Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

once again using the F word..
if a spiritual entity has no physical component we can never experience it, as everything we experience is physical even the so called spiritual is a electrochemical reaction to stimuli.

But there is evidence we do experience spirituality, we've been doing this for over 70k years.

do we now? have any proof that what you call spirituality is not just misfiring neurons
btw where do you get the 70k number from?

Yes we do. Neurons don't seem to misfire in any other species for all of their existence, prompting them to behave irrationally for no apparent reason, so I can't accept this argument regarding humans. It defies what science has observed.

70k is a rough estimate of when we discover human civilizations practicing spiritual rituals and ceremonies. Some say 100k or more, others say 40k or so... I split the difference.

newpolitics is running around claiming Neanderthals were "religious" but that is not at all substantiated. I recently read an article about this, and there is some debate over findings which seem to indicate Neanderthal was practicing 'spiritual' rituals. However, it is not known whether this was something they perhaps 'learned' and copied from homosapiens, and adopted as their species was dying out, or whether the evidence even suggests spiritual belief at all. In any event, Neanderthals were not AS spiritually connected as homosapiens. At least, not as far as we've currently discovered.

 

[Boss]

yes you do claim everything except fact.. and it's never accurate..

you've just proven my point.

I'm sorry, was your point that Evolution Theory does not address origin? If so, you are correct!

There is nothing in Evolution Theory to adequately explain cross-genus speciation. This HAD to have happened, if evolution is responsible for all living things. However, it is something we can't even do in a controlled lab environment with modern equipment and technology.

The only science theory regarding origin of life, is Abiogenesis. The theory that electrically charged chemical elements in the moisture found in clay, achieved reproductive replication, and thus, all life began from a single cell. I find this fascinating, since The Bible claims god spat into the dust to create man. Not arguing theology, just saying.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Except that they don't. None of them. Anywhere. It is entirely based on evidence, so it can't be Illogical. It isn't some abstract, written syllogistic proof with premises and a conclusion. It is an posteriori postulation that explains the evidence perfectly.

If you were accurate they could answer the origins question. They have not been able to show a mechanism for Macro-evolution that is above reproach.

bullshit! there is no special mechanism for the false premise of macro evolution. evolution is evolution period.

Macro-evolution is specious speculation...and it's highly reproachable.to say it isn't is arrogant and ignorant, but hey look who always brings it up!

Sorry you don't understand the difference between Micro and Macro. Let me help Micro are small changes within a species Macro leads to different species like you see on the family tree according to evolutionists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you've just proven my point.

I'm sorry, was your point that Evolution Theory does not address origin? If so, you are correct!

There is nothing in Evolution Theory to adequately explain cross-genus speciation. This HAD to have happened, if evolution is responsible for all living things. However, it is something we can't even do in a controlled lab environment with modern equipment and technology.

The only science theory regarding origin of life, is Abiogenesis. The theory that electrically charged chemical elements in the moisture found in clay, achieved reproductive replication, and thus, all life began from a single cell. I find this fascinating, since The Bible claims god spat into the dust to create man. Not arguing theology, just saying.

The problem is the miller and urey experiment did not produce a cell nor a living organism and a bigger problem they produced both left and right handed amino amino acids Life would not have come from both amino acids. Right handed amino acids could not bond or it would destroy the organism.

Also the experiment was conducted by intelligent human beings so much for naturalism. They can never point to a case where life was produced through a natural means. Non-living matter cannot produce a living organism only a living organism can produce a living organism with the ingredients that it takes to produce a living organism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

yes you do claim everything except fact.. and it's never accurate..

you've just proven my point.

More spiritual evidence.

Episode 67 - Full Episode: My Ghost Story Full Episodes and Videos - Biography.com

 

[Youwerecreated]

again, that would be you..

Would you like to compare reume's again monkey boy ?

that's resume' and do you really want to have your ass handed to you again!

You don't possess a degree in science dummy but I do. Why do you continue with this Charade you moron ?

 

[G.T.]

AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing FAITH!

Oh. So by "definitive proof" you meant "inconclusive faith."

 

[newpolitics]

AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing FAITH!

A conclusion does not mean certain, or even true, so your point here is a non-sequitur. In scientific epistemologies, it is understood that even deductively concluded propositions, which is requisite for forming a theory, is always allowed to be falsified, hence is never certain. Therefore, scientific "conclusions" certainly exist. The fact that science is never certain doesn't change this.

 

[S.J.]

One thing is for sure. No one on here is gonna change anybody's mind. I've had experiences that convince me there is a higher power, and no atheist who has never had a spiritual experience (or even said a prayer) will convince me otherwise. And I'm sure I won't convince them of anything either.

 

[Boss]

AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing FAITH!

A conclusion does not mean certain, or even true, so your point here is a non-sequitur. In scientific epistemologies, it is understood that even deductively concluded propositions, which is requisite for forming a theory, is always allowed to be falsified, hence is never certain. Therefore, scientific "conclusions" certainly exist. The fact that science is never certain doesn't change this.

LMAO, dance little monkey, dance!

 

[newpolitics]

AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing FAITH!

A conclusion does not mean certain, or even true, so your point here is a non-sequitur. In scientific epistemologies, it is understood that even deductively concluded propositions, which is requisite for forming a theory, is always allowed to be falsified, hence is never certain. Therefore, scientific "conclusions" certainly exist. The fact that science is never certain doesn't change this.

LMAO, dance little monkey, dance!

That a nice little strawmen, you have there. I never said anything about science being certain. You are simply making this up.

 

[newpolitics]

you've just proven my point.

I'm sorry, was your point that Evolution Theory does not address origin? If so, you are correct!

There is nothing in Evolution Theory to adequately explain cross-genus speciation. This HAD to have happened, if evolution is responsible for all living things. However, it is something we can't even do in a controlled lab environment with modern equipment and technology.

The only science theory regarding origin of life, is Abiogenesis. The theory that electrically charged chemical elements in the moisture found in clay, achieved reproductive replication, and thus, all life began from a single cell. I find this fascinating, since The Bible claims god spat into the dust to create man. Not arguing theology, just saying.

The problem is the miller and urey experiment did not produce a cell nor a living organism and a bigger problem they produced both left and right handed amino amino acids Life would not have come from both amino acids. Right handed amino acids could not bond or it would destroy the organism.

Also the experiment was conducted by intelligent human beings so much for naturalism. They can never point to a case where life was produced through a natural means. Non-living matter cannot produce a living organism only a living organism can produce a living organism with the ingredients that it takes to produce a living organism.

The experiment wasn't designed to produce a cell or a living organism, so its not a problem at all.

Your second point is incorrect. An intelligence created and mimicked the natural conditions that actually existed, and the molecules formed on their own, as they would have naturally. The scientists didn't personally configure each molecule into place- THAT would be intelligent design.

 

[S.J.]

AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing FAITH!

A conclusion does not mean certain, or even true, so your point here is a non-sequitur. In scientific epistemologies, it is understood that even deductively concluded propositions, which is requisite for forming a theory, is always allowed to be falsified, hence is never certain. Therefore, scientific "conclusions" certainly exist. The fact that science is never certain doesn't change this.

LMAO, dance little monkey, dance!

 

[newpolitics]

A conclusion does not mean certain, or even true, so your point here is a non-sequitur. In scientific epistemologies, it is understood that even deductively concluded propositions, which is requisite for forming a theory, is always allowed to be falsified, hence is never certain. Therefore, scientific "conclusions" certainly exist. The fact that science is never certain doesn't change this.

LMAO, dance little monkey, dance!

Keep on clapping at that strawman being laughed at. He's probably really upset.

 

[Boss]

There is no strawman, newbs.. just my valid and profound statement, which you agreed with as you did a little jig. I love it when I say something that you have no choice but to agree with, yet you have to find some way to not agree. Loved how you put cute little quote marks around "conclusions" to distinguish them from things which are concluded. That was precious!

 

[newpolitics]

There is no strawman, newbs.. just my valid and profound statement, which you agreed with as you did a little jig. I love it when I say something that you have no choice but to agree with, yet you have to find some way to not agree. Loved how you put cute little quote marks around "conclusions" to distinguish them from things which are concluded. That was precious!

A "conclusion" is not defined as having the attribute of certainty, so your ridicule and strawman have no basis in truth. Saying science doesn't make conclusions because science isn't certain, is simply a semantics error on your part.

As far as the strawman, despite your misunderstaning of the meaning of "conclusion", Quote me where I said that scientific epistemology deals with certainty. Until then, try not to ridicule people when you are the imbecile making then mistake.

Merriam-Webster:


Main Entry: con·clu·sion
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈklü-zhən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin conclusion-, conclusio, from concludere
Date: 14th century
1 a : a reasoned judgment : inference b : the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises ; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism 2 : the last part of something: as a : result, outcome b plural : trial of strength or skill —used in the phrase try conclusions c : a final summation d : the final decision in a law case e : the final part of a pleading in law 3 : an act or instance of concluding



Do you see "certainty" or a synonym anywhere in this definition?




I dont. You're clueless as to what you are doing here.



As to your statement being valid or profound... thanks for the laughs.

 

[Boss]

There is no strawman, newbs.. just my valid and profound statement, which you agreed with as you did a little jig. I love it when I say something that you have no choice but to agree with, yet you have to find some way to not agree. Loved how you put cute little quote marks around "conclusions" to distinguish them from things which are concluded. That was precious!

A "conclusion" is not defined as having the attribute of certainty, so your ridicule and strawman have no basis in truth. Saying science doesn't make conclusions because science isn't certain, is simply a semantics error on your part.

As far as the strawman, despite your misunderstaning of the meaning of "conclusion", Quote me where I said that scientific epistemology deals with certainty. Until then, try not to ridicule people when you are the imbecile making then mistake.

Merriam-Webster:


Main Entry: con·clu·sion
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈklü-zhən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin conclusion-, conclusio, from concludere
Date: 14th century
1 a : a reasoned judgment : inference b : the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises ; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism 2 : the last part of something: as a : result, outcome b plural : trial of strength or skill —used in the phrase try conclusions c : a final summation d : the final decision in a law case e : the final part of a pleading in law 3 : an act or instance of concluding



Do you see "certainty" or a synonym anywhere in this definition?




I dont. You're clueless as to what you are doing here.



As to your statement being valid or profound... thanks for the laughs.

Science does not conclude or "conclude."

 

[Boss]

"Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing FAITH!" ~Boss

Hmm.... the word "certain" isn't in there anywhere.

 

[newpolitics]

There is no strawman, newbs.. just my valid and profound statement, which you agreed with as you did a little jig. I love it when I say something that you have no choice but to agree with, yet you have to find some way to not agree. Loved how you put cute little quote marks around "conclusions" to distinguish them from things which are concluded. That was precious!

A "conclusion" is not defined as having the attribute of certainty, so your ridicule and strawman have no basis in truth. Saying science doesn't make conclusions because science isn't certain, is simply a semantics error on your part.

As far as the strawman, despite your misunderstaning of the meaning of "conclusion", Quote me where I said that scientific epistemology deals with certainty. Until then, try not to ridicule people when you are the imbecile making then mistake.

Merriam-Webster:


Main Entry: con·clu·sion
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈklü-zhən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin conclusion-, conclusio, from concludere
Date: 14th century
1 a : a reasoned judgment : inference b : the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises ; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism 2 : the last part of something: as a : result, outcome b plural : trial of strength or skill —used in the phrase try conclusions c : a final summation d : the final decision in a law case e : the final part of a pleading in law 3 : an act or instance of concluding



Do you see "certainty" or a synonym anywhere in this definition?




I dont. You're clueless as to what you are doing here.



As to your statement being valid or profound... thanks for the laughs.

Science does not conclude or "conclude."

I deserve better than you.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

"The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results"



I am going to walk away now and hope you don't follow me.

 

[Boss]

A "conclusion" is not defined as having the attribute of certainty, so your ridicule and strawman have no basis in truth. Saying science doesn't make conclusions because science isn't certain, is simply a semantics error on your part.

As far as the strawman, despite your misunderstaning of the meaning of "conclusion", Quote me where I said that scientific epistemology deals with certainty. Until then, try not to ridicule people when you are the imbecile making then mistake.

Merriam-Webster:


Main Entry: con·clu·sion
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈklü-zhən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin conclusion-, conclusio, from concludere
Date: 14th century
1 a : a reasoned judgment : inference b : the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises ; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism 2 : the last part of something: as a : result, outcome b plural : trial of strength or skill —used in the phrase try conclusions c : a final summation d : the final decision in a law case e : the final part of a pleading in law 3 : an act or instance of concluding



Do you see "certainty" or a synonym anywhere in this definition?




I dont. You're clueless as to what you are doing here.



As to your statement being valid or profound... thanks for the laughs.

Science does not conclude or "conclude."

I deserve better than you.

Steps of the Scientific Method

"The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results"

I am going to walk away now and hope you don't follow me.

You will note that the "conclusion" comes at the end of practicing science. Which is precisely what I said... once you have concluded, you have stopped practicing science. Do you see any more science happening after "conclusion" above? I don't.

Thanks for reaffirming yet another of my brilliant points. You're on a roll tonight!

"Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing FAITH!" ~Boss