Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[hobelim]

Emily, on Page 1 of this thread, at the very top, is the OP. In the OP, I have laid out the case and argument for the thread title. Now, maybe things are different here, I'm still new, am I just supposed to copy and paste the OP over and over, until someone addresses the points made in it? I assumed people would actually READ the OP, and then post a reasoned response to the points made, that's usually how debate works everywhere else, are the rules and conditions different here?

I have already told you, I am not interested in a debate about "what kind" of god exists. I have no interest in your Build-A-God game. I already have my own idea of god, I don't need to have others validate my idea. I made a thread to outline definitive proof that god exists. At this point, no one has refuted the points made. I'm still patiently waiting for that, but so far, we seem to have an abundance of chortling morons who like to proclaim themselves victorious without offering anything more than their opinions of me. The more I point this out and refuse to be derailed from the topic, the more angry and vitriolic they have become. I guess they aren't used to people standing up to their ridicule and not allowing their distractions to derail the topic.

Nothing in your OP qualifies as proof of anything other than the reasoning for your own beliefs. You fail to define spirituality or what exactly your spiritual evidence is, consequently you have not provided any evidence or proof for anything.

You may indeed have had spiritual experiences, but why should anyone believe they were good ones? Some people claim to be hard core 'believers' filled with the Holy Spirit and then proceed to squeak and gibber incoherently about Jesus coming to take them up into the sky any minute.



If God is holy the unholy cannot perceive him because their unclean thoughts and impure actions build an impenetrable barrier between themselves and God and so you could provide what might seem like obvious conclusions from now till kingdom come but if everyone you are trying to convince is blind they will never comprehend or perceive anything and will be incapable of accepting those conclusions because acceptance could only happen through understanding..

What better proof of God and what other proof would ever suffice other than the actual presence of the living God?



All arguments aside, have you personally ever heard a single word from God in your entire life and if so how do you know it was God (and not the delusions of an unrestrained imagination)..... and what did he say?

 

[Boss]

Nothing in your OP qualifies as proof of anything other than the reasoning for your own beliefs. You fail to define spirituality or what exactly your spiritual evidence is, consequently you have not provided any evidence or proof for anything.

It doesn't qualify because it doesn't meet your illogical qualification of physical evidence. The spiritual proof is overwhelming, and yes, I did define spirituality and gave examples from 70,000 years of human history, that spirituality has existed, and is inherent to humans as a species. So, the "proof" has been presented, you just reject it because you don't believe in spiritual evidence, but spiritual evidence is the only thing we can objectively analyze in the question of 'existence' regarding a spiritual entity. There is no 'physical' existence, if there were, it would be a 'physical' entity, not spiritual.

You may indeed have had spiritual experiences, but why should anyone believe they were good ones? Some people claim to be hard core 'believers' filled with the Holy Spirit and then proceed to squeak and gibber incoherently about Jesus coming to take them up into the sky any minute.

I never claimed that spiritual experiences were always good ones. I am not here to debate theological understandings. I happen to believe this is even more devout evidence that something must exist, because this persistent trait in mankind is so powerful and all-consuming. Through thousands of years, people have had no problem laying down their lives for the sake of their spiritual belief. People have endured centuries of persecution because they would not forsake their spiritual beliefs.

If God is holy the unholy cannot perceive him because their unclean thoughts and impure actions build an impenetrable barrier between themselves and God and so you could provide what might seem like obvious conclusions from now till kingdom come but if everyone you are trying to convince is blind they will never comprehend or perceive anything and will be incapable of accepting those conclusions because acceptance could only happen through understanding..

I've not said anything about a "holy" god. You are again confusing theology with spiritual existence of something greater than self. However, you are on the right track, the thread OP is "definitive" based on spiritual evidence, not physical. Those who refuse to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence are unable to answer the question of spiritual existence.

What better proof of God and what other proof would ever suffice other than the actual presence of the living God?

Well, because if you had physical proof of God, then God would no longer be non-physical. There would be no spirituality or need for such a thing, and we wouldn't be discussing spiritual existence, because there would be no such thing. The ONLY proof that will EVER suffice to prove a spiritual entity, is spiritual proof. To expect physical proof is illogical, just as illogical as someone who would reject physical proof to cling to spiritual belief.

All arguments aside, have you personally ever heard a single word from God in your entire life and if so how do you know it was God (and not the delusions of an unrestrained imagination)..... and what did he say?

Again, this thread has nothing to do with my personal interpretations of god. I understand the strategy here, I get that you want to turn the thread into a debate of theological beliefs and incarnations of god, because those are fun to pick apart. I get that! But I have been fairly defiant on this, I am not going to discuss my personal beliefs in god here, I will be happy to do so in another thread.

 

[hobelim]

Nothing in your OP qualifies as proof of anything other than the reasoning for your own beliefs. You fail to define spirituality or what exactly your spiritual evidence is, consequently you have not provided any evidence or proof for anything.

It doesn't qualify because it doesn't meet your illogical qualification of physical evidence. The spiritual proof is overwhelming, and yes, I did define spirituality and gave examples from 70,000 years of human history, that spirituality has existed, and is inherent to humans as a species. So, the "proof" has been presented, you just reject it because you don't believe in spiritual evidence, but spiritual evidence is the only thing we can objectively analyze in the question of 'existence' regarding a spiritual entity. There is no 'physical' existence, if there were, it would be a 'physical' entity, not spiritual.
I never claimed that spiritual experiences were always good ones. I am not here to debate theological understandings. I happen to believe this is even more devout evidence that something must exist, because this persistent trait in mankind is so powerful and all-consuming. Through thousands of years, people have had no problem laying down their lives for the sake of their spiritual belief. People have endured centuries of persecution because they would not forsake their spiritual beliefs.

For the vast majority of those 70,000 years most peoples spirituality was nothing more than superstition. Sacrificing virgins to the sun god to insure a good harvest is hardly evidence of anything except ignorance.

I've not said anything about a "holy" god. You are again confusing theology with spiritual existence of something greater than self. However, you are on the right track, the thread OP is "definitive" based on spiritual evidence, not physical. Those who refuse to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence are unable to answer the question of spiritual existence.

Again you have failed to define spirituality as anything more than superstitious beliefs based on ignorance about reality and consequent deranged and illogical behavior.

Well, because if you had physical proof of God, then God would no longer be non-physical. There would be no spirituality or need for such a thing, and we wouldn't be discussing spiritual existence, because there would be no such thing. The ONLY proof that will EVER suffice to prove a spiritual entity, is spiritual proof. To expect physical proof is illogical, just as illogical as someone who would reject physical proof to cling to spiritual belief.

If God is incorporeal, spirit, then him making his actual presence known would never be a physical manifestation and only that which is incorporeal in man, his conscious mind, could perceive him.

Again, this thread has nothing to do with my personal interpretations of god. I understand the strategy here, I get that you want to turn the thread into a debate of theological beliefs and incarnations of god, because those are fun to pick apart. I get that! But I have been fairly defiant on this, I am not going to discuss my personal beliefs in god here, I will be happy to do so in another thread

I didn't ask you about any personal interpretations or beliefs about God.

I asked whether you ever seen or heard a word from the living God in your entire life and if so how do you know it was God and not an overactive imagination, and what did you perceive and hear?

 

[emilynghiem]

Chalk one more up for the Boss!

So far this only shows that the previous exchange
did not succeed in either proving or disproving God.

Can we try again please?

Emily, on Page 1 of this thread, at the very top, is the OP. In the OP, I have laid out the case and argument for the thread title. Now, maybe things are different here, I'm still new, am I just supposed to copy and paste the OP over and over, until someone addresses the points made in it? I assumed people would actually READ the OP, and then post a reasoned response to the points made, that's usually how debate works everywhere else, are the rules and conditions different here?

I have already told you, I am not interested in a debate about "what kind" of god exists. I have no interest in your Build-A-God game. I already have my own idea of god, I don't need to have others validate my idea. I made a thread to outline definitive proof that god exists. At this point, no one has refuted the points made. I'm still patiently waiting for that, but so far, we seem to have an abundance of chortling morons who like to proclaim themselves victorious without offering anything more than their opinions of me. The more I point this out and refuse to be derailed from the topic, the more angry and vitriolic they have become. I guess they aren't used to people standing up to their ridicule and not allowing their distractions to derail the topic.

1. Hi Boss that's fine if no one refuted your points, and I agree it is possible to prove something exists without defining it; but this has not resolved any issues. So is it clear that neither of your points is necessary or helpful to prove the content issue?
You have proven that these are not necessary. so great.

2. as for (a). your misinterpretation of what I am saying because I am NOT trying to BUILD God but BUILD a consensus on people's understanding of God which is different and (b). not needing anyone to validate your ideas

the whole reason people have not proven there is a God is we do not
agree we are talking about the same things

so yes, it IS helpful and/or necessary to align our beliefs we already have.
it's NOT about "validating your ideas" which of course are already true for you;
but showing how these translate or equate to something equivalent with someone's else's sytem or perspective

Your ideas are already valid, but how do they relate or align with someone else's valid ideas?
I am NOT saying that someone else has to "agree with you" that 3+3 = 6 for this to be true.
I am saying that someone who calls it "6" and someone who calls it "a half dozen" are talking about the SAME quantity.
Both statements are true and valid on their own, without anyone else endorsing that.

I hope this is clear so you do not misperceive or misportray my intent and process.

I hope you and Newpolitics can understand why it is necessary for proving things universally across as
diverse a population as the human race, to INCLUDE everyone's perspective, way of relating and frame of reference.

Boss you can define the proof or process for you, and that's fine.
But for other people they obviously need a different proof or different process.
Or else we'd be done by now just by going with what you said
Of course this is not enough, more is needed.

===================

here let me try to spell it out more clearly: let's say we're trying to prove that
gravity exists and works a certain way, there are universal laws how this thing works
wherever it may come from

A. I am NOT trying to say let's arbitrarily define gravity using whatever people
think of and then try to prove or disprove it
B. I am going to each person in their respective context and
finding out how they experience this thing called gravity
whether they call it the FORCE or laws of attraction
They can believe in a flat earth and still perceive there is a force keeping
or pulling things down
They could believe it is some magical force pushing from above to keep thing down
Whatever
What we are looking for is whatever THAT person calls the same things
as what you and I call gravity

C. then we show how the different groups all follow the same concepts
even the flat earth people or the people who believe it some magical force or whatever

And we still align all these different groups to agree that we
all experience this thing, whether you call it GRAVITY or the FORCE etc.

D. last we can go into how does this thing really work
why in some cases do books stay on the shelf because of gravity
and other times they slide off to the floor because of gravity

we can talk about applications and uses of this gravity
so we can make practical use of it for common good purpose

E. and some people may still NOT call it gravity,
may still believe the earth is flat, may still NEVER follow the
physics and math that gives technical language for explaining this gravity
but we can all agree we are experiencing and using the same force
and where possible agree how to use and apply it for maximum benefit

F. also the same reasons people might have a hangup over reaching a consnesus
on Gravity, we might find here discussing God:
1. distrust of people's agenda, that you are trying to impose some foreign system for your own self-benefit and do not value or respect the given system of the people you are addressing
2. not using the same terms or having a hangup because of negative associations
with "other people or groups" that use those terms rejected by a different group
using their own terms
3. getting hung up on a conflict or contradiction along the way that could have been resolved to avoid throwing the rest of the proof process
for example, with the process of spiritual healing, many people point to cases that fail, and cite that as proof that it does not work; while the truly effective and safe methods and process of spiritual healing can explain both what causes it to fail or to work and how to correct the problems in cases that can be helped, so there is a way to explain both cases once you understand the process.
the analogy I make using gravity, is the books on the shelf.
If the shelf is slanted, then the books fall down.
If the shelf is level, then the books stay put.
So the same laws of gravity are at work in both cases, though the results are different.

With you and newpolitic, you have shown that your points so far
have not moved anyone any closer to a better understanding of what God is.

We have only demonstrated and proven that these points are not the issue.

Boss if you are only concerned with what you need to know God exists,
then that works for you, but what about everyone else.

I am interested in mapping out what everyone else needs, using groupings
to organize people in networks by those who follow the same patterns or systems
or similar ways of reasoning.

If this method works for you, then other people who need it will be included in your group.
But what about me, or Newpolitics or other people who aren't getting the same thing
you are out of this. We clearly need something else. So that is what I ask to explore.

There are only so many people, and so many religious or political groupings.
There are many variations of these, but enough cohesion between the
main groups that a consensus can be formed by reconciling points and putting
aside issues that are not necessary conditions on agreement on the main ideas.

And no this will NOT be built by arbitrarily throwing around random defintions
but for this to have relevance, people will pick what makes sense and has
meaning to them. So I look forward to what you offer that I trust will be
helpful to many people who do not believe in the limited perceptions of God
causing so many conflicts out there. I agree we should avoid those problems!

Thank you Boss
Thank you Newpolitics
if you haven't given up on us yet -- please don't!
I really would like to work this out because
of how both of you are so discerning and articulate with your points.
if we can work this out, it will help other people to do the same.
so I think it is important to find out how to do that!

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: can we agree that "God" represents the infinite source of all goodness, life, love, and truth/wisdom in the world, whether this "God" is self-existent as a "God of being" or "creation/universe" itself, or had a beginning or steps in the process of realizing the universal laws or processes going on in the world.

Does this cover everything that people generally mean by God?

Define god.

OK so Boss does not want to limit God to "creator"
and suggested metaphoric level meanings instead.

Can we start there please?

And Newpolitics, yes, the argument or conversation is bound to shift,
if we are going to be successful, since clearly the current approach deadlocked
and is not working too well. so we may have to hit control-alt-delete
on this and go back and restart. both you and Boss can be right at the same time,
but if you are coming at each other as skew lines, and we only have a flat
blackboard to work with, we may need to reset this up on the same plane
as the common frame of reference to work within.

Boss suggested starting a new thread, are you okay just
starting here? can we start by examining what metaphoric
meanings or aspects of God are open enough where
we don't have to fear getting snagged on some issue
someone may have with the terms discussed.

Boss, can I invite Derideo Te and Numan to help us
pick terms or meanings general enough
that won't cause issues with nontheists/atheists.

Newpolitics asked for a definition of God
can we throw out some ideas and start there?
does not have to be perfect, let's go through
all the possible angles and find one that works for now. Thanks!

And if you prefer to start a new thread, to brainstorm and
go over different terms/manifestations of God or universal laws,
please do so, and please link the thread back here, so we can
still proceed with this thread as well if you want! I do want to see this through to
a logical conclusion. I am very interested in what you both
have to say, and don't want this disrupted over a technical
issue of how to set up the arguments to begin with. Yours truly, Emily

Emily, if this was Oldguy or FA_Q2 there would be every reason to do so as you suggest but sometimes you have to know when to pick your battles. In this instance more than one poster has attempted to reason with Boss and run headlong into a brick wall of obstinacy and obfuscation. This is a lost cause and there is far more fertile ground for your talents elsewhere in my opinion.

Thank you DT, to his credit Boss did offer to focus on
metaphorical aspects of God and start a new thread.
can we focus on that? that seemed like a good lead to me!
people respond differently to different ppl and contexts.
if we deadlock here with Boss and Newpolitics not
getting past their points they both brought up,
I'm happy to try something else.

And other people brought up some points
too, so I am happy to explore that and see
if NP and Boss can jump into a different setup and go a different direction that gets somewhere more productive. willing to try anything thanks DT

and I think the stodginess is due to being jumped on and wary
of atheist opponents trying to set theists up to fail. so if we
remove that factor, that stodginess will also be reduced over time.

NP is also used to being set up for circular arguments
and is not used to the idea there is a way around that.
let's try shall we? thanks for your support and understanding
of people and their ways. the more honest and open we are about
our limitations and personal biases, and the less we judge or jump on each
other for them, the process will open up to better angles and insights
and will get easier and easier. we are all human and need to release
stress, which won't suddenly happen overnight but over time as we practice
interacting with each other in new ways and new contexts. just trial and error!

 

[Boss]

For the vast majority of those 70,000 years most peoples spirituality was nothing more than superstition. Sacrificing virgins to the sun god to insure a good harvest is hardly evidence of anything except ignorance.

Again you have failed to define spirituality as anything more than superstitious beliefs based on ignorance about reality and consequent deranged and illogical behavior.

And all of these speculations you are making, they are recorded where and by whom? What we have evidence of, is human spiritual belief. How that may have manifested itself into various "superstitious" actions, is not relevant to this discussion of existence. In a sense, we can say that all religious belief is superstitious in nature, that's why it's totally not important to include it in the evaluation of whether a spiritual god exists. These are only examples of man dealing with a spiritual entity they can't understand.

The fact remains, as long as humans have been human, they have been spiritually connected. Superstition is often confused with spirituality, but they are simply not the same. We can observe modern history of man, and see a precipitous drop in purely superstitious beliefs, as science has evolved to explain things. With spirituality, we see no drop-off whatsoever, as many humans are spiritual now as ever. Over thousands and thousands of years, this spiritual attribute in man has not changed.

Well, because if you had physical proof of God, then God would no longer be non-physical. There would be no spirituality or need for such a thing, and we wouldn't be discussing spiritual existence, because there would be no such thing. The ONLY proof that will EVER suffice to prove a spiritual entity, is spiritual proof. To expect physical proof is illogical, just as illogical as someone who would reject physical proof to cling to spiritual belief.

If God is incorporeal, spirit, then him making his actual presence known would never be a physical manifestation and only that which is incorporeal in man, his conscious mind, could perceive him.

Presence means what? Because, god's spiritual presence has been known for ages, and testified to by BILLIONS of people, many who gave their lives for acknowledging their spiritual beliefs. That's one of the main points of my argument, you refuse to accept spiritual evidence and demand physical evidence of a spiritual entity. Here, you seem to vainly be implying that IF this spiritual entity is real, "he" should at least show you a hologram or something, so that you can believe in "him." Why do you believe spiritual god cares whether you believe or not? Why would any spiritual entity be inclined to manifest itself in physical form? Tell ya what, why don't you manifest yourself as a spiritual entity and go make these illogical complaints to god?

Again, this thread has nothing to do with my personal interpretations of god. I understand the strategy here, I get that you want to turn the thread into a debate of theological beliefs and incarnations of god, because those are fun to pick apart. I get that! But I have been fairly defiant on this, I am not going to discuss my personal beliefs in god here, I will be happy to do so in another thread

I didn't ask you about any personal interpretations or beliefs about God.

I asked whether you ever seen or heard a word from the living God in your entire life and if so how do you know it was God and not an overactive imagination, and what did you perceive and hear?

Again, my personal experience is not the issue here.

 

[emilynghiem]

Boss: what do you think of the idea of proving that forgiveness
has a positive effect on people? whether this is mental/phsyical in the brain cehmistry
or it is "spiritual"
Can we prove the same healing process works, and has measurable effects on
healing the mind body and human realtions
**regardless*** if people call it physical/human chemistry or spiritual?
how about that approach?

without depending on any concept that it is necessarily spiritual?
is that cool or what?

Nothing in your OP qualifies as proof of anything other than the reasoning for your own beliefs. You fail to define spirituality or what exactly your spiritual evidence is, consequently you have not provided any evidence or proof for anything.

It doesn't qualify because it doesn't meet your illogical qualification of physical evidence. The spiritual proof is overwhelming, and yes, I did define spirituality and gave examples from 70,000 years of human history, that spirituality has existed, and is inherent to humans as a species. So, the "proof" has been presented, you just reject it because you don't believe in spiritual evidence, but spiritual evidence is the only thing we can objectively analyze in the question of 'existence' regarding a spiritual entity. There is no 'physical' existence, if there were, it would be a 'physical' entity, not spiritual.

You may indeed have had spiritual experiences, but why should anyone believe they were good ones? Some people claim to be hard core 'believers' filled with the Holy Spirit and then proceed to squeak and gibber incoherently about Jesus coming to take them up into the sky any minute.

I never claimed that spiritual experiences were always good ones. I am not here to debate theological understandings. I happen to believe this is even more devout evidence that something must exist, because this persistent trait in mankind is so powerful and all-consuming. Through thousands of years, people have had no problem laying down their lives for the sake of their spiritual belief. People have endured centuries of persecution because they would not forsake their spiritual beliefs.



I've not said anything about a "holy" god. You are again confusing theology with spiritual existence of something greater than self. However, you are on the right track, the thread OP is "definitive" based on spiritual evidence, not physical. Those who refuse to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence are unable to answer the question of spiritual existence.

What better proof of God and what other proof would ever suffice other than the actual presence of the living God?

Well, because if you had physical proof of God, then God would no longer be non-physical. There would be no spirituality or need for such a thing, and we wouldn't be discussing spiritual existence, because there would be no such thing. The ONLY proof that will EVER suffice to prove a spiritual entity, is spiritual proof. To expect physical proof is illogical, just as illogical as someone who would reject physical proof to cling to spiritual belief.

All arguments aside, have you personally ever heard a single word from God in your entire life and if so how do you know it was God (and not the delusions of an unrestrained imagination)..... and what did he say?

Again, this thread has nothing to do with my personal interpretations of god. I understand the strategy here, I get that you want to turn the thread into a debate of theological beliefs and incarnations of god, because those are fun to pick apart. I get that! But I have been fairly defiant on this, I am not going to discuss my personal beliefs in god here, I will be happy to do so in another thread.

OK Boss I think you are trying to respect the limits of this thread.
Please start a new thread or can I start one and invite you in to answer? is that better?

 

[S.J.]

In the OP, You said there is no physical proof for a thoughts existence. This is false, but never mind, since you don't have the ability to reason. So, I ask you, if there is no physical proof for something which manifests in the physical realm, how can it exist in the physical at all? This is one of those pesky contradictions I was talking about. You claim thoughts exist in the physical, yet have no physical evidence. Something can not be physical and non-physical at the same time, yet this is what you are implying.

Again.... (god i'm getting tired of typing 'again') I never said there is no physical proof of a thought's existence, I said there is no physical proof of a thought, because a thought is not a physical element. You countered with the "electrical impulses" argument, which simply does not prove anything except that thought happened. This kind of obtuse parsing is what you seem to enjoy pulling. You can not prove or disprove what any given person is thinking. No machine or technology exists to do this. You can not define things like "inspiration" in physical terms, because there are things like this, which are not physical in nature. That was the point being made, and all you want to do is act like a jackass and be obtuse.

I agree that something can't be physical and non-physical at the same time... so why do you keep insisting it means something, that there is no physical evidence for god? Are you saying that because god doesn't defy all logic and reason, you can't believe in him?

Sounds like it to me.

Your an idiot dude. I'm done debating you. Have fun convincing nobody of nothing.

We have a winner!

Congratulations, Boss.

 

[newpolitics]

Again.... (god i'm getting tired of typing 'again') I never said there is no physical proof of a thought's existence, I said there is no physical proof of a thought, because a thought is not a physical element. You countered with the "electrical impulses" argument, which simply does not prove anything except that thought happened. This kind of obtuse parsing is what you seem to enjoy pulling. You can not prove or disprove what any given person is thinking. No machine or technology exists to do this. You can not define things like "inspiration" in physical terms, because there are things like this, which are not physical in nature. That was the point being made, and all you want to do is act like a jackass and be obtuse.

I agree that something can't be physical and non-physical at the same time... so why do you keep insisting it means something, that there is no physical evidence for god? Are you saying that because god doesn't defy all logic and reason, you can't believe in him?

Sounds like it to me.

Your an idiot dude. I'm done debating you. Have fun convincing nobody of nothing.

We have a winner!

Congratulations, Boss.

SJ, I wouldn't step in here. Your worse at debate than boss. For a while, I actually thought you two were the same person. The idiocy here is eerily reminiscent of you.

 

[S.J.]

Your an idiot dude. I'm done debating you. Have fun convincing nobody of nothing.

We have a winner!

Congratulations, Boss.

SJ, I wouldn't step in here. Your worse at debate than boss.

Funny you should say that, because this debate ended the same way our's did. You failed to make your case, and resorted to name calling and personal attacks, then said you were done debating. Boss kicked your sorry ass.

 

[newpolitics]

We have a winner!

Congratulations, Boss.

SJ, I wouldn't step in here. Your worse at debate than boss.

Funny you should say that, because this debate ended the same way our's did. You failed to make your case, and resorted to name calling and personal attacks, then said you were done debating. Boss kicked your sorry ass.

Obviously you are going to stick up for your team. If you think boss won this, then you two deserve eachother. Maybe start another Ray Comfort/ Kirk Cameron or Eric Hovind/ Sye Bruggengate duo and become the laughing stock of the YouTube community?

 

[Boss]

Emily, I won't re-quote your whole post, too much... but here are a few things I want to respond to:

the whole reason people have not proven there is a God is we do not
agree we are talking about the same things

so yes, it IS helpful and/or necessary to align our beliefs we already have.
it's NOT about "validating your ideas" which of course are already true for you;
but showing how these translate or equate to something equivalent with someone's else's sytem or perspective

I have stated in the OP, the reason proving god is difficult. It is because some people refuse to accept spiritual evidence, and demand physical proof of a spiritual entity. These people generally lack the understanding that "existence" means anything other than physical existence, because this is all they recognize. To understand spiritual existence, you first have to accept spiritual evidence and believe in a spiritual realm. If my argument were: Definitive proof that a physical god exists... I have failed to prove that. I can't prove that. If I said: Definitive physical proof that god exists... I have also failed. But for anyone willing to evaluate spiritual evidence, it is overwhelming, absolute, irrefutable, incontrovertible, and definitive.

With you and newpolitic, you have shown that your points so far
have not moved anyone any closer to a better understanding of what God is.

It doesn't have anything to do with my points, it has to do with NP not accepting spiritual evidence. As you can see, I have not been able to convince him to, and I predict I won't ever. Also, I am not trying to move anyone closer to a better understanding of what god is, I only presented an argument to definitively prove that god exists. I'm deliberately trying to avoid a debate on what god is, because people's opinions vary greatly on that topic. We need not define it to evaluate existence.

Boss if you are only concerned with what you need to know God exists,
then that works for you, but what about everyone else.

Let's imagine you are a science teacher, and you end up in some obscure place where the children have all been taught spiritual understandings for the things which happen in the universe, and this is all they know... You start to try and teach them about climate, how clouds are formed, rain etc... and they just look at you like you grew another head, and say, but that's impossible, god made it happen! So you go to your principle and try to explain the problem, and he gives you the same look... are you crazy, emily? We all KNOW that god makes the rain and controls the climate, what's this 'meteorologist' stuff you're spewing? So you go to the school board, and the same thing happens. What can you do, as a science teacher, to teach these people legitimate science, if they refuse to accept physical principles of science?

That's kind of what we're facing here in reverse, people who have completely closed their minds to spirituality. They don't recognize it, they refuse to think about things in those terms. Spiritual evidence means not a thing to them, because they don't believe in spirituality. They are consumed by the material world and material things, physical presence, physical existence, and that's all they understand. So when someone talks about spiritual existence, they dismiss it immediately because of lack of physical evidence to support it. You can't ever change that kind of mind, it is CLOSED.

I was concerned with presenting an ironclad case for definitive proof that god exists, and I think I did that. Much of the conclusive and definitive evidence is spiritual in nature, and others might not believe in spiritual evidence, but that's not my problem.

 

[Boss]

Obviously you are going to stick up for your team.

Ah... so this is a "team" thing for you? You're one of THOSE people! So now, this means, in another totally unrelated threat topic, you will automatically "reject" whatever opinion I have, because you recognize me as the enemy of your "team?" And even if we happen to agree on something, it won't matter, you'll only begrudgingly acknowledge that, because I am on the "other team."

Nice.

 

[newpolitics]

Obviously you are going to stick up for your team.

Ah... so this is a "team" thing for you? You're one of THOSE people! So now, this means, in another totally unrelated threat topic, you will automatically "reject" whatever opinion I have, because you recognize me as the enemy of your "team?" And even if we happen to agree on something, it won't matter, you'll only begrudgingly acknowledge that, because I am on the "other team."

Nice.

Give it up dude. You failed.

 

[S.J.]

SJ, I wouldn't step in here. Your worse at debate than boss.

Funny you should say that, because this debate ended the same way our's did. You failed to make your case, and resorted to name calling and personal attacks, then said you were done debating. Boss kicked your sorry ass.

Obviously you are going to stick up for your team. If you think boss won this, then you two deserve eachother. Maybe start another Ray Comfort/ Kirk Cameron or Eric Hovind/ Sye Bruggengate duo and become the laughing stock of the YouTube community?

I'm familiar with your debate tactics. You start out trying to dazzle everyone with your "intellectual prowess" (cough). Then, when that doesn't work, you move to ridicule, then name calling and personal insults to rattle your opponent, accusing them of being less intelligent than you. Then, when you can't escape the fact that you're losing, you proclaim your opponent not worthy of debate. I thought Boss handled you skillfully throughout the debate, while you steadily deteriorated into a whiny child who didn't get his way. You lose.

 

[newpolitics]

Funny you should say that, because this debate ended the same way our's did. You failed to make your case, and resorted to name calling and personal attacks, then said you were done debating. Boss kicked your sorry ass.

Obviously you are going to stick up for your team. If you think boss won this, then you two deserve eachother. Maybe start another Ray Comfort/ Kirk Cameron or Eric Hovind/ Sye Bruggengate duo and become the laughing stock of the YouTube community?

I'm familiar with your debate tactics. You start out trying to dazzle everyone with your "intellectual prowess" (cough). Then, when that doesn't work, you move to ridicule, then name calling and personal insults to rattle your opponent, accusing them of being less intelligent than you. Then, when you can't escape the fact that you're losing, you proclaim your opponent not worthy of debate. I thought Boss handled you skillfully throughout the debate, while you steadily deteriorated into a whiny child who didn't get his way. You lose.

Okay!

 

[Boss]

Obviously you are going to stick up for your team.

Ah... so this is a "team" thing for you? You're one of THOSE people! So now, this means, in another totally unrelated threat topic, you will automatically "reject" whatever opinion I have, because you recognize me as the enemy of your "team?" And even if we happen to agree on something, it won't matter, you'll only begrudgingly acknowledge that, because I am on the "other team."

Nice.

Give it up dude. You failed.

Man, if I ever believed I had failed to a loser like you, I'd be searching for razor blades.

Oh, and I don't need to "give it up" because you already did that, when you stomped off in a huff a few posts ago and said you were done.

 

[newpolitics]

Ah... so this is a "team" thing for you? You're one of THOSE people! So now, this means, in another totally unrelated threat topic, you will automatically "reject" whatever opinion I have, because you recognize me as the enemy of your "team?" And even if we happen to agree on something, it won't matter, you'll only begrudgingly acknowledge that, because I am on the "other team."

Nice.

Give it up dude. You failed.

Man, if I ever believed I had failed to a loser like you, I'd be searching for razor blades.

Oh, and I don't need to "give it up" because you already did that, when you stomped off in a huff a few posts ago and said you were done.

Look! Even your butt buddy SJ thanked you already! See, you two are a team!

I have demonstrated that you are an asshat that is not worth debating. I only have limited patience with idiots who can't be honest.

 

[newpolitics]

You gave up when you said you weren't trying to prove that god exists... Even those it is the title for this thread. Do you even know what a contradiction is? You should before you continue to embarrass yourself and your friends.

 

[Boss]

You gave up when you said you weren't trying to prove that god exists... Even those it is the title for this thread. Do you even know what a contradiction is? You should before you continue to embarrass yourself and your friends.

What you need to start doing is, using the "quote" feature to show us where I supposedly said these things that you keep claiming I have said. I think this makes about the dozenth time I have had to say... I did not say that!

The thread title is a question, in case you missed that detail. The OP gives a well-explained and articulated answer to the question. As of yet, you have not refuted my answer. You keep attempting to manipulate the debate, then you try to manipulate my words, then you try to derail the thread, then you try to pretend that you have defeated me way back... it's really quite amusing.

I guess you figure most people are twits like yourself, who won't bother to actually READ the thread, and they'll weigh in to lend support to their "team" here? Is that the idea? Just keep obfuscating and dodging the argument, refusing to stay on topic, refusing to address the points, hurling insults and ridicule, proclaiming yourself right, and waiting for the cavalry to arrive?