Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[daws101]

All Laws of science are written in scientific language where the words have only one meaning so assholes like you can't play games of semantics with mathematical principles. In scientific language there is no such thing as "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is." Is always means the equal sign. Scientific language means the exact description of the subject according to to its scientific meaning, not its spiritual meaning, not its religious meaning, not its urban slang meaning, not its philosophical meaning, its scientific meaning only.
Get it?????

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed means the total quantity of energy is a constant. PERIOD.

Ed, when you say that something is "undestroyable and uncreatable" you are saying it is omnipotent. When you say it has "always existed and never ends", you are saying it is omnipresent. No one is changing the meaning of words, you are attempting to avoid the words we commonly use to describe the parameters you argued. It just so happens, these same attributes are also commonly applied to God. Nothing in science mandates that science has exclusives on certain words and their meanings, just like nothing in science says science can't discover spiritually understood things.

Like I said, if you think you've proven that energy can't be destroyed and doesn't have a beginning or end, you have defined the same parameters of God. Now, it doesn't matter if you proved God or not, you have at least proven God can exist. I applaud you, I think that is a monumental step for a non-believer, and perhaps it has broadened your mind.

Excellent post Boss.

 

[daws101]

Boss, et al,

This is the case of the "round-tuit."

For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists. Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

(COMMENT)

In my old age, my better half (the same 19 year old I married 35 years ago) surprised me recently. She would give me a chore to perform, and in a very confidant manner I would tell her: "When I get a round-tuit." Knowing full well that a "round-tuit" doesn't exist. But then, just after Christmas, we had this conversation, and I stated my prerequisite "round-tuit;" and she tossed me one.

Now, the question is: Is it real? OR Is it a creation of mans imagination?

How do I disprove it is a real "round tuit?"

Most Respectfully,
R

when I was young my best friend's dad had a "round tuit" carved out of a pine stump..

 

[daws101]

Those are properties of a physical entity, therefore for God to have them God must also be a physical entity. So yet again you have established that the physical begets the spiritual.

Even though you have unknowingly established that the physical begets the spiritual, you have established that a physical energy God created itself in the form of a spiritual God who created energy which cannot be created.

Wow, you are missing your own logic now, Eddy.

Those are properties you assigned to a physical entity. If they can apply to a physical entity, they could certainly apply to any spiritual entity. You've theorized it is physically possible to have a physical entity be everlasting, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Why can't this apply to spiritual entities? How do you KNOW that there is no physical evidence to support God? You just gave us some very compelling evidence, in my opinion, you established the physical possibility of everlasting life, omnipotence, omnipresence.

Well done!

Jesus was God's physical manifestation here on Earth. Did anyone happen to mention that?

there is no quantifiable evidence to prove that.
it's the ultimate because I said so..

 

[daws101]

Why don't you read to the end of the post, dear? Instead of emotively reacting to post some smart ass remark, as soon as you get to something that sets you off? I asked you how would humans interpret these "sound pressure waves" if we couldn't HEAR them?

We would have physical evidence of something we could feel, but we couldn't see it or taste it, and we don't know what hearing is.... so would it be "real" or a product of our imaginations, created by our complex ability to "feel" things? We can see which side of the argument you would be on, regardless of any evidence presented from those kooky "sound worshipers!"

Yes he does get set off easily and then his pure contempt gets revealed.

Flailing your cheerleader pom poms, with nothing to contribute.

ywc has not or seems not to notice that boss is ignoring his advances!

 

[Boss]

As Daws continues to try and fill the thread up with superfluous nonsense, and the god haters continue to try and derail the topic to bash religion, a man just did something that no human has ever done... He walked a tightrope across the Grand Canyon. He talked to God the whole way. He credited God for enabling his feat. Do you think the man would have attempted this, if he couldn't pray or talk to God? Any of you Atheist non-believers want to put your money where your faith isn't, and stroll across the tightrope to "prove" that it can be done without God? Didn't think so!

 

[daws101]

You're a disingenuous Ideologue.

Drink the kool aid.

Don't let your stupidity and ignorance be a challenge to your poor reading skills.

What I wrote (as opposed to your lies and false allegations) is in my prior post.

Use the "quote" function to accurately convey what others have written out. Otherwise stay away from the thread until you're able to offer coherent comments.

Hollie were these your words or not ?

"Here’s a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesn’t really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?"

False premise

"billions of people once believed that the earth was flat,"

Now where did you get your information ? The stupidity is not mine.

please use phrases and words you know ..FALSE PREMISE is not within you skill set.
you have shown consistently you have no concept of what a false premise is.
that's odd, as ALL your arguments stem from a zealot like belief in a false premise.

 

[daws101]

Hollie were these your words or not ?

"Here’s a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesn’t really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?"

False premise

"billions of people once believed that the earth was flat,"

Now where did you get your information ? The stupidity is not mine.

Was this your comment or not:

"Let me type it slow for you. You said that billions of believers believed in a flat earth I am asking you to provide something that supports your claim."


False premise and false accusation.

The stupidity is, of course, yours, as usual.

Did billions of people believe in a flat earth or not ?

Usually when you use this accusation who is it directed at ?

you still don't see it or you're refusing to acknowledge the difference between what hollie said and what you said.

"billions of people once believed that the earth was flat,"-Hollie

"You said that billions of believers believed in a flat earth"-slap dick.


next time you proclaim the bible is not flawed read this post.
talk about drift...!

 

[Hollie]

As Daws continues to try and fill the thread up with superfluous nonsense, and the god haters continue to try and derail the topic to bash religion, a man just did something that no human has ever done... He walked a tightrope across the Grand Canyon. He talked to God the whole way. He credited God for enabling his feat. Do you think the man would have attempted this, if he couldn't pray or talk to God? Any of you Atheist non-believers want to put your money where your faith isn't, and stroll across the tightrope to "prove" that it can be done without God? Didn't think so!

Poor, Karl.

I guess he was talking to the wrong gawds.

YouTube

 

[Wake]

I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.

 

[daws101]

Someone is getting desperate.

Who's getting desperate, muhammud?

I pointed out that you were exposed on many occasions for cutting and pasting falsified "quotes" you knew were lies.

Behavior such as pathological lying seems pretty desperate to me.

If someone is dishonest about probably the most important issues they may ever face such as the way to eternal life, the nature of God, and the truth about reality, what are the chances they will be honest about anything less important???


C'mon now, YWC believes that Jesus was human, but without a human father, and that Jesus was God, and edible, even though he was human and had a mother...


Is such a person who professes to believe such bullshit even capable of giving an honest opinion of less important things such as human sexuality, social justice, or the morality or ethics of people less pretentious?


I'm mean how hard could it possibly be to admit that she has either been deceived or made mistakes in her own thinking when her irrational claims of her righteous worship of a figment of her imagination are soundly refuted? Someone dishonest in this situation is someone who only loves and practices deceit.


Could Jesus have been any more accurate when describing religious hypocrites as whitewashed tombs on the outside but full of rot and corruption within?

bump1

 

[daws101]

As Daws continues to try and fill the thread up with superfluous nonsense, and the god haters continue to try and derail the topic to bash religion, a man just did something that no human has ever done... He walked a tightrope across the Grand Canyon. He talked to God the whole way. He credited God for enabling his feat. Do you think the man would have attempted this, if he couldn't pray or talk to God? Any of you Atheist non-believers want to put your money where your faith isn't, and stroll across the tightrope to "prove" that it can be done without God? Didn't think so!

wow! boss just took meaningless analogies to a new heights...(pun intended)
let's try this from a more rational POV.

The Flying Wallendas is the name of a circus act and daredevil stunt performers, most known for performing highwire acts without a safety net. They were first known as The Great Wallendas, but the current name was coined by the press in the 40s and has stayed since. The name in their native German, "Die fliegenden Wallenda", is a rhyme on the title of the Wagner opera, "Der fliegende Holländer" ("The Flying Dutchman").


boss is discounting the fact that Nic Wallenda's family has 80 years of experience .

his talking to god is a one way conversation.
it's also a form of concentration.
if you (bossy) make the claim that god helped or he could not have done it with out paranormal assistance. you must prove it .
btw other stunt performers do not invoke deities and survive.

 

[Boss]

I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.

Well, you see... you have warriors like Hollie and Daws, who have devoted their lives to doing everything in their power to derail the conversation, throw the topic off, and continuously belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's difficult to overcome such a veracity of bitter ignorance and prejudice, and try to have a meaningful dialogue. These people are religiously committed to refuting and denouncing God, as if their mortal souls depend on it.

As I stated in the OP argument, this question can never be answered for people who refuse to accept spiritual nature. As long as those people exist, this question will alway be without resolution. That doesn't mean the question can't be definitively answered, it just means you have to first accept spiritual evidence, which requires belief in spiritual nature.

You have to understand, people like Hollie and Daws are afraid of God. The last thing they want, is a God who holds them accountable for their actions, and their small minds, simply can't imagine any other type of God. So we see them spending inordinate amounts of time, posting superfluous garbage, flooding the thread with ad hom and insult, all in order to somehow diminish the power of this God they very much believe in and fear. Now, they will SWEAR they don't believe, but it's apparent they do, and they are just afraid. No other logical explanation for the number of posts they are contributing to a thread about something they don't believe is real.

What you have to do, is dismiss these cowards and low-lifes, because they don't bring anything to the table in terms of facts or science. In fact, they will abandon their own scientific principles and methods, in order to support their disbelief. We've seen examples in this very thread. They'll defy Darwin, nature, physics, doesn't matter... whatever they have to do in order to keep their balloon of disbelief in the air.

 

[Boss]

As Daws continues to try and fill the thread up with superfluous nonsense, and the god haters continue to try and derail the topic to bash religion, a man just did something that no human has ever done... He walked a tightrope across the Grand Canyon. He talked to God the whole way. He credited God for enabling his feat. Do you think the man would have attempted this, if he couldn't pray or talk to God? Any of you Atheist non-believers want to put your money where your faith isn't, and stroll across the tightrope to "prove" that it can be done without God? Didn't think so!

wow! boss just took meaningless analogies to a new heights...(pun intended)
let's try this from a more rational POV.

The Flying Wallendas is the name of a circus act and daredevil stunt performers, most known for performing highwire acts without a safety net. They were first known as The Great Wallendas, but the current name was coined by the press in the 40s and has stayed since. The name in their native German, "Die fliegenden Wallenda", is a rhyme on the title of the Wagner opera, "Der fliegende Holländer" ("The Flying Dutchman").


boss is discounting the fact that Nic Wallenda's family has 80 years of experience .

his talking to god is a one way conversation.
it's also a form of concentration.
if you (bossy) make the claim that god helped or he could not have done it with out paranormal assistance. you must prove it .
btw other stunt performers do not invoke deities and survive.

Well, the tightrope is still up there... Why don't you stroll your happy ass across it, and prove to us that it can be done without God? I didn't say anything about "paranormal assistance" and the proof is in the fact that he did it, and you haven't. You've also not proven his conversation was "one way" and you can't. That's your opinion, which adding $3 to, will get you a cup of joe at Starbucks, I bet.

The way you fucktards are post-bombing my thread, I would have thought one of you would have been right on his heels, to prove to the crowd that God didn't have anything to do with it, and it was all in his head! Come on, let's see some action? The guy did it, he's the only person to ever do it, and he attests it was through God... prove him wrong!

 

[Hollie]

I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.

Well, you see... you have warriors like Hollie and Daws, who have devoted their lives to doing everything in their power to derail the conversation, throw the topic off, and continuously belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's difficult to overcome such a veracity of bitter ignorance and prejudice, and try to have a meaningful dialogue. These people are religiously committed to refuting and denouncing God, as if their mortal souls depend on it.

As I stated in the OP argument, this question can never be answered for people who refuse to accept spiritual nature. As long as those people exist, this question will alway be without resolution. That doesn't mean the question can't be definitively answered, it just means you have to first accept spiritual evidence, which requires belief in spiritual nature.

You have to understand, people like Hollie and Daws are afraid of God. The last thing they want, is a God who holds them accountable for their actions, and their small minds, simply can't imagine any other type of God. So we see them spending inordinate amounts of time, posting superfluous garbage, flooding the thread with ad hom and insult, all in order to somehow diminish the power of this God they very much believe in and fear. Now, they will SWEAR they don't believe, but it's apparent they do, and they are just afraid. No other logical explanation for the number of posts they are contributing to a thread about something they don't believe is real.

What you have to do, is dismiss these cowards and low-lifes, because they don't bring anything to the table in terms of facts or science. In fact, they will abandon their own scientific principles and methods, in order to support their disbelief. We've seen examples in this very thread. They'll defy Darwin, nature, physics, doesn't matter... whatever they have to do in order to keep their balloon of disbelief in the air.

And as usual, Boss insists that we must accept his claims to the existence of something he calls "spiritual nature" In order to believe in "spiritual nature".

Obviously, anyone who rejects his unsupported, colloquial and subjective claims to his version of gawds is somehow in denial of his "spiritual entity".

 

[daws101]

I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.

Well, you see... you have warriors like Hollie and Daws, who have devoted their lives to doing everything in their power to derail the conversation, throw the topic off, and continuously belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's difficult to overcome such a veracity of bitter ignorance and prejudice, and try to have a meaningful dialogue. These people are religiously committed to refuting and denouncing God, as if their mortal souls depend on it.

As I stated in the OP argument, this question can never be answered for people who refuse to accept spiritual nature. As long as those people exist, this question will alway be without resolution. That doesn't mean the question can't be definitively answered, it just means you have to first accept spiritual evidence, which requires belief in spiritual nature.

You have to understand, people like Hollie and Daws are afraid of God. The last thing they want, is a God who holds them accountable for their actions, and their small minds, simply can't imagine any other type of God. So we see them spending inordinate amounts of time, posting superfluous garbage, flooding the thread with ad hom and insult, all in order to somehow diminish the power of this God they very much believe in and fear. Now, they will SWEAR they don't believe, but it's apparent they do, and they are just afraid. No other logical explanation for the number of posts they are contributing to a thread about something they don't believe is real.

What you have to do, is dismiss these cowards and low-lifes, because they don't bring anything to the table in terms of facts or science. In fact, they will abandon their own scientific principles and methods, in order to support their disbelief. We've seen examples in this very thread. They'll defy Darwin, nature, physics, doesn't matter... whatever they have to do in order to keep their balloon of disbelief in the air.

best argument from an imagined authority ever!
as to your incredibly false accusations I do not hate or fear your fantasy god..neither is my mind small..
your so called logical conclusion is not logical at all as it is not based in fact but in your own inability to consider an existence without superstition.
not to mention your grossly inflated sense of self worth and intelligence.

 

[Hollie]

As Daws continues to try and fill the thread up with superfluous nonsense, and the god haters continue to try and derail the topic to bash religion, a man just did something that no human has ever done... He walked a tightrope across the Grand Canyon. He talked to God the whole way. He credited God for enabling his feat. Do you think the man would have attempted this, if he couldn't pray or talk to God? Any of you Atheist non-believers want to put your money where your faith isn't, and stroll across the tightrope to "prove" that it can be done without God? Didn't think so!

wow! boss just took meaningless analogies to a new heights...(pun intended)
let's try this from a more rational POV.

The Flying Wallendas is the name of a circus act and daredevil stunt performers, most known for performing highwire acts without a safety net. They were first known as The Great Wallendas, but the current name was coined by the press in the 40s and has stayed since. The name in their native German, "Die fliegenden Wallenda", is a rhyme on the title of the Wagner opera, "Der fliegende Holländer" ("The Flying Dutchman").


boss is discounting the fact that Nic Wallenda's family has 80 years of experience .

his talking to god is a one way conversation.
it's also a form of concentration.
if you (bossy) make the claim that god helped or he could not have done it with out paranormal assistance. you must prove it .
btw other stunt performers do not invoke deities and survive.

Well, the tightrope is still up there... Why don't you stroll your happy ass across it, and prove to us that it can be done without God? I didn't say anything about "paranormal assistance" and the proof is in the fact that he did it, and you haven't. You've also not proven his conversation was "one way" and you can't. That's your opinion, which adding $3 to, will get you a cup of joe at Starbucks, I bet.

The way you fucktards are post-bombing my thread, I would have thought one of you would have been right on his heels, to prove to the crowd that God didn't have anything to do with it, and it was all in his head! Come on, let's see some action? The guy did it, he's the only person to ever do it, and he attests it was through God... prove him wrong!

The typical Boss argument. Others are required to disprove his fallacious claims or his silly, melodramatic pronunciations or his religious rantings are self-presumed to be true.

So then, Boss. I have "proven him wrong". Prove I haven't! <--- I added the exclamation point for a bit of melodrama of my own.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What is a "randomly shaped chemical"?

I am eagerly awaiting your development of some basic understanding of science and biology before you post terms you are clueless about.

Polar spherical triangle for one.

olar \Po"lar\, a. [Cf. F. polaire. See Pole of the earth.]
1. Of or pertaining to one of the poles of the earth, or of a
sphere; situated near, or proceeding from, one of the
poles; as, polar regions; polar seas; polar winds.
[1913 Webster]

2. Of or pertaining to the magnetic pole, or to the point to
which the magnetic needle is directed.
[1913 Webster]

3. (Geom.) Pertaining to, reckoned from, or having a common
radiating point; as, polar coordinates.
[1913 Webster]

Polar axis, that axis of an astronomical instrument, as an
equatorial, which is parallel to the earths axis.



explain this has anything to do with god or creationism?

Follow the conversation. Wrong copy and paste for the term.

We were talking the form of biological chemicals, Also like the Dna strand.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

a non credible source ....creation science is an oxymoron : x·y·mo·ron [ òksee máw ròn ]
expression with contradictory words: a phrase in which two words of contradictory meaning are used together for special effect, e.g. "wise fool" or "legal murder"
Synonyms: inconsistency, absurdity, irony, contradiction, contradiction in terms, oxymoron, enigma, puzzle

You are a moron.

 

[Boss]

And as usual, Boss insists that we must accept his claims to the existence of something he calls "spiritual nature" In order to believe in "spiritual nature".

Obviously, anyone who rejects his unsupported, colloquial and subjective claims to his version of gawds is somehow in denial of his "spiritual entity".

And as usual, Hollie fires off yet another emotive post to "refute" something she doesn't comprehend. Everything I have claimed in this thread is true, and has not been refuted. Every argumentative point I made in the OP is supported by logic, reasoning, and common sense, as well as science itself. I've not made any claims to my version of god, or anyone's version, for that matter. In fact, I have repeatedly tried to steer the conversation away from minutia regarding religious incarnations of god. I've repeatedly stated that I cannot prove any particular incarnation of god exists, and that is not what the question is about.

I didn't "claim" spiritual nature exists, I proved it does. You haven't disproved it. In order to do so, you need to find examples in nature where living things created shit from imagination, in order to explain irrational fears, and this behavior has always resided in the species. You can't, because no such example exists. So you are left with your opinion that spiritual nature can't exists because you can't verify it with your five senses or prove it conclusively with physical science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As Daws continues to try and fill the thread up with superfluous nonsense, and the god haters continue to try and derail the topic to bash religion, a man just did something that no human has ever done... He walked a tightrope across the Grand Canyon. He talked to God the whole way. He credited God for enabling his feat. Do you think the man would have attempted this, if he couldn't pray or talk to God? Any of you Atheist non-believers want to put your money where your faith isn't, and stroll across the tightrope to "prove" that it can be done without God? Didn't think so!

Yes he even asked his father to remain silent so he could speak to God.