Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

Dear Boss: Even if we do not NEED to define something in order to prove or even believe it exists; for the sake of making sure we are agreeing what we are trying to prove, it helps to agree on what that thing is, and what it is not.

No it doesn't help. What a definition of god does, is open the door for criticism and argument over the definition. The God-haters desperately want me to give a definition of god, so they can then attack my definition. Reason being, they can't refute the points in the OP.

I keep reading your posts, and while I think it's a nice thought that you want us all to come together and agree on a universal definition of god, that's not going to happen in this world. We can't mold and shape god into whatever we want god to be... god isn't playdough. Spiritual understanding of god is not dependent on what the guy next to you thinks or agrees with. The spiritual relationship with god is personal and individual, and should be respected as such. There is no need for "defining" god, that's where we get into trouble.

 

[emilynghiem]

By not defining god, you aren't claiming anything. This thread is utterly pointless. You could be claiming the existence of a giant Bloo-Bloo in outer space for all we know. What's a Bloo-Bloo? I don't need to define it. It exists.

Dear NP I agree with you the first step is to define what is meant by God.

I posted a general suggestion earlier, are you okay with that description?

 

[newpolitics]

"You reject spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spirituality."

Explain to me how this isn't circular.

 

[Boss]

By not defining god, you aren't claiming anything. This thread is utterly pointless. You could be claiming the existence of a giant Bloo-Bloo in outer space for all we know. What's a Bloo-Bloo? I don't need to define it. It exists.

Again, the thread OP points out numerous things in a total of about six paragraphs, it's not a hard read. It's more than just proclaiming god exists. In fact, that is only the title of the thread, the OP is where that case is made, any you continue to NOT post what you have problems with or what you want to challenge from that, and you continue to insist that I have merely "proclaimed" something without evidence.

You need to either argue the points I made in the OP, or pack up and move on. I am never going to be baited into an argument about religious beliefs, because I am not a religious person. I have no need or desire to argue for a particular incarnation of god. My argument doesn't rely on any particular incarnation of god, it does not have to be defined to make the argument it exists.

 

[newpolitics]

He admits it. He is afraid to define god because the second he does, he knows it can be refuted, toyed with, picked apart, and destroyed. He doesn't want that, so he protects his cherished belief in this god by withholding his definition of god, so we can't actually debate it, all the while he is insulting us for not believing in his spiritual evidence. I don't think I've ever seem anything like this before.

 

[Boss]

"You reject spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spirituality."

Explain to me how this isn't circular.

I don't understand what the **** you mean? It's a perfectly logical and rational sentence! Most importantly, it is a true and accurate assessment. Circular? I have no idea, it looks pretty damn straightforward to me.

 

[newpolitics]

Circular logic is technically valid, but it doesn't get you anywhere.

 

[Boss]

He admits it. He is afraid to define god because the second he does, he knows it can be refuted, toyed with, picked apart, and destroyed. He doesn't want that, so he protects his cherished belief in this god by withholding his definition of god, so we can't actually debate it, all the while he is insulting us for not believing in his spiritual evidence. I don't think I've ever seem anything like this before.

And newpolitics admits he doesn't read the threads, nor does he comprehend the little bit he does read. I never admitted any such thing, I never said I was afraid of anything. My cherished belief in god has nothing to do with the argument presented in the OP, and god does not require definition in the argument of existence.

What we ACTUALLY see here, is a god-hating idiot, who can't formulate a coherent argument against the points made in the OP, so he runs around denigrating, insulting, pretending, lying about what is said, and acting like a juvenile jackass.

Unlike you, I have seen this plenty of times before.

 

[newpolitics]

I'm not surprised. You are impossible to deal with.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ok I see what you are saying.

You don't want to set up a straw man type argument bound to fail
because it is already disputed by opponents who WANT you to slip up. I agree we need to avoid this, and I gave a similar example of setting God up to mean something contrary so it fails. I also deliberately plan to leave it open enough so we don't set ourselves up to fail.
Agreed!

1. Can we set up a list of points and make sure the theists and other religionists agree their definition of God is INCLUDED in that list somewhere? So the point will be to show that all these attributes or depictions of God are to be shown to be describing the same God or aspects/authorities of the one God.

2. as for being arbitrary, we can avoid that also. where the people involved in the proof process only contribute things they actually believe in. no fair saying you don't believe God is a "white haired old man looking down from a cloud" and then picking that to mean God, if you don't even believe in it. that does no good. if someone else believes in that, but it does not reconcile with others' views of God, then part of the process is to work with those particular people to get something that is at least complementary or compatible even if it is not the same thing literally.

Dear Boss: Even if we do not NEED to define something in order to prove or even believe it exists; for the sake of making sure we are agreeing what we are trying to prove, it helps to agree on what that thing is, and what it is not.

No it doesn't help. What a definition of god does, is open the door for criticism and argument over the definition. The God-haters desperately want me to give a definition of god, so they can then attack my definition. Reason being, they can't refute the points in the OP.

I keep reading your posts, and while I think it's a nice thought that you want us all to come together and agree on a universal definition of god, that's not going to happen in this world. We can't mold and shape god into whatever we want god to be... god isn't playdough. Spiritual understanding of god is not dependent on what the guy next to you thinks or agrees with. The spiritual relationship with god is personal and individual, and should be respected as such. There is no need for "defining" god, that's where we get into trouble.

the point IS to trouble shoot, to bring to light the points of trouble so we can resolve those issues standing in the way of the proof process. so by discussing definitions of God we can elminate teh arbitrary or contrary perceptions and move toward more universal meanings.

Boss, all your points are valid and I agree these are what causes problems.
The point of the process is to bring these issues and conflicts out to be resolved, so this is a necessary step anyway. if people have strawman type definitions of God that mess people up, let's get those straight too! and what we'll have left are things that might work.

 

[Boss]

Circular logic is technically valid, but it doesn't get you anywhere.

I'm not using circular logic, you are. I'm using a simple "IF-THEN" statement to make a point... IF you don't believe in spirituality, THEN you will not accept spiritual evidence. There is nothing circular about that logic, it is just plain old regular normal logic.

Circular logic is when you say that you don't believe in god because there is no physical evidence of god. IF there was physical evidence of god, it would no longer be spiritual.

 

[emilynghiem]

He admits it. He is afraid to define god because the second he does, he knows it can be refuted, toyed with, picked apart, and destroyed. He doesn't want that, so he protects his cherished belief in this god by withholding his definition of god, so we can't actually debate it, all the while he is insulting us for not believing in his spiritual evidence. I don't think I've ever seem anything like this before.

And newpolitics admits he doesn't read the threads, nor does he comprehend the little bit he does read. I never admitted any such thing, I never said I was afraid of anything. My cherished belief in god has nothing to do with the argument presented in the OP, and god does not require definition in the argument of existence.

What we ACTUALLY see here, is a god-hating idiot, who can't formulate a coherent argument against the points made in the OP, so he runs around denigrating, insulting, pretending, lying about what is said, and acting like a juvenile jackass.

Unlike you, I have seen this plenty of times before.

Gee Boss man, at this point I find newpolitics at least explains objections and viewpoints better than people who would not even give that much to work with! next to others, i have seen much worse in terms of willingness to discuss the matter. NP has fine ability to reason and communicate that reasoning. that is plenty to work with, with or without the Bible or anything else NP does not care to read or reference. the more we narrow it down the better. what matters is if people are willing to forgive and correct as we go.

I find both you and NP are willing to do so, even where you set each other off, you still both answered with reasons for objections, so that is workable with.

We can make this work, by focusing on what we personally believe, why or why not is this consistent or inconsistent with itself, and not worrying if the other person is messed up or not. let that person explain his or her own views, and we can still work through this.

Boss I've seen much worse with people with no ability to express their thoughts so they just emotionally wall up in frustration, blame the first thing convenient to justify quitting. Some people can't handle it emotionally, but here, there are enough of us able to stay objective and not get emotionally blocked.

i don't see you or NP quitting because you both believe you are right about what you believe and understand, and you can both describe faults with the process objectively. I agree with the gist of most of your points, and the minor issues I have can be resolved. So I see more right than wrong with what you are saying. And if all of us are right about our points, then these should be able to be reconciled. And anything that isn't consistent will be resolved in the process. so we all win and everyone benefits, and any corrections are usual a mutual give and take. So nobody is going to be more right or wrong on different points than anyone else. the process of elimination is NOT to get rid of "people" by showing where they are wrong, but to identify and resolve conflicts so everyone can be right with the helpful points we do have to offer.

 

[Boss]

Ok I see what you are saying.

You don't want to set up a straw man type argument bound to fail
because it is already disputed by opponents who WANT you to slip up. I agree we need to avoid this, and I gave a similar example of setting God up to mean something contrary so it fails. I also deliberately plan to leave it open enough so we don't set ourselves up to fail.
Agreed!

1. Can we set up a list of points and make sure the theists and other religionists agree their definition of God is INCLUDED in that list somewhere? So the point will be to show that all these attributes or depictions of God are to be shown to be describing the same God or aspects/authorities of the one God.

I have no problem, in some other thread, discussing the various ideas about what/who god is. I am not "afraid" of such a discussion, and will be glad to present my personal beliefs. But this thread had a specific argument to make, and that was to definitively prove the existence of god. The argument of existence has nothing to do with definition. I see a person standing in the courtyard, that person exists, I can see them. I do not need to define the person is a man or woman, I don't need to know their character, or what they ate for breakfast. Those things have nothing to do with their existence in the courtyard.

Trying or organize a list of things that we can all agree on, to "create a god" we can all "believe in" is a nice thought, but futile and hopeless, because god relates to individuals on a personal level. Instead, why don't we look at "god" in metaphoric terms? That is the context I am using in the OP argument, god does not have to be defined. God can be understood by you in a different way than me, but god is universally spiritual. My argument simply views god from the spiritual perspective, and doesn't assume any particular incarnation. Spirituality is a strong argument for god, that's why the god-haters need to rope you into definitions, so they can then attack your incarnation, and ignore spirituality.

 

[emilynghiem]

Circular logic is technically valid, but it doesn't get you anywhere.

I'm not using circular logic, you are. I'm using a simple "IF-THEN" statement to make a point... IF you don't believe in spirituality, THEN you will not accept spiritual evidence. There is nothing circular about that logic, it is just plain old regular normal logic.

Circular logic is when you say that you don't believe in god because there is no physical evidence of god. IF there was physical evidence of god, it would no longer be spiritual.

yes and no, boss.
with proving how spiritual healing works to cure patients of cancer, schizophrenia, etc.
there is both spiritual process going on that we cannot fully SEE
and also medical and physical changes that we can measure and document
as following specific patterns before and after the therapy that heals such conditions.

so it can be shown to work medically using scientific measure and methods
and it still can be a spiritual process

it is possible for people to see this works
and still see it as natural and nothing to do with God

so the point is not so much to prove it has to be from a God
but to prove that the processes are universal
so we can still agree on and apply those regardless of our beliefs of where it comes from

I have a friend who went through the same spiritual healing process
as in Scott Peck's book where he treated two schizophrenic patients suffering
from demonic voices that were removed or controllable after he conducted
spiritual deliverance as the priests do by their traditions

Peck noted that one of the patients did not convert or become religious after she was cured
but went the other way and gave up her new age religion and went into science instead

my friend also received the healing from demonic rage and voices he previously
was not able to control but got back control of his mind after the same deliverance
process, and he also is not Christian but remains nontheist. the prayers and healing
still work. he accepted to receive the prayers for forgiveness for generational abuse from the past,
and that is what broke through the self-destructive addictions and demonic voices, regardless what level these are on, real or not,
scientifics or spiritual or whatever. Before these demonic obsessions were there, and he suffered mentally and physically;
and afterwards he could keep them out of his mind where he went back to normal.

so we can show this same process works, even for nontheists who remain nontheist like my friend.
we can show it is universal, whether one person sees the science or the other the spiritual process.
you don't personally have to believe it comes from "God" yourself as your own way of looking at it,
to "believe" the fact that these are the same laws or process that Chrisitans refer
to when THEY talk about God and authority of Jesus to remove demonic influences.
You don't have to believe the same thing they do, to see it is what THEY mean by THEIR beliefs.

we can still prove this process works scientifically
it does not change the fact that hte spiritual part of the process remains faith-based
and you can look at it either way and understand other people see it another way.
it's still the same process and it's universal for all humanity.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ok I see what you are saying.

You don't want to set up a straw man type argument bound to fail
because it is already disputed by opponents who WANT you to slip up. I agree we need to avoid this, and I gave a similar example of setting God up to mean something contrary so it fails. I also deliberately plan to leave it open enough so we don't set ourselves up to fail.
Agreed!

1. Can we set up a list of points and make sure the theists and other religionists agree their definition of God is INCLUDED in that list somewhere? So the point will be to show that all these attributes or depictions of God are to be shown to be describing the same God or aspects/authorities of the one God.

I have no problem, in some other thread, discussing the various ideas about what/who god is. I am not "afraid" of such a discussion, and will be glad to present my personal beliefs. But this thread had a specific argument to make, and that was to definitively prove the existence of god. The argument of existence has nothing to do with definition. I see a person standing in the courtyard, that person exists, I can see them. I do not need to define the person is a man or woman, I don't need to know their character, or what they ate for breakfast. Those things have nothing to do with their existence in the courtyard.

Trying or organize a list of things that we can all agree on, to "create a god" we can all "believe in" is a nice thought, but futile and hopeless, because god relates to individuals on a personal level. Instead, why don't we look at "god" in metaphoric terms? That is the context I am using in the OP argument, god does not have to be defined. God can be understood by you in a different way than me, but god is universally spiritual. My argument simply views god from the spiritual perspective, and doesn't assume any particular incarnation. Spirituality is a strong argument for god, that's why the god-haters need to rope you into definitions, so they can then attack your incarnation, and ignore spirituality.

Yes, I agree to look at God in metaphoric terms.

And just because YOU don't need a solid definition to prove something exists
doesn't mean someone else can do without this.

for the proof process to be universal, it must meet everyone's basis for their own proof.
So what you or I need for proof is different from what someone else needs, agreed?

one person may just need to see an example of Jews/Christians/Muslims
living in peace under one God to "prove" this is the same God. no amount of
theological agreement in words, but real life proof of heavenly peace in the Middle East.

do you agree that the same way people may have different perceptions of God,
they may also have different things required for them to believe or to see proof?

I did start a thread on Consensus on God.
if you want to post there or start a new thread, it will take more than one anyway!

Thanks, Boss!

 

[newpolitics]

Using a conditional doesn't preclude circularity, so I'm not sure why you mentioned this as if it is a refutation. You are saying, If "a," then "a." Well actually, you haven't even defined spiritual evidence or spirituality, so its hard to say. But it sounds like you are trying to say, you must be spiritual to see spiritual evidence, AND the only way to see spiritual evidence is to be spiritual. Again, I ask, how is this not circular?

 

[newpolitics]

Circular logic is technically valid, but it doesn't get you anywhere.

I'm not using circular logic, you are. I'm using a simple "IF-THEN" statement to make a point... IF you don't believe in spirituality, THEN you will not accept spiritual evidence. There is nothing circular about that logic, it is just plain old regular normal logic.

Circular logic is when you say that you don't believe in god because there is no physical evidence of god. IF there was physical evidence of god, it would no longer be spiritual.

First of all, I never said I don't believe in god because of a lack of physical evidence. You simply assumed this. I point out a lack of physical evidence because that is a fact. There is no evidence of any type to justify belief in god, for me. Spiritual evidence is a meaningless term until you adequately define it. Drawing bad analogies to things like thoughts or feelings is not a definition, although I understand what you are trying to do.

If god is defined as something completely non-physical, which it almost always is, that doesn't preclude the possibility for its effects to be senses in physical reality (revelation, miracles, creation itself), so it is not circular to say I don't believe in god because of a lack of evidence. Again, it depends upon the definition of god you are using.

 

[newpolitics]

He admits it. He is afraid to define god because the second he does, he knows it can be refuted, toyed with, picked apart, and destroyed. He doesn't want that, so he protects his cherished belief in this god by withholding his definition of god, so we can't actually debate it, all the while he is insulting us for not believing in his spiritual evidence. I don't think I've ever seem anything like this before.

And newpolitics admits he doesn't read the threads, nor does he comprehend the little bit he does read. I never admitted any such thing, I never said I was afraid of anything. My cherished belief in god has nothing to do with the argument presented in the OP, and god does not require definition in the argument of existence.

What we ACTUALLY see here, is a god-hating idiot, who can't formulate a coherent argument against the points made in the OP, so he runs around denigrating, insulting, pretending, lying about what is said, and acting like a juvenile jackass.

Unlike you, I have seen this plenty of times before.

Now you are just lying. Look at post #141. I'm on my iPhone so its a pain in the ass to quote from two separate posts, but you said it yourself: you don't want to provide a definition of god because then it can actually be debated. I don't know why I am even wasting my time with you when you say things like this.

 

[newpolitics]

So far, I have you pegged as somewhere near a deist? Am I ballpark?

 

[Boss]

He admits it. He is afraid to define god because the second he does, he knows it can be refuted, toyed with, picked apart, and destroyed. He doesn't want that, so he protects his cherished belief in this god by withholding his definition of god, so we can't actually debate it, all the while he is insulting us for not believing in his spiritual evidence. I don't think I've ever seem anything like this before.

And newpolitics admits he doesn't read the threads, nor does he comprehend the little bit he does read. I never admitted any such thing, I never said I was afraid of anything. My cherished belief in god has nothing to do with the argument presented in the OP, and god does not require definition in the argument of existence.

What we ACTUALLY see here, is a god-hating idiot, who can't formulate a coherent argument against the points made in the OP, so he runs around denigrating, insulting, pretending, lying about what is said, and acting like a juvenile jackass.

Unlike you, I have seen this plenty of times before.

Now you are just lying. Look at post #141. I'm on my iPhone so its a pain in the ass to quote from two separate posts, but you said it yourself: you don't want to provide a definition of god because then it can actually be debated. I don't know why I am even wasting my time with you when you say things like this.

I did not say that, and you are taking what I said out of context to make an invalid claim. I said that definition of god is not needed or required to debate the existence question. I then offered readers an explanation, in my opinion, as to why you continue to try and rope me into defining a specific incarnation of god, and that is because you wish to debate theology. I am not here to debate theology, I am here to debate existence.