Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

D

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.

Gravity exists whether the person understands what gravity is. As a matter of fact, can you explain precisely what gravity is? Because science has difficulty with this, they once believed it was connected to mass, density, weight... but it seems to not follow this theory all the time. But we know gravity does exist, even though we can't fully explain how it works.

Same with God.

It is kind of the same, but God is not a physical property, it is a spiritual entity. It's existence can be proven to those who accept spiritual evidence, because the evidence is overwhelming and definitive. That was the whole point of the thread.

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.

I don't know about all of that, I didn't claim to be able to definitively prove a judgemental god or one that is an abstract ideal or fake blow-up doll you use to promote your ideal. All of that falls under "religious" belief, and I have only presented the argument in a "spiritual" sense. Many people RUSH to assume these are the same, that's why I keep getting hit with the misquotes about "deities" and "omnipotence" and "goddidits" and no one can refute what I've actually said, or the points I made.

 

[Boss]

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 read your post, and I think you are not far off from what I am saying in the OP. Whether God or god or Allah... whatever... is finite or infinite, doesn't matter with regard to existence or presence. The case I presented relies on several key points:

1. Spiritual entities can't be supported with physical evidence, we must acknowledge spiritual evidence.
2. Humans have the unique inherent and inseparable trait of spirituality and worship, and always have.
3. Darwin's own evolution theory says inherent traits are present because they are important, discarded if they are not. (Natural Selection)
4. BILLIONS of humans have endured suffering and death to profess belief in a spiritual connection.
5. Billions and billions, through millenniums, have attested to the powers of something greater than self.

This is definitive proof that god exists. Whose God? What God? ...Not part of the argument.

 

[newpolitics]

You are acting as if god is as observable as a black hole. You are contradicting yourself by doing this because you admitted that no physical evidence for god exists, so this can't be the case. A black hole can be observed by anyone with the proper equipment, by observing its effects on the surrounding space by its immense gravity (gravitational lensing). Black holes were postulated mathematically by Einstein and later found to exist, and are now known to be ubiquitous throughout the universe. Therefore, using black holes as an analogy for god is completely invalid. God is nowhere to be seen. The laws of logic apply to things that actually exist. You can't use the law of identity to prove gods existence. That is just dumb.

 

[newpolitics]

You are still begging the question in trying to smuggle in this notion of "spiritual evidence." What is spiritual evidence? Please define it.

The reason you need to define god, is because he does not exist nor has any empirically observable effects. You seem to be confusing a priori and a posteriori knowledge when you complain about god needing a definition but black holes not needing a definition. Black holes exist, independent of our minds. Our defining them doesn't change what they are. They exist, as whatever they are. God would not exist, in the conventional sense, therefore nothing about god could be known, including his very "existence." Again trying to draw an analogy to anything that actually exists is invalid. You are making an existential claim, yet have no evidence of any kind, and are refusing to offer any definitions because you think god is so self-evident. This is supremely arrogant.

 

[newpolitics]

Further, you seem to have come to this determination that atheists are dolts and that you don't actually need to provide proof for your claims about gods existence. You am just make a claim, and that is evidence enough. This is a logical fallacy called proof by assertion. You assert something's existence, and consider that proof. I can do that too. There is a supreme god above your god, that created your god, and beat him when he was little. That is why your god is such an asshole. There, see? EVIDENCE!!

 

[edthecynic]

Gravity exists whether the person understands what gravity is. As a matter of fact, can you explain precisely what gravity is?

We know gravity, energy, etc., exist because they can be measured. Can you measure God?

 

[Boss]

You are acting as if god is as observable as a black hole. You are contradicting yourself by doing this because you admitted that no physical evidence for god exists, so this can't be the case. A black hole can be observed by anyone with the proper equipment, by observing its effects on the surrounding space by its immense gravity (gravitational lensing). Black holes were postulated mathematically by Einstein and later found to exist, and are now known to be ubiquitous throughout the universe. Therefore, using black holes as an analogy for god is completely invalid. God is nowhere to be seen. The laws of logic apply to things that actually exist. You can't use the law of identity to prove gods existence. That is just dumb.

Hold on... I haven't used black holes as an analogy to God. Black holes are an example of something we can't define what is inside, but we know they exist. This was in response the argument that we can't prove existence without defining something first. That argument was debunked with the example of the black hole.

I don't know what you mean by "laws of logic apply to things that actually exist" because it sounds like we are again trying to mix physical existence with spiritual existence, and I covered this in the OP. To "exist" in a physical sense, is not possible for a spiritual entity, or it would be a physical entity, by it's existence. So we have to constantly remember this as we are evaluating whether god "exists."

A more suitable thing to use as an analogy to God, would be Love. Do you Love someone? Can you prove that you do to me? What if I tell you that your love is a figment of your imagination, and that you imagine this because you are afraid of dying alone? Is there any way to prove me wrong? You see.... this is the confrontation faced when presenting a case for existence of god. Spiritual evidence is dismissed, physical evidence is demanded, and the whole idea is ridiculed or explained away arrogantly by people who refuse to look at the spiritual evidence, and make an informed evaluation.

 

[Boss]

Gravity exists whether the person understands what gravity is. As a matter of fact, can you explain precisely what gravity is?

We know gravity, energy, etc., exist because they can be measured. Can you measure God?

Spiritually?

 

[newpolitics]

You are acting as if god is as observable as a black hole. You are contradicting yourself by doing this because you admitted that no physical evidence for god exists, so this can't be the case. A black hole can be observed by anyone with the proper equipment, by observing its effects on the surrounding space by its immense gravity (gravitational lensing). Black holes were postulated mathematically by Einstein and later found to exist, and are now known to be ubiquitous throughout the universe. Therefore, using black holes as an analogy for god is completely invalid. God is nowhere to be seen. The laws of logic apply to things that actually exist. You can't use the law of identity to prove gods existence. That is just dumb.

Hold on... I haven't used black holes as an analogy to God. Black holes are an example of something we can't define what is inside, but we know they exist. This was in response the argument that we can't prove existence without defining something first. That argument was debunked with the example of the black hole.

I don't know what you mean by "laws of logic apply to things that actually exist" because it sounds like we are again trying to mix physical existence with spiritual existence, and I covered this in the OP. To "exist" in a physical sense, is not possible for a spiritual entity, or it would be a physical entity, by it's existence. So we have to constantly remember this as we are evaluating whether god "exists."

A more suitable thing to use as an analogy to God, would be Love. Do you Love someone? Can you prove that you do to me? What if I tell you that your love is a figment of your imagination, and that you imagine this because you are afraid of dying alone? Is there any way to prove me wrong? You see.... this is the confrontation faced when presenting a case for existence of god. Spiritual evidence is dismissed, physical evidence is demanded, and the whole idea is ridiculed or explained away arrogantly by people who refuse to look at the spiritual evidence, and make an informed evaluation.

Okay, let me get this straight, you are trying to use black holes to prove a point about defining or not defining god, and this isn't an argument from analogy? You are contradicting yourself again. Either you are stupid, or intellectually dishonest. Clearly you don't know what an analogy is. You can't invoke black holes into your argument for god and have it not be an analogy.

 

[newpolitics]

I figured out your flaw . Definitions only apply to a priori or analytic truths. A posteriori truths do need definition, because they exist independent of the mind. Black holes exist independent of us (the same can not be said for god) Therefore, the notion of defining them is a non-sequitur when assessing their characteristics empirically. We discover their nature empirically, we don't decide what their nature will be by defining them, and then call that truth. This would be solopsism. If you agree that there is a mind independent reality, then your position is untenable.

 

[Boss]

Further, you seem to have come to this determination that atheists are dolts and that you don't actually need to provide proof for your claims about gods existence.

Where did I call Atheists dolts? I think this is funny because some people have accused me of being atheistic in my beliefs. You see, I don't subscribe to organized religions.

The God-haters are constantly chortling for "physical proof" of a spiritual entity. I've said that's dumb, illogical as hell, as a matter of fact. But I presented evidence to prove definitively that god exists in the OP. Did you read it?

You am just make a claim, and that is evidence enough.

But I didn't just make a claim, I presented a case, it's only 6 paragraphs or so, it's not a hard read.

This is a logical fallacy called proof by assertion.

"This?" As in, what YOU are doing right now? Because, I might agree there! Again... the OP is 6 paragraphs, go read it real quick, so you won't make a further jackass out of yourself. I made the case, I presented my argument.

That is why your god is such an asshole. There, see? EVIDENCE!!

Where have I mentioned "MY" god?

 

[newpolitics]

I read the OP. It is rife with logical fallacy. For example: do thoughts exist? Does love exist? Yes. Thoughts occur objectively and measurably as electrical currents in the brain. Love is detectable by the presence of the drug oxitocin in the brain. You are confusing subjective reality or phenomenological experience with objective reality. This is also why you feel safe in positing the existence of something called "spiritual evidence." In reality, spiritual evidence is simply ones subjective reasons for belief. They may have things they consider evidence. This is called anecdotal evidence. You have simply relabeled it "spiritual evidence."

 

[Boss]

You are acting as if god is as observable as a black hole. You are contradicting yourself by doing this because you admitted that no physical evidence for god exists, so this can't be the case. A black hole can be observed by anyone with the proper equipment, by observing its effects on the surrounding space by its immense gravity (gravitational lensing). Black holes were postulated mathematically by Einstein and later found to exist, and are now known to be ubiquitous throughout the universe. Therefore, using black holes as an analogy for god is completely invalid. God is nowhere to be seen. The laws of logic apply to things that actually exist. You can't use the law of identity to prove gods existence. That is just dumb.

Hold on... I haven't used black holes as an analogy to God. Black holes are an example of something we can't define what is inside, but we know they exist. This was in response the argument that we can't prove existence without defining something first. That argument was debunked with the example of the black hole.

I don't know what you mean by "laws of logic apply to things that actually exist" because it sounds like we are again trying to mix physical existence with spiritual existence, and I covered this in the OP. To "exist" in a physical sense, is not possible for a spiritual entity, or it would be a physical entity, by it's existence. So we have to constantly remember this as we are evaluating whether god "exists."

A more suitable thing to use as an analogy to God, would be Love. Do you Love someone? Can you prove that you do to me? What if I tell you that your love is a figment of your imagination, and that you imagine this because you are afraid of dying alone? Is there any way to prove me wrong? You see.... this is the confrontation faced when presenting a case for existence of god. Spiritual evidence is dismissed, physical evidence is demanded, and the whole idea is ridiculed or explained away arrogantly by people who refuse to look at the spiritual evidence, and make an informed evaluation.

Okay, let me get this straight, you are trying to use black holes to prove a point about defining or not defining god, and this isn't an argument from analogy? You are contradicting yourself again. Either you are stupid, or intellectually dishonest. Clearly you don't know what an analogy is. You can't invoke black holes into your argument for god and have it not be an analogy.

Nope... that's where you are wrong. Yes, I know your system is in shock, you probably aren't told you are wrong often, but you have not correctly interpreted why black holes were introduced by me in this thread. This makes multiple and numerous errors you've made in the past several posts, with regard to what I have said or what my arguments have been. You've got a lot of nerve to complain of intellectual dishonesty.

Black holes are an example of something we can't define what is inside, but we know they exist.
DOES NOT EQUAL
...trying to use black holes to prove a point about defining or not defining god

The argument black holes refuted has nothing to do with god, and is about logic. Things do NOT have to be defined in order to exist or be proven to exist. If this logic applies for arguments about the insides of a black hole, it applies for arguments regarding spiritual entities. That's not, in any way, a comparison of God and black holes, analogous or otherwise.

 

[newpolitics]

Yeah. You really shouldn't be talking about logic. You simply don't know what an argument from analogy is, because you are making one. You are saying: " the insides of black holes can not be defined, yet we still believe the insides of black holes exists. Therefore, we can likewise say then that god does not need to be defined, even though I know he exists."

Is this not your point in invoking black holes? This is the use of analogy. You are using something other than god to make a point about god. I am not going to type this again. Look it up if you must.

 

[newpolitics]

I haven't made any errors about what you are saying. You simply don't have the self awareness to understand what it is you are doing, logically, and consequently, are contradicting yourself all over the place.

 

[Boss]

I read the OP. It is rife with logical fallacy. For example: do thoughts exist? Does love exist? Yes. Thoughts occur objectively and measurably as electrical currents in the brain. Love is detectable by the presence of the drug oxitocin in the brain. You are confusing subjective reality or phenomenological experience with objective reality. This is also why you feel safe in positing the existence of something called "spiritual evidence." In reality, spiritual evidence is simply ones subjective reasons for belief. They may have things they consider evidence. This is called anecdotal evidence. You have simply relabeled it "spiritual evidence."

What the living hell is an "illogical fallacy?" Electrical currents don't 'prove' anything, with regard to a thought. Oxitocin can be present in the brain for MANY reasons, so they also do not 'prove' anything.

I feel comfortable posting spiritual evidence because we are debating the existence of a spiritual entity, and that's the type evidence you have to use, logically speaking.

You dismiss spiritual evidence as a bunch of hooey and nonsense, the same as some religious freak might dismiss evolution the same way. And it's because you refuse to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence. At the same time.... you KEEP wanting to push for and expect PHYSICAL evidence, it's the ONLY thing you will accept. Well.... spiritual entities can't provide physical evidence or they would be physical entities. So we have a problem.

 

[newpolitics]

I read the OP. It is rife with logical fallacy. For example: do thoughts exist? Does love exist? Yes. Thoughts occur objectively and measurably as electrical currents in the brain. Love is detectable by the presence of the drug oxitocin in the brain. You are confusing subjective reality or phenomenological experience with objective reality. This is also why you feel safe in positing the existence of something called "spiritual evidence." In reality, spiritual evidence is simply ones subjective reasons for belief. They may have things they consider evidence. This is called anecdotal evidence. You have simply relabeled it "spiritual evidence."

What the living hell is an "illogical fallacy?" Electrical currents don't 'prove' anything, with regard to a thought. Oxitocin can be present in the brain for MANY reasons, so they also do not 'prove' anything.

I feel comfortable posting spiritual evidence because we are debating the existence of a spiritual entity, and that's the type evidence you have to use, logically speaking.

You dismiss spiritual evidence as a bunch of hooey and nonsense, the same as some religious freak might dismiss evolution the same way. And it's because you refuse to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence. At the same time.... you KEEP wanting to push for and expect PHYSICAL evidence, it's the ONLY thing you will accept. Well.... spiritual entities can't provide physical evidence or they would be physical entities. So we have a problem.

Where do you see "illogical fallacy?"

Electrical currents certainly do prove something, especially when correlated with specific brain activity and mapped by an fMRI machine. The same with Oxytocin levels rising when people experience feelings of love. Your level of skepticism here is highly inconsistent with your gullibility in regards to a concept like god. Again, please define god. Appealing to black holes won't save you from having to define god, as I've already proven. This is not a dificult question. Are you a Christian? A pantheist? A deist? A panentheist? There are many different definitions for god. Pick one.

 

[newpolitics]

Why do you have to use spiritual evidence for a spiritual entry? You haven't shown this be true, nor is this logical as you so arrogantly claim. This is Another proof by assertion. I've already mentioned the logical hole you are in concerning evidence for god. If god does interact with the physical realm in any way, then it is a question of physical evidence. If he doesn't, then his existence is irrelevant.

 

[Boss]

Yeah. You really shouldn't be talking about logic. You simply don't know what an argument from analogy is, because you are making one. You are saying: " the insides of black holes can not be defined, yet we still believe the insides of black holes exists. Therefore, we can likewise say then that god does not need to be defined, even though I know he exists."

Is this not your point in invoking black holes? This is the use of analogy. You are using something other than god to make a point about god. I am not going to type this again. Look it up if you must.

I haven't made any errors about what you are saying. You simply don't have the self awareness to understand what it is you are doing, logically, and consequently, are contradicting yourself all over the place.

What is your dysfunctional problem (or acronym) which keeps you from posting all of your thoughts in a single post, why do you keep rapid-firing retorts? How about stop posting the same superfluous regurgitation, and debate the points I made.... or shut the fuck up and move along?

Nothing I have actually SAID is a contradiction. I have no idea about what you are imagining me to say, I'm probably contradicting myself like crazy inside your mind, based on how badly you've misquoted me to this point. But the fact that you haven't posted specifics, and you continue to fire off posts like a cat covering a turd in a litter box, tells me your game is to bury the thread in superfluous nonsense and demagoguery, and AVOID the debate.

I'm satisfied with the PWNAGE!

 

[Boss]

Why do you have to use spiritual evidence for a spiritual entry? You haven't shown this be true, nor is this logical as you so arrogantly claim. This is Another proof by assertion. I've already mentioned the logical hole you are in concerning evidence for god. If god does interact with the physical realm in any way, then it is a question of physical evidence. If he doesn't, then his existence is irrelevant.

Spiritual ENTITY, not "entry."

Well... because, this is logic and how it works. Physical things, stuff in our physical universe, relies on physical principles and requires physical evidence to prove existence in a physical sense. Spiritual entities do not have physical presence or existence. If they did, they would be physical entities, and we could apply physical principles and demand physical proof.

Since spiritual entities are spiritual in nature, we have to examine spiritual evidence and not physical, when objectively evaluating existence in a spiritual sense. It's completely illogical and irrational to try and apply, or demand, physical evidence to spiritual entities.

It's also illogical to expect physical evidence of spiritual interaction. I addressed this when you posted it the first time, but you've apparently not read the post. Does physical interaction produce spiritual evidence?