Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[edthecynic]

As well as definitive proof that the physical existence of the Christ rules out the possibility of him being God, without violating your premise that is.

Hmm... So if an omnipotent spirit decides to manifest itself in the physical world, that is something the omnipotent entity can't achieve? Is that what you're saying?

No God is omnipotent!

Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon

 

[Aristotle]

Boss in order to prove God exist you must define who God is

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Still waiting for your "definitive proof" that a deity exists at all. A spritual belief in a deity, only proves that the person or persons "believe" that a deity exists, but does not prove its existence. Extremely devout Hindus are convinced that multiple deities exist, but their devout belief only demonstrates.....a belief, not fact.
The bible, torah and quran were drafted by primitive, superstitious tribal peoples who could only come up with an extremely simplistice way to express how life and the universe came to be. "It's there, so a big, invisible being must have made it."
The ancient Greeks, Romans and Babylonians, et cetera, had numerous deities. They are all based upon a lack of knowledge.
Scientific research is leaving less and less room for the existence of a deity. Thus, unless some deity steps forth to all humanity and says, "here I am," I'll stick with science.

 

[newpolitics]

What is spiritual proof? I have a feeling this is a meaningless notion.

 

[newpolitics]

Boss, you are confusing correlation with causation. Just because, throughout Human history and prehistory, we see humans and spiritual belief together, doesn't mean that this spiritual belief in humans is caused by anything spiritual. You haven't established this causal factor, yet are trying to pass it off anyway. This is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Boss]

If an omnipotent deity can create an object that it cannot destroy then it is not omnipotent. However if the omnipotent deity cannot create an object that it cannot destroy then it is not omnipotent either. Therefore an omnipotent deity is a logical impossibility.

What the fuck are you talking about? First of all, I never said I had definitive proof of an omnipotent god, or any other incarnation of god. I simply gave definitive proof that god exists. The fact that you can twist logic into a pretzel, is amusing, but that's about all. Can you twist balloons into animal shapes as well?

How ironic!

If the omnipotent entity can't create an object that can destroy it, it has nothing to do with the entity's omnipotence, but rather, it's creative ability. Omnipotent doesn't mean ability to create anything, it means more powerful or "potent" than anything. If a "god" followed your logic protocols, we would live in a world where good and evil were unknown, nothing bad would ever happen, nothing but perfection and Nirvana would ever be experienced. We would have never developed science because nothing would need to be explained, no problems would ever arise, we would have no need for discovery or imagination.

Perhaps you would be better off looking up the terms you don't understand before you use them in your posts.

I have no problem with the terms I am using, you keep interjecting terms I haven't used. Again... never claimed I could give definitive proof an omnipotent god exists. You are the one who brought up omnipotence. And you did so with a logic pretzel.

Omnipotent
1. (of a deity) Having unlimited power; able to do anything
2. Having ultimate power and influence

Because something is ABLE to do anything, doesn't mean it has to do so. Having unlimited power doesn't mean it can or can't create something more omnipotent. Perhaps it can, but chooses not to, because of the logical dichotomy consequence? Perhaps it can't because if it didn't it would? Do you see how fucked up logic pretzels can be?

Gotta love people who think they are smarter than god.

 

[Boss]

Boss, you are confusing correlation with causation. Just because, throughout Human history and prehistory, we see humans and spiritual belief together, doesn't mean that this spiritual belief in humans is caused by anything spiritual. You haven't established this causal factor, yet are trying to pass it off anyway. This is intellectual dishonesty.

There is causation or Darwin says we would have discarded the attribute for the sake of preserving the species. Historically, it has not been in man's best interest to hold strong religious or spiritual beliefs, they have been killed by the millions. So there must be something about it that man can't survive without, it must be fundamental to the species.

Okay.... look.... let's try this: Imagine, for the sake of argument, that some people can recall their dreams, and some people can't. Those who can't, have no comprehension of what a dream is, because they can't recall ever having such an experience. But all through the ages, we've had these people who claim to have dreams, and these people who deny that dreams are real. Is there any physical way to prove that dreams are happening as described? I know we can measure brain wave activity and whatnot, but this doesn't actually tell us what is happening in a dream, so is there any way to prove a dream? More importantly, is there any way to prove a dream to someone who can't comprehend it?

The point being, the human spiritual connection to god, is much like the scenario described, some people have experienced it and some haven't. It's not something that can be supported with physical evidence, it relies largely on faith and belief in the testimony of those who have experienced it. You simply can't say this experience isn't real for them or they didn't have an experience, because you lack comprehension.

For some reason, humans are intrinsically tied to spiritual belief. We have a need to worship something greater than self, a spiritual higher power. We are so hard-wired this way, a noted psychologist once said, if God didn't exist, mankind would have to invent Him. Ockham's Razor applied here, says the most likely explanation for mankind's intrinsic inherent connection to spirituality and worship of a higher power, (the simplest answer) is because there is one.

 

[Boss]

Still waiting for your "definitive proof" that a deity exists at all. A spritual belief in a deity, only proves that the person or persons "believe" that a deity exists, but does not prove its existence. Extremely devout Hindus are convinced that multiple deities exist, but their devout belief only demonstrates.....a belief, not fact.
The bible, torah and quran were drafted by primitive, superstitious tribal peoples who could only come up with an extremely simplistice way to express how life and the universe came to be. "It's there, so a big, invisible being must have made it."
The ancient Greeks, Romans and Babylonians, et cetera, had numerous deities. They are all based upon a lack of knowledge.
Scientific research is leaving less and less room for the existence of a deity. Thus, unless some deity steps forth to all humanity and says, "here I am," I'll stick with science.

I never mentioned a "deity" or whether one exists. The thread title is Definitive Proof that God Exists. I presented definitive spiritual proof, but you aren't willing to accept spiritual proof because you don't believe in spirituality. However, the ONLY kind of proof you can have for a spiritual entity, is spiritual proof.

What is spiritual proof? I have a feeling this is a meaningless notion.

Well, yes it's a meaningless notion to someone who rejects spirituality, because it means you will also reject spiritual proof. That's the whole problem we are having with this debate, you don't want to allow spiritual proof, you want to demand physical proof, when physical proof simply doesn't apply to spiritual entities.

 

[Boss]

Boss in order to prove God exist you must define who God is

God doesn't have to be a "who" nor does it have to be defined, in order to exist.

 

[newpolitics]

Still waiting for your "definitive proof" that a deity exists at all. A spritual belief in a deity, only proves that the person or persons "believe" that a deity exists, but does not prove its existence. Extremely devout Hindus are convinced that multiple deities exist, but their devout belief only demonstrates.....a belief, not fact.
The bible, torah and quran were drafted by primitive, superstitious tribal peoples who could only come up with an extremely simplistice way to express how life and the universe came to be. "It's there, so a big, invisible being must have made it."
The ancient Greeks, Romans and Babylonians, et cetera, had numerous deities. They are all based upon a lack of knowledge.
Scientific research is leaving less and less room for the existence of a deity. Thus, unless some deity steps forth to all humanity and says, "here I am," I'll stick with science.

I never mentioned a "deity" or whether one exists. The thread title is Definitive Proof that God Exists. I presented definitive spiritual proof, but you aren't willing to accept spiritual proof because you don't believe in spirituality. However, the ONLY kind of proof you can have for a spiritual entity, is spiritual proof.

What is spiritual proof? I have a feeling this is a meaningless notion.

Well, yes it's a meaningless notion to someone who rejects spirituality, because it means you will also reject spiritual proof. That's the whole problem we are having with this debate, you don't want to allow spiritual proof, you want to demand physical proof, when physical proof simply doesn't apply to spiritual entities.

You are most certainly begging the question. "If I believed in the existence of spiritual proof, then spiritual proof would exist." This is circular and gets you no where. The idea of spiritual proof presupposes a spiritual realm, which you need to demonstrate objectively in some manner. If this spiritual realm interacts with the physical realm, them we should see physical evidence. If this spiritual realm does not interact with thr physical realm in any way, then you have no justification for belief, and it is irrelevant to our lives whether a spiritual realm does exist. You cant have your cake and eat it too. As you have not adequately defined god, this is a bit ridiculous. You do need to define god, otherwise your assertion is meaningless.

 

[Boss]

Still waiting for your "definitive proof" that a deity exists at all. A spritual belief in a deity, only proves that the person or persons "believe" that a deity exists, but does not prove its existence. Extremely devout Hindus are convinced that multiple deities exist, but their devout belief only demonstrates.....a belief, not fact.
The bible, torah and quran were drafted by primitive, superstitious tribal peoples who could only come up with an extremely simplistice way to express how life and the universe came to be. "It's there, so a big, invisible being must have made it."
The ancient Greeks, Romans and Babylonians, et cetera, had numerous deities. They are all based upon a lack of knowledge.
Scientific research is leaving less and less room for the existence of a deity. Thus, unless some deity steps forth to all humanity and says, "here I am," I'll stick with science.

I never mentioned a "deity" or whether one exists. The thread title is Definitive Proof that God Exists. I presented definitive spiritual proof, but you aren't willing to accept spiritual proof because you don't believe in spirituality. However, the ONLY kind of proof you can have for a spiritual entity, is spiritual proof.

What is spiritual proof? I have a feeling this is a meaningless notion.

Well, yes it's a meaningless notion to someone who rejects spirituality, because it means you will also reject spiritual proof. That's the whole problem we are having with this debate, you don't want to allow spiritual proof, you want to demand physical proof, when physical proof simply doesn't apply to spiritual entities.

You are most certainly begging the question. "If I believed in the existence of spiritual proof, then spiritual proof would exist." This is circular and gets you no where. The idea of spiritual proof presupposes a spiritual realm, which you need to demonstrate objectively in some manner. If this spiritual realm interacts with the physical realm, them we should see physical evidence. If this spiritual realm does not interact with thr physical realm in any way, then you have no justification for belief, and it is irrelevant to our lives whether a spiritual realm does exist. You cant have your cake and eat it too. As you have not adequately defined god, this is a bit ridiculous. You do need to define god, otherwise your assertion is meaningless.

I disagree. Can you define what is inside a black hole? They certainly do exist, but if we didn't know they existed, physicists would say they were impossible. Why do you think spiritual interaction would leave physical proof? Does physical interaction leave spiritual proof? Billions of people over thousands of years, swear to have experienced a spiritual interaction, many of them have been put to death because they wouldn't deny this interaction. So again, there is TONS of spiritual evidence, you just don't recognize spiritual evidence in your court of judgment.

And for the record, I didn't say "If I believed in the existence of spiritual proof, then spiritual proof would exist." I said that you reject spiritual proof and demand physical proof, when physical proof doesn't apply to spiritual entities. I have said that arguing with a person about the existence of god, who doesn't believe in spiritual proof, and refuses to accept spiritual proof, is not any different than arguing science with someone who rejects physical proof and insists on spiritual explanations. If you encountered such a person, you would quickly become frustrated, because they simply wouldn't accept your physical evidence. If they refuse to accept physical evidence, and insist that everything be explained with spiritual evidence, they are hopeless, a lost cause, you can't ever "prove" things to them, because they are unwilling to accept physical evidence. You are in the same category of mouth-breather.

 

[Aristotle]

D

Boss in order to prove God exist you must define who God is

God doesn't have to be a "who" nor does it have to be defined, in order to exist.

That makes no sense. Calling God, God and proclaiming an existence of deity requires explanation.

For example if someome says "Aristotle exist." One has to define who Aristotle is before explaining a proof of Aristotle's existence." God can be anything.

 

[emilynghiem]

D

Boss in order to prove God exist you must define who God is

God doesn't have to be a "who" nor does it have to be defined, in order to exist.

That makes no sense. Calling God, God and proclaiming an existence of deity requires explanation.

For example if someome says "Aristotle exist." One has to define who Aristotle is before explaining a proof of Aristotle's existence." God can be anything.

Dear A
1a. I totally agree with you the first step is to spell out the definitions of
what God means
1b. however, these do not have to be the same things. some people may see God as Wisdom, others as Love, or truth, goodwill, etc. but it is important to list all the things
that people equate or assign to God
2. then the next step is to try to align these terms and principles
by concept regardless of the terms and systems used
Can we get to the agreement that all these terms are pointing to the same
source or same God even if we are all using different terms or systems?
3. and then the step is to resolve any reasons for conflicts of why
alignment or resolution is not happening
normally it is finding what things people haven't resolved or forgiven or let go
such as aversion to Christianity or distrust of liberals or atheists etc. etc.
that is otherwise preveting reconciliation across these different systems
4. and lastly applying these rebuilt relations and understanding to working in diverse
teams solving real world problems that help other people to see that
groups from different systems or backgrounds can work together to achieve
common goals, so this helps resolve issues in #3 where people can see proof and let go
knowing that we are talking about the same things but using different terms/systems.

 

[Boss]

D

Boss in order to prove God exist you must define who God is

God doesn't have to be a "who" nor does it have to be defined, in order to exist.

That makes no sense. Calling God, God and proclaiming an existence of deity requires explanation.

For example if someome says "Aristotle exist." One has to define who Aristotle is before explaining a proof of Aristotle's existence." God can be anything.

I didn't proclaim existence of a deity, we've been over this already.

Someone can say, "Aristotle exists" and this is either a true statement or false statement, it does not require that Aristotle be defined. I can say Los Angeles exists, I've never been there and couldn't tell you anything about it, but I am sure it exists. You are insisting that something be defined to your satisfaction before it can be proven to exist, and that is not a prerequisite for existence or proof thereof.

 

[newpolitics]

I never mentioned a "deity" or whether one exists. The thread title is Definitive Proof that God Exists. I presented definitive spiritual proof, but you aren't willing to accept spiritual proof because you don't believe in spirituality. However, the ONLY kind of proof you can have for a spiritual entity, is spiritual proof.



Well, yes it's a meaningless notion to someone who rejects spirituality, because it means you will also reject spiritual proof. That's the whole problem we are having with this debate, you don't want to allow spiritual proof, you want to demand physical proof, when physical proof simply doesn't apply to spiritual entities.

You are most certainly begging the question. "If I believed in the existence of spiritual proof, then spiritual proof would exist." This is circular and gets you no where. The idea of spiritual proof presupposes a spiritual realm, which you need to demonstrate objectively in some manner. If this spiritual realm interacts with the physical realm, them we should see physical evidence. If this spiritual realm does not interact with thr physical realm in any way, then you have no justification for belief, and it is irrelevant to our lives whether a spiritual realm does exist. You cant have your cake and eat it too. As you have not adequately defined god, this is a bit ridiculous. You do need to define god, otherwise your assertion is meaningless.

I disagree. Can you define what is inside a black hole? They certainly do exist, but if we didn't know they existed, physicists would say they were impossible. Why do you think spiritual interaction would leave physical proof? Does physical interaction leave spiritual proof? Billions of people over thousands of years, swear to have experienced a spiritual interaction, many of them have been put to death because they wouldn't deny this interaction. So again, there is TONS of spiritual evidence, you just don't recognize spiritual evidence in your court of judgment.

And for the record, I didn't say "If I believed in the existence of spiritual proof, then spiritual proof would exist." I said that you reject spiritual proof and demand physical proof, when physical proof doesn't apply to spiritual entities. I have said that arguing with a person about the existence of god, who doesn't believe in spiritual proof, and refuses to accept spiritual proof, is not any different than arguing science with someone who rejects physical proof and insists on spiritual explanations. If you encountered such a person, you would quickly become frustrated, because they simply wouldn't accept your physical evidence. If they refuse to accept physical evidence, and insist that everything be explained with spiritual evidence, they are hopeless, a lost cause, you can't ever "prove" things to them, because they are unwilling to accept physical evidence. You are in the same category of mouth-breather.

I don't need to define what is inside a black to know that the inside of a black hole exists. Something that exists is defined by its own existence. The law of identity applies here (A=A). The inside of a black is defined by the fact that it is the inside of a black hole, and this is a valid logical inference: anything that has an outside also has an inside, unless you are suggesting that logical laws breakdown inside black holes, which you would need to prove somehow. We dont know what exactly is inside a black whole, but we arent about to start making shit up to fill in knowledge gaps as you are by saying "god did it." By contrast with the existence of black holes, you nor anybody even knows if a god exists, since there is no evidence, spiritual or physical. Again, all "spiritual" evidence is (I am guessing) is subjective experience and interpretation of that experience to mean there is a supernatural deity. You are trying to get around backing up your claim by positing this other "spiritual" evidence which doesn't actually exist. You are making little sense here, and this is a pretty weak attempt at apologetics. I suggest you actually learn about logic and subscribe to a few Christian apologists who actually know how to defend Christianity a little better, because what you are doing is ridiculous.



For the record: What you are saying is, "arguing with some who doesn't believe in god about the existence of god is frustrating." It must be, but you don't have my sympathies. List any proof, spiritual or otherwise.

 

[emilynghiem]

As well as definitive proof that the physical existence of the Christ rules out the possibility of him being God, without violating your premise that is.

Hmm... So if an omnipotent spirit decides to manifest itself in the physical world, that is something the omnipotent entity can't achieve? Is that what you're saying?

Dear Edcynic and Boss:
Are you saying that any manifestation of God in the world is finite,
so that if God is infinite, this manifestation can't be the whole of God?


I agree it isn't the "whole" God because you are right that what is infinite
cannot fit into anything we finite humans can define or perceive.

However, we can "prove" to ourselves and each other
that we ARE representing and talking about the SAME source or God
EVEN though we ARE using "finite/limited even made-up"
concepts and terms to express aspects or meanings of this one God.

even if all our photographs and portraits we make of this God
do not do justice to the real God, we can still agree that all these
attempts are expressions pointing to or depicting at least an angle on this one God.

And the "proof" will be more like removing anything that
prevents us from seeing/believing it is the same thing.

to the point we take for granted we mean the same thing and
DON'T NEED proof.

Like none of us has EVER proven that when you talk about your dreams
at night and I talk about mine, that these dreams really happened in our heads,
and we are talking about the same dream process. we just assume
we are talking about the same process.

We dont question, or ask for proof. we just go with it.

by the tiem we list all the things we mean by God
and which things we don't agree God means
and align the values and work things out
then we don't necessarily need proof anymore

We will show that regardless who made up which system for
describing these things, they are all pointing to or symbolising
the same process or same truth we are all reaching an understanding of.

any conflicts that would otherwise prevent these systmes
from aligning would get resolved inthe process of
proving what is and what is not consistent with each other.

 

[emilynghiem]

D

God doesn't have to be a "who" nor does it have to be defined, in order to exist.

That makes no sense. Calling God, God and proclaiming an existence of deity requires explanation.

For example if someome says "Aristotle exist." One has to define who Aristotle is before explaining a proof of Aristotle's existence." God can be anything.

I didn't proclaim existence of a deity, we've been over this already.

Someone can say, "Aristotle exists" and this is either a true statement or false statement, it does not require that Aristotle be defined. I can say Los Angeles exists, I've never been there and couldn't tell you anything about it, but I am sure it exists. You are insisting that something be defined to your satisfaction before it can be proven to exist, and that is not a prerequisite for existence or proof thereof.

Dear Boss: if you are going to prove it to THAT PERSON
then it does help to align it with some term or concept that has meaning to THAT PERSON.

for example, what if you are trying to prove that the laws of gravity
affect THAT PERSON.

what if the person does not know what you mean by gravity.
So the first step is to demonstrate something in that person's experience
that would show them what gravity is.

Same with God.

If people believe in truth, love or good will existing.
like the concept of universal good will for all people as an abstract ideal.
that is the equivalent of believing in God's will, some greater good for all humanity.

if people believe in justice, that is
the equivlanet of believing in jesus or divine justice on some abstract level.

So the discussion becomes at what points do we agree on these concepts of truth and justice, how to realize them, and how to solve problems in the process
so we can achieve or establish truth and justice for all people to bring peace on earth
if this is the meaning of salvation and heaven.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: Christ Jesus as representing the spirit of Restorative Justice

Hi Newpolitics: regarding how to explain Christianity to secular gentiles under natural laws,
are you okay with the explanation that the point of the Bible is to move from
* retributive justice by the letter of the law (as in the Old Testament)
* to restorative justice by the spirit of the law (as in the New Testament)
and this process of reaching spiritual maturity to establish justice and peace
for all humanity requires "forgiveness and correction" so all people join in agreeing on truth, where building a consensus sets us free from division strife and suffering by reaching unified understanding by conscience. and this is what it means for all people to become "one in Christ," to reach such an agreement "by conscience," by free will because we agree to forgive all previous conflicts that prevented us from reaching agreement in the past.
so we free our minds to RECEIVE peace by RECEIVING a higher understanding, that we couldn't previously while we were divided by unforgiven conflicts.

are you okay discussing this explanation in secular terms?

if you don't relate to explanations using church laws where people were first
given the letter of the law, this led to corruption and wars, and so there had
to be massive reform so the spirit of the laws is renewed to end the abuses;
are you more comfortable using secular laws to show this same pattern
where the written laws are given first, that gets corrupted by greed and
political abuses for power, and the process is to reform the whole system
and go back to the original spirit of the laws to restore justice peace and order.

so this is the same process of justice symbolized in the Bible for all humanity.
and each person goes through this, and each nation/culture, but collectively
for all humanity this return of justice is what Jesus represents to bring peace to all.

You are most certainly begging the question. "If I believed in the existence of spiritual proof, then spiritual proof would exist." This is circular and gets you no where. The idea of spiritual proof presupposes a spiritual realm, which you need to demonstrate objectively in some manner. If this spiritual realm interacts with the physical realm, them we should see physical evidence. If this spiritual realm does not interact with thr physical realm in any way, then you have no justification for belief, and it is irrelevant to our lives whether a spiritual realm does exist. You cant have your cake and eat it too. As you have not adequately defined god, this is a bit ridiculous. You do need to define god, otherwise your assertion is meaningless.

I disagree. Can you define what is inside a black hole? They certainly do exist, but if we didn't know they existed, physicists would say they were impossible. Why do you think spiritual interaction would leave physical proof? Does physical interaction leave spiritual proof? Billions of people over thousands of years, swear to have experienced a spiritual interaction, many of them have been put to death because they wouldn't deny this interaction. So again, there is TONS of spiritual evidence, you just don't recognize spiritual evidence in your court of judgment.

And for the record, I didn't say "If I believed in the existence of spiritual proof, then spiritual proof would exist." I said that you reject spiritual proof and demand physical proof, when physical proof doesn't apply to spiritual entities. I have said that arguing with a person about the existence of god, who doesn't believe in spiritual proof, and refuses to accept spiritual proof, is not any different than arguing science with someone who rejects physical proof and insists on spiritual explanations. If you encountered such a person, you would quickly become frustrated, because they simply wouldn't accept your physical evidence. If they refuse to accept physical evidence, and insist that everything be explained with spiritual evidence, they are hopeless, a lost cause, you can't ever "prove" things to them, because they are unwilling to accept physical evidence. You are in the same category of mouth-breather.

I don't need to define what is inside a black to know that the inside of a black hole exists. Something that exists is defined by its own existence. The law of identity applies here (A=A). The inside of a black is defined by the fact that it is the inside of a black hole, and this is a valid logical inference: anything that has an outside also has an inside, unless you are suggesting that logical laws breakdown inside black holes, which you would need to prove somehow. We dont know what exactly is inside a black whole, but we arent about to start making shit up to fill in knowledge gaps as you are by saying "god did it." By contrast with the existence of black holes, you nor anybody even knows if a god exists, since there is no evidence, spiritual or physical. Again, all "spiritual" evidence is (I am guessing) is subjective experience and interpretation of that experience to mean there is a supernatural deity. You are trying to get around backing up your claim by positing this other "spiritual" evidence which doesn't actually exist. You are making little sense here, and this is a pretty weak attempt at apologetics. I suggest you actually learn about logic and subscribe to a few Christian apologists who actually know how to defend Christianity a little better, because what you are doing is ridiculous.



For the record: What you are saying is, "arguing with some who doesn't believe in god about the existence of god is frustrating." It must be, but you don't have my sympathies. List any proof, spiritual or otherwise.

 

[newpolitics]

Emily, while I always appreciate your benevolent and patient tone in these often hostile discussions, I do not find your exegesis of the New Testament to be a convicting argument for god, as you are presupposing that god exists and inspired the bible.

 

[Boss]

You are most certainly begging the question. "If I believed in the existence of spiritual proof, then spiritual proof would exist." This is circular and gets you no where. The idea of spiritual proof presupposes a spiritual realm, which you need to demonstrate objectively in some manner. If this spiritual realm interacts with the physical realm, them we should see physical evidence. If this spiritual realm does not interact with thr physical realm in any way, then you have no justification for belief, and it is irrelevant to our lives whether a spiritual realm does exist. You cant have your cake and eat it too. As you have not adequately defined god, this is a bit ridiculous. You do need to define god, otherwise your assertion is meaningless.

I disagree. Can you define what is inside a black hole? They certainly do exist, but if we didn't know they existed, physicists would say they were impossible. Why do you think spiritual interaction would leave physical proof? Does physical interaction leave spiritual proof? Billions of people over thousands of years, swear to have experienced a spiritual interaction, many of them have been put to death because they wouldn't deny this interaction. So again, there is TONS of spiritual evidence, you just don't recognize spiritual evidence in your court of judgment.

And for the record, I didn't say "If I believed in the existence of spiritual proof, then spiritual proof would exist." I said that you reject spiritual proof and demand physical proof, when physical proof doesn't apply to spiritual entities. I have said that arguing with a person about the existence of god, who doesn't believe in spiritual proof, and refuses to accept spiritual proof, is not any different than arguing science with someone who rejects physical proof and insists on spiritual explanations. If you encountered such a person, you would quickly become frustrated, because they simply wouldn't accept your physical evidence. If they refuse to accept physical evidence, and insist that everything be explained with spiritual evidence, they are hopeless, a lost cause, you can't ever "prove" things to them, because they are unwilling to accept physical evidence. You are in the same category of mouth-breather.

I don't need to define what is inside a black [hole] to know that the inside of a black hole exists.

What? You can say something exists without defining it? How can that be? You just got through explaining to me that this is not possible and makes no sense to you. Now you are saying, with black holes, it's different. I don't need to define "god" to know that god exists or prove that god exists. Thanks for conceding the point.

Something that exists is defined by its own existence.

Like GOD!
Thanks again for making my point! Two in a row!

The law of identity applies here (A=A). The inside of a black is defined by the fact that it is the inside of a black hole, and this is a valid logical inference: anything that has an outside also has an inside, unless you are suggesting that logical laws breakdown inside black holes, which you would need to prove somehow.

Perhaps the black hole is a portal to God?

A=A... God=God.... black hole inside = black hole inside. Some things we can explain, some things we can't. Some things we've thought have been proven wrong, it happens frequently. Not everything is known, it is sheer human arrogance that we constantly think as if we already know all there is to know, and nothing will ever come along to change what we believe.

We dont know what exactly is inside a black whole, but we arent about to start making shit up to fill in knowledge gaps as you are by saying "god did it."

Seems to be a problem at this board with people misquoting me. Grossly! Where have I proclaimed that "god did it?" My thread is about definitive proof that god exists. This is the only argument I have made here. I have not claimed god was omnipotent, or a deity, or that god "did" anything. Only that there is definitive proof god exists. I didn't make shit up, I presented clear concise facts that are irrefutable. It is illogical to presume belief in god is "to fill knowledge gaps" because if that were true, we could expect rapid decline in human spirituality over the past 500 years, with the advent of unprecedented human knowledge, and that is not what we see. Observing the species as diligent scientists, we see that spiritual behavior is largely unchanged in humans. A relatively small percentage of humans report being "Nihilists," the rest have some kind of belief in something greater than self.

By contrast with the existence of black holes, you nor anybody even knows if a god exists, since there is no evidence, spiritual or physical. Again, all "spiritual" evidence is (I am guessing) is subjective experience and interpretation of that experience to mean there is a supernatural deity. You are trying to get around backing up your claim by positing this other "spiritual" evidence which doesn't actually exist. You are making little sense here, and this is a pretty weak attempt at apologetics. I suggest you actually learn about logic and subscribe to a few Christian apologists who actually know how to defend Christianity a little better, because what you are doing is ridiculous.

You're sputtering and stammering around here. We've already established it is illogical to demand physical evidence of something spiritual. And you must be willing to accept spiritual evidence to definitively prove a spiritual entity. There are indeed, BILLIONS of people through milleniums, who swore to a spiritual connection. Sworn testimony, from BILLIONS and BILLIONS.

And let me make this perfectly clear, NOTHING in this thread or my argument, pertains to Christianity or defending of ANY religious belief. Religious beliefs are a different topic, and have no place in a case for whether god exists, except to support the obvious. Humans are intrinsically spiritual. BECAUSE god exists, humans have (in their imperfect way) attempted to construct understandings of god, which is called "religion." Whether they are right or wrong about god, or if they even comprehend god, is beside the point of whether god exists. God can exist without being the Christian incarnation.

For the record: What you are saying is, "arguing with some who doesn't believe in god about the existence of god is frustrating." It must be, but you don't have my sympathies. List any proof, spiritual or otherwise.

It is frustrating, imagine if you were arguing science with someone who rejects all physical evidence in favor of spiritual evidence? If they are just not willing to look at physical evidence, there is nothing you can do, they will remain ignorant. You refuse to accept spiritual evidence, and YES, I have already presented it several times. There are BILLIONS and BILLIONS of humans who believed in something greater than self, and had a connection to something spiritual, swore by it, died for it, fought wars over it, were persecuted for thousands of years over. There have been people who reported miracles through meditation and prayer. People who have been cured from terminal illness. Very important people in history who claim to have been led by god to do what they did, people accomplishing impossible feats an attributing it to the power of god. And this sort of thing has been going on since the very first human civilizations.

The SPIRITUAL evidence is somewhat overwhelming. The problem is, you aren't willing to look at spiritual evidence.