Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

And again, you can not use Occam's Razor to arrive at god when looking humanities history with religious belief. This is a fallacy of attribution. Correlation does not imply causation. You have not been able to Establish that humans belief in the supernatural, is caused the supernatural, and Occam's Razor would necessitate that you not introduce an assumption (god) that is unfalsifiable, and about which nothing is known.

Occam's razor says nothing of the sort, it is a theory about reasoning and logic, and has no set parameters regarding application. You want to steal it for physical science and not allow it to be used by the spiritual "team" as it were. But the theory is not just about science, it is about evaluation of hypothesis, and our hypothesis in this case, deals with the spiritual existence of a spiritual entity. If Occam's applies to physical logic, it should also apply to spiritual logic. You are the one who is assuming god is unfalsifiable, based on physical science, but god is falsifiable as a spiritual entity, in a spiritual existence. Just ask those who believe in a spiritual god.

 

[G.T.]

If you wont even define what God is, you're proving nothing at all.

 

[edthecynic]

You need to take a logic class. Proof of physical people being spiritual does not prove physical precedes anything. Did the earth not exist until humans were here too?

Your only proof you provided of the spiritual is from after the existence of physical people. You have provided no proof of the spiritual existing before physical people.

The fact that the physical Earth existed before physical people in no way proves the existence of the spiritual, let alone God. What "logical" system are you using?

You've provided no proof physical preceded spiritual, nor have you proven spiritual was created by the physical. You've implied it, but you just can't prove it true. On the other hand, I have proven existence of god, it's laid out in the OP. You do need to be able to acknowledge spiritual evidence, but that's not really my problem.

I pointed out that your own OP only proved the physical preceded the spiritual. Your own example was physical people doing something you claimed was spiritual. You gave no example of spirituality existing before the physical people because you have none. You have no example of spirituality prior to the existence of physical people.

Your OP has been debunked as proving nothing, especially the existence of a God. You need to prove the existence of spirituality before the existence of people to even begin to claim that spirituality is evidence of a God. That's your problem, not mine.

 

[newpolitics]

Your "evidence" is that humans have always believed in some kind of spirituality. That doesn't mean that a spiritual realm actual exists. You can not make this logical leap. I used to be a theist, so I know what you are referring to when you try to say "spiritual evidence," and you are simply using the wrong label. "Special evidence" is simply ones subjective view of reality, whereby perceived unexplainable aspects of life are attributed to a spiritual realm, such as special emotions that one cherishes like love, and things which add meaning to ones life. However, it is fallacy to actually attribute this to a real spiritual realm, simply because you can't establish that it isn't just delusion, misattribution of causes, or a placebo effect, explainable naturalistically.

My evidence is NOT JUST that humans have always had profound spiritual connection, but that's a part of it. There is no leap of logic, except for your demand/expectation of physical evidence. The spiritual evidence is overwhelming, billions and billions of people who fully believed in something spiritual that was worth dying for, because that's what happened to millions of them, through many thousands of years. It's not superstition, we ruled that out, because we would see spirituality in humans diminish greatly, just over the span of our lifetime, and that is not the case. As a species, we have consistently been spiritual, this has not deviated. So if we accept spiritual evidence, this becomes a no-brainer.

The problem, is getting YOU to accept and comprehend spiritual evidence, and no... it's not code words. It's simply a matter of opening your mind to the existence of a spiritual realm, or (if you prefer) another dimension of the universe. If your mind will not accept anything but physical evidence, it is impossible to prove a spiritual existence of god, or anything else.

As per your first line: You are begging the question. Your evidence can't be that humans have always had profound spiritual connection, because this presupposes they are connected to something spiritual, which is what you are trying to prove. This is circular reasoning. You could say humans have always believed they had a spiritual connexion, but this is different. You can not start out assuming that which you are trying to prove.

Nor can you say out spirituality "should have diminished" were it not tied to something "real." This is meaningless, because you are ignoring that religious belief, even if not tied to anything "spiritual," still confers an advantage for humans for reasons I've stated multiple times previously: religious belief acts as a social glue. This means increased cooperation. Considering that humans have survived through cooperation, which is only possible through our intellect and high social abilities, religious belief, whether or not there is a spiritual realm, is an advantage.

Actually, even if the existence of a spiritual realm were real, it would not be have necessarily conferred an evolutionary advantage simply BECAUSE it is real, so your argument fails either way, unless this spiritual was performing miracles to keep humans safe or something, which is an ad hoc explanation with no evidence.

The pattern here is you making a lot if assertions with no evidence and a lot of logical fallacy, such as you begging the question above. Whenever people press you for evidence, you just accuse them of not being able to see your brand of evidence, when you haven't adequately defined spiritual evidence, or even shown it to exist. This is the arrogance in your approach, yet you feel fit in blaming everyone who doesn't see it your way. This is very immature. If you make a claim, you have to state what it is you are claiming and provide evidence. You have done neither.

 

[newpolitics]

And again, you can not use Occam's Razor to arrive at god when looking humanities history with religious belief. This is a fallacy of attribution. Correlation does not imply causation. You have not been able to Establish that humans belief in the supernatural, is caused the supernatural, and Occam's Razor would necessitate that you not introduce an assumption (god) that is unfalsifiable, and about which nothing is known.

Occam's razor says nothing of the sort, it is a theory about reasoning and logic, and has no set parameters regarding application. You want to steal it for physical science and not allow it to be used by the spiritual "team" as it were. But the theory is not just about science, it is about evaluation of hypothesis, and our hypothesis in this case, deals with the spiritual existence of a spiritual entity. If Occam's applies to physical logic, it should also apply to spiritual logic. You are the one who is assuming god is unfalsifiable, based on physical science, but god is falsifiable as a spiritual entity, in a spiritual existence. Just ask those who believe in a spiritual god.

I never insinuated that Occam's Razor has any set parameters for its usage. I don't know why you keep on claiming this. You are straw-manning me in claiming that I am "stealing it for science." This is a cop-out. I explained, logically, that adding a supernatural assumption is ruled out by Occam's Razor itself, because it introduces an assumption which can not be explained. Thus, you lose explanatory scope.

"Main Entry: Oc·cam's razor
Variant(s): also Ock·ham's razor \ˈä-kəmz-\
Function: noun
Etymology: William of Occam
Date: circa 1837
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities"

This last part is what is important. When dealing with something we are trying to understand, you do not appeal to something we don't understand. This defeats the purpose of trying to explain something. To restate Occam's Razor, of two theories with equal explanatory power, the simpler one is preferred. Your theory loses explanatory power when you introduce an unknown quantity. This is why you can not use Occam's Razor. It is NOT merely because you are appealing to the suprernatural, but because the supernatural represents an another question which would then need to be explained. Hence, your theory loses out to any theory which does not have this element.

 

[Boss]

Your only proof you provided of the spiritual is from after the existence of physical people. You have provided no proof of the spiritual existing before physical people.

The fact that the physical Earth existed before physical people in no way proves the existence of the spiritual, let alone God. What "logical" system are you using?

You've provided no proof physical preceded spiritual, nor have you proven spiritual was created by the physical. You've implied it, but you just can't prove it true. On the other hand, I have proven existence of god, it's laid out in the OP. You do need to be able to acknowledge spiritual evidence, but that's not really my problem.

I pointed out that your own OP only proved the physical preceded the spiritual. Your own example was physical people doing something you claimed was spiritual. You gave no example of spirituality existing before the physical people because you have none. You have no example of spirituality prior to the existence of physical people.

Your OP has been debunked as proving nothing, especially the existence of a God. You need to prove the existence of spirituality before the existence of people to even begin to claim that spirituality is evidence of a God. That's your problem, not mine.

Do you comprehend WHAT spirituality is? I mean, I understand you don't believe in it, but do you even comprehend what it is? It's the relationship between humans and the spiritual universe, so it had no purpose to 'spiritually exist' without humans to experience it. That does not mean the spiritual universe didn't exist. Unless you have conclusive proof otherwise, we can assume the spiritual universe was created the same time the physical universe was created. So this is like proving dark existed before light.

This is what people in denial often do. They construct illogical paradigms, in order to support what they refuse to believe. By your reasoning, nuclear fission didn't exist until man discovered it. Before that moment, it was an impossibility. We can also apply your reasoning with physical existence, where is your proof that we are in a physical existence, and this isn't all just a figment of imagination?

...Hold on, I need to reload the bong!

 

[Truthmatters]

Spirituality | Define Spirituality at Dictionary.com




spirituality
  Use Spirituality in a sentence








spir·it·u·al·i·ty
[spir-i-choo-al-i-tee] Show IPA

noun, plural spir·it·u·al·i·ties.
1.
the quality or fact of being spiritual.

2.
incorporeal or immaterial nature.

3.
predominantly spiritual character as shown in thought, life, etc.; spiritual tendency or tone.

4.
Often, spiritualities. property or revenue of the church or of an ecclesiastic in his or her official capacity.

 

[newpolitics]

Boss, I see what you are trying to do. You are trying to follow the evidence. This is good, and is how science works, however. The problem is a question of evidence. We live in a physical universe. By your own definition, the spiritual can not exist in the physical, otherwise it would no longer be spiritual, but physical. Yet, you are claiming that spiritual evidence does exist in the physical universe. Here again, you contradict yourself. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the spiritual can not exist in the physical, which you claimed when resisting the idea of a spiritual god existing in the physical, and then turn around and say that spiritual evidence exists in the physical universe. This so contradictory. You are saying the spiritual can exist in the physical, AND the spiritual can not exist in the physical.

The only kind of evidence is physical evidence. We live in a physical universe. Not a spiritual one. When you say spiritual evidence, you are trying to pass off subjective experience as objective, because "spiritual evidence" is entirely subjective, and this, subject to a host of human cognitive biases which disallows you to establish the source of your subjective experiences. This is why your "spiritual evidence" is not evidence of the spiritual. You need to understand this. I am not simply precluding spirituality for the fun it. I am being logical, while you are trying to pass off subjectivity for objectivity, and that is supremely arrogant.

 

[newpolitics]

Do you comprehend WHAT spirituality is? I mean, I understand you don't believe in it, but do you even comprehend what it is? It's the relationship between humans and the spiritual universe, so it had no purpose to 'spiritually exist' without humans to experience it. That does not mean the spiritual universe didn't exist. Unless you have conclusive proof otherwise, we can assume the spiritual universe was created the same time the physical universe was created. So this is like proving dark existed before light.

This is what people in denial often do. They construct illogical paradigms, in order to support what they refuse to believe. By your reasoning, nuclear fission didn't exist until man discovered it. Before that moment, it was an impossibility. We can also apply your reasoning with physical existence, where is your proof that we are in a physical existence, and this isn't all just a figment of imagination?

...Hold on, I need to reload the bong!

You don't get to assume that a spiritual universe exists, and pass that off as fact. This is called a proof by assertion, and is completely unacceptable by any evidential standards. Nor can you make a claim, and then try to switch the burden of proof onto everyone else, as you have blatantly done above. You don't get to say "Unless you have conclusive proof otherwise, we can assume the spiritual universe was created the same time the physical universe was created." No, you need to first prove that a spiritual universe exists. Appealing to humans' inter-subjective experience over the course of 70,000 or a million years does not get you there.

 

[edthecynic]

You've provided no proof physical preceded spiritual, nor have you proven spiritual was created by the physical. You've implied it, but you just can't prove it true. On the other hand, I have proven existence of god, it's laid out in the OP. You do need to be able to acknowledge spiritual evidence, but that's not really my problem.

I pointed out that your own OP only proved the physical preceded the spiritual. Your own example was physical people doing something you claimed was spiritual. You gave no example of spirituality existing before the physical people because you have none. You have no example of spirituality prior to the existence of physical people.

Your OP has been debunked as proving nothing, especially the existence of a God. You need to prove the existence of spirituality before the existence of people to even begin to claim that spirituality is evidence of a God. That's your problem, not mine.

Do you comprehend WHAT spirituality is? I mean, I understand you don't believe in it, but do you even comprehend what it is? It's the relationship between humans and the spiritual universe, so it had no purpose to 'spiritually exist' without humans to experience it. That does not mean the spiritual universe didn't exist. Unless you have conclusive proof otherwise, we can assume the spiritual universe was created the same time the physical universe was created. So this is like proving dark existed before light.

This is what people in denial often do. They construct illogical paradigms, in order to support what they refuse to believe. By your reasoning, nuclear fission didn't exist until man discovered it. Before that moment, it was an impossibility. We can also apply your reasoning with physical existence, where is your proof that we are in a physical existence, and this isn't all just a figment of imagination?

...Hold on, I need to reload the bong!

Sorry, but the burden is on you to prove what you assume. You have connected the spiritual to physical people in your OP, now you have connected its "creation" to the creation of the universe by mere pontification.

And since it is you who connects the spirital to humans, so it is YOUR "reasoning" that nuclear fission didn't exist until man discovered "it," not mine. It can be proven that nuclear fission was never impossible and existed before man. The onus is on you to prove that the spiritual existed before "it" had a purpose to exist in the experience of man, as you claim.

It will take more than one bong for your double-speak to begin to make sense!

 

[hobelim]

Boss, I see what you are trying to do. You are trying to follow the evidence. This is good, and is how science works, however. The problem is a question of evidence. We live in a physical universe. By your own definition, the spiritual can not exist in the physical, otherwise it would no longer be spiritual, but physical. Yet, you are claiming that spiritual evidence does exist in the physical universe. Here again, you contradict yourself. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the spiritual can not exist in the physical, which you claimed when resisting the idea of a spiritual god existing in the physical, and then turn around and say that spiritual evidence exists in the physical universe. This so contradictory. You are saying the spiritual can exist in the physical, AND the spiritual can not exist in the physical.

The only kind of evidence is physical evidence. We live in a physical universe. Not a spiritual one. When you say spiritual evidence, you are trying to pass off subjective experience as objective, because "spiritual evidence" is entirely subjective, and this, subject to a host of human cognitive biases which disallows you to establish the source of your subjective experiences. This is why your "spiritual evidence" is not evidence of the spiritual. You need to understand this. I am not simply precluding spirituality for the fun it. I am being logical, while you are trying to pass off subjectivity for objectivity, and that is supremely arrogant.

LOL...case closed.

May the nonspecific metaphoric representation of whatever humans spiritually worship have mercy on his soul.

 

[newpolitics]

Boss: Also, you seem to want to pass off Occam's Razor as of it were a mode of logical inference, which it is not. It is merely a method of eliminating competing hypothesis'. It does not replace deductive, inductive, or abductive reasoning. In trying to prove something scientifically, you must use deductive logic, which you have not done. This is another gaping hole in your attempt at reaching your conclusion about the source of human spirituality. You need to actually have evidence for the spiritual. Occam's Razor is not evidence.

Even if you could eliminate a naturalistic hypothesis via Occam's Razor, this doesn't prove that it is spiritual. You still need to deductively prove that a spiritual universe exists, without reference to anything but sound premises (evidence). Eliminating a competing hypothesis doesn't make your hypothesis any more true. You have to actually show that your hypothesis is true. The only circumstance in which eliminating a competing hypothesis would necessarily make your hypothesis true would be if these two competing hypothesis' represented a true dichotomy. You haven't demonstrated a true dichotomy, therefore your attempt at using Occam's Razor to mean, necessarily, that a spiritual realm exists, fails. This is called using a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy, and is yet another gaping hole in your reasoning.

 

[newpolitics]

Boss, I see what you are trying to do. You are trying to follow the evidence. This is good, and is how science works, however. The problem is a question of evidence. We live in a physical universe. By your own definition, the spiritual can not exist in the physical, otherwise it would no longer be spiritual, but physical. Yet, you are claiming that spiritual evidence does exist in the physical universe. Here again, you contradict yourself. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the spiritual can not exist in the physical, which you claimed when resisting the idea of a spiritual god existing in the physical, and then turn around and say that spiritual evidence exists in the physical universe. This so contradictory. You are saying the spiritual can exist in the physical, AND the spiritual can not exist in the physical.

The only kind of evidence is physical evidence. We live in a physical universe. Not a spiritual one. When you say spiritual evidence, you are trying to pass off subjective experience as objective, because "spiritual evidence" is entirely subjective, and this, subject to a host of human cognitive biases which disallows you to establish the source of your subjective experiences. This is why your "spiritual evidence" is not evidence of the spiritual. You need to understand this. I am not simply precluding spirituality for the fun it. I am being logical, while you are trying to pass off subjectivity for objectivity, and that is supremely arrogant.

LOL...case closed.

May the nonspecific metaphoric representation of whatever humans spiritually worship have mercy on his soul.

Thank you, and amen.

 

[onecut39]

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!

Ridiculous!

 

[HUGGY]

Spirituality. The belief in spirits. As human beings settled down from hunter gatherers to a trend towards agricultural based societies man's survival was more dependant upon unseen forces to succeed.

Much of the endeavors of what humans did or attempted to do was unpredictable in thier outcomes. Uncertainty was more likely than not. People started to appeal to the "spirits" to assist in all manner of human activity. "Gods" were assigned for general and specific catagories to appeal to. Some people believed to be "seers" started to appear based on thier success in predicting the whims of the designated spirits.

Naturally the seers that were lucky enough to guess the proper outcomes gained strength in thier communities and those whose predictions contradicted the desired outcomes lost credibility and were ignored as undependable .... or worse. I would imagine disgruntled laymen killed many of these snake oil salesmen.

It is sad that those that cannot prove thier spiritual claims are not held to the standards of the ancient seers and punished for thier fraud.

 

[numan]

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.

I think talking about "proof" enters into many philosophical quagmires. I think it would be better to be more modest and limit oneself to "evidence".

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....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.

I think you make a very important point here -- That there may be a Reality with characteristics very different from what we experience in time and space. Indeed, by trying to imagine entities which have characteristics the diametrical opposite to ordinary matter, one may begin to gain understanding of what spiritual reality is like.

No doubt the exercise will not carry us to the ultimate end of understanding spiritual reality, but it may carry us further than one might think at first glance.
.

 

[S.J.]

If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final. The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again. The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver. Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal. Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.
Then the obvious question is "Where does the spirit come from and how did it get in the body"? It had to come from somewhere.

 

[Hollie]

If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final. The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again. The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver. Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal. Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.
Then the obvious question is "Where does the spirit come from and how did it get in the body"? It had to come from somewhere.

You first need to define your terms regarding this "spirit" thing. Metaphysics and mysticism aside, this "spirit" you claim exists has no properties which can be quantified.

 

[hobelim]

If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final. The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again. The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver. Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal. Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.
Then the obvious question is "Where does the spirit come from and how did it get in the body"? It had to come from somewhere.

You first need to define your terms regarding this "spirit" thing. Metaphysics and mysticism aside, this "spirit" you claim exists has no properties which can be quantified.

I think its much more simple than that.

Spirit is probably just the ancient word for what we describe as consciousness, just like their understanding of the function of the organ of the heart is what we understand to be the function of the brain.... soul is what they thought of as the mind.

Losing their soul would equate with losing their mind. A person whose soul was possessed by a demon would be a victim of mind control.

An unclean spirit would translate as a dirty mind.

Nothing supernatural or mystical about any of it.

 

[numan]

If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final. The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again. The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver. Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal. Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.

This comparison is inadequate. This "spirit" could be just the way the car works when all the parts of the car are put together in the right way to permit the efficient functioning of the car.

You might say that you could take the car apart, destroying its way of functioning, and then put it back together, and bingo! it is the same as it was before being disassembled.

This way of looking at things falls apart when applied to the body and the way it functions. The animal body is incredibly complex; at death, it immediately starts to disintegrate, and it would very quickly become impossible to put it back together in any way that even remotely resembled its state before death.

Moreover, the irreducible uncertainty inherent in all quantum mechanical phenomena guarantees that, even in principle, the body could never be reconstructed precisely as it existed before death.

In the physicalist view, there is nothing "extra" added to the car other than its various parts and the way they are put together.

You may object that it is absurd to imagine a car without a driver as a part of the way it works, but this is also invalid. We are very close to designing cars driven by complex electronic computers which can perform all the functions of a human driver -- indeed, perhaps perform them better than could a human.
.