Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You have given no example of spirituality that did not require humans. If you lack the intelligence to know what you have inadvertently proven, that is your problem.All you have proven is spirituality cannot and does not exist without humans. Humans come first and create their spirituality.
Existence begets essence.
I've proven no such thing. You've proven no such thing. Sorry!
Scientific evidence doesn't mean physical evidence. It simply means evidence.
No, it means "scientific" evidence, and science is man's study of the physical universe. Science does not even apply to anything outside the physical realm. Reason being, science is largely dependent upon observation, verification, falsification, predictability regarding physical elements. It does not deal with the supernatural, and can't, it's wholly unequipped to evaluate anything outside the parameters of the physical universe.
No, we live in both a physical AND spiritual universe. Science was invented by man to study principles of the physical universe, and religion was invented to study the principles of the spiritual universe. What we find, is profound evidence of both, a physical AND spiritual universe. You have simply closed your mind to the spiritual universe, in much the same way as a religious nut who rejects science.
Another rather long-winded rant to tell me that you do not accept spiritual evidence. I already said, there is no question whatsoever, if you can not accept spiritual evidence, you can not prove the existence of a spiritual entity, it would defy logic and reason to do so. But here you are again, explaining that exact same point again to me.
No doubt your response will be to run to your "spiritual evidence." This is a non-response, since spiritual evidence can not be demonstrated objectively, only subjectively, which makes it, at best, anecdotal evidence, which is categorically unreliable when it comes to demonstrating truth.
Oh, spiritual evidence can't be supported by objectivity based solely on physical science and physical observation or demonstration. If it could, it wouldn't really be "spiritual" but rather, "physical" and we wouldn't need to have this discussion. You're demanding some illogical proof for something, and simply denying it exists because you can't get the illogical proof you need to believe it. The proof is definitive, but you refuse to accept spiritual evidence to support the spiritual entity of god, and without that, god can never be proven to exist.
Now, I am not "running to" anything, and/or "running away" from anything. My OP argument clearly states that you must first accept spiritual evidence in the evaluation of whether a spiritual entity exists. You fail to meet this criteria, so as I said in the OP, you will never be able to recognize the definitive proof. You continue to reaffirm that point for me, and I thank you for that.
All you've said is: in order to believe in the spiritual realm, you must believe in the spiritual realm. You continue to reaffirm your use of circular logic, without offering any way in. This thread is truly pointless.
All you have proven is spirituality cannot and does not exist without humans. Humans come first and create their spirituality.
Existence begets essence.
I've proven no such thing. You've proven no such thing. Sorry!
You have given no example of spirituality that did not require humans. If you lack the intelligence to know what you have inadvertently proven, that is your problem.
The fact that existence begets essence is undeniable. Both yours and my examples prove it.
The claim that essence begets existence has yet to be proven. It has no proof and depends on faith.
God haters? Are you bloody kidding? I think that even the hardest atheist or nihilist want proof god exists. Religion, ANY religion, isnt proving a thing. Its all man made drivel.
I pontificated nothing. I gave a specific and unassailable example.I've proven no such thing. You've proven no such thing. Sorry!
You have given no example of spirituality that did not require humans. If you lack the intelligence to know what you have inadvertently proven, that is your problem.
The fact that existence begets essence is undeniable. Both yours and my examples prove it.
The claim that essence begets existence has yet to be proven. It has no proof and depends on faith.
You are being silly. Spirituality is the relationship between humans and the spiritual universe, and without humans, there is no relationship required or needed. So you are presenting a totally silly and irrational point, over and over again, and including some philosophical pontification about "essence begets existence!"
Spirituality DOES require humans, that's what it is, by definition. What the spirituality connects to, can certainly exist before humans, and you haven't proven otherwise. The fact that humans weren't here to recognize and acknowledge god, doesn't mean god doesn't exist... sorry!
Scientific evidence doesn't mean physical evidence. It simply means evidence. It just so happens that we live in a physical universe, so this is what we always find. It's called methodological naturalism for a reason. I don't accept your distinction between physical evidence and spiritual evidence. You have created this demarcation in order to smuggle in hidden premises which lead to your circular reasoning. This created category of "spiritual evidence" doesn't exist, and is therefore a red herring from a discussion about evidence, and is essentially a distraction from the fact that you have no evidence of any kind, believe personally that there is evidence, and want everyone to believe as you do. So to bridge this gap, you invent "spiritual evidence" to conflate objective and subjective realities. Now, all of a sudden, your subjective evidence, becomes objective. This is a simple category error. You are pretending the your subjective evidence is objective. If it were, you would have pointed this evidence out to us long ago. But, you haven't, because it doesn't exist objectively. It only exists subjectively to you. This is tautological: those who believe, believe. It is true for every believer of anything supernatural. The problem is, you can't show this evidence to anyone else, by virtue of the fact that it is entirely subjective. So you deal with this by engaging in circular reasoning and in inventing a category of "spiritual evidence" that no one else who doesn't believe (subjective) can see. Well, of course they can not see it. This subjective evidence arises only in the mind of the believer. Even your evidence for god, citing years of human spirituality, is entirely subjective. Humans ancient subjective view of the cosmos is not a demonstration of the objective workings of the cosmos, simply because a lot people believed it. This is an argument from popularity. The number of people who believe something to be true doesn't have any bearing on its truth value. It has to be demonstrated objectively.
No doubt your response will be to run to your "spiritual evidence." This is a non-response, since spiritual evidence can not be demonstrated objectively, only subjectively, which makes it, at best, anecdotal evidence, which is categorically unreliable when it comes to demonstrating truth.
The scientific evidence that carries the most weight is Physical evidence. I asked earlier what kind of evidence would it be that people speak in tongues a language they never had any training in but through recordings these languages were confirmed ? They said they open there mouth and it was like someone else was in control of what was being said.
Mind citing references or scientific linguistics studies that these spoken languages are actually languages? I have heard of ex-Christians who can speak in tongues at will, simply because they used to. What does this mean?
Scientific evidence doesn't mean physical evidence. It simply means evidence. It just so happens that we live in a physical universe, so this is what we always find. It's called methodological naturalism for a reason. I don't accept your distinction between physical evidence and spiritual evidence. You have created this demarcation in order to smuggle in hidden premises which lead to your circular reasoning. This created category of "spiritual evidence" doesn't exist, and is therefore a red herring from a discussion about evidence, and is essentially a distraction from the fact that you have no evidence of any kind, believe personally that there is evidence, and want everyone to believe as you do. So to bridge this gap, you invent "spiritual evidence" to conflate objective and subjective realities. Now, all of a sudden, your subjective evidence, becomes objective. This is a simple category error. You are pretending the your subjective evidence is objective. If it were, you would have pointed this evidence out to us long ago. But, you haven't, because it doesn't exist objectively. It only exists subjectively to you. This is tautological: those who believe, believe. It is true for every believer of anything supernatural. The problem is, you can't show this evidence to anyone else, by virtue of the fact that it is entirely subjective. So you deal with this by engaging in circular reasoning and in inventing a category of "spiritual evidence" that no one else who doesn't believe (subjective) can see. Well, of course they can not see it. This subjective evidence arises only in the mind of the believer. Even your evidence for god, citing years of human spirituality, is entirely subjective. Humans ancient subjective view of the cosmos is not a demonstration of the objective workings of the cosmos, simply because a lot people believed it. This is an argument from popularity. The number of people who believe something to be true doesn't have any bearing on its truth value. It has to be demonstrated objectively.
No doubt your response will be to run to your "spiritual evidence." This is a non-response, since spiritual evidence can not be demonstrated objectively, only subjectively, which makes it, at best, anecdotal evidence, which is categorically unreliable when it comes to demonstrating truth.
The scientific evidence that carries the most weight is Physical evidence. I asked earlier what kind of evidence would it be that people speak in tongues a language they never had any training in but through recordings these languages were confirmed ? They said they open there mouth and it was like someone else was in control of what was being said.
Mind citing references or scientific linguistics studies that these spoken languages are actually languages? I have heard of ex-Christians who can speak in tongues at will, simply because they used to. What does this mean?
Evidence of a scam.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 ?
I hope you were not stupid enough to give these scammers any of your money! Wait a minute, of course you did.
I pontificated nothing. I gave a specific and unassailable example.You have given no example of spirituality that did not require humans. If you lack the intelligence to know what you have inadvertently proven, that is your problem.
The fact that existence begets essence is undeniable. Both yours and my examples prove it.
The claim that essence begets existence has yet to be proven. It has no proof and depends on faith.
You are being silly. Spirituality is the relationship between humans and the spiritual universe, and without humans, there is no relationship required or needed. So you are presenting a totally silly and irrational point, over and over again, and including some philosophical pontification about "essence begets existence!"
Spirituality DOES require humans, that's what it is, by definition. What the spirituality connects to, can certainly exist before humans, and you haven't proven otherwise. The fact that humans weren't here to recognize and acknowledge god, doesn't mean god doesn't exist... sorry!
Anyone today who listens and is moved by the music of Bach has experienced the spirit of Bach alive in his music. Before Bach existed no one was ever moved by the spirit of Bach, contrary to your claim that humans could connect to the spirituality of Bach before he existed to compose his music.
Existence begets essence.
Now it is time to prove your doublespeak.
Well....Hells Bells !!!!
Let's just release all the good folks in the mental institutions !! Now that we cleared up that nonsense about delusion being nonsense and everything..
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.
No, it means "scientific" evidence, and science is man's study of the physical universe. Science does not even apply to anything outside the physical realm. Reason being, science is largely dependent upon observation, verification, falsification, predictability regarding physical elements. It does not deal with the supernatural, and can't, it's wholly unequipped to evaluate anything outside the parameters of the physical universe.
No, we live in both a physical AND spiritual universe. Science was invented by man to study principles of the physical universe, and religion was invented to study the principles of the spiritual universe. What we find, is profound evidence of both, a physical AND spiritual universe. You have simply closed your mind to the spiritual universe, in much the same way as a religious nut who rejects science.
Another rather long-winded rant to tell me that you do not accept spiritual evidence. I already said, there is no question whatsoever, if you can not accept spiritual evidence, you can not prove the existence of a spiritual entity, it would defy logic and reason to do so. But here you are again, explaining that exact same point again to me.
Oh, spiritual evidence can't be supported by objectivity based solely on physical science and physical observation or demonstration. If it could, it wouldn't really be "spiritual" but rather, "physical" and we wouldn't need to have this discussion. You're demanding some illogical proof for something, and simply denying it exists because you can't get the illogical proof you need to believe it. The proof is definitive, but you refuse to accept spiritual evidence to support the spiritual entity of god, and without that, god can never be proven to exist.
Now, I am not "running to" anything, and/or "running away" from anything. My OP argument clearly states that you must first accept spiritual evidence in the evaluation of whether a spiritual entity exists. You fail to meet this criteria, so as I said in the OP, you will never be able to recognize the definitive proof. You continue to reaffirm that point for me, and I thank you for that.
All you've said is: in order to believe in the spiritual realm, you must believe in the spiritual realm. You continue to reaffirm your use of circular logic, without offering any way in. This thread is truly pointless.
That's funny, looks like I said a whole lot more. The thing you don't seem to comprehend, is 'circular reasoning' is not always invalid or incorrect. The Sun is the center of our solar system, therefore, the Sun is the center of our solar system. Now, circular reasoning alone, does not "prove" anything, and I think that is what you are getting at, but I presented more than this, and you have to also include it in what I said. You can't, because your mind can't comprehend spiritual existence. You only accept physical evidence.
We've now covered this about 20 times in this thread, and we can go over it another 20 if you like. Unless, by some divine province, you happen to suddenly have spiritual awakening, and become spiritually aware, you will never be able to evaluate spiritual evidence, because you don't believe such things exist. As long as that's your view, god's existence can not be definitively proven to you. Not today, not tomorrow, not in a million years. There will never be any physical evidence that god exists, which proves god's existence, because god does not exist in a physical state, but rather a spiritual one.
I can go over all the enormous amounts of spiritual evidence with you, but if you reject the spiritual realm of our universe, it means absolutely nothing to you, and the typical reaction is to run hide behind physical science, and claim nothing is "proven" by any of it.
Imagine if you will, I am a person who believes that only GOD can explain things to me, that unless he speaks to my heart and tells me something is so, I can't accept it or believe it to be true. Now, pretend you are here trying to explain some principle of science to me, and I keep rejecting every scientific argument you make, by simply saying, God hasn't told me that. How long would you continue to believe that you could convince me of the proof?
It is way beyond my power to get you to recognize spiritual evidence. That is a choice you must make for yourself, and I don't have any control over that. I can point out that Spirituality is certainly real, humans have been experiencing it for thousands of years. Whether you want to acknowledge this or not, it doesn't really matter, it's a matter of fact, and a part of what makes us humans. Spirituality has existed for our entirety as a species. We can't function as a society or have sustained civilizations without it. So the question of whether spirituality exists is answered. Is it 70,000 years of mass delusion? Superstition? Fear of the unknown? No, these can all be debunked. They are the "excuses" you present to avoid acknowledging the obvious spiritual relationship humans have with something you don't comprehend. You reject spiritual evidence, and this is a prime example.
Another aspect of spiritual evidence I predict you will reject, is something spiritual people had to develop a word for, to define it. This word, remains to this day, applied to things received through spiritual recourse.... it's called "blessings." Millions...billions, who have received "blessings" are not in question as to whether there is a spiritual force or entity. You will say this is "circumstantial" because there is no physical basis of support, but this is not a physical thing. It happened through spirituality. And it's been happening for many thousands of years, which is why they had to come up with a special word to apply.
All you've said is: in order to believe in the spiritual realm, you must believe in the spiritual realm. You continue to reaffirm your use of circular logic, without offering any way in. This thread is truly pointless.
That's funny, looks like I said a whole lot more. The thing you don't seem to comprehend, is 'circular reasoning' is not always invalid or incorrect. The Sun is the center of our solar system, therefore, the Sun is the center of our solar system. Now, circular reasoning alone, does not "prove" anything, and I think that is what you are getting at, but I presented more than this, and you have to also include it in what I said. You can't, because your mind can't comprehend spiritual existence. You only accept physical evidence.
We've now covered this about 20 times in this thread, and we can go over it another 20 if you like. Unless, by some divine province, you happen to suddenly have spiritual awakening, and become spiritually aware, you will never be able to evaluate spiritual evidence, because you don't believe such things exist. As long as that's your view, god's existence can not be definitively proven to you. Not today, not tomorrow, not in a million years. There will never be any physical evidence that god exists, which proves god's existence, because god does not exist in a physical state, but rather a spiritual one.
I can go over all the enormous amounts of spiritual evidence with you, but if you reject the spiritual realm of our universe, it means absolutely nothing to you, and the typical reaction is to run hide behind physical science, and claim nothing is "proven" by any of it.
Imagine if you will, I am a person who believes that only GOD can explain things to me, that unless he speaks to my heart and tells me something is so, I can't accept it or believe it to be true. Now, pretend you are here trying to explain some principle of science to me, and I keep rejecting every scientific argument you make, by simply saying, God hasn't told me that. How long would you continue to believe that you could convince me of the proof?
It is way beyond my power to get you to recognize spiritual evidence. That is a choice you must make for yourself, and I don't have any control over that. I can point out that Spirituality is certainly real, humans have been experiencing it for thousands of years. Whether you want to acknowledge this or not, it doesn't really matter, it's a matter of fact, and a part of what makes us humans. Spirituality has existed for our entirety as a species. We can't function as a society or have sustained civilizations without it. So the question of whether spirituality exists is answered. Is it 70,000 years of mass delusion? Superstition? Fear of the unknown? No, these can all be debunked. They are the "excuses" you present to avoid acknowledging the obvious spiritual relationship humans have with something you don't comprehend. You reject spiritual evidence, and this is a prime example.
Another aspect of spiritual evidence I predict you will reject, is something spiritual people had to develop a word for, to define it. This word, remains to this day, applied to things received through spiritual recourse.... it's called "blessings." Millions...billions, who have received "blessings" are not in question as to whether there is a spiritual force or entity. You will say this is "circumstantial" because there is no physical basis of support, but this is not a physical thing. It happened through spirituality. And it's been happening for many thousands of years, which is why they had to come up with a special word to apply.
How you surmised that what you have written entails any amount of valid logic, is beyond me. You wrote a lot of words, but you said very little. Again, you can not logically deduce that humans' spirituality infers an actual spiritual realm. This is entirely subjective, and again, is an argument from popularity. Also, people's perception of "blessing" I entirely subjective as well. You keep on affirming that all of your evidence is merely subjective and hence, completely biased interpretations of reality. Given humans are biased when it comes to reality, this is highly unreliable, as it constitutes anecdotal evidence, which even in court, is considered highly unreliable. Further, you can't say that society can't function without spirituality. Where is your evidence for this? Scandinavia stands as a defeater for this claim.
All you've said is: in order to believe in the spiritual realm, you must believe in the spiritual realm. You continue to reaffirm your use of circular logic, without offering any way in. This thread is truly pointless.
That's funny, looks like I said a whole lot more. The thing you don't seem to comprehend, is 'circular reasoning' is not always invalid or incorrect. The Sun is the center of our solar system, therefore, the Sun is the center of our solar system. Now, circular reasoning alone, does not "prove" anything, and I think that is what you are getting at, but I presented more than this, and you have to also include it in what I said. You can't, because your mind can't comprehend spiritual existence. You only accept physical evidence.
We've now covered this about 20 times in this thread, and we can go over it another 20 if you like. Unless, by some divine province, you happen to suddenly have spiritual awakening, and become spiritually aware, you will never be able to evaluate spiritual evidence, because you don't believe such things exist. As long as that's your view, god's existence can not be definitively proven to you. Not today, not tomorrow, not in a million years. There will never be any physical evidence that god exists, which proves god's existence, because god does not exist in a physical state, but rather a spiritual one.
I can go over all the enormous amounts of spiritual evidence with you, but if you reject the spiritual realm of our universe, it means absolutely nothing to you, and the typical reaction is to run hide behind physical science, and claim nothing is "proven" by any of it.
Imagine if you will, I am a person who believes that only GOD can explain things to me, that unless he speaks to my heart and tells me something is so, I can't accept it or believe it to be true. Now, pretend you are here trying to explain some principle of science to me, and I keep rejecting every scientific argument you make, by simply saying, God hasn't told me that. How long would you continue to believe that you could convince me of the proof?
It is way beyond my power to get you to recognize spiritual evidence. That is a choice you must make for yourself, and I don't have any control over that. I can point out that Spirituality is certainly real, humans have been experiencing it for thousands of years. Whether you want to acknowledge this or not, it doesn't really matter, it's a matter of fact, and a part of what makes us humans. Spirituality has existed for our entirety as a species. We can't function as a society or have sustained civilizations without it. So the question of whether spirituality exists is answered. Is it 70,000 years of mass delusion? Superstition? Fear of the unknown? No, these can all be debunked. They are the "excuses" you present to avoid acknowledging the obvious spiritual relationship humans have with something you don't comprehend. You reject spiritual evidence, and this is a prime example.
Another aspect of spiritual evidence I predict you will reject, is something spiritual people had to develop a word for, to define it. This word, remains to this day, applied to things received through spiritual recourse.... it's called "blessings." Millions...billions, who have received "blessings" are not in question as to whether there is a spiritual force or entity. You will say this is "circumstantial" because there is no physical basis of support, but this is not a physical thing. It happened through spirituality. And it's been happening for many thousands of years, which is why they had to come up with a special word to apply.
How you surmised that what you have written entails any amount of valid logic, is beyond me. You wrote a lot of words, but you said very little. Again, you can not logically deduce that humans' spirituality infers an actual spiritual realm. This is entirely subjective, and again, is an argument from popularity. Also, people's perception of "blessing" I entirely subjective as well. You keep on affirming that all of your evidence is merely subjective and hence, completely biased interpretations of reality. Given humans are biased when it comes to reality, this is highly unreliable, as it constitutes anecdotal evidence, which even in court, is considered highly unreliable. Further, you can't say that society can't function without spirituality. Where is your evidence for this? Scandinavia stands as a defeater for this claim.
Derideo: I can't believe this thread has lasted this long, which I share in the blame for.
Derideo: I can't believe this thread has lasted this long, which I share in the blame for.
Newpolitcs: No point in blaming yourself for his obstinance. No amount of sound logic or hard facts are ever going to change the mind of a "true Believer". Sometimes it is better to just move on to opponents who are more worthy of your time and attention.
