Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[JimBowie1958]

Signatures must be limited to the equivalent of 10 lines standard size type including spacing.
No Advertising or Soliciting in signatures.

words of wisdom?

lol, no just too busy to change it yet. sigs are not that important to me

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dorito is worse, he just wants to lie his ass off as much as possible. He claims the OP has been debunked, but doesn't offer a single point of debunking. Then, he continues to maintain I am a covert Christian Fundamentalist operative, secretly trying to indoctrinate you with my dangerous Christian teachings. Of course, if I am truly a Christian who is forsaking and denying Christ, I have condemned myself to eternal damnation, but I guess Dorito thinks my fooling him is well worth that.

You might be right. He could be projecting his own behavior as a norm and onto you as well and he may think it justified.


So far I have not had a problem with him so much.

Jim, you come across as a normal reasonable person who understands that not everyone believes as you do. Furthermore yours truly is more than willing to defend your right to your beliefs.

On the other hand Boss is attempting to claim something that defies all logic, facts, reason and common sense. When challenged with logic, reason, facts and common sense he starts screaming that these challenges are purely motivated by a "hatred" for "religion". His irrational responses have resulted in him attracting attention that his OP probably doesn't deserve. In many respects he is his own worst enemy but that fact seems to escape him too. Boss is entitled to his own beliefs but not his own unsubstantiated "truthiness" and "factoids".

One more point. This is a message board and people are free to express themselves as they see fit within the bounds established by the moderators and admins. The impressions that others form are based entirely upon what is posted. Given that Boss resorts to crude insults while claiming to be an adherent of Spiritualism gives lie to his own posts. This dichotomy seems to be beyond his grasp.

I don't know, you both seem fairly reasonable to me, but the style these days is to read your opponent and interpret what he says in sort of a Chick Tract manner, taking things at their worst possible meaning.

In short, I think you two may be talking past each other using the same words but with entirely different meanings to yourselves that the other isn't getting.

All I can say is how people come across to me, and neither of you seem irrational. But then again I have not even tried to read the whole thread, not at all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your fallacy is assuming that the universe was "created" in the first place. The universe has always existed and will always exist (per the Laws of Physics) so there is no need for any "creator" at all.

It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for time/space to have ALWAYS existed, else we would never have arrived at the PRESENT time.

The concept of a cyclical universe with multiple big bangs is now gaining more and more credence amongst reputable scientists.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cyclical+universe+multiple+big+bangs&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS438US513&oq=cyclical+universe+multiple+big+bangs&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3.12475j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Our current time did begin with the big bang. However the existence of matter and energy preceded the big bang since the singularity was all matter and energy in the universe compressed into a single object.

I have read different ideas on what actually existed at time point ZERO. Some seem to think that there was nothing prior to ZERO, some say it was there before but only sprang into existence in an instant. Some say Membranes of an interdimensional region 'touched' (whatever that actually means) and caused the Big Bang.

All I know is this: no matter how many iterations of time you use, whether linear, circular or spiral or whatever, an infinite number of finite periods of time cannot have preceded the present. It is as impossible as counting to and down from an infinite value. Cant happen. This fact is not of the Xeno paradox sort in that no time is reduced in parallel to with distance, etc. This infinite limit is simply a mathematical fact.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The universe didn't exist before the Big Bang. The only theory which does't theorize this, speculates the universe expands and contracts, but this also defies physics. Everything within our universe has a beginning and end, so your theory also defies logic.

Militant secularists prefer to think of the pre-Big Bang period as material but more expansive than our own, and somehow still eternal. Hawkins poses the idea of imaginary time and circular time flow, but all this does is kick the can down the road.

An infinitely existing universe is impossible.

Quite the opposite. A "created" universe is improbable whereas an infinitely existing universe is both logical and fully conforms to the law of conservation of mass.

My point is that an infinitely old universe is impossible due to the nature of infinite limits. They can be approached but never reached. Infinitely distant limits from the negative side are impossible to derive from as there is no starting point.

The conservation of mass is not infringed by creation since it comes from an infinite source of energy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

More profound ignorance from the Boss. Needless to say you are incapable of substantiating either of those mindless allegations with hard scientific facts from reputable sources.

Which, interestingly, applies to your gawds. It suggests a designer of your gawds which in turns suggests a super-designer, suggesting a super-super-designer, etc., etc.

There is nothing before the 'first' thing. There is no limit to the matter/energy that can come from an infinitely powerful being. God exists outside of time, therefore nothing exists before Him.

You confuse the Big Bang theory with prior non-existence. This is a tactic of religionists as it gives them a window whereby a supernatural “belch”, and their gawds have magically *poofed* all of existence into being.

Since the Big Bang has been fairly well described by science via normal natural processes, there is nothing 'magical' about it.

You atheists like to keep using the word 'magical' as some kind of pejorative, but you misuse it so much, I don't think very many of you actually knows what it means.

The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe. What we do not, and as yet cannot see, is the prior state of existence before the Big Bang.

This barrier to observation is sometimes known as Planck's Wall. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

Conclusion: Conservation of Energy did not play a part in creation...it was a by-product....
What lies behind it? A second universe budding matter and energy into our own, as once suggested by Stephen Hawking? A collapsing universe forming the cosmeg? A supernatural creator breathing existence from non-existence? We cannot know through logical or even scientific means. But that there is something beyond the wall is entirely logical.

It may be logical but it is not SCIENTIFIC because you cannot test it.

And whether there was some materialistic pre-existence or not, eventually the flow of time has to have a beginning point.

Ironically, the argument that because we cannot see it, it does not exist, is an argument for the non-existence of any gawds.

lol, you do not understand what the term 'eternal' means if you think that the nonexistence of energy/matter prior to the Big Bang is an argument against an infinite eternal interdimensional being.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well let's feel sorry for daws.

Before you attempt a response you start it with an insult Mr. Slapdick.

even your mockery sucks slapdick..
always you're wrong

Poor daws.

I skip over most of his shit now; waste of time.

 

[BreezeWood]

But I have made no argument for any specific kind of god. Matter doesn't create matter, spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe. There is no special reason such a force would require creation itself. This is a strawman argument, generally thrown out by disbelievers. You see... you are now arguing that the physically non-existent spiritually entity can't be real, or it would have to at some point, been physically created. Do you see the flaw here? When we speak of something being created, we mean a physical creation of something, and spiritual energy doesn't physically exist. It doesn't require physical creation, it is just there and always has been. Even before the physical universe.

Boss: But I have made no argument for any specific kind of god - spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe - and spiritual energy doesn't physically exist. It doesn't require physical creation, it is just there and always has been. Even before the physical universe.


"spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe"


really, without lifting a finger

oh, and is there any reasoning behind what is created, are you speaking of life forms as well.

 

[BreezeWood]

OK. No surprise here that one can find authenticity in the Bible, but what the hell is an X-Bible?

an indication of the tragic misrepresentation of Antiquity by the Judea / Christian religions through their obfuscation of religious text.

 

[Boss]

But I have made no argument for any specific kind of god. Matter doesn't create matter, spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe. There is no special reason such a force would require creation itself. This is a strawman argument, generally thrown out by disbelievers. You see... you are now arguing that the physically non-existent spiritually entity can't be real, or it would have to at some point, been physically created. Do you see the flaw here? When we speak of something being created, we mean a physical creation of something, and spiritual energy doesn't physically exist. It doesn't require physical creation, it is just there and always has been. Even before the physical universe.

Boss: But I have made no argument for any specific kind of god - spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe - and spiritual energy doesn't physically exist. It doesn't require physical creation, it is just there and always has been. Even before the physical universe.


"spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe"


really, without lifting a finger

oh, and is there any reasoning behind what is created, are you speaking of life forms as well.

Since when do I need to prove something has reasoning ability in order to create intelligently or exist as spiritual energy?

...Yes, without lifting a physical finger which spiritual entities don't have.

 

[hobelim]

But I have made no argument for any specific kind of god. Matter doesn't create matter, spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe. There is no special reason such a force would require creation itself. This is a strawman argument, generally thrown out by disbelievers. You see... you are now arguing that the physically non-existent spiritually entity can't be real, or it would have to at some point, been physically created. Do you see the flaw here? When we speak of something being created, we mean a physical creation of something, and spiritual energy doesn't physically exist. It doesn't require physical creation, it is just there and always has been. Even before the physical universe.

Boss: But I have made no argument for any specific kind of god - spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe - and spiritual energy doesn't physically exist. It doesn't require physical creation, it is just there and always has been. Even before the physical universe.


"spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe"


really, without lifting a finger

oh, and is there any reasoning behind what is created, are you speaking of life forms as well.

Since when do I need to prove something has reasoning ability in order to create intelligently or exist as spiritual energy?

...Yes, without lifting a physical finger which spiritual entities don't have.

How can anything without reasoning ability create intelligently?

 

[Boss]

Jim, you come across as a normal reasonable person who understands that not everyone believes as you do. Furthermore yours truly is more than willing to defend your right to your beliefs.

On the other hand Boss is attempting to claim something that defies all logic, facts, reason and common sense. When challenged with logic, reason, facts and common sense he starts screaming that these challenges are purely motivated by a "hatred" for "religion". His irrational responses have resulted in him attracting attention that his OP probably doesn't deserve. In many respects he is his own worst enemy but that fact seems to escape him too. Boss is entitled to his own beliefs but not his own unsubstantiated "truthiness" and "factoids".

I've repeatedly shown where your explanations for humans spirituality defy science, nature and logic. Where your explanations for its persistence as our most defining attribute, defies Darwin's own theories. How you have absolutely NO science to support your argument that spiritual nature is non existent.

I have never tried to entitle myself to my own facts. That is what you and the disbelievers want to do. You want to claim that it has been somehow 'proven' that spiritual nature doesn't exist, and those who believe it does, are refusing to accept science. You won't show us any scientific evidence to support your claims, you just keep acting as if this is common knowledge you need not support, while challenging others to present science to refute your views. Furthermore, you illogically demand the evidence for a spiritual entity be solely physical evidence, which spiritual entities do not provide, since they are spiritual and not physical.

Contrary to your claims, I admitted in the first two paragraphs of the OP, that some people are incapable of acknowledging spiritual nature, and this question can never be answered for them. I do not demand that you believe the same as myself or agree with me, I go out of my way to point out that you don't, and won't ever. Still, you people go on for page after page, trying to argue a point that you can never make, and know that you'll never make, seeking an answer that you can never find, and know you will never find. When I point out why I think you do this irrational thing, you get angry... probably because I am right... and start attacking me for that as well.

I've been around message boards for years. I've pissed off many people to this degree, it's not new to me. Definitive Proof that GOD Exists? was my creation, and the title as well as the argument, is designed to provoke thought and challenge conventional wisdoms. I fully intended for you to become engaged in the conversation, intentionally provoked you, as a matter of fact. I knew that you, and other religion-haters, would not be able to resist such a title and argument, you'd have to entertain us with your thoughts. I admit, I had no idea it would be this popular.

Now, the thread has grown to 75 pages, and I suspect it will continue to grow, and although every refutation of the OP offered up, has been shown to defy nature, science, and logic, you have decided to 'win the argument' by claiming you won the argument long ago, and I am merely sticking around to be kicked about during your victory lap. There are no quotes posted by me, contradicted by you, so those aren't being proudly paraded around... something you normally do on such a victory lap. But that's okay, there are enough of your 'friends' here to slap you on the back and make you think this was pulled off.

I've seen this movie plenty of times.

 

[JimBowie1958]

OK. No surprise here that one can find authenticity in the Bible, but what the hell is an X-Bible?

an indication of the tragic misrepresentation of Antiquity by the Judea / Christian religions through their obfuscation of religious text.

That didn't really answer my question

 

[Boss]

Boss: But I have made no argument for any specific kind of god - spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe - and spiritual energy doesn't physically exist. It doesn't require physical creation, it is just there and always has been. Even before the physical universe.


"spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe"


really, without lifting a finger

oh, and is there any reasoning behind what is created, are you speaking of life forms as well.

Since when do I need to prove something has reasoning ability in order to create intelligently or exist as spiritual energy?

...Yes, without lifting a physical finger which spiritual entities don't have.

How can anything without reasoning ability create intelligently?

Well, because it resides in a different realm than physical nature, certainly!
Here again, we run into a problem with how you comprehend the terms of the argument and how those who believe in spiritual nature comprehend those same terms. The only concept of rationality you have, is physical, from the physical realm. The spiritual realm is simply not confined to physical rationale. Yep... it's a pretty far out thing to try and wrap your mind around, I agree... that's precisely why man developed religions.

I didn't say that the intelligent designer was a physical entity living on a cloud with angels and a harp. That's quite mad, in my opinion. I believe spiritual energy created the physical universe, because physical energy did not yet exist. I see far too much circumstance which had to work out is specific ways, to specific degrees, and in specific timing to even enable the simplest scientific explanations for origin of life. Even if all of life sprang forth from a single cell organism, it came from spiritual energy. The evidence for an intelligent designer is order to the universe. The WHY behind the HOW in science.

Now... "intelligent designer" means different things to different people. To you, it means an individual expressing creative imagination, rationalizing and planning through a process, as humans do in the physical universe. But the spiritual universe is quite different. It does not have to conform to rules of the physical universe, and it doesn't. You can chortle that this is "convenient" but it's just the truth. It's why this question can't ever be answered for you. The ability to comprehend spiritual nature doesn't exist in your mind, it's not there. At every turn of the investigation, you mistakenly apply physical science and physical limitation on spiritual energy and spiritual existence. This causes you to draw completely illogical conclusions, which serve to support your disbelief.

 

[flowery]

.

cure 4 Atheism



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0QX6h2nBl4]cure 4 Atheism [Part 1/5] - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51tfYQ9-GEs]cure 4 Atheism [Part 2/5]. - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47oWDPzI-q4]cure 4 Atheism [Part 3/5]. - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26hqVvSIQlI]cure 4 Atheism [Part 4/5] - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdhMkFkTnnQ]cure 4 Atheism [part 5/5].Yusuf Estes - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Derideo_Te]

Militant secularists prefer to think of the pre-Big Bang period as material but more expansive than our own, and somehow still eternal. Hawkins poses the idea of imaginary time and circular time flow, but all this does is kick the can down the road.

An infinitely existing universe is impossible.

Quite the opposite. A "created" universe is improbable whereas an infinitely existing universe is both logical and fully conforms to the law of conservation of mass.

My point is that an infinitely old universe is impossible due to the nature of infinite limits. They can be approached but never reached. Infinitely distant limits from the negative side are impossible to derive from as there is no starting point.

Infinity is not a mathematical value. It is a concept. The mathematical limitations of calculus do not apply to time or matter.

The conservation of mass is not infringed by creation since it comes from an infinite source of energy.

Your premise rests upon an assumption that there is "an infinite source of energy" which begs the question as to what "created" that source in the first place. An infinite universe that has always existed and will always exist does not need any such assumptions and is in full compliance with the conservation of mass.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The universe didn't exist before the Big Bang. The only theory which does't theorize this, speculates the universe expands and contracts, but this also defies physics. Everything within our universe has a beginning and end, so your theory also defies logic.

More profound ignorance from the Boss. Needless to say you are incapable of substantiating either of those mindless allegations with hard scientific facts from reputable sources.

1. Matter cannot create matter.
2. Show anything in the universe you believe will never end.

1. Only believers are obsessed with the concept of "creation". The rest of us have moved beyond such infantile obsessions.

2. Rampant ignorance and blatant stupidity seems like a good candidate. Do you have even the vaguest clue what the law of conservation of mass means?

 

[Hollie]

Since when do I need to prove something has reasoning ability in order to create intelligently or exist as spiritual energy?

...Yes, without lifting a physical finger which spiritual entities don't have.

How can anything without reasoning ability create intelligently?

Well, because it resides in a different realm than physical nature, certainly!
Here again, we run into a problem with how you comprehend the terms of the argument and how those who believe in spiritual nature comprehend those same terms. The only concept of rationality you have, is physical, from the physical realm. The spiritual realm is simply not confined to physical rationale. Yep... it's a pretty far out thing to try and wrap your mind around, I agree... that's precisely why man developed religions.

I didn't say that the intelligent designer was a physical entity living on a cloud with angels and a harp. That's quite mad, in my opinion. I believe spiritual energy created the physical universe, because physical energy did not yet exist. I see far too much circumstance which had to work out is specific ways, to specific degrees, and in specific timing to even enable the simplest scientific explanations for origin of life. Even if all of life sprang forth from a single cell organism, it came from spiritual energy. The evidence for an intelligent designer is order to the universe. The WHY behind the HOW in science.

Now... "intelligent designer" means different things to different people. To you, it means an individual expressing creative imagination, rationalizing and planning through a process, as humans do in the physical universe. But the spiritual universe is quite different. It does not have to conform to rules of the physical universe, and it doesn't. You can chortle that this is "convenient" but it's just the truth. It's why this question can't ever be answered for you. The ability to comprehend spiritual nature doesn't exist in your mind, it's not there. At every turn of the investigation, you mistakenly apply physical science and physical limitation on spiritual energy and spiritual existence. This causes you to draw completely illogical conclusions, which serve to support your disbelief.

Your promotion of religion under the guise of spirit worlds is no less a religion. Your appeals to spirit worlds carries with it most of the components of typical religious dogma. You have replaced a named gawd(s) with something you call "spiritual nature", yet this "spiritual nature" thing Is indistinguishable from the typical configurations of most deities.

Conveniently, you even configure your spirit worlds as absent any verifiable proofs, rational standards and physical existence, just as others have done in the formulation of their religions, ruled over by supernatural entities. In order to assess and access your spirit worlds, we must abandon any standard of rationality and reason. We must blindly accept your claims as true and inerrant, beyond any reasonable standard of proof.

Well, yeah, that is a bit difficult to wrap ones head around... because thinking humans can choose to reject such ridiculous "because I say so", nonsense.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for time/space to have ALWAYS existed, else we would never have arrived at the PRESENT time.

The concept of a cyclical universe with multiple big bangs is now gaining more and more credence amongst reputable scientists.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cyclical+universe+multiple+big+bangs&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS438US513&oq=cyclical+universe+multiple+big+bangs&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3.12475j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Our current time did begin with the big bang. However the existence of matter and energy preceded the big bang since the singularity was all matter and energy in the universe compressed into a single object.

I have read different ideas on what actually existed at time point ZERO. Some seem to think that there was nothing prior to ZERO, some say it was there before but only sprang into existence in an instant. Some say Membranes of an interdimensional region 'touched' (whatever that actually means) and caused the Big Bang.

All I know is this: no matter how many iterations of time you use, whether linear, circular or spiral or whatever, an infinite number of finite periods of time cannot have preceded the present. It is as impossible as counting to and down from an infinite value. Cant happen. This fact is not of the Xeno paradox sort in that no time is reduced in parallel to with distance, etc. This infinite limit is simply a mathematical fact.

That is not what is being proposed. There is only a single infinite universe of space/time. The period of time that we are counting from the current big bang is meaningless as far as the universe is concerned. It is an entirely arbitrary limitation that we are using from our own myopic perspective. The universe has always existed and while it constantly changes form it has no limitations as far as time is concerned.

 

[flowery]

.



Big bang theory in the Qur'an-
atheists must see!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft3O5H_bn4M]sheikh ahmed deedat-big bang theory in the glorious quran- atheists must see! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[flowery]

.



Scientific Proof that God exists - - Ahmed Deedat

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1OyOfraTqk]Scientific Proof that God exists - Big Bang Theory - Ahmed Deedat - YouTube[/ame]