Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

I'm not making this a religious argument. I am comparing your belief to religious belief in an attempt to show you that you can be just as intransigent and unmoving as those whose beliefs you use as proof yet denigrate at the same time.

I'm not at all intransigent or unmoving, I simply reject your shallow explanations for human spirituality. You know, before I posted this thread, I had already heard everything raised in this thread by you and others, dozens and dozens of times, in every debate on this topic. You could not have expected it to work this time any better than it has worked previously, especially since I made such an effort to keep this from turning into a religious debate.

I cannot figure out what you are trying to say sometimes. That mankind has worshiped various beings throughout history is not in question. If that is your definition of a spiritual nature, simply that people worship something beyond themselves, then yes, humanity has a spiritual nature. If, on the other hand, you use that worship as evidence that spiritual beings or forces exist (although they cannot be seen because they are not part of the physical universe) then I disagree.

Oh I know you can't figure out what I am trying to say sometimes, because you keep trying to misinterpret me and claim I've said things I never said. You seem to be on the verge of getting it, that humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self, is a big part. The other part, you alluded to earlier, humans have a need which spirituality fills. This is not imaginary, and it's not mass delusion. It's certainly not coincidental that man is spiritually connected and has achieved all man has done.

I have not said that man cannot exist without worship or spiritual connection. I have said that science does not answer all the questions which lead to those kinds of beliefs. Some people do not feel a need to assign answers to those questions without evidence. Most, it seems, do. That some do not is already evidence such belief is not necessary.

But man has never existed without spirituality for very long. In every instance, man becomes complacent and immoral, and destroys civilized society. Also, these people arguing in this thread against me, are not examples of people who don't believe in a spiritual higher power. I know that is what they will say, and even swear this is so, but it's not. You don't spend this amount of time arguing against something you don't believe exists or is real. Most of them are simply angry at a god they believe exists, for judging them, for messing up their lives, for some injustice they believe god is responsible for. Their viewpoint is that of denunciation, they seek to punish the god they believe exists, by denouncing him and convincing others to do the same. Atheists are often some of the biggest believers in god. Statistically speaking, about 5% of the human race is Nihilist.

Man can not exist without spirituality.

I completely disagree that human spirituality is our most defining attribute. Human intelligence is IMO. There are various ways that intelligence manifests, including the belief in the supernatural or spiritual, which make us different from other species. This, however, is a debate with nowhere to go.

Sorry, but other animals have intelligence. You're right, the debate ends there. The most defining attribute of humans is spirituality. It doesn't matter if you disagree.

I still don't understand your inability to grasp what I'm saying about animal intelligence. Why don't animals need spirituality to assuage their fear of death? Assuming they feel a fear of death the way humanity does, they do not have the intelligence to create the supernatural comforts that we do. Again, they are not capable of thinking the things humanity does. Why ask a question like that?

Huh? Animals aren't able to imagine something that isn't real to keep them comforted?

Look, if you just want to pretend to be silly here, we can do that. I don't care. We both know that humans have a fear of death and other animals don't think about it. They do not contemplate what happens after they die. Humans do this, and humans alone. Now grow the fuck up and stop trying to play cute little games here, being an obtuse twit.

Again, humans are spiritually connected, where other animals are not. This manifests in the human contemplation and concern for their spiritual self, or spirit. This sparks the question of what happens after we die, and why mankind has always asked this question. Other animals don't do this, because they are not spiritually connected. So what you are erroneously doing, is taking the byproduct of spiritual belief, the contemplation of death, and you are claiming this is why man invented spirituality. It is refutable because no other animal contemplates death or needs something to explain it. There is no logical reason humans, the most intelligent of all species, would have to create some placebo to deal with a 'fear of death' that doesn't exist anywhere else in nature. Does that really make sense to you?

Are you saying black holes are not part of the physical universe? I don't understand what you think my definition of supernatural is. I actually was using a dictionary definition : 'of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal'. Not sure how black holes fit into that.

I have no problem with that definition, but spirituality doesn't fit the criteria of it. Spirituality is natural, it is found in the human species for all of the human species existence. Spiritual nature is present but not physically verifiable. It is not an abnormal phenomenon, it is present in about 95% of all humans, and this is consistent through all of human existence. You and others, don't believe in it, and demand physical proof of it, which is illogical.

Black holes are not explainable with natural laws of physics. Something is happening there, that our physics doesn't support. The energy is so strong that light cannot escape, and that defies our laws of nature. Is this supernatural? No, because we can observe it. Can't explain it yet, not really sure what is happening, but even though it defies our natural laws, it is there and can't be denied. You see, the egocentricity in man, will assume there can never be any physical proof the spiritual realm exists, but we can't possibly know this. There are things in our own physical universe, we don't yet understand. Because physical sciences are unable to prove spiritual nature today, doesn't mean it will forever be this way. However, once spiritual existence is verified by physical evidence, it no longer exists as spiritual.

One last time : believe what you will, just understand that your beliefs are subjective. You have not provided objective evidence of your conclusions.

Everyone's beliefs are subjective, aren't they?

I think I have provided a lot of objective evidence, and I've shot down everything you've countered with. You can pretend otherwise, if that makes you feel better. Or you can claim this is a philosophical debate that no one can win. To me, it doesn't matter, I am satisfied with my OP argument, and it remains uncontested.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You continue to make it sound as though science has answered all of humanity's questions, Boss, which is clearly untrue. Science also does not provide comfort, nor give a guideline for living life as religions do.

Sure, many things that were once thought of as divine or magical have been explained through science. Humanity knows a lot more than it once did. But there are still plenty of questions, there are still plenty of hopes, there are still plenty of fears, all of which can be answered by various religions. If nothing else, simple fear of death remains a huge draw; most religions have some sort of afterlife, which I imagine can be a huge comfort in the face of death.

Your argument that we should see less belief in religion or the supernatural because of scientific advancement is wrong IMO. What we have seen is just what might be expected, a refinement of those beliefs, a trimming away of those things which can no longer be explained through supernatural means.

You give humanity and science far too much credit if you think our scientific advancement has progressed so far that, barring the spiritual connection you posit, religious and supernatural beliefs should no longer exist.

We know science has no clue about many things most importantly how life came in to existence.

false!

Can't wait for this explanation,let's hear it as the pin drops to the floor.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A better clue than religion.

No they don't their thoughts are dead on arrival.

an assumptive false declaration.
presupposing that faith is better then fact.

Explain.

 

[BreezeWood]

isn't the diversity of life - no blade of grass being the same, for all eternity, physical proof of the spiritual nature of each individual ?

spirituality and individuality being the same.

And yet another definition for spirituality!

Also, no blade of grass the same for eternity? What?

that's what I said! blades of grass are for all practical purposes the same...
it's nice poetry but it's bullshit.

no, it is not ....


poetry is an acceptable explanation - as a form of spirituality.

not just blades of Grass but all physiology from the past 750 million years to the present of similar species to all species included have not a single replication nor will any life form on Earth for all eternity similar or not.

nor for their intelligence

for all creatures Fauna and Flora - supposedly including "mankind".

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not making this a religious argument. I am comparing your belief to religious belief in an attempt to show you that you can be just as intransigent and unmoving as those whose beliefs you use as proof yet denigrate at the same time.

I'm not at all intransigent or unmoving, I simply reject your shallow explanations for human spirituality. You know, before I posted this thread, I had already heard everything raised in this thread by you and others, dozens and dozens of times, in every debate on this topic. You could not have expected it to work this time any better than it has worked previously, especially since I made such an effort to keep this from turning into a religious debate.

I cannot figure out what you are trying to say sometimes. That mankind has worshiped various beings throughout history is not in question. If that is your definition of a spiritual nature, simply that people worship something beyond themselves, then yes, humanity has a spiritual nature. If, on the other hand, you use that worship as evidence that spiritual beings or forces exist (although they cannot be seen because they are not part of the physical universe) then I disagree.

Oh I know you can't figure out what I am trying to say sometimes, because you keep trying to misinterpret me and claim I've said things I never said. You seem to be on the verge of getting it, that humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self, is a big part. The other part, you alluded to earlier, humans have a need which spirituality fills. This is not imaginary, and it's not mass delusion. It's certainly not coincidental that man is spiritually connected and has achieved all man has done.



But man has never existed without spirituality for very long. In every instance, man becomes complacent and immoral, and destroys civilized society. Also, these people arguing in this thread against me, are not examples of people who don't believe in a spiritual higher power. I know that is what they will say, and even swear this is so, but it's not. You don't spend this amount of time arguing against something you don't believe exists or is real. Most of them are simply angry at a god they believe exists, for judging them, for messing up their lives, for some injustice they believe god is responsible for. Their viewpoint is that of denunciation, they seek to punish the god they believe exists, by denouncing him and convincing others to do the same. Atheists are often some of the biggest believers in god. Statistically speaking, about 5% of the human race is Nihilist.

Man can not exist without spirituality.



Sorry, but other animals have intelligence. You're right, the debate ends there. The most defining attribute of humans is spirituality. It doesn't matter if you disagree.



Huh? Animals aren't able to imagine something that isn't real to keep them comforted?

Look, if you just want to pretend to be silly here, we can do that. I don't care. We both know that humans have a fear of death and other animals don't think about it. They do not contemplate what happens after they die. Humans do this, and humans alone. Now grow the fuck up and stop trying to play cute little games here, being an obtuse twit.

Again, humans are spiritually connected, where other animals are not. This manifests in the human contemplation and concern for their spiritual self, or spirit. This sparks the question of what happens after we die, and why mankind has always asked this question. Other animals don't do this, because they are not spiritually connected. So what you are erroneously doing, is taking the byproduct of spiritual belief, the contemplation of death, and you are claiming this is why man invented spirituality. It is refutable because no other animal contemplates death or needs something to explain it. There is no logical reason humans, the most intelligent of all species, would have to create some placebo to deal with a 'fear of death' that doesn't exist anywhere else in nature. Does that really make sense to you?

Are you saying black holes are not part of the physical universe? I don't understand what you think my definition of supernatural is. I actually was using a dictionary definition : 'of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal'. Not sure how black holes fit into that.

I have no problem with that definition, but spirituality doesn't fit the criteria of it. Spirituality is natural, it is found in the human species for all of the human species existence. Spiritual nature is present but not physically verifiable. It is not an abnormal phenomenon, it is present in about 95% of all humans, and this is consistent through all of human existence. You and others, don't believe in it, and demand physical proof of it, which is illogical.

Black holes are not explainable with natural laws of physics. Something is happening there, that our physics doesn't support. The energy is so strong that light cannot escape, and that defies our laws of nature. Is this supernatural? No, because we can observe it. Can't explain it yet, not really sure what is happening, but even though it defies our natural laws, it is there and can't be denied. You see, the egocentricity in man, will assume there can never be any physical proof the spiritual realm exists, but we can't possibly know this. There are things in our own physical universe, we don't yet understand. Because physical sciences are unable to prove spiritual nature today, doesn't mean it will forever be this way. However, once spiritual existence is verified by physical evidence, it no longer exists as spiritual.

One last time : believe what you will, just understand that your beliefs are subjective. You have not provided objective evidence of your conclusions.

Everyone's beliefs are subjective, aren't they?

I think I have provided a lot of objective evidence, and I've shot down everything you've countered with. You can pretend otherwise, if that makes you feel better. Or you can claim this is a philosophical debate that no one can win. To me, it doesn't matter, I am satisfied with my OP argument, and it remains uncontested.

Holy crap, the arrogant presumption!

You make pains to say you do not believe in organized religion, yet seem to make a lot of the same arguments and assumptions.

That someone would not argue against something they do not believe in is one of the most ridiculous fallacies in religious argument. Of course someone who doesn't believe in a particular god will be the one to argue against it. Someone who does believe isn't going to argue that god doesn't exist! The same with the spiritual forces you posit. Those who argue against the existence of such things will of course be the ones who do not believe in them. That someone enjoys arguing, or feels compelled to do so, is not indicative of some secretly held belief. Some of us just like to argue.

I may be on the verge of getting whatever the hell you are trying to say, but I doubt I am on the verge of 'getting it' in the sense I agree with you in the slightest. You have left things so vaguely defined, used so much circular logic, and put forth arguments that boil down to 'because I say so' so often it's difficult to be sure of what you are trying to say. Humans have long believed in 'higher powers'. That's never been a point of contention.

There is a minority that does not hold supernatural beliefs. That has been true for a long time. That is evidence that your spiritual connection is not necessary for human life.

Yes, other animals have intelligence. If you are possibly trying to claim it is on the same level as human intelligence, you are ignoring all evidence. Whether YOU agree or not is immaterial. Humanity's greater intelligence is a nearly universal truth based on the experience of our entire history. Our intelligence is what has led us to be the dominant species on the planet. It is what allows us to use language, to create technology, to be the creatures we are.

Your inability to understand this argument is confounding. Can other species of animals use imagination to create beliefs which provide comfort? I'm not asking you if they DO, I'm asking you if they have the intellectual capacity. Perhaps a few of the most intelligent can; in the main, they do not seem to have the ability. So, to argue that humans shouldn't create false beliefs to gain comfort because other animals don't is ridiculous. It would be like saying humans must not wage wars because other species don't.
You can claim that our spiritual connection is what led to our gaining greater intelligence, but don't imply that other species have the same capacity to reason, or to imagine, that humans do. It's asinine.

I am fairly certain that black holes are explainable through physics and need no supernatural explanation.

Do you see the blatant contradiction in this? "You see, the egocentricity in man, will assume there can never be any physical proof the spiritual realm exists, but we can't possibly know this. There are things in our own physical universe, we don't yet understand. Because physical sciences are unable to prove spiritual nature today, doesn't mean it will forever be this way. However, once spiritual existence is verified by physical evidence, it no longer exists as spiritual."
So are you saying the spiritual may one day be provable through physical evidence? If it is no longer spiritual once that happens, then it won't actually have been proven, will it? Actually, that entire argument makes very little sense.

I think you've provided very little objective evidence, and in fact are fairly confused as to what that term means. I think your points have been contested many times, you simply reject the arguments. I think it is extremely ironic and amusing that you rail against the closed mindedness of others while you continue to be so firmly entrenched in your own views.

Even if you are correct in everything you believe, you come off as very hypocritical presenting it.

 

[newpolitics]

"No amount of belief makes something a fact." - James Randi

 

[Boss]

Holy crap, the arrogant presumption!

You make pains to say you do not believe in organized religion, yet seem to make a lot of the same arguments and assumptions.

What assumptions have I made? You didn't stipulate anything. You lodged a protest, but failed to say what you were protesting. I have made NO religious argument here, and I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. It sounds like you simply want to lash out at me because you can't come up with anything to throw at me that I don't knock out of the park.

That someone would not argue against something they do not believe in is one of the most ridiculous fallacies in religious argument.

What is the point of arguing about something that doesn't exist?

Of course someone who doesn't believe in a particular god will be the one to argue against it. Someone who does believe isn't going to argue that god doesn't exist! The same with the spiritual forces you posit. Those who argue against the existence of such things will of course be the ones who do not believe in them. That someone enjoys arguing, or feels compelled to do so, is not indicative of some secretly held belief. Some of us just like to argue.

And some people will lie, even to themselves, and claim they don't believe in god, when they really do.

I may be on the verge of getting whatever the hell you are trying to say, but I doubt I am on the verge of 'getting it' in the sense I agree with you in the slightest. You have left things so vaguely defined, used so much circular logic, and put forth arguments that boil down to 'because I say so' so often it's difficult to be sure of what you are trying to say. Humans have long believed in 'higher powers'. That's never been a point of contention.

I'm sorry, but please show me where I've said "because I say so" in any argument I have made in this thread? How about stop being dishonest? YOU are the one presenting circular logic, when you contend that 'man asks why because man can ask why.' Nothing has been vaguely defined, we've been over every definition of each word in the OP, so that there is clear understanding of what we are debating. The thread is nearly 2k posts long, and I have repeatedly clarified and explained every definition at least twice.

Humans have ALWAYS believed in higher powers, it's our most defining attribute.

There is a minority that does not hold supernatural beliefs. That has been true for a long time. That is evidence that your spiritual connection is not necessary for human life.

I never said that humans die if they don't practice spirituality. Sorry if you thought you had scored a point with that, but I think it's safe to say that humans can indeed reject their spiritual nature and still live. Humanity cannot survive without spirituality, that's what I said.

Yes, other animals have intelligence. If you are possibly trying to claim it is on the same level as human intelligence, you are ignoring all evidence. Whether YOU agree or not is immaterial. Humanity's greater intelligence is a nearly universal truth based on the experience of our entire history. Our intelligence is what has led us to be the dominant species on the planet. It is what allows us to use language, to create technology, to be the creatures we are.

Doesn't matter about evidence, all animals have intelligence to some degree. We can train chimps to fly rockets into space. What other animals don't have, is spirituality. This is our most defining attribute. This isn't a debate, you don't win this, it's just a fact that you should learn, and stop trying to refute like a dumbass. Our "greater" intelligence is a manifestation of our spirituality, which is unique to our species. Our inspiration comes from spirituality, along with all the other attributes which makes us different.

Your inability to understand this argument is confounding. Can other species of animals use imagination to create beliefs which provide comfort? I'm not asking you if they DO, I'm asking you if they have the intellectual capacity. Perhaps a few of the most intelligent can; in the main, they do not seem to have the ability. So, to argue that humans shouldn't create false beliefs to gain comfort because other animals don't is ridiculous. It would be like saying humans must not wage wars because other species don't.
You can claim that our spiritual connection is what led to our gaining greater intelligence, but don't imply that other species have the same capacity to reason, or to imagine, that humans do. It's asinine.

The fact remains, other animals don't worry about what happens after they die. You claim humans invented spirituality to cope with this question, but other less intelligent creatures, don't seem to be plagued with this concern, and certainly not to the point of having to create some kind of security blanket so they can deal with it. The fact that we don't see any other living thing, contemplating what happens after it dies, tells me this might be related to the other unique attribute we have, spirituality. Spirituality clearly came first, and this is what prompts man to contemplate what happens after death.

I am fairly certain that black holes are explainable through physics and need no supernatural explanation.

Nope... not explainable through physics, or not as of now. There are some theories, but nothing is conclusive, it seems to be a mystery we've yet to unravel. It's not supernatural, I never claimed that. The point was, there are things that physics doesn't explain. Science is not infallible, and has often had to recant.

Do you see the blatant contradiction in this? "You see, the egocentricity in man, will assume there can never be any physical proof the spiritual realm exists, but we can't possibly know this. There are things in our own physical universe, we don't yet understand. Because physical sciences are unable to prove spiritual nature today, doesn't mean it will forever be this way. However, once spiritual existence is verified by physical evidence, it no longer exists as spiritual."
So are you saying the spiritual may one day be provable through physical evidence? If it is no longer spiritual once that happens, then it won't actually have been proven, will it? Actually, that entire argument makes very little sense.

I am saying that I won't say it's impossible. As I said before, I know that a spiritual nature does exist, which puts me at a distinct advantage in this debate. Now, it's possible, what I interpret as a spiritual nature, might be another alternate nature residing in a parallel dimension. Perhaps in the future, science will discover some way to confirm this thing, I have no way of knowing what we don't yet know. As of now, physical science cannot verify spiritual existence.

I think you've provided very little objective evidence, and in fact are fairly confused as to what that term means. I think your points have been contested many times, you simply reject the arguments. I think it is extremely ironic and amusing that you rail against the closed mindedness of others while you continue to be so firmly entrenched in your own views.

Even if you are correct in everything you believe, you come off as very hypocritical presenting it.

We see again, you make an allegation and don't back it up with anything. You've repeated this throughout your posts, and I honestly don't know how I am supposed to address the problems if you don't specify what they are. I began the OP with the point that we have to establish meanings to the words and have understanding of spiritual nature before we can objectively answer the question. My points have simply not been refuted. Every counter argument presented, has been shown to be flawed. Whenever I have shot down your argument, you have tried to prop it back up by insisting you disagree with me, even when you can't make a logical case for why. Then you want to claim I am being hypocritical and closed-minded. What I see, is someone who is immature, and has lost an argument, but rather than admit some good points were made, is going to act like a jackass instead.

I don't have time for jackassery.

 

[S.J.]

"No amount of belief makes something a fact." - James Randi

Same goes for evolution, pal.

 

[newpolitics]

"No amount of belief makes something a fact." - James Randi

Same goes for evolution, pal.

It isn't belief that makes evolution true, it is demonstrable evidence, pal.

 

[S.J.]

"No amount of belief makes something a fact." - James Randi

Same goes for evolution, pal.

It isn't belief that makes evolution true, it is demonstrable evidence, pal.

It's only your faith that makes it evidence to you.

 

[newpolitics]

Same goes for evolution, pal.

It isn't belief that makes evolution true, it is demonstrable evidence, pal.

It's only your faith that makes it evidence to you.

Fossils are real.

 

[S.J.]

It isn't belief that makes evolution true, it is demonstrable evidence, pal.

It's only your faith that makes it evidence to you.

Fossils are real.

Fossils may be real but what you extrapolate from them is faith.

 

[newpolitics]

It's only your faith that makes it evidence to you.

Fossils are real.

Fossils may be real but what you extrapolate from them is faith.

Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Evolution has evidence. Hence, one who believes in evolution is not using faith.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Same goes for evolution, pal.

It isn't belief that makes evolution true, it is demonstrable evidence, pal.

It's only your faith that makes it evidence to you.

No, it’s facts and evidence, objective and documented, upon which evolution is based.

First came facts and evidence, then came evolution.

Religion is devoid of both facts and evidence, predicated on faith alone.

The last thing theists want is ‘proof’ of god, as such proof would make faith irrelevant, and religion pointless.

 

[S.J.]

Fossils are real.

Fossils may be real but what you extrapolate from them is faith.

Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Evolution has evidence. Hence, one who believes in evolution is not using faith.

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying.

 

[S.J.]

It isn't belief that makes evolution true, it is demonstrable evidence, pal.

It's only your faith that makes it evidence to you.

No, it’s facts and evidence, objective and documented, upon which evolution is based.

First came facts and evidence, then came evolution.

Religion is devoid of both facts and evidence, predicated on faith alone.

The last thing theists want is ‘proof’ of god, as such proof would make faith irrelevant, and religion pointless.

There you go again, trying to turn this into a theological discussion.

 

[newpolitics]

Fossils may be real but what you extrapolate from them is faith.

Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Evolution has evidence. Hence, one who believes in evolution is not using faith.

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying.

Actually, its quite simple. What you said was illogical, and I tried to show you how. Let me try again: It is impossible, definitionally, to have faith if you have evidence. Evolution has evidence, therefore, there can be no faith.

 

[S.J.]

Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Evolution has evidence. Hence, one who believes in evolution is not using faith.

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying.

Actually, its quite simple. What you said was illogical, and I tried to show you how. Let me try again: It is impossible, definitionally, to have faith if you have evidence. Evolution has evidence, therefore, there can be no faith.

Again, you still don't understand what I was saying. Instead of condescending, try thinking about it.

 

[newpolitics]

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying.

Actually, its quite simple. What you said was illogical, and I tried to show you how. Let me try again: It is impossible, definitionally, to have faith if you have evidence. Evolution has evidence, therefore, there can be no faith.

Again, you still don't understand what I was saying. Instead of condescending, try thinking about it.

What you are doing is questioning whether fossils are even evidence of anything. I don't know how to help you there. If you are going to engage in this level of skepticism, then you have no justification for believing in god, given a complete lack of evidence. So try to be a little consistent in your evidential standards, rather than special pleading with your "god" evidence.

 

[Boss]

Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Evolution has evidence. Hence, one who believes in evolution is not using faith.

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying.

Actually, its quite simple. What you said was illogical, and I tried to show you how. Let me try again: It is impossible, definitionally, to have faith if you have evidence. Evolution has evidence, therefore, there can be no faith.

In order for anything to be determined "evidence" requires faith. You must have faith in the validity as evidence, do you not?

I see some evidence of changes within genera, but I also see species who haven't changed at all. I see no evidence of cross-genus speciation, which is required, if evolution explains origin. The FACT is, evolution doesn't deal with origin, it's about the process of evolving once life had already originated. Origin is theorized in Abiogenesis, and there are about two dozen working variations on that. No valid "evidence" exists to support any of it.