Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[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.

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.

It's an irrelevant fact, because god is not physical, there is no logical reason for there to be physical evidence of something that isn't physical. The OP did not single you out, I clearly stated that the "God-haters" will chortle there is no physical proof of god. Which, ironically, is precisely what you just chortled.... but that this is a irrational and illogical point. Spiritual entities can't provide physical evidence, if they did, they would no longer be spiritual. Now, we can "interpret" physical evidence to be the result of spiritual entities, I am not saying that can't be the case, it most certainly is the case. But to try and prove or disprove a spiritual entity with physical science and physical evidence, is not possible or logical. What is important to examine, is SPIRITUAL evidence, which you refuse to recognize.

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.

And this is the problem, you are not willing to accept spirituality or spiritual evidence. In order to objectively evaluate the 'existence' (in a spiritual sense) of god, you have to first recognize that such 'existence' is possible. You don't believe it is. Therefore, definitions simply do not matter, they are just a reason for you to object and obfuscate, in order to avoid the evidence presented.

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.

You don't believe in god, a spiritual entity, because there is a lack of physical evidence, which a spiritual entity is not logically expected to provide, and you reject all spiritual evidence, which is the only type of evidence that can definitively prove existence of a spiritual entity. This CIRCULAR logic precludes you from ever understanding the spiritual evidence presented or recognizing the definitive proof as such.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What the **** 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.

I have no problem with the terms I am using, you keep interjecting terms I haven't used. Again... never claimed I could give definitive proof an omnipotent god exists. You are the one who brought up omnipotence. And you did so with a logic pretzel.

Omnipotent
1. (of a deity) Having unlimited power; able to do anything
2. Having ultimate power and influence

Because something is ABLE to do anything, doesn't mean it has to do so. Having unlimited power doesn't mean it can or can't create something more omnipotent. Perhaps it can, but chooses not to, because of the logical dichotomy consequence? Perhaps it can't because if it didn't it would? Do you see how fucked up logic pretzels can be?

Gotta love people who think they are smarter than god.

Even more irony. Having clearly established that you do not understand logic you have just tacitly refuted your own illogical OP. It is unlikely that you will comprehend how this happened since you cannot seem to make logical connections either. Suffice to say that you have done more than sufficient harm to your own position that it is now irreparable. Better luck next time. Have a nice day.

 

[newpolitics]

How can I hate god when I don't even know what it is?

 

[G.T.]

I've not seen definitive proof presented in the op or its following arguments, that's for sure.

If spirituality than God is a stretch, a baseless one. It has not been backed up.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Arrant nonsense. There is evidence of spirituality albeit non-scientific reproducible evidence. There is no need for any "belief" in spirituality. It exists in some people more so than others. The existence of spirituality has nothing to do with the existence of any deity. There is simply no evidence, spiritual or otherwise, for the existence of a deity.

Finally your allegation that if "there was physical evidence of god, it would no longer be spiritual" is just bizarre. Christianity is based upon the premise that their God physically manifested as a human being. Are you now saying that the existence of Jesus is evidence that your God has no spiritual dimension if he actually exists?

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Disregarding your excuse at the end for why you wont post a definition, the emboldened section clearly shows that are simply afraid to state a clear definition. When you make a claim, you have to define, in any sense, what it is you are claiming, otherwise you aren't claiming anything.

How do you know that a spiritual being doesn't exist in, or interact with the physical? A panentheist god does exactly that, existing in both this universe and beyond, as defined. The god of Christianity is supposedly a spiritual being that interacts in the physical world all the time, with miracles, revelation... yet, this god is not physical. This notion of a spiritual entity being relegated only to the spiritual world is not what we see in any religion. A god which interacts with the physical world and one which is exists as part of the physical world, are two different things. Which leads me to the third time, to this paradox:

If god does not interact with the physical world at all, then there can be no evidence of its existence, spiritual (still undefined) or otherwise. If this god does interact with the physical world, then we should expect to find some evidence or trace of its activity, in the physical world. We do not


I could play the same game and say: a Bloo-Bloo exists. Undoubtedly, you have no idea what I am referring to. Now imagine I played the same game you are, and strongly asserted the Bloo-bloo's existence, and them said, "the reason you can't see the Bloo-Bloo, is because you don't believe in Bloo-Bloo evidence." What can you do with this? Nothing. This is what you are doing. Stop being an asshole or I'm out.

 

[HUGGY]

The obvious problem with the GOD "game" is that there is no demonstrable END GAME. The arguement that "Where did all this come from?" ..."It had to be a god" extends out into never never land and beyond because now if it takes a genius god that can interact with the physical plane we reside in...WHERE DID THIS GOD COME FROM? What MADE this god and his boss and so on into infinity. When viewed in a MACRO template the concept is rediculous. There is no end game.

 

[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.

Arrant nonsense. There is evidence of spirituality albeit non-scientific reproducible evidence. There is no need for any "belief" in spirituality. It exists in some people more so than others. The existence of spirituality has nothing to do with the existence of any deity. There is simply no evidence, spiritual or otherwise, for the existence of a deity.

I didn't argue that god was a deity. If something is not scientifically reproducible or explainable, there is no physical evidence. The existence of spirituality inherently in humans dating back to the beginning, is indeed important in determining the existence of god. If you lack understanding of spiritual evidence, you are inclined to view spirituality as if it were superstition. However, the study of species behavioral characteristics, and even according to Darwin's own theories, negates the possibility of spirituality being mere superstitions. These beliefs would have been discarded for the sake of survival of the species, long ago, if they were nothing more than superstition or fear of the unknown, etc.

Finally your allegation that if "there was physical evidence of god, it would no longer be spiritual" is just bizarre. Christianity is based upon the premise that their God physically manifested as a human being. Are you now saying that the existence of Jesus is evidence that your God has no spiritual dimension if he actually exists?

Jesus was not a spiritual entity, he was a physical human being, who existed in the physical universe, and can be verified or confirmed with physical sciences. Whether he was also a spiritual being, is an argument for another thread on theology. This is a thread about existence of god. There is no physical evidence for spiritual entities, and it is illogical to assume there should be or could be, because if there were, they would cease to be spiritual, as the entity is provable by physical evidence, to exist in a physical state of being.... thus, no longer spiritual. It is an impossible and illogical criteria to set.

 

[Boss]

The obvious problem with the GOD "game" is that there is no demonstrable END GAME. The arguement that "Where did all this come from?" ..."It had to be a god" extends out into never never land and beyond because now if it takes a genius god that can interact with the physical plane we reside in...WHERE DID THIS GOD COME FROM? What MADE this god and his boss and so on into infinity. When viewed in a MACRO template the concept is rediculous. There is no end game.

Ah, yes... I've heard this one before as well, Who Created the Creator? But it PRESUMES that a Creator would logically require creation. There is no real basis for this presumption, other than how things seem to work in the physical realm, the natural order in the physical universe. Who says that God must be created? Perhaps God has always been and has no origin?

 

[Boss]

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.

Disregarding your excuse at the end for why you wont post a definition, the emboldened section clearly shows that are simply afraid to state a clear definition.

No it doesn't say that. Sorry. I was responding to someone who thought that we needed to define god, in order to discuss existence of god. I was explaining why it's not conducive to the argument, that it actually derails the argument, and turns it into a debate about theological versions of god. I believe this is a strategy you and others employ, when confronted with an argument you can't refute, as I presented. I'm not afraid, I'm smart.

When you make a claim, you have to define, in any sense, what it is you are claiming, otherwise you aren't claiming anything.

Oh, but I did define what I claimed, I presented about 6 paragraphs worth of arguments to support what I claimed, and you have yet to refute anything I posted. You want me to define a specific incarnation of god, so that you can attack that incarnation and derail the argument and the thread, and I am calling you out on it, which you don't appear to like.

How do you know that a spiritual being doesn't exist in, or interact with the physical?

****... when did I say that spiritual entities didn't interact with the physical world? Jeesh! I'm going to have to really watch my words, if that's what I said, because I could have sworn that one of my major points in arguing existence of god, was mankind's intrinsic connection to spirituality through interaction. In fact, I am positive this was one of my points, and not one you were making. That's so weird!

I could play the same game and say: a Bloo-Bloo exists. Undoubtedly, you have no idea what I am referring to. Now imagine I played the same game you are, and strongly asserted the Bloo-bloo's existence, and them said, "the reason you can't see the Bloo-Bloo, is because you don't believe in Bloo-Bloo evidence." What can you do with this? Nothing. This is what you are doing. Stop being an asshole or I'm out.

Well, if humankind has always been intrinsically drawn to and involved with Bloo-Bloo and this trait in humans had spanned the entire gamut of their existence as a species, I would conclude that human interaction with Bloo-Bloo was fundamental to the species, and supported the case for the existence of Bloo-Bloo, either physically or spiritually. Furthermore, if I encountered ignorant people who refused to accept the type of evidence that proved Bloo-Bloo exists, I would call them closed-minded, and encourage them to open their minds to possibility, and stop rejecting what they don't understand. If they insisted on evidence that Bloo-Bloo can't logically provide, I would correct them on that.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Disregarding your excuse at the end for why you wont post a definition, the emboldened section clearly shows that are simply afraid to state a clear definition.

No it doesn't say that. Sorry. I was responding to someone who thought that we needed to define god, in order to discuss existence of god. I was explaining why it's not conducive to the argument, that it actually derails the argument, and turns it into a debate about theological versions of god. I believe this is a strategy you and others employ, when confronted with an argument you can't refute, as I presented. I'm not afraid, I'm smart.



Oh, but I did define what I claimed, I presented about 6 paragraphs worth of arguments to support what I claimed, and you have yet to refute anything I posted. You want me to define a specific incarnation of god, so that you can attack that incarnation and derail the argument and the thread, and I am calling you out on it, which you don't appear to like.

How do you know that a spiritual being doesn't exist in, or interact with the physical?

****... when did I say that spiritual entities didn't interact with the physical world? Jeesh! I'm going to have to really watch my words, if that's what I said, because I could have sworn that one of my major points in arguing existence of god, was mankind's intrinsic connection to spirituality through interaction. In fact, I am positive this was one of my points, and not one you were making. That's so weird!

I could play the same game and say: a Bloo-Bloo exists. Undoubtedly, you have no idea what I am referring to. Now imagine I played the same game you are, and strongly asserted the Bloo-bloo's existence, and them said, "the reason you can't see the Bloo-Bloo, is because you don't believe in Bloo-Bloo evidence." What can you do with this? Nothing. This is what you are doing. Stop being an asshole or I'm out.

Well, if humankind has always been intrinsically drawn to and involved with Bloo-Bloo and this trait in humans had spanned the entire gamut of their existence as a species, I would conclude that human interaction with Bloo-Bloo was fundamental to the species, and supported the case for the existence of Bloo-Bloo, either physically or spiritually. Furthermore, if I encountered ignorant people who refused to accept the type of evidence that proved Bloo-Bloo exists, I would call them closed-minded, and encourage them to open their minds to possibility, and stop rejecting what they don't understand. If they insisted on evidence that Bloo-Bloo can't logically provide, I would correct them on that.

Your conclusion that the Bloo-Bloo is fundamental or intrinsic to the species is false. The same with god. The reason religious belief exists is because it is a socially cohesive factor. As we are an intensely social species and survived by cooperation, this factor increased solidarity and this, enhanced cooperation and hence, increased survivability. Groups with higher solidarity are more likely to survive. Also, "god" can also be an attempt by intelligent species' in answering questions about reality that were unanswerable until modern day science. Your concluding god by Ocam's razor (sp?) is a ******* joke, and not at all what Ocamm's razor would say. You are adding an entity to the universe. Ocam's razor would cut out this entity, and explain religious belief naturally. Considering you know next to nothing about this entity since you can't even define it, you haven't made things any simpler. Only added more complexity.

 

[HUGGY]

The obvious problem with the GOD "game" is that there is no demonstrable END GAME. The arguement that "Where did all this come from?" ..."It had to be a god" extends out into never never land and beyond because now if it takes a genius god that can interact with the physical plane we reside in...WHERE DID THIS GOD COME FROM? What MADE this god and his boss and so on into infinity. When viewed in a MACRO template the concept is rediculous. There is no end game.

Ah, yes... I've heard this one before as well, Who Created the Creator? But it PRESUMES that a Creator would logically require creation. There is no real basis for this presumption, other than how things seem to work in the physical realm, the natural order in the physical universe. Who says that God must be created? Perhaps God has always been and has no origin?

The same arguement can steer the conversation back into reality. There is no evidense to presume that this universe was "created".

 

[newpolitics]

Your six paragraphs are not good argumentation. Its about quality, not quantity. Nowhere in your "six paragraphs" is a demonstrable proof of god. Just a lot of side stepping your burden of proof that you yoked around yourself.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: can we agree that "God" represents the infinite source of all goodness, life, love, and truth/wisdom in the world, whether this "God" is self-existent as a "God of being" or "creation/universe" itself, or had a beginning or steps in the process of realizing the universal laws or processes going on in the world.

Does this cover everything that people generally mean by God?
==================
Dear Newpolitics and Boss: To say I greatly respect your intellectual honesty and convictions and discernment in making your points, is an understatement.
Thank you for your patience and your going through the extra effort it takes to spell out what your objections are. If everyone started doing the same, we can all make this work.

We either answer or correct the objections, or we find a way to shape the proof where it is "unconditional" and bypasses those either/or issues. So what we will have left is the
content or process of the proof.

A. regarding how to define or not define God where we can agree what we are proving without setting anyone up to fail

A1. are you okay with the loose general concept given above?
do you feel this loose "working definition" is generally what is meant by God and is still open enough to include or add in other aspects/manifestations and meanings associated with God including nontheist and atheist concepts?

even if this is not perfect, are you willing to start with this, and we can adapt it as necessary

A2. can we agree that Boss does not want to set this up to fail, similar to a strawman argument, and that it's okay to keep that position that definition is not necessary to prove existence. for people to have this view does not affect the proof. So I am okay with saying yes it is not necessary, even though I ask for the proof process to start with defining the meanings or aspects associated with God. As long as we can agree with some basic meanings or definitions as okay to associate with God, that's fine to say it's not really needed.

B. as for how to prove something physically/scientifically when the God nature or process we would be proving is spiritual and faith-based

I propose to focus on the process which is both on an abstract level that is "faith based"
and has measurable changes or steps that can be quantified and documented:

B1. For scientific studies, I propose to prove that the process of healing people of either mental or physical illness using deliverance prayer CAN be documented and measured
medically, using a combination of psychiatric evaluations of conditions before during and after successful treatment, and technology for mapping out brain or emotional patterns of patients, along with reports of both the patients and doctors about changes in conditions.

so even though it is faith based that whatever energy and patterns documented are connected to a "spiritual process" at least we can show these energies do exist and change from negative (correlating to mental illness and destructive or additive behavior)
to positive (correlating to improved health and recovery and return to normal behavior)

B2. for the process of reconciliation as we are starting here
I propose that we study the effect on the process of either
* unforgiveness in the minds of the participants as correlating with inability
to make changes or corrections but instead denying and projecting blame
so this blocks the process emotionally
* forgiveness as correlating with ability to let go and stay objective in making corrections
so this allows the process to move forward
when starting with a small sample group, this will just be observation among
the participants

B3. however, if this process expands and involves replicating the same with
larger populations, and different religious/political groups,
then this study of forgiveness/unforgiveness on the reconciliation process
can be mapped out statistically to show patterns over larger samples

C. Lastly as a side note, even if this proof process stalls out,
the benefits gained from documenting the points that could not be resolved
still helps to educate others, so even if we fail here, maybe others can
address the sticking points and find ways to work through those.

So as I wrote out to Boss, it's not something to be avoided
to have these objections and arguments come up where people try to make
someone fail, but something to be included if we are going to address
and resolve all possible objections or obstacles.

There are only so many patterns that people follow,
so even though people have unique views and paths,
we can document the most common and then take it from there
to diversify and include others coming from other angles into this proof process.

Overall, the proof is not so much about proving the existence of God
but proving any obstacles can be resolved or explained or worked around
that otherwise prevent people from seeing that we are talking about the
same things, whether a spiritual entity or process or universal laws etc.
and just use different language terms or principles to express parts of that.

So most of the proof is backwards, by removing the ocnflicts or obstacles.
The part that may take the form of formal proof is
documenting the spiritual healing and the forgiveness process
in terms of affect on healing the mind body and relationships.

As people experience or see this happening, it changes
the perception and is part of the proof process itself.

Thank you and please let me know your feedback or
criticisms/suggestions or corrections on the above points.

Yours truly,
Emily

Emily, while I always appreciate your benevolent and patient tone in these often hostile discussions, I do not find your exegesis of the New Testament to be a convicting argument for god, as you are presupposing that god exists and inspired the bible.

Hi Newpolitics:
No, you don't have to believe that either God exists
or that the Bible was inspired by this God

to support or believe in an interpretation of the
Old and New Testament, in a way that represents humanity universally,
such as showing the historical pattern of moving
from legalistic retributive justice (which brings death and war) to
restorative justice by the spirit of the laws (that brings peace and harmony)
by forgiveness and correction that breaks the cycles of war and retribution
and brings about reform for lasting peace and justice.

You can believe the world and human nature is whatever it is,
with or without a God inspiring or creating it,
and the interpretation of the Bible can still mean:

to warn people not to live by greed and material desire for political control
which corrupts laws and society
but to live by the spirit of love truth justice peace etc.
that includes all humanity and does not discriminate by politics
and allows relations and justice to be restored for law and order.

the point does not have to be about God per se at all,
it is about agreeing what is the universal meaning
or message that by definition must apply to all humanity to be universal, right?

so what is the meaning that we can all agree on?
theists or nontheists alike?
if we can all agree on Constitutional laws as
representing inalienable and self-evident principles
that apply to all human nature, why not with other laws
that are claimed to have universal import? so what is it?

 

[emilynghiem]

Your six paragraphs are not good argumentation. Its about quality, not quantity. Nowhere in your "six paragraphs" is a demonstrable proof of god. Just a lot of side stepping your burden of proof that you yoked around yourself.

Dear NP: any proof of God will not take place with some linear argument; at most that could prove one person's understanding of God to another person. but no two people I know respond to the same explanations.

so the proof is in the process of reaching a consensus among diverse people
that we are all talking about the same things, though we use different terms and
ways of defining the laws or truths we see in the world. because each person has unique views, these arguments will take as many forms
as there are relationships between these people and groups; the PATTERNS may be similar, but the content will vary.

it is more a process of elimination, of resolving conflicts in perception and communication, and eliminating debatable points of disagreement that are not necessary for the proof. again, we can show the basic pattern or steps, but each instance will involve different people, views and points to reach agreement between them.

such as Boss' point that technically it is not necessary to define something before
proving it exists; whether that can be argued with or not,
that point does NOT have to be proven one way or another
before setting up the proof process starting with at least some working descriptions.

these don't even have to be perfect if we can agree
to adjust them as we go if it works for everyone

Bossman: would you be okay with adding an agreement at the beginning not to hang
anyone over changes but to take a forgiving/corrective approach BEFORE trying to set out general terms or definitions and before proceeding with the proof process.

if everyone participating equally agrees to mutual corrections and not abusing conflicts or differences to try to discredit exclude or kick someone out, then we don't have to worry about people trying to set things up to fail, or going off on tangents over a side issue of disagreement, when this point can either be rsolved, corrected or shown to be not
necessary as a condition, so that the process of reconciling can still proceed even if we never agree on that point. can we agree to work around it and not get stuck.

I sense you and Newpolitics already work on this level of making corrections
and not using a flaw in the process as an excuse to blame and quit and run
saying this won't work because this other person or thing won't change, etc.

Just because you are both adept at pointing out these conflicts
doesn't mean we have to get stuck there. let's note each one,
and move on, finding some way to work around them where it
does not affect the process even if we never resolve those side points.

are you ok with this?

Can you and Newpolitics come up with general list of terms or
metaphoric qualities or attributes that we can attempt to prove "can be
agreed upon" as all coming from or describing the same God regardless
of what form this God exists, these basic attributes are what we have to work with
in terms of building a consensus among different people and views.

and in the process we can show there is a pattern for
why people get stuck and what allows people to resolve things
so this follows a predictable pattern, where it can be inferred
that this process can be replicated over larger populations
so that other people can reconcile diverse views as well.

the point will be regardless if God exists or not or what form this takes,
a consensus can be reached on the meaning of God and the
message, content or purpose of universal laws as long as people agree to forgive
when conflicts or differences arise between them; the reason people fail at
reaching a consensus is when one or both parties in conflict
cannot forgive an issue so it stalls out the process of reconciliation;
thus it is not so much a matter of people having conflicting views, because
this is expected in the process, but being willing to forgive and accept differences whlie correcting points that can be changed, so any objections/conflicts
can be resolved otherwise prevetning agreement from being reached.

something like that, are you okay with that
and/or can you spell it out more clearly?

 

[Boss]

Your conclusion that the Bloo-Bloo is fundamental or intrinsic to the species is false. The same with god.

Well God is intrinsic and fundamental to the human species, because humans have been spiritual since the beginning. Bloo-Bloo is a hypothetical non-existent, which was a supposed to mirror God. As I said in the OP, even Charles Darwin made this observation in his theory of evolution. Are you rejecting Darwinism now?

The reason religious belief exists is because it is a socially cohesive factor.

Why do I have to continue correcting you on this, I am not arguing for religious belief. Spirituality in humans does not exist because it is a socially cohesive factor, and it hasn't persisted through millenniums of war and persecution because it is socially cohesive.

As we are an intensely social species and survived by cooperation, this factor increased solidarity and this, enhanced cooperation and hence, increased survivability. Groups with higher solidarity are more likely to survive.

Again, human history is full of events that contradict this theory, when it comes to spiritual beliefs.

Also, "god" can also be an attempt by intelligent species' in answering questions about reality that were unanswerable until modern day science.

Again, this is addressed in the OP. If this were true, we'd see a significant drop off in spirituality within the species, as knowledge has evolved. We don't see this.

Your concluding god by Ocam's razor (sp?) is a ******* joke, and not at all what Ocamm's razor would say.

It's EXACTLY what it would say, because that's what it says.

Occam's razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest theory for the fact that humans are intrinsically tied to spiritual belief, is that god is legitimate and real. If we had some greater explanatory power to overcome what we observe with the behavior of the species, it can be considered, but so far, you've not presented anything.

You are adding an entity to the universe. Ocam's razor would cut out this entity, and explain religious belief naturally. Considering you know next to nothing about this entity since you can't even define it, you haven't made things any simpler. Only added more complexity.

Occam's razor doesn't say a thing about "naturally" or "physically" and is a theory about logic. It doesn't explain religious belief or proclaim physical science the hubris of all answers and powers. Sorry!

I haven't said I can't define my belief in god. In fact, I welcomed a new thread so we could all discuss our beliefs in god and theology, that would be interesting, and you might be interested to find out more about what I believe. But this thread is about the definitive proof that god exists. God need not be defined to examine this question.

I made a case, key points were established which you simply can't argue with or refute. As is typical in such situations, you want to change the conversation.

 

[Boss]

The obvious problem with the GOD "game" is that there is no demonstrable END GAME. The arguement that "Where did all this come from?" ..."It had to be a god" extends out into never never land and beyond because now if it takes a genius god that can interact with the physical plane we reside in...WHERE DID THIS GOD COME FROM? What MADE this god and his boss and so on into infinity. When viewed in a MACRO template the concept is rediculous. There is no end game.

Ah, yes... I've heard this one before as well, Who Created the Creator? But it PRESUMES that a Creator would logically require creation. There is no real basis for this presumption, other than how things seem to work in the physical realm, the natural order in the physical universe. Who says that God must be created? Perhaps God has always been and has no origin?

The same arguement can steer the conversation back into reality. There is no evidense to presume that this universe was "created".

Problem is, this isn't true. We know the universe is expanding, and we have theorized the beginning started with a Big Bang. So if it didn't exist, then it did, it was created.

 

[newpolitics]

Your conclusion that the Bloo-Bloo is fundamental or intrinsic to the species is false. The same with god.

Well God is intrinsic and fundamental to the human species, because humans have been spiritual since the beginning. Bloo-Bloo is a hypothetical non-existent, which was a supposed to mirror God. As I said in the OP, even Charles Darwin made this observation in his theory of evolution. Are you rejecting Darwinism now?

The reason religious belief exists is because it is a socially cohesive factor.

Why do I have to continue correcting you on this, I am not arguing for religious belief. Spirituality in humans does not exist because it is a socially cohesive factor, and it hasn't persisted through millenniums of war and persecution because it is socially cohesive.



Again, human history is full of events that contradict this theory, when it comes to spiritual beliefs.



Again, this is addressed in the OP. If this were true, we'd see a significant drop off in spirituality within the species, as knowledge has evolved. We don't see this.

Your concluding god by Ocam's razor (sp?) is a ******* joke, and not at all what Ocamm's razor would say.

It's EXACTLY what it would say, because that's what it says.

Occam's razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest theory for the fact that humans are intrinsically tied to spiritual belief, is that god is legitimate and real. If we had some greater explanatory power to overcome what we observe with the behavior of the species, it can be considered, but so far, you've not presented anything.

You are adding an entity to the universe. Ocam's razor would cut out this entity, and explain religious belief naturally. Considering you know next to nothing about this entity since you can't even define it, you haven't made things any simpler. Only added more complexity.

Occam's razor doesn't say a thing about "naturally" or "physically" and is a theory about logic. It doesn't explain religious belief or proclaim physical science the hubris of all answers and powers. Sorry!

I haven't said I can't define my belief in god. In fact, I welcomed a new thread so we could all discuss our beliefs in god and theology, that would be interesting, and you might be interested to find out more about what I believe. But this thread is about the definitive proof that god exists. God need not be defined to examine this question.

I made a case, key points were established which you simply can't argue with or refute. As is typical in such situations, you want to change the conversation.

Who is trying to change the conversation, you nimwit?! I am confronting your flawed logic and reasoning head on.

Your use of Occam's razor is entirely innaccurate. . Introducing a deity about which nothing is known to explain away any knowledge gaps is called "god of the gaps" and is a massive assumption that Occam's razor would not allow, since it operates under the principle of parsimony in regards to assumptions. In introducing something unexplainable or unknowable, such as god, you have only introducdd something else that needs to be explained, so you are no better off. Occam's razor is not simply "less is better." You must not introduce any assumptions which are themselves unexplainable. This defeats the idea of parsimony. Especially since you are not able to even define god, you are making a joke out of Occam's razor, and it is pathetic. "God did it" is simpler, until you are for forced to explain god. Since you can't do that, this approach fails.

You haven't made ANY points which still stand. They have all been knocked down. Stop deluding yourself.

My point about natural explanation and Occams Razor was specific to this application, and had nothing to do with my belief about the definition or use of Occam's Razor in general being involved with naturalism. It just so happens the Occam's Razor does not support the use of a supernatural agent, because such a strategy introduces more questions than it answers.

For the last time, when discussing something which is no where to be seen, you do need to define it. This doesn't imply theology simply to do so. Again, here you are just pulling conclusions from no where. This is simply matter of logic. If you make a claim, you need to define it so people know what the hell you are talking about. Need I bring Bloo-Bloo back into this? You made a number of unwarranted assumptions about Bloo-Bloo, btw. And you were dead wrong.

 

[Boss]

Who is trying to change the conversation, you nimwit?! I am confronting your flawed logic and reasoning head on.

But you haven't. You continue to try and make the argument be about something you can win on, and ignore the points I've made. You had rather argue that I made an analogy instead of an example with black holes, you want to argue that I have to define MY god before we can examine existence objectively, you want to argue that I am afraid, you want to argue about Occam's razor... or anything else I say along the way that you can pull the debate off the tracks and distract from the fact that you can't present a coherent argument to refute the points I made.

Your use of Occam's razor is entirely innaccurate.

I'm sorry, I didn't notice where Occam gave you authority to determine when his razor could be used. Again, Occam's theory deals with logic... it basically says, the simplest explanations for things are the most logical, and objective evaluation should begin there. The simplest explanation for an inherent attribute in a species for all of it's existence as a species, is that it is not only fundamental, but legitimate. There's something to it. There is some reason mankind is intrinsically tied to spiritual faith, and Occam says the simplest answer is the most logical, that answer being, humans worship of something greater than self, exists because something is greater than self.

Introducing a deity about which nothing is known to explain away any knowledge gaps is called "god of the gaps" ....

WHY do you continue to insist that I have mentioned deities? WHEN did I indicate something was introduced to explain away knowledge gaps? That is YOUR debunked argument. IF spirituality were simply there to fill knowledge gaps, we would have witnessed a massive decline in spiritual belief within the species. WHY do you keep ignoring this point?

and is a massive assumption that Occam's razor would not allow, since it operates under the principle of parsimony in regards to assumptions. In introducing something unexplainable or unknowable, such as god, you have only introducdd something else that needs to be explained, so you are no better off. Occam's razor is not simply "less is better." You must not introduce any assumptions which then require further explanation. This defeats the idea of parsimony.

Occam's razor does not merely apply to physical science, this is what you seem to believe. The principle of parsimony is merely the idea the simplest explanations are the most sensible. This can apply to physical principles and theories, but it can also apply to spiritual theories. That is YOUR quotes around "less is better" not mine, again... I never said that, and you seem to have a real problem quoting me accurately, all through this debate.

In this argument, YOU are the one introducing other assumptions which require further explanation, I am maintaining that god exists, and this is why humans have always been intrinsically connected spiritually. YOU are the person saying...well, it's because we are social creatures and need to develop social cohesiveness, and explain the unexplained... explain explain explain. YOU are violating Occam's razor here.

Especially since you are not able to even define god, you are making a joke out of Occam's razor, and it is pathetic. "God did it" is simpler, until you are for forced to explain god. Since you can't do that, this approach fails.

Again, I am fully able to define god, as I believe god exists. I have chosen not to in this thread, because it is irrelevant to the question of existence. Ridiculing me by throwing up a "goddidit" is not very intellectual or honest. It's another indicator of your buttache from the total ass pwnage.

You haven't made ANY points which still stand. They have all been knocked down. Stop deluding yourself.

HAHA... WHERE?

My point about natural explanation and Occams Razor was specific to this application, and had nothing to do with my belief about the definition or use of Occam's Razor in general being involved with naturalism. It just so happens the Occam's Razor does not support the use of a supernatural agent, because such a strategy introduces more questions than it answers.

Because you only see Physical evidence. You believe Occam's razor can only apply to Physical evidence, Physical arguments, Physical principles and theories. But Occam's razor is not confined to JUST physical science or physical hypothesis. The principle is ABOUT logic and evaluation of questions, and I disagree that when we apply the razor here, it introduces more questions. I think it establishes the answer definitively. That's why you don't want to apply it.

For the last time, when discussing something which is no where to be seen, you do need to define it. This doesn't imply theology simply to do so. Again, here you are just pulling conclusions from no where. This is simply matter of logic. If you make a claim, you need to define it so people know what the hell you are talking about. Need I bring Bloo-Bloo back into this? You made a number of unwarranted assumptions about Bloo-Bloo, btw. And you were dead wrong.

No I don't need to define something to prove it exists. How many more times do we need to rehash this one point? We know something exists by the evidence of it's existence, not by how it is defined. Einstein would certainly back me up on this, we don't have to define it to understand it does exist. But now... do we need to revisit the whole conversation regarding "existence" again? And how spiritual "existence" means something completely different than physical "existence?" We can't expect a physical existence of something spiritual, it defies logic, and would make the spiritual something physical, if it had physical properties.

You can bring up Bloo-Bloo again, it's an imaginary hypothetical you invented to attempt mocking me, so it only serves to prove my point about total ass pwnage. I have made no unwarranted assumptions about human spiritual connection or what Darwin said about behaviors inherent in species over vast spans of time. Those are all legitimate facts I've presented and you have yet to refute. Even though, in your head, I am sure you're winning this argument.

 

[newpolitics]

Who is trying to change the conversation, you nimwit?! I am confronting your flawed logic and reasoning head on.

But you haven't. You continue to try and make the argument be about something you can win on, and ignore the points I've made. You had rather argue that I made an analogy instead of an example with black holes, you want to argue that I have to define MY god before we can examine existence objectively, you want to argue that I am afraid, you want to argue about Occam's razor... or anything else I say along the way that you can pull the debate off the tracks and distract from the fact that you can't present a coherent argument to refute the points I made.

Your use of Occam's razor is entirely innaccurate.

I'm sorry, I didn't notice where Occam gave you authority to determine when his razor could be used. Again, Occam's theory deals with logic... it basically says, the simplest explanations for things are the most logical, and objective evaluation should begin there. The simplest explanation for an inherent attribute in a species for all of it's existence as a species, is that it is not only fundamental, but legitimate. There's something to it. There is some reason mankind is intrinsically tied to spiritual faith, and Occam says the simplest answer is the most logical, that answer being, humans worship of something greater than self, exists because something is greater than self.



WHY do you continue to insist that I have mentioned deities? WHEN did I indicate something was introduced to explain away knowledge gaps? That is YOUR debunked argument. IF spirituality were simply there to fill knowledge gaps, we would have witnessed a massive decline in spiritual belief within the species. WHY do you keep ignoring this point?



Occam's razor does not merely apply to physical science, this is what you seem to believe. The principle of parsimony is merely the idea the simplest explanations are the most sensible. This can apply to physical principles and theories, but it can also apply to spiritual theories. That is YOUR quotes around "less is better" not mine, again... I never said that, and you seem to have a real problem quoting me accurately, all through this debate.

In this argument, YOU are the one introducing other assumptions which require further explanation, I am maintaining that god exists, and this is why humans have always been intrinsically connected spiritually. YOU are the person saying...well, it's because we are social creatures and need to develop social cohesiveness, and explain the unexplained... explain explain explain. YOU are violating Occam's razor here.



Again, I am fully able to define god, as I believe god exists. I have chosen not to in this thread, because it is irrelevant to the question of existence. Ridiculing me by throwing up a "goddidit" is not very intellectual or honest. It's another indicator of your buttache from the total ass pwnage.



HAHA... WHERE?

My point about natural explanation and Occams Razor was specific to this application, and had nothing to do with my belief about the definition or use of Occam's Razor in general being involved with naturalism. It just so happens the Occam's Razor does not support the use of a supernatural agent, because such a strategy introduces more questions than it answers.

Because you only see Physical evidence. You believe Occam's razor can only apply to Physical evidence, Physical arguments, Physical principles and theories. But Occam's razor is not confined to JUST physical science or physical hypothesis. The principle is ABOUT logic and evaluation of questions, and I disagree that when we apply the razor here, it introduces more questions. I think it establishes the answer definitively. That's why you don't want to apply it.

For the last time, when discussing something which is no where to be seen, you do need to define it. This doesn't imply theology simply to do so. Again, here you are just pulling conclusions from no where. This is simply matter of logic. If you make a claim, you need to define it so people know what the hell you are talking about. Need I bring Bloo-Bloo back into this? You made a number of unwarranted assumptions about Bloo-Bloo, btw. And you were dead wrong.

No I don't need to define something to prove it exists. How many more times do we need to rehash this one point? We know something exists by the evidence of it's existence, not by how it is defined. Einstein would certainly back me up on this, we don't have to define it to understand it does exist. But now... do we need to revisit the whole conversation regarding "existence" again? And how spiritual "existence" means something completely different than physical "existence?" We can't expect a physical existence of something spiritual, it defies logic, and would make the spiritual something physical, if it had physical properties.

You can bring up Bloo-Bloo again, it's an imaginary hypothetical you invented to attempt mocking me, so it only serves to prove my point about total ass pwnage. I have made no unwarranted assumptions about human spiritual connection or what Darwin said about behaviors inherent in species over vast spans of time. Those are all legitimate facts I've presented and you have yet to refute. Even though, in your head, I am sure you're winning this argument.

Occam's razor and evolutionary theory doesn't give you a creator. You can't assert something without defining it. Bloo-Bloo was not an attempt at mocking you, but showing you that simply that saying "god exists" without defining it at all is non-sensical. We keep on going around in circles with you continually claiming that I'm avoiding the OP when all I've done is deconstruct it. I have addressed most of the bullshit in the OP: the stupid idea that thoughts and feelings don't exist an are evidence of a "spiritual realm" ( really??), the idea that Occam's razor and natural selection point to a creator... These two giant blunders form the your "six paragraphs" is enough to cripple your argument. You no longer have "spiritual evidence" and you no longer have a basis for god in humanity. I've done more than enough to refute this amateur attempt at proving god. It is simply your arrogance and ego that disallow to face this truth. No doubt you will come back as if I have done none of what I claimed. Just more "chortling" from a delusional theist. (Btw, "chortle" means to laugh gleefully. Why did you use it in this discussion? Nothing about your sad display of apologetics incites laughter)