Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

.

Now.... my claim is indeed, not supported by physical proof. There is no physical god. Unless you acknowledge the spiritual realm, god can never be proven to "exist" because to "exist" only means "in a physical state" to you. Something that does not possess a physical state, can't be "proven" to someone who only accepts physical proof. For us to objectively evaluate the question of a spiritual existence, we HAVE TO look at spiritual evidence, if we've closed our minds to this, and do not consider this valid "proof," then god can't ever be "proven." God does not reside in the physical realm, and has no physical evidence of existence, and it's illogical to expect this.

You just unknowingly admitted there is no scientific evidence for god.

Science is bounded by methodological naturalism, which means only that which manifests in physical reality is subject to the Scientific method. To say god has no possible physical manifestation, as you did, precludes it from scientific inquiry. Hence, there can not be any scientific evidence for god. If you dance around this logic, then you are hopeless and simply do not care about truth. If you don't care about truth, then why are we debating?

You don't even know how life started but you are certain there is no evidence of God.

 

[HUGGY]

The words used in the TITLE must stand as any average person would assume them to mean. God means what god means as most people assume what god is.

That is the dishonesty of this thread.

Now once the challenge has been made and the gauntlett thrown down..the OP backtracks in a miriad of paths disclaiming god as the omnipotent sky fairy most envision and the bait and switch is completed as "god" is reduced to something equal to deep personal reflection and halucination. No longer is there a god of "faith" in THIS fairy tale. This new incarnation of god is just one of a "lable" covering the thinnest aspects of new age communing with the elements.

 

[newpolitics]

The OP most certainly did not concede there was no scientific evidence, it actually presented some very valid scientific evidence. The OP states there is no PHYSICAL evidence that can prove spiritual existence of a spiritual entity. Science only deals with the physical realm, and while we can certainly use knowledge from science to support the argument for spirituality, we can't "prove existence" in a physical nature, because such a thing is illogical.

So you're back on phishing for a definition again? We've covered this already, you do not need to "define" something, in order to confirm it exists. A spiritual power can exist without conforming to any preconceived notion of it's characteristics.

The OP most certainly did concede that no scientific evidence exists for god. Once again, you are going back on yourself.

Wrong, there is biological evidence that shows it was a purposeful design. You believe in miracles I believe in a designer.

Again, this makes no sense. This time, its your usage of the word "miracle" with reference to what I believe. I'm a naturalist. Miracles don't exist.

 

[newpolitics]

.

Now.... my claim is indeed, not supported by physical proof. There is no physical god. Unless you acknowledge the spiritual realm, god can never be proven to "exist" because to "exist" only means "in a physical state" to you. Something that does not possess a physical state, can't be "proven" to someone who only accepts physical proof. For us to objectively evaluate the question of a spiritual existence, we HAVE TO look at spiritual evidence, if we've closed our minds to this, and do not consider this valid "proof," then god can't ever be "proven." God does not reside in the physical realm, and has no physical evidence of existence, and it's illogical to expect this.

You just unknowingly admitted there is no scientific evidence for god.

Science is bounded by methodological naturalism, which means only that which manifests in physical reality is subject to the Scientific method. To say god has no possible physical manifestation, as you did, precludes it from scientific inquiry. Hence, there can not be any scientific evidence for god. If you dance around this logic, then you are hopeless and simply do not care about truth. If you don't care about truth, then why are we debating?

You don't even know how life started but you are certain there is no evidence of God.

Who said I am certain? I am certain the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist, because it is self-referentially incoherent, but I can not know that no supernatural agent exists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The OP most certainly did concede that no scientific evidence exists for god. Once again, you are going back on yourself.

Wrong, there is biological evidence that shows it was a purposeful design. You believe in miracles I believe in a designer.

Again, this makes no sense. This time, its your usage of the word "miracle" with reference to what I believe. I'm a naturalist. Miracles don't exist.

It would be a miracle for all the molecular machines within a cell to come in to existence naturally each performing a necessary function or life would not exist. That my friend is a miracle unless you're willing to go on record claiming that this natural system possesses intelligence and can think for itself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You just unknowingly admitted there is no scientific evidence for god.

Science is bounded by methodological naturalism, which means only that which manifests in physical reality is subject to the Scientific method. To say god has no possible physical manifestation, as you did, precludes it from scientific inquiry. Hence, there can not be any scientific evidence for god. If you dance around this logic, then you are hopeless and simply do not care about truth. If you don't care about truth, then why are we debating?

You don't even know how life started but you are certain there is no evidence of God.

Who said I am certain? I am certain the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist, because it is self-referentially incoherent, but I can not know that no supernatural agent exists.

You just claimed certainty.

 

[newpolitics]

Wrong, there is biological evidence that shows it was a purposeful design. You believe in miracles I believe in a designer.

Again, this makes no sense. This time, its your usage of the word "miracle" with reference to what I believe. I'm a naturalist. Miracles don't exist.

It would be a miracle for all the molecular machines within a cell to come in to existence naturally each performing a necessary function or life would not exist. That my friend is a miracle unless you're willing to go on record claiming that this natural system possesses intelligence and can think for itself.

How do you know it would be a miracle? Can you demonstrate this? No. This is just as stupid as someone saying with certainty that no gods exist.

Before your knee jerk reaction: I said that the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist with certainty, not a god in general.

 

[newpolitics]

You don't even know how life started but you are certain there is no evidence of God.

Who said I am certain? I am certain the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist, because it is self-referentially incoherent, but I can not know that no supernatural agent exists.

You just claimed certainty.

With respect to your very specific definition of god that is internally inconsistent? yes, I am claiming certainty. It is just like I know that a square circle doesn't exist. However, this discussion is not about the Christian god. Don't be so narcissistic to think that every conversation about the existence of god is about your definition of god.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The truth of the matter is that God is as real as you need him to be.

I don't need him to exist at all, My brother and his wife need god to assure them of everlasting life, and to give them the strength to cope with her MS. Me? I tend to think of a bottle of Valium mixed with a cup of applesauce as the ultimate cure for a painful terminal disease.

 

[Boss]

The words used in the TITLE must stand as any average person would assume them to mean. God means what god means as most people assume what god is.

That is the dishonesty of this thread.

Now once the challenge has been made and the gauntlett thrown down..the OP backtracks in a miriad of paths disclaiming god as the omnipotent sky fairy most envision and the bait and switch is completed as "god" is reduced to something equal to deep personal reflection and halucination. No longer is there a god of "faith" in THIS fairy tale. This new incarnation of god is just one of a "lable" covering the thinnest aspects of new age communing with the elements.

What the hell do you mean, words must stand as the "average" person would assume them? Surely you are kidding? What the hell is an "average" person, someone who thinks like you? Words mean what the user intends them to mean, period! They may be interpreted differently by others, they may be taken completely out of context, but they always mean whatever the user intended, in context of a conversation. How in the world do you manage to even communicate with people, under this assumption? I don't' get that.

There is no dishonesty in the thread title or the thread OP. I set the parameters in the opening paragraphs, and clearly defined what I meant by "definitive proof" as well as "god" and "exist," and explained that the argument has to clarify what these mean, before we can evaluate further. If you are incapable of comprehending spiritual evidence, spiritual existence, and spiritual nature, then you are incapable of understanding the argument. Therefore, you believe we are having a different argument, based on your misinterpretations. That isn't my problem.

I did not "reduce" god to anything, I simply clarified that "god" in this argument, is a metaphoric representation of the spiritual force humans have always been connected with. I don't need any more definition that this, to prove spiritual existence. If I were trying to prove the Christian manifestation of god exists, I would need a whole lot more evidence for that, and I don't have it. Again, I admit that I cannot prove the Christian version of god exists, and never claimed I could.

Now it's interesting, I don't personally believe the Christian version of god exists, but I can't prove it doesn't, and I am not going to say it's not possible, like newpolitics has. You see, I don't believe we are confined to only what we currently know, I believe there is very much we don't know, and shouldn't presume we do. This is why science has been such a great thing for mankind, it continues pondering the possibility of things, it doesn't draw conclusions, like newpolitics does. Whenever you have decided that something is not possible, you have stopped practicing science and started practicing faith. Everything is possible, it may not be very probable, but it is possible.

I pointed out earlier, Prof. Michio Kaku, a noted theoretic physicist, presents his new students with the following problem: Calculate the probability that your body will deconstruct and re-materialize on the other side of a brick wall. Of course, newpolitics would chortle... that's impossible! But actually, there is a calculable probability. Kaku says, we would have to calculate longer than the universe has existed, but the probability does indeed exist.

 

[edthecynic]

Wrong, there is biological evidence that shows it was a purposeful design. You believe in miracles I believe in a designer.

Again, this makes no sense. This time, its your usage of the word "miracle" with reference to what I believe. I'm a naturalist. Miracles don't exist.

It would be a miracle for all the molecular machines within a cell to come in to existence naturally each performing a necessary function or life would not exist. That my friend is a miracle unless you're willing to go on record claiming that this natural system possesses intelligence and can think for itself.

Fortunately, nature does not limit molecules to the choices you dictate. What the natural system of molecules does possess is valence electrons, which causes molecules to assemble themselves in certain specific ways. No intelligence required, only valence electrons.

 

[edthecynic]

God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!

No, wait...that was Santa Clause..........

A man goes to board a flight for a business trip. Something he has done practically every day for many years. Only, this particular day, he is suddenly overcome by this ominous feeling, he can't explain it, but he is so moved by it, that he doesn't board the plane. The plane crashes and kills everyone on board. Where did that feeling come from? Santa Claus?

Again, this is anecdotal to you because it is spiritual evidence, but it has happened... to millions of people... over thousands of years.

A man is diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer of the Pancreas. The doctors say it will be a miracle if he lives more than 6 months. His church and family begin a prayer vigil, asking God for a miracle. Six months later the same doctors scratch their heads, because his body is free from cancer. Did Santa Claus make his cancer vanish with no medical explanation?

Again, more spiritual evidence you reject, because your mind is closed to the possibility. But these kind of things happen every day, and millions of humans firmly believe it is the result of spiritual power beyond our realm, which is why they developed a special word to apply to such phenomenon, called "blessings."

In your first example, many more millions of people over many more "thousands" of years got off the plane and the plane didn't crash killing no one on board.

In your second example the medical explanation was misdiagnosis. Happens all the time, you see doctors are not infallible.

Again more examples of you closing your mind to any possibility that "blessings" could be nothing more than coincidence or blind luck.

 

[Boss]

God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!

No, wait...that was Santa Clause..........

A man goes to board a flight for a business trip. Something he has done practically every day for many years. Only, this particular day, he is suddenly overcome by this ominous feeling, he can't explain it, but he is so moved by it, that he doesn't board the plane. The plane crashes and kills everyone on board. Where did that feeling come from? Santa Claus?

Again, this is anecdotal to you because it is spiritual evidence, but it has happened... to millions of people... over thousands of years.

A man is diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer of the Pancreas. The doctors say it will be a miracle if he lives more than 6 months. His church and family begin a prayer vigil, asking God for a miracle. Six months later the same doctors scratch their heads, because his body is free from cancer. Did Santa Claus make his cancer vanish with no medical explanation?

Again, more spiritual evidence you reject, because your mind is closed to the possibility. But these kind of things happen every day, and millions of humans firmly believe it is the result of spiritual power beyond our realm, which is why they developed a special word to apply to such phenomenon, called "blessings."

In your first example, many more millions of people over many more "thousands" of years got off the plane and the plane didn't crash killing no one on board.

In your second example the medical explanation was misdiagnosis. Happens all the time, you see doctors are not infallible.

Again more examples of you closing your mind to any possibility that "blessings" could be nothing more than coincidence or blind luck.

All you are doing is continuing to affirm Point #1 of the OP. You refuse to accept spiritual evidence. You will do anything to avoid acknowledgement, because you hate religious people. You have convinced yourself, any admission of spirituality helps make the case for religious people, and you can't have that. You are an intolerant religious bigot, and it is prejudicing your judgement with regard to this question. We can, therefore, dismiss any opinion you have on this topic, you have invalidated yourself.

In the first example, we aren't talking about other people or what they experienced. I asked for an explanation regarding the person and situation I described, I did not claim this was god at work, I asked for an explanation.... I haven't gotten one.

In my second example, the man had cancer, they had MRIs and x-rays, tumors were present in his pancreas, and it was confirmed he was Stage 4. This was no misdiagnosis, it had been diagnosed, tested, verified and confirmed, he actually had Stage 4 cancer. His doctors couldn't explain it, and neither can you.

And here's the deal, these are just two examples, there are literally millions. Regardless of what "reason" you want to casually dismiss this evidence with, these people went to the grave believing it was due to a spiritual intervention. You can not prove otherwise.

 

[Hollie]

God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!

No, wait...that was Santa Clause..........

A man goes to board a flight for a business trip. Something he has done practically every day for many years. Only, this particular day, he is suddenly overcome by this ominous feeling, he can't explain it, but he is so moved by it, that he doesn't board the plane. The plane crashes and kills everyone on board. Where did that feeling come from? Santa Claus?

Again, this is anecdotal to you because it is spiritual evidence, but it has happened... to millions of people... over thousands of years.

A man is diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer of the Pancreas. The doctors say it will be a miracle if he lives more than 6 months. His church and family begin a prayer vigil, asking God for a miracle. Six months later the same doctors scratch their heads, because his body is free from cancer. Did Santa Claus make his cancer vanish with no medical explanation?

Again, more spiritual evidence you reject, because your mind is closed to the possibility. But these kind of things happen every day, and millions of humans firmly believe it is the result of spiritual power beyond our realm, which is why they developed a special word to apply to such phenomenon, called "blessings."

On the contrary, you seem to be confirming a host of negative stereotypes regarding religious fundamentalists.

You’re infuriated that others reject your claims to supernaturalism, gods, and “spirituality”. That you offer nothing but anecdotal claims, bad analogies and false references shold clue you in to why others are not convinced of your claims.

Your second example is a hoax. You simply made that up. What man, specifically, was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer of the Pancreas. You’re making appeals to “miracles” with invented scenarios.

As far as miracles in the past are concerned, clearly a god would realize that such events are not viable or reliably handed down-- no proof exists that validates these ancient miracles that coincidentally occurred during mankind's particularly superstitious tenure on Earth.

So maybe your gods should actively perform miracles more often. And maybe they should be obvious, and happen every so often to remind us what's what. I always wonder why the gods "perform miracles" like "miraculous cures" for cancer (which has a spontaneous remission rate anyway) but we never see anyone with a severed limb stand up, reattach their limb, and heal instantaneously. This would demonstrate the ongoing presence of something outside of Man's rational knowledge, and it would be hard to dismiss an ongoing pattern of such events.

But a note of caution regarding modern “miracles”. Modern miracles won't prove ancient ones, but one could easily embrace a reverse empiricism and make the case that modern miracles go a long way towards showing evidence of some power that is wholly inexplicable.

I know the counter argument to this would be, "Well even if the gods did that, some people wouldn't believe it. Such miracles could be dismissed as aliens for instance, or mass hallucinations... so why should they?"

Well, the fact is more people would believe it if they witnessed such things on an ongoing basis, as opposed to the utterly nothing we are experiencing today-- and that peculiar coincidence that as man learns more about his environment, miracles diminish or become vastly more "subtle" or based upon luck (the bus plunged to the bottom of the ravine and only I was saved-- it was a miracle from the Gods! Thank you Gods, and screw those losers who died!") . If such blatantly miraculous things were to occur, I might be convinced, for instance. And the goal is salvation right? Based upon this infinite love?

Anyway, you are free to attack anyone who rejects your false claims of gods, miracles, “spirituality” and things that go bump in the night but there are so many slippery slopes attending the topic that I think supernaturalists would do better to avoid the whole thing. I suppose creationists and even theistic evolutionists can't do that since their entire worldview still remains firmly built upon a miracle-- that of creation-- as their keystone belief.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You refuse to accept spiritual evidence. You will do anything to avoid acknowledgement, because you hate religious people.

There is NO SPIRITUAL EVIDENCE whatsoever, period! Furthermore your incessant LYING about others rationally refusing to accept something that does not exist only makes you the one who is displaying hatred towards those who don't share your particular religious beliefs.

Spirituality is just a state of mind. Some people have more experience than others when it comes to reaching this state. Meditation is one way to do it, another is prayer and a third is to recite a mantra but the common purpose is to zone out into a state where the mind is divorced from everyday reality and free to indulge in fantasy. You are attempting to claim that this state of mind is the equivalent of "evidence". In a court of law a "state of mind" can be used as "motive" for committing a crime but no one is ever convicted on "motive" alone. There must be other substantial evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. In your instance there is no doubt whatsoever that you are playing fast and loose with a "state of mind" and attempting to convince a jury that this constitutes actual "evidence". Furthermore you are deceitfully alleging that everyone who treats your premise with the skepticism that it justly deserves is "guilty" of hating "religious people". You have no actual "evidence" to prove that spurious allegation either.

This entire thread has been little more than an exercise for you to use your own personal religious beliefs as a club to beat those who don't share them. That is not the kind of religion that any sane and rational person would want to join.

 

[HUGGY]

The words used in the TITLE must stand as any average person would assume them to mean. God means what god means as most people assume what god is.

That is the dishonesty of this thread.

Now once the challenge has been made and the gauntlett thrown down..the OP backtracks in a miriad of paths disclaiming god as the omnipotent sky fairy most envision and the bait and switch is completed as "god" is reduced to something equal to deep personal reflection and halucination. No longer is there a god of "faith" in THIS fairy tale. This new incarnation of god is just one of a "lable" covering the thinnest aspects of new age communing with the elements.

What the hell do you mean, words must stand as the "average" person would assume them? Surely you are kidding? What the hell is an "average" person, someone who thinks like you? Words mean what the user intends them to mean, period! They may be interpreted differently by others, they may be taken completely out of context, but they always mean whatever the user intended, in context of a conversation. How in the world do you manage to even communicate with people, under this assumption? I don't' get that.

There is no dishonesty in the thread title or the thread OP. I set the parameters in the opening paragraphs, and clearly defined what I meant by "definitive proof" as well as "god" and "exist," and explained that the argument has to clarify what these mean, before we can evaluate further. If you are incapable of comprehending spiritual evidence, spiritual existence, and spiritual nature, then you are incapable of understanding the argument. Therefore, you believe we are having a different argument, based on your misinterpretations. That isn't my problem.

I did not "reduce" god to anything, I simply clarified that "god" in this argument, is a metaphoric representation of the spiritual force humans have always been connected with. I don't need any more definition that this, to prove spiritual existence. If I were trying to prove the Christian manifestation of god exists, I would need a whole lot more evidence for that, and I don't have it. Again, I admit that I cannot prove the Christian version of god exists, and never claimed I could.

Now it's interesting, I don't personally believe the Christian version of god exists, but I can't prove it doesn't, and I am not going to say it's not possible, like newpolitics has. You see, I don't believe we are confined to only what we currently know, I believe there is very much we don't know, and shouldn't presume we do. This is why science has been such a great thing for mankind, it continues pondering the possibility of things, it doesn't draw conclusions, like newpolitics does. Whenever you have decided that something is not possible, you have stopped practicing science and started practicing faith. Everything is possible, it may not be very probable, but it is possible.

I pointed out earlier, Prof. Michio Kaku, a noted theoretic physicist, presents his new students with the following problem: Calculate the probability that your body will deconstruct and re-materialize on the other side of a brick wall. Of course, newpolitics would chortle... that's impossible! But actually, there is a calculable probability. Kaku says, we would have to calculate longer than the universe has existed, but the probability does indeed exist.

What I mean is that after 671 posts you are still all busy as a bee trying to explain your original post. If you were all CLEAR and honest-like in the first place your point would have been made say within a reply or two and the actual merits of said point would have been discussed ad nauseum several hundred replies ago. You are still trying to define the OP.

 

[edthecynic]

A man goes to board a flight for a business trip. Something he has done practically every day for many years. Only, this particular day, he is suddenly overcome by this ominous feeling, he can't explain it, but he is so moved by it, that he doesn't board the plane. The plane crashes and kills everyone on board. Where did that feeling come from? Santa Claus?

Again, this is anecdotal to you because it is spiritual evidence, but it has happened... to millions of people... over thousands of years.

A man is diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer of the Pancreas. The doctors say it will be a miracle if he lives more than 6 months. His church and family begin a prayer vigil, asking God for a miracle. Six months later the same doctors scratch their heads, because his body is free from cancer. Did Santa Claus make his cancer vanish with no medical explanation?

Again, more spiritual evidence you reject, because your mind is closed to the possibility. But these kind of things happen every day, and millions of humans firmly believe it is the result of spiritual power beyond our realm, which is why they developed a special word to apply to such phenomenon, called "blessings."

In your first example, many more millions of people over many more "thousands" of years got off the plane and the plane didn't crash killing no one on board.

In your second example the medical explanation was misdiagnosis. Happens all the time, you see doctors are not infallible.

Again more examples of you closing your mind to any possibility that "blessings" could be nothing more than coincidence or blind luck.

All you are doing is continuing to affirm Point #1 of the OP. You refuse to accept spiritual evidence. You will do anything to avoid acknowledgement, because you hate religious people. You have convinced yourself, any admission of spirituality helps make the case for religious people, and you can't have that. You are an intolerant religious bigot, and it is prejudicing your judgement with regard to this question. We can, therefore, dismiss any opinion you have on this topic, you have invalidated yourself.

In the first example, we aren't talking about other people or what they experienced. I asked for an explanation regarding the person and situation I described, I did not claim this was god at work, I asked for an explanation.... I haven't gotten one.

In my second example, the man had cancer, they had MRIs and x-rays, tumors were present in his pancreas, and it was confirmed he was Stage 4. This was no misdiagnosis, it had been diagnosed, tested, verified and confirmed, he actually had Stage 4 cancer. His doctors couldn't explain it, and neither can you.

And here's the deal, these are just two examples, there are literally millions. Regardless of what "reason" you want to casually dismiss this evidence with, these people went to the grave believing it was due to a spiritual intervention. You can not prove otherwise.

You got an explanation for the plane, coincidence. There is nothing spiritual about coincidence! You are too consumed with hate for anyone who has the capacity to see a little more than what you want to limit them to that you can't accept what is obvious to rational people. Your hate blinds you to reality.

Now that you have given more information in the second case, it is more likely the man and his church are lying rather than a misdiagnose. It never happened and YOU can't prove that it happened. Religious con artists make up claims like that all the time to cheat the sickly out of what little money they have while waiting for their "miracle."

Here's the deal, you are the one making the claim therefore the burden is on YOU to prove it, not me to disprove it.

"He who asserts must also prove"
- Aristotle

 

[Boss]

God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!

No, wait...that was Santa Clause..........

A man goes to board a flight for a business trip. Something he has done practically every day for many years. Only, this particular day, he is suddenly overcome by this ominous feeling, he can't explain it, but he is so moved by it, that he doesn't board the plane. The plane crashes and kills everyone on board. Where did that feeling come from? Santa Claus?

Again, this is anecdotal to you because it is spiritual evidence, but it has happened... to millions of people... over thousands of years.

A man is diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer of the Pancreas. The doctors say it will be a miracle if he lives more than 6 months. His church and family begin a prayer vigil, asking God for a miracle. Six months later the same doctors scratch their heads, because his body is free from cancer. Did Santa Claus make his cancer vanish with no medical explanation?

Again, more spiritual evidence you reject, because your mind is closed to the possibility. But these kind of things happen every day, and millions of humans firmly believe it is the result of spiritual power beyond our realm, which is why they developed a special word to apply to such phenomenon, called "blessings."

On the contrary, you seem to be confirming a host of negative stereotypes regarding religious fundamentalists.

You’re infuriated that others reject your claims to supernaturalism, gods, and “spirituality”. That you offer nothing but anecdotal claims, bad analogies and false references shold clue you in to why others are not convinced of your claims.

Your second example is a hoax. You simply made that up. What man, specifically, was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer of the Pancreas. You’re making appeals to “miracles” with invented scenarios.

Let me assure you, I am not infuriated that you have a closed mind. I do feel sorry for people who lack spiritual connection. They tend to be cynical, amoral, discontent, and generally unhappy people.

The second example is actually a friend of the family, but let me predict, you will accuse me of lying, because you already have. You see, everything has to be a lie, or fallacy, or subjective, or delusional, so that you can maintain your closed mind. It's what you do!

As far as miracles in the past are concerned, clearly a god would realize that such events are not viable or reliably handed down-- no proof exists that validates these ancient miracles that coincidentally occurred during mankind's particularly superstitious tenure on Earth.

Why are you talking about god like god is a person? Who said miracles were ancient? They happen daily, all over the planet, and this has happened since ancient times.

So maybe your gods should actively perform miracles more often. And maybe they should be obvious, and happen every so often to remind us what's what.

Why does god now become a plural and belong to me? And how many more miracles would god have to perform for you to stop rejecting them and start believing? Maybe god should zap you with a lightning bolt, so you can find a clue?

I always wonder why the gods "perform miracles" like "miraculous cures" for cancer (which has a spontaneous remission rate anyway) but we never see anyone with a severed limb stand up, reattach their limb, and heal instantaneously. This would demonstrate the ongoing presence of something outside of Man's rational knowledge, and it would be hard to dismiss an ongoing pattern of such events.

Well, you have proven, even if this scenario happened, you could find a way to explain it away and continue rejecting god. It would demonstrate nothing to you, and you would claim... meh, happens all the time!

And let's also be clear about this, humans have never had to rationalize spiritual belief, we are intrinsically tied to it. It's actually irrational to hold the belief you claim, as a Nihilist.

But a note of caution regarding modern “miracles”. Modern miracles won't prove ancient ones, but one could easily embrace a reverse empiricism and make the case that modern miracles go a long way towards showing evidence of some power that is wholly inexplicable.

Again, miracles could be happening every second, people could be re-attaching limbs left and right, and it would not matter to you. As we clearly see, you will find a reason to disbelieve, regardless of the evidence. It's what you do!

I know the counter argument to this would be, "Well even if the gods did that, some people wouldn't believe it. Such miracles could be dismissed as aliens for instance, or mass hallucinations... so why should they?"

Well, the fact is more people would believe it if they witnessed such things on an ongoing basis, as opposed to the utterly nothing we are experiencing today-- and that peculiar coincidence that as man learns more about his environment, miracles diminish or become vastly more "subtle" or based upon luck (the bus plunged to the bottom of the ravine and only I was saved-- it was a miracle from the Gods!

No, you've already established you don't believe in god, and will come up with whatever skepticism is needed to continue disbelief. It would literally make no difference if god manifested in physical form and came to your house personally to say... look, toots, I am REAL, I do exist! You would still reject god. Your mind is closed to the possibility of god, and you'll find every possible excuse to continue disbelief.

Thank you Gods, and screw those losers who died!") . If such blatantly miraculous things were to occur, I might be convinced, for instance. And the goal is salvation right? Based upon this infinite love?

I guarantee, you would NOT be convinced. You would simply point to the fact that such things happen all the time, and aren't miracles, but luck. And why are you again trying to introduce theological belief in place of spirituality? I don't even know what "salvation" means, nor do I give a shit if you ever receive it. I don't think god loves you, I don't even think god cares who you are. God is a spiritual force, why would a spiritual force have human attributes? Why would it "need" for you to do anything? Do the forces of nature require you to believe in them? Do tornadoes care if you think they are real?

Anyway, you are free to attack anyone who rejects your false claims of gods, miracles, “spirituality” and things that go bump in the night but there are so many slippery slopes attending the topic that I think supernaturalists would do better to avoid the whole thing. I suppose creationists and even theistic evolutionists can't do that since their entire worldview still remains firmly built upon a miracle-- that of creation-- as their keystone belief.

Glad I have your permission, I feel so much better about things.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Again, this makes no sense. This time, its your usage of the word "miracle" with reference to what I believe. I'm a naturalist. Miracles don't exist.

It would be a miracle for all the molecular machines within a cell to come in to existence naturally each performing a necessary function or life would not exist. That my friend is a miracle unless you're willing to go on record claiming that this natural system possesses intelligence and can think for itself.

How do you know it would be a miracle? Can you demonstrate this? No. This is just as stupid as someone saying with certainty that no gods exist.

Before your knee jerk reaction: I said that the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist with certainty, not a god in general.

Can you demonstrate that a necessary component after necessary component that is needed (Molecular Machines) for transcription and other functions could just naturally appear in the cell without the aid of design ? We have not even touched on Amino acids needing to be in the exact sequence plus them be all Left handed Amino acids not right handed Amino acids.If this is not the case you do not get the proteins needed and you get no life.

Yes if it was not design, what is the chance of this ever happening ? can your side be honest about this ? Complex things we know are built and designed but you don't believe this is the case when it comes to biological organisms.

We know living organisms produce other living organisms and there is no evidence showing otherwise.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Again, this makes no sense. This time, its your usage of the word "miracle" with reference to what I believe. I'm a naturalist. Miracles don't exist.

It would be a miracle for all the molecular machines within a cell to come in to existence naturally each performing a necessary function or life would not exist. That my friend is a miracle unless you're willing to go on record claiming that this natural system possesses intelligence and can think for itself.

Fortunately, nature does not limit molecules to the choices you dictate. What the natural system of molecules does possess is valence electrons, which causes molecules to assemble themselves in certain specific ways. No intelligence required, only valence electrons.

There are limits otherwise we should see new forms of life constantly coming in to existence. If there were no limitations why is it that an organism only reproduces it';s own kind ? Well it's pretty obvious because organisms only possess Genetic data to reproduce what they are.