Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[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.

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.

ahhahhahhaa! So we finally see the "end game" to 20 pages of obfuscation, distraction, detraction, and avoiding the topic! It is so you can waltz in at the last minute, and claim the longevity of the thread is evidence the argument has failed. My primary role in the thread, has been to keep it on topic, and clear up gross misconceptions about what I've said, or to correct ignorant people who keep thinking this is a theological debate. I made my points clearly and concisely in the OP, and no one has refuted the argument. The first two points of the argument have consistently been confirmed by you and others. You're still rejecting spiritual evidence, and I predict we can continue another 671 posts, and you'll still reject spiritual evidence. It doesn't matter how well-articulated I am, or how well the OP is written, you are simply going to reject spirituality. You and others have tried, but you can't refute the OP argument, so you have resorted to filling the thread full of shit, so you can now claim the argument failed... oh it was debunked somewhere in this pile of shit, for sure! No one is going to bother reading 20 pages of obfuscation and avoiding the topic, you're hoping they will be lazy enough to pop in here and read your last post, and assume you are right.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Again you are putting limits on nature that don't exist. Take a virus as an example. No virus can reproduce itself. The virus gets a host to reproduce it. So obviously the host reproduces an organism that is not its own kind.

 

[Boss]

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.

So you are going to cling to 70,000 years of "mass delusion" to explain human spiritual connection? Yes, there IS spiritual evidence, and you refuse to EVER acknowledge it. We can continue this thread for another 20 pages, and you will STILL not acknowledge it. My thread is NEVER going to change your mind, and I fully understood this when I posted it.

I have stated, at least a dozen time in the thread, that I am not religious, I have no religious beliefs, I am pretty much an Atheist when it comes to organized religion, yet here you are again, trying to accuse me of forcing my religious beliefs on others. Honestly, how can you have a reasonable debate with people who are this dishonest?

What you and others continue to prove, by insinuating religion, is that you are angry at religion and religious people. You are so spitting mad at them, that any time someone even dares to mention "spirituality" you emotively go into attack mode. You've proven this over and over in the thread. It's sad that you are letting your anger and rage for religion, get in the way of understanding human spirituality.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Again you are putting limits on nature that don't exist. Take a virus as an example. No virus can reproduce itself. The virus gets a host to reproduce it. So obviously the host reproduces an organism that is not its own kind.

You are saying there are no limits on nature which easily can be observed.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

ahhahhahhaa! So we finally see the "end game" to 20 pages of obfuscation, distraction, detraction, and avoiding the topic! It is so you can waltz in at the last minute, and claim the longevity of the thread is evidence the argument has failed. My primary role in the thread, has been to keep it on topic, and clear up gross misconceptions about what I've said, or to correct ignorant people who keep thinking this is a theological debate. I made my points clearly and concisely in the OP, and no one has refuted the argument. The first two points of the argument have consistently been confirmed by you and others. You're still rejecting spiritual evidence, and I predict we can continue another 671 posts, and you'll still reject spiritual evidence. It doesn't matter how well-articulated I am, or how well the OP is written, you are simply going to reject spirituality. You and others have tried, but you can't refute the OP argument, so you have resorted to filling the thread full of shit, so you can now claim the argument failed... oh it was debunked somewhere in this pile of shit, for sure! No one is going to bother reading 20 pages of obfuscation and avoiding the topic, you're hoping they will be lazy enough to pop in here and read your last post, and assume you are right.

Why else would else would I post in this albatross of a circle jerk?

I have done no such thing as reject spiritual evidense. None has been offered. I know a thing or three about that topic and have seen nary a piece of lint of it embeded in this monstrosity. Wanna talk specifics? Go for it Obe Won. Try to leave god out of it.

 

[dblack]

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.

ahhahhahhaa! So we finally see the "end game" to 20 pages of obfuscation, distraction, detraction, and avoiding the topic! It is so you can waltz in at the last minute, and claim the longevity of the thread is evidence the argument has failed. My primary role in the thread, has been to keep it on topic, and clear up gross misconceptions about what I've said, or to correct ignorant people who keep thinking this is a theological debate. I made my points clearly and concisely in the OP, and no one has refuted the argument. The first two points of the argument have consistently been confirmed by you and others. You're still rejecting spiritual evidence, and I predict we can continue another 671 posts, and you'll still reject spiritual evidence. It doesn't matter how well-articulated I am, or how well the OP is written, you are simply going to reject spirituality. You and others have tried, but you can't refute the OP argument, so you have resorted to filling the thread full of shit, so you can now claim the argument failed... oh it was debunked somewhere in this pile of shit, for sure! No one is going to bother reading 20 pages of obfuscation and avoiding the topic, you're hoping they will be lazy enough to pop in here and read your last post, and assume you are right.

Why else would else would I post in this albatross of a circle jerk?

I have done no such thing as reject spiritual evidense. None has been offered. I know a thing or three about that topic and have seen nary a piece of lint of it embeded in this monstrosity. Wanna talk specifics? Go for it Obe Won. Try to leave god out of it.

The emperor wears no spiritual evidence.

 

[G.T.]

There is no spiritual evidence. Saying "people do it" is not sufficient, in any adult world.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Most of these posts are too long to read. However, I do sort of scan them, and when I got down to where Boss said: "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.", then I knew that there was was so sense in reading the rest. As an athiest, I am too "amoral" to read further....(Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.) I guess that I always knew that I was somewhat cynical, but I had no idea that I was amoral, discontented and unhappy. I think that makes me a sociopath.

 

[Hollie]

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.

On the contrary, your failed attempts at proselytizing has reduced your posts to little more than juvenile name-calling. It’s really rather stereotypical of fundamentalists to react with pith and vinegar to those who challenge their specious opinions regarding their claims to gods and supernaturalism.

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!

Your anecdotal claims are unverifiable. What is interesting is that you hope to gloss over the fact that cancers do, in fact, have a rare spontaneous remission rate. But, that aside, how convenient that you have such a story to share. How lucky for your “friend of the family” that the gods have “miraculously” cured his cancer. Too bad that the other 100,000 people per year who die of cancer aren’t so blessed by the gods. Screw them. They deserve to die.
Here again, you’re infuriated that others question and challenge your claims to the supernatural. And, how convenient that anyone who doesn’t accept your specious claims is necessarily worthy only of derision. I understand entirely this perspective of the religious fundamentalist and of course I don't think people would by definition behave worse if there was not a belief in gods.

Look, the fact is, people, A) Behave pretty good most of the time regardless of their religious beliefs, and B) when they behave badly, they can't do much worse than they have as theists anyway. I disagree on how difficult it is to accept gods on faith. From my perspective, people generally do it, and then go about their daily lives and it has minimal to no real impact. Billions go through their rituals and really their religious beliefs are more or less like a second nature they really give no second thought to. It simply is the way it is for them.

Why are you talking about god like god is a person?

Because religious folks typically slather their gods with human attributes.

Who said miracles were ancient? They happen daily, all over the planet, and this has happened since ancient times.

Identify for us a single, verifiable account of a “miracle”. I am alternately amused and horrified by the attempts of religious fundamentalists to claim “miracles”. So, When is the last time a “miracle” occurred? Identify for us a verifiable account of something outside of the natural, rational world that we can define as “miraculous”. This is not a question regarding your personal beliefs or desires -- it's about a standard of demonstration and supporting corroboration that establishing something true as opposed to it being mere assertion.

Why would the gods not simply be clear about “miracles” and not allow for such confusion? Why is it that the theistic perspective offers gods who confounds us, but the materialist perspective offers one that makes sense-- a star is a million light years away because it's taken light a million years to get here. Simple. Explainable. Understandable. No need to assert mysterious beings using mysterious ways we can never know, precluding us from ever finding out.

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?

What a silly comment. I think it is very obvious that fundamentalists allow themselves to be dragged back to medieval thinking, whether that be due to embracing of fear and superstition or some inherent dynamic connected with a conscious desire of supernaturalists (a lot of the former, a little of the latter I think). That people have a explicit want to live under an abiding fear of angry gods is astonishing perhaps, but no more or less than that of modern humans still embracing miracles for which there are natural explanations. There's this dynamic of self-deception that goes hand in hand with most of the ancient religious beliefs vs. modern reality, and for the most part such deceptions are harmless.

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.

I’m under no obligation to accept your claims to invented scenarios of supernatural events and appeals to fear and superstition.

Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the extensive assistance of both philosopher and theologian in this task) and carried much of this lofty battle to a less friendly scientific arena where rude physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.

Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.

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!

If people actually were re-attaching their severed limbs left and right, it actually would matter to me. But they’re not… unless of course you can identify that people actually are re-attaching their severed limbs.

Identify for us a single occurrence.

Thanks.

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.

Correct. I don’t believe in any past or current configurations of gods. And yes, I’m as skeptical regarding your claims to gods and “miracles” for good and valid reasons: you offer nothing but anecdotal claims for your opinions.

Science supports my claims to naturalism. Supernaturalists / theists generally have a difficult time being honest and admitting that science can't support supernaturalism. But we’re to believe your specious claims simply because you base your conclusions upon an ancient text that has no external corroboration and goes directly against the evidence that does exist?

I do detect a lot of desperation in your posts and in the history of religious thought, which is why you have a lot of instances where religious figures have burned the heretical scientists at the stake. One thing religious views cannot stand is evidence that dismantles their "divine revelation". Gods don't make mistakes. They just sort of... purposely obscure.

I don't think you see how that immediately invalidates any possible authoritative characteristic of your datum. If your position is that people really are, suddenly re-attach their severed limbs, you've got a world where any claim is interchangeable with any other claim. And if you argue from such a level of interchangeability (which you do), then why not simply select that which fits in with the available evidence, which is naturalism? why purposely choose the one that fits the least and remains absent any possible demonstration at its core?

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?

I guarantee, your specious claims are dismissible as fantasy and conjecture.

Interesting comment regarding tornadoes, though. Isn’t it your gods who causes tornadoes? Yes, he establishes the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, he could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

Much as theists attach human attributes to their gods, I think it’s pointless to attempt to attach “intent” or human attributes to natural forces.

Nature requires no belief in the supernatural. In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic / supernatural one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or men rise from the dead… or people re-attach severed limbs?

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

Thanks. I’m always available to pass on some reason and rationality to supernaturalists.
You still haven’t been able to define what “spirituality” is and why you feel a need shield your theism behind a burqa behind it. I have trust in science, medicine, the law, personal freedoms, self expression, etc., all those rational (and ultimately knowable) elements within and part of the natural world. I make no assertions about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this assertion relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The religionist asserts that "logic and reason have a crack in them" and are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of the "being behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods.

Now I already conclude I have made my assertion logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do religionists assert?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and limits our perception. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the theist, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napolean (to use the cliche)?

 

[Boss]

Thanks to Hollie, Huggy, and others for continuing to prove me correct on points #1 and #2 from my OP.

Well done!

 

[Hollie]

Thanks to Hollie, Huggy, and others for continuing to prove me correct on points #1 and #2 from my OP.

Well done!

Challenges to your specious opinions caused you to perform an Olympic sport quality swimming maneuver: the Backstroke!

 

[Boss]

Hollie, I have said NOTHING theistic in this entire thread. I have repeatedly stated, for all intents and purposes, I am an Atheist. I have no religious or theistic belief. I believe in a spiritual realm because I am aware of it's existence, it requires NO faith from me. I can't speak for others, I can't argue theology, I can't defend what Christians claim, and I'm not going to try. You continue to insinuate I am "proselytizing" when that simply is a LIE.

This is just more profound evidence that you are a religious bigot, who hates and loathes religion and religious people. That is ALL this is for you, a war against the religious, and you HAVE TO make me into a religious zealot, so that you can satisfy your need to bash religion.

Now, I have tried to rationally and reasonably explain this to you, and you continue to ignore me. I even tried joining you in bashing on Christians, hoping that would make you feel better, but that didn't work either. You're just convinced I am one of those pesky Curshtins tryin to push my religion on you. At this point, I don't know what else I can do or say, if you are just going to start lying your ass off and baselessly accusing people of stuff, I can't expect to have reasonable dialogue with you anymore.

 

[HUGGY]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j3okb3kuts]Marvin Gaye - Lets get it on - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, I have said NOTHING theistic in this entire thread. I have repeatedly stated, for all intents and purposes, I am an Atheist. I have no religious or theistic belief. I believe in a spiritual realm because I am aware of it's existence, it requires NO faith from me. I can't speak for others, I can't argue theology, I can't defend what Christians claim, and I'm not going to try. You continue to insinuate I am "proselytizing" when that simply is a LIE.

This is just more profound evidence that you are a religious bigot, who hates and loathes religion and religious people. That is ALL this is for you, a war against the religious, and you HAVE TO make me into a religious zealot, so that you can satisfy your need to bash religion.

Now, I have tried to rationally and reasonably explain this to you, and you continue to ignore me. I even tried joining you in bashing on Christians, hoping that would make you feel better, but that didn't work either. You're just convinced I am one of those pesky Curshtins tryin to push my religion on you. At this point, I don't know what else I can do or say, if you are just going to start lying your ass off and baselessly accusing people of stuff, I can't expect to have reasonable dialogue with you anymore.

You've said nothing theistic in this thread?

Have you forgotten that it was you who commented in the OP that you had offered "positive proof for god"?

Secondly, constantly accusing others as being those "who hates and loathes religion and religious people" as a defense mechanism for your otherwise failed positions promoting "spirituality" is poor cricket, laddie.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Again you are putting limits on nature that don't exist. Take a virus as an example. No virus can reproduce itself. The virus gets a host to reproduce it. So obviously the host reproduces an organism that is not its own kind.

You are saying there are no limits on nature which easily can be observed.

No, obviously, I said YOUR limits on nature are not real.

 

[HUGGY]

OK... I'll start.. Geesh!

Where doya wanna start? Elements? Elementals? Third eyes? Color differension of the Astral plane/planes? To heavy?

How about a simple breathing technique that will place you at the first veil? OK... OK...close your eyes and breath though your nose... (I know! hard to follow with your eyes closed..) imagine the air you are breathing as a color.. start with an aqua blue. a clearish aqua blue... follow the stream of blue mist into your nose ...up into your head and down your windpipe into your lungs and back out again. Breath in long and slow to the bottom as far as you can and slowly back out again.. Repeat as many time as you can or until you see the veil.

DON'T ENTER !!!!!

Many that have gone out seeking knowledge have never come back with anything. You can still find em at the local mental institutions staring out into space.

 

[dblack]

OK... I'll start.. Geesh!

Where doya wanna start? Elements? Elementals? Third eyes? Color differension of the Astral plane/planes? To heavy?

How about a simple breathing technique that will place you at the first veil? OK... OK...close your eyes and breath though your nose... (I know! hard to follow with your eyes closed..) imagine the air you are breathing as a color.. start with an aqua blue. a clearish aqua blue... follow the stream of blue mist into your nose ...up into your head and down your windpipe into your lungs and back out again. Breath in long and slow to the bottom as far as you can and slowly back out again.. Repeat as many time as you can or until you see the veil.

DON'T ENTER !!!!!

Many that have gone out seeking knowledge have never come back with anything. You can still find em at the local mental institutions staring out into space.

Wouldn't it be nice though? If attaining wisdom and understanding were simply a matter of "getting spiritual"? If you could just sit around daydreaming (meditating, praying, wishing, etc...) rather than going through the laborious process of actual learning?

I have real respect for some "spiritual" practices and practitioners. But all too often the appeal to the spiritual is a con, aimed at gullible people looking for an easy way out.

 

[HUGGY]

OK... I'll start.. Geesh!

Where doya wanna start? Elements? Elementals? Third eyes? Color differension of the Astral plane/planes? To heavy?

How about a simple breathing technique that will place you at the first veil? OK... OK...close your eyes and breath though your nose... (I know! hard to follow with your eyes closed..) imagine the air you are breathing as a color.. start with an aqua blue. a clearish aqua blue... follow the stream of blue mist into your nose ...up into your head and down your windpipe into your lungs and back out again. Breath in long and slow to the bottom as far as you can and slowly back out again.. Repeat as many time as you can or until you see the veil.

DON'T ENTER !!!!!

Many that have gone out seeking knowledge have never come back with anything. You can still find em at the local mental institutions staring out into space.

Wouldn't it be nice though? If attaining wisdom and understanding were simply a matter of "getting spiritual"? If you could just sit around daydreaming (meditating, praying, wishing, etc...) rather than going through the laborious process of actual learning?

I have real respect for some "spiritual" practices and practitioners. But all too often the appeal to the spiritual is a con, aimed at gullible people looking for an easy way out.

Or an easy way in? For most people you may as well give em a tricycle and push em out into traffic at the Indy 500...

 

[Boss]

Hollie, I have said NOTHING theistic in this entire thread. I have repeatedly stated, for all intents and purposes, I am an Atheist. I have no religious or theistic belief. I believe in a spiritual realm because I am aware of it's existence, it requires NO faith from me. I can't speak for others, I can't argue theology, I can't defend what Christians claim, and I'm not going to try. You continue to insinuate I am "proselytizing" when that simply is a LIE.

This is just more profound evidence that you are a religious bigot, who hates and loathes religion and religious people. That is ALL this is for you, a war against the religious, and you HAVE TO make me into a religious zealot, so that you can satisfy your need to bash religion.

Now, I have tried to rationally and reasonably explain this to you, and you continue to ignore me. I even tried joining you in bashing on Christians, hoping that would make you feel better, but that didn't work either. You're just convinced I am one of those pesky Curshtins tryin to push my religion on you. At this point, I don't know what else I can do or say, if you are just going to start lying your ass off and baselessly accusing people of stuff, I can't expect to have reasonable dialogue with you anymore.

You've said nothing theistic in this thread?

Have you forgotten that it was you who commented in the OP that you had offered "positive proof for god"?

Secondly, constantly accusing others as being those "who hates and loathes religion and religious people" as a defense mechanism for your otherwise failed positions promoting "spirituality" is poor cricket, laddie.

Yes, but as I've explained, "god" is a metaphoric term I am using for universal spiritual power. Theology is religious manifestations which come from this spiritual power. I don't profess belief in theological interpretations of god. A spiritual higher power does exist, but it is just there, present in the universe, available to benefit those who can connect with it, and not of benefit to those who can't... kind of like, Cold Play.

 

[newpolitics]

Hollie, I have said NOTHING theistic in this entire thread. I have repeatedly stated, for all intents and purposes, I am an Atheist. I have no religious or theistic belief. I believe in a spiritual realm because I am aware of it's existence, it requires NO faith from me. I can't speak for others, I can't argue theology, I can't defend what Christians claim, and I'm not going to try. You continue to insinuate I am "proselytizing" when that simply is a LIE.

This is just more profound evidence that you are a religious bigot, who hates and loathes religion and religious people. That is ALL this is for you, a war against the religious, and you HAVE TO make me into a religious zealot, so that you can satisfy your need to bash religion.

Now, I have tried to rationally and reasonably explain this to you, and you continue to ignore me. I even tried joining you in bashing on Christians, hoping that would make you feel better, but that didn't work either. You're just convinced I am one of those pesky Curshtins tryin to push my religion on you. At this point, I don't know what else I can do or say, if you are just going to start lying your ass off and baselessly accusing people of stuff, I can't expect to have reasonable dialogue with you anymore.

Apart from god's existence, you've said nothing theistic? I think you need to learn about logical contradictions. This is getting ridiculous.

This is like a guy eating a piece of chicken and saying, "Aside from this, I'm a vegetarian."