirituality, without dealing with the contradictions that would result.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You appear to be throwing yourself a one man pity party. Probably fits right in with your "victim" mentality. Everyone is picking on the poor little "martyr".

What is it with all the childish responses and attacks on people for having different opinions ? did you corner the market on absolute truth ?

It goes both ways ywc. Don't do the Christian victim thing.

What I stated has nothing to do with the Christian thing or being the victim. I guess you're not capable of having an intelligent debate with maturity driving the debate.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It ceased being a debate when you resorted to personal attacks (like you always do).

Why do you care? You aren't debating.

Neither are you.

I shouldn't but that was funny.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yet another thread purporting proof of the gods that is absent proof.

Who woulda' thought?

Uh oh,there goes the neighborhood Hollie is here...

 

[Youwerecreated]

If god existed, we wouldn't need proof.

That answer goes for many things lol like Macro-evolution.

 

[Desperado]

Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?
Look around
You think all this happened by some random Big Bang explosion?
All the details in life all around and it was all started by happen stance?
Logic dictates this was not an accident.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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:-

Question,why are you and NP posting in the thread in that case ?

 

[fyrenza]

Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument from popularity). It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. It doesnt make it true. It wouldn't matter if everyone human ever was devoutly religious... That doesn't mean a god exists.

WTF planet do you live on???

If EVERYONE believes it to be true?

It's TRUE to everyone.

iow? No one would be trying to DISprove it.

 

[fyrenza]

And if someone WAS trying to disprove it,
as incompetently as atheists of today try to disprove God,

it would just REMAIN a basic truth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Oh I have to disagree just a bit. It takes faith to believe according to the evidence available that life began without a designer.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Oh I have to disagree just a bit. It takes faith to believe according to the evidence available that life began without a designer.

It appears that all the evidence you require can be cut and pasted from Harun Yahya.

 

[daws101]

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.

Oh I have to disagree just a bit. It takes faith to believe according to the evidence available that life began without a designer.

Is Creationism Science? Creationists Claim that Creationism is Scientific

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide

What are the Criteria of Science?:
Science is:
Consistent (internally & externally)
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
Tentative (admits it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Is Creationism logically consistent?:


Creationism is usually internally consistent and logical within the religious framework in which it operates. The major problem with its consistency is that creationism has no defined boundaries: there is no clear way to say that any particular piece of data is relevant or not to the task verifying or falsifying creationism. When you deal with the non-understood supernatural, anything is possible; one consequence of this is that no tests for creationism can really be said to matter.

Is Creationism parsimonious?:


No. Creationism fails the test of Occam’s razor because adding supernatural entities to the equation when they are not strictly necessary to explain events violates the principle of parsimony. This principle is important because it is so easy for extraneous ideas to slip into theories, ultimately confusing the issue. The simplest explanation may not always be the most accurate, but it is preferable unless very good reasons are offered.

Is Creationism useful?:


To be “useful” in science means that a theory explains and describes natural phenomena, but creationism is not able to explain and describe events in nature. For example, creationism cannot explain why genetic changes are limited to microevolution within species and don’t become macroevolution. A true explanation expands our knowledge and understanding of events, but saying that “God did it” in some mysterious and miraculous way for unknown reasons fails in this.

Is Creationism empirically testable?:


No, creationism is not testable because creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. Creationism relies on supernatural entities which are not only not testable, but are not even describable. Creationism provides no model that can be used for making predictions, it provides no scientific problems for scientists to work on, and does not provide a paradigm for solving other problems unless you consider “God did it” to be a satisfactory explanation for everything.

Is Creationism based upon controlled, repeatable experiments?:


No experiments have ever been performed that either demonstrate the truth of Creationism or suggest that evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed. Creationism did not originate out of a series of experiments that produced anomalous results, something that has occurred in science. Creationism has, instead, developed out of the religious beliefs of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians in America. Leading Creationists have always been open about this fact.

Is Creationism correctable?:


No. Creationism professes to be the absolute Truth, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. When you believe that you already have the Truth, there is no possibility of future correction and no reason to look for more data. The only real changes which have occurred in the creationist movement is to try and push the biblical arguments further and further into the background in order to make creationism look more and more scientific.

Is Creationism progressive?:


In a sense creationism could be considered progressive if you say “God did it” to explain all previous data as well as previously unexplainable data, but this renders the idea of progressive growth of scientific ideas meaningless (another good reason for science being naturalistic). In any practical sense, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what came before and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.

Does Creationism follow the scientific method?:


No. First, the hypothesis/solution is not based on analysis and observation of the empirical world - rather, it comes directly from the Bible. Second, as there is no way to test the theory, creationism cannot follow the scientific method because testing is a fundamental component of the method.

Do Creationists think Creationism is science?:


Even prominent creationists like Henry Morris and Duane Gish (who pretty much created scientific creationism) admit that creationism is not scientific in creationist literature. In Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, Morris, while discussing catastrophism and the Noachic flood, says: “We cannot verify this experimentally, of course, any more than any of the various other theories of catastrophism [e.g. Velikovsky], but we do not need experimental verification; God has recorded it in His Word, and that should be sufficient.”
This is a statement of religious faith, not a statement of scientific discovery.

Even more revealing, Duane Gish in Evolution? The Fossils Say No! writes:
“We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”
So, even leading creationists basically admit that creationism is not testable and clearly state that biblical revelation is the source (and “verification”) of their ideas. If Creationism is not considered scientific by the movement’s own leading figures, then how can anyone else be expected to take it seriously as a science?

Is Creationism Science? Creationists Claim that Creationism is Scientific, But It's Not Science

 

[Boss]

Hmm... So if an omnipotent spirit decides to manifest itself in the physical world, that is something the omnipotent entity can't achieve? Is that what you're saying?

No God is omnipotent!

Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon

So your deity is limited to the abstract only? So much for omnipotence.

Why are you still hung up on religious attributes assigned to god by men? Does god have to be omnipotent or a deity to exist? Who made this argument? Whether or not there is a spiritual entity in a spiritual existence, doesn't have anything to do with man's incarnations or imaginations regarding said entity. It's two completely different arguments.

Here, we have yet another example of someone who hates religion, closing their minds to spirituality because of their hatred of religion. Unable to objectively review evidence unless it is physical in nature, rejecting anything associated with spirituality, because this signifies religion. Even the generic mention of spiritual nature, sparks this emotive anti-religious rant. It's rather sad to me, that some people are so filled with hate for religion, they have lost connection to spirituality.... and make no mistake, we are all born with inherent spiritual nature, not as Nihilists.

Well, YOU did when it served your purpose to make your spiritual entity omnipotent!

Of course, after I shot down omnipotence, suddenly Gods have nothing to do with omnipotence.

And that spiritual nature we are born with is existential. You have yet to PROVE the existence of a metaphysical spirit, omnipotent or otherwise. Without proof of the metaphysical you have no "definitive proof that GOD exists."

Now you are trying to take my quotes out of context to pretend I said something I contradicted. I have not. The first quote is a response to a comment about omnipotent god, which I never claimed god was. I have repeatedly said, in order to exist, god does not have to be omnipotent or a deity, or have a white beard, or live on a cloud, or have Jesus sitting next to "him"... these are man-made characterizations.

We've been over the "proof" thing, in the OP, and for dozens of posts to follow. There is no physical evidence of spiritual entities. There IS proof of a metaphysical existence, it's 70k years of behavioral characteristic in humans, billions of which, report connection with the metaphysical realm. I'm sorry you don't accept and can't comprehend spiritual evidence, but that is what you look to, when evaluating existence of spiritual nature.

 

[HUGGY]

It isn't an argument from popularity, it's a valid sample of the population who have experienced the presence of God.

Some people have direct experience of God in their lives. many accept the existence of God on based on faith or logic, some insist that God doesn't exist because they have not experienced the presence of God.

So, no, it's not a logical fallacy.

If God doesn't exist, how do you explain religious experiences?

That's gods whole problem... he picks and chooses who he gives the presents too. That's why I would much rather believe in Santa Claus. I got lotsa presents from Santa..

Amazing erudition.

Wordgames ...a simpleton's folly.. I'm just here going along to get along.

 

[Boss]

Not to mention that different theistic notions are mutually exclusive, such as those between Christianity and Islam. Therefore, they can't all be right. Yet Boss seems satisfied in reducing all religious beliefs down to spirituality, without dealing with the contradictions that would result.

I am satisfied that we do not have to define things to explain or confirm their existence. We're back to Page 1 arguments again. Religions are manifestations of spiritual connection in man. Whether they are absolutely correct or totally false, has nothing to do with spiritual existence. The fact that such a broad scope of various religions exist and have always existed, is proof positive there is something spiritual humans are connecting with, which they feel compelled to share with others, and religion is the construction of their concepts.

 

[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.

Oh I have to disagree just a bit. It takes faith to believe according to the evidence available that life began without a designer.

I know, but let's not confuse the one-dimensional thinkers.

 

[dblack]

Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?
Look around
You think all this happened by some random Big Bang explosion?
All the details in life all around and it was all started by happen stance?
Logic dictates this was not an accident.

How so? Observation indicates otherwise.

 

[edthecynic]

As well as definitive proof that the physical existence of the Christ rules out the possibility of him being God, without violating your premise that is.

Hmm... So if an omnipotent spirit decides to manifest itself in the physical world, that is something the omnipotent entity can't achieve? Is that what you're saying?

No God is omnipotent!

Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon

Why are you still hung up on religious attributes assigned to god by men? Does god have to be omnipotent or a deity to exist? Who made this argument? Whether or not there is a spiritual entity in a spiritual existence, doesn't have anything to do with man's incarnations or imaginations regarding said entity. It's two completely different arguments.

Here, we have yet another example of someone who hates religion, closing their minds to spirituality because of their hatred of religion. Unable to objectively review evidence unless it is physical in nature, rejecting anything associated with spirituality, because this signifies religion. Even the generic mention of spiritual nature, sparks this emotive anti-religious rant. It's rather sad to me, that some people are so filled with hate for religion, they have lost connection to spirituality.... and make no mistake, we are all born with inherent spiritual nature, not as Nihilists.

Well, YOU did when it served your purpose to make your spiritual entity omnipotent!

Of course, after I shot down omnipotence, suddenly Gods have nothing to do with omnipotence.

And that spiritual nature we are born with is existential. You have yet to PROVE the existence of a metaphysical spirit, omnipotent or otherwise. Without proof of the metaphysical you have no "definitive proof that GOD exists."

Now you are trying to take my quotes out of context to pretend I said something I contradicted. I have not. The first quote is a response to a comment about omnipotent god, which I never claimed god was. I have repeatedly said, in order to exist, god does not have to be omnipotent or a deity, or have a white beard, or live on a cloud, or have Jesus sitting next to "him"... these are man-made characterizations.

We've been over the "proof" thing, in the OP, and for dozens of posts to follow. There is no physical evidence of spiritual entities. There IS proof of a metaphysical existence, it's 70k years of behavioral characteristic in humans, billions of which, report connection with the metaphysical realm. I'm sorry you don't accept and can't comprehend spiritual evidence, but that is what you look to, when evaluating existence of spiritual nature.

You are a lousy liar. Do you see that little right facing arrowhead in the quote box title? If you click on it it takes you to the original post. YOU were the one to bring up omnipotence, I brought up Christ never saying anything about omnipotence. You had claimed that a God was spiritual and could not exist in the physical and I said that that would preclude the physical Christ from being a God. You then countered with your omnipotent spirit. That was the context, not the bullshit you just made up out of thin air.

And you have proven nothing about the metaphysical, you have only pontificated the existence of the metaphysical. Only the existential spiritual nature has been proven, so without proof of the metaphysical you cannot assume that 70k years of human spirituality has anything to do with anything other than the existential spiritual nature of man.

 

[fyrenza]

How so? Observation indicates otherwise.

To whom?

 

[newpolitics]

Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument from popularity). It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. It doesnt make it true. It wouldn't matter if everyone human ever was devoutly religious... That doesn't mean a god exists.

WTF planet do you live on???

If EVERYONE believes it to be true?

It's TRUE to everyone.

iow? No one would be trying to DISprove it.

This is the whole point of logic and the idea of truth. Truth exists independently of our minds. This is the idea of objective reality. A mind-independent truth. Therefore, it is simply our job, trapped in our subjectivity, to figure out "what is going on out there" outside of our heads, using only our five senses. Science is presently the best way of ascertaining truth about the universe. Nothing else has come close. Just look at the progress we have made since modern science began its queries into the mysteries of how reality actually works. It is been exponential progress. The opposite is true of religious epistemologies. Just look at the dark ages. Ascertaining truth about the universe has nothing to do with what we believe, but what we can show. The argument from popularity fails because a belief is not the same as knowledge, and there is no logical connectivity between a belief inside someone's head, and the actual reality that exists outside of it. Therefore, it doesn't matter that no one would be there to challenge an idea if everyone believed something were true. It doesn't make it true, simply because of the fact that it is believed. Unless, you believe that we are the designers of objective realty, in which case you are saying we are god... This is basically solipsism. Then, what is the point in god if we are deciding reality?
You run into a conundrum if you believe that belief decides reality, and god exists.


Reality exists independently of us. A thing is true not because we believe it, but simply because it is true, with reference to itself, irrespective of anything else. A rock is a rock is a rock. The law of identity. This is classical logic.