Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

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?

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.

Look, dum dum... the same people who believe Christ is god's son, also believe god is omnipotent. I have repeatedly said this is not about religious beliefs of god, or various incarnations of god. I have repeatedly said I am not here to argue theology. You, as well as some of your "team" have been constantly attempting to finagle the conversation into a theological debate, and I have constantly been trying to keep the thread topic on track. We are not talking about theological manifestations of spiritual belief, we are talking about spiritual existence.

I've not argued that god is omnipotent, or said I could prove an omnipotent god. I've not contradicted that statement, and you've not shown a contradiction. You presented my smart-ass response to a smart-ass remark about Christ. Sorry you completely missed the context there, but I can't say that I am surprised. You're not very bright.

 

[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.

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.

Now you are blatantly contradicting yourself. You have said that you both need to and don't need to define something. Please, just pick one for the sake of consistency.

It is basic logic that if you want to discuss something that you believe exists in any respect, you have to define it so that others know what it is we are discussing, otherwise it is back to Bloo-Bloo. Do you know what Bloo-Bloo is? No? That's okay. It exists. You just don't see Bloo-Bloo evidence. That's your problem...

You are doing the same thing now. It is an incoherent argument, because that which you are asserting is logically incoherent.

 

[Boss]

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.

Observation does not indicate anything, except that humans have always been intrinsically tied to spiritual belief. Even the theory of the Big Bang can not be 'explained' by physics, because matter does not create matter. Energy doesn't materialize from nothingness.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Observation does not indicate anything, except that humans have always been intrinsically tied to spiritual belief. Even the theory of the Big Bang can not be 'explained' by physics, because matter does not create matter. Energy doesn't materialize from nothingness.

You can not logically say that observation indicates nothing, and then say that humans have always been tied to spiritual belief. Spiritual belief is derived from observation, which according to you, indicates nothing, which means there is no spirituality.

Boom.

 

[edthecynic]

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?

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.

Look, dum dum... the same people who believe Christ is god's son, also believe god is omnipotent. I have repeatedly said this is not about religious beliefs of god, or various incarnations of god. I have repeatedly said I am not here to argue theology. You, as well as some of your "team" have been constantly attempting to finagle the conversation into a theological debate, and I have constantly been trying to keep the thread topic on track. We are not talking about theological manifestations of spiritual belief, we are talking about spiritual existence.

I've not argued that god is omnipotent, or said I could prove an omnipotent god. I've not contradicted that statement, and you've not shown a contradiction. You presented my smart-ass response to a smart-ass remark about Christ. Sorry you completely missed the context there, but I can't say that I am surprised. You're not very bright.

You may be a condescending smart ass but that does not give you the right to project it onto me. My remark about Christ was not a smart assed remark, and YOU brought up an omnipotent spirit, not me. Just because you now consistently reject an omnipotent spirit after I debunked omnipotence does not mean you didn't embrace an omnipotent spirit when you thought it would score points for metaphysical spiritualism.

The more you deny your obvious contradiction the more you discredit yourself.
Thank you.

 

[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.

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.

Nice try! No banana.

I stated something that is SO BASIC :

1 + 2

=

2 + 1

What have you "shown?"

An idealistic view of what 1 actually is,
and how, when added to 2,
could/maybe/might be a bit more than 3?

SUE the folks that supposedly educated you,
for they blinded you.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Nice try! No banana.

I stated something that is SO BASIC :

1 + 2

=

2 + 1

What have you "shown?"

An idealistic view of what 1 actually is,
and how, when added to 2,
could/maybe/might be a bit more than 3?

SUE the folks that supposedly educated you,
for they blinded you.

Heh?

 

[Boss]

How so? Observation indicates otherwise.

Observation does not indicate anything, except that humans have always been intrinsically tied to spiritual belief. Even the theory of the Big Bang can not be 'explained' by physics, because matter does not create matter. Energy doesn't materialize from nothingness.

You can not logically say that observation indicates nothing, and then say that humans have always been tied to spiritual belief. Spiritual belief is derived from observation, which according to you, indicates nothing, which means there is no spirituality.

Boom.

Man, are you really this incapable of comprehending plain English? Do you not see the comma, followed by the word "except" which means there is an exception to follow? Observation shows us all kinds of things, I certainly didn't mean to inadvertently imply otherwise. Observation certainly doesn't indicate there is no spiritual existence. As a matter of fact, you must be able to observe spiritual evidence, the very first and foremost criteria established in my OP.

So now, how about you stop sputtering around like a shit fly, trying to catch me in a contradiction, and address the points in the OP that you have STILL not addressed adequately? Or is your objective now, to be the biggest anal nuisance you can be, until I get bored with you and move on?

 

[HUGGY]

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.

Nice try! No banana.

I stated something that is SO BASIC :

1 + 2

=

2 + 1

What have you "shown?"

An idealistic view of what 1 actually is,
and how, when added to 2,
could/maybe/might be a bit more than 3?

SUE the folks that supposedly educated you,
for they blinded you.

Heh?

No bananas ??? A butterfly flaps it's yap on USMB and the price of bananas goes up at my grocery store...I E ...no bananas for HUGGY today...

True story..

 

[newpolitics]

Observation does not indicate anything, except that humans have always been intrinsically tied to spiritual belief. Even the theory of the Big Bang can not be 'explained' by physics, because matter does not create matter. Energy doesn't materialize from nothingness.

You can not logically say that observation indicates nothing, and then say that humans have always been tied to spiritual belief. Spiritual belief is derived from observation, which according to you, indicates nothing, which means there is no spirituality.

Boom.

Man, are you really this incapable of comprehending plain English? Do you not see the comma, followed by the word "except" which means there is an exception to follow? Observation shows us all kinds of things, I certainly didn't mean to inadvertently imply otherwise. Observation certainly doesn't indicate there is no spiritual existence. As a matter of fact, you must be able to observe spiritual evidence, the very first and foremost criteria established in my OP.

So now, how about you stop sputtering around like a shit fly, trying to catch me in a contradiction, and address the points in the OP that you have STILL not addressed adequately? Or is your objective now, to be the biggest anal nuisance you can be, until I get bored with you and move on?

I am using your logic, so you are disagreeing with yourself.

You said it: "you must be able to observe spiritual evidence" yet you just said "observation does not indicate anything." So you are special pleading in saying that observation does not indicate anything except in the case of spiritual observation, which you would need to somehow justify, but haven't. So many holes in your logic.

You only are confirming that " spiritual evidence" is merely anecdotal evidence.

 

[fyrenza]

No bananas ??? A butterfly flaps it's yap on USMB and the price of bananas goes up at my grocery store...I E ...no bananas for HUGGY today...

True story..

Wanna "monkey around," later? ROFL!!!

 

[S.J.]

Observation does not indicate anything, except that humans have always been intrinsically tied to spiritual belief. Even the theory of the Big Bang can not be 'explained' by physics, because matter does not create matter. Energy doesn't materialize from nothingness.

You can not logically say that observation indicates nothing, and then say that humans have always been tied to spiritual belief. Spiritual belief is derived from observation, which according to you, indicates nothing, which means there is no spirituality.

Boom.

Man, are you really this incapable of comprehending plain English? Do you not see the comma, followed by the word "except" which means there is an exception to follow? Observation shows us all kinds of things, I certainly didn't mean to inadvertently imply otherwise. Observation certainly doesn't indicate there is no spiritual existence. As a matter of fact, you must be able to observe spiritual evidence, the very first and foremost criteria established in my OP.

So now, how about you stop sputtering around like a shit fly, trying to catch me in a contradiction, and address the points in the OP that you have STILL not addressed adequately? Or is your objective now, to be the biggest anal nuisance you can be, until I get bored with you and move on?

 

[newpolitics]

You can not logically say that observation indicates nothing, and then say that humans have always been tied to spiritual belief. Spiritual belief is derived from observation, which according to you, indicates nothing, which means there is no spirituality.

Boom.

Man, are you really this incapable of comprehending plain English? Do you not see the comma, followed by the word "except" which means there is an exception to follow? Observation shows us all kinds of things, I certainly didn't mean to inadvertently imply otherwise. Observation certainly doesn't indicate there is no spiritual existence. As a matter of fact, you must be able to observe spiritual evidence, the very first and foremost criteria established in my OP.

So now, how about you stop sputtering around like a shit fly, trying to catch me in a contradiction, and address the points in the OP that you have STILL not addressed adequately? Or is your objective now, to be the biggest anal nuisance you can be, until I get bored with you and move on?

Why are you clapping? Oh that's right. You think this constitutes debating.

 

[Boss]

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.

Look, dum dum... the same people who believe Christ is god's son, also believe god is omnipotent. I have repeatedly said this is not about religious beliefs of god, or various incarnations of god. I have repeatedly said I am not here to argue theology. You, as well as some of your "team" have been constantly attempting to finagle the conversation into a theological debate, and I have constantly been trying to keep the thread topic on track. We are not talking about theological manifestations of spiritual belief, we are talking about spiritual existence.

I've not argued that god is omnipotent, or said I could prove an omnipotent god. I've not contradicted that statement, and you've not shown a contradiction. You presented my smart-ass response to a smart-ass remark about Christ. Sorry you completely missed the context there, but I can't say that I am surprised. You're not very bright.

You may be a condescending smart ass but that does not give you the right to project it onto me. My remark about Christ was not a smart assed remark, and YOU brought up an omnipotent spirit, not me. Just because you now consistently reject an omnipotent spirit after I debunked omnipotence does not mean you didn't embrace an omnipotent spirit when you thought it would score points for metaphysical spiritualism.

The more you deny your obvious contradiction the more you discredit yourself.
Thank you.

You left out your smart-ass remark that I replied to:
"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."

First of all, you have not debunked omnipotence. That's not to say a spiritual god is or isn't omnipotent, but omnipotence has nothing to do with question of existence. I never argued god was or wasn't omnipotent, I don't need to prove either way to evaluate existence. You raised a question regarding Christ, and the same theological belief which gives us Christ, also believes god is omnipotent, so a physical manifestation of god is certainly possible. You threw this theological understanding in the mix to counter my argument that spiritual entities do not provide physical evidence. It's cute, but I am not here to defend Christianity or what they believe god is or isn't. I'm just rationally evaluating the existence of a spiritual entity, and trying to keep the conversation on that topic.

You know, this whole thread is extremely disappointing to me. Page after page of morons wading in to proclaim "there is no proof of god" as if they haven't even read the OP, a few ruthless god-hating warriors, refusing to remain on topic and discuss this reasonably, a few more antagonists who have no intention of an honest debate, and idiots like you, who want to try and manipulate my words into a "gotchya" moment. I wanted to talk with others who realize a spiritual realm, but don't necessarily subscribe to religious dogma. I wanted to explore the possibilities of Astral Projection, and the Astral plane. You know, with OPEN MINDED people who aren't afraid to explore possibilities, because they are too freaking filled with hate for Christianity!

 

[S.J.]

Man, are you really this incapable of comprehending plain English? Do you not see the comma, followed by the word "except" which means there is an exception to follow? Observation shows us all kinds of things, I certainly didn't mean to inadvertently imply otherwise. Observation certainly doesn't indicate there is no spiritual existence. As a matter of fact, you must be able to observe spiritual evidence, the very first and foremost criteria established in my OP.

So now, how about you stop sputtering around like a shit fly, trying to catch me in a contradiction, and address the points in the OP that you have STILL not addressed adequately? Or is your objective now, to be the biggest anal nuisance you can be, until I get bored with you and move on?

Why are you clapping? Oh that's right. You think this constitutes debating.

This isn't a debate. It's a pathetic attempt by you to save face, and you're failing miserably. Call me sadistic but I'm enjoying the carnage.

 

[Boss]

You said it: "you must be able to observe spiritual evidence" yet you just said "observation does not indicate anything."

No I didn't, read it again, skidmark.

So you are special pleading in saying that observation does not indicate anything except in the case of spiritual observation, which you would need to somehow justify, but haven't.

I didn't say this either.

You only are confirming that " spiritual evidence" is merely anecdotal evidence.

Again... never said this.

Once again, you apparently took too many hits on the old crack pipe, and are reading shit I never posted. But hey... as long as it eats up another page of the thread, so people don't find your total butt kicking on the topic, that's all you're after now.

 

[newpolitics]

Why are you clapping? Oh that's right. You think this constitutes debating.

This isn't a debate. It's a pathetic attempt by you to save face, and you're failing miserably. Call me sadistic but I'm enjoying the carnage.

What you're enjoying is the failing of your own beliefs to present themselves with any veracity. I would call this masochistic.

 

[newpolitics]

You said it: "you must be able to observe spiritual evidence" yet you just said "observation does not indicate anything."

No I didn't, read it again, skidmark.

So you are special pleading in saying that observation does not indicate anything except in the case of spiritual observation, which you would need to somehow justify, but haven't.

I didn't say this either.

You only are confirming that " spiritual evidence" is merely anecdotal evidence.

Again... never said this.

Once again, you apparently took too many hits on the old crack pipe, and are reading shit I never posted. But hey... as long as it eats up another page of the thread, so people don't find your total butt kicking on the topic, that's all you're after now.

You are a straight up liar. I am quoting you directly in the first quote. As to the second and third quote, I know you didn't say it. I am saying it, because it follows logically from what you do say. You don't like the logical results of your premises? Change them.

 

[S.J.]

Why are you clapping? Oh that's right. You think this constitutes debating.

This isn't a debate. It's a pathetic attempt by you to save face, and you're failing miserably. Call me sadistic but I'm enjoying the carnage.

What you're enjoying is the failing of your own beliefs to present themselves with any veracity. I would call this masochistic.

No, I'm enjoying watching you bleed to death while proclaiming victory.

 

[newpolitics]

This isn't a debate. It's a pathetic attempt by you to save face, and you're failing miserably. Call me sadistic but I'm enjoying the carnage.

What you're enjoying is the failing of your own beliefs to present themselves with any veracity. I would call this masochistic.

No, I'm enjoying watching you bleed to death while proclaiming victory.

Who's proclaiming victory?