Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[there4eyeM]

What kind of proof is required in a court of law? The belief of witnesses and prosecutors?

 

[Ravi]

No, you are the one who is confusing physical proof with spiritual proof. You are demanding physical evidence to support something not of the physical world. You are also requiring that any proof of God has to define what incarnation of God, and this is illogical as well. I can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt, two NFL teams will play in the Super Bowl this season. I don't have to tell you which teams to prove that.

You're wrong, I'm not requiring physical proof.

I'd like to see the spiritual proof.

Just because people pray and are spiritual, does not mean that WHAT they pray to EXISTS. That is not proof of its existence, simply that they pray to it. I think your logic breaks down at the fact that you don't understand what "definitive proof" really means.

LOL... You'd like to "see" spiritual proof? To "see" something would require it to have physical presence, we can't "see" things that don't physically exist.

If they pray to something, it spiritually must exist to them, or they wouldn't be praying to it.

My logic is not flawed, you keep trying to apply physical attributes to a spiritual entity, and demand physical proof of a spiritual entity, then claim I am confused about definitive proof.

You are correct when you say that your logic is not flawed. It is non-existent.

Fact.

 

[G.T.]

Millions of followers fully believe Moses communicated with God. His proof was the 10 commandments.

I also have to argue that you don't know the difference between circumstantial and definitive.

 

[Boss]

Nailed it.

However, the existence of spirituality in humans for as long as humans have existed, means that something spiritual must exist, or we would have discarded the trait, according to Darwin.

So... Failed to nail!

Incorrect. It actually could be a brain mechanism used to alleviate the fear of eternal death.

That there are tons of explanations for spirituality mean that "definitive proof" has not been even close to met, not even close.

Again, you're the guy who said "belief is proof."

So let's talk about logic failures.

When the earth was believe to be flat, it was PROOF that it was flat?

Yea, wipe that off.

Why do humans need a brain mechanism to alleviate the fear of eternal death? The "explanation" for spirituality is, we as humans require it. We've required this need to worship something greater than self, as long as we've been around, it hasn't changed. This is spiritual proof that something greater than self must exist, even though there is no physical evidence.

Also, I didn't say "belief is proof" ...I said, "proof requires belief" and that is true. I can show you all the physical and/or spiritual proof in the world, unless you believe the proof, it isn't proving anything to you. Such is the case for spiritual proof of god. You reject the spiritual proof because you don't believe it. That doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist, just that you have chosen not to believe it.

 

[Ravi]

Another fact is that Boss is not sure of his own beliefs, otherwise he would not have come up with this ridiculous premise.

 

[G.T.]

Also, I didn't say "belief is proof" ...

Belief most certainly IS proof

Just sit down, dude. You've lost yourself.

 

[Boss]

Millions of followers fully believe Moses communicated with God. His proof was the 10 commandments.

I also have to argue that you don't know the difference between circumstantial and definitive.

Oh I understand. To millions of followers, the proof is definitive. To you, it is circumstantial.

 

[Truthmatters]

I wonder how much purple dolphin tears are worth?

 

[Ravi]

manifold is flailing like a beached whale on this thread.

 

[G.T.]

However, the existence of spirituality in humans for as long as humans have existed, means that something spiritual must exist, or we would have discarded the trait, according to Darwin.

So... Failed to nail!

Incorrect. It actually could be a brain mechanism used to alleviate the fear of eternal death.

That there are tons of explanations for spirituality mean that "definitive proof" has not been even close to met, not even close.

Again, you're the guy who said "belief is proof."

So let's talk about logic failures.

When the earth was believe to be flat, it was PROOF that it was flat?

Yea, wipe that off.

Why do humans need a brain mechanism to alleviate the fear of eternal death? The "explanation" for spirituality is, we as humans require it. We've required this need to worship something greater than self, as long as we've been around, it hasn't changed. This is spiritual proof that something greater than self must exist, even though there is no physical evidence.

Also, I didn't say "belief is proof" ...I said, "proof requires belief" and that is true. I can show you all the physical and/or spiritual proof in the world, unless you believe the proof, it isn't proving anything to you. Such is the case for spiritual proof of god. You reject the spiritual proof because you don't believe it. That doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist, just that you have chosen not to believe it.

Proof does not require belief, and if you knew what "proof" meant, you'd know why.

"Proof" is irrefutable, it doesn't need to be believed in because it's PROVEN.

Holy shit.

And you have no irrefutable evidence that "spirituality" means that "something higher exists."

None.

 

[eflatminor]

What kind of proof is required in a court of law?

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

The belief of witnesses and prosecutors?

Eye witness testimony is not proof and no prosecutor relies solely on it.

But, combine eye witnesses with motive, a paper trail, dna evidence, fingerprints and a defense that provides no alibi? Then you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You gather similar evidence in support of the existence of a deity and then we'll talk about proof.

 

[G.T.]

Millions of followers fully believe Moses communicated with God. His proof was the 10 commandments.

I also have to argue that you don't know the difference between circumstantial and definitive.

Oh I understand. To millions of followers, the proof is definitive. To you, it is circumstantial.

It's not personal preference, it's logic and rationality.

you know?

Critical thinking.

10 commandments are definitive proof of a conversation with God?

no, because we can logically dream up many other ways to come up with ten commandments can't we? Yes, we can. So - logic fail.

 

[Boss]

Also, I didn't say "belief is proof" ...

Belief most certainly IS proof

Just sit down, dude. You've lost yourself.

You are taking what I said out of context, deliberately using part of a statement to inflict a "gotchya" on me. Sorry... you can't get away with that on The Boss!

PROOF... regardless of what kind... relies on BELIEF. DNA evidence PROVED that OJ was guilty, but the jury did not BELIEVE the PROOF, therefore, OJ was found "not guilty."

 

[G.T.]

Also, I didn't say "belief is proof" ...

Belief most certainly IS proof

Just sit down, dude. You've lost yourself.

You are taking what I said out of context, deliberately using part of a statement to inflict a "gotchya" on me. Sorry... you can't get away with that on The Boss!

PROOF... regardless of what kind... relies on BELIEF. DNA evidence PROVED that OJ was guilty, but the jury did not BELIEVE the PROOF, therefore, OJ was found "not guilty."

It wasnt taken out of context. You blatantly contradicted yourself. You still don't understand what proof is, let alone definitive. Sad.

 

[there4eyeM]

What makes it important that others believe if one knows something is true?

 

[G.T.]

What makes it important that others believe if one knows something is true?

Knowledge is power. Knowledge is important. Weeding fact from fiction helps advancement. Having standards for accepting things enables clearer and more correct pictures to be painted.

 

[eflatminor]

PROOF... regardless of what kind... relies on BELIEF. DNA evidence PROVED that OJ was guilty, but the jury did not BELIEVE the PROOF, therefore, OJ was found "not guilty."

Well, not exactly. DNA evidence proved that a drop of blood found in OJ's Bronco was in fact his. That didn't prove he was guilty of the murders.

Just saying.

 

[Boss]

What kind of proof is required in a court of law?

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

The belief of witnesses and prosecutors?

Eye witness testimony is not proof and no prosecutor relies solely on it.

But, combine eye witnesses with motive, a paper trail, dna evidence, fingerprints and a defense that provides no alibi? Then you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You gather similar evidence in support of the existence of a deity and then we'll talk about proof.

Combine as many "proofs" as you wish, unless a jury believes your "proofs" they aren't "proven." But let's take your criteria as you presented it... Eyewitness accounts: Abraham and Moses. Motive: Mankind's inseparable connection to spirituality. A paper trail: The Holy Bible. DNA and fingerprints are physical evidence that do not apply to spiritual entities.

 

[PratchettFan]

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!

I think you might want to look up the defition of "definitive".

 

[Boss]

Just sit down, dude. You've lost yourself.

You are taking what I said out of context, deliberately using part of a statement to inflict a "gotchya" on me. Sorry... you can't get away with that on The Boss!

PROOF... regardless of what kind... relies on BELIEF. DNA evidence PROVED that OJ was guilty, but the jury did not BELIEVE the PROOF, therefore, OJ was found "not guilty."

It wasnt taken out of context. You blatantly contradicted yourself. You still don't understand what proof is, let alone definitive. Sad.

Yes, it was taken out of context, because I have corrected the context twice now. I do understand what proof is, you still don't. I also understand definitive, and my proof is definitive. Whether you believe it or not, that's another story.