Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[newpolitics]

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

Human behavior can not be considered as evidence of anything spiritual, since this amounts to an argument from popularity. Humans have been wrong about a great many things until the advent of modern science.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

That it?

 

[t1bbst3r]

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.

agreed.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

I'm pretty sure that is not it.

 

[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.

...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.

Well, you are not very spiritually advanced if you cannot see through my snotty, superior tone to the Golden Seeds of Wisdom protected within.

I am so egoless that I find your tone of superiority merely faintly amusing.

I am quite familiar with the work of Laozi and can read it in its original classical Chinese. Thereby I am familiar with a number of subtleties which appear in no English translation.

For example, A knowledge of the grammar and the Ma Wang Dui excavations reveal quite clearly that the first line of the Laozi should be translated :

"As for the Path, (you) can travel it, but it is not an unvarying path."

The passive "can be path-ed" which is the usual (and annoying) translation in English is quite ungrammatical. The character "ko" in front of "dao" functions exactly like the suffix "-able" in English : "as for the path, it is path-able."

Two times a word (miao) usually translated as "mystery" becomes more significant if you realize that it is etymologically related to the word meaning "embryo". In the Chinese character itself you can the woman radical conjoined with a phonetic meaning a small, tiny fragment in her belly.

The Daoist "mystery" is not a static viewpoint, but a subtle germen developing in the womb of the Mother. That is the point of the rhyme (which still exists in modern Chinese) of being desireless to see its "miao" (embryo), and desire revealing its "qiao" (rind, outside). The contrast is between seed--fruit-peel, embryo--pregnant belly.
.

 

[newpolitics]

"In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority. Outside of East Asia and some European countries atheist or non-believer percentages are typically in the single digits. The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs...

"... At one time all societies everywhere presumably believed in gods or god until the advent of the classical philosophical systems in East Asia and Science in the West. Atheism was very slow in becoming an openly asserted system of non-belief in the West with little or nothing before the late 18th Century in terms of positively asserted unequivocal atheism. Although there have always been individuals who in fact were, or like Socrates were accused of being atheists, only in the late modern period has statistically sound information become available."

"...Galen writes "Many previously reported characteristics associated with religiosity are a function not of belief itself, but of strong convictions and group identification."

A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports:


"The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.
In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).[9]"

Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, we have already determined that not all "atheists" reject the possibility of a "spiritual" existence. I am a prime example of someone who falls in this category, and I'll bet that when it comes right down to it, if people are completely honest, this is true with virtually everyone in this thread.

Answer me this; Are you willing to say that you do not believe it is possible for another realm of existence to be present in the universe, except the one you understand as the physical one? Now.... don't IGNORE the question, answer it honestly.

IF you believe it possible another realm could exist, you are like most human beings. IF you do not believe it is possible, you are among the 5% who profess a belief in nothing, a Nihilist. The problem with believing it is impossible that spiritual nature exists, is you are actually practicing a FAITH-BASED BELIEF, and not practicing scientific evaluation. However... the "problem" with accepting the possibility of spiritual existence, means you have to objectively accept spiritual evidence, which is overwhelming.

You make so little sense. It's hard to have a debate with you. Nihilism is not a belief in nothing. It is a belief that life lacks any objective meaning, and there are many different kinds of nihilism: metaphysical, mereological, moral... This is nothing to do with atheism, so I'm not sure how you are connecting this to gnostic atheism, which you just insinuated. You seem to think that one who believes definitively that no god exists is a nihilist. This is completely untrue. Nor is it a faith-based position to deny belief when there is no evidence for something. That is rational and logical.

As to your question, anything is possible. We could be in matrix right now, which is actually highly probable according to some. It is possible that a god exists. It is possible that a spiritual realm exists. But, possibility is not what we are discussing. We are discussing what is very probably true.

 

[Aristotle]

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.

You define God by calling God a name

 

[Aristotle]

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.

You define God by calling God a name, or saying God is.....

 

[newpolitics]

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.

You define God by calling God a name

I'm not the one claiming a god exists.

 

[MaryL]

Does it really matter? This is a purely personal, if not subjective matter. There is no PROOF god exists one way or the other, and we all know it. And there isn’t any reason to debate it either. Egotism maybe.

 

[newpolitics]

Does it really matter? This is a purely personal, if not subjective matter. There is no PROOF god exists one way or the other, and we all know it. And there isn’t any reason to debate it either. Egotism maybe.

Well, according to theists, there is proof, and as long as these people are running for president with access to the nuclear codes, I'm going to debate it.

 

[Aristotle]

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

You define God by calling God a name

I'm not the one claiming a god exists.

Then what was the basis of this thread I may have missed it?

Edit: Newpolitics my fault I made a mistake and thought you were the author of this thread.

 

[newpolitics]

You define God by calling God a name

I'm not the one claiming a god exists.

Then what was the basis of this thread I may have missed it?

Edit: Newpolitics my fault I made a mistake and thought you were the author of this thread.

No worries. Check out the OP. In it is contained a "definitive proof for god," without defining god.

 

[Boss]

Does it really matter? This is a purely personal, if not subjective matter. There is no PROOF god exists one way or the other, and we all know it. And there isn’t any reason to debate it either. Egotism maybe.

Well, according to theists, there is proof, and as long as these people are running for president with access to the nuclear codes, I'm going to debate it.

Well, I am not a theist, and I believe a spiritual realm exists and there is proof for it, which is why I presented the OP argument, which you cannot refute. You and MaryL refuse to acknowledge spiritual evidence, which is required in order to establish proof of any spiritual entity, the same as physical evidence is used to confirm existence of physical things.

Oh.... and I hate to inform you, but every man who has ever held the office of President, professed to believe in the spiritual realm and God, and swore an oath on the Holy Bible.

 

[Boss]

I'm not the one claiming a god exists.

Then what was the basis of this thread I may have missed it?

Edit: Newpolitics my fault I made a mistake and thought you were the author of this thread.

No worries. Check out the OP. In it is contained a "definitive proof for god," without defining god.

God has been defined several times for you in this thread. Stop lying.

 

[Boss]

You define God by calling God a name

I'm not the one claiming a god exists.

Then what was the basis of this thread I may have missed it?

Edit: Newpolitics my fault I made a mistake and thought you were the author of this thread.

Why don't you read the thread OP, then you will know what the thread is about?

IN FACT: To all new people who are popping into the thread at post 800, please begin by reading the first post. You can pretty much skip the rest, because most of them are newpolitics and others, trying to derail the topic, change the subject, and throw religion under the bus. The argument presented in the OP has not been refuted, in fact, the first two points have been confirmed by many in this thread.

 

[newpolitics]

Does it really matter? This is a purely personal, if not subjective matter. There is no PROOF god exists one way or the other, and we all know it. And there isn’t any reason to debate it either. Egotism maybe.

Well, according to theists, there is proof, and as long as these people are running for president with access to the nuclear codes, I'm going to debate it.

Well, I am not a theist, and I believe a spiritual realm exists and there is proof for it, which is why I presented the OP argument, which you cannot refute. You and MaryL refuse to acknowledge spiritual evidence, which is required in order to establish proof of any spiritual entity, the same as physical evidence is used to confirm existence of physical things.

Oh.... and I hate to inform you, but every man who has ever held the office of President, professed to believe in the spiritual realm and God, and swore an oath on the Holy Bible.

Weve been lucky so far. Atomic bombs have only existed for the past 70 years, not to mention that in this highly christian country, only a christian can become president (de facto) so this isn't saying much. There is something called "degrees of belief." Not all Christians are waiting for the end, although some are, and with every new Christian president we might have might be one who has no qualms about using those launch codes to "bring about the reign of Jesus on Earth!" These people exist.

Again, you beg the question using spiritual evidence. No dice. You are trying to prove the spiritual. You cant start there. Basic stuff.

 

[newpolitics]

Then what was the basis of this thread I may have missed it?

Edit: Newpolitics my fault I made a mistake and thought you were the author of this thread.

No worries. Check out the OP. In it is contained a "definitive proof for god," without defining god.

God has been defined several times for you in this thread. Stop lying.

Oh it's back to this now? Just a few posts ago you declared you don't need to define god. We're on the second cycle of you doubling back on this.

 

[Boss]

Well, according to theists, there is proof, and as long as these people are running for president with access to the nuclear codes, I'm going to debate it.

Well, I am not a theist, and I believe a spiritual realm exists and there is proof for it, which is why I presented the OP argument, which you cannot refute. You and MaryL refuse to acknowledge spiritual evidence, which is required in order to establish proof of any spiritual entity, the same as physical evidence is used to confirm existence of physical things.

Oh.... and I hate to inform you, but every man who has ever held the office of President, professed to believe in the spiritual realm and God, and swore an oath on the Holy Bible.

Weve been lucky so far. Atomic bombs have only existed for the past 70 years, not to mention that in this highly christian country, only a christian can become president (de facto) so this isn't saying much. There is something called "degrees of belief." Not all Christians are waiting for the end, although some are, and with every new Christian president we might have might be one who has no qualms about using those launch codes to "bring about the reign of Jesus on Earth!" These people exist.

Again, you beg the question using spiritual evidence. No dice. You are trying to prove the spiritual. You cant start there. Basic stuff.

I don't need to prove spirituality exists, it has existed for 70,000 years, we have evidence.

 

[Boss]

No worries. Check out the OP. In it is contained a "definitive proof for god," without defining god.

God has been defined several times for you in this thread. Stop lying.

Oh it's back to this now? Just a few posts ago you declared you don't need to define god. We're on the second cycle of you doubling back on this.

Nope, not doubling back on anything. You continue to want me to define god in theological terms so you can attack the theological concept. I refused to do that, and you became petulant. I believe it was on page 1 or 2, where I sufficiently defined "god" to emily, as the metaphoric representation of the spiritual entity humans have always been connected to. You don't like my definition because it is too broad for you to attack, but it is all the definition needed to evaluate existence, the evidence of which, is overwhelming.

It's also all the definition you're going to get from me, because I didn't claim to be able to specifically define god. Now you can keep on lying to people, like you've basically done the entire thread, and claim I haven't met your demand, but it has been presented.