Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[fyrenza]

page 33 ~ tl/dnr

You mean, OTHER than all of the folks that can TESTIFY to His presence, here?

and, i mean, what with Muslims, Jews and Christians ALL knowing the One God,
there's a TON of peeps out there that know Him / OF Him ...

Thread closed, due to logical intervention.

 

[Boss]

I have repeatedly had to correct you on my take on Occam's Razor, yet you still misrepresent what I say.

Nope, you claimed it would not apply in this argument, because the argument supposes an unknown. But the thing is, every hypothesis ever formed, supposes the unknown, that's what a hypothesis is about. You are saying, literally, that Occams, a philosophy on answering questions, is invalid because questions are unanswered. Again, logic seems to have eluded you.

AND... what you continue to insist is "unknown" has been known and comprehended by billions of people for 70,000 years. You reject it as "unknown" because you refuse to accept spiritual nature.

 

[newpolitics]

Let's review , AGAIN, 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.



I made the point, very first thing in the OP, that you can never have physical proof that god exists. It's illogical to expect it or demand it. I do have evidence, I presented it, but it's spiritual evidence which you reject. You can continue making my initial point, that those who don't recognize spiritual evidence can find no proof of god, but let it be known, that is MY point. You've failed to refute it, and instead, you've totally reinforced it.

I have posted my points, and what your rebuttals were, and I'm sorry, but you are a long way from refuting my argument. Now maybe, you are having a different debate inside your goofy head? That's possible! You keep misquoting me and claiming I've said things that weren't said, so that would make sense. But if we are going by the actual text posted in this thread, you simply haven't refuted anything.

Making the argument a second or third time doesn't make it any more valid or sound. You're "synopsis" of my refutations are completely incorrect. I have repeatedly had to correct you on my take on Occam's Razor, yet you still misrepresent what I say. More importantly, I don't need to supply a counter argument to refute yours. I simply need to show that your conclusions do not follow logically from your premises. Stating humans' spiritual belief throughout history does not deductively give you god or a spirit world. A philosophy teacher would laugh at this illogic. This is wishful thinking. Yet, This is all I need to show. Your argument fails for this reason. To say I haven't addressed this point and your others is simply dishonest.

The argument is valid and sound unless you can refute it. The first two points, you have actually confirmed. The next two points are spiritual evidence, and you reject spiritual evidence as "subjective" or "delusional." Then, the final two pieces of 'physical science' introduced, you reject the usage and/or application. You've not adequately explained why, you keep trying, but you've not come up with anything rational. So the argument remains valid and sound, as presented.

Stating humans' spiritual belief throughout history does not deductively give you god or a spirit world.

It's not just their spiritual belief throughout history, it is their PROFOUND spiritual belief. If this attribute were unimportant and provided no advantage to the species, it would have long-since been discarded by humans. It actually defies Darwin, to make the argument you are making. Every living thing, from humans down to bacteria, exhibit inherent behaviors for some reason and purpose. If there is no reason or purpose, the behavior is illogical. This theory is of great help in studying life, because we know that inherent behaviors do exist for a logical reason. We may not be able to comprehend those reasons at this time, but we know this must be the case, because it always is the case.

Now this one single point alone, does not prove a spiritual god, but it does prove that humans derive a benefit from spiritual connection, which they profoundly believe in. It is such an important benefit, humans can not discard it, and it remains the most defining attribute of their species. Only humans worship and have inherent spiritual connection.

Nope. You don't get to just proclaim your argument sound and valid. You don't even know what that means. This act, by itself, is a proof by assertion, another logical fallacy. Even in claiming a sound and valid argument are you committing a logical fallacy. Something is not true because you assert it to be. Your proofs involving spiritual evidence beg the question (circular logic). Establishing this is enough to make your argument crumble, and so it does. Your argument can't be sound and valid if it is begging the question, because you haven't demonstrated your premises to be true, which you would need the conclusion for, and around we go... At best, a circular argument is internally consistent, but this would say nothing about the outside world, and therefore, says nothing about reality.

 

[newpolitics]

page 33 ~ tl/dnr

You mean, OTHER than all of the folks that can TESTIFY to His presence, here?

and, i mean, what with Muslims, Jews and Christians ALL knowing the One God,
there's a TON of peeps out there that know Him / OF Him ...

Thread closed, due to logical intervention.

Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument from popularity). It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. It doesnt make it true. It wouldn't matter if everyone human ever was devoutly religious... That doesn't mean a god exists.

 

[newpolitics]

I have repeatedly had to correct you on my take on Occam's Razor, yet you still misrepresent what I say.

Nope, you claimed it would not apply in this argument, because the argument supposes an unknown. But the thing is, every hypothesis ever formed, supposes the unknown, that's what a hypothesis is about. You are saying, literally, that Occams, a philosophy on answering questions, is invalid because questions are unanswered. Again, logic seems to have eluded you.

AND... what you continue to insist is "unknown" has been known and comprehended by billions of people for 70,000 years. You reject it as "unknown" because you refuse to accept spiritual nature.

In assuming an unknown, you lose explanatory power, since you can not explain the unknown, hence making the theory less valid than theory in which a complete unknown is not assumed, and for which all variables are accounted for. It has nothing explicitly to do with physical versus supernatural. it just sk happens the supernatural is an unknown variable, so any theory containing the supernatural automatically loses out to one which doesn't, by the precepts involved in Ocamm's Razor. Occam's Razor says, if you have two theories with EQUAL explanatory power, the simplest explanation TENDS to be the best. It doesn't guarantee correctness, and it isn't a replacement for deductive logic.

 

[Boss]

since you can not explain the unknown

Who can't?

 

[newpolitics]

since you can not explain the unknown

Who can't?

"Since *you* can not..."

... You. Did I really need to explain this?

 

[Boss]

I have repeatedly had to correct you on my take on Occam's Razor, yet you still misrepresent what I say.

Nope, you claimed it would not apply in this argument, because the argument supposes an unknown. But the thing is, every hypothesis ever formed, supposes the unknown, that's what a hypothesis is about. You are saying, literally, that Occams, a philosophy on answering questions, is invalid because questions are unanswered. Again, logic seems to have eluded you.

AND... what you continue to insist is "unknown" has been known and comprehended by billions of people for 70,000 years. You reject it as "unknown" because you refuse to accept spiritual nature.

In assuming an unknown, you lose explanatory power, since you can not explain the unknown, hence making the theory less valid than theory in which a complete unknown is not assumed, and for which all variables are accounted for. It has nothing explicitly to do with physical versus supernatural. it just sk happens the supernatural is an unknown variable, so any theory containing the supernatural automatically loses out to one which doesn't, by the precepts involved in Ocamm's Razor. Occam's Razor says, if you have two theories with EQUAL explanatory power, the simplest explanation TENDS to be the best. It doesn't guarantee correctness, and it isn't a replacement for deductive logic.

First of all, every hypothesis has an unknown variable, this is the purpose and function of a hypothesis, to examine possibility for something unknown. Furthermore, nothing in science is ever "known" if you define this by "known certainty." Everything in science is probability and predictability, nothing is ever concluded.

You keep pretending spirituality is an "unknown" but we've been over this, it's certainly not unknown to billions of humans over 70k years, it is very much known, understood, comprehended, connected with, communicated with, and worshiped. It's not "known" physically, and it never will be, because it's not physical.

Occams razor does not say anything about "if you have two theories." It says, whenever answering hypothesis, that simplest explanations are the most logical and likely, and evaluation should begin from there... "until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power." So far, the only greater explanation you've offered is mass delusion spanning 70k years. I don't think this is a very powerful explanation, because it defies logic as well as theories of Darwinism. "To explain the unknown," also not a very powerful explanation, since most everything has been explained with regard to the "unknowns" of ancient man, and spirituality remains as prevalent as ever. "No physical evidence," again, not a very powerful explanation, since a spiritual entity wouldn't logically have any.

The simplest explanation for why humans are so spiritually connected, is because a spiritual realm exists, and humans connect with it.

 

[Boss]

since you can not explain the unknown

Who can't?

"Since *you* can not..."

... You. Did I really need to explain this?

But I did explain it... God exists.

 

[newpolitics]

Who can't?

"Since *you* can not..."

... You. Did I really need to explain this?

But I did explain it... God exists.

Proof by assertion. Try again.

 

[HUGGY]

Maybe it is time for "proof" by demonstration as a "god" that cares about his flock of believers would surely care about such blind faith. I submit that the only proof that unequivally can validate "spiritual" believability would be holding ones breath until turning blue and let god or some other reality be the judge.

 

[Boss]

"Since *you* can not..."

... You. Did I really need to explain this?

But I did explain it... God exists.

Proof by assertion. Try again.

The thread title poses a question. Definitive proof that GOD exists?

In order to answer the question, we must first establish what each word means. Four of these five words are subjective, depending upon the mind which comprehends them. What is meant by "definitive?" What is meant by "proof?" What is meant by "GOD?" What is meant by "exists?" You and I, have different interpretations. If we interpret the question differently, how can we ever agree on the answer?

I can't prove that god physically exists, because god doesn't physically exist. It's definite, if there IS a GOD, then it must be spiritual. The "proof" has to be spiritual, to support a spiritual entity, it's illogical to expect anything else. We've established, you don't recognize spiritual evidence, therefore, there is no way to "prove" any spiritual entity, including a GOD, if one exists. It doesn't matter how much we talk, you're never going to accept spiritual evidence, and so, you can't even comprehend what "exists" means in a spiritual sense. In your mind, the only "existence" is physical, and if there is no physical evidence, it simply doesn't "exist" in your view. This doesn't mean GOD does not exist, or that I haven't definitively proven it, only that you don't believe it.

"GOD" is a word I am using in a metaphoric way, to describe the spiritual force(s) which humans have connected with their entire existence as a species. This means, "GOD" doesn't have to be any particular incarnation, in fact, I would argue this is highly unlikely. The odds of fallible humans stumbling on the correct understanding of this entity through religion, is very low, nearly impossible. (Remember, I am Atheist)

So, as we can see, this is a matter of how the question is interpreted. I presented the argument, you have not refuted my argument, therefore it stands as valid and legitimate. That doesn't mean I am correct, but my argument is valid and legitimate. It remains a valid and legitimate argument until it is invalidated and rendered illegitimate. You have not done this.

 

[Boss]

Maybe it is time for "proof" by demonstration as a "god" that cares about his flock of believers would surely care about such blind faith. I submit that the only proof that unequivally can validate "spiritual" believability would be holding ones breath until turning blue and let god or some other reality be the judge.

I realize this was an attempt at humor, but I wanted to highlight it, because I think it reveals the key obstacle in your ability to overcome your ignorance about spirituality. Several times in this thread, you and others have confused spirituality with religion. You assume I am here arguing the existence of the God of Abraham, even though I have repeatedly said my personal view is somewhat atheistic.

I believe in a spiritual power greater than self, it is like an energy force, coursing through the universe. This power doesn't have human attributes, it doesn't "care" or "get angry" or have "need" ...these are attributes humans have assigned, in their feeble attempts to understand something outside their realm of comprehension. Nevertheless, a spiritual higher power does exist.

Not only do I believe this power exists in the universe, I have learned through the years, to tap into this energy force. Now, I don't really care if you believe me, but it's something I know to be true. I have routinely utilized this force as a source of personal strength and perseverance, as well as inspiration and enlightenment. I know this force has a positive influence on my life, because I haven't always believed it existed. I was once very skeptical, much like you, but once I became aware of this power, it changed my life forever.

But here is what I think is happening, you and some others, are angry at religion and religious people. Somehow, you feel as if you've been deprived of something by them, or they have taken something from you... not sure what your source of anger is, but you are angry at religion. This perception clouds your judgement, you see "GOD" and immediately assume you must attack religion. You see my argument, and assume I am defending Christianity. In order to overcome your ignorance, you must first overcome your bigotry and prejudice, and I don't believe you are ready to go there yet.

 

[HUGGY]

Maybe it is time for "proof" by demonstration as a "god" that cares about his flock of believers would surely care about such blind faith. I submit that the only proof that unequivally can validate "spiritual" believability would be holding ones breath until turning blue and let god or some other reality be the judge.

I realize this was an attempt at humor, but I wanted to highlight it, because I think it reveals the key obstacle in your ability to overcome your ignorance about spirituality. Several times in this thread, you and others have confused spirituality with religion. You assume I am here arguing the existence of the God of Abraham, even though I have repeatedly said my personal view is somewhat atheistic.

I believe in a spiritual power greater than self, it is like an energy force, coursing through the universe. This power doesn't have human attributes, it doesn't "care" or "get angry" or have "need" ...these are attributes humans have assigned, in their feeble attempts to understand something outside their realm of comprehension. Nevertheless, a spiritual higher power does exist.

Not only do I believe this power exists in the universe, I have learned through the years, to tap into this energy force. Now, I don't really care if you believe me, but it's something I know to be true. I have routinely utilized this force as a source of personal strength and perseverance, as well as inspiration and enlightenment. I know this force has a positive influence on my life, because I haven't always believed it existed. I was once very skeptical, much like you, but once I became aware of this power, it changed my life forever.

But here is what I think is happening, you and some others, are angry at religion and religious people. Somehow, you feel as if you've been deprived of something by them, or they have taken something from you... not sure what your source of anger is, but you are angry at religion. This perception clouds your judgement, you see "GOD" and immediately assume you must attack religion. You see my argument, and assume I am defending Christianity. In order to overcome your ignorance, you must first overcome your bigotry and prejudice, and I don't believe you are ready to go there yet.

Religion..Christianity, Judaism and da muslims HAVE taken much away from humanity, it's developement... education, and as a tiny member in that mass of the inheritance bestowed I do protest the cost of the willfull ignorance....without apology.

 

[Boss]

Religion..Christianity, Judaism and da muslims HAVE taken much away from humanity, it's developement... education, and as a tiny member in that mass of the inheritance bestowed I do protest the cost of the willfull ignorance....without apology.

You may very well be correct about this, I don't happen to agree completely, but this isn't the argument here. Religion is simply more evidence of profound human spiritual connection. It is through this inherent human attribute, all religions were created by men. Yes, religious beliefs have been responsible for many deaths, and many religions have been very destructive of humanity. However, I personally believe, without human spirituality, we'd all be swinging in trees, eating bananas, and grunting about our goofy cousins. Spirituality is, quite simply, what makes us human beings. It is what enabled us to form civilized society, and probably why Neanderthals ultimately didn't survive.

But please don't mistake this for me saying you have to go to church on Sunday or the Debil will get you!

 

[Fender]

Religion..Christianity, Judaism and da muslims HAVE taken much away from humanity, it's developement... education, and as a tiny member in that mass of the inheritance bestowed I do protest the cost of the willfull ignorance....without apology.

You may very well be correct about this, I don't happen to agree completely, but this isn't the argument here. Religion is simply more evidence of profound human spiritual connection. It is through this inherent human attribute, all religions were created by men. Yes, religious beliefs have been responsible for many deaths, and many religions have been very destructive of humanity. However, I personally believe, without human spirituality, we'd all be swinging in trees, eating bananas, and grunting about our goofy cousins. Spirituality is, quite simply, what makes us human beings. It is what enabled us to form civilized society, and probably why Neanderthals ultimately didn't survive.

But please don't mistake this for me saying you have to go to church on Sunday or the Debil will get you!

That's not the argument either. Do you or don't you have real proof of a god?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

A nation that prays to God for true guidance will receive true guidance. Proof positive of God. A person who prays for true guidance from God will receive the very same. A person who does not believe in God will not ask for guidance and will receive none.

Demonstrably false.

Demonstrate it, then.

 

[Boss]

Religion..Christianity, Judaism and da muslims HAVE taken much away from humanity, it's developement... education, and as a tiny member in that mass of the inheritance bestowed I do protest the cost of the willfull ignorance....without apology.

You may very well be correct about this, I don't happen to agree completely, but this isn't the argument here. Religion is simply more evidence of profound human spiritual connection. It is through this inherent human attribute, all religions were created by men. Yes, religious beliefs have been responsible for many deaths, and many religions have been very destructive of humanity. However, I personally believe, without human spirituality, we'd all be swinging in trees, eating bananas, and grunting about our goofy cousins. Spirituality is, quite simply, what makes us human beings. It is what enabled us to form civilized society, and probably why Neanderthals ultimately didn't survive.

But please don't mistake this for me saying you have to go to church on Sunday or the Debil will get you!

That's not the argument either. Do you or don't you have real proof of a god?

I have presented definitive proof. Did you not read the OP?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

page 33 ~ tl/dnr

You mean, OTHER than all of the folks that can TESTIFY to His presence, here?

and, i mean, what with Muslims, Jews and Christians ALL knowing the One God,
there's a TON of peeps out there that know Him / OF Him ...

Thread closed, due to logical intervention.

Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument from popularity). It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. It doesnt make it true. It wouldn't matter if everyone human ever was devoutly religious... That doesn't mean a god exists.

It isn't an argument from popularity, it's a valid sample of the population who have experienced the presence of God.

Some people have direct experience of God in their lives. many accept the existence of God on based on faith or logic, some insist that God doesn't exist because they have not experienced the presence of God.

So, no, it's not a logical fallacy.

If God doesn't exist, how do you explain religious experiences?

 

[HUGGY]

page 33 ~ tl/dnr

You mean, OTHER than all of the folks that can TESTIFY to His presence, here?

and, i mean, what with Muslims, Jews and Christians ALL knowing the One God,
there's a TON of peeps out there that know Him / OF Him ...

Thread closed, due to logical intervention.

Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument from popularity). It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. It doesnt make it true. It wouldn't matter if everyone human ever was devoutly religious... That doesn't mean a god exists.

It isn't an argument from popularity, it's a valid sample of the population who have experienced the presence of God.

Some people have direct experience of God in their lives. many accept the existence of God on based on faith or logic, some insist that God doesn't exist because they have not experienced the presence of God.

So, no, it's not a logical fallacy.

If God doesn't exist, how do you explain religious experiences?

That's gods whole problem... he picks and chooses who he gives the presents too. That's why I would much rather believe in Santa Claus. I got lotsa presents from Santa..