Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Hollie]

I have stated between 6,000 to 12,000 and I base that from the bible not scientific explanations. It's only an opinion just like the opinion of 4.5 billion years old it's only opinion.

As noted, you suffer from confusion (more likely just lie) as to what you have previously written.

Your usual attempts at conspiracy theories regarding the age of the planet aren't going to help you. There is verifiable evidence for an ancient planet.

Where is the verifiable evidence for your gawds?

I will say it again not a conspiracy theory just flawed assumptions.

No. You were yet again caught in a lie.

 

[Hollie]

I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.

Others believe similarly about their particular gawds.... and others about belief in Bigfoot, space aliens and Leprechauns.

Typical response from an ignorant Ideologue.

Oh, the melodrama.

Demonstrate for us how you can confirm the Christian gawds are true and the Hindu gawds are false.

Come on, fundie man. In the meantime, hurl some more vulgarities. You're so much more endurable when you're frothing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As noted, you suffer from confusion (more likely just lie) as to what you have previously written.

Your usual attempts at conspiracy theories regarding the age of the planet aren't going to help you. There is verifiable evidence for an ancient planet.

Where is the verifiable evidence for your gawds?

I will say it again not a conspiracy theory just flawed assumptions.

No. You were yet again caught in a lie.

LOL I think everyone saw the attack on the assumptions of dating methods. Your article even admits that decay rates fluctuate but that is not the only assumption that was refuted.

You still have not responded to my questions what is up with that ?

 

[hobelim]

Yes the bible gives an explanation of what sin brings.

So if everything experiences entropy why is that ?

yes, scripture teaches that sin brings death and the subject of that death has nothing whatever to do with biological death or entropy but everything to do with the inability of the deceived mind to produce a rational thought.

Why does everything experience entropy?

Who can say? But one thing for sure is that it isn't because a talking snake deceived two naked and gullible people into eating the fruit of a forbidden tree.

God chose a way to hand down the punishment for sin which is death. Everything experiences Entropy.

Gradual decline to disorder is what is seen in nature whether it be planets or living organisms.

As I said, the subject of death is not about physical decline and biological death or entropy. Everything that has ever or will ever live on earth will experience physical decline and biological death. It is not a punishment from God.


The death referred to in scripture in a multitude of ways is about the inability of the mind of those gullible enough to be deceived to function with a rational awareness of what is actually taking place in reality giving the deceiver, using this power of death consequent to disobedience to the laws of God, an easy way to control and victimize for life the resulting golem which he fleeces and hordes like a herd of dumb farm animals.


Its simple.

If you fill your mind with archaic superstitions and irrational nonsense and fail to learn the hidden lessons of the past conveyed in scripture you will be incapable of understanding what is actually taking place and will do nothing to save your soul from the deeper implications of present events....


If nothing else you have proven the wisdom of God in giving the command to refrain from the flesh of unclean beasts who do not ruminate by perfectly demonstrating the consequences for disobedience.

Well done!

 

[Hollie]

I will say it again not a conspiracy theory just flawed assumptions.

No. You were yet again caught in a lie.

LOL I think everyone saw the attack on the assumptions of dating methods. Your article even admits that decay rates fluctuate but that is not the only assumption that was refuted.

You still have not responded to my questions what is up with that ?

What “attack” would that be?
Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation
"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent…”

You mean an attack that you hoped would discredit the dating method but which only served to confirm the viability of the dating method?

What a dismal and impotent perspective you have. Science will certainly always be vulnerable to error, yes. But the productive progress of science shows us that over time, peer review reduces those errors and our propensity for error is diminished. While absolute truth may be forever out of reach, provisional truth is continuously incrementally closing the gap.

I am unwilling to share your sense of futility and simply throw up my hands and accept appeals to fear and ignorance as you do.

You still have not provided proof of your gawds as opposed to claims by others of "feelings" regarding their gawds.

Leading your presumptive argument with claims to supernaturalism and "because I say so" as a viable claim is nonsensical. Have you forgotten that you were already advised of this?

 

[edthecynic]

Simpleton ? you see entropy all around you dumbshit.

Then you can respond to my questions otherwise you can take a hike as well. I am tired of morons coming in and speaking from their ass.

Shit or get off the pot.

Defend your faith or **** off.

Yes simpleton.

You are the one who associated entropy with the concept of sin related to a bronze age fairy tale intended to educate bronze age children whose level of intelligence seems to have been far above yours.


Grow up or **** off yourself.

Yes the bible gives an explanation of what sin brings.

So if everything experiences entropy why is that ?

IF everything experiences entropy, that says no matter can exist. Does matter exist?

 

[RoccoR]

Surfer, et al,

Nothing wrong with this.

I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.

(COMMENT)

This is the definition of "faith" in a Supreme Being. And science does not challenge this at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boss]

You are such a pathological liar, I said no such thing. That was YOUR idiotic pontification, don't pass your bullshit on to me.

Here is what I said:

That means that energy has always existed (cannot be created/can't increase) and will always exist (cannot be destroyed/can't decrease) in the same total quantity.

So "energy" is omnipotent and omnipresent? I'm glad I could help you and Dorito find God.

It is impossible for a spirit to create energy, that would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, and matter is a form of energy. Therefore it is self evident that the physical precedes the spiritual. You have it ass backwards, as usual.

What it would be, is a violation of your conceptions of the first law of thermodynamics. Nothing in science has ever proven to be "impossible" and you should learn that if you are going to use science to make arguments. It's not self-evident that physical precedes spiritual, because spiritual energy created the physical. Everything you point to, tells us this. Your own theories negate the possibility of physical nature creating the universe, matter is energy and can't be created, or energy is omnipotent and omnipresent, which makes it God. Neither case disproves spiritual energy, and both support the argument for it.

Energy is a PHYSICAL entity which can be measured. You have just made the spiritual and God, physical and therefore no longer spiritual.
Thank you

The FLoT was proven with a repeatable experiment, therefore you cannot just pontificate that it is not impossible to create or destroy energy. You must set up a repeatable experiment that proves it is possible to create or destroy energy. Until then you are full of shit.

Okay, first of all, it was your argument that matter is energy, and not creatable or destroyable. I don't dispute your argument, I just pointed out it defines God. I can pontificate that nothing is "impossible" because it's not. I'm not sure what sort of "repeatable test" you are relying on for your "contracting universe" theory, because the universe isn't contracting at all, but yet, it has been pontificated as if it were fact. Just as it is often incorrectly pontificated that evolution explains origin or refutes creation.

I personally don't believe that energy can't be destroyed or created, because this would mean that energy is God, and I think God created energy and can destroy it. I believe, that very often in our physical universe, spiritual nature intervenes to produce what we define as "unexplained phenomenon" and we just keep on trucking. You are arrogant enough to think your physical sciences are infallible and explain everything of the universe. Science can't even explain everything of the PHYSICAL universe, and it doesn't even touch the spiritual universe, which also exists, because humans connect with it.

 

[edthecynic]

So "energy" is omnipotent and omnipresent? I'm glad I could help you and Dorito find God.



What it would be, is a violation of your conceptions of the first law of thermodynamics. Nothing in science has ever proven to be "impossible" and you should learn that if you are going to use science to make arguments. It's not self-evident that physical precedes spiritual, because spiritual energy created the physical. Everything you point to, tells us this. Your own theories negate the possibility of physical nature creating the universe, matter is energy and can't be created, or energy is omnipotent and omnipresent, which makes it God. Neither case disproves spiritual energy, and both support the argument for it.

Energy is a PHYSICAL entity which can be measured. You have just made the spiritual and God, physical and therefore no longer spiritual.
Thank you

The FLoT was proven with a repeatable experiment, therefore you cannot just pontificate that it is not impossible to create or destroy energy. You must set up a repeatable experiment that proves it is possible to create or destroy energy. Until then you are full of shit.

Okay, first of all, it was your argument that matter is energy, and not creatable or destroyable. I don't dispute your argument, I just pointed out it defines God. I can pontificate that nothing is "impossible" because it's not. I'm not sure what sort of "repeatable test" you are relying on for your "contracting universe" theory, because the universe isn't contracting at all, but yet, it has been pontificated as if it were fact. Just as it is often incorrectly pontificated that evolution explains origin or refutes creation.

I personally don't believe that energy can't be destroyed or created, because this would mean that energy is God, and I think God created energy and can destroy it. I believe, that very often in our physical universe, spiritual nature intervenes to produce what we define as "unexplained phenomenon" and we just keep on trucking. You are arrogant enough to think your physical sciences are infallible and explain everything of the universe. Science can't even explain everything of the PHYSICAL universe, and it doesn't even touch the spiritual universe, which also exists, because humans connect with it.

You can point out that the FLoT defines God all you want, but it will still only define energy.

 

[numan]

I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.

I think your belief is questionable, but I cannot fault you for having that belief, since I am not you and do not know your experiences.

If Boss did not, in his bumptiousness, go beyond your chaste and limited expression of faith, I would have no quarrel with him.

It is his unsupported assertion that his private experience, or the private experiences of other people, PROVE the existence of God, or a spiritual realm, that I reject. PROOF can only exist in the public realm, where scientific analysis can be applied to a matter -- and even then, that proof is always provisional and questionable. No private opinion, no matter how deep the conviction with which it is held, can ever constitute PROOF!!
.

 

[numan]

Isn't it curious, we find atoms, the smallest thing in the universe we can see... and they are orbited by little round protons, neutrons, and electrons. Then we can go to the most powerful telescopes and as far out into the universe as we can look, we see small suns, orbited by planets and planets orbited by moons... a pattern. Big Bangs do not create patterns, they create chaos. This is a testable hypothesis. So what can be the physical science explanation for pattern, order, logic, where we should find chaos?

Oh, dear, oh, dear!!

Where to begin dealing with all the scientific errors contained in that one short paragraph!!

Boss, you are utterly ignorant about the physical universe, yet you presume to know something about the Unseen Realm!!

The Big Bang was very likely a featureless, uniform chaos in its beginning -- in a state very close to maximum entropy -- yet order and structure can still arise out of it!!

There are many bells and whistles to the concept of Entropy, which much be thoroughly understood before one presumes to make pronouncements about it.

What is key is the rate of expansion of the early universe, and the rate of dissipation of energy within it.

If the universe expands too fast, very quickly nothing can cross the vast spaces that would permit interaction with something else.

If the expansion is slow, then there is enough time for uniform distribution of of energy across the entire universe, and there is no departure from a state of maximum entropy.

But if the expansion is at a middling rate, "things get left behind," there is not sufficient time for energies to become evenly distributed across the entire universe, and gravity can then begin to act upon inhomogeneities to form large-scale clumps of gas which collapse into yet more intricate structure.

Dissipative processes are quite complex, and cannot be subsumed under any simple-minded notions of entropy.
.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No. You were yet again caught in a lie.

LOL I think everyone saw the attack on the assumptions of dating methods. Your article even admits that decay rates fluctuate but that is not the only assumption that was refuted.

You still have not responded to my questions what is up with that ?

What “attack” would that be?
Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation
"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent…”

You mean an attack that you hoped would discredit the dating method but which only served to confirm the viability of the dating method?

What a dismal and impotent perspective you have. Science will certainly always be vulnerable to error, yes. But the productive progress of science shows us that over time, peer review reduces those errors and our propensity for error is diminished. While absolute truth may be forever out of reach, provisional truth is continuously incrementally closing the gap.

I am unwilling to share your sense of futility and simply throw up my hands and accept appeals to fear and ignorance as you do.

You still have not provided proof of your gawds as opposed to claims by others of "feelings" regarding their gawds.

Leading your presumptive argument with claims to supernaturalism and "because I say so" as a viable claim is nonsensical. Have you forgotten that you were already advised of this?

This to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7413764-post3439.html

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes simpleton.

You are the one who associated entropy with the concept of sin related to a bronze age fairy tale intended to educate bronze age children whose level of intelligence seems to have been far above yours.


Grow up or **** off yourself.

Yes the bible gives an explanation of what sin brings.

So if everything experiences entropy why is that ?

IF everything experiences entropy, that says no matter can exist. Does matter exist?

Nope the matter is not destroyed the object is destroyed due to disorder the matter is just transferred to something else.

So when a person dies what happens to the matter ?

When a planet or meteor dies what happens to the matter ?

 

[edthecynic]

Yes the bible gives an explanation of what sin brings.

So if everything experiences entropy why is that ?

IF everything experiences entropy, that says no matter can exist. Does matter exist?

Nope the matter is not destroyed the object is destroyed due to disorder the matter is just transferred to something else.

So when a person dies what happens to the matter ?

When a planet or meteor dies what happens to the matter ?

You said EVERYTHING experiences entropy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says "in a closed thermodynamic system, entropy never decreases." That allows entropy to equal zero.

If everything experiences entropy, then the atom itself must experience entropy and its entropy cannot equal zero. Therefore the electrons orbiting the nucleus must be slowing down from entropy which would cause them to be drawn into their nucleus and splitting it and therefore no matter could exist.

 

[numan]

'
There is an Urbane Legend that Ludwig Boltzmann committed suicide when he realized that there was a definite possibility (though an exceedingly small one!) that all the air molecules in a room could, by random chance, all rush to a corner of the room -- leaving us to gasp out our lives in a vacuum!!

.

 

[Boss]

You can point out that the FLoT defines God all you want, but it will still only define energy.

If energy is undestroyable, it is omnipotent. If energy never begins or ends, then it's omnipresent. You have essentially defined God. Maybe you didn't mean to? Maybe you didn't want to? And maybe you now want to dance around what you said? I would say that is a product of your closed mind, which refuses to acknowledge spiritual nature, and not the result of objective scientific evaluations.

 

[Big_D2]

Although, I always believed in God, I'll admit there is no proof that He exists. Of course, it's a matter of faith.

My best attempt to ask for what the OP is asking for is the Our Lady of Fatima miracle.

 

[Boss]

I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.

I think your belief is questionable, but I cannot fault you for having that belief, since I am not you and do not know your experiences.

If Boss did not, in his bumptiousness, go beyond your chaste and limited expression of faith, I would have no quarrel with him.

It is his unsupported assertion that his private experience, or the private experiences of other people, PROVE the existence of God, or a spiritual realm, that I reject. PROOF can only exist in the public realm, where scientific analysis can be applied to a matter -- and even then, that proof is always provisional and questionable. No private opinion, no matter how deep the conviction with which it is held, can ever constitute PROOF!!
.

And this is articulated in the OP, first couple of paragraphs. We have to define what is meant by "proof" in order to debate the question. Well, if you reject spiritual evidence, you can't ever find proof of spiritual nature. The definitive proof can only be fully realized if you accept spiritual nature exists in a spiritual sense. Your argument is the same argument that non-believers always present, there is no physical evidence to prove God's existence... I fully understand that, and haven't disputed it. In fact, I went on to add, that physical evidence will never be able to definitively prove God, or God becomes physical in nature.

Furthermore, I did indeed apply science to the question. The particular science applied, was Ethology, the study of animal behavior. We have compelling evidence that human spirituality has always existed in civilized man, and is as prevalent today as ever. This was countered with studies showing a decline in religion, but it's entirely possible for humans to behave spiritually, and not belong to a religion. The fact remains, human spirituality is our most defining and unique behavioral attribute.

From our studies in Ethology of other living things and their behaviors, we know that behaviors don't simply exist for no tangible reason. Even when we can't clearly rationalize the behavior, if we study long enough, we find that the behavior indeed has fundamental purpose. What we have never seen in nature, in any other living thing, is the imaginary creation of behavior by a species, to enable some fundamental aspect. So if this is the case with human spirituality, it is the only such instance in all recorded history of animal behavior. In fact, it would completely defy everything we understand about behaviors and how they evolve. Many species met their demise, clinging to irrational behaviors or not adapting to more rational behavior, but humans have thrived and excelled like no other living thing. This "proves" the human spirituality behavior is indeed, fundamental and rational.

Now, how can this be, if we're not connecting to something? It's as if you plug a lamp into a dead socket, and it works, but the socket is dead. If we believe we are connecting to something, and this belief is beneficial and fundamental to what we are and what we've become, and this belief remains virtually unchanged throughout our existence as a species, there MUST be something there. It's impossible for this to be imaginary or delusional, because it would have vanished long ago, as there would have been no tangible benefit realized. We have billions (maybe trillions) of people, through ages of human history, professing the belief in something spiritual, attesting to the benefits known as blessings.

 

[edthecynic]

You can point out that the FLoT defines God all you want, but it will still only define energy.

If energy is undestroyable, it is omnipotent. If energy never begins or ends, then it's omnipresent. You have essentially defined God. Maybe you didn't mean to? Maybe you didn't want to? And maybe you now want to dance around what you said? I would say that is a product of your closed mind, which refuses to acknowledge spiritual nature, and not the result of objective scientific evaluations.

Omnipotent means all-powerful and omnipresent means everywhere at the same time. You might be able to argue that energy is everywhere at the same time, but you are full of shit arguing energy is all powerful. You don't get to redefine what words mean. You try to, I would say, as a result of your pompous superiority complex.

Here is what the FLoT means: Energy being undestroyable means it cannot decrease and energy being uncreatable means it can't increase, together they mean that energy has always existed and will always exist in the exact same total quantity.

 

[edthecynic]

I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.

I think your belief is questionable, but I cannot fault you for having that belief, since I am not you and do not know your experiences.

If Boss did not, in his bumptiousness, go beyond your chaste and limited expression of faith, I would have no quarrel with him.

It is his unsupported assertion that his private experience, or the private experiences of other people, PROVE the existence of God, or a spiritual realm, that I reject. PROOF can only exist in the public realm, where scientific analysis can be applied to a matter -- and even then, that proof is always provisional and questionable. No private opinion, no matter how deep the conviction with which it is held, can ever constitute PROOF!!
.

And this is articulated in the OP, first couple of paragraphs. We have to define what is meant by "proof" in order to debate the question. Well, if you reject spiritual evidence, you can't ever find proof of spiritual nature. The definitive proof can only be fully realized if you accept spiritual nature exists in a spiritual sense. Your argument is the same argument that non-believers always present, there is no physical evidence to prove God's existence... I fully understand that, and haven't disputed it. In fact, I went on to add, that physical evidence will never be able to definitively prove God, or God becomes physical in nature.

Furthermore, I did indeed apply science to the question. The particular science applied, was Ethology, the study of animal behavior. We have compelling evidence that human spirituality has always existed in civilized man, and is as prevalent today as ever. This was countered with studies showing a decline in religion, but it's entirely possible for humans to behave spiritually, and not belong to a religion. The fact remains, human spirituality is our most defining and unique behavioral attribute.

From our studies in Ethology of other living things and their behaviors, we know that behaviors don't simply exist for no tangible reason. Even when we can't clearly rationalize the behavior, if we study long enough, we find that the behavior indeed has fundamental purpose. What we have never seen in nature, in any other living thing, is the imaginary creation of behavior by a species, to enable some fundamental aspect. So if this is the case with human spirituality, it is the only such instance in all recorded history of animal behavior. In fact, it would completely defy everything we understand about behaviors and how they evolve. Many species met their demise, clinging to irrational behaviors or not adapting to more rational behavior, but humans have thrived and excelled like no other living thing. This "proves" the human spirituality behavior is indeed, fundamental and rational.

Now, how can this be, if we're not connecting to something? It's as if you plug a lamp into a dead socket, and it works, but the socket is dead. If we believe we are connecting to something, and this belief is beneficial and fundamental to what we are and what we've become, and this belief remains virtually unchanged throughout our existence as a species, there MUST be something there. It's impossible for this to be imaginary or delusional, because it would have vanished long ago, as there would have been no tangible benefit realized. We have billions (maybe trillions) of people, through ages of human history, professing the belief in something spiritual, attesting to the benefits known as blessings.

All that proves is you are a pompous idiot.

Bacteria have survived much longer than man and will probably survive long after mankind wipes themselves out because of know-it-all know-nothings like you.