Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[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.

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.

He hasn't presented a shred of actual evidence. He has only presented an opinion and multiple logical fallacies.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

My syntax was fine. Yours made any attempt at communication unintelligible. I'm happy to respond, but I honestly could not understand you. Please rephrase or do whatever you have to do to make it intelligible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

I did copy and paste sometimes and so did you but your source was not who I quoted. I mainly copy and pasted because the conversation became redundant. You could not hold a scientific debate in your own words so you had to copy and paste paragraphs and links. What was really revealing was you would do it with things that did not answer the questions put to you so please stay on topic in this thread or leave.

 

[Boss]

Here’s a bit of enlightenment for you: I’m not required to disprove anything.
Perhaps you have forgotten but it was you who closed the OP with the falsely attributed comment “So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!”

You have subsequently attempted to offer an ill-defined and poorly supported term, “spirituality”, as evidence for some alleged supernatural entity or realm that you are unable to effectively communicate, much less offer support for.

Neither I nor anyone else is under any requirement to "disprove" your claims. In no grown-up discussion is there a requirement to disprove the non-existence of anything.

I might have addressed this elsewhere, but for the new folks:

You cannot require "disproof of that which is not" as a standard because you are establishing a fallacious standard by definition. If you can demand, "my claim cannot be disproven” but not demand that the asserter prove there actually is reason to accept a claim, then anyone can counter your demand using your own standard:

Thus, I do have proof disproving your false claim of “Definitive proof that gods exists!”,
prove that I do not. See? You have established that "prove it isn't" is a viable standard, and I am merely accepting your standards and playing it right back at you. I cannot be held to task for this, since if it is okay for you to have such a standard, I can have such a standard as well.

Therefore, it must be the asserter of all positive (i.e., such and such exists) premises to prove their assertion. With equal validity, I cannot "prove there isn't" a Santa Claus, leprechauns, gnomes, werewolves, etc. etc. etc., but we do not go around insisting there be an establishment of proof of non-existence for those things. Why does the assertion of an alleged supernatural entity get past this same standard?

If you can't disprove the OP argument, then you need to shut your yap, and move on. No need for you to priss in here and proclaim you've "debunked arguments" and "exposed nonsense" when you haven't.

In my OP argument, the first two points of the argument are centered on definition and understanding of terms. I clearly stated, and you have confirmed, that people who do not accept or recognize spiritual evidence, can never have god "proven" to them, it's illogical and impossible to do so. If the physical evidence to prove god were ever discovered, god would cease to be a "spiritual entity" and would become a supportable physical entity. While it's not entirely impossible that we could discover physical evidence of god, it is highly illogical to expect it. God is not of the physical universe, god is spiritual in nature.

So, how can we "prove" something spiritually exists? We must acknowledge at the spiritual evidence. We have 70,000 years of an upper primate, exhibiting a profound and distinct attribute of spiritual behavior, and according to what we DO KNOW, this sort of thing simply does not occur in nature unless there is something to it. You can give me NO example of ANY living thing, just doing something for all of it's existence, for no apparent reason. Regardless of whether this one point "proves" a spiritual god, it certainly proves humans believe there is something greater than self, and not only do they believe it, they PROFOUNDLY believe it. This belief can't be stomped out of the hearts of man, it remains the most definitive characteristic of the species.

To casually dismiss this as "delusion" or "explaining the unknown" is insulting to science and the spirit of scientific method. You've simply dismissed the problem because of a variable you claim is unknown.

I would appreciate you providing, by way of a rigorous exampling of the Scientific Method, a proof of "spirituality".

Thrill us, won't you?

The OP presents such an argument, you simply reject spiritual evidence. It's impossible to prove a spiritual entity with physical evidence alone, if that could be done, it would be a physical entity. But we can objectively use the scientific method to examine the spiritual and physical evidence, and make a definitive argument for "existence of god." Again, "existence" means in a spiritual sense, which your mind is closed to the possibility of. If you dismiss the spiritual evidence, the physical evidence alone means nothing, god can't be proven with physical evidence, since god is a spiritual entity. The combination of spiritual evidence, with what we know and understand about animal behavior, presents a valid and legitimate argument for the existence (spiritually, not physically) of something spiritual.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

He hasn't presented a shred of actual evidence. He has only presented an opinion and multiple logical fallacies.

So are you saying man has not always been spiritual ?

 

[newpolitics]

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.

He hasn't presented a shred of actual evidence. He has only presented an opinion and multiple logical fallacies.

So are you saying man has not always been spiritual ?

I grant this premise. But how are you getting from this to "god exists"? This is the leap in logic that has not been justified or thoroughly explained. So far, it has been bridged by a logical fallacy only: the argument from popularity.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

My syntax was fine. Yours made any attempt at communication unintelligible. I'm happy to respond, but I honestly could not understand you. Please rephrase or do whatever you have to do to make it intelligible.

So was mine, you were just avoiding the question. If he didn't present evidence what was your refutation you presented Now that is contradicting yourself.

 

[Hollie]

You're a liar.

False.

I did copy and paste sometimes and so did you but your source was not who I quoted. I mainly copy and pasted because the conversation became redundant. You could not hold a scientific debate in your own words so you had to copy and paste paragraphs and links. What was really revealing was you would do it with things that did not answer the questions put to you so please stay on topic in this thread or leave.

You called me a liar for pointing out that you cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, then you abruptly identify that, (oops), you did precisely that.

Get it together.

 

[newpolitics]

Dude seriously. It came from your post

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

My syntax was fine. Yours made any attempt at communication unintelligible. I'm happy to respond, but I honestly could not understand you. Please rephrase or do whatever you have to do to make it intelligible.

So was mine, you were just avoiding the question. If he didn't present evidence what was your refutation you presented

No, it most certainly was not fine.

My refutation uses logic to show that his conclusions can not be gotten to from his premises without serious logical fallacies. All I have to do is point out these logic fallacies, and you no longer have your conclusions, and the argument is defeated. It is that simple. You may agree with the conclusion (that god exists) but this has not been achieved logically from the premises.

 

[Hollie]

If you can't disprove the OP argument, then you need to shut your yap, and move on. No need for you to priss in here and proclaim you've "debunked arguments" and "exposed nonsense" when you haven't.

In my OP argument, the first two points of the argument are centered on definition and understanding of terms. I clearly stated, and you have confirmed, that people who do not accept or recognize spiritual evidence, can never have god "proven" to them, it's illogical and impossible to do so. If the physical evidence to prove god were ever discovered, god would cease to be a "spiritual entity" and would become a supportable physical entity. While it's not entirely impossible that we could discover physical evidence of god, it is highly illogical to expect it. God is not of the physical universe, god is spiritual in nature.

So, how can we "prove" something spiritually exists? We must acknowledge at the spiritual evidence. We have 70,000 years of an upper primate, exhibiting a profound and distinct attribute of spiritual behavior, and according to what we DO KNOW, this sort of thing simply does not occur in nature unless there is something to it. You can give me NO example of ANY living thing, just doing something for all of it's existence, for no apparent reason. Regardless of whether this one point "proves" a spiritual god, it certainly proves humans believe there is something greater than self, and not only do they believe it, they PROFOUNDLY believe it. This belief can't be stomped out of the hearts of man, it remains the most definitive characteristic of the species.

To casually dismiss this as "delusion" or "explaining the unknown" is insulting to science and the spirit of scientific method. You've simply dismissed the problem because of a variable you claim is unknown.

I would appreciate you providing, by way of a rigorous exampling of the Scientific Method, a proof of "spirituality".

Thrill us, won't you?

The OP presents such an argument, you simply reject spiritual evidence. It's impossible to prove a spiritual entity with physical evidence alone, if that could be done, it would be a physical entity. But we can objectively use the scientific method to examine the spiritual and physical evidence, and make a definitive argument for "existence of god." Again, "existence" means in a spiritual sense, which your mind is closed to the possibility of. If you dismiss the spiritual evidence, the physical evidence alone means nothing, god can't be proven with physical evidence, since god is a spiritual entity. The combination of spiritual evidence, with what we know and understand about animal behavior, presents a valid and legitimate argument for the existence (spiritually, not physically) of something spiritual.

Your "spiritual" evidence consists of claiming, "well, a lot of believe it, therefore it must be true".

That's not evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

False.

I did copy and paste sometimes and so did you but your source was not who I quoted. I mainly copy and pasted because the conversation became redundant. You could not hold a scientific debate in your own words so you had to copy and paste paragraphs and links. What was really revealing was you would do it with things that did not answer the questions put to you so please stay on topic in this thread or leave.

You called me a liar for pointing out that you cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, then you abruptly identify that, (oops), you did precisely that.

Get it together.

Harun Yahya this is not who I quoted get it together.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My syntax was fine. Yours made any attempt at communication unintelligible. I'm happy to respond, but I honestly could not understand you. Please rephrase or do whatever you have to do to make it intelligible.

So was mine, you were just avoiding the question. If he didn't present evidence what was your refutation you presented

No, it most certainly was not fine.

My refutation uses logic to show that his conclusions can not be gotten to from his premises without serious logical fallacies. All I have to do is point out these logic fallacies, and you no longer have your conclusions, and the argument is defeated. It is that simple. You may agree with the conclusion (that god exists) but this has not been achieved logically from the premises.

It is logical to believe in a designer it is illogical to believe everything just came in to existence on it's own.

 

[newpolitics]

So was mine, you were just avoiding the question. If he didn't present evidence what was your refutation you presented

No, it most certainly was not fine.

My refutation uses logic to show that his conclusions can not be gotten to from his premises without serious logical fallacies. All I have to do is point out these logic fallacies, and you no longer have your conclusions, and the argument is defeated. It is that simple. You may agree with the conclusion (that god exists) but this has not been achieved logically from the premises.

It is logical to believe in a designer it is illogical to believe everything just came in to existence on it's own.

I understand that you believe this, but that doesn't make it true. You have to show this, logically. Otherwise, this is just a proof by assertion, another logical fallacy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I would appreciate you providing, by way of a rigorous exampling of the Scientific Method, a proof of "spirituality".

Thrill us, won't you?

The OP presents such an argument, you simply reject spiritual evidence. It's impossible to prove a spiritual entity with physical evidence alone, if that could be done, it would be a physical entity. But we can objectively use the scientific method to examine the spiritual and physical evidence, and make a definitive argument for "existence of god." Again, "existence" means in a spiritual sense, which your mind is closed to the possibility of. If you dismiss the spiritual evidence, the physical evidence alone means nothing, god can't be proven with physical evidence, since god is a spiritual entity. The combination of spiritual evidence, with what we know and understand about animal behavior, presents a valid and legitimate argument for the existence (spiritually, not physically) of something spiritual.

Your "spiritual" evidence consists of claiming, "well, a lot of believe it, therefore it must be true".

That's not evidence.

Because you reject all evidence that supports the creators existence. Please don't ask me to prove it because you didn't understand it the first 100 times I proved it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, it most certainly was not fine.

My refutation uses logic to show that his conclusions can not be gotten to from his premises without serious logical fallacies. All I have to do is point out these logic fallacies, and you no longer have your conclusions, and the argument is defeated. It is that simple. You may agree with the conclusion (that god exists) but this has not been achieved logically from the premises.

It is logical to believe in a designer it is illogical to believe everything just came in to existence on it's own.

I understand that you believe this, but that doesn't make it true. You have to show this, logically. Otherwise, this is just a proof by assertion, another logical fallacy.

There is scientific evidence that supports my view. There is no scientific evidence rejecting my view.

 

[newpolitics]

It is logical to believe in a designer it is illogical to believe everything just came in to existence on it's own.

I understand that you believe this, but that doesn't make it true. You have to show this, logically. Otherwise, this is just a proof by assertion, another logical fallacy.

There is scientific evidence that supports my view. There is no scientific evidence rejecting my view.

There is no scientific evidence for god, and here you are blatantly contradicting the OP which concedes this, so go start your own thread if you want to make a different argument for a different definition of god, because clearly yours and boss's are different (from what I've been able to gather of boss's, since he feels content in not supplying a definition.)

 

[Boss]

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.

Neither of you have refuted anything or exposed anything as baseless. We can go over the six main points of the OP again, if we need to, along with your refutations, and nowhere will we find where you've made a credible case.

Point #1: If you don't accept spiritual evidence, a spiritual entity can never be "proven."

Where is your refutation of that point, anywhere in this thread? Looks like you only continue to reaffirm that point, over and over and over and over and over again.

Point #2: You must comprehend the difference between a physical and spiritual nature, and what "exists" means when applied. Otherwise, there is no way to prove spiritual existence, because it's not physical and will never be.

Where have you exposed the baselessness of this argument? It's basic logic, and again, you have demonstrated by your posts, it is entirely accurate.

Point #3: 70,000 years of human history shows an intrinsic and inherent attribute of spirituality, which remains our most defining characteristic over all other animals.

You claim this is mass delusion, or fear of death, or to explain the unknown, yet we see no sign of this behavior in any other species, including upper primates who share 96% of our DNA, and exhibit cognitive thought. Even with science answering every unknown that ancient man possessed, 95% of the species remains spiritual in nature. Only 5% report to be Nihilists.

Point #4: Billions of people have professed a profound spiritual belief in something greater than self, and attribute "blessings and/ore miracles" to this spiritual nature.

You reject spiritual evidence, so this all becomes circumstantial and subjective. Your explanation for why humans are spiritually moved to do certain things, is coincidence. Where are you refuting the argument? I don't see that! I see you rejecting the evidence and refusing to accept it. I see you dismissing it because you don't accept spiritual evidence, but I do not see where you refuted the argument at all.

Point #5: Darwin's theory of evolution states that inherent behavior in animals is present for a fundamental reason and purpose to the species. Useless attributes are discarded through natural selection, as species survival trumps the attribute.

Where have you refuted this point? The only explanation I've seen anyone present, is that this behavior serves a fundamental purpose to "explain the unknown," but there is no explanation for why man needs this, when no other species seems to give a shit. And even IF we accept this theory, why hasn't there been a HUGE drop-off in human spirituality over the past 300-500 years, as science explained away all these unknowns?

Point #6: Occam's razor, a philosophy on logical evaluations, states that the best place to begin objective analysis is with the simplest explanation, and this is the most likely explanation until something is presented with more explanatory power. The simplest explanation for human's profound spiritual beliefs, is that a spiritual nature does exist.

Where have you refuted this point? Newpolitics claims that Occam forbids his philosophy from being applied to spiritual evidence, since newpolitics doesn't believe in it. But I can find nothing on the Wiki about this, nor anywhere else I have researched, it seems the philosophy applies to any evaluation, regardless of realm.


Now, I have once again presented the synopsis of the argument in the OP, along with everything that you all have "refuted" along the way, and I'm sorry, I don't see where you have "dismantled the argument" or "proven it to be baseless" in any way. I see a bunch of determined god-haters, who have closed their minds to any possibility outside the physical universe, who want to pretend they have "won" an argument.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

What good is having a God if you cannot curse him occasionally? Isn't it all just part of the "Job" description?

 

[Vandalshandle]

God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!

No, wait...that was Santa Clause..........

 

[Boss]

There is no scientific evidence for god, and here you are blatantly contradicting the OP which concedes this, so go start your own thread if you want to make a different argument for a different definition of god, because clearly yours and boss's are different (from what I've been able to gather of boss's, since he feels content in not supplying a definition.)

The OP most certainly did not concede there was no scientific evidence, it actually presented some very valid scientific evidence. The OP states there is no PHYSICAL evidence that can prove spiritual existence of a spiritual entity. Science only deals with the physical realm, and while we can certainly use knowledge from science to support the argument for spirituality, we can't "prove existence" in a physical nature, because such a thing is illogical.

So you're back on phishing for a definition again? We've covered this already, you do not need to "define" something, in order to confirm it exists. A spiritual power can exist without conforming to any preconceived notion of it's characteristics.