Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[daws101]

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

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

sorry slapdick that the only definition in a non biology dictionary..
besides it's not an answer to the question!

http://chemed.chem.wisc.edu/chempaths/GenChem-Textbook/The-Shapes-of-Molecules-574.html

thanks, still is no answer how the proves creationism..loks lik good old
chemistry to me.

 

[daws101]

Daws I will give you hint we discussed it earlier in the thread and you don't believe in intelligent design.

we did and like always you were wrong.
I don't believe in intelligent design because there is no evidence for it. if there were intelligent design,I would not need to believe:be·lieve [bih-leev] Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
verb (used with object)
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

because it would be fact.

 

[Hollie]

Well I did learn something today that Hollie definitely is not daws because he was smart enough not to jump in to something he didn't understand unlike daws lol.

Giving yourself credit for rabid cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is laughable.

Laughable yep, you won't find the answer there

Laughable. No doubt. Which makes your propensity for cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya all the more absurd.

 

[daws101]

Well I did learn something today that Hollie definitely is not daws because he was smart enough not to jump in to something he didn't understand unlike daws lol.

Giving yourself credit for rabid cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is laughable.

did like his imaginary trap.

 

[daws101]

Well I did learn something today that Hollie definitely is not daws because he was smart enough not to jump in to something he didn't understand unlike daws lol.

Giving yourself credit for rabid cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is laughable.

Laughable yep, you won't find the answer there

Spherical trigonometry
has no relation to to creationism...
your argument will be some cobbled together shit that you wish would prove your design fantasy....

 

[Boss]

I'll take this to mean that you're not going to trust your gawds to get you safely across the span.

Maybe your gawds are too busy with their administrative duties?

Or maybe, you're just a poster child for bluster and pretention.

It's already been proven it can be done with God, so I have nothing to prove. You want to claim it could be done without god, and hey... the tightrope is still there, go for it!

Oh, and MY god doesn't have "administrative duties" ...that would be a humanistic attribute, one often found in religious beliefs of god. Again, we see evidence that you do believe in god, you simply reject the god you believe is real. You want to mock and ridicule that incarnation, because it helps to empower your disbelief. It serves as your own evidence god can't be real, after all, he wouldn't let you get away with saying such things, you'd surely be zapped by a bolt of lightning or something... so each day that passes, and some terrible fate hasn't befallen you, it serves as proof to you that god doesn't really exist.

The thing you can't seem to comprehend, and I can't explain to you, because the god you believe in but reject, has different attributes... is that god can exist in some other incarnation. It doesn't have to be the judgmental Christian god, that's just the incarnation you happen to believe in but are compelled to reject. My god doesn't care how angry you get, or how many insults you hurl at god, or how much time you spend refuting god's existence.

Where have you proven "it can be done with God"?

What exactly has been "proven"?

I will give you credit for finally admitting that your agenda with the silly "spiritual nature" business has always been about your gawds.

I didn't say "I" proved anything. "IT" was proven. Learn to read.

One human has done it, he credits God. You need to prove him wrong. Here's your chance to present testable evidence to contradict God, and I say you should go for it!

Also, I don't know what the **** you mean about "admitting my agenda" being about "my gawds." I've not admitted any such thing, because it's not true. I have no agenda, other than to challenge the non-believers in their disbeliefs of spiritual nature. There is nothing "silly" about it, you haven't shown evidence that it doesn't exist, and everything you've presented, contradicts nature, Darwin, Science, Logic, and common sense. Since that hasn't worked, you've apparently taken to 'tea leaf reading' from the posts I make, to extract these bizarre things that I never said, which you can then gratify yourself by attacking.

And... you are so predictable, you are becoming a bore to me.

 

[daws101]

It's already been proven it can be done with God, so I have nothing to prove. You want to claim it could be done without god, and hey... the tightrope is still there, go for it!

Oh, and MY god doesn't have "administrative duties" ...that would be a humanistic attribute, one often found in religious beliefs of god. Again, we see evidence that you do believe in god, you simply reject the god you believe is real. You want to mock and ridicule that incarnation, because it helps to empower your disbelief. It serves as your own evidence god can't be real, after all, he wouldn't let you get away with saying such things, you'd surely be zapped by a bolt of lightning or something... so each day that passes, and some terrible fate hasn't befallen you, it serves as proof to you that god doesn't really exist.

The thing you can't seem to comprehend, and I can't explain to you, because the god you believe in but reject, has different attributes... is that god can exist in some other incarnation. It doesn't have to be the judgmental Christian god, that's just the incarnation you happen to believe in but are compelled to reject. My god doesn't care how angry you get, or how many insults you hurl at god, or how much time you spend refuting god's existence.

Where have you proven "it can be done with God"?

What exactly has been "proven"?

I will give you credit for finally admitting that your agenda with the silly "spiritual nature" business has always been about your gawds.

I didn't say "I" proved anything. "IT" was proven. Learn to read.

One human has done it, he credits God. You need to prove him wrong. Here's your chance to present testable evidence to contradict God, and I say you should go for it!

Also, I don't know what the **** you mean about "admitting my agenda" being about "my gawds." I've not admitted any such thing, because it's not true. I have no agenda, other than to challenge the non-believers in their disbeliefs of spiritual nature. There is nothing "silly" about it, you haven't shown evidence that it doesn't exist, and everything you've presented, contradicts nature, Darwin, Science, Logic, and common sense. Since that hasn't worked, you've apparently taken to 'tea leaf reading' from the posts I make, to extract these bizarre things that I never said, which you can then gratify yourself by attacking.

And... you are so predictable, you are becoming a bore to me.

i see no evidence of "IT BEING PROVEN BY YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE ..
in this whole thread you've not proven what you term as spirituality is not something else altogether...
what you've done is formed an hypothesis and are cramming square pegs into round holes by speculation not evidence.

 

[Boss]

i have to concede that your intentional misconception of myself and others is a defence mechanism you've developed when your ass has been handed to you.
why all the meaningless blather ?
the facts are simple, you believe in something you cannot prove ,so to fit your skewed POV you attempt to change the rules.

Let's be clear, if you had "handed my ass to me" at any time during this thread, you would be crowing about the specifics of that event, in every single post, but... not a peep. Instead, we periodically get this "proclamation" from you, that you have indeed refuted the arguments presented in the OP, and I have not been able to counter them. Nothing is further from the truth. You are obviously counting on the fact that you have polluted the thread with page after page of superfluous nonsense, which NO ONE will ever read, and perhaps... just maybe... they won't notice that you failed to refute my argument.

I believe in something that 95% of humans who have ever existed, also professed belief in, and not only believed in, but believed they received strength and blessings through. You are the one without evidence to support your claims, I have definitive and irrefutable evidence.

 

[Boss]

i see no evidence of "IT BEING PROVEN BY YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE ..
in this whole thread you've not proven what you term as spirituality is not something else altogether...
what you've done is formed an hypothesis and are cramming square pegs into round holes by speculation not evidence.

I don't give a good goddamn WHAT you see, jackass. It's not my problem what your ignorant closed-minded ass sees and doesn't see. You must apparently believe YOU are GOD, judging by your self-aggrandizement.

 

[daws101]

i have to concede that your intentional misconception of myself and others is a defence mechanism you've developed when your ass has been handed to you.
why all the meaningless blather ?
the facts are simple, you believe in something you cannot prove ,so to fit your skewed POV you attempt to change the rules.

Let's be clear, if you had "handed my ass to me" at any time during this thread, you would be crowing about the specifics of that event, in every single post, but... not a peep. Instead, we periodically get this "proclamation" from you, that you have indeed refuted the arguments presented in the OP, and I have not been able to counter them. Nothing is further from the truth. You are obviously counting on the fact that you have polluted the thread with page after page of superfluous nonsense, which NO ONE will ever read, and perhaps... just maybe... they won't notice that you failed to refute my argument.

I believe in something that 95% of humans who have ever existed, also professed belief in, and not only believed in, but believed they received strength and blessings through. You are the one without evidence to support your claims, I have definitive and irrefutable evidence.

I don't need any as you have no definitive and irrefutable proof of anything but your belief that you do.
TO pull a page from your strategy book. I never said I handed you your ass but it's obvious
you have....
btw you have no real argument. so there is nothing to refute.

 

[Hollie]

It's already been proven it can be done with God, so I have nothing to prove. You want to claim it could be done without god, and hey... the tightrope is still there, go for it!

Oh, and MY god doesn't have "administrative duties" ...that would be a humanistic attribute, one often found in religious beliefs of god. Again, we see evidence that you do believe in god, you simply reject the god you believe is real. You want to mock and ridicule that incarnation, because it helps to empower your disbelief. It serves as your own evidence god can't be real, after all, he wouldn't let you get away with saiying such things, you'd surely be zapped by a bolt of lightning or something... so each day that passes, and some terrible fate hasn't befallen you, it serves as proof to you that god doesn't really exist.

The thing you can't seem to comprehend, and I can't explain to you, because the god you believe in but reject, has different attributes... is that god can exist in some other incarnation. It doesn't have to be the judgmental Christian god, that's just the incarnation you happen to believe in but are compelled to reject. My god doesn't care how angry you get, or how many insults you hurl at god, or how much time you spend refuting god's existence.

Where have you proven "it can be done with God"?

What exactly has been "proven"?

I will give you credit for finally admitting that your agenda with the silly "spiritual nature" business has always been about your gawds.

I didn't say "I" proved anything. "IT" was proven. Learn to read.

One human has done it, he credits God. You need to prove him wrong. Here's your chance to present testable evidence to contradict God, and I say you should go for it!

Also, I don't know what the **** you mean about "admitting my agenda" being about "my gawds." I've not admitted any such thing, because it's not true. I have no agenda, other than to challenge the non-believers in their disbeliefs of spiritual nature. There is nothing "silly" about it, you haven't shown evidence that it doesn't exist, and everything you've presented, contradicts nature, Darwin, Science, Logic, and common sense. Since that hasn't worked, you've apparently taken to 'tea leaf reading' from the posts I make, to extract these bizarre things that I never said, which you can then gratify yourself by attacking.

And... you are so predictable, you are becoming a bore to me.

You make the amateurish mistake of convincing yourself that your claims and claims of others which you wish to be trus are true until disproved.

So yes, I have proved that talking to gawds is a fictitious claim. You haven't disproved that.

 

[daws101]

i see no evidence of "IT BEING PROVEN BY YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE ..
in this whole thread you've not proven what you term as spirituality is not something else altogether...
what you've done is formed an hypothesis and are cramming square pegs into round holes by speculation not evidence.

I don't give a good goddamn WHAT you see, jackass. It's not my problem what your ignorant closed-minded ass sees and doesn't see. You must apparently believe YOU are GOD, judging by your self-aggrandizement.

hubris in action!
wrong again ! my mind is open and it perceives that you are selling snake oil.

 

[Boss]

Where have you proven "it can be done with God"?

What exactly has been "proven"?

I will give you credit for finally admitting that your agenda with the silly "spiritual nature" business has always been about your gawds.

I didn't say "I" proved anything. "IT" was proven. Learn to read.

One human has done it, he credits God. You need to prove him wrong. Here's your chance to present testable evidence to contradict God, and I say you should go for it!

Also, I don't know what the **** you mean about "admitting my agenda" being about "my gawds." I've not admitted any such thing, because it's not true. I have no agenda, other than to challenge the non-believers in their disbeliefs of spiritual nature. There is nothing "silly" about it, you haven't shown evidence that it doesn't exist, and everything you've presented, contradicts nature, Darwin, Science, Logic, and common sense. Since that hasn't worked, you've apparently taken to 'tea leaf reading' from the posts I make, to extract these bizarre things that I never said, which you can then gratify yourself by attacking.

And... you are so predictable, you are becoming a bore to me.

You make the amateurish mistake of convincing yourself that your claims and claims of others which you wish to be trus are true until disproved.

So yes, I have proved that talking to gawds is a fictitious claim. You haven't disproved that.

No, you have insisted this is the case because you say so. You've proven nothing. Every claim I have made, is supported with evidence, while every claim you make, is supported by your opinion. Realizing the total vulnerability of your unfounded opinions, you've decided to stave off this criticism by claiming MY arguments are because "I say so."

 

[Boss]

i see no evidence of "IT BEING PROVEN BY YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE ..
in this whole thread you've not proven what you term as spirituality is not something else altogether...
what you've done is formed an hypothesis and are cramming square pegs into round holes by speculation not evidence.

I don't give a good goddamn WHAT you see, jackass. It's not my problem what your ignorant closed-minded ass sees and doesn't see. You must apparently believe YOU are GOD, judging by your self-aggrandizement.

hubris in action!
wrong again ! my mind is open and it perceives that you are selling snake oil.

No, your mind is CLOSED to any possibility of spiritual nature. You've repeatedly made this clear in the thread. "Snake oil" is yet another smug insult, designed to imply that what I have presented is phony and fake. You've not proven it to be, you are simply claiming it is, and we're all supposed to genuflect toward your amazing brilliant wisdom.

Meanwhile, I have presented billions of human testimonials, who attest to strength and blessings received from spiritual nature, I have presented scientific evidence of animal behaviors, and how they don't exist because they are made up, or as placebos for knowledge and security blankets for irrational fears. You've not been able to counter that point, you continue to ignore it and try desperately to derail the thread topic, so no one can have a dialogue.

 

[Hollie]

I didn't say "I" proved anything. "IT" was proven. Learn to read.

One human has done it, he credits God. You need to prove him wrong. Here's your chance to present testable evidence to contradict God, and I say you should go for it!

Also, I don't know what the **** you mean about "admitting my agenda" being about "my gawds." I've not admitted any such thing, because it's not true. I have no agenda, other than to challenge the non-believers in their disbeliefs of spiritual nature. There is nothing "silly" about it, you haven't shown evidence that it dioesn't exist, and everything you've presented, contradicts nature, Darwin, Science, Logic, and common sense. Since that hasn't worked, you've apparently taken to 'tea leaf reading' from the posts I make, to extract these bizarre things that I never said, which you can then gratify yourself by attacking.

And... you are so predictable, you are becoming a bore to me.

You make the amateurish mistake of convincing yourself that your claims and claims of others which you wish to be trus are true until disproved.

So yes, I have proved that talking to gawds is a fictitious claim. You haven't disproved that.

No, you have insisted this is the case because you say so. You've proven nothing. Every claim I have made, is supported with evidence, while every claim you make, is supported by your opinion. Realizing the total vulnerability of your unfounded opinions, you've decided to stave off this criticism by claiming MY arguments are because "I say so."

You're wrong, of course. It's been proven that you're a fraud. You're nonsensical "because I say so" claims are pointless. You demonstrated that convincingly with the amateurish and juvenile claim that others are under some obligation to disprove your belllicose statements.

In the absense of you offering any positive evidence for what amounts to mere speculation on your part, your subjective opinions are dismissed as nothing more than juvenile " because I say so", argumentation.

Don't feel bad about being just an average juvrnile. It means you have an opportunity to learn and Improve.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Daws I will give you hint we discussed it earlier in the thread and you don't believe in intelligent design.

we did and like always you were wrong.
I don't believe in intelligent design because there is no evidence for it. if there were intelligent design,I would not need to believe:be·lieve [bih-leev] Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
verb (used with object)
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

because it would be fact.

Daws didn't you claim to have an engineering degree but yet you had to look up the term Polar spherical triangle ?if you had an engineering degree you would have taken Trigonometry and would have been familiar with the term. However you would have still not known the chemical Molecule because I don't think you would of had Biochemistry.

Anyways you should have done what Hollie did and avoided it like the plague.

 

[Hollie]

Daws I will give you hint we discussed it earlier in the thread and you don't believe in intelligent design.

we did and like always you were wrong.
I don't believe in intelligent design because there is no evidence for it. if there were intelligent design,I would not need to believe:be·lieve [bih-leev] Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
verb (used with object)
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

because it would be fact.

Daws didn't you claim to have an engineering degree but yet you had to look up the term Polar spherical triangle ?if you had an engineering degree you would have taken Trigonometry and would have been familiar with the term. However you would have still not known the chemical Molecule because I don't think you would of had Biochemistry.

Anyways you should have done what Hollie did and avoided it like the plague.

You made no argument so there was nothing to avoid.

Your lack of any background in science is obvious as your cutting and pasting from creationist websites makes you look quite foolish.

Your silly "quotes" were exposed repeatedly as fraudulent and manufactured.

 

[Boss]

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking, nowhere did I state that Hollie and Daws are "evil" or "chuckleheads"

Of course you didn't. That was my somewhat hyperbolic emphasis. The way you speak of them is very much as if you view them that way. You went on a tirade lambasting them. It was funny, a bit rude, maybe even a bit informative. All in all, it was pointless, and now we're just discussing this tangent for the sake of entertainment.

Again, I never claimed either person was evil, and I didn't insinuate it or infer it. If you perceived it, that is a problem with your perception, not what I said. I can't be responsible for how you perceive my posts. I didn't go on a tirade, I merely explained to you why this question will always be without resolution. What I said was blunt, candid, and honest, and I am sorry if that hurt someone's feelings.

and it's not an ad hom or insult to point out the truth about someone.

Oh boy. The creative paths that tangent could take us.

They have shown NO ability to understand, reason, respect, or use self control.

K. Beside the issue.

YOU said: "In general I don't give a damn who they may be or what they've said in the past—all that matters is their abilities to understand, reason, respect, and self-control."

NOW you say: "Beside the issue." Is it "all that matters" or is it "beside the issue?"

Most importantly, they've shown no ability to be honest and have an objective conversation.

You may be honest, but you're not objective, either.

But I am very objective, which is why I have avoided allowing religious theocratic debates to taint the question. I've objectively dismantled every point they've raised, using science, nature and logic. I would be happy to objectively evaluate ANY evidence they have that god doesn't exist, but they haven't presented any.

If you are reading that in their perpetual tirades, I'd like to know where?

I don't care much for their silly tirades, either. Look, I've got a $25 gift card for Applebees. If you promise to be nice you guys can go there using it. All this huff and snuff, puff and fluff is kind of boring, like youngsters who keep bickering about who has the prettiest crayon.

We're not debating crayons. The huff, snuff, puff and fluff, is coming from Hollie, daws, ed, numan, and a few others, who are religiously committed to their disbelief. I get that, and it's why I started my OP argument by addressing it right off the bat. These people are NEVER going to be convinced, not by physical evidence and certainly not with spiritual evidence they don't accept.

Repeatedly, they have attempted to change the topic to a religious debate, so they can bash and rail on the god they believe in, but are angry at, for whatever reason. In spite of numerous attempts, by me, to keep the topic clear of religious debate, they insist on dragging us right back to yet another and then another... it never ends. Daws scours the net for anti-Christian rhetoric to cut and paste, in order to dilute the thread with garbage that is totally unrelated to the topic, because it's the only way Daws knows how to combat what he can't make an argument against. Hollie can't get a sentence out, without confusing spirituality with religious belief. The two of them are on a mission to denounce God, at all costs, they have absolutely NO desire to have an honest discussion.

I wish you guys could pull up your big boy and big girl pants and not squabble like children over the bigger picture.

That's how wars begin, Boss, and people don't like wars.

Well you need to talk to Hollie and daws, and the rest of the disbelievers, because they are the source of the juvenile behavior. I am not squabbling, I am pointing out how they are devoid of argumentative points, and acting like petulant children.

 

[Boss]

You're wrong, of course. (because I say so) It's been proven that you're a fraud. (because I say so)You're nonsensical "because I say so" claims are pointless.(because I say so) You demonstrated that convincingly with the amateurish and juvenile (because I say so)claim that others are under some obligation to disprove your belllicose (because I say so)statements.

In the absense of you offering any positive evidence for what amounts to mere speculation on your part, your subjective opinions are dismissed as nothing more than juvenile " because I say so", argumentation.

Don't feel bad about being just an average juvrnile. It means you have an opportunity to learn and Improve.

You have not proven a thing I have said to be wrong. IF ANY OF YOU had done so, you would be posting it in every post, so that everyone could see it for themselves. You've not proven I am a "fraud" whatever the **** that is supposed to mean. These are your OPINIONS, and it's kind of important for you to know, that not everyone shares YOUR opinion. Because it happens to be an opinion possessed by your brain, doesn't mean it is an empirical and unassailable truth, and fact of life. I did present evidence, I did make my case, it's all in the OP argument, and anyone is free to go read it for themselves. You have yet to counter my argument, and in fact, continue to reaffirm the first point of the argument, that some people refuse to accept spiritual evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

we did and like always you were wrong.
I don't believe in intelligent design because there is no evidence for it. if there were intelligent design,I would not need to believe:be·lieve [bih-leev] Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
verb (used with object)
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

because it would be fact.

Daws didn't you claim to have an engineering degree but yet you had to look up the term Polar spherical triangle ?if you had an engineering degree you would have taken Trigonometry and would have been familiar with the term. However you would have still not known the chemical Molecule because I don't think you would of had Biochemistry.

Anyways you should have done what Hollie did and avoided it like the plague.

You made no argument so there was nothing to avoid.

Your lack of any background in science is obvious as your cutting and pasting from creationist websites makes you look quite foolish.

Your silly "quotes" were exposed repeatedly as fraudulent and manufactured.

You asked me a question I answered it for you. Then you ignored my answer and the earlier questions I asked you. The one without a scientific background was you that didn't understand my answer. Ruggedtouch you are a want to be nothing more.