Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[daws101]

whatever happened to the good old christian values of admitting you're wrong and taking responsibility .....?

Bowie made a rational, though somewhat hyperbolic observation. What followed is what we've come to expect. Repugnant, one-liner insults generically aimed at the entire Christian family. Hollie's response didn't even have a shred of relation to what she replied to. It's as if Hollie just wanted to force-fit her pre-conceived one-liner into a conversation. Obviously, daws was impressed and continued in likewise fashion.

Whatever happened to the good old unbelievers who would take the stage in public debate and offer up real, rational, well-thought-out counterpoints relative to the subject at hand?

If you people had some truth to offer people would accept it. The fact is you don't want a logical debate, you want someone to reinforce your delusion and when it is exposed for the bullshit that it is you act like someone has done something bad to you.


It is not possible to have a rational debate with irrational people, If it was you all would have shut up and repented a long time ago.

bump

 

[daws101]

If you people had some truth to offer people would accept it. The fact is you don't want a logical debate, you want someone to reinforce your delusion and when it is exposed for the bullshit that it is you act like someone has done something bad to you.

It is not possible to have a rational debate with irrational people, If it was you all would have shut up and repented a long time ago.

Wow, that would describe the disbelievers in this thread.

The logical debate is found in the OP. It begins with defining parameters and terminology. Before you can even begin to have a debate, you logically have to establish what you are debating, as there are different interpretations of what the words mean, so this has to be first established before the debate happens.

If you are unable to recognize spiritual nature, it disqualifies you from any further participation in the debate, because you lack the ability to comprehend the term "spiritual existence," it means nothing to you. If you don't understand the terms of the debate, how can you debate? I mean, it's no big deal, we are debating the existence of God, and you don't believe in God, so it shouldn't matter that you can't participate in the debate. But for some reason, this point doesn't seem to sink in, we're several thousand posts in, and still getting disbelievers wanting to debate what they are incapable of debating.

The lack of ability to participate in the debate, has led to an insult-fest, bombarding the thread with superfluous nonsense, attacking Christians, attacking religion, mocking and ridiculing with a few snarky cartoons thrown in here and there for good measure. Very few people have been objectively able to even address the OP argument, and a whole lot of disbelieving crusaders are here, slapping each other on the back, acting as if they have defeated the arguments, and they are just here to rub it in.

why did I know you'd say that?
hobelim hit the nail on the head ..
somewhere along the line the rules of debate have been altered by you guys to make it appear that your professed belief is somehow evidence of something other than belief.
nothing you've presented comes close to even the loosest standard of evidence.
as to the "attacks" here's an axiom for you "if your gonna play with the big kids don't whine if you get hurt."

 

[daws101]

Nor do they want to discuss and learn and see for themselves the reality of the theories, they place their trust in. I was not trying to put daws and hollie to the test and I probably should have made that clear. that could be their reluctance to answer my questions. This is a new approach, get them to try and reason from the evidence of reality.

all the evidence from reality refutes your assumed. FANTASY

 

[daws101]

Yeah establishment scientists have Lysenkoed science in the 21st century and now criticisms of Anthropocentric Global Warming, LENR fusion theory, revisions of evolutionary theory that doesn't worship at the feet of Darwin, etc, all demonstrate the institutional grip the current syndicate of state sponsored science has wrought.

We should defund ALL science research coming from government coffers and let these bastards make their cases to the general public and beg for funding.

the conspiracy spin redux..

No, its called networking and 'pursuing mutual interests'.

And even if we were talking conspiracy, what you think the Mafia isn't a conspiracy? The KGB? Al Qaeda' various terrorism efforts? Price fixing that is going on in various industries?

Conspiracies happen all the time, even if libtards like you don't see them for what they are, just like you cant see God.

lol!

 

[daws101]

The more complexity of the organism the lower the rate for variations that is another known fact.

when someone uses the term know fact they are most often referring to misunderstood science or just plain old fashioned bullshit
in this instance it's both.

 

[daws101]

Hollie if you would like to discuss what I just presented I am open to it. I would love an explanation from your side on these issues.

Trust me I am not your buddy Harun Yahya. Just a guy that can rationally look at the real evidence and change my previous views because of the evidence.

Trust me. I don't trust you.

I have seen your "evidence" and I have spent more than a minor amount of time researching your "evidence". It is invariably cut and pasted from fundamentalist Christian websites, ICR and other such charlatans, or Harun Yahya.

It's been explained to you more times than I can count: Christian creationism is smoke and mirrors for fundamentalist christianity. It is not science.

Hollie that is not true but believe as you wish.

bullshit! "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[7][8] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[9][10]

somebody's stacking it high and deep and it's not hollie!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Trust me. I don't trust you.

I have seen your "evidence" and I have spent more than a minor amount of time researching your "evidence". It is invariably cut and pasted from fundamentalist Christian websites, ICR and other such charlatans, or Harun Yahya.

It's been explained to you more times than I can count: Christian creationism is smoke and mirrors for fundamentalist christianity. It is not science.

Hollie that is not true but believe as you wish.

bullshit! "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[7][8] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[9][10]

somebody's stacking it high and deep and it's not hollie!

That is not the comment I disagreed with hollie over. Believe as you wish and I guess some have to learn the hard way.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Boss it is all yours.

 

[daws101]

Hollie that is not true but believe as you wish.

bullshit! "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[7][8] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[9][10]

somebody's stacking it high and deep and it's not hollie!

That is not the comment I disagreed with hollie over. Believe as you wish and I guess some have to learn the hard way.

yes it is you infer that that creationism is real science it is not.

 

[Boss]

If you people had some truth to offer people would accept it. The fact is you don't want a logical debate, you want someone to reinforce your delusion and when it is exposed for the bullshit that it is you act like someone has done something bad to you.

It is not possible to have a rational debate with irrational people, If it was you all would have shut up and repented a long time ago.

Wow, that would describe the disbelievers in this thread.

The logical debate is found in the OP. It begins with defining parameters and terminology. Before you can even begin to have a debate, you logically have to establish what you are debating, as there are different interpretations of what the words mean, so this has to be first established before the debate happens.

If you are unable to recognize spiritual nature, it disqualifies you from any further participation in the debate, because you lack the ability to comprehend the term "spiritual existence," it means nothing to you. If you don't understand the terms of the debate, how can you debate? I mean, it's no big deal, we are debating the existence of God, and you don't believe in God, so it shouldn't matter that you can't participate in the debate. But for some reason, this point doesn't seem to sink in, we're several thousand posts in, and still getting disbelievers wanting to debate what they are incapable of debating.

The lack of ability to participate in the debate, has led to an insult-fest, bombarding the thread with superfluous nonsense, attacking Christians, attacking religion, mocking and ridiculing with a few snarky cartoons thrown in here and there for good measure. Very few people have been objectively able to even address the OP argument, and a whole lot of disbelieving crusaders are here, slapping each other on the back, acting as if they have defeated the arguments, and they are just here to rub it in.

why did I know you'd say that?
hobelim hit the nail on the head ..
somewhere along the line the rules of debate have been altered by you guys to make it appear that your professed belief is somehow evidence of something other than belief.
nothing you've presented comes close to even the loosest standard of evidence.
as to the "attacks" here's an axiom for you "if your gonna play with the big kids don't whine if you get hurt."

Rules of debate haven't been altered. I stated in the OP, that we have to exclude debaters who don't recognize spiritual nature, because you have no concept of the terminology used in the debate. This is one of the reasons you can't see the evidence, which I very clearly presented in the OP. Persistent behavioral attributes, are evidence. First-hand testimonials from billions of people, are evidence. The correlation between human spirituality and advancement of the species, is evidence. You can't refute it, so you reject it, dismiss it, and ignore it. When that doesn't work, you personally attack and insult, and try to derail the thread topic by changing the debate.

And to set the record straight, I am in no way "whining" about anything. I am pointing out your bankruptcy of ideas and revealing the tactic you've chosen to use, instead of engaging the topic. I don't do this to complain, but to illustrate to others how devoid of an argument you really are. Please don't flatter yourself into thinking your petty insults have hurt my feelings, I assure you, I have been insulted in much worse ways. It doesn't bother me a bit, it confirms your desperation and patheticness.

 

[daws101]

Wow, that would describe the disbelievers in this thread.

The logical debate is found in the OP. It begins with defining parameters and terminology. Before you can even begin to have a debate, you logically have to establish what you are debating, as there are different interpretations of what the words mean, so this has to be first established before the debate happens.

If you are unable to recognize spiritual nature, it disqualifies you from any further participation in the debate, because you lack the ability to comprehend the term "spiritual existence," it means nothing to you. If you don't understand the terms of the debate, how can you debate? I mean, it's no big deal, we are debating the existence of God, and you don't believe in God, so it shouldn't matter that you can't participate in the debate. But for some reason, this point doesn't seem to sink in, we're several thousand posts in, and still getting disbelievers wanting to debate what they are incapable of debating.

The lack of ability to participate in the debate, has led to an insult-fest, bombarding the thread with superfluous nonsense, attacking Christians, attacking religion, mocking and ridiculing with a few snarky cartoons thrown in here and there for good measure. Very few people have been objectively able to even address the OP argument, and a whole lot of disbelieving crusaders are here, slapping each other on the back, acting as if they have defeated the arguments, and they are just here to rub it in.

why did I know you'd say that?
hobelim hit the nail on the head ..
somewhere along the line the rules of debate have been altered by you guys to make it appear that your professed belief is somehow evidence of something other than belief.
nothing you've presented comes close to even the loosest standard of evidence.
as to the "attacks" here's an axiom for you "if your gonna play with the big kids don't whine if you get hurt."

Rules of debate haven't been altered. I stated in the OP, that we have to exclude debaters who don't recognize spiritual nature, because you have no concept of the terminology used in the debate. This is one of the reasons you can't see the evidence, which I very clearly presented in the OP. Persistent behavioral attributes, are evidence. First-hand testimonials from billions of people, are evidence. The correlation between human spirituality and advancement of the species, is evidence. You can't refute it, so you reject it, dismiss it, and ignore it. When that doesn't work, you personally attack and insult, and try to derail the thread topic by changing the debate.

And to set the record straight, I am in no way "whining" about anything. I am pointing out your bankruptcy of ideas and revealing the tactic you've chosen to use, instead of engaging the topic. I don't do this to complain, but to illustrate to others how devoid of an argument you really are. Please don't flatter yourself into thinking your petty insults have hurt my feelings, I assure you, I have been insulted in much worse ways. It doesn't bother me a bit, it confirms your desperation and patheticness.

the above statement is erroneous.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie that is not true but believe as you wish.

bullshit! "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[7][8] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[9][10]

somebody's stacking it high and deep and it's not hollie!

That is not the comment I disagreed with hollie over. Believe as you wish and I guess some have to learn the hard way.

Great. Now the fundie is using not so vague references to what awaits in some afterlife for those who don't believe as he does.

Take your threats elsewhere. Your scare tactics wherein you try to bludgeon people with your angry gawds is tiresome.

Do you think your gawds want or need a wannabe enforcer of dogma?

 

[Youwerecreated]

why did I know you'd say that?
hobelim hit the nail on the head ..
somewhere along the line the rules of debate have been altered by you guys to make it appear that your professed belief is somehow evidence of something other than belief.
nothing you've presented comes close to even the loosest standard of evidence.
as to the "attacks" here's an axiom for you "if your gonna play with the big kids don't whine if you get hurt."

Rules of debate haven't been altered. I stated in the OP, that we have to exclude debaters who don't recognize spiritual nature, because you have no concept of the terminology used in the debate. This is one of the reasons you can't see the evidence, which I very clearly presented in the OP. Persistent behavioral attributes, are evidence. First-hand testimonials from billions of people, are evidence. The correlation between human spirituality and advancement of the species, is evidence. You can't refute it, so you reject it, dismiss it, and ignore it. When that doesn't work, you personally attack and insult, and try to derail the thread topic by changing the debate.

And to set the record straight, I am in no way "whining" about anything. I am pointing out your bankruptcy of ideas and revealing the tactic you've chosen to use, instead of engaging the topic. I don't do this to complain, but to illustrate to others how devoid of an argument you really are. Please don't flatter yourself into thinking your petty insults have hurt my feelings, I assure you, I have been insulted in much worse ways. It doesn't bother me a bit, it confirms your desperation and patheticness.

the above statement is erroneous.

Do you have an example ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit! "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[7][8] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[9][10]

somebody's stacking it high and deep and it's not hollie!

That is not the comment I disagreed with hollie over. Believe as you wish and I guess some have to learn the hard way.

Great. Now the fundie is using not so vague references to what awaits in some afterlife for those who don't believe as he does.

Take your threats elsewhere. Your scare tactics wherein you try to bludgeon people with your angry gawds is tiresome.

Do you think your gawds want or need a wannabe enforcer of dogma?

Hollie you're suffering from paranoia.

 

[daws101]

Rules of debate haven't been altered. I stated in the OP, that we have to exclude debaters who don't recognize spiritual nature, because you have no concept of the terminology used in the debate. This is one of the reasons you can't see the evidence, which I very clearly presented in the OP. Persistent behavioral attributes, are evidence. First-hand testimonials from billions of people, are evidence. The correlation between human spirituality and advancement of the species, is evidence. You can't refute it, so you reject it, dismiss it, and ignore it. When that doesn't work, you personally attack and insult, and try to derail the thread topic by changing the debate.

And to set the record straight, I am in no way "whining" about anything. I am pointing out your bankruptcy of ideas and revealing the tactic you've chosen to use, instead of engaging the topic. I don't do this to complain, but to illustrate to others how devoid of an argument you really are. Please don't flatter yourself into thinking your petty insults have hurt my feelings, I assure you, I have been insulted in much worse ways. It doesn't bother me a bit, it confirms your desperation and patheticness.

the above statement is erroneous.

Do you have an example ?

reading comprehension trouble acting up again?

 

[Hollie]

That is not the comment I disagreed with hollie over. Believe as you wish and I guess some have to learn the hard way.

Great. Now the fundie is using not so vague references to what awaits in some afterlife for those who don't believe as he does.

Take your threats elsewhere. Your scare tactics wherein you try to bludgeon people with your angry gawds is tiresome.

Do you think your gawds want or need a wannabe enforcer of dogma?

Hollie you're suffering from paranoia.

You've made these pompous, assinine threats before.

Don't feel a need to threaten others on behalf of your gawds

 

[daws101]

Great. Now the fundie is using not so vague references to what awaits in some afterlife for those who don't believe as he does.

Take your threats elsewhere. Your scare tactics wherein you try to bludgeon people with your angry gawds is tiresome.

Do you think your gawds want or need a wannabe enforcer of dogma?

Hollie you're suffering from paranoia.

You've made these pompous, assinine threats before.

Don't feel a need to threaten others on behalf of your gawds

next he'll say "the walls are closing in."

 

[Youwerecreated]

the above statement is erroneous.

Do you have an example ?

reading comprehension trouble acting up again?

Why don't you help us out and offer an example of your accusation.

 

[daws101]

Do you have an example ?

reading comprehension trouble acting up again?

Why don't you help us out and offer an example of your accusation.

it not an accusation it's statement of fact ...no further example is needed..
btw when you learn the difference between the two. get back to me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie you're suffering from paranoia.

You've made these pompous, assinine threats before.

Don't feel a need to threaten others on behalf of your gawds

next he'll say "the walls are closing in."

I find that people that think and react like you and hollie are suffering from paranoia and living in fear.