Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

Debating rule #1:-

Question,why are you and NP posting in the thread in that case ?

Are you insinuating that I am not debating? I don't think you know what debate is.

opposing arguments are put forward ?

 

[newpolitics]

Question,why are you and NP posting in the thread in that case ?

Are you insinuating that I am not debating? I don't think you know what debate is.

opposing arguments are put forward ?

I don't need to put up an additional Argument. I simply need to refute his own argument, which I've done, repeatedly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

In other words, it doesn't matter how many people believe there is no such thing as god?

Good point!

OR

How many believe there is a living god..it can go either way and does not clarify what is actually true.

Right, but I know of no one who thinks there is a "living god" ...as in, physical flesh and blood. God is a spiritual entity, not a physically living being. The non-god-believers keep demanding that proof be presented for god, but they reject the spiritual evidence which proves a spiritual entity. Here, you indicate the notion of a "living" god, which cannot logically exist, since spiritual entities aren't living physical beings.

Now, either one of two things apply here, you believe people who claim belief in god are imagining a person who doesn't really exist, or you know that god is spiritual, and can never be proven with physical evidence alone.

What simply can't be denied, regardless of what your beliefs are, is that human beings have always been spiritually hardwired. It is the defining characteristic which makes us unique among all living creatures. Through years of war and persecution, enlightenment and scientific answers to the great 'unknowns' of ancient man, spiritual nature in humans still remains as strong as ever. It can't be beaten out of man, it can't be enlightened out of man, and it can't be ridiculed out of man. Does that mean it's "real?" Well, it's obvious that spiritual connection to SOMETHING is real, we've been doing it for 70,000 years.

I have seen no evidence proving man has existed for 70,000 years but I do agree with your greater point man has always possessed a spiritual belief as long as we have existed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you insinuating that I am not debating? I don't think you know what debate is.

opposing arguments are put forward ?

I don't need to put up an additional Argument. I simply need to refute his own argument, which I've done, repeatedly.

You can't and yes you have to explain away the evidence he has presented claiming they were all ignorant and brainwashed won't work here. Then you don't know what a debate is.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Are you insinuating that I am not debating? I don't think you know what debate is.

opposing arguments are put forward ?

I don't need to put up an additional Argument. I simply need to refute his own argument, which I've done, repeatedly.

Precisely. The OP made certain assumptions that have been exposed as utterly baseless. The onus now shifts back to the OP to overturn the exposure. So far he has has failed at every attempt and resorted to deflections, denials, lies, insults and self pity.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you insinuating that I am not debating? I don't think you know what debate is.

opposing arguments are put forward ?

I don't need to put up an additional Argument. I simply need to refute his own argument, which I've done, repeatedly.

Let me help you here. Boss is claiming since man has existed we have had spiritual beliefs You are saying there is no evidence to have spiritual beliefs. He has presented evidence for his claim you however have not, Got it ? that is the debate of opposing views.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie you lack creativity same ol boring responses.

You shouldn't expect cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya to be met with serious consideration.

Hollie are you really this dense ?

Are we to believe that you actually do expect cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya to be met with serious consideration?

 

[Youwerecreated]

opposing arguments are put forward ?

I don't need to put up an additional Argument. I simply need to refute his own argument, which I've done, repeatedly.

Precisely. The OP made certain assumptions that have been exposed as utterly baseless. The onus now shifts back to the OP to overturn the exposure. So far he has has failed at every attempt and resorted to deflections, denials, lies, insults and self pity.

Wrong.

 

[newpolitics]

opposing arguments are put forward ?

I don't need to put up an additional Argument. I simply need to refute his own argument, which I've done, repeatedly.

Precisely. The OP made certain assumptions that have been exposed as utterly baseless. The onus now shifts back to the OP to overturn the exposure. So far he has has failed at every attempt and resorted to deflections, denials, lies, insults and self pity.

Exactly. He made a claim. We offer a refutation. Now he must counter our refutation, which he has not successfully done. So, our refutation still stands.

He simply keeps on referring to the OP, the implication being, that "there is no possible refutation." He simply will not accept any refutation, because he has already decided, a priori, that his argument is airtight.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You shouldn't expect cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya to be met with serious consideration.

Hollie are you really this dense ?

Are we to believe that you actually do expect cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya to be met with serious consideration?

Don't put words in my mouth. Those people must have made you look so silly you keep bringing them up. If you have a bone to pick with them by all means take it up with them.

 

[Hollie]

OR

How many believe there is a living god..it can go either way and does not clarify what is actually true.

Right, but I know of no one who thinks there is a "living god" ...as in, physical flesh and blood. God is a spiritual entity, not a physically living being. The non-god-believers keep demanding that proof be presented for god, but they reject the spiritual evidence which proves a spiritual entity. Here, you indicate the notion of a "living" god, which cannot logically exist, since spiritual entities aren't living physical beings.

Now, either one of two things apply here, you believe people who claim belief in god are imagining a person who doesn't really exist, or you know that god is spiritual, and can never be proven with physical evidence alone.

What simply can't be denied, regardless of what your beliefs are, is that human beings have always been spiritually hardwired. It is the defining characteristic which makes us unique among all living creatures. Through years of war and persecution, enlightenment and scientific answers to the great 'unknowns' of ancient man, spiritual nature in humans still remains as strong as ever. It can't be beaten out of man, it can't be enlightened out of man, and it can't be ridiculed out of man. Does that mean it's "real?" Well, it's obvious that spiritual connection to SOMETHING is real, we've been doing it for 70,000 years.

I have seen no evidence proving man has existed for 70,000 years but I do agree with your greater point man has always possessed a spiritual belief as long as we have existed.

You confuse "spiritual" belief with the assignment of, collectively, gods, demons, supernaturalism, fear and superstition to completely natural phenomenon.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't need to put up an additional Argument. I simply need to refute his own argument, which I've done, repeatedly.

Precisely. The OP made certain assumptions that have been exposed as utterly baseless. The onus now shifts back to the OP to overturn the exposure. So far he has has failed at every attempt and resorted to deflections, denials, lies, insults and self pity.

Exactly. He made a claim. We offer a refutation. Now he must counter our refutation, which he has not successfully done. So, our refutation distill stands. He simply keeps on referring to the OP, the implication being, that "there is no possible refutation." He simply will not accept any refutation, because he has already decided, a priori, that his argument is airtight.

So we have this straight what was his claim ? What was your refutation ?

 

[newpolitics]

opposing arguments are put forward ?

I don't need to put up an additional Argument. I simply need to refute his own argument, which I've done, repeatedly.

Let me help you here. Boss is claiming since man has existed we have had spiritual beliefs You are saying there is no evidence to have spiritual beliefs. He has presented evidence for his claim you however have not, Got it ? that is the debate of opposing views.

This didn't make much sense.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie are you really this dense ?

Are we to believe that you actually do expect cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya to be met with serious consideration?

Don't put words in my mouth. Those people must have made you look so silly you keep bringing them up. If you have a bone to pick with them by all means take it up with them.

I'm just identifying that you have frequently cut and pasted from Harun Yahya in attempts to support your belief in gods and a young (6,000 year old) earth.

 

[MaryL]

I pray and nothing happens, and I can also curse god and nothing happens. (Sorry, I have). Thing is, nothing definitive happens, Proof? Maybe it’s all just random meaningless stuff that happened as a result of processes that we humans haven’t a concept for nor can control? 99% of all the species that existed on this planet are now extinct, what makes human beings so special?

 

[newpolitics]

Precisely. The OP made certain assumptions that have been exposed as utterly baseless. The onus now shifts back to the OP to overturn the exposure. So far he has has failed at every attempt and resorted to deflections, denials, lies, insults and self pity.

Exactly. He made a claim. We offer a refutation. Now he must counter our refutation, which he has not successfully done. So, our refutation distill stands. He simply keeps on referring to the OP, the implication being, that "there is no possible refutation." He simply will not accept any refutation, because he has already decided, a priori, that his argument is airtight.

So we have this straight what was his claim ? What was your refutation ?

Dude. Seriously. Your syntax is horrible. Please correct it because I can't decipher what you are even trying to say.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are we to believe that you actually do expect cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya to be met with serious consideration?

Don't put words in my mouth. Those people must have made you look so silly you keep bringing them up. If you have a bone to pick with them by all means take it up with them.

I'm just identifying that you have frequently cut and pasted from Harun Yahya in attempts to support your belief in gods and a young (6,000 year old) earth.

You're a liar.

 

[Hollie]

Don't put words in my mouth. Those people must have made you look so silly you keep bringing them up. If you have a bone to pick with them by all means take it up with them.

I'm just identifying that you have frequently cut and pasted from Harun Yahya in attempts to support your belief in gods and a young (6,000 year old) earth.

You're a liar.

False.

 

[newpolitics]

Actually, no

Because everyone believes something is true does not make it true.

For example, belief in a lie does not change the lie into truth. Regardless of how many, or if everyone, believes in that lie.

Nicely stated.

As Anatole France has said, "Just because 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it doesn't mean it's not a foolish thing".

What I keep thinking about naturalists.

This is incoherent, considering that most humans throughout history have not been naturalists. It's just funny to see you try to flip the tables not realizing it is self-refuting.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Exactly. He made a claim. We offer a refutation. Now he must counter our refutation, which he has not successfully done. So, our refutation distill stands. He simply keeps on referring to the OP, the implication being, that "there is no possible refutation." He simply will not accept any refutation, because he has already decided, a priori, that his argument is airtight.

So we have this straight what was his claim ? What was your refutation ?

Dude. Seriously. Your syntax is horrible. Please correct it because I can't decipher what you are even trying to say.

Dude seriously. It came from your post

Quote from NP
Exactly. He made a claim. We offer a refutation.