Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[PredFan]

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!

So you are attempting to prove that God exists without proving that God exists?

Man, that is some circular logic dude.

 

[HUGGY]

There has been a lot of long winded bullshit attempting to hoist "spiritual" up on the pedestal of "fact". It is not.

Spiritual activity or belief or faith has NEVER crossed the boundary into the realm of fact.

If you need a more obvious example of several million people completely believing and have absolute faith in horseshit look at the population of North Korea.

 

[oldfart]

I can prove anything if I get to chose what constitutes proof. Has this discussion demonstrated anything more than the previous statement? I suggest not.

 

[Boss]

There has been a lot of long winded bullshit attempting to hoist "spiritual" up on the pedestal of "fact". It is not.

Spiritual activity or belief or faith has NEVER crossed the boundary into the realm of fact.

If you need a more obvious example of several million people completely believing and have absolute faith in horseshit look at the population of North Korea.

If it did, there would be no need for belief or faith, and spirituality wouldn't exist. Assuming you mean "material or physical" fact. There is tremendous evidence for spirituality, it's just spiritual and not physical evidence, and you are incapable of recognizing it.

Also, what kind of religion people practice in North Korea is FOREIGN to the question of spirituality, spiritual existence, or existence of a spiritual god. You are confusing religion for spirituality, and there is a fairly huge difference.

 

[Boss]

I can prove anything if I get to chose what constitutes proof. Has this discussion demonstrated anything more than the previous statement? I suggest not.

And you can't prove anything without using the appropriate type of evidence. Explain to me how and where rain comes from, without using physical science and only using spiritual evidence? Can you do that? No, because a) there is no such thing, in your mind, as spiritual evidence, and b) because rain is not a spiritual phenomenon. In order to adequately prove how and why rain exists, you must depend on physical evidence, physical science, physical existence. You can't do that with people who refuse to accept physical evidence and demand spiritual proof.

I'm not "getting to choose" here, I am applying simple logic. If physical things rely on physical evidence to show physical existence, then spiritual things rely on spiritual evidence to show spiritual existence.

 

[oldfart]

And you can't prove anything without using the appropriate type of evidence. Explain to me how and where rain comes from, without using physical science and only using spiritual evidence? Can you do that? No, because a) there is no such thing, in your mind, as spiritual evidence, and b) because rain is not a spiritual phenomenon. In order to adequately prove how and why rain exists, you must depend on physical evidence, physical science, physical existence. You can't do that with people who refuse to accept physical evidence and demand spiritual proof.

I'm not "getting to choose" here, I am applying simple logic. If physical things rely on physical evidence to show physical existence, then spiritual things rely on spiritual evidence to show spiritual existence.

You are only engaging in circular logic. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time. You choose your definition of proof. Only people who agree with you to begin with would accept such a definition. It's called "proof by tautology" and is an elementary logical error. I was simply pointing this out for other posters benefit as you obviously have trouble with the concept. Thank you for providing additional validation of my point.

As these type discussions rapidly become tiresome and repetitive, I'll refrain from further comment on this particular fallacy. If you have an argument that is based on some other premise than you get to choose what constitutes proof of your proposition; I would be interested in hearing it. But having arrived at a perfect proof (which of itself is an indication of proof by definition) I doubt you felt any need to think beyond that insight. Please prove me wrong and surprise me.

 

[HUGGY]

There has been a lot of long winded bullshit attempting to hoist "spiritual" up on the pedestal of "fact". It is not.

Spiritual activity or belief or faith has NEVER crossed the boundary into the realm of fact.

If you need a more obvious example of several million people completely believing and have absolute faith in horseshit look at the population of North Korea.

If it did, there would be no need for belief or faith, and spirituality wouldn't exist. Assuming you mean "material or physical" fact. There is tremendous evidence for spirituality, it's just spiritual and not physical evidence, and you are incapable of recognizing it.

Also, what kind of religion people practice in North Korea is FOREIGN to the question of spirituality, spiritual existence, or existence of a spiritual god. You are confusing religion for spirituality, and there is a fairly huge difference.

You have no way to prove the beliefs of the people in North Korea are any less spiritual than those of devout Christians. I have seen video clips of citizens in N. Korea crying of apparent love when describing thier feelings towards the fat fuck that leads thier country. The arguments you present are hollow as Predfan and Oldfart demonstrate. I doubt you are presenting your side of this debate from a position of a personal core belief. It seems more likely that you are just screwing around postulating your own rules and filling in the blanks in your self fullfilling word puzzel. There is no proof god exists. I'm done here.

 

[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.

No, we live in a physical AND spiritual universe, you only have familiarity with the physical universe because you are a physical entity. Science is a man-made system of examining the physical world, it does not apply to the spiritual universe. When we attempt to apply physical science to the spiritual world, it fails, because spirituality can't be supported by physical evidence, it's the wrong kind of evidence. You assume this means there is "no proof" but all it really means is, there is no physical proof, but there shouldn't be any, and we shouldn't expect any. It's illogical that physical proof would ever exist for a spiritual entity, because this would then make it a physical entity. IF god did switch back and forth from a spiritual entity to a physical being, you'd still argue there is no proof that god is a spiritual entity, because you don't comprehend spiritual evidence.

By your own definition, the spiritual can not exist in the physical, otherwise it would no longer be spiritual, but physical.

Nope... didn't say that. Spirituality has existed in the physical world for at least 70,000 years. Spiritual entities do not have or require physical evidence. They DO exist, but "exist" means something different in a spiritual sense, than it means in a physical sense, and this is where you have difficulty comprehending it, because you lack the understanding of spirituality. If a spiritual entity could provide physical evidence of it's existence, it would qualify itself as a physical entity, just by doing so, and it would cease to be a spiritual entity at that point, because there is a physical basis for it's existence.



I said that you are unable to recognize or acknowledge spiritual evidence, and demands for physical evidence is illogical. Spiritual evidence does exist, evidence is not a spiritual entity, it can exist in a physical sense, it's evidence, not a spirit. "Spiritual evidence" means it is evidence based on spirituality and not physical science.



Again, "evidence" is not a spirit. It can certainly exist in the physical world. I also never said "spiritual can not exist in the physical" it most certainly does 'spiritually exist' in the physical world. There is no contradiction, just you lying about what I said, AGAIN!



You keep saying this, and my OP pointed out that I fully understand YOU BELIEVE it, so do you think you are telling me something new here? It's what I've said all along, you don't acknowledge spiritual evidence, and you believe the only "evidence" or "existence" possible, is physical.

We live in a physical universe. Not a spiritual one.

Nope... We EXIST in a physical universe, we LIVE in a physical AND 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.

I'm not trying to "pass off" anything. There is no subjectivity, humans have been spiritual creatures as long as they have roamed the earth. Objectivity with spiritual evidence works the same as it does for physical evidence, you first have to believe in the basis for it. If I reject physical science, then physical science explanations are "subjective" to me. I can't objectively rationalize physical science if I don't believe it.

I don't acknowledge spiritual evidence because it doesn't exist. You haven't proven it to exist. And no, your "spiritual evidence" is not objective. And reversing the realms of spirituality and physicality does not work to make a point. Evidence for gravity would be the fact that you aren't flying away. Unless you are insane, this is observable by everyone and yourself. I don't care what your spiritual beliefs are. The same can not be said for your spiritual evidence, because this is just a code word for "subjective interpretation" of reality.

You haven't provided a SHRED of this so called spiritual evidence, which is just another way of smuggling in a hidden premise that begs the question, since it presupposes a spiritual realm when you haven't proven one. This alone is enough to invalidate your attempt... Yet you keep on going!

Your logic is terrible!!!!

You have contradicted yourself here so many times as to make my head spin. What you have just presented is the most mangled bunch of contradictory propositions I've ever seen in my life. First you say that the spiritual can not exist in the physical, this universe being physical, in which no spiritual beings can interact; then you say the universe is spiritual and physical; then you say the spiritual CAN leave evidence, just not physical evidence; then you go back to saying the spiritual can not leave physical evidence because that would make it physical... It's mind-numbing. You say whatever you want, with no regard for logic. I've never seen anything so haphazard when it comes to debate.

It's as if you are just making it up as you gone along. However , I guess this is to be expected from someone who thinks definition of key terms is completely unimportant. You become unaware of the logical contradictions that flow from and in between your premises.

 

[Boss]

There has been a lot of long winded bullshit attempting to hoist "spiritual" up on the pedestal of "fact". It is not.

Spiritual activity or belief or faith has NEVER crossed the boundary into the realm of fact.

If you need a more obvious example of several million people completely believing and have absolute faith in horseshit look at the population of North Korea.

If it did, there would be no need for belief or faith, and spirituality wouldn't exist. Assuming you mean "material or physical" fact. There is tremendous evidence for spirituality, it's just spiritual and not physical evidence, and you are incapable of recognizing it.

Also, what kind of religion people practice in North Korea is FOREIGN to the question of spirituality, spiritual existence, or existence of a spiritual god. You are confusing religion for spirituality, and there is a fairly huge difference.

You have no way to prove the beliefs of the people in North Korea are any less spiritual than those of devout Christians. I have seen video clips of citizens in N. Korea crying of apparent love when describing thier feelings towards the fat fuck that leads thier country. The arguments you present are hollow as Predfan and Oldfart demonstrate. I doubt you are presenting your side of this debate from a position of a personal core belief. It seems more likely that you are just screwing around postulating your own rules and filling in the blanks in your self fullfilling word puzzel. There is no proof god exists. I'm done here.

I never said the people of NK are less or more spiritual, or spiritual at all. They may very well be humans spiritually moved to worship their leader as a deity, but this simply reinforces my point, that humans are devoutly spiritual. As we examine human history, we see very few examples of civilizations existing without any kind of spiritual belief. Humans are too intrinsically tied to spiritual devotion to make that idea work, and it has been tried. Untold millions of people have been executed because of what they believed spiritually, and would not stop believing, even in face of death.

The proof god exists, is both physical and spiritual. But unless you accept spiritual evidence, you can't prove god's existence. The physical evidence alone, does not make the case. Mostly, because god is not a physical entity, and doesn't have physical presence of existence, which is all your mind is able to recognize. God is spiritual, therefore, can't be proven with physical evidence alone.

My case in the OP does not "screw around postulating my own rules as I go" it's clear and well reasoned, and supported with both physical and spiritual evidence. The very first point of the argument states, if you do not accept spiritual evidence, you will fail to comprehend the proof of god's existence. You can not rationalize a spiritual existence, the term makes no sense to you, because you understand "existence" to be a physical state of being. It's fairly safe to say, a physical man named God, who is invisible, does not reside in our universe somewhere on a cloud, in a place called Heaven, with pearly gates. It's probably not a reasonable reality that such a thing is real or to believe in such. But is there a spiritual entity outside mankind's ability to comprehend, which man can (and does) communicate with and/or connect with? There is certainly no science I know of, which can make this conclusion, and to do so, would void scientific theory.

 

[HUGGY]

If it did, there would be no need for belief or faith, and spirituality wouldn't exist. Assuming you mean "material or physical" fact. There is tremendous evidence for spirituality, it's just spiritual and not physical evidence, and you are incapable of recognizing it.

Also, what kind of religion people practice in North Korea is FOREIGN to the question of spirituality, spiritual existence, or existence of a spiritual god. You are confusing religion for spirituality, and there is a fairly huge difference.

You have no way to prove the beliefs of the people in North Korea are any less spiritual than those of devout Christians. I have seen video clips of citizens in N. Korea crying of apparent love when describing thier feelings towards the fat fuck that leads thier country. The arguments you present are hollow as Predfan and Oldfart demonstrate. I doubt you are presenting your side of this debate from a position of a personal core belief. It seems more likely that you are just screwing around postulating your own rules and filling in the blanks in your self fullfilling word puzzel. There is no proof god exists. I'm done here.

I never said the people of NK are less or more spiritual, or spiritual at all. They may very well be humans spiritually moved to worship their leader as a deity, but this simply reinforces my point, that humans are devoutly spiritual. As we examine human history, we see very few examples of civilizations existing without any kind of spiritual belief. Humans are too intrinsically tied to spiritual devotion to make that idea work, and it has been tried. Untold millions of people have been executed because of what they believed spiritually, and would not stop believing, even in face of death.

The proof god exists, is both physical and spiritual. But unless you accept spiritual evidence, you can't prove god's existence. The physical evidence alone, does not make the case. Mostly, because god is not a physical entity, and doesn't have physical presence of existence, which is all your mind is able to recognize. God is spiritual, therefore, can't be proven with physical evidence alone.

My case in the OP does not "screw around postulating my own rules as I go" it's clear and well reasoned, and supported with both physical and spiritual evidence. The very first point of the argument states, if you do not accept spiritual evidence, you will fail to comprehend the proof of god's existence. You can not rationalize a spiritual existence, the term makes no sense to you, because you understand "existence" to be a physical state of being. It's fairly safe to say, a physical man named God, who is invisible, does not reside in our universe somewhere on a cloud, in a place called Heaven, with pearly gates. It's probably not a reasonable reality that such a thing is real or to believe in such. But is there a spiritual entity outside mankind's ability to comprehend, which man can (and does) communicate with and/or connect with? There is certainly no science I know of, which can make this conclusion, and to do so, would void scientific theory.

OK ...maybe I'm not COMPLETELY done here. You keep hanging on like a piece of lint that the lint remover gadget just can't seem to lift off of the fine fabric of reason.

Your smooth shifting of definition would rival a fine luxury automobile transmission. The ace up your hole seems to be that it is the fault of the reader that they don't buy into your logic.

Again with the disengenuous nibbling and the shifting ... You said it yourself. "The proof god exists, is both physical and spiritual... The physical evidence alone, does not make the case". If A + B proves C and B can't hold up then you don't have C. It doesn't matter how warm and fuzzy A is ...there is still no C.

 

[Boss]

You have no way to prove the beliefs of the people in North Korea are any less spiritual than those of devout Christians. I have seen video clips of citizens in N. Korea crying of apparent love when describing thier feelings towards the fat fuck that leads thier country. The arguments you present are hollow as Predfan and Oldfart demonstrate. I doubt you are presenting your side of this debate from a position of a personal core belief. It seems more likely that you are just screwing around postulating your own rules and filling in the blanks in your self fullfilling word puzzel. There is no proof god exists. I'm done here.

I never said the people of NK are less or more spiritual, or spiritual at all. They may very well be humans spiritually moved to worship their leader as a deity, but this simply reinforces my point, that humans are devoutly spiritual. As we examine human history, we see very few examples of civilizations existing without any kind of spiritual belief. Humans are too intrinsically tied to spiritual devotion to make that idea work, and it has been tried. Untold millions of people have been executed because of what they believed spiritually, and would not stop believing, even in face of death.

The proof god exists, is both physical and spiritual. But unless you accept spiritual evidence, you can't prove god's existence. The physical evidence alone, does not make the case. Mostly, because god is not a physical entity, and doesn't have physical presence of existence, which is all your mind is able to recognize. God is spiritual, therefore, can't be proven with physical evidence alone.

My case in the OP does not "screw around postulating my own rules as I go" it's clear and well reasoned, and supported with both physical and spiritual evidence. The very first point of the argument states, if you do not accept spiritual evidence, you will fail to comprehend the proof of god's existence. You can not rationalize a spiritual existence, the term makes no sense to you, because you understand "existence" to be a physical state of being. It's fairly safe to say, a physical man named God, who is invisible, does not reside in our universe somewhere on a cloud, in a place called Heaven, with pearly gates. It's probably not a reasonable reality that such a thing is real or to believe in such. But is there a spiritual entity outside mankind's ability to comprehend, which man can (and does) communicate with and/or connect with? There is certainly no science I know of, which can make this conclusion, and to do so, would void scientific theory.

OK ...maybe I'm not COMPLETELY done here. You keep hanging on like a piece of lint that the lint remover gadget just can't seem to lift off of the fine fabric of reason.

Your smooth shifting of definition would rival a fine luxury automobile transmission. The ace up your hole seems to be that it is the fault of the reader that they don't buy into your logic.

Again with the disengenuous nibbling and the shifting ... You said it yourself. "The proof god exists, is both physical and spiritual... The physical evidence alone, does not make the case". If A + B proves C and B can't hold up then you don't have C. It doesn't matter how warm and fuzzy A is ...there is still no C.

If A+B=C, then B can only equal C if A is zero. Did you pass algebra?

I never said it was the fault of the reader. Many readers accept spiritual evidence, in fact, as a percentage of the human population, considering only 5% are Nihilistic, it means 95% of the readers should be able to accept spiritual evidence. However, most people who believe in god's existence, have no need to click on a thread with this title, so we get more of the type who don't accept spiritual evidence. And I suppose there are some who claim they don't accept spiritual evidence but it's because they know spiritual evidence makes a case they don't want made.

 

[HUGGY]

I never said the people of NK are less or more spiritual, or spiritual at all. They may very well be humans spiritually moved to worship their leader as a deity, but this simply reinforces my point, that humans are devoutly spiritual. As we examine human history, we see very few examples of civilizations existing without any kind of spiritual belief. Humans are too intrinsically tied to spiritual devotion to make that idea work, and it has been tried. Untold millions of people have been executed because of what they believed spiritually, and would not stop believing, even in face of death.

The proof god exists, is both physical and spiritual. But unless you accept spiritual evidence, you can't prove god's existence. The physical evidence alone, does not make the case. Mostly, because god is not a physical entity, and doesn't have physical presence of existence, which is all your mind is able to recognize. God is spiritual, therefore, can't be proven with physical evidence alone.

My case in the OP does not "screw around postulating my own rules as I go" it's clear and well reasoned, and supported with both physical and spiritual evidence. The very first point of the argument states, if you do not accept spiritual evidence, you will fail to comprehend the proof of god's existence. You can not rationalize a spiritual existence, the term makes no sense to you, because you understand "existence" to be a physical state of being. It's fairly safe to say, a physical man named God, who is invisible, does not reside in our universe somewhere on a cloud, in a place called Heaven, with pearly gates. It's probably not a reasonable reality that such a thing is real or to believe in such. But is there a spiritual entity outside mankind's ability to comprehend, which man can (and does) communicate with and/or connect with? There is certainly no science I know of, which can make this conclusion, and to do so, would void scientific theory.

OK ...maybe I'm not COMPLETELY done here. You keep hanging on like a piece of lint that the lint remover gadget just can't seem to lift off of the fine fabric of reason.

Your smooth shifting of definition would rival a fine luxury automobile transmission. The ace up your hole seems to be that it is the fault of the reader that they don't buy into your logic.

Again with the disengenuous nibbling and the shifting ... You said it yourself. "The proof god exists, is both physical and spiritual... The physical evidence alone, does not make the case". If A + B proves C and B can't hold up then you don't have C. It doesn't matter how warm and fuzzy A is ...there is still no C.

If A+B=C, then B can only equal C if A is zero. Did you pass algebra?

I never said it was the fault of the reader. Many readers accept spiritual evidence, in fact, as a percentage of the human population, considering only 5% are Nihilistic, it means 95% of the readers should be able to accept spiritual evidence. However, most people who believe in god's existence, have no need to click on a thread with this title, so we get more of the type who don't accept spiritual evidence. And I suppose there are some who claim they don't accept spiritual evidence but it's because they know spiritual evidence makes a case they don't want made.

There you go again. I did not say A + B = C. You should know damned well that I said A + B PROVES C. If you can't digest the difference then this debate is hopeless.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here is how logic works:

Can "spirituality" be explained as anything other than communication with a deity?

answer: yes, yes it can.

Has anyone ever proven spiritual communication with a deity? (belief is not proof).

Answer: no, they haven't.

So is spirituality "definitive proof" of the existence of a deity?

Absolutely not, in any logical terms whatsoever.

Well there are some who speak in tongues. Interesting stuff,they claimed they opened there mouth and just started speaking a language that they did not understand. In recordings they discovered that the two most used languages in these cases were the Ancient language of Hebrew and the other was Coptic and these people had no training in either of these languages what kind of evidence would you consider this to be ?

 

[Boss]

OK ...maybe I'm not COMPLETELY done here. You keep hanging on like a piece of lint that the lint remover gadget just can't seem to lift off of the fine fabric of reason.

Your smooth shifting of definition would rival a fine luxury automobile transmission. The ace up your hole seems to be that it is the fault of the reader that they don't buy into your logic.

Again with the disengenuous nibbling and the shifting ... You said it yourself. "The proof god exists, is both physical and spiritual... The physical evidence alone, does not make the case". If A + B proves C and B can't hold up then you don't have C. It doesn't matter how warm and fuzzy A is ...there is still no C.

If A+B=C, then B can only equal C if A is zero. Did you pass algebra?

I never said it was the fault of the reader. Many readers accept spiritual evidence, in fact, as a percentage of the human population, considering only 5% are Nihilistic, it means 95% of the readers should be able to accept spiritual evidence. However, most people who believe in god's existence, have no need to click on a thread with this title, so we get more of the type who don't accept spiritual evidence. And I suppose there are some who claim they don't accept spiritual evidence but it's because they know spiritual evidence makes a case they don't want made.

There you go again. I did not say A + B = C. You should know damned well that I said A + B PROVES C. If you can't digest the difference then this debate is hopeless.

Let's be clear, this debate is hopeless because you don't accept spiritual evidence. I concede that may prove to be the case, in the OP. Now here, we seem to be arguing if "prove" means the same as "equals" in articulation of a formula. The conversation has turned to this because you don't want to have a discussion on the topic, you can't refute my arguments, so you try to do the next best thing, in your mind, which is to derail the conversation by creating another superfluous argument.

 

[Truthmatters]

there is no sceintific proof god exists.

maybe you need to look up the word proof?

 

[Boss]

And you can't prove anything without using the appropriate type of evidence. Explain to me how and where rain comes from, without using physical science and only using spiritual evidence? Can you do that? No, because a) there is no such thing, in your mind, as spiritual evidence, and b) because rain is not a spiritual phenomenon. In order to adequately prove how and why rain exists, you must depend on physical evidence, physical science, physical existence. You can't do that with people who refuse to accept physical evidence and demand spiritual proof.

I'm not "getting to choose" here, I am applying simple logic. If physical things rely on physical evidence to show physical existence, then spiritual things rely on spiritual evidence to show spiritual existence.

You are only engaging in circular logic. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time. You choose your definition of proof. Only people who agree with you to begin with would accept such a definition. It's called "proof by tautology" and is an elementary logical error. I was simply pointing this out for other posters benefit as you obviously have trouble with the concept. Thank you for providing additional validation of my point.

As these type discussions rapidly become tiresome and repetitive, I'll refrain from further comment on this particular fallacy. If you have an argument that is based on some other premise than you get to choose what constitutes proof of your proposition; I would be interested in hearing it. But having arrived at a perfect proof (which of itself is an indication of proof by definition) I doubt you felt any need to think beyond that insight. Please prove me wrong and surprise me.

I've already had this argument with newpolitics, regarding circular logic. You are saying, god doesn't exist because there is no physical evidence to conclude god exists, but god's existence relies on spiritual belief that you don't have, therefore god must not exist. That's circular reasoning. Proof by tautology.

I have not chosen what constitutes proof. I simply applied basic logic, if we prove existence in a physical sense with physical evidence, it is logical that we should try to prove spiritual existence with spiritual evidence. It's just as illogical to try and prove spiritual existence with physical evidence alone, as trying to prove physics with spirituality.

But the real problem here, the reason you can't wrap your mind around the argument I presented, is because you lack the ability to comprehend spiritual evidence. You can't comprehend it because you don't believe spirituality exists. Even though we have proof it has existed since humans were human.

 

[Boss]

there is no sceintific proof god exists.

maybe you need to look up the word proof?

Think about your statement. "scientific" proof, means physical sciences can prove. There is no "spiritual science" we can call on. You are relying on physical science to prove a spiritual entity. This is illogical, because spiritual entities do not provide physical evidence of existence, if they did, they would be physical entities.

Furthermore, if we look up the word proof, and apply it to science, we find that it completely destroys science and the scientific method. Science NEVER proves, it ALWAYS predicts probability. As soon as you say "science proves" you have stopped practicing science, stopped using the scientific method, and you have begun practicing faith.

 

[Truthmatters]

why is there no spiritual sceince?

maybe your religion should have pursued that to win over converts instead of relying on bullying people into believing

 

[Truthmatters]

I would have much more respect for organized religion if they had done that instead of using the money they take from believers to build really cool and huge buildings to endoctrinate people inside of

 

[whitehall]

I'm still trying to figure out global warming. I'll get to God later.