Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

We often hear the God-haters chortle... you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy. I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.

You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?

As you can see, the "existence" of something can be physical or nonphysical, or even spiritual. So in order to evaluate the existence of something spiritual, we have to use spiritual evidence, since physical evidence doesn't logically apply. We don't demand spiritual evidence to prove the physical.... if you demonstrate how rain is caused with physical science, and someone says...well God tells me that rain is His tears... what would you say to that? It's backward, mouth-breathing and knuckle-dragging? Right? Well, that is someone applying spiritual evidence to the physical, and rejecting physical evidence. Yes, it's kind of stupid, isn't it? Just as stupid as demanding physical evidence to support a spiritual entity, and rejecting spiritual evidence.

Now to the "definitive proof" part. Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence, we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient people of Lake Mungo, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony. This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality. We can trace this human connection with spirituality all through mankind's history to present day religions. Mankind has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. Since our very origins.

Perhaps this is where we can interject some relative physical science, from none other than the father of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin points out that behavioral traits which are inherent in a species, exist for some fundamental reason pertaining to the advancement of the species, otherwise they are discarded over time through natural selection. No species of animal we have ever studied, just does something inherently, with no fundamental reason. Salmon swim upstream for a reason. Dogs wag their tails for a reason. We may not understand the reason, but Darwin tells us, there has to be one.

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!

I think you might want to look up the defition of "definitive".

I think you might want to make a point.

 

[G.T.]

We often hear the God-haters chortle... you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy. I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.

You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?

As you can see, the "existence" of something can be physical or nonphysical, or even spiritual. So in order to evaluate the existence of something spiritual, we have to use spiritual evidence, since physical evidence doesn't logically apply. We don't demand spiritual evidence to prove the physical.... if you demonstrate how rain is caused with physical science, and someone says...well God tells me that rain is His tears... what would you say to that? It's backward, mouth-breathing and knuckle-dragging? Right? Well, that is someone applying spiritual evidence to the physical, and rejecting physical evidence. Yes, it's kind of stupid, isn't it? Just as stupid as demanding physical evidence to support a spiritual entity, and rejecting spiritual evidence.

Now to the "definitive proof" part. Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence, we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient people of Lake Mungo, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony. This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality. We can trace this human connection with spirituality all through mankind's history to present day religions. Mankind has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. Since our very origins.

Perhaps this is where we can interject some relative physical science, from none other than the father of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin points out that behavioral traits which are inherent in a species, exist for some fundamental reason pertaining to the advancement of the species, otherwise they are discarded over time through natural selection. No species of animal we have ever studied, just does something inherently, with no fundamental reason. Salmon swim upstream for a reason. Dogs wag their tails for a reason. We may not understand the reason, but Darwin tells us, there has to be one.

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!

I think you might want to look up the defition of "definitive".

He's a bit slow, it's not worth it. Don't go into the circle. It's devoid of reason and logic.

 

[Boss]

I also have to argue that you don't know the difference between circumstantial and definitive.

Oh I understand. To millions of followers, the proof is definitive. To you, it is circumstantial.

It's not personal preference, it's logic and rationality.

you know?

Critical thinking.

10 commandments are definitive proof of a conversation with God?

no, because we can logically dream up many other ways to come up with ten commandments can't we? Yes, we can. So - logic fail.

You don't believe the definitive proof, that doesn't mean it isn't proof or isn't definitive. To those who believe the proof, there is no question it is definitive. You have to understand (critical thinking) that definitive proof does not require YOUR belief.

 

[G.T.]

Oh I understand. To millions of followers, the proof is definitive. To you, it is circumstantial.

It's not personal preference, it's logic and rationality.

you know?

Critical thinking.

10 commandments are definitive proof of a conversation with God?

no, because we can logically dream up many other ways to come up with ten commandments can't we? Yes, we can. So - logic fail.

You don't believe the definitive proof, that doesn't mean it isn't proof or isn't definitive. To those who believe the proof, there is no question it is definitive. You have to understand (critical thinking) that definitive proof does not require YOUR belief.

You don't know what definitive means.

That is the only explanation for this level of ignorance.

 

[Boss]

PROOF... regardless of what kind... relies on BELIEF. DNA evidence PROVED that OJ was guilty, but the jury did not BELIEVE the PROOF, therefore, OJ was found "not guilty."

Well, not exactly. DNA evidence proved that a drop of blood found in OJ's Bronco was in fact his. That didn't prove he was guilty of the murders.

Just saying.

Nope... they found blood of the victims in the Bronco as well as on the gate. Along with a bunch of other evidence that collectively "proved" the prosecution's case. The jury believed the argument that it could have been planted, or that the samples were mishandled, and rejected the "proof" presented by the prosecution. To them, it was not proof. So "proof" is absolutely dependent on what is perceived as proof. If you don't recognize it as proof, it hasn't proven anything to you.

 

[Boss]

It's not personal preference, it's logic and rationality.

you know?

Critical thinking.

10 commandments are definitive proof of a conversation with God?

no, because we can logically dream up many other ways to come up with ten commandments can't we? Yes, we can. So - logic fail.

You don't believe the definitive proof, that doesn't mean it isn't proof or isn't definitive. To those who believe the proof, there is no question it is definitive. You have to understand (critical thinking) that definitive proof does not require YOUR belief.

You don't know what definitive means.

That is the only explanation for this level of ignorance.

Well then, what you should do is, go find a dictionary definition of the word and explain why I can't possibly understand it's meaning. You've said this three times, but you aren't making your case. Same for "ignorance" if you think that's what I am displaying, you need to articulate your case, then we can examine your evidence and determine whether it proves you correct.

 

[G.T.]

de·fin·i·tive (d-fn-tv)
adj.
1. Precisely defined or explicit.

2. Supplying or being a final settlement or decision; conclusive.



It's not that hard.

The fact that other explanations (as have been provided throughout the thread) exist to explain "spirituality" means that "spirituality" is necessarily NOT definitive, NOT sufficient proof of a god or deity.

Because definitive is conclusive, and the fact that other explanations are possible means that it is NOT conclusive.

Or -

That you don't understand what definitive means.



And on and on and on.

Logic has parameters. You redefine them with every post.

 

[Boss]

What makes it important that others believe if one knows something is true?

Knowledge is power. Knowledge is important. Weeding fact from fiction helps advancement. Having standards for accepting things enables clearer and more correct pictures to be painted.

When you establish the standard of demanding physical evidence to support something not of the physical world, you relegate yourself to ignorance. In order for us to understand spiritual evidence, we must first accept spiritual evidence as valid. Then we must objectively evaluate this spiritual evidence with the same clearness of thought that we evaluate physical evidence, but we can't do this unless we accept spiritual evidence as valid. You refuse to do this, therefore you remain ignorant.

 

[G.T.]

^ psycho babble and convenient excuse to skirt logic.

 

[Boss]

de·fin·i·tive (d-fn-tv)
adj.
1. Precisely defined or explicit.

2. Supplying or being a final settlement or decision; conclusive.



It's not that hard.

The fact that other explanations (as have been provided throughout the thread) exist to explain "spirituality" means that "spirituality" is necessarily NOT definitive, NOT sufficient proof of a god or deity.

Because definitive is conclusive, and the fact that other explanations are possible means that it is NOT conclusive.

Or -

That you don't understand what definitive means.

And on and on and on.

Logic has parameters. You redefine them with every post.

No other rational explanation exists for human spirituality, other than the belief that something greater than self exists. I never claimed definitive proof of a specific kind of god, or god of a specific incarnation. Only that something greater than self (god) must exist, or we couldn't and wouldn't exist as an inherently spiritual species. The fact that we've always existed as spiritual worshiping creatures, is definitive proof, whether you believe it or not.

 

[G.T.]

de·fin·i·tive (d-fn-tv)
adj.
1. Precisely defined or explicit.

2. Supplying or being a final settlement or decision; conclusive.



It's not that hard.

The fact that other explanations (as have been provided throughout the thread) exist to explain "spirituality" means that "spirituality" is necessarily NOT definitive, NOT sufficient proof of a god or deity.

Because definitive is conclusive, and the fact that other explanations are possible means that it is NOT conclusive.

Or -

That you don't understand what definitive means.

And on and on and on.

Logic has parameters. You redefine them with every post.

No other rational explanation exists for human spirituality, other than the belief that something greater than self exists. I never claimed definitive proof of a specific kind of god, or god of a specific incarnation. Only that something greater than self (god) must exist, or we couldn't and wouldn't exist as an inherently spiritual species. The fact that we've always existed as spiritual worshiping creatures, is definitive proof, whether you believe it or not.

No, bec ause there are other explanations for why we are spiritual.

You ignored them, but several posters provided them.

Therefore, since there ARE other explanations for WHY we are spiritual, it cannot be LOGICALLY SAID that spirituality is definitive proof of god. But you don't follow.

 

[G.T.]

And certainly talking to someone who says that "god's" existence is the only rational explanation for spirituality, and that it being a fear mechanism serving as a function of the brain is IRRATIONAL, we know where your logical uhh...compass is at.

 

[eflatminor]

What kind of proof is required in a court of law?

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

The belief of witnesses and prosecutors?

Eye witness testimony is not proof and no prosecutor relies solely on it.

But, combine eye witnesses with motive, a paper trail, dna evidence, fingerprints and a defense that provides no alibi? Then you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You gather similar evidence in support of the existence of a deity and then we'll talk about proof.

Combine as many "proofs" as you wish, unless a jury believes your "proofs" they aren't "proven."

Well thanks for making my point. The 'jury' doesn't believe that spirituality equals proof. You have therefore failed to prove the existence of God.

Geez, you walked right into that one!

But let's take your criteria as you presented it... Eyewitness accounts: Abraham and Moses.

An eyewitness must testify in court, under oath, within a reasonable time frame. Sorry, you can't use characters from Greek mythology either.

Motive: Mankind's inseparable connection to spirituality.

Again, that only proves the existence of a believe in God, not definitive proof.

A paper trail: The Holy Bible.

Because it's a book? That's not a paper trail...it's a book. Why not the Koran? Or the Torah? How about the Vedas? How about modern Aesthetic books? They're books too!

Fail on that one.

DNA and fingerprints are physical evidence that do not apply to spiritual entities.

Convenient.

Hey, I wish you all the best in your beliefs, but you've failed to provide anything approaching proof...which is why we call it belief.

 

[Boss]

^ psycho babble and convenient excuse to skirt logic.

No psychobabble, and not skirting logic. Actually, APPLYING logic, where you are defying it. You keep wanting to hold a spiritual entity to physical standards of proof. That is simply not logical. It is equivalent to a scientist demonstrating how rain is evaporated moisture accumulated in clouds which eventually become too engorged to remain suspended in the atmosphere, and thus, fall to the surface as rain...then having a Baptist say.... Gawd made the rain from his tears! If you are going to close your mind to spiritual evidence and demand physical evidence to "prove" a spiritual entity, you are really no different in terms of ignorance.

 

[Boss]

de·fin·i·tive (d-fn-tv)
adj.
1. Precisely defined or explicit.

2. Supplying or being a final settlement or decision; conclusive.



It's not that hard.

The fact that other explanations (as have been provided throughout the thread) exist to explain "spirituality" means that "spirituality" is necessarily NOT definitive, NOT sufficient proof of a god or deity.

Because definitive is conclusive, and the fact that other explanations are possible means that it is NOT conclusive.

Or -

That you don't understand what definitive means.

And on and on and on.

Logic has parameters. You redefine them with every post.

No other rational explanation exists for human spirituality, other than the belief that something greater than self exists. I never claimed definitive proof of a specific kind of god, or god of a specific incarnation. Only that something greater than self (god) must exist, or we couldn't and wouldn't exist as an inherently spiritual species. The fact that we've always existed as spiritual worshiping creatures, is definitive proof, whether you believe it or not.

No, bec ause there are other explanations for why we are spiritual.

You ignored them, but several posters provided them.

Therefore, since there ARE other explanations for WHY we are spiritual, it cannot be LOGICALLY SAID that spirituality is definitive proof of god. But you don't follow.

No, there have been no other explanations for spirituality, other than the belief in something greater than self, which requires our spiritual understanding. Spirituality, coupled with the very important fact that we're inherently tied to this attribute, is definitive proof that something greater than self must exist, otherwise, this attribute would have been discarded as unimportant to the species, and it hasn't.

 

[Boss]

And certainly talking to someone who says that "god's" existence is the only rational explanation for spirituality, and that it being a fear mechanism serving as a function of the brain is IRRATIONAL, we know where your logical uhh...compass is at.

Well it's irrational because it doesn't make sense. Why would we fear eternal death? Dead people don't appear to be in distress or suffering, they tend to look quite peaceful and serene. I would think that ancient people would would look forward to such an existence, not fear it.

But okay, so you say they began worshiping spirits because they were afraid of eternal death, but death remains eternal, no one survives it and no one avoids it. Darwin says, over time, things like this will fall to the wayside, because other things are more important to the species survival. However, what we see in mankind's history, is brutal wars, death and persecution for people who have spiritual faith, and still, the behavior remains. It certainly wasn't conducive with the survival of the species for the millions of humans killed through religious persecution.

The RATIONAL mind has to conclude, regardless of what "god" you may believe in, SOMETHING greater than self does exist, if it didn't, we wouldn't be spiritual, we'd have no inherent need to be spiritual. The attribute would have diminished and disappeared over time, and it is stronger now than ever.

 

[there4eyeM]

Now you see why I said at the outset that, for any human, reality/truth are what he/she perceives and chooses to believe. Perception is proof, and if that doesn't suffice, too bad, because - THAT'S ALL THERE IS.

 

[Derideo_Te]

hmm... So if an omnipotent spirit decides to manifest itself in the physical world, that is something the omnipotent entity can't achieve? Is that what you're saying?

omnipotence is a paradox that logically excludes the possibility of an omnipotent deity of any sort.

huh?

If an omnipotent deity can create an object that it cannot destroy then it is not omnipotent. However if the omnipotent deity cannot create an object that it cannot destroy then it is not omnipotent either. Therefore an omnipotent deity is a logical impossibility.

 

[Boss]

omnipotence is a paradox that logically excludes the possibility of an omnipotent deity of any sort.

huh?

If an omnipotent deity can create an object that it cannot destroy then it is not omnipotent. However if the omnipotent deity cannot create an object that it cannot destroy then it is not omnipotent either. Therefore an omnipotent deity is a logical impossibility.

What the fuck are you talking about? First of all, I never said I had definitive proof of an omnipotent god, or any other incarnation of god. I simply gave definitive proof that god exists. The fact that you can twist logic into a pretzel, is amusing, but that's about all. Can you twist balloons into animal shapes as well?

If the omnipotent entity can't create an object that can destroy it, it has nothing to do with the entity's omnipotence, but rather, it's creative ability. Omnipotent doesn't mean ability to create anything, it means more powerful or "potent" than anything. If a "god" followed your logic protocols, we would live in a world where good and evil were unknown, nothing bad would ever happen, nothing but perfection and Nirvana would ever be experienced. We would have never developed science because nothing would need to be explained, no problems would ever arise, we would have no need for discovery or imagination.

 

[Derideo_Te]

huh?

If an omnipotent deity can create an object that it cannot destroy then it is not omnipotent. However if the omnipotent deity cannot create an object that it cannot destroy then it is not omnipotent either. Therefore an omnipotent deity is a logical impossibility.

What the fuck are you talking about? First of all, I never said I had definitive proof of an omnipotent god, or any other incarnation of god. I simply gave definitive proof that god exists. The fact that you can twist logic into a pretzel, is amusing, but that's about all. Can you twist balloons into animal shapes as well?

How ironic!

If the omnipotent entity can't create an object that can destroy it, it has nothing to do with the entity's omnipotence, but rather, it's creative ability. Omnipotent doesn't mean ability to create anything, it means more powerful or "potent" than anything. If a "god" followed your logic protocols, we would live in a world where good and evil were unknown, nothing bad would ever happen, nothing but perfection and Nirvana would ever be experienced. We would have never developed science because nothing would need to be explained, no problems would ever arise, we would have no need for discovery or imagination.

Perhaps you would be better off looking up the terms you don't understand before you use them in your posts.