Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

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.

No, you are not quoting me directly, you are grossly misquoting me. In fact, you have left out half of my sentence. As for what logically follows the misquote, it doesn't matter.

Here's the conversation:

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.

dblack: How so? Observation indicates otherwise.

Boss: 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.
-----------------------------------------------

With regard to (context) "proof that god exists," observation indicates nothing but years of human spiritual belief. Now, I am terribly sorry that you are so profoundly retarded that you can't understand the context of the conversation, and that I have to repeatedly explain the context to you like a fucking third grader, but this makes the third time I have responded to this idiocy, to correct ANY misinterpretation you might have had in your fucked up retard mind.

There's not much else I can do here, if you insist that you know better about what I intended and meant than I do, who am I to argue with a 'genius' like that? I guess I should just bow out of this thread and let you tell everybody what I want to say, since you seem to know better than myself? Maybe I should just start letting you post threads for me too, since you have such an amazing mind?

Now, go fucking learn how to comprehend a sentence in context, please?

 

[newpolitics]

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.

No, you are not quoting me directly, you are grossly misquoting me. In fact, you have left out half of my sentence. As for what logically follows the misquote, it doesn't matter.

Here's the conversation:

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.

dblack: How so? Observation indicates otherwise.

Boss: 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.
-----------------------------------------------

With regard to (context) "proof that god exists," observation indicates nothing but years of human spiritual belief. Now, I am terribly sorry that you are so profoundly retarded that you can't understand the context of the conversation, and that I have to repeatedly explain the context to you like a fucking third grader, but this makes the third time I have responded to this idiocy, to correct ANY misinterpretation you might have had in your fucked up retard mind.

There's not much else I can do here, if you insist that you know better about what I intended and meant than I do, who am I to argue with a 'genius' like that? I guess I should just bow out of this thread and let you tell everybody what I want to say, since you seem to know better than myself? Maybe I should just start letting you post threads for me too, since you have such an amazing mind?

Now, go fucking learn how to comprehend a sentence in context, please?

How could I post for you? You don't know even know what you are saying. I quoted two contradictory propositions from you. As usual, you try and skirt around the issue and don't actually address what I'm saying.

 

[Boss]

How could I post for you? You don't know even know what you are saying. I quoted two contradictory propositions from you. As usual, you try and skirt around the issue and don't actually address what I'm saying.

No, you deliberately misquoted me and took my comment out of context, so that you could continue to divert and distract from the thread topic. It's what you've done for most of this thread, and anyone who reads it objectively, can see that. There has been no contradiction in anything I have stated, and if there has been ANY misunderstanding regarding my intent, I have clarified it absolutely and in no uncertain terms, but you want to insist I have made "contradictory propositions."

I don't blame you man, the beating you've taken in this thread is brutal and embarrassing, especially to an egomaniac like yourself. It's completely understandable, you don't want to debate the thread topic anymore, because I made you look like an illogical idiot when you tried. Still, I can't let you get away with outright lies about what I've said.

 

[newpolitics]

How could I post for you? You don't know even know what you are saying. I quoted two contradictory propositions from you. As usual, you try and skirt around the issue and don't actually address what I'm saying.

No, you deliberately misquoted me and took my comment out of context, so that you could continue to divert and distract from the thread topic. It's what you've done for most of this thread, and anyone who reads it objectively, can see that. There has been no contradiction in anything I have stated, and if there has been ANY misunderstanding regarding my intent, I have clarified it absolutely and in no uncertain terms, but you want to insist I have made "contradictory propositions."

I don't blame you man, the beating you've taken in this thread is brutal and embarrassing, especially to an egomaniac like yourself. It's completely understandable, you don't want to debate the thread topic anymore, because I made you look like an illogical idiot when you tried. Still, I can't let you get away with outright lies about what I've said.

I think you are a little bit insane.

 

[Boss]

I think you are a little bit insane.

Really? Because, that's a whole lot nicer than what I think about you.

 

[newpolitics]

I think you are a little bit insane.

Really? Because, that's a whole lot nicer than what I think about you.

Tell me: How can I be misquoting you, when I am quoting you verbatim?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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!

Then why did you title this thread as "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists"? You literally begged for people to come here and expose your nonsense and when they did so you resorted to crude insults because you could not refute their logic and reason. The only person you should be blaming for your disappointment is yourself but it is readily apparent that you lack the inherent honesty necessary to recognize your own shortcomings. You are about as far from spirituality and astral planes as it is possible to get. Discussing spirituality with you would be like discussing quantum physics with a pet rock.

 

[HUGGY]

Spirituality is one's own private journey. It has no need to involve anyone else in that process. Everything you need to know to get started and guide you along is in print and is certainly available now on the internet. This bickering about it is stupid.

 

[fyrenza]

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfuWXRZe9yA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfuWXRZe9yA[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

Spirituality is one's own private journey. It has no need to involve anyone else in that process. Everything you need to know to get started and guide you along is in print and is certainly available now on the internet. This bickering about it is stupid.

I suspect the OP'er has suffered from an embarrassing lack of credibility with the ill considered thread title "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists". Such a false and bellicose claim was doomed to fail. Having abandoned that claim, it was on to plow more furrows of "spirituality".

Such are the wages of proselytizing gone bad.

 

[HUGGY]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmOZFAYeurY]Moody Blues - Question - Royal Albert Hall - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jz1dVjIe7E]The Moody Blues Legend of a Mind - YouTube[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

We often hear the God-haters chortle... you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy. I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.

You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?

As you can see, the "existence" of something can be physical or nonphysical, or even spiritual. So in order to evaluate the existence of something spiritual, we have to use spiritual evidence, since physical evidence doesn't logically apply. We don't demand spiritual evidence to prove the physical.... if you demonstrate how rain is caused with physical science, and someone says...well God tells me that rain is His tears... what would you say to that? It's backward, mouth-breathing and knuckle-dragging? Right? Well, that is someone applying spiritual evidence to the physical, and rejecting physical evidence. Yes, it's kind of stupid, isn't it? Just as stupid as demanding physical evidence to support a spiritual entity, and rejecting spiritual evidence.

Now to the "definitive proof" part. Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence, we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient people of Lake Mungo, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony. This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality. We can trace this human connection with spirituality all through mankind's history to present day religions. Mankind has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. Since our very origins.

Perhaps this is where we can interject some relative physical science, from none other than the father of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin points out that behavioral traits which are inherent in a species, exist for some fundamental reason pertaining to the advancement of the species, otherwise they are discarded over time through natural selection. No species of animal we have ever studied, just does something inherently, with no fundamental reason. Salmon swim upstream for a reason. Dogs wag their tails for a reason. We may not understand the reason, but Darwin tells us, there has to be one.

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!

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.

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!

Like I said, you are a lousy liar. All you have to do is scroll back a few posts and you will see I not only included that quote when you falsely claimed you were taken out of context, I highlighted it is red. And there was nothing smart assed about it.

Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.
Samuel Butler

And I raised a question about Christ as a contrary example of a claim you made about SPIRITUALITY, not religion.

You must be proud of yourself being made a fool of by morons and idiots.

 

[G.T.]

Demonstrate it, then.

No problem.

Do you believe in God?

Pray for him to guide you to my house.

When you get here based upon his guidance, I will give you a cold beverage and a friendly meal and then you can be on your way.

If you cannot find my house from God's guidance, then it was demonstrated that the statement "Proof positive of God. A person who prays for true guidance from God will receive the very same." is false.

It's not that hard.

I see. God as GPS.

I honestly believe people become atheists because they are incapable of thinking in the abstract.

No, its theists and atheists who both lack creative thinking skills. The one true answer is the agnostic, because whether we know it ir are deluded enough not to know it, all of us ARE agnostic, in "not knowing." Now, some may be so full of well intentioned belief that they think they really know, but thats because theyre not that deep of thinkers.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Hollie you lack creativity same ol boring responses.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

Are you two stocking me lol.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

So morality--or maybe I should use a more general term, ethics--is not reasoned but revealed?

Tell me--If I plan to strike a man, is it not rational to expect some type of retaliation--or am I informed by some religion not to do so?

Tell me--If I stole an object from some one, should I also not expect some actions against me to return the object at the least, or is there a religion that tells us not to do so?

Also Tell me--which religion declared Slavery an evil, or was it reasoning that led man to this conclusion?

We are rationalizing what is just and injust everyday without need to reference a holy book of any religion. Wether or not you believe this is not at question, but the fact that this is done is a matter of fact.

We do this in our justice systems--everyday
We do this in the construction of our laws-everyday.

To argue the opposite--that man can not construct an ethical law--which are the basis for a moral code-- is to claim man himself is incapable of creating any law of some ethical quality without referencing a religious text.

But this is done everyday.

P.S.--the reason I am using the general term ethics because some choose to associate "morality" only with a religion. In other words, their argument is that a moral code is a system of ethics espoused by a religion.

 

[Boss]

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!

Then why did you title this thread as "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists"? You literally begged for people to come here and expose your nonsense and when they did so you resorted to crude insults because you could not refute their logic and reason. The only person you should be blaming for your disappointment is yourself but it is readily apparent that you lack the inherent honesty necessary to recognize your own shortcomings. You are about as far from spirituality and astral planes as it is possible to get. Discussing spirituality with you would be like discussing quantum physics with a pet rock.

But you don't "expose nonsense" by popping in to say "god doesn't exist." That is simply an emphatic claim with no basis or supporting argument. Logic and reason have been on my side since I posted the OP, and I've pointed out exactly how that is the case.

Definitive Proof that GOD Exists can be interpreted differently, depending on what you are talking about. The evidence which makes the proof definitive, is spiritual evidence, which you don't accept. First two paragraphs of my OP, address this very point. You've not refuted the point, no one has. GOD is a metaphoric term used, in this case, to distinguish the spiritual entity humans have connected with for the duration of the species. You've mistakenly interpreted this term to mean some religious manifestation, and I have repeatedly had to correct this misconception. Finally, the word "exists" and how it does not mean physical existence, since we are not talking about a physical entity. Therefore, a more suitable title might have been: Definitive proof for those who accept spiritual evidence, that some spiritual entity greater than self, exists in a spiritual sense. But you have to actually READ the OP to comprehend this. Those who simply popped in to proclaim "god doesn't exist," have not read the OP, or don't comprehend what was said.

Spirituality is one's own private journey. It has no need to involve anyone else in that process. Everything you need to know to get started and guide you along is in print and is certainly available now on the internet. This bickering about it is stupid.

I suspect the OP'er has suffered from an embarrassing lack of credibility with the ill considered thread title "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists". Such a false and bellicose claim was doomed to fail. Having abandoned that claim, it was on to plow more furrows of "spirituality".

Such are the wages of proselytizing gone bad.

Uhm, there is nothing "ill-considered" about the thread title. You've not proven my argument false, and I am not the least bit embarrassed by that.

Proselytizing? Where have I done that? Oh, that's right, I basically said I was an Atheist, is THAT what you meant? My repeated denunciation of organized religion, might be construed as proselytization... I hadn't considered that. However, I didn't raise this in the OP, it was only mentioned after repeatedly having to correct people who can't distinguish spirituality from religion.

My apologies to those who believe in a Christian God, I didn't mean to be proselytizing.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Actually, no

Because everyone believes something is true does not make it true.

For example, belief in a lie does not change the lie into truth. Regardless of how many, or if everyone, believes in that lie.

 

[Boss]

Spirituality is one's own private journey. It has no need to involve anyone else in that process. Everything you need to know to get started and guide you along is in print and is certainly available now on the internet. This bickering about it is stupid.

Wow, an actual acknowledgement spirituality exists? Is that what I am hearing?

You are right, by the way. Spiritual connection is personal and individual, it has absolutely no purpose to someone who rejects spirituality. Most of the "bickering" here, has been with those who mistake spiritual connection with religious dogma, unless you count newpolitics posts, which mostly have nothing to do with the OP, and are just bickering about unrelated nonsense.

And I am extremely sorry if you have interpreted anything about this thread, to be me trying to win over your soul or whatever. I assure you, I don't care one whit, whether you ever accept a spiritual god's existence. I certainly hope I don't cause you to be a bible-thumping Jesus freak, we have enough of those. I suppose the reason behind my enlightening OP, is to have people question their thinking, and challenge their perspectives, because this is how we grow as people. If you want to totally reject my argument, that's fine with me, I have no inclination to convince you of the spiritual energy I know exists. As far as I am concerned, this simply gives me an attribute you lack as a human. An advantageous attribute, like homosapiens had over neanderthals.

 

[Boss]

Actually, no

Because everyone believes something is true does not make it true.

For example, belief in a lie does not change the lie into truth. Regardless of how many, or if everyone, believes in that lie.

In other words, it doesn't matter how many people believe there is no such thing as god?

Good point!