Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[newpolitics]

The OP is full of evidence. You have the inability to recognize spiritual nature, and you can't envision any incarnation of god that isn't a deity or religious. There are no semantics games, there are semantics that need to be clearly understood and defined before any debate can happen. You can't even comprehend the argument, because of your shallow mind that is closed to anything other than your shallow-minded preconceptions of "invisible people in da sky" ...that's the maturity level we're dealing with here. You should just continue your boycott of this thread, before someone comes and embarasses you again.

Wrong. It is your illogical conclusions from false evidence that make the OP fail, and fail hard. Human belief is not evidence. It never will be. Give up, because you aren't convincing anybody except yourself.

I agree 100%
subjective experience is not evidence
belief only proves belief it is not evidence of the thing believed in.
the major problem with this thread from the start has been the extremely bigoted assumption by the op that if you did not accept what he termed" spiritual evidence" you didn't have the intellectual chops to understand or participate in the thread..
it's not a tough concept..
it is fact that there is some sort of energy that we can sense but not see, it does have an effect on our thinking.
other than that ,what is is or if it's an intelligence different or greater than ours or created existence, is all speculation.
the cocksureness of the author does more harm than good to the pov he's presenting.

Among numerous other logical fallacies being employed throughout this thread by Boss, he is begging the question when he attempts to use "spiritual evidence", which is a form of circular logic. When I first mentioned this, he goes "begging what question?!!" Obviously ignorant to common logical fallacies, he has no problem in making them, and defending them without realizing what and where they are. His conclusion (the spiritual's existence) is included in his premise (spiritual evidence), when he says, "you must be able to see spiritual evidence in order to believe in the spiritual." This is circular because in order to see spiritual evidence, you must believe in the spiritual, which is his conclusion. This is what he doesn't seem to understand. Essentially, all he is saying is, "you must believe in the spiritual, in order to believe the spiritual." It is tautological, and as such, says nothing. Yet, Boss is a charlatan and a sophist who tries to pass off this non-argument as something of substance when it has none. It is intellectual dishonesty and quackery at its finest. Any philosophy professor or logician, or even a rational theologian who does believe in a spiritual realm, would look at this and laugh their asses off.

 

[newpolitics]

Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."

I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything. He is basically being solipsistic, in believing that beliefs determine reality. If you ignore him, he will eventually stop. That is my recommendation for this thread. The more we respond and lengthen this thread, the more validation it is to him that we simply "don't get it" and it strengthens his convictions. I say we let this thread die. Fight the urge to respond to his non-nonse, and any side arguments with the YEC's about evolution should be had elsewhere so we can let this thing fizzle out. Agreed?

 

[Hollie]

Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."

I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything. He is basically being solipsistic, in believing that beliefs determine reality. If you ignore him, he will eventually stop. That is my recommendation for this thread. The more we respond and lengthen this thread, the more validation it is to him that we simply "don't get it" and it strengthens his convictions. I say we let this thread die. Fight the urge to respond to his non-nonse, and any side arguments with the YEC's about evolution should be had elsewhere so we can let this thing fizzle out. Agreed?

I'll drink to that.

Another good post, btw.

 

[newpolitics]

Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."

I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything. He is basically being solipsistic, in believing that beliefs determine reality. If you ignore him, he will eventually stop. That is my recommendation for this thread. The more we respond and lengthen this thread, the more validation it is to him that we simply "don't get it" and it strengthens his convictions. I say we let this thread die. Fight the urge to respond to his non-nonse, and any side arguments with the YEC's about evolution should be had elsewhere so we can let this thing fizzle out. Agreed?

I'll drink to that.

Another good post, btw.

Thank you

 

[daws101]

waiting for a wall of text reply...

 

[BreezeWood]

waiting for a wall of text reply...

Boss:

... You're filibustering, plain and simple ....

he already did ....

 

[Boss]

Wrong. It is your illogical conclusions from non- evidence that make the OP fail, and fail hard. Human belief is not evidence. It never will be. Give up, because you aren't convincing anybody except yourself.

Human belief IS evidence when 95% of humans through all of human history believe something, and believe it profoundly. It may be circumstantial, but that isn't the only evidence presented, it's just a part of the evidence. There is physical evidence from science and nature, no other living things practice spirituality. So it can't be an "evolved" attribute. The explanations (excuses) you've presented for why it exists, all contradict nature and science discovery. Other upper primates have the same brain function and structure, so it's not that, unless you have evidence of chimps attending Sunday School.

Oh, an the purpose of the thread is not to convince you. Please try and let that soak in, because I don't want you to be disillusioned by what I have presented. I merely laid out the case for definitive proof of god's existence. You are free to agree or disagree, and you obviously disagree.... haven't refuted my argument, but that's okay, you can still disagree.

Among numerous other logical fallacies being employed throughout this thread by Boss, he is begging the question when he attempts to use "spiritual evidence", which is a form of circular logic. When I first mentioned this, he goes "begging what question?!!" Obviously ignorant to common logical fallacies, he has no problem in making them, and defending them without realizing what and where they are. His conclusion (the spiritual's existence) is included in his premise (spiritual evidence), when he says, "you must be able to see spiritual evidence in order to believe in the spiritual." This is circular because in order to see spiritual evidence, you must believe in the spiritual, which is his conclusion. This is what he doesn't seem to understand. Essentially, all he is saying is, "you must believe in the spiritual, in order to believe the spiritual." It is tautological, and as such, says nothing. Yet, Boss is a charlatan and a sophist who tries to pass off this non-argument as something of substance when it has none. It is intellectual dishonesty and quackery at its finest. Any philosophy professor or logician, or even a rational theologian who does believe in a spiritual realm, would look at this and laugh their asses off.

Usually, when someone says "begs the question..." it is followed by the question that is begged. That's why I asked you what question, you didn't say, you left the sentence incomplete, and it made no logical sense to me.

It's very simple, physical science can't rely on spiritual evidence, you will agree, correct? In order to properly evaluate physical science, we must look at physical evidence and not spiritual. Well, the same rule applies logically to spiritual nature, it can't rely on physical evidence. In order to properly evaluate spiritual nature, you have to evaluate spiritual evidence. This is problematic if you don't believe in spiritual nature. It's not intellectual dishonesty, it's not quackery, it's called LOGIC. There can never be physical evidence of spiritual entities, or they become physical entities, proven by physical science.

Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."

I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything. He is basically being solipsistic, in believing that beliefs determine reality. If you ignore him, he will eventually stop. That is my recommendation for this thread. The more we respond and lengthen this thread, the more validation it is to him that we simply "don't get it" and it strengthens his convictions. I say we let this thread die. Fight the urge to respond to his non-nonse, and any side arguments with the YEC's about evolution should be had elsewhere so we can let this thing fizzle out. Agreed?

Again, the argument is MORE than just "people believe, therefore it's true." If you want to say that it's dubious for a man to claim he has talked to God, and was told to create Abrahamic religion, fine... I have no problem with that argument. This is far more compelling, humans have been spiritually connected since humans first came into existence, and approximately 95% are still (and always have been) spiritual creatures. This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature. You can cling to the debunked excuses you've created, but they aren't supported by science or nature.

I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything.

Again, you seem to be under the impression this thread is about "convincing" people. No, you're not ever going to convince me, the spiritual nature I connect with daily, and have been connecting with for more than 40 years, is not real. You would be more successful trying to convince me my mother doesn't really exist. So if your hope was, your pathetic excuses and debunked reasoning, was going to "convince" me, you were wrong, and I agree, you should move on from this thread. In fact, I will request that you not respond to this post, or any more here. Just find some other thread to interject your wisdom in, and leave this one for the people who objectively want to tackle the OP argument.

 

[daws101]

Wrong. It is your illogical conclusions from non- evidence that make the OP fail, and fail hard. Human belief is not evidence. It never will be. Give up, because you aren't convincing anybody except yourself.

Human belief IS evidence when 95% of humans through all of human history believe something, and believe it profoundly. It may be circumstantial, but that isn't the only evidence presented, it's just a part of the evidence. There is physical evidence from science and nature, no other living things practice spirituality. So it can't be an "evolved" attribute. The explanations (excuses) you've presented for why it exists, all contradict nature and science discovery. Other upper primates have the same brain function and structure, so it's not that, unless you have evidence of chimps attending Sunday School.

Oh, an the purpose of the thread is not to convince you. Please try and let that soak in, because I don't want you to be disillusioned by what I have presented. I merely laid out the case for definitive proof of god's existence. You are free to agree or disagree, and you obviously disagree.... haven't refuted my argument, but that's okay, you can still disagree.

Among numerous other logical fallacies being employed throughout this thread by Boss, he is begging the question when he attempts to use "spiritual evidence", which is a form of circular logic. When I first mentioned this, he goes "begging what question?!!" Obviously ignorant to common logical fallacies, he has no problem in making them, and defending them without realizing what and where they are. His conclusion (the spiritual's existence) is included in his premise (spiritual evidence), when he says, "you must be able to see spiritual evidence in order to believe in the spiritual." This is circular because in order to see spiritual evidence, you must believe in the spiritual, which is his conclusion. This is what he doesn't seem to understand. Essentially, all he is saying is, "you must believe in the spiritual, in order to believe the spiritual." It is tautological, and as such, says nothing. Yet, Boss is a charlatan and a sophist who tries to pass off this non-argument as something of substance when it has none. It is intellectual dishonesty and quackery at its finest. Any philosophy professor or logician, or even a rational theologian who does believe in a spiritual realm, would look at this and laugh their asses off.

Usually, when someone says "begs the question..." it is followed by the question that is begged. That's why I asked you what question, you didn't say, you left the sentence incomplete, and it made no logical sense to me.

It's very simple, physical science can't rely on spiritual evidence, you will agree, correct? In order to properly evaluate physical science, we must look at physical evidence and not spiritual. Well, the same rule applies logically to spiritual nature, it can't rely on physical evidence. In order to properly evaluate spiritual nature, you have to evaluate spiritual evidence. This is problematic if you don't believe in spiritual nature. It's not intellectual dishonesty, it's not quackery, it's called LOGIC. There can never be physical evidence of spiritual entities, or they become physical entities, proven by physical science.

Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."

I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything. He is basically being solipsistic, in believing that beliefs determine reality. If you ignore him, he will eventually stop. That is my recommendation for this thread. The more we respond and lengthen this thread, the more validation it is to him that we simply "don't get it" and it strengthens his convictions. I say we let this thread die. Fight the urge to respond to his non-nonse, and any side arguments with the YEC's about evolution should be had elsewhere so we can let this thing fizzle out. Agreed?

Again, the argument is MORE than just "people believe, therefore it's true." If you want to say that it's dubious for a man to claim he has talked to God, and was told to create Abrahamic religion, fine... I have no problem with that argument. This is far more compelling, humans have been spiritually connected since humans first came into existence, and approximately 95% are still (and always have been) spiritual creatures. This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature. You can cling to the debunked excuses you've created, but they aren't supported by science or nature.

I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything.

Again, you seem to be under the impression this thread is about "convincing" people. No, you're not ever going to convince me, the spiritual nature I connect with daily, and have been connecting with for more than 40 years, is not real. You would be more successful trying to convince me my mother doesn't really exist. So if your hope was, your pathetic excuses and debunked reasoning, was going to "convince" me, you were wrong, and I agree, you should move on from this thread. In fact, I will request that you not respond to this post, or any more here. Just find some other thread to interject your wisdom in, and leave this one for the people who objectively want to tackle the OP argument.

see what did I tell you !

 

[Boss]

see what did I tell you !

Wow daws... you stick around long enough, you'll finally get something right!

 

[Youwerecreated]

see what did I tell you !

Wow daws... you stick around long enough, you'll finally get something right!

 

[BreezeWood]

Again, the argument is MORE than just "people believe, therefore it's true." If you want to say that it's dubious for a man to claim he has talked to God, and was told to create Abrahamic religion, fine... I have no problem with that argument. This is far more compelling, humans have been spiritually connected since humans first came into existence, and approximately 95% are still (and always have been) spiritual creatures. This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature. You can cling to the debunked excuses you've created, but they aren't supported by science or nature.

newpolitics:

Essentially, all he is saying is, "you must believe in the spiritual, in order to believe the spiritual."

This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. ... You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature.


the OP is not based on belief but on observations of a defining characteristic it claims is exclusionary to humans, that is proof of ....

the characteristic is proven world wide since mans existence through Architecture by all cultures unrelated and on all continents, as temples for a similar purpose ... that is physically factual.

the proof of the OP can not simply be ignored as illusory ...


its failure is a distinction of mankind exclusive from the rest of Nature.

 

[hobelim]

This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. ... You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature.


the OP is not based on belief but on observations of a defining characteristic it claims is exclusionary to humans, that is proof of ....

the characteristic is proven world wide since mans existence through Architecture by all cultures unrelated and on all continents, as temples for a similar purpose ... that is physically factual.

the proof of the OP can not simply be ignored as illusory ...

Sure it can.


I have a dog who barks like his life depends on it whenever the noisy scary monster that appears every week to pick up the trash shows up. Every time the garbage truck leaves he prances around like he just saved everybody's life. I'm sure that in his little head he is convinced about the power of barking and uses it every time he is faced with similar life threatening situations by things he cannot understand about why those monsters appear or why they leave.

Now that dog may be convinced that he is privy to spiritual powers and the historical record of dogs barking is proof of spiritual realities, but the truth is that his little mind cannot conceive of or comprehend the reality of waste disposal and that his barking has absolutely no effect one way or the other on the garbage truck.

And even if you spent an entire day teaching him about trash removal and even showed him a receipt he would only lick his balls and then bark at the very next noise.

 

[Boss]

This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. ... You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature.


the OP is not based on belief but on observations of a defining characteristic it claims is exclusionary to humans, that is proof of ....

the characteristic is proven world wide since mans existence through Architecture by all cultures unrelated and on all continents, as temples for a similar purpose ... that is physically factual.

the proof of the OP can not simply be ignored as illusory ...

Sure it can.


I have a dog who barks like his life depends on it whenever the noisy scary monster that appears every week to pick up the trash shows up. Every time the garbage truck leaves he prances around like he just saved everybody's life. I'm sure that in his little head he is convinced about the power of barking and uses it every time he is faced with similar life threatening situations by things he cannot understand about why those monsters appear or why they leave.

Now that dog may be convinced that he is privy to spiritual powers and the historical record of dogs barking is proof of spiritual realities, but the truth is that his little mind cannot conceive of or comprehend the reality of waste disposal and that his barking has absolutely no effect one way or the other on the garbage truck.

And even if you spent an entire day teaching him about trash removal and even showed him a receipt he would only lick his balls and then bark at the very next noise.

Barking is vocalization, and LOTS of animals do it. They don't believe they are connecting to spiritual nature, in your example, the dog was issuing a warning bark. When you observe dogs building temples to worship God for giving them the ability bark, give me a holler. Until then, you don't have much of a theory here.

Now it's interesting to note, dogs bark a lot out of insecurity... so why didn't dogs invent some imaginary playmate to console themselves, like humans supposedly did with god? That's the question you need to answer. Because we don't see this happening in nature around us. Barking isn't spiritually worshiping.

 

[Boss]

Again, the argument is MORE than just "people believe, therefore it's true." If you want to say that it's dubious for a man to claim he has talked to God, and was told to create Abrahamic religion, fine... I have no problem with that argument. This is far more compelling, humans have been spiritually connected since humans first came into existence, and approximately 95% are still (and always have been) spiritual creatures. This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature. You can cling to the debunked excuses you've created, but they aren't supported by science or nature.

newpolitics:

Essentially, all he is saying is, "you must believe in the spiritual, in order to believe the spiritual."

This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. ... You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature.


the OP is not based on belief but on observations of a defining characteristic it claims is exclusionary to humans, that is proof of ....

the characteristic is proven world wide since mans existence through Architecture by all cultures unrelated and on all continents, as temples for a similar purpose ... that is physically factual.

the proof of the OP can not simply be ignored as illusory ...


its failure is a distinction of mankind exclusive from the rest of Nature.

I did make the point of humans being intrinsically spiritual throughout their history, and this is certainly evidenced by the architecture.

I never claimed spiritual nature was exclusionary to humans, only the attribute of spiritual worship, or spirituality. Our ability to recognize spiritual connection is what is unique. This is important to note because it can't be explained by natural selection. This attribute didn't 'evolve' into man. We don't see evidence of other upper primates trying to mimic the behavior, it's non-existent outside of humans. The misconception is that man created spirituality, that is where the Atheists and disbelievers have it backwards.

 

[Tuatara]

It's very simple, physical science can't rely on spiritual evidence, you will agree, correct?

What exactly is spiritual evidence. Is it anyone who has claimed to see Devils or Demons. Is it merely a belief in the supernatural or must it be of religious supernatural? When you say rely, rely on it for what?

In order to properly evaluate physical science, we must look at physical evidence and not spiritual.

Is spirutal thought, which I prefer to call it based on the individual. Two people may believe in the same thing but their perception of it may be radically different.

Well, the same rule applies logically to spiritual nature, it can't rely on physical evidence.

What exactly is spiritual nature? Is that some sort of way to say how people made stuff up because they couldn't explain or understand how it worked? Relating to nature and the natural world of course.

In order to properly evaluate spiritual nature, you have to evaluate spiritual evidence.

You've lost me.

This is problematic if you don't believe in spiritual nature.

Are fairies and unicorns apart of spiritual nature? Perhaps Bigfoot and Nessie?

It's not intellectual dishonesty, it's not quackery, it's called LOGIC. There can never be physical evidence of spiritual entities, or they become physical entities, proven by physical science.

Or maybe, just maybe spiritual entities do not exist.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is nothing in the OP to debate. It is a vapid assertion with no evidence. So, the argument fails and this thread goes in circles because Boss plays semantic games and continually moves the goal posts when he is pressed. One minute, we're not talking about god, the next minute we are, and yet his OP clearly claims proof of god, when he supplies none. This is the worst piece of argumentation I have ever seen in my entire life.

The OP is full of evidence. You have the inability to recognize spiritual nature, and you can't envision any incarnation of god that isn't a deity or religious. There are no semantics games, there are semantics that need to be clearly understood and defined before any debate can happen. You can't even comprehend the argument, because of your shallow mind that is closed to anything other than your shallow-minded preconceptions of "invisible people in da sky" ...that's the maturity level we're dealing with here. You should just continue your boycott of this thread, before someone comes and embarasses you again.

Wrong. It is your illogical conclusions from non- evidence that make the OP fail, and fail hard. Human belief is not evidence. It never will be. Give up, because you aren't convincing anybody except yourself.

Bullshit, you damned liar.

It is at least evidence of that belief if nothing else.

If it is evidence of spiritualism or anything else is up to the person viewing said evidence.

IS it scientific? Fuck no, but not all evidence is scientific, dullard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."

I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything. He is basically being solipsistic, in believing that beliefs determine reality. If you ignore him, he will eventually stop. That is my recommendation for this thread. The more we respond and lengthen this thread, the more validation it is to him that we simply "don't get it" and it strengthens his convictions. I say we let this thread die. Fight the urge to respond to his non-nonse, and any side arguments with the YEC's about evolution should be had elsewhere so we can let this thing fizzle out. Agreed?

Lol, you mock what he is saying and then use that as proof he cant say anything of value?

roflmao.

You secularists have lost the debate a long time ago, but you persist in back slapping each other for morale's sake, I suppose.

Your bullshit is not selling. Get a fucking life.

 

[hobelim]

This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. ... You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature.


the OP is not based on belief but on observations of a defining characteristic it claims is exclusionary to humans, that is proof of ....

the characteristic is proven world wide since mans existence through Architecture by all cultures unrelated and on all continents, as temples for a similar purpose ... that is physically factual.

the proof of the OP can not simply be ignored as illusory ...

Sure it can.


I have a dog who barks like his life depends on it whenever the noisy scary monster that appears every week to pick up the trash shows up. Every time the garbage truck leaves he prances around like he just saved everybody's life. I'm sure that in his little head he is convinced about the power of barking and uses it every time he is faced with similar life threatening situations by things he cannot understand about why those monsters appear or why they leave.

Now that dog may be convinced that he is privy to spiritual powers and the historical record of dogs barking is proof of spiritual realities, but the truth is that his little mind cannot conceive of or comprehend the reality of waste disposal and that his barking has absolutely no effect one way or the other on the garbage truck.

And even if you spent an entire day teaching him about trash removal and even showed him a receipt he would only lick his balls and then bark at the very next noise.

Barking is vocalization, and LOTS of animals do it. They don't believe they are connecting to spiritual nature, in your example, the dog was issuing a warning bark. When you observe dogs building temples to worship God for giving them the ability bark, give me a holler. Until then, you don't have much of a theory here.

Now it's interesting to note, dogs bark a lot out of insecurity... so why didn't dogs invent some imaginary playmate to console themselves, like humans supposedly did with god? That's the question you need to answer. Because we don't see this happening in nature around us. Barking isn't spiritually worshiping.

sure it is. It is the canine version of a fear based reaction to what they cannot understand triggered by their instincts to protect the pack from danger.. exactly like the ineffective reaction to what people fear that you call spiritual evidence..

Sacrificing virgins, witch hunts, lighting candles, sacrificing animals, building big temples with which to honor their gods,... prayer is all barking. Whenever something fearful happens, an illness, plague famine, war, drought, bad weather, whatever, people bark until its over and the danger has passed and then become convinced that barking, or sacrificing virgins, lighting candles, etc., has had an effect, so they teach their children to bark whenever a human version of a scary monster rears it scary head even though it has absolutely no effect on whatever it is they fear one way or the other..

 

[Boss]

It's very simple, physical science can't rely on spiritual evidence, you will agree, correct?

What exactly is spiritual evidence. Is it anyone who has claimed to see Devils or Demons. Is it merely a belief in the supernatural or must it be of religious supernatural? When you say rely, rely on it for what?

Do we really need to be so obtuse we pretend to not understand basic English? Rely on it to make an informed evaluation of the question.

In order to properly evaluate physical science, we must look at physical evidence and not spiritual.

Is spirutal thought, which I prefer to call it based on the individual. Two people may believe in the same thing but their perception of it may be radically different.

It's a connection to spiritual nature, and humans are not completely able to comprehend and understand spiritual nature. Because of our inability to fully understand it, we tend to create beliefs around it, which may or may not have basis or legitimacy. Regardless, spiritual nature for sake of this conversation, has been defined universally, as the spiritual power greater than self that humans worship.

If your point is, we can't rely on spiritual evidence because people have differing perceptions on what is spiritual, then I would argue that people also have differing perspectives on physical evidence as well. Science is comprised of theories and laws which people often have radically different perceptions on. As a result, sometimes theories and laws are disputed or refuted. Newton's Law of Gravity, for instance, was superseded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Quantum Physics even challenges Einstein's theory.

What exactly is spiritual nature? Is that some sort of way to say how people made stuff up because they couldn't explain or understand how it worked? Relating to nature and the natural world of course.

We've covered this earlier, the speculation that humans created spirituality as a placebo for knowledge is incorrect. If it were 'natural' for us to make stuff up whenever we couldn't explain things, humans would have never advanced as a species. We see no indication in nature, that anything else out there, makes up imaginary playmates to explain what isn't known or to console death. Humans strive for knowledge and understanding, and you don't get there by making up imaginary gods to explain things. So this idea is contrary to what we know about humans, and nature in general. It also contradicts Darwin, because the humans who didn't make stuff up to explain the unknown, would have overcome the weaker selection of the species who did, and it wouldn't be our most defining attribute.

"In order to properly evaluate spiritual nature, you have to evaluate spiritual evidence."You've lost me.

Really? It's a simple concept. You comprehend that we have to evaluate physical nature with physical evidence, we call it Science. Spiritual nature isn't physical nature, so Science isn't adequate to evaluate it.

This is problematic if you don't believe in spiritual nature.

Are fairies and unicorns apart of spiritual nature? Perhaps Bigfoot and Nessie?

Now you are attempting to ridicule, because you want to diminish my viewpoint. What this says about your counter-argument is, it's weak. You rely on faith in disbelief. You've rejected spiritual nature, and in order to support your philosophy, you've chosen to ridicule and mock anything which challenges it.

The things you mentioned are all products of human imagination. Spirituality does manifest things created by human imagination, because humans don't fully understand spiritual nature. This is how "religion" came to be. Regardless of the validity of what humans may imagine, it has nothing to do with whether spiritual nature exists.

It's not intellectual dishonesty, it's not quackery, it's called LOGIC. There can never be physical evidence of spiritual entities, or they become physical entities, proven by physical science.

Or maybe, just maybe spiritual entities do not exist.

[/QUOTE]

Maybe they don't? Maybe what we understand as "spiritual nature" is actually explainable through physical science and physical nature? Is there the least possibility in your mind, that humans don't yet know everything? Humans DO connect to something, they've been doing it for all their existence, and it's their most defining attribute. At this time, there is no physical explanation for this, so we call it spiritual nature. Once was a time, humans believed "rain" was a product of spiritual nature, it happened because the gods were pleased or whatever.... then science comes along and explains HOW rain happens, so this suddenly isn't a spiritual phenomenon anymore, it becomes physically explainable and a physical phenomenon. Now, we have explained HOW the evaporation process works, what happens in clouds, how density of moisture accumulates and becomes to heavy to be suspended, then falls back to the surface as rain... but have we explained WHY the elements behaved as they did? No, we determined because we could explain HOW it happened, that it didn't matter WHY. Such is the case for much of science, as it has explained away things that were previously considered spiritual nature.

 

[Boss]

sure it is. It is the canine version of a fear based reaction to what they cannot understand triggered by their instincts to protect the pack from danger.. exactly like the ineffective reaction to what people fear that you call spiritual evidence..

Sacrificing virgins, witch hunts, lighting candles, sacrificing animals, building big temples with which to honor their gods,... prayer is all barking. Whenever something fearful happens, an illness, plague famine, war, drought, bad weather, whatever, people bark until its over and the danger has passed and then become convinced that barking, or sacrificing virgins, lighting candles, etc., has had an effect, so they teach their children to bark whenever a human version of a scary monster rears it scary head even though it has absolutely no effect on whatever it is they fear one way or the other..

You are completely wrong, the attribute of barking is not related in any way to human spiritual connection. Barking is 'vocalization' and is more akin to what you are doing here, than human spiritual connection. Dogs bark for a variety of social reasons, but they never bark to console themselves about what happens after they die or tricks they haven't mastered yet. When faced with challenges of adversity, dogs don't bark to gain inner strength to persevere. Has your dog ever barked at the trash man before he arrived? If they truly believed in the power of barking, wouldn't they demonstrate this in such a way? Nope, dogs don't do preemptive barking, it's a completely reactionary trait.

It's interesting to note, it is believed dogs bark so much because of domestication. This has allowed them to more freely use vocalization, where other animals in the wild, may rarely use such vocalization. Wolves, for instance, almost never bark, and when they do, it's only as a defense mechanism to protect or alert the pack. So even if you think you have a point, that dogs worship the Barking God, or whatever, we see in nature, this isn't supportable. In the wild, their boisterous behavior would have not been beneficial to the species, and they would have been rendered extinct by other animals who weren't compelled to the behavior. Again, an "excuse" has been offered up to "explain" human spirituality, and it fails the test of nature and logic, and actually refutes Darwinism.