Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[BreezeWood]

not to mention an accomplished condition void of evil prior to ones death allowing for acceptance into the OuterWorld of the Everlasting.

 

[S.J.]

It's not our physical bodies that define who we are, it's our spirit, and without it, physical life cannot exist. We can't see it but we know it's there. When it's not there, we're looking at a dead body. That may not be proof of God but it's proof of a non-physical existence, something that certain arrogant shitheads on this thread refuse to acknowledge.

 

[edthecynic]

It's not our physical bodies that define who we are, it's our spirit, and without it, physical life cannot exist. We can't see it but we know it's there. When it's not there, we're looking at a dead body. That may not be proof of God but it's proof of a non-physical existence, something that certain arrogant shitheads on this thread refuse to acknowledge.

But our spirit is the result of our physical existence, so you have it backwards. Without physical life, spirit cannot exist. Our spirit lives in everyone and everything we come in contact with during our physical life. Our spirit lives in our works long after our physical body is gone. I proved that fact with my example of the composer.

The truly arrogant shitheads, to quote you, on this thread are the ones who can only pontificate that physical life cannot exist without a God spirit, but can't give a single example of spirit existing before our physical bodies.

 

[Boss]

Ed, I have challenged you to prove your argument, and you haven't.

 

[S.J.]

It's not our physical bodies that define who we are, it's our spirit, and without it, physical life cannot exist. We can't see it but we know it's there. When it's not there, we're looking at a dead body. That may not be proof of God but it's proof of a non-physical existence, something that certain arrogant shitheads on this thread refuse to acknowledge.

But our spirit is the result of our physical existence, so you have it backwards. Without physical life, spirit cannot exist. Our spirit lives in everyone and everything we come in contact with during our physical life. Our spirit lives in our works long after our physical body is gone. I proved that fact with my example of the composer.

The truly arrogant shitheads, to quote you, on this thread are the ones who can only pontificate that physical life cannot exist without a God spirit, but can't give a single example of spirit existing before our physical bodies.

I'm sorry, but your composer analogy isn't an example of a spirit living on. In your analogy, it's the memory of what that spirit accomplished that lives on, but that's a completely different subject. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, however. Are you saying that the spirit is physical?

 

[edthecynic]

Ed, I have challenged you to prove your argument, and you haven't.

Every time I prove it you run away and hide.

 

[edthecynic]

It's not our physical bodies that define who we are, it's our spirit, and without it, physical life cannot exist. We can't see it but we know it's there. When it's not there, we're looking at a dead body. That may not be proof of God but it's proof of a non-physical existence, something that certain arrogant shitheads on this thread refuse to acknowledge.

But our spirit is the result of our physical existence, so you have it backwards. Without physical life, spirit cannot exist. Our spirit lives in everyone and everything we come in contact with during our physical life. Our spirit lives in our works long after our physical body is gone. I proved that fact with my example of the composer.

The truly arrogant shitheads, to quote you, on this thread are the ones who can only pontificate that physical life cannot exist without a God spirit, but can't give a single example of spirit existing before our physical bodies.

I'm sorry, but your composer analogy isn't an example of a spirit living on. In your analogy, it's the memory of what that spirit accomplished that lives on, but that's a completely different subject. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, however. Are you saying that the spirit is physical?

When a sad piece of music moves you to tears it is not a memory of the composer you never met that is moving you emotionally, it is the spirit of the composer that is alive in his music. The composer and the sound of the notes are physical, but the emotional response is spiritual.
The physical begets the spiritual.

 

[S.J.]

But our spirit is the result of our physical existence, so you have it backwards. Without physical life, spirit cannot exist. Our spirit lives in everyone and everything we come in contact with during our physical life. Our spirit lives in our works long after our physical body is gone. I proved that fact with my example of the composer.

The truly arrogant shitheads, to quote you, on this thread are the ones who can only pontificate that physical life cannot exist without a God spirit, but can't give a single example of spirit existing before our physical bodies.

I'm sorry, but your composer analogy isn't an example of a spirit living on. In your analogy, it's the memory of what that spirit accomplished that lives on, but that's a completely different subject. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, however. Are you saying that the spirit is physical?

When a sad piece of music moves you to tears it is not a memory of the composer you never met that is moving you emotionally, it is the spirit of the composer that is alive in his music. The composer and the sound of the notes are physical, but the emotional response is spiritual.
The physical begets the spiritual.

Backwards, but forget the composer analogy. Do you agree that the spirit is not physical?

 

[edthecynic]

I'm sorry, but your composer analogy isn't an example of a spirit living on. In your analogy, it's the memory of what that spirit accomplished that lives on, but that's a completely different subject. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, however. Are you saying that the spirit is physical?

When a sad piece of music moves you to tears it is not a memory of the composer you never met that is moving you emotionally, it is the spirit of the composer that is alive in his music. The composer and the sound of the notes are physical, but the emotional response is spiritual.
The physical begets the spiritual.

Backwards, but forget the composer analogy. Do you agree that the spirit is not physical?

How can it possibly be backwards?
The spirit in the music that does not yet exist yet does not create the physical composer!

 

[S.J.]

When a sad piece of music moves you to tears it is not a memory of the composer you never met that is moving you emotionally, it is the spirit of the composer that is alive in his music. The composer and the sound of the notes are physical, but the emotional response is spiritual.
The physical begets the spiritual.

Backwards, but forget the composer analogy. Do you agree that the spirit is not physical?

How can it possibly be backwards?
The spirit in the music that does not yet exist yet does not create the physical composer!

I said forget the fucking composer analogy and answer the question.

 

[edthecynic]

Backwards, but forget the composer analogy. Do you agree that the spirit is not physical?

How can it possibly be backwards?
The spirit in the music that does not yet exist yet does not create the physical composer!

I said forget the fucking composer analogy and answer the question.

When did I ever say, or even imply, that the spirit of the composer that lives in his music was in any way shape or form physical?

 

[newpolitics]

There is no physical evidence, but spiritual nature and spiritual entities aren't physical. As the OP states, unless you accept spiritual evidence, it's not possible to prove spiritual existence. Page after page, you and others continue to reaffirm this point, and I thank you.

Why have you not even attempted to refute my allegation that "spiritual evidence" is begging the question? Is it because you simply can not, and don't want to be seen as being unable to?

Because I don't comprehend you gibberish. Begging WHAT question? You haven't said!

Apparently, you know nothing about logical fallacies. It is then no wonder that you make so many of them. "Begging the question" is a logical fallacy that employs circular logic, where the conclusion is contained in the premise. It is circular because you are assuming that which you are trying to prove. In this case, you are assuming the spiritual when you start with "spiritual evidence," and conclude with a spiritual realm. Hence, your argument fails. You can't have a valid and sound argument when it contains a logical fallacy.

 

[newpolitics]

Backwards, but forget the composer analogy. Do you agree that the spirit is not physical?

How can it possibly be backwards?
The spirit in the music that does not yet exist yet does not create the physical composer!

I said forget the fucking composer analogy and answer the question.

Stop being rude.

 

[S.J.]

How can it possibly be backwards?
The spirit in the music that does not yet exist yet does not create the physical composer!

I said forget the fucking composer analogy and answer the question.

When did I ever say, or even imply, that the spirit of the composer that lives in his music was in any way shape or form physical?

So, you're saying the spirit is not physical? And please get off the composer shit, ok?

 

[S.J.]

How can it possibly be backwards?
The spirit in the music that does not yet exist yet does not create the physical composer!

I said forget the fucking composer analogy and answer the question.

Stop being rude.

I'm sorry, did you have something to add to this discussion?

 

[edthecynic]

I said forget the fucking composer analogy and answer the question.

When did I ever say, or even imply, that the spirit of the composer that lives in his music was in any way shape or form physical?

So, you're saying the spirit is not physical? And please get off the composer shit, ok?

Why do you play dumb?
The composer is physical, his spirit that lives in his music is not.

 

[S.J.]

When did I ever say, or even imply, that the spirit of the composer that lives in his music was in any way shape or form physical?

So, you're saying the spirit is not physical? And please get off the composer shit, ok?

Why do you play dumb?
The composer is physical, his spirit that lives in his music is not.

Not playing dumb, I just want to be clear on what you're saying. Now, do you believe that our spirit is what makes us who we are?

 

[edthecynic]

So, you're saying the spirit is not physical? And please get off the composer shit, ok?

Why do you play dumb?
The composer is physical, his spirit that lives in his music is not.

Not playing dumb, I just want to be clear on what you're saying. Now, do you believe that our spirit is what makes us who we are?

Again, I already answered this many many posts ago. Why do you play dumb? I told you you had it backwards then and you still have it backwards.
Spirit does not make us, we create our spirit by our deeds which define who we are.

Here's what I posted before:

It's not our physical bodies that define who we are, it's our spirit, and without it, physical life cannot exist. We can't see it but we know it's there. When it's not there, we're looking at a dead body. That may not be proof of God but it's proof of a non-physical existence, something that certain arrogant shitheads on this thread refuse to acknowledge.

But our spirit is the result of our physical existence, so you have it backwards. Without physical life, spirit cannot exist. Our spirit lives in everyone and everything we come in contact with during our physical life. Our spirit lives in our works long after our physical body is gone. I proved that fact with my example of the composer.

 

[S.J.]

Why do you play dumb?
The composer is physical, his spirit that lives in his music is not.

Not playing dumb, I just want to be clear on what you're saying. Now, do you believe that our spirit is what makes us who we are?

Again, I already answered this many many posts ago. Why do you play dumb? I told you you had it backwards then and you still have it backwards.
Spirit does not make us, we create our spirit by our deeds which define who we are.

Here's what I posted before:

It's not our physical bodies that define who we are, it's our spirit, and without it, physical life cannot exist. We can't see it but we know it's there. When it's not there, we're looking at a dead body. That may not be proof of God but it's proof of a non-physical existence, something that certain arrogant shitheads on this thread refuse to acknowledge.

But our spirit is the result of our physical existence, so you have it backwards. Without physical life, spirit cannot exist. Our spirit lives in everyone and everything we come in contact with during our physical life. Our spirit lives in our works long after our physical body is gone. I proved that fact with my example of the composer.

I don't think you know what the word means.

Definition of SPIRIT

1
: an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms
2
: a supernatural being or essence: as
a capitalized : holy spirit
b : soul 2a
c : an often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible; specifically : ghost 2
d : a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being

 

[newpolitics]

I said forget the fucking composer analogy and answer the question.

Stop being rude.

Shut up, asshole, I wasn't talking to you.

I don't care. Your demeanor is uncalled for.