Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[BreezeWood]

Your comment is incorrect.

I have in fact invalidated the claim that life began by "spiritual" (supernatural), means.

You have not invalidated my invalidation.

See? Ain't countering your "prove a negative" with a similar "prove a negative", just grand?

you have not "invalidated" that life itself is spiritual - neither tangible or material, or so by its presence validates the same as that of its origin.

 

[newpolitics]

You don't have to look any further than nature to prove it.

The natural does not prove the supernatural. There is no logical inference here, only an assertion without proof.

I believe there is no possibility that this fully self contained planet bursting with life is a product of chance. I believe nature reveals a designer not naturalism. You people cam believe as you wish I don't believe in miracles.

But, you do believe in miracles. Stop saying you don't, and inferring that naturalists do. You are simply trying to reverse the deck as a form of rhetoric, when logic does not follow. Naturalism, by definition, precludes the possibilities of natural laws being broken. Only a supernatural agent could produce a suspension of natural laws or miracles, therefore, miracles are only possible in your worldview.

As for what you believe, that's fine. But, please don't call something proof of the supernatural when no one else but you can see it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The natural does not prove the supernatural. There is no logical inference here, only an assertion without proof.

I believe there is no possibility that this fully self contained planet bursting with life is a product of chance. I believe nature reveals a designer not naturalism. You people cam believe as you wish I don't believe in miracles.

Even if that is the case, it doesn't mean a single designer, does it?

I thought this was in response to your contention there is only one god.

Also, you do NOT believe in miracles? So are you saying god does not work miracles?

I believe and trust in the bible it says there is only one true God. What God does is through his natural ability may seem like a miracle to man but it is not miracles.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The natural does not prove the supernatural. There is no logical inference here, only an assertion without proof.

I believe there is no possibility that this fully self contained planet bursting with life is a product of chance. I believe nature reveals a designer not naturalism. You people cam believe as you wish I don't believe in miracles.

But, you do believe in miracles. Stop saying you don't, and inferring that naturalists do. You are simply trying to reverse the deck as a form of rhetoric, when logic does not follow. Naturalism, by definition, precludes the possibilities of natural laws being broken. Only a supernatural agent could produce a suspension of natural laws or miracles, therefore, miracles are only possible in your worldview.

As for what you believe, that's fine. But, please don't call something proof of the supernatural when no one else but you can see it.

Nature if it was not designed it was a miracle after miracle chance after chance that sounds like miracles to me.

 

[newpolitics]

I believe there is no possibility that this fully self contained planet bursting with life is a product of chance. I believe nature reveals a designer not naturalism. You people cam believe as you wish I don't believe in miracles.

But, you do believe in miracles. Stop saying you don't, and inferring that naturalists do. You are simply trying to reverse the deck as a form of rhetoric, when logic does not follow. Naturalism, by definition, precludes the possibilities of natural laws being broken. Only a supernatural agent could produce a suspension of natural laws or miracles, therefore, miracles are only possible in your worldview.

As for what you believe, that's fine. But, please don't call something proof of the supernatural when no one else but you can see it.

Nature if it was not designed it was a miracle after miracle chance after chance that sounds like miracles to me.

If you want to change the definition of a miracle, then sure, but this is an equivocation fallacy. All I see from you is more proofs by assertion without logic or evidence. You play with semantics to suit your rhetorical needs.

 

[itfitzme]

What a load of crap.

 

[Boss]

Your comment is incorrect.

I have in fact invalidated the claim that life began by "spiritual" (supernatural), means.

You have not invalidated my invalidation.

See? Ain't countering your "prove a negative" with a similar "prove a negative", just grand?

you have not "invalidated" that life itself is spiritual - neither tangible or material, or so by its presence validates the same as that of its origin.

Been away from this thread a few days, living life... Amazing, I see a few more pages have been added, and the above exchange is about the only thing said, that is on topic. The rest of it seems to be theological arguments about the bible and Christian interpretation of god.

This question is for the Christians AND the god-haters... Can god not be imagined in any other incarnation than theological ones? Because, it seems like this debate keeps being steered toward a theological tit-for-tat, which never accomplishes a thing. This is precisely why I refused to allow my OP to be perverted into a theological argument. I've tried to avoid turning the thread into the same old argument based on understanding of religion and religious disagreement.

Religions are evidence of man's intrinsic connection to spirituality. Even the bible and Christianity, are man's understanding and interpretations of this spiritual power. The Bible and Christians can be proven completely wrong, and spiritual god can still exist. Defeating the Christian incarnation of god, doesn't defeat the argument for god. Defeating the incarnation of any "god" does not disprove all spiritual power greater than self.

 

[Boss]

I didn't say my belief cannot change, I said it won't change. Just like I can never convince you that you don't love your mother, no 'evidence' I can produce, will change your love. You don't require your love to be validated by me, if I don't believe you love your mother, it doesn't mean you don't love her, and it will never mean that.



I have said that people who have closed their minds to spiritual evidence are closed-minded, because that's what they are. It's not my belief, it's what they are. It has nothing to do with agreement, I am sure there are plenty of religious people in this thread who disagree with my view of god.



You raised the circular logic, I merely pointed out that circular logic isn't necessarily wrong. You can't refute that statement. I maintain, if you can accept spiritual evidence, the proof of god's existence is definitive and overwhelming. The problem is, you close your mind to spiritual evidence, dismiss it as coincidence or delusion, and refuse to open your mind to any other possibility. I believe you do this because you know the spiritual evidence is too overwhelming, you have no argument to counter it, and so you have to disallow spiritual evidence.



Again, there are several religious people in this thread, I am certain we have a difference of opinion regarding god. They have not reached the same conclusion as me, obviously. You are closed minded because your mind is closed to spirituality... is that circular reasoning? Perhaps, but it's true.



Funny, that sounds exactly like what all the god-haters are doing in this thread!



You got it! That's what I am saying.... we both witness the rock fall... you explain scientifically, that it's the force of gravity... I disagree and contend it is the force of god, because I reject physical science as an explanation. (this is a hypothetical for those joining in late, I have not presented this actual argument) We observe the 70k year history of man, we observe everything we know and understand about animal behavior and inherent behavioral traits, and some of us realize there is a very real spiritual connection humans make to some power greater than self. You reject spiritual nature, therefore, you do not see this the same way. In both cases, the 'evidence' is there, the tests and observations are there, the conclusions are what differ.

In order to avoid complete buffoonery, are you going to present evidence for this "spiritual-ness" you rattle on about but never quite get around to demonstrating?

Don't hold your breath. He hasn't yet. The ONLY spirituality shown so far has depended on the existence of physical human beings. While he claims it is possible for the spiritual to exist without the existence of humans, he has yet to demonstrate it.

He will insist that his pontifications are proof of the existence of the spiritual before the existence of the physical and then give another example of the physical being spiritual (actually the same example over again) while admitting the spiritual can't be physical. So even after showing that he is ass backwards on spirituality by his own examples, he will then claim that anyone who does not accept his pontifications on spirituality does not believe in the spiritual.

To pontificate is to talk in a dogmatic and pompous manner. This is repeatedly what you seem to be doing, not me. I have avoided dogma, and repeatedly corrected you and others, who have assumed I am presenting a religious argument.

Your irrational argument over "which came first" has been discredited and dismissed as nonsensical. If humans don't exist, there isn't even "reality" because there is no one here to formulate the language in which we comprehend reality. I could just as easily claim physical existence also doesn't exist without humans to recognize it. However, if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, the sound waves are still created. You claim that "spiritual" can't exist without humans first existing to recognize it. You've not demonstrated this theory in any way. It relies on nonsensical logic.

You are the one pontificating here, and you are pontificating nonsense.

 

[Boss]

But, please don't call something proof of the supernatural when no one else but you can see it.

No one else? Looks to me like, a lot of people acknowledge something spiritual, and only a few people refuse to open their eyes to the possibility. Because you are closed-minded and intolerant, doesn't mean everyone is. That is just a tad egocentric.

 

[edthecynic]

In order to avoid complete buffoonery, are you going to present evidence for this "spiritual-ness" you rattle on about but never quite get around to demonstrating?

Don't hold your breath. He hasn't yet. The ONLY spirituality shown so far has depended on the existence of physical human beings. While he claims it is possible for the spiritual to exist without the existence of humans, he has yet to demonstrate it.

He will insist that his pontifications are proof of the existence of the spiritual before the existence of the physical and then give another example of the physical being spiritual (actually the same example over again) while admitting the spiritual can't be physical. So even after showing that he is ass backwards on spirituality by his own examples, he will then claim that anyone who does not accept his pontifications on spirituality does not believe in the spiritual.

To pontificate is to talk in a dogmatic and pompous manner. This is repeatedly what you seem to be doing, not me. I have avoided dogma, and repeatedly corrected you and others, who have assumed I am presenting a religious argument.

Your irrational argument over "which came first" has been discredited and dismissed as nonsensical. If humans don't exist, there isn't even "reality" because there is no one here to formulate the language in which we comprehend reality. I could just as easily claim physical existence also doesn't exist without humans to recognize it. However, if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, the sound waves are still created. You claim that "spiritual" can't exist without humans first existing to recognize it. You've not demonstrated this theory in any way. It relies on nonsensical logic.

You are the one pontificating here, and you are pontificating nonsense.

You prove me right with every answer you give.

Why would I have to demonstrate a nonsense Straw Man YOU made up????? What I said was the spiritual does not exist without humans to CREATE it, which I proved with my example of the composer and your example of humans using red ocher 70k years ago. The fact that you had no choice but create a Straw Man proves that even you know I am correct but you are simply too dishonest to admit it.
Thank you.

 

[Hollie]

Your comment is incorrect.

I have in fact invalidated the claim that life began by "spiritual" (supernatural), means.

You have not invalidated my invalidation.

See? Ain't countering your "prove a negative" with a similar "prove a negative", just grand?

you have not "invalidated" that life itself is spiritual - neither tangible or material, or so by its presence validates the same as that of its origin.

You have not "invalidated" my "invalidation", thus, the presence of my "invalidation" validates its own origin.

I was trying to offer a sentence as circular and self-refuting as yours.

I’m not tasked with refuting your “… because I say so”, argument. You have made no argument for “spirituality”, thus there is really nothing to “invalidate”. Why would you think claims to supernaturalism are by default true when you cannot define your claims and when you cannot even define your own argument?

What is truly laughable about the “spiritualist” argument is the lack of any affirmative description of what “spiritual-ness” really is, other than references to gawds and reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the “spiritual” ministry literature is there an explanation of how anyone defines their “spiritual-ness”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The spiritual scenario is described as..." Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "spiritual-ness uses the following means, methods and creative processes in defining spirituality..."

And ultimately, we will never hear the… (here it comes&#8230 creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journals of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which spirituality leads us to creator gawds" Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their “spirit worlds”.

Creationist can offer no explanations of their “spirit” claims. They have found no physical evidence for any of their “spirits”. Very simply, this “spiritual-ness” you're alluding to is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

 

[Hollie]

But, please don't call something proof of the supernatural when no one else but you can see it.

No one else? Looks to me like, a lot of people acknowledge something spiritual, and only a few people refuse to open their eyes to the possibility. Because you are closed-minded and intolerant, doesn't mean everyone is. That is just a tad egocentric.

Well... yeah. A lot of people acknowledge space aliens, a flat earth, Marshall Applewhite knew what he was talking about and any number of things. Yet, are you so closed-minded that that you would refuse Marshall's "cruise to nowhere", travel itinerary?

Because you are closed-minded and intolerant, doesn't mean everyone is™.

 

[Hollie]

Your comment is incorrect.

I have in fact invalidated the claim that life began by "spiritual" (supernatural), means.

You have not invalidated my invalidation.

See? Ain't countering your "prove a negative" with a similar "prove a negative", just grand?

you have not "invalidated" that life itself is spiritual - neither tangible or material, or so by its presence validates the same as that of its origin.

Been away from this thread a few days, living life... Amazing, I see a few more pages have been added, and the above exchange is about the only thing said, that is on topic. The rest of it seems to be theological arguments about the bible and Christian interpretation of god.

This question is for the Christians AND the god-haters... Can god not be imagined in any other incarnation than theological ones? Because, it seems like this debate keeps being steered toward a theological tit-for-tat, which never accomplishes a thing. This is precisely why I refused to allow my OP to be perverted into a theological argument. I've tried to avoid turning the thread into the same old argument based on understanding of religion and religious disagreement.

Religions are evidence of man's intrinsic connection to spirituality. Even the bible and Christianity, are man's understanding and interpretations of this spiritual power. The Bible and Christians can be proven completely wrong, and spiritual god can still exist. Defeating the Christian incarnation of god, doesn't defeat the argument for god. Defeating the incarnation of any "god" does not disprove all spiritual power greater than self.

My reaction to the entirety of your argument(s) is that you're pressing theology while trying to cloak your religious view under a burqa of some vague and undefined term: "spirituality".

 

[newpolitics]

But, please don't call something proof of the supernatural when no one else but you can see it.

No one else? Looks to me like, a lot of people acknowledge something spiritual, and only a few people refuse to open their eyes to the possibility. Because you are closed-minded and intolerant, doesn't mean everyone is. That is just a tad egocentric.

I don't believe I was addressing you, illogical one who can't form a coherent argument. You shouldn't talk about egocentrism. It's too hilarious, which makes it hard to type.

 

[Boss]

you have not "invalidated" that life itself is spiritual - neither tangible or material, or so by its presence validates the same as that of its origin.

Been away from this thread a few days, living life... Amazing, I see a few more pages have been added, and the above exchange is about the only thing said, that is on topic. The rest of it seems to be theological arguments about the bible and Christian interpretation of god.

This question is for the Christians AND the god-haters... Can god not be imagined in any other incarnation than theological ones? Because, it seems like this debate keeps being steered toward a theological tit-for-tat, which never accomplishes a thing. This is precisely why I refused to allow my OP to be perverted into a theological argument. I've tried to avoid turning the thread into the same old argument based on understanding of religion and religious disagreement.

Religions are evidence of man's intrinsic connection to spirituality. Even the bible and Christianity, are man's understanding and interpretations of this spiritual power. The Bible and Christians can be proven completely wrong, and spiritual god can still exist. Defeating the Christian incarnation of god, doesn't defeat the argument for god. Defeating the incarnation of any "god" does not disprove all spiritual power greater than self.

My reaction to the entirety of your argument(s) is that you're pressing theology while trying to cloak your religious view under a burqa of some vague and undefined term: "spirituality".

You can continue to use religious terminology and insinuate that I am dishonestly trying to promote a religious agenda, but the thread clearly shows where I have repeatedly clarified my position on organized religion. The thing you hate, religion, is a manifestation of spirituality. You can not show me to be pontificating any religious incarnations of god in this entire thread, to the contrary, you see me repeatedly state the opposite.

Spirituality, the practice of humans worshiping, acknowledging, or connecting to a power or force greater than self, not of the physical realm, is not a debatable topic, it does exist, we have thousands and thousands of years worth of evidence to show that this does indeed exist. Religion is evidence this spirituality exists. Spiritual nature, by definition, has no physical attribute, therefore, is not supportable by physical evidence. A spiritual entity or supreme power, is not provable to someone who doesn't believe in spiritual nature.

None of this has to do with religion or religious dogma, which could all be totally incorrect, in the depiction of deities, and subjective absolutes. I can never prove the existence of any particular incarnation of god, but if you accept and acknowledge spiritual evidence, I believe I have definitively proven god exists in the OP.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Been away from this thread a few days, living life... Amazing, I see a few more pages have been added, and the above exchange is about the only thing said, that is on topic. The rest of it seems to be theological arguments about the bible and Christian interpretation of god.

This question is for the Christians AND the god-haters... Can god not be imagined in any other incarnation than theological ones? Because, it seems like this debate keeps being steered toward a theological tit-for-tat, which never accomplishes a thing. This is precisely why I refused to allow my OP to be perverted into a theological argument. I've tried to avoid turning the thread into the same old argument based on understanding of religion and religious disagreement.

Religions are evidence of man's intrinsic connection to spirituality. Even the bible and Christianity, are man's understanding aynd interpretations of this spiritual power. The Bible and Christians can be proven completely wrong, and spiritual god can still exist. Defeating the Christian incarnation of god, doesn't defeat the argument for god. Defeating the incarnation of any "god" does not disprove all spiritual power greater than self.

My reaction to the entirety of your argument(s) is that you're pressing theology while trying to cloak your religious view under a burqa of some vague and undefined term: "spirituality".

You can continue to use religious terminology and insinuate that I am dishonestly trying to promote a religious agenda, but the thread clearly shows where I have repeatedly clarified my position on organized religion. The thing you hate, religion, is a manifestation of spirituality. You can not show me to be pontificating any religious incarnations of god in this entire thread, to the contrary, you see me repeatedly state the opposite.

Spirituality, the practice of humans worshiping, acknowledging, or connecting to a power or force greater than self, not of the physical realm, is not a debatable topic, it does exist, we have thousands and thousands of years worth of evidence to show that this does indeed exist. Religion is evidence this spirituality exists. Spiritual nature, by definition, has no physical attribute, therefore, is not supportable by physical evidence. A spiritual entity or supreme power, is not provable to someone who doesn't believe in spiritual nature.

None of this has to do with religion or religious dogma, which could all be totally incorrect, in the depiction of deities, and subjective absolutes. I can never prove the existence of any particular incarnation of god, but if you accept and acknowledge spiritual evidence, I believe I have definitively proven god exists in the OP.

They really are not grasping your argument. If you can't produce evidence of God they will not accept evidence for spirituality. They are and will be close minded until its to late. Some I feel will come to their senses. Most are so intolerant they are not open to the possibility of a designer even though they don't have evidence on how life came in to existence nor evidence proving God is a myth.

 

[Hollie]

Your comment is incorrect.

I have in fact invalidated the claim that life began by "spiritual" (supernatural), means.

You have not invalidated my invalidation.

See? Ain't countering your "prove a negative" with a similar "prove a negative", just grand?

you have not "invalidated" that life itself is spiritual - neither tangible or material, or so by its presence validates the same as that of its origin.

Been away from this thread a few days, living life... Amazing, I see a few more pages have been added, and the above exchange is about the only thing said, that is on topic. The rest of it seems to be theological arguments about the bible and Christian interpretation of god.

This question is for the Christians AND the god-haters... Can god not be imagined in any other incarnation than theological ones? Because, it seems like this debate keeps being steered toward a theological tit-for-tat, which never accomplishes a thing. This is precisely why I refused to allow my OP to be perverted into a theological argument. I've tried to avoid turning the thread into the same old argument based on understanding of religion and religious disagreement.

Religions are evidence of man's intrinsic connection to spirituality. Even the bible and Christianity, are man's understanding and interpretations of this spiritual power. The Bible and Christians can be proven completely wrong, and spiritual god can still exist. Defeating the Christian incarnation of god, doesn't defeat the argument for god. Defeating the incarnation of any "god" does not disprove all spiritual power greater than self.

That's silly. Religions are evidence of mans' fears and superstitions. That's precisely why gods have been abandoned as mankind has evolved and learned. The gods of fire, thunder, lightning, etc., have all been superseded by knowledge of the natural world. That's also why the many gods of the past have been replaced by a one-stop shopping god of convenience.

Of course. Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.

Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.

Dust, all. Antiquities. History suggests it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.

It’s already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Why are fundie Christians so willfully ignorant? Because the adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because… well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods don’t return to this earth, as gods don’t prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Ultimately, you know there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.

 

[Hollie]

My reaction to the entirety of your argument(s) is that you're pressing theology while trying to cloak your religious view under a burqa of some vague and undefined term: "spirituality".

You can continue to use religious terminology and insinuate that I am dishonestly trying to promote a religious agenda, but the thread clearly shows where I have repeatedly clarified my position on organized religion. The thing you hate, religion, is a manifestation of spirituality. You can not show me to be pontificating any religious incarnations of god in this entire thread, to the contrary, you see me repeatedly state the opposite.

Spirituality, the practice of humans worshiping, acknowledging, or connecting to a power or force greater than self, not of the physical realm, is not a debatable topic, it does exist, we have thousands and thousands of years worth of evidence to show that this does indeed exist. Religion is evidence this spirituality exists. Spiritual nature, by definition, has no physical attribute, therefore, is not supportable by physical evidence. A spiritual entity or supreme power, is not provable to someone who doesn't believe in spiritual nature.

None of this has to do with religion or religious dogma, which could all be totally incorrect, in the depiction of deities, and subjective absolutes. I can never prove the existence of any particular incarnation of god, but if you accept and acknowledge spiritual evidence, I believe I have definitively proven god exists in the OP.

They really are not grasping your argument. If you can't produce evidence of God they will not accept evidence for spirituality. They are and will be close minded until its to late. Some I feel will come to their senses. Most are so intolerant they are not open to the possibility of a designer even though they don't have evidence on how life came in to existence nor evidence proving God is a myth.

An example of paranoia and the siege mentality that afflicts religious zealots. Their paranoia often manifests as an "us vs. them" mentality with the threats of eternal damnation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can continue to use religious terminology and insinuate that I am dishonestly trying to promote a religious agenda, but the thread clearly shows where I have repeatedly clarified my position on organized religion. The thing you hate, religion, is a manifestation of spirituality. You can not show me to be pontificating any religious incarnations of god in this entire thread, to the contrary, you see me repeatedly state the opposite.

Spirituality, the practice of humans worshiping, acknowledging, or connecting to a power or force greater than self, not of the physical realm, is not a debatable topic, it does exist, we have thousands and thousands of years worth of evidence to show that this does indeed exist. Religion is evidence this spirituality exists. Spiritual nature, by definition, has no physical attribute, therefore, is not supportable by physical evidence. A spiritual entity or supreme power, is not provable to someone who doesn't believe in spiritual nature.

None of this has to do with religion or religious dogma, which could all be totally incorrect, in the depiction of deities, and subjective absolutes. I can never prove the existence of any particular incarnation of god, but if you accept and acknowledge spiritual evidence, I believe I have definitively proven god exists in the OP.

They really are not grasping your argument. If you can't produce evidence of God they will not accept evidence for spirituality. They are and will be close minded until its to late. Some I feel will come to their senses. Most are so intolerant they are not open to the possibility of a designer even though they don't have evidence on how life came in to existence nor evidence proving God is a myth.

An example of paranoia and the siege mentality that afflicts religious zealots. Their paranoia often manifests as an "us vs. them" mentality with the threats of eternal damnation.

Hollow you finally gave me a summary of what you're thanks. Oh and its everlasting judgment its either everlasting life or everlasting death.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you have not "invalidated" that life itself is spiritual - neither tangible or material, or so by its presence validates the same as that of its origin.

Been away from this thread a few days, living life... Amazing, I see a few more pages have been added, and the above exchange is about the only thing said, that is on topic. The rest of it seems to be theological arguments about the bible and Christian interpretation of god.

This question is for the Christians AND the god-haters... Can god not be imagined in any other incarnation than theological ones? Because, it seems like this debate keeps being steered toward a theological tit-for-tat, which never accomplishes a thing. This is precisely why I refused to allow my OP to be perverted into a theological argument. I've tried to avoid turning the thread into the same old argument based on understanding of religion and religious disagreement.

Religions are evidence of man's intrinsic connection to spirituality. Even the bible and Christianity, are man's understanding and interpretations of this spiritual power. The Bible and Christians can be proven completely wrong, and spiritual god can still exist. Defeating the Christian incarnation of god, doesn't defeat the argument for god. Defeating the incarnation of any "god" does not disprove all spiritual power greater than self.

That's silly. Religions are evidence of mans' fears and superstitions. That's precisely why gods have been abandoned as mankind has evolved and learned. The gods of fire, thunder, lightning, etc., have all been superseded by knowledge of the natural world. That's also why the many gods of the past have been replaced by a one-stop shopping god of convenience.

Of course. Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.

Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.

Dust, all. Antiquities. History suggests it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.

It’s already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Why are fundie Christians so willfully ignorant? Because the adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because… well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods don’t return to this earth, as gods don’t prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Ultimately, you know there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.

Yahweh has been around for atleast 6,000 years with and without the scriptures. The Almighty is not going anywhere.