Okay, so if your argument is based on spirituality and in fact impossible to even state, then don't bother us with such frippery. Just admit that it's based on your beliefs, not facts, and we can agree to disagree and move on.

It is not impossible to state. I have done so in the following paragraph. It is simply impossible to state or understand using science. Because of this it is called my beliefs, but it is as true as any scientific experiment ever done.

However, I am all for agreeing to disagree. I was simply stating my opinions and why they are my opinions. I may use strong words, and speak with authority, but no one has to except what I say.

Ok, so we "can become gods" but our attainment of godhood is somehow limited by god's nature? Seems like second-class godhood to me...demigodhood perhaps?

This is simply rediculous. God is God not because of his power, but because of his nature. To be a god you must have the same nature. We, who have the ability to be gods, have that nature. We must act acording to that nature to reach our full potential and become gods. We will not be demigods, or second class. We will be gods, with all the power and authority that goes with it. But if we do not act as gods we will not become gods, as we will have denied our nature, and thereby halting our progress.

It isn't necessary to reject your god-concept in order to dismiss the argument; it's not an either-or proposition. So no, you can't just chalk it up to non-believers doing what they want. You do still have to make a point to be taken seriously.

I have made a point. The point is that we have a nature that will allow us to be gods, but if we act against that nature we will not become Gods. If you do not believe we can become gods my point is meaningless. If you believe that we can it is a point that requires serious consideration. So, it all depends on whether or not you except this philosophy. (To put it more simply: If you reject the concept of nature you reject the idea of becoming a God. If you reject the idea of becoming a God you will, most likely, reject the concept of nature.)

I posted evidence with a link, shematwater. You need only follow that to better understand the argument and how it defeats yours.

I read the post. The only place that indicated that homosexual relation increased fertility was in an asexual race where there is only one sex. This kind of defeats the topic, doesn't it. Now, I did not read every race listed, as that would take a long time, but a single sex race would have a different nature to a heterosexual race.

So, you have not defeated my argument. While I can not prove what I say, I never really intended to. I simply gave my opinions of nature, and my reasons. You have not shown them to be wrong, simply to disagree with yours. We are on even ground and will likely stay that way until someone can prove, beyond any doubt, that God does not exist (Which is impossible).