Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

Too bad their testimony isn't the same!

But it IS the same, they even came up with a universal word to describe it... BLESSING.

'Universal'?!?

Link please.

Sorry, I don't have a link to common sense, Joe. I assume most people have it, or they wouldn't be embarrassing themselves on a public forum like this. Every culture, regardless of the religion, has a word for "blessing" or "blessed" and it means the same thing, universally.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You scream that this is NOT about religion but then you invoke religious "blessings" when it suits your nefarious purpose. No wonder you have zero credibility. Now before you start preaching about "rejecting spiritual evidence" you need to explain why one person's "blessing" is just another person's good luck. Did the Atheist mother who survived the tornado receive a "blessing" or was she merely lucky? Needless to say you won't address this because you can't.

This is funny, because you screamed for me to give you some kind of evidence, to prove spirituality manifests itself in the physical, and I do this... but now you complain because it is a "religious" example. I'm sorry, but I am fresh out of examples of Atheists proclaiming the benefits of spiritual belief.

That was yet another EPIC FAILURE on your part to provide any proof that "spirituality manifests itself in the physical". What you provided was merely the existence of LUCK that is co-opted by religions for the promotion of their cults.

 

[Boss]

Just one question, Boss... If the thesis of your thread is 'Proof of God', which God are you talking about?

'Cause if your line of thinkin' is that many Monkeys through Time have felt a connection to something bigger than themselves and, from Allah, Baal & Christ through Zeus, no matter how that connection is stumbled upon, a Monkey aught to nurture that connection,

As I explained in the OP, the specific defining of god is not essential in determining existence of a spiritual entity. My use of "god" in the argument is metaphoric. It refers to the spiritual energy or force that humans have always made connection to. Religions, and religious incarnations of this spiritual god, are manifestations of this spiritual connection. I am not here to establish the existence of any particular god or even a 'deity' entity at all. Only the presence of spiritual nature, which humans have always had the ability to connect to, and what defines our species as unique among all others...including chimps who share 98% of our DNA.

Your OP proves that you are LYING again. You even titled this entire thread as "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists".

Nope, the thread title is a question. Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

I make the argument in the OP, but the very initial point made, has to be an establishment of what each word means. We have to clarify what "definitive proof" means, what "god" means, what "exists" means... because, until we can all be on the same page with what each of these words mean, we can't begin to examine the question.

 

[Boss]

You scream that this is NOT about religion but then you invoke religious "blessings" when it suits your nefarious purpose. No wonder you have zero credibility. Now before you start preaching about "rejecting spiritual evidence" you need to explain why one person's "blessing" is just another person's good luck. Did the Atheist mother who survived the tornado receive a "blessing" or was she merely lucky? Needless to say you won't address this because you can't.

This is funny, because you screamed for me to give you some kind of evidence, to prove spirituality manifests itself in the physical, and I do this... but now you complain because it is a "religious" example. I'm sorry, but I am fresh out of examples of Atheists proclaiming the benefits of spiritual belief.

That was yet another EPIC FAILURE on your part to provide any proof that "spirituality manifests itself in the physical". What you provided was merely the existence of LUCK that is co-opted by religions for the promotion of their cults.

The BILLIONS of people who it happened to, who experienced it first-hand, do not share your opinion. Otherwise, they would have attributed it to luck instead of blessing.

Ooops... looks like Epic Failure on aisle 4!

 

[Hollie]

As I explained in the OP, the specific defining of god is not essential in determining existence of a spiritual entity. My use of "god" in the argument is metaphoric. It refers to the spiritual energy or force that humans have always made connection to. Religions, and religious incarnations of this spiritual god, are manifestations of this spiritual connection. I am not here to establish the existence of any particular god or even a 'deity' entity at all. Only the presence of spiritual nature, which humans have always had the ability to connect to, and what defines our species as unique among all others...including chimps who share 98% of our DNA.

Your OP proves that you are LYING again. You even titled this entire thread as "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists".

Nope, the thread title is a question. Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

I make the argument in the OP, but the very initial point made, has to be an establishment of what each word means. We have to clarify what "definitive proof" means, what "god" means, what "exists" means... because, until we can all be on the same page with what each of these words mean, we can't begin to examine the question.

You should include the requirement for a definition of "spirituality" in your roll call of terms above.

As you manage to equivocate and confuse terms you claim need definition, that might help you make sense of what you're hoping to convey.

 

[edthecynic]

I've not claimed anything metaphysical or existential. There is a spiritual nature just as there is a physical nature, and it resides in the same universe and reality. It is not supernatural, it is part of nature itself. It is the force which enables the miracle of life. It is what makes common inorganic elements organic. It's what causes the properties of atoms in electricity to behave as they do, and gravity to behave as it does, and the laws of physics to be reliable, enabling science itself. It is what created the Big Bang, because there was nothing in the physical universe which didn't exist yet.

There you go again, first denying the metaphysical and then asserting the metaphysical. You have yet to prove any of the metaphysical claims you just made for the spiritual. You simply pontificate their existence.

I didn't assert the metaphysical. Metaphysical is something outside of nature, and spirituality is part of nature. I don't make claims of spiritual nature, spiritualism does. I am merely revealing the flaw in your consistent demands for physical evidence of something spiritual. You are illogical and closed-minded, and spiritual proof is non existent in your mind. This is precisely why I began my argument establishing this valid point, unless you can open your mind to spiritual evidence, it is impossible to ever prove god's existence to you. It is a completely pointless endeavor.

I also have not 'pontificated' anything, the evidence is over 70k years of human behavior. You and others continue to ignore my arguments and claim I am saying "because I say so" but that is clearly not what I have been typing for all these pages.

Spirituality is not PART of Nature, it is a PRODUCT of Nature. Again you merely prove the necessity for the physical existence of Nature to create the spiritual.

 

[edthecynic]

Must have? Says WHO? Not me... looks like YOU saying that, but you wouldn't be resorting to "because I say so" would you?

Yet another attempt by Bossi to squirm out of being hung by his own petard. YOU claimed that "spirituality is part of nature". Are you now alleging that nature does not manifest itself in the physical universe? Keep on this enormous hole of yours.

What are "blessings?"

"Curses" gone horribly wrong!

 

[edthecynic]

As I explained in the OP, the specific defining of god is not essential in determining existence of a spiritual entity. My use of "god" in the argument is metaphoric. It refers to the spiritual energy or force that humans have always made connection to. Religions, and religious incarnations of this spiritual god, are manifestations of this spiritual connection. I am not here to establish the existence of any particular god or even a 'deity' entity at all. Only the presence of spiritual nature, which humans have always had the ability to connect to, and what defines our species as unique among all others...including chimps who share 98% of our DNA.

Your OP proves that you are LYING again. You even titled this entire thread as "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists".

Nope, the thread title is a question. Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

I make the argument in the OP, but the very initial point made, has to be an establishment of what each word means. We have to clarify what "definitive proof" means, what "god" means, what "exists" means... because, until we can all be on the same page with what each of these words mean, we can't begin to examine the question.

Like every contradiction you post the title is dishonest. It is a declarative statement dishonestly contradicted with a question mark.

 

[daws101]

Geological evidence of the flood you say that didn't happen.

Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 1 with Dr. Andrew Snelling - YouTube

Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 2 with Dr. Andrew Snelling - YouTube

bahahahahahahaha! this is not evidence it's pseudoscience proselytizing.
this is what evidence looks like: Ayers Rock Facts - Geology
•Both Uluru and Kata Tjuta are left overs of a huge sediment that has formed hundreds of millions of years ago:
•Sand was laid down in a basin which formed about 900 million years ago. Material continued to collect at the bottom of this ancient sea bed until about 300 million years ago.
•550 million years ago the area was lifted and folded and mountain ranges formed. These ranges eroded in the following millions of years, leaving huge sediments at the bottom.
•About 300 million years ago the seas disappeared. The remaining sediment folded and fractured again. In this major process the sediment layers that now form Uluru were tilted, so that today they are at a 85° angle. Kata Tjuta was tilted some 20°. The whole region was lifted up above sea level in the process.
•This means Uluru and Kata Tjuta are the only visible tips of a massive underground rock slab.
•You could even argue that the description of Uluru as a monolith is inaccurate, as it is actually part of this huge underground rock formation that also includes Kata Tjuta.
•The intriguing sculpted shapes, valleys and ridges, caves, potholes and plunge pools are the result of the last few hundreds of millions of years of erosion. The flaky surface is due to chemical decomposition.
•Uluru is made of arkose sandstone (a sandstone rich in feldspar), whereas Kata Tjuta is a conglomerate of gravel and boulders, cemented together by mud and sand.
•Uluru is naturally grey, but the iron content of the rock is "rusting" at the surface, resulting in the distinctive red iron oxide coating.
Ayers Rock Facts

How did this address the main question that your side has no answer for. 7 different layers of strata in every layer of strata around the earth we have both land fossils and marine fossils buried together explain away dumbshit. Scientists can't explain it away so I doubt you would Wikipedia boy. They used scientific evidence and the scientific method if you say otherwise you are either the dumbest person that ever owned a computer or you once again are talking out your ass and have no Idea what you copy and paste.

the main question has already been answered, you as always have mental block every time that happens,
also your pseudoscientists did not use any scientific evidence (I've seen those clips) and there is no actually science involved.
what they did was intentionally misinterpret evidence they did not collect or analyze and constructed a false premise to speciously speculate on to fit the creation fairytale.



On Land and in Sea

"The occurrence of Jurassic land and coastal sediments in western Cuba is well-known," said Iturralde-Vinent. "In these sediments I have been looking for dinosaurs for many years, and in the end the search was successful as we located a small bone. This find opens great possibilities for future research."

The dinosaur bone was found in layers of earth from the Late Jurassic Jagua Formation in what had once been coastal sediments.

"The deposits where the bones are found accumulated 154 to 146 million years ago in shallow marine waters very close to the shore, allowing representatives of land and marine elements be found in the same beds," said Iturralde-Vinent

Abundant remains of terrestrial vegetation such as fern trees, the fossil remains of at least two species of pterosaurs—extinct flying reptiles—and marine reptile fossils were found in the same strata.

Iturralde-Vinent notes that such a mixture of terrestrial and marine animals is not unusual in paleontology.


_ "The only dinosaur known from Antarctica was a fossil remain found in marine sediments," he explained. "Sometimes the animal dies and a river might carry the floating body into open waters. The bodies can float while they are in the process of decomposition."

Expeditions in the last several years have led to the discovery and description of several new taxa of gigantic ancient aquatic reptiles (pliosaurs, plesiosaurs, and ichthyosaurs), as well as crocodiles, turtles, and flying reptiles (pterosaurs). New species of turtle, Caribemys oxfordiensis, and plesiosaur, Vinalesaurus caroli, were recently discovered, as was a pterosaur that had a tail and soared in the prehistoric skies with a wingspan of nearly 4 meters (13 feet).

The search for Jurassic fossils in Cuba is a joint project of the Museo Nacional de Historia Natural of Cuba and the Museo de La Plata in Argentina, and is partially funded by the National Geographic Society.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1220_021220_cubandino_2.html

 

[AVG-JOE]

There was no biblical flood. Your wishing it were true is irrelevant.

I'll bet you a dollar that there was a flood.


And I'll bet another that it consumed the WHOLE world of some Monkeys...
I'll bet a third that the Monkeys told the story to any Monkeys who'd listen, and I'll make it four questions for five dollars that Monkeys can imagine.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC2waxMJ_5Y]"Imagine" - John Lennon - YouTube[/ame]

I really like the Beatles (historically speaking) but John Lennon is dead. That should tell you something. Pictures of young people cavorting are nice, but the reality is the young get old and the cavorting returns to a slowed craw... If one doesn't have heaven one has nothing to look forward to.

I tried and I'm drawing a blank... exactly what should it tell me that John Lennon is dead?

 

[daws101]

Do you need pictures of the vents in the oceans to confirm what I am saying from a nonreligious site they got pictures of these vents in the ocean floor and I have posted them before is your memory slipping ?

pictures of vents in the ocean floors - Google Search

hey slap dick those hydro thermal vents are not the same as what's mention in the bible ...once again you're willfully and fraudulently misrepresenting the facts.

Numbnuts when the bible was written they communicated things the best they could. Do you actually think they ment fountains the way they are defined today ? You one stupid person atleast with ed I think he was joking lol.

Ancient fountains [edit]

Ancient civilizations built stone basins to capture and hold precious drinking water. A carved stone basin, dating to around 2000 BC, was discovered in the ruins of the ancient Sumerian city of Lagash in modern Iraq. The ancient Assyrians constructed a series of basins in the gorge of the Comel River, carved in solid rock, connected by small channels, descending to a stream. The lowest basin was decorated with carved reliefs of two lions.[4] The ancient Egyptians had ingenious systems for hoisting water up from the Nile for drinking and irrigation, but without a higher source of water it was not possible to make water flow by gravity, and no Egyptian fountains or pictures of fountains have been found.

The ancient Greeks were apparently the first to use aqueducts and gravity-powered fountains to distribute water. According to ancient historians, fountains existed in Athens, Corinth, and other ancient Greek cities in the 6th century BC as the terminating points of aqueducts which brought water from springs and rivers into the cities. In the 6th century BC the Athenian ruler Peisistratos built the main fountain of Athens, the Enneacrounos, in the Agora, or main square. It had nine large cannons, or spouts, which supplied drinking water to local residents.[5]

Greek fountains were made of stone or marble, with water flowing through bronze pipes and emerging from the mouth of a sculpted mask that represented the head of a lion or the muzzle of an animal. Most Greek fountains flowed by simple gravity, but they also discovered how to use principle of a siphon to make water spout, as seen in pictures on Greek vases.[6]

again somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me.

 

[daws101]

Do you need pictures of the vents in the oceans to confirm what I am saying from a nonreligious site they got pictures of these vents in the ocean floor and I have posted them before is your memory slipping ?

pictures of vents in the ocean floors - Google Search

hey slap dick those hydro thermal vents are not the same as what's mention in the bible ...once again you're willfully and fraudulently misrepresenting the facts.

Numbnuts when the bible was written they communicated things the best they could. Do you actually think they ment fountains the way they are defined today ? You one stupid person atleast with ed I think he was joking lol.

once again you're making false assumptions.
if, as you constantly yammer about ,the bible is a perfect book. then there would be no inconsistencies with any description of anything written about in the bible.
now to cover your ass, you're attempting to say they didn't mean fountain as we know it.

btw you thinking ed was joking is more proof of your tenuous grip on reality.

 

[daws101]

I'll bet you a dollar that there was a flood.


And I'll bet another that it consumed the WHOLE world of some Monkeys...
I'll bet a third that the Monkeys told the story to any Monkeys who'd listen, and I'll make it four questions for five dollars that Monkeys can imagine.
"Imagine" - John Lennon - YouTube

I really like the Beatles (historically speaking) but John Lennon is dead. That should tell you something. Pictures of young people cavorting are nice, but the reality is the young get old and the cavorting returns to a slowed craw... If one doesn't have heaven one has nothing to look forward to.

I tried and I'm drawing a blank... exactly what should it tell me that John Lennon is dead?

steer clear of nuts with guns that have a Jodi foster obsession?

 

[Montrovant]

This is because you refuse to believe spiritual evidence, but much like the detractors of Aristarchus, your beliefs are wrong. It defies all reasonable logic that the smartest most advanced creatures would need to invent a placebo for knowledge and security blanket for irrational fears. That it would maintain this 'delusion' for it's entire existence, in order to enable the remarkable accomplishments man has achieved.

If you don't think people will lie to themselves or to others, either for comfort, or out of fear, or any of a host of possible reasons, I wonder how much time you've spent around other people.

If you don't think people will believe the lies that others tell, either because they are trusted (like a parent) or because it fits with a personal bias, I question your understanding of human nature.

If you think people are generally especially rational or logical, you should open your eyes and ears to the world around you.

This isn't just a case of religion. People do the same thing with just about anything you can think of : politics, sex, relationships, work, etc.

It is illogical to think that just because people have believed in thousands of different kinds of higher powers, or supernatural creatures and forces, or magics, or what-have-you, that those extremely varied beliefs must all be based on something real. That the person who believed in Odin the all-father was experiencing the same thing as the person who believes the ghost of their grandfather still wanders their home, and the same as the person who believes they can cause someone bad luck through the force of their will.

Mankind has clearly maintained the same delusions for long periods of time if the major religions of our history are incorrect. Why you think the delusion of, say, ancient Egyptians and their pantheon of gods can be true but that humanity could never delude itself en mass is beyond me.

The common attribute is spirituality. You are trying to claim our most distinct and defining characteristic as a species of life, is nothing but a figment of imagination and delusion. I readily agree, many of the beliefs man conjures up from this very real connection to a spiritual realm, is nutty, kooky, crazy, wrong, stupid...and yes, delusional or whatever. These are the most crucial evidence that something is happening for real, people keep doing it, over and over again, for all of our existence, people have spiritually worshiped something. As you pointed out, humans have a need for this, which science can't fill, to answer questions science can't answer, to inspire us as humans and give us inner strength. It is the one thing that makes us distinctly different from all other living things. We didn't make it up.

Spirituality is not the 'one thing' that makes us different from all other living things. There are plenty of things humans do and think that are different from other living things. More, not every person believes in the spiritual. Does any other living thing conduct war? Does any other living thing create arbitrary borders of nations? Does any other species have complex language? Does any other species have any of the millions of forms of technology humanity does? Does any other living thing farm, or raise meat animals, or......there are too many things to count.

Again, you are taking one aspect of human intelligence and declaring it the single defining characteristic of our species, using belief in something untrue (the many varied religious, most of which must obviously be untrue) as evidence that something else must be true.

This is clearly pointless, and unlike the creationism thread, I'm not willing to hang around rehashing the same stuff for months and months. Thanks for the argument though, have fun continuing it with others!

 

[Boss]

There you go again, first denying the metaphysical and then asserting the metaphysical. You have yet to prove any of the metaphysical claims you just made for the spiritual. You simply pontificate their existence.

I didn't assert the metaphysical. Metaphysical is something outside of nature, and spirituality is part of nature. I don't make claims of spiritual nature, spiritualism does. I am merely revealing the flaw in your consistent demands for physical evidence of something spiritual. You are illogical and closed-minded, and spiritual proof is non existent in your mind. This is precisely why I began my argument establishing this valid point, unless you can open your mind to spiritual evidence, it is impossible to ever prove god's existence to you. It is a completely pointless endeavor.

I also have not 'pontificated' anything, the evidence is over 70k years of human behavior. You and others continue to ignore my arguments and claim I am saying "because I say so" but that is clearly not what I have been typing for all these pages.

Spirituality is not PART of Nature, it is a PRODUCT of Nature. Again you merely prove the necessity for the physical existence of Nature to create the spiritual.

You can't establish that spirituality is a product of nature with "because I say so."

I see no evidence of spiritual connection being made by any other living thing in nature.

 

[daws101]

I didn't assert the metaphysical. Metaphysical is something outside of nature, and spirituality is part of nature. I don't make claims of spiritual nature, spiritualism does. I am merely revealing the flaw in your consistent demands for physical evidence of something spiritual. You are illogical and closed-minded, and spiritual proof is non existent in your mind. This is precisely why I began my argument establishing this valid point, unless you can open your mind to spiritual evidence, it is impossible to ever prove god's existence to you. It is a completely pointless endeavor.

I also have not 'pontificated' anything, the evidence is over 70k years of human behavior. You and others continue to ignore my arguments and claim I am saying "because I say so" but that is clearly not what I have been typing for all these pages.

Spirituality is not PART of Nature, it is a PRODUCT of Nature. Again you merely prove the necessity for the physical existence of Nature to create the spiritual.

You can't establish that spirituality is a product of nature with "because I say so."

I see no evidence of spiritual connection being made by any other living thing in nature.

since you see none but imagine one in humans. your claim has no basis in fact.

 

[Boss]

Spirituality is not the 'one thing' that makes us different from all other living things.

It's the only thing unique with our species.

There are plenty of things humans do and think that are different from other living things.

Yep, and they all stem from our ability to spiritually connect, while other creatures can't.

More, not every person believes in the spiritual. Does any other living thing conduct war? Does any other living thing create arbitrary borders of nations? Does any other species have complex language? Does any other species have any of the millions of forms of technology humanity does? Does any other living thing farm, or raise meat animals, or......there are too many things to count.

All things that stem from our ability to connect to spiritual nature.

Again, you are taking one aspect of human intelligence and declaring it the single defining characteristic of our species, using belief in something untrue (the many varied religious, most of which must obviously be untrue) as evidence that something else must be true.

Spirituality is not an aspect of intelligence, it's the other way around. Other animals have intelligence, in fact, we can train animals to do any number of complex tasks, and many animals instinctively know things that humans don't have instincts to determine, but we see no signs in nature of any living thing, needing to worship, wanting to worship, or interested in worshiping a higher spiritual power. We also see no evidence of any living thing, ever having to create a placebo for knowledge or security blanket for fear.

This is clearly pointless, and unlike the creationism thread, I'm not willing to hang around rehashing the same stuff for months and months. Thanks for the argument though, have fun continuing it with others!

You're welcome, drop back in anytime.

 

[edthecynic]

I didn't assert the metaphysical. Metaphysical is something outside of nature, and spirituality is part of nature. I don't make claims of spiritual nature, spiritualism does. I am merely revealing the flaw in your consistent demands for physical evidence of something spiritual. You are illogical and closed-minded, and spiritual proof is non existent in your mind. This is precisely why I began my argument establishing this valid point, unless you can open your mind to spiritual evidence, it is impossible to ever prove god's existence to you. It is a completely pointless endeavor.

I also have not 'pontificated' anything, the evidence is over 70k years of human behavior. You and others continue to ignore my arguments and claim I am saying "because I say so" but that is clearly not what I have been typing for all these pages.

Spirituality is not PART of Nature, it is a PRODUCT of Nature. Again you merely prove the necessity for the physical existence of Nature to create the spiritual.

You can't establish that spirituality is a product of nature with "because I say so."

I see no evidence of spiritual connection being made by any other living thing in nature.

You established spirituality is a PART of nature with "because I say so," so once established I can do it too. Who made YOU God?

Just because YOU refuse to accept spiritual evidence produced by nature does not mean it doesn't exist. You have closed your mind to spiritual evidence.

 

[Boss]

Spirituality is not PART of Nature, it is a PRODUCT of Nature. Again you merely prove the necessity for the physical existence of Nature to create the spiritual.

You can't establish that spirituality is a product of nature with "because I say so."

I see no evidence of spiritual connection being made by any other living thing in nature.

since you see none but imagine one in humans. your claim has no basis in fact.

I wish you would stop spamming my thread. If you aren't going to offer anything constructive, just move on. You seem to just want to filibuster here, dominate the thread with rapid-fire nonsensical retorts and denigrations, with no real point to make.

I don't imagine a spiritual connection in humans, the evidence shows a profound spiritual connection being made by humans, for as long as humans have existed. I keep being told that humans created spirituality, for whatever bogus reasons... but if I were here telling you that humans created oxygen so we could emerge from the ocean, you'd want me to show you some evidence to support that theory, wouldn't you? I keep being told that my well-established argument, with valid points and everything, boils down to "because I say so" ...yet, I continue to see what amounts to "because I say so" with regard to your disbelief in spiritual nature.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There you go again, first denying the metaphysical and then asserting the metaphysical. You have yet to prove any of the metaphysical claims you just made for the spiritual. You simply pontificate their existence.

I didn't assert the metaphysical. Metaphysical is something outside of nature, and spirituality is part of nature. I don't make claims of spiritual nature, spiritualism does. I am merely revealing the flaw in your consistent demands for physical evidence of something spiritual. You are illogical and closed-minded, and spiritual proof is non existent in your mind. This is precisely why I began my argument establishing this valid point, unless you can open your mind to spiritual evidence, it is impossible to ever prove god's existence to you. It is a completely pointless endeavor.

I also have not 'pontificated' anything, the evidence is over 70k years of human behavior. You and others continue to ignore my arguments and claim I am saying "because I say so" but that is clearly not what I have been typing for all these pages.

Spirituality is not PART of Nature, it is a PRODUCT of Nature. Again you merely prove the necessity for the physical existence of Nature to create the spiritual.

I disagree because nature exists because of a spiritual being.