Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Why is it wrong to answer your own question ?

 

[Boss]

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.

This is defined back on page 1, it was one of the first replies I made in the thread. Nothing I have said is confusing or equivocal, it's all explained very clearly. Spirituality is the connection humans have been making with spiritual nature for as long as we've existed. Nothing confusing or vague about that, it's pretty clear cut.

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.

No, it's a question. The opening paragraphs of the OP explain that we must first define what each of the words mean, because depending on how we define those words, the answer is going to be different. The only objective way to answer the question, is if we can agree on what the words of the question say, otherwise, we will never agree on the resulting answer. There is nothing here that is dishonest or contradictory.

What is quite dishonest, is how all of you supposed "free thinkers" seem to be displaying a pack mentality of ridiculing me and claiming I have been contradictory, vague, hypocritical, religious, baseless, anything you can think to throw at me, because you can't honestly address the OP.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Like..... "Good Luck!" That's what I give back when a Monkey hands me a "Have a blessed day".

 

[IrishTexanChick]

There is NO "God"...or anywhere pearly gated that you dream of ending up in. We're rejects from another planet.

 

[dblack]

I wanted to revisit the OP - as I came into this thread late and, though I hate to admit it - never really looked at the base claims in detail.

We often hear the God-haters chortle... you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy. I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.

You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?

Completely agree so far. Most of the meaningful things we bother thinking and talking about are non-physical. The problem comes when overlaying 'supernatural' onto this. There's no need for it. Non-physical entities fit fine into a naturalist world view. Arguably, the human mind exists as just such an entity. We may rely on a physical medium to persist, but we are, essentially, non-physical beings.

As you can see, the "existence" of something can be physical or nonphysical, or even spiritual.

How does 'spiritual' differ from non-physical?

... in order to evaluate the existence of something spiritual, we have to use spiritual evidence, since physical evidence doesn't logically apply. We don't demand spiritual evidence to prove the physical.... if you demonstrate how rain is caused with physical science, and someone says...well God tells me that rain is His tears... what would you say to that? It's backward, mouth-breathing and knuckle-dragging? Right? Well, that is someone applying spiritual evidence to the physical, and rejecting physical evidence. Yes, it's kind of stupid, isn't it? Just as stupid as demanding physical evidence to support a spiritual entity, and rejecting spiritual evidence.

Still pretty much in agreement. There is the open question of what you mean by 'spiritual'. Is it a trojan horse for 'supernatural'?

Now to the "definitive proof" part. Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence, we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient people of Lake Mungo, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony. This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality. We can trace this human connection with spirituality all through mankind's history to present day religions. Mankind has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. Since our very origins.

There's no disputing that religion has been an important factor in the development of human civilization. And it seems fair to call the common beliefs that comprise a religion as 'greater than self'.

Perhaps this is where we can interject some relative physical science, from none other than the father of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin points out that behavioral traits which are inherent in a species, exist for some fundamental reason pertaining to the advancement of the species, otherwise they are discarded over time through natural selection. No species of animal we have ever studied, just does something inherently, with no fundamental reason. Salmon swim upstream for a reason. Dogs wag their tails for a reason. We may not understand the reason, but Darwin tells us, there has to be one.

I'm not sure this is actually Darwin's claim. In any case, I don't think it holds up. There are plenty examples of apparent 'free riders' when it comes to inherited traits.

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!

I guess it does. But it seems to set aside the more vital question of the nature of gods. They certainly exist. But are they supernatural 'magical' entities, or are they subtle constructs of human society? Or something else?

 

[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.

I disagree because nature exists because of a spiritual being.

Prove it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.
Cuban Dinosaur: First Confirmed Remains Discovered

Looks like your side is trying to change their story on this issue.

The fossils of various frondlike and sacklike organisms that supposedly lived at the bottom of ancient oceans may actually represent some of the earliest organisms to dwell on land.

'Marine' Fossils May Instead Represent Early Land Dwellers - ScienceNOW

The Morrison formation has produced land and marine fossils.

Many different species of Jurassic-age dinosaurs have been unearthed from the Morrison Formation in the CYFO including: Allosaurus, Apatosaurus, Camarasaurus, Diplodocus, and Stegosaurus. Quite often, theropod teeth have been found when exhuming sauropod bones. The Sundance Formation has also yielded fossils of numerous marine reptiles including Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus.

Paleontology

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Prove it.

Don't have to the view is based in faith.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

There seems to be a conflict in definitions.

• How does the spiritual fit the natural?
• What is the relationship, if any?

Is it fair to say that the "spiritual" is in the "supernatural" category.

The natural is tangible and measurable. It is quantifiable.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[BreezeWood]

Nobody knows what happens at death. That's why it's called 'the unknown'.

Sorry to be rude Joe - but is there a sliding gradient for those that simply die not caring to those who know before they die their prospects - the combination for Spiritual Remission and life found in the Everlasting ?

 

[S.J.]

There is NO "God"...or anywhere pearly gated that you dream of ending up in. We're rejects from another planet.

Really? What planet?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Nobody knows what happens at death. That's why it's called 'the unknown'.

Sorry to be rude Joe - but is there a sliding gradient for those that simply die not caring to those who know before they die their prospects - the combination for Spiritual Remission and life found in the Everlasting ?

"What's that mean?"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jlUNrK9Kv4]Whats That Mean? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Boss]

et al,

There seems to be a conflict in definitions.

• How does the spiritual fit the natural?
• What is the relationship, if any?

Is it fair to say that the "spiritual" is in the "supernatural" category.

The natural is tangible and measurable. It is quantifiable.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, there is often a conflict of definitions when pondering this question. That is the primary reason the question never seems to be answered. Those who do not believe in a spiritual nature or spiritual existence, have no concept of the terms used. "Exist" can only mean a physical, measurable existence. "Proof" can only be things that adhere to the physical nature we can measure and observe. Then there is the biggie, the concept of "God" and what that means to the individual.

Here, you have determined that "spiritual" is "supernatural" and every judgement you make from that point forward, is based on this precept. You view "natural" to mean that of physical nature alone, what we can physically observe, measure, or quantify. To even suggest that nature may also include a spiritual element, is beyond your ability to comprehend. Sorry if I am being presumptive, this is just generally the case, our minds are usually only open to what our preconceptions allow, regardless of how we may think otherwise.

Spiritual nature is just as much a part of nature as physical nature, it's just not measurable or observable physically. Those who believe in spiritual nature, can make a very real and tangible connection to it, through meditation or prayer. Humans have been doing this as long as humans have existed. It is our most distinct and defining attribute, no other species has this capacity to connect spiritually to spiritual nature.

Any scientific logic applied to this at all, says that our resounding success as a species, is related to this unique attribute which no other species possess. If there truly is nothing to spirituality and it's merely imagination or delusion which has persisted for all of our existence, it's a pretty amazing trick. There is no other such anomaly found in nature.

 

[Boss]

dblack: I wanted to revisit the OP - as I came into this thread late and, though I hate to admit it - never really looked at the base claims in detail.

Thank you to dblack, for at least reading the OP with an objective mind. You may not completely agree with my argument, but I feel like you have given me a fair shot, and I can respect that.

In essence, the thread question is answered according to whether or not you accept spiritual nature. Those who refuse to acknowledge spiritual nature, can never find the proof they require to believe god exists, while those who do accept spiritual nature, have an abundance of spiritual evidence to support their belief.

 

[Derideo_Te]

et al,

There seems to be a conflict in definitions.

• How does the spiritual fit the natural?
• What is the relationship, if any?

Is it fair to say that the "spiritual" is in the "supernatural" category.

The natural is tangible and measurable. It is quantifiable.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, there is often a conflict of definitions when pondering this question. That is the primary reason the question never seems to be answered. Those who do not believe in a spiritual nature or spiritual existence, have no concept of the terms used. "Exist" can only mean a physical, measurable existence. "Proof" can only be things that adhere to the physical nature we can measure and observe. Then there is the biggie, the concept of "God" and what that means to the individual.

Here, you have determined that "spiritual" is "supernatural" and every judgement you make from that point forward, is based on this precept. You view "natural" to mean that of physical nature alone, what we can physically observe, measure, or quantify. To even suggest that nature may also include a spiritual element, is beyond your ability to comprehend. Sorry if I am being presumptive, this is just generally the case, our minds are usually only open to what our preconceptions allow, regardless of how we may think otherwise.

Spiritual nature is just as much a part of nature as physical nature, it's just not measurable or observable physically. Those who believe in spiritual nature, can make a very real and tangible connection to it, through meditation or prayer. Humans have been doing this as long as humans have existed. It is our most distinct and defining attribute, no other species has this capacity to connect spiritually to spiritual nature.

Any scientific logic applied to this at all, says that our resounding success as a species, is related to this unique attribute which no other species possess. If there truly is nothing to spirituality and it's merely imagination or delusion which has persisted for all of our existence, it's a pretty amazing trick. There is no other such anomaly found in nature.

Bossi is spreading more horse manure. It is possible to physically measure people experiencing a "spiritual trance" induced via prayer or meditation. Once again your ignorance is on display.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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!

Boss has resumed his CIRCULAR REASONING hole again. Now you are alleging that your imaginary deity "created" luck so every instance of someone being lucky is "evidence" that your imaginary deity exists.

 

[Boss]

Bossi is spreading more horse manure. It is possible to physically measure people experiencing a "spiritual trance" induced via prayer or meditation. Once again your ignorance is on display.

Look, jackass, you've pointed out that we can measure brain waves. I think most educated people understand we can now do this. It signifies the brain is working, thought is happening, and no doubt, if they ever hooked up your brain, the needle would be sucked off the bottom of the chart by be massive black hole of dark energy residing in your cranium.

It's important to note, before we had the capability to measure brain activity, we did not have any physical way to verify or confirm what was happening inside a person's head. We discovered that, and before it was discovered, it wasn't known. If this concept of discovery and knowledge applies to brain waves, why can't it also apply to spiritual nature? Perhaps we simply haven't learned how to measure spiritual nature physically, just as there was once a time we couldn't measure brain activity? Were brain waves happening before we discovered how to measure them? Of course they were, and it would have been foolish and closed minded to have concluded there was no such thing, in fact, we may have never discovered how to measure brain waves if we refused to believe they existed.

 

[Boss]

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!

Boss has resumed his CIRCULAR REASONING hole again. Now you are alleging that your imaginary deity "created" luck so every instance of someone being lucky is "evidence" that your imaginary deity exists.

Sorry, I have not mentioned a deity. I personally don't believe in deities. I also didn't claim anything created luck. The point you are missing is, the people who claim blessings could just as easily attributed luck, but they didn't. They believe this wasn't luck, but the result of spiritual intervention, which is why a separate word was created to describe it.

 

[hobelim]

Sorry, I have not mentioned a deity. I personally don't believe in deities. I also didn't claim anything created luck. The point you are missing is, the people who claim blessings could just as easily attributed luck, but they didn't. They believe this wasn't luck, but the result of spiritual intervention, which is why a separate word was created to describe it.

Right, people heard thunder and imagined angels bowling in heaven. Two people were walking in the jungle, one was eaten by a lion and the other lived to tell his tale of being favored by God and angelic beings protecting him from danger only to die another day.

I'm convinced.

 

[dblack]

In essence, the thread question is answered according to whether or not you accept spiritual nature. Those who refuse to acknowledge spiritual nature, can never find the proof they require to believe god exists, while those who do accept spiritual nature, have an abundance of spiritual evidence to support their belief.

Right. I've gathered that much. And I can't answer such a question without a more complete definition of 'spiritual nature'. It seems likely you've been around this shed somewhere in the midst of these 2000 or so posts, so I apologize if I'm asking you to repeat yourself. I was hoping you'd address my question regarding the distinctions among the related concepts of 'non-physical', 'spiritual' and 'supernatural'.

I can accept that man has a non-physical, 'spiritual' nature. But the concept of supernatural is incoherent. Either something is real, or it's not. As I've stated, I believe gods are real, non-physical entities (just as human minds are real, non-physical entities), but they aren't magical in nature. They're subtle, and quite powerful, constructs of human society that we are only beginning to understand.