Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Crackerjaxon]

We can't SEE thoughts, emotions, reason, but we know they are there because we see the results they produce, much like air. That's logic.

It's not logic if you assume that thoughts are "things" in the same way that air molecules are "things".
.

Why?

Do you think there's no God because you can't hit her with a hammer. Is that it?

Did molecules exist prior to their discovery?

The dismissal of the existence of God because you can find no physical proof is illogical.

 

[numan]

'
Well, I tried to make it as simple as possible, Cracker, but you still missed the point !! "Apples and rainbows", remember?

In my long and varied history of doubting, there is only one proposition which has defeated my ability to doubt: it is the first proposition of Proclus' Elements of Theology :

"Every manifold in some way participates the One."

Without getting into the technical meaning of "participates", the argument can be put into modern terminology by saying that without some form of unity in the manifold, the manifold would not be a manifold, but would disintegrate into a Borel Set -- which John Wheeler picturesquely described as "a bucket of dust." That is, the supposed manifold would disintegrate into unendingly infinitesimal fragments. It is a very clever reductio ad absurdum, particularly for the time period of Proclus, about 450 A.D. If you can come up with a really good argument demolishing Proclus, I will admit that you are a better sceptic than I, but not before. It may not be the last word in philosophy, but if anything exists, then it is true.

It's about the closest to a firm initial axiom that I have come across.

The Neo-Platonists: great stuff. But you won't get anywhere with them if you don't understand their vocabulary.
.

 

[newpolitics]

We're over 700 posts now, and I am still not going to define a god so you can attack it. I have explained what "god" means in my argument, and you have not refuted anything in my argument. If you'd like to attempt that soon, it would be nice.

What would be nice, is if you learned something about logic, and then used it. Because right now, you are seriously missing the mark. Nowhere in this thread is a proof for anything. Quite literally. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but don't claim definitive proof for god and then let us down with such a poorly constructed argument. Try putting your argument in syllogistic form, and see how far you get. Then you will realize you can't deductively get to "god exists" using your premises. Not by a long shot.

I have given an argument from the standpoint of Logic that goes ignored that does suggest a designer (GOD).

From the standpoint of logic?

 

[Aristotle]

Did anyone explain who God is yet?

 

[Boss]

We can't SEE thoughts, emotions, reason, but we know they are there because we see the results they produce, much like air. That's logic.

It's not logic if you assume that thoughts are "things" in the same way that air molecules are "things".
.

It's also not logic if you assume "spirituality" is something physical, or physically proven.

It's funny that your avatar reminds me of a discussion I heard once from Hawking, about exploring the universe, and possibility of other-worldly entities. He brilliantly pointed out the nature of how the human body works to destroy things harmful to the body, and said that it might not be in mankind's interests to be signaling out into space, our presence in the universe. His point being, life process may be universal, the things that relate to humans and other living things, may also be relative to the universe as a whole. By sending signals into space in an attempt to make contact, we might inadvertently be triggering a reaction from the universe to attack, the same way the human body would attack a virus, because this is what we essentially represent to the universe.

Yep... that is deep, for sure. Perhaps a little off the topic, but perhaps not?

 

[HUGGY]

Actually Boss, there was a god. But that was a long time ago. Me and my boys took care of it We wrote a song to commemorate the event:

Steely Dan 2003-Godwhacker - YouTube

Did you help write "for the boys" when you were 12?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgYuLsudaJQ]Steely Dan ?Do It Again? (sound from original studio version) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Crackerjaxon]

'
Well, I tried to make it as simple as possible, Cracker, but you still missed the point !! "Apples and rainbows", remember?

In my long and varied history of doubting, there is only one proposition which has defeated my ability to doubt: it is the first proposition of Proclus' Elements of Theology :

"Every manifold in some way participates the One."

Without getting into the technical meaning of "participates", the argument can be put into modern terminology by saying that without some form of unity in the manifold, the manifold would not be a manifold, but would disintegrate into a Borel Set -- which John Wheeler picturesquely described as "a bucket of dust." That is, the supposed manifold would disintegrate into unendingly infinitesimal fragments. It is a very clever reductio ad absurdum, particularly for the time period of Proclus, about 450 A.D. If you can come up with a really good argument demolishing Proclus, I will admit that you are a better sceptic than I, but not before. It may not be the last word in philosophy, but if anything exists, then it is true.

It's about the closest to a firm initial axiom that I have come across.

The Neo-Platonists: great stuff. But you won't get anywhere with them if you don't understand their vocabulary.
.

...and you won't get anywhere with me assuming that snotty, superior tone. It is good, though, that you have brains enough to grasp that facet of neo-Platonism. You might want to take a look at hexagrams 1, 2, 3 of the I Ching and read a little Lao Tsu, also John 1:1.

You're approaching the tao (from a Christian perspective -- logos) and starting to make some sense. It's tough to come to a God realization using logic alone, that's why the zen koans are valuable.

The natualist perspective is like wearing blinders. When Keats wrote "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,"--that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know," he was talking about shattering the subject/object perspective.

Good luck.

 

[newpolitics]

You've not debunked anything with reason or logic. You've attempted to apply an illogical criteria by demanding physical proof of something that is not physical in nature. This is the only "reason" you have presented for rejecting the possibility. Even the principles of the scientific method are ignored by you. Science has not drawn the conclusion that a spiritual realm doesn't or can't exist, or for that matter, can't ever be proven by physical evidence. Science itself, remains open to the possibility of things we don't yet know, but you reject any possibility of spirituality. You are defying your own first-principles of science in doing so, and it doesn't even seem to dawn on you.

What you are presenting as evidence isn't evidence. There is no such thing as "spiritual evidence." There is simply "evidence." You have invented a category that contains the conclusion. This is begging the question. It is a logical fallacy, therefore, your argument fails. You have not even attempted to counter this refutation, because you cant, since its true. You don't understand logic, so you will ignore this as unimportant, even though it is crucial. This is the nature of your delusion: to ignore the crucial.

What we would really need from you is supernatural causation. You have failed to provide this.

Where in the heck do you go to school ? since when is human behavior not evidence ? The only fallacy at work here is your ability to reason.

Evidence of WHAT???

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did anyone explain who God is yet?

YAHWEH , YESHUA and JESUS work for me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What you are presenting as evidence isn't evidence. There is no such thing as "spiritual evidence." There is simply "evidence." You have invented a category that contains the conclusion. This is begging the question. It is a logical fallacy, therefore, your argument fails. You have not even attempted to counter this refutation, because you cant, since its true. You don't understand logic, so you will ignore this as unimportant, even though it is crucial. This is the nature of your delusion: to ignore the crucial.

What we would really need from you is supernatural causation. You have failed to provide this.

Where in the heck do you go to school ? since when is human behavior not evidence ? The only fallacy at work here is your ability to reason.

Evidence of WHAT???

You're not serious.

 

[Aristotle]

Did anyone explain who God is yet?

YAHWEH , YESHUA and JESUS work for me.

So this thread is about the Biblical god?

Ok. Is there evidence Jesus ascended to heaven?

 

[newpolitics]

Where in the heck do you go to school ? since when is human behavior not evidence ? The only fallacy at work here is your ability to reason.

Evidence of WHAT???

You're not serious.

I believe I am.

 

[newpolitics]

Did anyone explain who God is yet?

YAHWEH , YESHUA and JESUS work for me.

So this thread is about the Biblical god?

Ok. Is there evidence Jesus ascended to heaven?

This thread is not about anything, because god has not been defined.

 

[newpolitics]

Did anyone explain who God is yet?

No.

 

[newpolitics]

Did anyone explain who God is yet?

YAHWEH , YESHUA and JESUS work for me.

You could have written "Jesus", lowercase, once, and that would have sufficed.

 

[t1bbst3r]

Did anyone explain who God is yet?

There is no God known to science (maybe planets), as soon as people understand this the better. If you hold a belief that 'this' is what god is you will only end up being proven wrong. Does that mean there isn't a God, because your'e assumptions were wrong? If you study geometry, it can argue intelligent design, so can biology to some extent. We all 'feel' things on occasion, supernatural situations that freak us out, because they shouldn't be happening. It's more than paranoia, & is like billion-1 occurances happening by 'this' doing 'that' in the way it is noticed if that makes sense.

Some people want free will & others want to influence people.

Life was created by something & we all have a nature we should be following. People seem to do just the opposite of this, tipping the balance, towards those that have been actually lead astray from their true nature. Possesed by their materialistic, or purely self indulgant, programmed, lustful, fuckhead desires.

Just think, if you were some fuck-head saved from drowning in an ocean, think of the gratitude you would feel for the 'God send', or good will another person showed. And think how long would it take before external factors in your daily life drags you back to whoever you were before your'e life was ever in danger? 2 weeks? I mean, T'WhAT'S ,a situation like this good for if not to show you that your life isn't right upon your savior if the fear of God is put within in you.

Thats how I see the world anyway & is as far as I can get, so will have to be content to leave it at that.

Cheers!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did anyone explain who God is yet?

YAHWEH , YESHUA and JESUS work for me.

So this thread is about the Biblical god?

Ok. Is there evidence Jesus ascended to heaven?

Wrong the thread is not about Jesus. Why do I need evidence Jesus ascended to Heaven ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evidence of WHAT???

You're not serious.

I believe I am.

If human behavior is considered evidence in this case why would it not be evidence concerning man has always been spiritual in our beliefs ?

Researcher finds evidence of how human behavior can influence emergence of infectious disease

 

[Youwerecreated]

YAHWEH , YESHUA and JESUS work for me.

So this thread is about the Biblical god?

Ok. Is there evidence Jesus ascended to heaven?

This thread is not about anything, because god has not been defined.

God is a supreme spirit and the reason everything we see exists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did anyone explain who God is yet?

YAHWEH , YESHUA and JESUS work for me.

You could have written "Jesus", lowercase, once, and that would have sufficed.

Some people are picky so I included the Hebrew names.