Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[HUGGY]

You are VERY delusional in almost every respect. All I know is, I am not going to play your games.

Typical reaction of someone that can't take the heat.

So theists such as Boss get to supply bogus arguments, ignore comprehensive and swift refutation, and proclaim victory, just because they desire this to be the case? This is rather solipsistic.

He rules..who makes the rules...!!!!!

 

[Boss]

What's hilarious about this little situation we have here, is that if you really had proof of the spiritual, you would have done what millennia of the most brilliant philosophical minds- St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes- couldn't do, and you would be catapulted into fame for the rest of recorded human history. Yet... Here you are, on an Internet debate forum, beating your chest.. It's depressing to see such grandiose self-delusion.

I implore you to run this by a philosophy professor. He or she will laugh his or her face off.

Philosophy? That's your basis for argument now? Really?

Yes, if I could ever provide emphatic physical proof of the existence of god, I would indeed be a famous man. I've not claimed this can be done, in fact, I have insisted it can't be done. My case for definitive proof relies on a combination of physical and spiritual evidence, but you reject spiritual evidence, therefore the argument is ridiculous to you. I've been over this numerous times, and we can go over it again if you need to, but as I've repeatedly said, unless you accept spiritual evidence, you will never be able to acknowledge the definitive proof.

This post from you, is not any different than 10 pages worth of posts by you. Nothing in it, discusses the topic or points made in the OP. It's about me and my personality, and what you think of me personally. This simply doesn't win debates, and if you were in a formal debate setting, they would have already disqualified you from participating further. You can't stick to the subject of the debate. But here, surrounded by all of your god-hating buddies, you can chortle it up, and make fun of "believers" and this makes you feel as if you have won.

You're talking about god and spirituality, and you think this isn't about philosophy? So, you think you are being scientific? That is delusional. First all, all arguments employ philosophy, since logic is central to an argument, and logic is the methodology of philosophy. Secondly, don't act like a hapless victim when it comes to throwing personal insults. You are guilty of this as well. Lastly, please stop being so dishonest when it comes to me addressing the points in your OP. We have debated ad nauseum the few points you have in the OP, so stop acting like I am avoiding anything you are saying.

My argument is not based on philosophy. It is you who is automatically categorizing spirituality as philosophy, and I reject this, because I believe a spiritual nature exists. I have never said I was being "scientific" and yet again, you have somehow derived that from my post. You seem to have this problem we can't get beyond, where I post text, and you read a bunch of things into the text that simply isn't there, and attribute it to me. You've been doing this for 10 pages, with me steadily correcting you along the way.

Let's review my points in synopsis, with your stated counterpoints:

1. God can never be proven to those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence.
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this point.

2. Physical evidence alone, can never prove existence of an entity that is not physical.
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this to be valid.

3. 70,000 years of human connection to a spiritual realm, confirm a spiritual belief that is inherent in the species and can't be defined as inconsequential or irrelevant.
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history.

4. Billions of people over time, attribute a thing called "blessings" to something greater than self.
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history.

5. Darwin says behavioral characteristics exist in a species for a reason and purpose.
---Your argument is, the reason and purpose is to "explain the unknown," even though, we see no dramatic decline in human spirituality with the advent of science, and in spite of nearly every unknown question of ancient man being answered.

6. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanations are most logical, and applied here, it means the simplest explanation for man's profound spirituality, is because spiritual nature does exist.
---Your argument, Occam's Razor can only apply to physical science problems, and can never be used for any other evaluation, even though it is a theory about evaluation.

Now, here I have covered every point I made in the OP, as well as every stated counterpoint you've posted, in between your distractions, diversions, insults and denigrations. Nothing you have presented has refuted any point made by me, and multiple points I made, you have actually confirmed. Yet, you somehow believe, you've debunked my argument and won this debate... and you're just here now to pick up the accolades from your comrades, and hoist the trophy with "the team." ...and I am the delusional one?

 

[Boss]

So theists such as Boss get to supply bogus arguments, ignore comprehensive and swift refutation, and proclaim victory, just because they desire this to be the case? This is rather solipsistic.

Boss isn't a theist, and some have described Boss as atheist. Boss has supplied a valid argument, you reject the evidence as bogus, because you don't recognize spiritual evidence.

You really, really, really want to be having a debate with a theist, because you continue to argue with me, as if I have made a theist argument. Since you and I happen to share many of the same exact sentiments toward beliefs in organized religion, I fully understand why you are trying to do this. And I guess you figure you'll keep trying to infer I am a theist, hoping I won't call you out on it, and then it becomes "fact" by way of me not objecting.

Sneaky, sneaky!

 

[newpolitics]

If "Boss" was an astronomer he would set his telescope up inside the Sistine Chapel..

Lol. I think this made me chortle.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Derideo: I can't believe this thread has lasted this long, which I share in the blame for.

Newpolitcs: No point in blaming yourself for his obstinance. No amount of sound logic or hard facts are ever going to change the mind of a "true Believer". Sometimes it is better to just move on to opponents who are more worthy of your time and attention.

You've not presented any sound logic to refute the OP. Most of what you've presented is illogical blather, while demanding the illogical as "proof" you know is impossible. Then you want to dance around with distortion, wax philosophical, and ignore the evidence presented. After that, you conclude with an arrogant flurry of insult and denigration, and proclaim yourself victorious in battle over "the believers." You're with newpolitics... this is TEAM thing with you... your team vs. the believers. Can't be objective and have an objective conversation with one of THOSE people, have to reject everything said on face, because this is for THE TEAM! **RAH RAH - SIS BOOM BAH!**

You appear to be throwing yourself a one man pity party. Probably fits right in with your "victim" mentality. Everyone is picking on the poor little "martyr".

 

[edthecynic]

Philosophy? That's your basis for argument now? Really?

Yes, if I could ever provide emphatic physical proof of the existence of god, I would indeed be a famous man. I've not claimed this can be done, in fact, I have insisted it can't be done. My case for definitive proof relies on a combination of physical and spiritual evidence, but you reject spiritual evidence, therefore the argument is ridiculous to you. I've been over this numerous times, and we can go over it again if you need to, but as I've repeatedly said, unless you accept spiritual evidence, you will never be able to acknowledge the definitive proof.

This post from you, is not any different than 10 pages worth of posts by you. Nothing in it, discusses the topic or points made in the OP. It's about me and my personality, and what you think of me personally. This simply doesn't win debates, and if you were in a formal debate setting, they would have already disqualified you from participating further. You can't stick to the subject of the debate. But here, surrounded by all of your god-hating buddies, you can chortle it up, and make fun of "believers" and this makes you feel as if you have won.

You're talking about god and spirituality, and you think this isn't about philosophy? So, you think you are being scientific? That is delusional. First all, all arguments employ philosophy, since logic is central to an argument, and logic is the methodology of philosophy. Secondly, don't act like a hapless victim when it comes to throwing personal insults. You are guilty of this as well. Lastly, please stop being so dishonest when it comes to me addressing the points in your OP. We have debated ad nauseum the few points you have in the OP, so stop acting like I am avoiding anything you are saying.

My argument is not based on philosophy. It is you who is automatically categorizing spirituality as philosophy, and I reject this, because I believe a spiritual nature exists. I have never said I was being "scientific" and yet again, you have somehow derived that from my post. You seem to have this problem we can't get beyond, where I post text, and you read a bunch of things into the text that simply isn't there, and attribute it to me. You've been doing this for 10 pages, with me steadily correcting you along the way.

Let's review my points in synopsis, with your stated counterpoints:

1. God can never be proven to those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence.
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this point.

2. Physical evidence alone, can never prove existence of an entity that is not physical.
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this to be valid.

3. 70,000 years of human connection to a spiritual realm, confirm a spiritual belief that is inherent in the species and can't be defined as inconsequential or irrelevant.
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history.

4. Billions of people over time, attribute a thing called "blessings" to something greater than self.
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history.

5. Darwin says behavioral characteristics exist in a species for a reason and purpose.
---Your argument is, the reason and purpose is to "explain the unknown," even though, we see no dramatic decline in human spirituality with the advent of science, and in spite of nearly every unknown question of ancient man being answered.

6. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanations are most logical, and applied here, it means the simplest explanation for man's profound spirituality, is because spiritual nature does exist.
---Your argument, Occam's Razor can only apply to physical science problems, and can never be used for any other evaluation, even though it is a theory about evaluation.

Now, here I have covered every point I made in the OP, as well as every stated counterpoint you've posted, in between your distractions, diversions, insults and denigrations. Nothing you have presented has refuted any point made by me, and multiple points I made, you have actually confirmed. Yet, you somehow believe, you've debunked my argument and won this debate... and you're just here now to pick up the accolades from your comrades, and hoist the trophy with "the team." ...and I am the delusional one?

Nothing you posted provides "definitive proof that God exists."

For example, in 3, claiming that 70,000 years of human spirituality proves only that humans are spiritual. I'm spiritual, but my spirituality is existential. 70,000 years of existentialism does not definitively prove God exists. Just because people are spiritual does not mean that they are metaphysical.

In 4, over the same period billions of people attribute blessings to coincidence others to blind luck.

 

[newpolitics]

So theists such as Boss get to supply bogus arguments, ignore comprehensive and swift refutation, and proclaim victory, just because they desire this to be the case? This is rather solipsistic.

Boss isn't a theist, and some have described Boss as atheist. Boss has supplied a valid argument, you reject the evidence as bogus, because you don't recognize spiritual evidence.

You really, really, really want to be having a debate with a theist, because you continue to argue with me, as if I have made a theist argument. Since you and I happen to share many of the same exact sentiments toward beliefs in organized religion, I fully understand why you are trying to do this. And I guess you figure you'll keep trying to infer I am a theist, hoping I won't call you out on it, and then it becomes "fact" by way of me not objecting.

Sneaky, sneaky!

I don't care what you call yourself or what you want to be called. I only care about arguments being valid and sound, and yours are not even close.

 

[newpolitics]

Philosophy? That's your basis for argument now? Really?

Yes, if I could ever provide emphatic physical proof of the existence of god, I would indeed be a famous man. I've not claimed this can be done, in fact, I have insisted it can't be done. My case for definitive proof relies on a combination of physical and spiritual evidence, but you reject spiritual evidence, therefore the argument is ridiculous to you. I've been over this numerous times, and we can go over it again if you need to, but as I've repeatedly said, unless you accept spiritual evidence, you will never be able to acknowledge the definitive proof.

This post from you, is not any different than 10 pages worth of posts by you. Nothing in it, discusses the topic or points made in the OP. It's about me and my personality, and what you think of me personally. This simply doesn't win debates, and if you were in a formal debate setting, they would have already disqualified you from participating further. You can't stick to the subject of the debate. But here, surrounded by all of your god-hating buddies, you can chortle it up, and make fun of "believers" and this makes you feel as if you have won.

You're talking about god and spirituality, and you think this isn't about philosophy? So, you think you are being scientific? That is delusional. First all, all arguments employ philosophy, since logic is central to an argument, and logic is the methodology of philosophy. Secondly, don't act like a hapless victim when it comes to throwing personal insults. You are guilty of this as well. Lastly, please stop being so dishonest when it comes to me addressing the points in your OP. We have debated ad nauseum the few points you have in the OP, so stop acting like I am avoiding anything you are saying.

My argument is not based on philosophy. It is you who is automatically categorizing spirituality as philosophy, and I reject this, because I believe a spiritual nature exists. I have never said I was being "scientific" and yet again, you have somehow derived that from my post. You seem to have this problem we can't get beyond, where I post text, and you read a bunch of things into the text that simply isn't there, and attribute it to me. You've been doing this for 10 pages, with me steadily correcting you along the way.

Let's review my points in synopsis, with your stated counterpoints:

1. God can never be proven to those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence.
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this point.

2. Physical evidence alone, can never prove existence of an entity that is not physical.
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this to be valid.

3. 70,000 years of human connection to a spiritual realm, confirm a spiritual belief that is inherent in the species and can't be defined as inconsequential or irrelevant.
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history.

4. Billions of people over time, attribute a thing called "blessings" to something greater than self.
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history.

5. Darwin says behavioral characteristics exist in a species for a reason and purpose.
---Your argument is, the reason and purpose is to "explain the unknown," even though, we see no dramatic decline in human spirituality with the advent of science, and in spite of nearly every unknown question of ancient man being answered.

6. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanations are most logical, and applied here, it means the simplest explanation for man's profound spirituality, is because spiritual nature does exist.
---Your argument, Occam's Razor can only apply to physical science problems, and can never be used for any other evaluation, even though it is a theory about evaluation.

Now, here I have covered every point I made in the OP, as well as every stated counterpoint you've posted, in between your distractions, diversions, insults and denigrations. Nothing you have presented has refuted any point made by me, and multiple points I made, you have actually confirmed. Yet, you somehow believe, you've debunked my argument and won this debate... and you're just here now to pick up the accolades from your comrades, and hoist the trophy with "the team." ...and I am the delusional one?

You have no idea what philosophy, logic, or argumentation is. If you are making an argument, you are attempting use to logic, which is a concern of philosophy. So, to say your argument is not based on philosophy is an admission that you don't care about logic, and it shows.

 

[Boss]

You have no idea what philosophy, logic, or argumentation is. If you are making an argument, you are attempting use to logic, which is a concern of philosophy. So, to say your argument is not based on philosophy is an admission that you don't care about logic, and it shows.

Haha.. I have shown YOU to be the one demanding the illogical. You want physical proof of a spiritual entity. You expect physical evidence to support existence of an entity that is not physical. If spiritual things had physical properties, they would not be spiritual. There is no rational or logical reason to expect a spiritual entity to have physical properties or possess physical evidence of existence. And what does 'existence' mean, if you only believe in physical existence? How can a spiritual entity meet the criteria you demand? It's illogical.

 

[S.J.]

Give it up, NP. You suck at debating.

 

[HUGGY]

Give it up, NP. You suck at debating.

This is debating ?

 

[amrchaos]

OK--I am confused--what is spiritual evidence? How do we seperate it from actual evidence of the "spirit" versus made up poopy doo?

On what page did boss define how to tell when we have actual, certifiable spiritual evidence?

 

[hobelim]

OK--I am confused--what is spiritual evidence? How do we seperate it from actual evidence of the "spirit" versus made up poopy doo?

On what page did boss define how to tell when we have actual, certifiable spiritual evidence?

he never did, but if you don't accept spiritual evidence you will never see spiritual evidence....

 

[amrchaos]

OK--I am confused--what is spiritual evidence? How do we seperate it from actual evidence of the "spirit" versus made up poopy doo?

On what page did boss define how to tell when we have actual, certifiable spiritual evidence?

he never did, but if you don't accept spiritual evidence you will never see spiritual evidence....

I thought the "evidence" was based on the existence of concepts(as in how concepts exist)----and the proof of spirituality then follows from the concept of spirituality. Not as in actually existing in the physical world, but one that can be achieved abstractly such as in thought.

At least that I thought was the line of argument in the first couple of pages. I did not have a problem with that line of argument because that is basically what the argument an atheist is pointing to when they argue against belief in god as a living being--God is an abstract concept, not a living being. To suggest the opposite is the basis of disagreement.


Now given the last few pages, it seems that the argument is suggesting existance without physical representation nor as an abstract concept. But then there is some retracting since another argument suggest existance of the spiritual as purely conceptual.

I am trying to figure out which is which?

 

[HUGGY]

OK...OK..I think I've got it!

If a herd of lemmings is jumping off a cliff into the sea then to understand the lemmings point of view you must hurl yourself off the precipice with them. Only then will you understand what a lemming "thinks". It is something missing in YOU if you do not interact with spirits. No ghosts in your closet? God doesn't talk to you personally? He doesn't give you an "atta boy" when you clean your plate and say your prayers? The reason YOU do not have these experiences is because YOU are defective!

 

[amrchaos]

OK...OK..I think I've got it!

If a herd of lemmings is jumping off a cliff into the sea then to understand the lemmings point of view you must hurl yourself off the precipice with them. Only then will you understand what a lemming "thinks". It is something missing in YOU if you do not interact with spirits. No ghosts in your closet? God doesn't talk to you personally? He doesn't give you an "atta boy" when you clean your plate and say your prayers? The reason YOU do not have these experiences is because YOU are defective!

Which post are you responding to? I think I missed gaining that intepretation from reading the posts in this thread....

 

[Boss]

I thought the "evidence" was based on the existence of concepts(as in how concepts exist)----and the proof of spirituality then follows from the concept of spirituality. Not as in actually existing in the physical world, but one that can be achieved abstractly such as in thought.

At least that I thought was the line of argument in the first couple of pages. I did not have a problem with that line of argument because that is basically what the argument an atheist is pointing to when they argue against belief in god as a living being--God is an abstract concept, not a living being. To suggest the opposite is the basis of disagreement.


Now given the last few pages, it seems that the argument is suggesting existance without physical representation nor as an abstract concept. But then there is some retracting since another argument suggest existance of the spiritual as purely conceptual.

I am trying to figure out which is which?

You have to begin by understanding the difference between physical and spiritual existence. When someone says "god exists" it does not mean in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense. If you don't believe in spiritual nature, this is impossible. The only type of "existence" your mind comprehends, is physical. God doesn't physically exist.

Spirituality is much more than a "concept" or "idea." The profound connection humans have always had with spirituality, the fact that we are hardwired to be spiritual creatures, that we can't function as a species without this, is "spiritual evidence" and very powerful evidence, I believe.

Now, we could dismiss this as an odd phenomenon, if it happened in 5% or 15% of the human population, but this attribute is consistently found in about 90-95% of humans, throughout human history, this is largely unchanged. Literally billions of people who have professed a profound belief in something outside our material world. They believed they were "blessed" by something greater than self.

This means, either we have been suffering from 70,000 years of mass delusion, like newpolitics argued, or... it means spirituality is real and people connect to something spiritual.

 

[amrchaos]

I thought the "evidence" was based on the existence of concepts(as in how concepts exist)----and the proof of spirituality then follows from the concept of spirituality. Not as in actually existing in the physical world, but one that can be achieved abstractly such as in thought.

At least that I thought was the line of argument in the first couple of pages. I did not have a problem with that line of argument because that is basically what the argument an atheist is pointing to when they argue against belief in god as a living being--God is an abstract concept, not a living being. To suggest the opposite is the basis of disagreement.


Now given the last few pages, it seems that the argument is suggesting existance without physical representation nor as an abstract concept. But then there is some retracting since another argument suggest existance of the spiritual as purely conceptual.

I am trying to figure out which is which?

You have to begin by understanding the difference between physical and spiritual existence. When someone says "god exists" it does not mean in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense. If you don't believe in spiritual nature, this is impossible. The only type of "existence" your mind comprehends, is physical. God doesn't physically exist.

Spirituality is much more than a "concept" or "idea." The profound connection humans have always had with spirituality, the fact that we are hardwired to be spiritual creatures, that we can't function as a species without this, is "spiritual evidence" and very powerful evidence, I believe.

Now, we could dismiss this as an odd phenomenon, if it happened in 5% or 15% of the human population, but this attribute is consistently found in about 90-95% of humans, throughout human history, this is largely unchanged. Literally billions of people who have professed a profound belief in something outside our material world. They believed they were "blessed" by something greater than self.

This means, either we have been suffering from 70,000 years of mass delusion, like newpolitics argued, or... it means spirituality is real and people connect to something spiritual.

Hold it

Physical existance is not a problem
Then there is conceptual existance in which an idea or concept exist in the mind.

Now give me an example of a spiritual existance if it is neither physical nor conceptual.

 

[hobelim]

OK--I am confused--what is spiritual evidence? How do we seperate it from actual evidence of the "spirit" versus made up poopy doo?

On what page did boss define how to tell when we have actual, certifiable spiritual evidence?

he never did, but if you don't accept spiritual evidence you will never see spiritual evidence....

I thought the "evidence" was based on the existence of concepts(as in how concepts exist)----and the proof of spirituality then follows from the concept of spirituality. Not as in actually existing in the physical world, but one that can be achieved abstractly such as in thought.

At least that I thought was the line of argument in the first couple of pages. I did not have a problem with that line of argument because that is basically what the argument an atheist is pointing to when they argue against belief in god as a living being--God is an abstract concept, not a living being. To suggest the opposite is the basis of disagreement.


Now given the last few pages, it seems that the argument is suggesting existence without physical representation nor as an abstract concept. But then there is some retracting since another argument suggest existence of the spiritual as purely conceptual.

I am trying to figure out which is which?

The way I see it, even what many people describe as spirituality is occurring within the mind. The substance of conscious thought - words, ideas, images, feelings, beliefs, hopes and fears, etc. - is a dimension of conscious existence but without distinguishing between made up poopy doo and the actual truth a mind is either in light or darkness, rational or irrational, heaven or hell, living or dead.

Whether there is a realm or not where intelligences can exist without the physical seems more likely than unlikely but whether the conscious mind could survive separation from the physical body would logically seem to depend on how coherent and reality based the mind was in life.


A mind whose developement has been stunted and diverted by superstition is not likely to bear good fruit.

 

[amrchaos]

If there is a realm where intelligence can exist without the physical , then spiritual existance could reside in such a realm.

The problem I am having is the realization of this realm as neither the physical nor the conceptual. I doubt that every civilization had contact with this extra-realm and derived absolute truth from it.

Especially since some of these absolute truths of one spiritualists differed wildly from another spiritualist.

On the other hand, where spiritualists seemed to agree on were general concepts of morality which could well be reconstructed from a conceptual basis. In my mind, this places doubt on wether or not a spiritual realm actually exist. It also tends to suggest that man, through the ages, have searched for rationality since the dawn of time. Different civilizations came to some of the exact conclusions in terms of some general issues but stumbled over more specific topics.