Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[daws101]

Take your pick several sources on that google search said what you said word for word lol.

I never claimed they were my words....
you on the other hand are so fucking arrogant you actually believed that no one would call you on it .
show some dignity and man up !

Are you that dense we argued this in the other thread lol. Still waiting on you to show what I quoted how it was not accurate as you claimed.

I already did..

 

[daws101]

Astrology was not my major but explain how what I stated was wrong ?

ok ! here we go. Astrology



Astrology consists of belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world. In the West, astrology most often consists of a system of horoscopes that claim to explain aspects of a person's personality and predict future events in their life based on the positions of the sun, moon, and other planetary objects at the time of their birth. Many cultures have attached importance to astronomical events, and the Indians, Chinese, and Mayans developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations.

Among Indo-European peoples, astrology has been dated to the 3rd millennium BCE, with roots in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications.[1] Through most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition. It was accepted in political and academic contexts, and was connected with other studies, such as astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.[2] At the end of the 17th century, new scientific concepts in astronomy and physics (such as heliocentrism and Newtonian mechanics) called astrology into question, and subsequent controlled studies failed to confirm its predictive value. Astrology thus lost its academic and theoretical standing, and common belief in astrology has largely declined.[3]

Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe (see pseudoscience). Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions. Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified.[4]:424 There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.[5]:249[6]


Astrology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not to be confused with Astronomy.



This article is about the scientific study of celestial objects. For other uses, see Astronomy (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with Astrology, the belief system claiming that celestial phenomena influence the lives and behavior of humans.

A giant Hubble mosaic of the Crab Nebula, a supernova remnant
Astronomy is a natural science that deals with the study of celestial objects (such as moons, planets, stars, nebulae, and galaxies); the physics, chemistry, mathematics, and evolution of such objects; and phenomena that originate outside the atmosphere of Earth (such as supernovae explosions, gamma ray bursts, and cosmic background radiation). A related but distinct subject, cosmology, is concerned with studying the universe as a whole.[1]

Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences. Prehistoric cultures left behind astronomical artifacts such as the Egyptian monuments and Nubian monuments, and early civilizations such as the Babylonians, Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Iranians and Maya performed methodical observations of the night sky. However, the invention of the telescope was required before astronomy was able to develop into a modern science. Historically, astronomy has included disciplines as diverse as astrometry, celestial navigation, observational astronomy, and the making of calendars, but professional astronomy is nowadays often considered to be synonymous with astrophysics.[2]

During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented towards the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results, and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.

Amateur astronomers have contributed to many important astronomical discoveries, and astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role, especially in the discovery and observation of transient phenomena.

Astronomy is not to be confused with astrology, the belief system which claims that human affairs are correlated with the positions of celestial objects. Although the two fields share a common origin they are now entirely distinct.[3]
Astronomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
anything else I can help you with bahahahahahahahahahaha!

Now show how my quote was not accurate ?

Astrology! next!

 

[daws101]

Planet earth is full of diverse life and life that has the ability to adapt. What does life having the ability to adapt prove ? Why is this planet so unique from other planets like it was designed for life ?

speaking of lying, declaring that life was designed with zero proof is extremely dishonest..
the truth would be is you believe it was designed...

Only a hardened Ideologue will believe in coincidences over and over again

co·in·ci·dence

[ kō ínssidənss ]


1.chance happening: something that happens by chance in a surprising or remarkable way
2.happening without planning: the fact of happening by chance.
only a willfully ignorant asshole would preach design with no evidence of it ...sound like any body we know?

 

[daws101]

Where did the ability to adapt originate from ?

What Makes Earth Special Compared to Other Planets | Space.com


What is there to debate there is no planet like earth.

another false declarative!

Prove it

no need to!
your statement has no basis in fact as you have no basis of comparison.
I win.

 

[daws101]

INNATE is not a good answer for the ability of organisms to adapt. This sounds like purposeful design to me.

Random chance sounds like purposeful design to you. Everything sounds like purposefully designed to you.

To many things produced by the creator serves a purpose to believe it was left to Random chance is not worthy of my beliefs. You want to believe in miracles go ahead but who was it that produced your miracles ?

another false declarative.

 

[daws101]

It is not easy to estimate how far away from the Earth the Moon was when it formed, but simulations suggest is was about 3-5 times the radius of the Earth, or about 19-30 thousand km. The Moon is currently about 384,000 km away from Earth or 3-4 thousand times further away than this.
The exact rate of the Moon's movement away from Earth has varied a lot over time. It depends both on the distance between the Earth and the Moon, and the exact shape of the Earth. The details of continents and oceans moving around on Earth actually change the rate, which make it a very hard thing to estimate. The rate is currently slowing down slightly, and it is estimated that in about 15 billion years the Moon's orbit will stop increasing in size.
Thereafter, the Moon will remain at a fixed distance from Earth; the Moon will then appear fixed over one side of the Earth, never to be seen on the other side.
This extrapolation into the future is moot, however, because the Sun will have stopped shinning long before this and, in all likelihood, will have swallowed the Earth and Moon in the process.
In conclusion, it is not a easy question because there are a lot of unknown details about the formation of the Moon, probably a violent impact between the Earth and an object roughly the size of Mars.

What's the closest the moon has been to the Earth? - Yahoo! Answers

Ms daws is copying and pasting like there is no tomorrow now if he quotes anything that sounds sort of intelligent better check it if he does not credit the source.

but I did credit the source .unlike yourself.. bahahahahahaha!

 

[daws101]

How do you suppose volcanoes erupt?

If life itself is "not so demanding" why is there not more evidence of it, and the only place we've found it, is here?

Where else have you looked for it as thoroughly as you have looked for it here?????

Why can't you just say no there is no life out there as far as we know ?

why can't you say I have no proof there isn't life out there?

 

[daws101]

It is not easy to estimate how far away from the Earth the Moon was when it formed, but simulations suggest is was about 3-5 times the radius of the Earth, or about 19-30 thousand km. The Moon is currently about 384,000 km away from Earth or 3-4 thousand times further away than this.
The exact rate of the Moon's movement away from Earth has varied a lot over time. It depends both on the distance between the Earth and the Moon, and the exact shape of the Earth. The details of continents and oceans moving around on Earth actually change the rate, which make it a very hard thing to estimate. The rate is currently slowing down slightly, and it is estimated that in about 15 billion years the Moon's orbit will stop increasing in size.
Thereafter, the Moon will remain at a fixed distance from Earth; the Moon will then appear fixed over one side of the Earth, never to be seen on the other side.
This extrapolation into the future is moot, however, because the Sun will have stopped shinning long before this and, in all likelihood, will have swallowed the Earth and Moon in the process.
In conclusion, it is not a easy question because there are a lot of unknown details about the formation of the Moon, probably a violent impact between the Earth and an object roughly the size of Mars.

What's the closest the moon has been to the Earth? - Yahoo! Answers

Your math should be suffice to follow along and show that what you posted is nonsense.


http://creationwiki.org/Moon_is_receding_at_a_rate_too_fast_for_an_old_universe_(Talk.Origins)

this is one of those pseudoscience religious dogma sites nothing they say is based on fact.
my math tells me you and them are talking out your collective ass.
but thanks for helping me showcase your fraudulent knowledge of science.


http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Moon_is_receding_at_a_rate_too_fast_for_an_old_universe


Moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe



Claim

Because of tidal friction, the moon is receding, and the earth's rotation is slowing down, at rates too fast for the earth to be billions of years old.

Source
Barnes, Thomas G., 1982 (Aug.) Young age for the moon and earth. Impact 110. [1]
Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, Chick Publications, 1984.

Responses
1.This linear extrapolation is incorrect.
2.Ignoring the case against such an extrapolation, the moon is currently receding at 3.8 cm/year and is 3.8*10^10 cm from the Earth. This allows perfectly well for a billion-year time scale.
3.According to Kepler's laws, the lower the distance between Earth and Moon the less time it takes for the moon to orbit the Earth. This means that the Moon orbited much faster in ancient times if it was much closer to Earth. Therefore the frequency of the tides were lower, because the difference of orbit time and the time of the rotation of the earth was lower (even if rotation was faster, because the relative time change of earth-rotation is less than relative orbit time change of the moon). Energy dissipation and the drag force on the Moon are dependent on the tidal frequency and the tidal strength, but even if the tidal strength was larger due to the closer Moon, the effect of the lower tidal frequency prevailed. This simply means that the Moon receded even slower in ancient times. E.g. in the extreme case when Earth and Moon are corotating, i.e. the Moon is so close that it circles the Earth in exactly the same time as the Earth revolves, the frequency of the tides would be zero, as would energy dissipation and drag force. The Moon would not recede at all, although the tides (which would then rather be permanent deformations of the Earth, being always at the same place) would be very high because of the close Moon.
4.The moon's recession and the Earth's slowing are perfectly consistent with them both being billions of years old. In fact, if you assume that the function is linear (it's not), you end up with an age for both Earth and the moon that is actually quite a lot older than they actually are. This is because the rate of the moon's recession and Earth's slowing spin is, itself, slowing down.

 

[Boss]

I can't believe this continues.

Let me put it this way. I want you to accept the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I cannot give you any evidence that his noodly appendages exist. You will know he exists once you believe he exists.

Are you going to now believe?

Nope, but my OP argument doesn't claim that I will get you to see the evidence. I readily admit, you are not going to see the evidence, you reject it completely and in it's entirety. I love the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy, it works very well in a religious debate because it interjects yet another human incarnation of god. However, in a debate about spirituality, the Spaghetti Monster doesn't fly...pardon the pun. You see, there isn't 70k years of evidence that man has worshiped a spaghetti monster, as a fundamental part of it's human behavior. IF that were the case, I would suggest that maybe there IS such an entity, and people aren't suffering from widespread mass delusions for the course of their existence.

On the other hand....if you say god is in control of gravity, that's fine. I can still demonstrate gravity to you. The difference is that you are coming to a conclusion based on observations we can both experience. You don't have to believe in gravity to see the effects.

Your whole argument boils down to, 'because I say so'.

Demonstrate all you like, if I refuse to acknowledge or accept physical evidence, and maintain that "god did it" then you can never convince me. While you observe clear physical evidence, I reject that and observe the work of god. How do you get me to accept your evidence?

You have closed your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, and do not acknowledge spiritual evidence. Your brain does not comprehend spiritual existence, and conflates it with physical existence. This leads you to demand physical evidence to support something that is not physical in nature and by definition, is not supported with physical evidence.

You are missing the point entirely!

'God did it' is a conclusion. It does not negate seeing the effects of gravity. Unless you are physically blind or have some malady that prevents you from seeing it, you will see something fall. If you wish to conclude god made it fall, more power to you. You will STILL have seen it fall, whether you believe in gravity or not.

With your definition of spiritual, people do NOT see anything fall until they believe they will see something fall.

See the difference?

That man has believed in and worshiped many different types of supernatural beings or gods has already been pointed out. So no, we don't have seventy thousand years of man worshiping the same thing as evidence.

"God does't exist" is also a conclusion. "Spirituality is imagination" is a conclusion.

In the example, I can see the results of gravity, I just draw a different conclusion from the evidence. You can see the results of spiritual evidence, you just draw a different conclusion.

We have 70k years of humans practicing worship of something greater than self. Yes, this has taken many forms, but the fundamental is spirituality. It's important not to be distracted by minutia here, man can certainly misunderstand their spiritual connection, the same as man misunderstands everything else.

 

[Montrovant]

"God does't exist" is also a conclusion. "Spirituality is imagination" is a conclusion.

In the example, I can see the results of gravity, I just draw a different conclusion from the evidence. You can see the results of spiritual evidence, you just draw a different conclusion.

We have 70k years of humans practicing worship of something greater than self. Yes, this has taken many forms, but the fundamental is spirituality. It's important not to be distracted by minutia here, man can certainly misunderstand their spiritual connection, the same as man misunderstands everything else.

The important difference is that one can show the results of gravity repeatedly, with the same tools. I am unaware of anything that works the same in the realm of the spiritual.

Man could just as easily misunderstand that the spiritual and supernatural are manifestations of imagination rather than reality. On that subject there is, obviously, no convincing to be done either way.

 

[Boss]

How do you suppose volcanoes erupt?

"Spiritual" forces"?

Nope.

It is a complicated process, but certainly has to do with pressure, which exists because of friction and gravitational forces of the moon and sun, and also internal atmospheric pressure, controlled by our atmosphere. In other words, the combination of precise amounts of pressure, friction and gravity from our nature. Man, are we lucky!

If life itself is "not so demanding" why is there not more evidence of it, and the only place we've found it, is here?

You do realize that the search for life beyond our own planet is truly, only a few decades old, beginning in earnest with radio telescopes, Hubble, supercomputers, etc.

Remember, it was you "spiritualists" who believed for millennia that various gods controlled what we know are natural forces, that the earth was the center of the solar system and that the earth was flat.

First it is argued that "life is not so demanding" and then, it is argued life is so scarce it can't be found anywhere. Which one is it? Yes, you have a pretty comfortable excuse, the vastness of the universe means we will never be able to explore it all. Still.. if life is not so demanding, it would seem to me, we'd see more evidence of it. As of now, Earth is the only place we know life to exist. You can say it's a sure thing that we'll one day discover life elsewhere, you can be convinced this will happen on the moons of Saturn, or Mars, and you can believe that with all the faith of a born again christian, for all I care. You still have not proven life to exist elsewhere.

Maybe it's just that my mind is more complex or my interests in nature have always been strong, but when I see the many wonders of our natural world, the detail and eloquence, the amazing and extraordinary beauty of life and the life cycle, I can't pretend this was something that wasn't created. and merely happened because of a long string of coincidence. This is an unbelievable thing for me, I hope you will try and understand that this is my perspective here, I simply do not see the world and universe the same as you.

 

[Boss]

"God does't exist" is also a conclusion. "Spirituality is imagination" is a conclusion.

In the example, I can see the results of gravity, I just draw a different conclusion from the evidence. You can see the results of spiritual evidence, you just draw a different conclusion.

We have 70k years of humans practicing worship of something greater than self. Yes, this has taken many forms, but the fundamental is spirituality. It's important not to be distracted by minutia here, man can certainly misunderstand their spiritual connection, the same as man misunderstands everything else.

The important difference is that one can show the results of gravity repeatedly, with the same tools. I am unaware of anything that works the same in the realm of the spiritual.

Man could just as easily misunderstand that the spiritual and supernatural are manifestations of imagination rather than reality. On that subject there is, obviously, no convincing to be done either way.

We're going in circles here. Pay attention... You can demonstrate gravity as many times as you like, if I am refusing to accept your scientific explanation for gravity, and claim that it is the force of god at work, and refuse to accept your scientific evidence as valid, you will never ever ever ever be able to convince me. Got it? If not, re-read this paragraph, until it penetrates your cranium, because I am tired of going in circles.

You refuse to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence. I can show you evidence until I am blue in the face, just like the example above... you are never going to be convinced.

You say that man could misunderstand something for all of man's existence? That this intrinsic connection to something outside the physical, is just in his head, imaginary? Well.. about 5% of the human population have been able to convince themselves of this. That it's all just a big misunderstanding and overactive imagination run wild. They are Nihilists.

I personally can't believe this, because I am very much in touch with my spiritual connection. I guess I am at a disadvantage over some here, because my "faith" doesn't really require much faith, I know this power exists and I rely on it daily. I am most comfortable with this arrangement, and don't need to seek any more answers or see anymore evidence. What I am doing in this thread, is exposing the god-haters. The people who are genuinely not interested in answering the question of god's existence, because they don't like the answer. These are closed-minded individuals who will not open their minds for anything spiritual in nature, because they hate and loathe religious people.

 

[Montrovant]

"God does't exist" is also a conclusion. "Spirituality is imagination" is a conclusion.

In the example, I can see the results of gravity, I just draw a different conclusion from the evidence. You can see the results of spiritual evidence, you just draw a different conclusion.

We have 70k years of humans practicing worship of something greater than self. Yes, this has taken many forms, but the fundamental is spirituality. It's important not to be distracted by minutia here, man can certainly misunderstand their spiritual connection, the same as man misunderstands everything else.

The important difference is that one can show the results of gravity repeatedly, with the same tools. I am unaware of anything that works the same in the realm of the spiritual.

Man could just as easily misunderstand that the spiritual and supernatural are manifestations of imagination rather than reality. On that subject there is, obviously, no convincing to be done either way.

We're going in circles here. Pay attention... You can demonstrate gravity as many times as you like, if I am refusing to accept your scientific explanation for gravity, and claim that it is the force of god at work, and refuse to accept your scientific evidence as valid, you will never ever ever ever be able to convince me. Got it? If not, re-read this paragraph, until it penetrates your cranium, because I am tired of going in circles.

You refuse to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence. I can show you evidence until I am blue in the face, just like the example above... you are never going to be convinced.

You say that man could misunderstand something for all of man's existence? That this intrinsic connection to something outside the physical, is just in his head, imaginary? Well.. about 5% of the human population have been able to convince themselves of this. That it's all just a big misunderstanding and overactive imagination run wild. They are Nihilists.

I personally can't believe this, because I am very much in touch with my spiritual connection. I guess I am at a disadvantage over some here, because my "faith" doesn't really require much faith, I know this power exists and I rely on it daily. I am most comfortable with this arrangement, and don't need to seek any more answers or see anymore evidence. What I am doing in this thread, is exposing the god-haters. The people who are genuinely not interested in answering the question of god's existence, because they don't like the answer. These are closed-minded individuals who will not open their minds for anything spiritual in nature, because they hate and loathe religious people.

It continues to be you who doesn't understand and moves this discussion in circles.

Whether you believe gravity is the result of natural forces or the work of a god is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that you see the effects. It is objectively observable (yes, we're back to this, as you seem to have had a problem with it the first time around). One does not need to believe that gravity exists to see a rock fall when it is dropped from your hand. The rock falls whether you believe it is gravity or the will of god or the ground fairy using it's magic vacuum cleaner.

By your definition, this is not the case with the spiritual. In order to see the spiritual rock fall, one must believe. If you don't believe....I guess the rock never moves.

You are actually the one who said man has misunderstood the spiritual throughout our existence. You said you believe organized religion, which has been around for most of our history in one form or another, is a product of human imagination. You believe it is an attempt to 'grapple with this spiritual thing they are intrinsically connected to.'. If humanity can misunderstand the spiritual so widely for so long, why could that misunderstanding not be of a different nature?

It seems arrogant that those who don't believe are god-haters, closed minded and unwilling to ask questions about god's existence because they don't like the answer....but you are of course open minded, willing to ask whatever questions, and have no worries about possible answers. It couldn't be that, having decided you already know the answers, you are as closed minded as you accuse others of being, no!

 

[Boss]

The important difference is that one can show the results of gravity repeatedly, with the same tools. I am unaware of anything that works the same in the realm of the spiritual.

Man could just as easily misunderstand that the spiritual and supernatural are manifestations of imagination rather than reality. On that subject there is, obviously, no convincing to be done either way.

We're going in circles here. Pay attention... You can demonstrate gravity as many times as you like, if I am refusing to accept your scientific explanation for gravity, and claim that it is the force of god at work, and refuse to accept your scientific evidence as valid, you will never ever ever ever be able to convince me. Got it? If not, re-read this paragraph, until it penetrates your cranium, because I am tired of going in circles.

You refuse to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence. I can show you evidence until I am blue in the face, just like the example above... you are never going to be convinced.

You say that man could misunderstand something for all of man's existence? That this intrinsic connection to something outside the physical, is just in his head, imaginary? Well.. about 5% of the human population have been able to convince themselves of this. That it's all just a big misunderstanding and overactive imagination run wild. They are Nihilists.

I personally can't believe this, because I am very much in touch with my spiritual connection. I guess I am at a disadvantage over some here, because my "faith" doesn't really require much faith, I know this power exists and I rely on it daily. I am most comfortable with this arrangement, and don't need to seek any more answers or see anymore evidence. What I am doing in this thread, is exposing the god-haters. The people who are genuinely not interested in answering the question of god's existence, because they don't like the answer. These are closed-minded individuals who will not open their minds for anything spiritual in nature, because they hate and loathe religious people.

It continues to be you who doesn't understand and moves this discussion in circles.

Whether you believe gravity is the result of natural forces or the work of a god is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that you see the effects. It is objectively observable (yes, we're back to this, as you seem to have had a problem with it the first time around). One does not need to believe that gravity exists to see a rock fall when it is dropped from your hand. The rock falls whether you believe it is gravity or the will of god or the ground fairy using it's magic vacuum cleaner.

By your definition, this is not the case with the spiritual. In order to see the spiritual rock fall, one must believe. If you don't believe....I guess the rock never moves.

You can tell me it's gravity that causes the rock to move, but if I don't accept what you call gravity, and believe that god makes the rock move, you will never change my mind. There is no doubt, we observe the same rock move... just as you and I observe the same 70,000 year history of mankind worshiping. Spirituality happens and does exist, whether you acknowledge it or recognize it is spiritual, just like the rock falls. Your perception of what we observed is different.

You are actually the one who said man has misunderstood the spiritual throughout our existence. You said you believe organized religion, which has been around for most of our history in one form or another, is a product of human imagination. You believe it is an attempt to 'grapple with this spiritual thing they are intrinsically connected to.'. If humanity can misunderstand the spiritual so widely for so long, why could that misunderstanding not be of a different nature?

It is possible that man is totally wrong, and the spiritual connection is some kind of physical connection science has yet to discover or explain, I suppose. I am merely using "spiritual" in the sense that it's non-physical. Nevertheless, mankind does connect with something that science can't explain physically at this time. I call it spiritual, if another word makes you more comfortable, I understand, but the connection is real, not imagined.

It seems arrogant that those who don't believe are god-haters, closed minded and unwilling to ask questions about god's existence because they don't like the answer....but you are of course open minded, willing to ask whatever questions, and have no worries about possible answers. It couldn't be that, having decided you already know the answers, you are as closed minded as you accuse others of being, no!

I am open minded, I am willing to examine all the spiritual evidence and physical evidence, and evaluate objectively. I can't do this with closed-minded people who refuse to accept spiritual evidence, there is no point.

I didn't decide I knew the answers, there are many things I do not know. I do not require anymore answers with regard to the question of god's existence. That is a completely different statement, and you've taken it out of context in order to ridicule me. Do you love your mother? Is there any need for you to ponder the question? Do you need to evaluate evidence to decide, or is your mind made up? What if I don't believe you? What if you've not convinced me with evidence you love your mother? If you don't want or need to prove this to me, are you being closed-minded?

 

[Mom]

I'm just showing you how absurd it is to believe in something with zero proof. Do you get it now?

So there's PROBABLY/POSSIBLY life elsewhere, until proven for sure.

God has proven Himself to me in more ways that I can count.

Give me your 3 best ways, maybe you're onto something?

Still waiting...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

God has proven Himself to me in more ways that I can count.

Give me your 3 best ways, maybe you're onto something?

Still waiting...

I could give you ten but it wouldn't do any good. Unless you profess your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you will never know God's glory.

 

[Mom]

Give me your 3 best ways, maybe you're onto something?

Still waiting...

I could give you ten but it wouldn't do any good. Unless you profess your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you will never know God's glory.

You have nothing. Got it.

 

[Hollie]

Nope, but my OP argument doesn't claim that I will get you to see the evidence. I readily admit, you are not going to see the evidence, you reject it completely and in it's entirety. I love the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy, it works very well in a religious debate because it interjects yet another human incarnation of god. However, in a debate about spirituality, the Spaghetti Monster doesn't fly...pardon the pun. You see, there isn't 70k years of evidence that man has worshiped a spaghetti monster, as a fundamental part of it's human behavior. IF that were the case, I would suggest that maybe there IS such an entity, and people aren't suffering from widespread mass delusions for the coourse of their existence.



Demonstrate all you like, if I refuse to acknowledge or accept physical evidence, and maintain that "god did it" then you can never convince me. While you observe clear physical evidence, I reject that and observe the work of god. How do you get me to accept your evidence?

You have closed your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, and do not acknowledge spiritual evidence. Your brain does not comprehend spiritual existence, and conflates it with physical existence. This leads you to demand physical evidence to support something that is not physical in nature and by definition, is not supported with physical evidence.

You are missing the point entirely!

'God did it' is a conclusion. It does not negate seeing the effects of gravity. Unless you are physically blind or have some malady that prevents you from seeing it, you will see something fall. If you wish to conclude god made it fall, more power to you. You will STILL have seen it fall, whether you believe in gravity or not.

With your definition of spiritual, people do NOT see anything fall until they believe they will see something fall.

See the difference?

That man has believed in and worshiped many different types of supernatural beings or gods has already been pointed out. So no, we don't have seventy thousand years of man worshiping the same thing as evidence.

"God does't exist" is also a conclusion. "Spirituality is imagination" is a conclusion.

In the example, I can see the results of gravity, I just draw a different conclusion from the evidence. You can see the results of spiritual evidence, you just draw a different conclusion.

We have 70k years of humans practicing worship of something greater than self. Yes, this has taken many forms, but the fundamental is spirituality. It's important not to be distracted by minutia here, man can certainly misunderstand their spiritual connection, the same as man misundersands everything else.

The "70k years..." canard is getting old, bunky. It's been explained to you repeatedly and tediously that humankind has a history of assigning objects, icons, human representations of super-human figures, etc., to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand.

These were manifestations of fear and ignorance. You appear to be persistent in your efforts to continue the promotion of fear and ignorance.

 

[tipofthespear]

Still waiting...

I could give you ten but it wouldn't do any good. Unless you profess your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you will never know God's glory.

You have nothing. Got it.

So, give my YOUR three best ways to prove the existence of "wind." Hurry, times awasting! And I wouldn't want ya to get "blown away" with the "chafe."

 

[Youwerecreated]

again more bullshit !
Vitalism

Vitalism is the belief that the life-principle is non-material. This originated with Stahl (17th century), and held sway until the middle of the 19th century. It appealed to philosophers such as Henri Bergson, Nietzsche, Wilhelm Dilthey,[18] anatomists like Bichat, and chemists like Liebig.[19] Vitalism included the idea that there was a fundamental difference between organic and inorganic material, and the belief that organic material can only be derived from living things. This was disproved in 1828, when Friedrich Wöhler prepared urea from inorganic materials.[20] This Wöhler synthesis is considered the starting point of modern organic chemistry. It is of historical significance because for the first time an organic compound was produced from inorganic reactants.[19]

During the 1850s, Helmholtz, anticipated by Mayer, demonstrated that no energy is lost in muscle movement, suggesting that there were no "vital forces" necessary to move a muscle.[21] These results led to the abandonment of scientific interest in vitalistic theories, although the belief lingered on in pseudoscientific theories such as homeopat

Again your main comment was the term " Bullshit "

Give it up you did the same thing here you did in the thread I called you on. What I stated was a known fact and I read it with many different creationists sources but confirmed their claims before posting it heck I posted the same thing in the creationism thread.

I would probably bet since you copy and paste so much crap from wiki that was your source for your quote above.

are you really this blindly arrogant what you posted was plagiarized ,you have yet to credit the real authors.
not only that the "facts" you speak of are from creationist sites.
they are pseudoscience steaming piles of false premise religious dogma.
not facts. the quote below proves this:

"What I stated was a known fact and I read it with many different creationists sources but confirmed their claims before posting it". YWC

confirming bullshit with bullshit is still bullshit.

So you're claiming they were your words ?