Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!

No, wait...that was Santa Clause..........

A man goes to board a flight for a business trip. Something he has done practically every day for many years. Only, this particular day, he is suddenly overcome by this ominous feeling, he can't explain it, but he is so moved by it, that he doesn't board the plane. The plane crashes and kills everyone on board. Where did that feeling come from? Santa Claus?

Again, this is anecdotal to you because it is spiritual evidence, but it has happened... to millions of people... over thousands of years.

A man is diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer of the Pancreas. The doctors say it will be a miracle if he lives more than 6 months. His church and family begin a prayer vigil, asking God for a miracle. Six months later the same doctors scratch their heads, because his body is free from cancer. Did Santa Claus make his cancer vanish with no medical explanation?

Again, more spiritual evidence you reject, because your mind is closed to the possibility. But these kind of things happen every day, and millions of humans firmly believe it is the result of spiritual power beyond our realm, which is why they developed a special word to apply to such phenomenon, called "blessings."

 

[MaryL]

Why are we even debating this topic? God is a perennial tweak to our mortal consciousness. God’s existence, does it really matter? Why?

 

[Boss]

My refutation uses logic to show that his conclusions can not be gotten to from his premises without serious logical fallacies. All I have to do is point out these logic fallacies, and you no longer have your conclusions, and the argument is defeated. It is that simple. You may agree with the conclusion (that god exists) but this has not been achieved logically from the premises.

No, I demonstrated that you are demanding something illogical to start with, and since you can't receive this illogical thing, you are rejecting the argument. You demand physical proof, which does not logically apply to spiritual entities. You refuse spiritual proof, which is the only evidence that can logically confirm existence of a spiritual entity. YOU are the logical fallacy in the argument, YOU refuse to accept logical evidence because you don't believe in it, and you continue to demand illogical evidence you can never obtain, because IF that happened, god would be a physical entity, defined by physical evidence.

The argument is far from defeated.

 

[Derideo_Te]

God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!

No, wait...that was Santa Clause..........

A man goes to board a flight for a business trip. Something he has done practically every day for many years. Only, this particular day, he is suddenly overcome by this ominous feeling, he can't explain it, but he is so moved by it, that he doesn't board the plane. The plane crashes and kills everyone on board. Where did that feeling come from? Santa Claus?

Again, this is anecdotal to you because it is spiritual evidence, but it has happened... to millions of people... over thousands of years.

A man is diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer of the Pancreas. The doctors say it will be a miracle if he lives more than 6 months. His church and family begin a prayer vigil, asking God for a miracle. Six months later the same doctors scratch their heads, because his body is free from cancer. Did Santa Claus make his cancer vanish with no medical explanation?

Again, more spiritual evidence you reject, because your mind is closed to the possibility. But these kind of things happen every day, and millions of humans firmly believe it is the result of spiritual power beyond our realm, which is why they developed a special word to apply to such phenomenon, called "blessings."

According to the Boss there have been planes around for "over thousands of years"? Premonitions are NOT evidence of a deity. Given the millions of possible scenarios the probability of coincidence exists. Note that there is no record of those who had premonitions but still went ahead and boarded the flights and NOTHING happened. Misdiagnoses are not uncommon either. Boss just picks and chooses what he believes to be "spiritual evidence" because his "mind is closed to the possibility" of all of the other perfectly rational explanations.

 

[newpolitics]

There is no scientific evidence for god, and here you are blatantly contradicting the OP which concedes this, so go start your own thread if you want to make a different argument for a different definition of god, because clearly yours and boss's are different (from what I've been able to gather of boss's, since he feels content in not supplying a definition.)

The OP most certainly did not concede there was no scientific evidence, it actually presented some very valid scientific evidence. The OP states there is no PHYSICAL evidence that can prove spiritual existence of a spiritual entity. Science only deals with the physical realm, and while we can certainly use knowledge from science to support the argument for spirituality, we can't "prove existence" in a physical nature, because such a thing is illogical.

So you're back on phishing for a definition again? We've covered this already, you do not need to "define" something, in order to confirm it exists. A spiritual power can exist without conforming to any preconceived notion of it's characteristics.

The OP most certainly did concede that no scientific evidence exists for god. Once again, you are going back on yourself.

 

[newpolitics]

My refutation uses logic to show that his conclusions can not be gotten to from his premises without serious logical fallacies. All I have to do is point out these logic fallacies, and you no longer have your conclusions, and the argument is defeated. It is that simple. You may agree with the conclusion (that god exists) but this has not been achieved logically from the premises.

No, I demonstrated that you are demanding something illogical to start with, and since you can't receive this illogical thing, you are rejecting the argument. You demand physical proof, which does not logically apply to spiritual entities. You refuse spiritual proof, which is the only evidence that can logically confirm existence of a spiritual entity. YOU are the logical fallacy in the argument, YOU refuse to accept logical evidence because you don't believe in it, and you continue to demand illogical evidence you can never obtain, because IF that happened, god would be a physical entity, defined by physical evidence.

The argument is far from defeated.

Yes. Your argument is done. There is nothing logical about creating a separate category of evidence out of thin air, and then presupposing that this has any tie to reality.

I can do the same thing. The Bloo-Bloo exists, but can only be seen if you accept bloo-evidence.... I can create imaginary categories all day and claim internal consistency, but this says nothing about the reality we live in.

 

[S.J.]

God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!

No, wait...that was Santa Clause..........

A man goes to board a flight for a business trip. Something he has done practically every day for many years. Only, this particular day, he is suddenly overcome by this ominous feeling, he can't explain it, but he is so moved by it, that he doesn't board the plane. The plane crashes and kills everyone on board. Where did that feeling come from? Santa Claus?

Again, this is anecdotal to you because it is spiritual evidence, but it has happened... to millions of people... over thousands of years.

A man is diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer of the Pancreas. The doctors say it will be a miracle if he lives more than 6 months. His church and family begin a prayer vigil, asking God for a miracle. Six months later the same doctors scratch their heads, because his body is free from cancer. Did Santa Claus make his cancer vanish with no medical explanation?

Again, more spiritual evidence you reject, because your mind is closed to the possibility. But these kind of things happen every day, and millions of humans firmly believe it is the result of spiritual power beyond our realm, which is why they developed a special word to apply to such phenomenon, called "blessings."

They DO happen every day. I have worked outside in the sun for over 20 years. In around 2005, I developed a spot next to my eye, that started out as a freckle. Over the next several years it became darker and grew in size. Then last year it began to get texture and I started getting pain in my eye. I finally went to the doctor and was told it was cancer. About 3 months ago I started getting pains in my back and was having dizzy spells and getting light headed.
I prayed that night to be healed of whatever was wrong. The next morning the pain in my back was gone, and my daughter commented that the spot on my face looked smaller. I looked at it in the mirror and it did look smaller. The next morning it had shrunk by about half. The third day it was gone, except for a couple of dots. By the end of the week, there was no trace of it.
The doctor couldn't believe it just disappeared, said it was impossible, yet it disappeared.

 

[newpolitics]

.

Now.... my claim is indeed, not supported by physical proof. There is no physical god. Unless you acknowledge the spiritual realm, god can never be proven to "exist" because to "exist" only means "in a physical state" to you. Something that does not possess a physical state, can't be "proven" to someone who only accepts physical proof. For us to objectively evaluate the question of a spiritual existence, we HAVE TO look at spiritual evidence, if we've closed our minds to this, and do not consider this valid "proof," then god can't ever be "proven." God does not reside in the physical realm, and has no physical evidence of existence, and it's illogical to expect this.

You just unknowingly admitted there is no scientific evidence for god.

Science is bounded by methodological naturalism, which means only that which manifests in physical reality is subject to the Scientific method. To say god has no possible physical manifestation, as you did, precludes it from scientific inquiry. Hence, there can not be any scientific evidence for god. If you dance around this logic, then you are hopeless and simply do not care about truth. If you don't care about truth, then why are we debating?

 

[Hollie]

The OP presents such an argument, you simply reject spiritual evidence. It's impossible to prove a spiritual entity with physical evidence alone, if that could be done, it would be a physical entity. But we can objectively use the scientific method to examine the spiritual and physical evidence, and make a definitive argument for "existence of god." Again, "existence" means in a spiritual sense, which your mind is closed to the possibility of. If you dismiss the spiritual evidence, the physical evidence alone means nothing, god can't be proven with physical evidence, since god is a spiritual entity. The combination of spiritual evidence, with what we know and understand about animal behavior, presents a valid and legitimate argument for the existence (spiritually, not physically) of something spiritual.

Your "spiritual" evidence consists of claiming, "well, a lot of believe it, therefore it must be true".

That's not evidence.

Because you reject all evidence that supports the creators existence. Please don't ask me to prove it because you didn't understand it the first 100 times I proved it.

I hadn't realized you proved the existence of a "creator". Kindly identify where you provided such proof. Was your "pwoof" in a link to Harun Yahya?

 

[MaryL]

Religion is a beautiful placebo. Science is, well hard facts, If I had hard facts ALLHA or JESUS Really did all that magical mystical stuff, sans all the mysticism, I and most of the rest of us would support religion in a heartbeat. But that isn't happening. Jesus being resurrected from the grave to prove we are all immortal. Why? Why didn’t god cleanse the world of sin to begin with? Why not? God LOVES us enough to condemn us to mortality when he controls the totality of the universe of all time? Something isn’t adding up here. Religion is nonsense.

 

[Boss]

.

Now.... my claim is indeed, not supported by physical proof. There is no physical god. Unless you acknowledge the spiritual realm, god can never be proven to "exist" because to "exist" only means "in a physical state" to you. Something that does not possess a physical state, can't be "proven" to someone who only accepts physical proof. For us to objectively evaluate the question of a spiritual existence, we HAVE TO look at spiritual evidence, if we've closed our minds to this, and do not consider this valid "proof," then god can't ever be "proven." God does not reside in the physical realm, and has no physical evidence of existence, and it's illogical to expect this.

You just unknowingly admitted there is no scientific evidence for god.

Science is bounded by methodological naturalism, which means only that which manifests in physical reality is subject to the Scientific method. To say god has no possible physical manifestation, as you did, precludes it from scientific inquiry. Hence, there can not be any scientific evidence for god. If you dance around this logic, then you are hopeless and simply do not care about truth. If you don't care about truth, then why are we debating?

There is no PHYSICAL scientific evidence, alone, that proves god's existence. Science is not bound by anything, it examines physical possibility. While there is no current evidence of physical spirituality, it does not mean that science can never discover it. Science simply is not confined to what YOU believe, and nothing more. My argument actually uses physical science, where physical science can be helpful in evaluation of the question. The study of animal behaviors, for instance. This is a very physical thing that we can indeed observe and evaluate with science. But this one piece of physical science doesn't prove a spiritual entity, in order to prove a spiritual entity, we have to also look at spiritual evidence, which you refuse to do, no matter how powerful it is.

 

[newpolitics]

.

Now.... my claim is indeed, not supported by physical proof. There is no physical god. Unless you acknowledge the spiritual realm, god can never be proven to "exist" because to "exist" only means "in a physical state" to you. Something that does not possess a physical state, can't be "proven" to someone who only accepts physical proof. For us to objectively evaluate the question of a spiritual existence, we HAVE TO look at spiritual evidence, if we've closed our minds to this, and do not consider this valid "proof," then god can't ever be "proven." God does not reside in the physical realm, and has no physical evidence of existence, and it's illogical to expect this.

You just unknowingly admitted there is no scientific evidence for god.

Science is bounded by methodological naturalism, which means only that which manifests in physical reality is subject to the Scientific method. To say god has no possible physical manifestation, as you did, precludes it from scientific inquiry. Hence, there can not be any scientific evidence for god. If you dance around this logic, then you are hopeless and simply do not care about truth. If you don't care about truth, then why are we debating?

There is no PHYSICAL scientific evidence, alone, that proves god's existence. Science is not bound by anything, it examines physical possibility. While there is no current evidence of physical spirituality, it does not mean that science can never discover it. Science simply is not confined to what YOU believe, and nothing more. My argument actually uses physical science, where physical science can be helpful in evaluation of the question. The study of animal behaviors, for instance. This is a very physical thing that we can indeed observe and evaluate with science. But this one piece of physical science doesn't prove a spiritual entity, in order to prove a spiritual entity, we have to also look at spiritual evidence, which you refuse to do, no matter how powerful it is.

What other kind of scientific evidence is there, besides physical? None. This is the concept of methodological naturalism, and is what science is bounded to.

 

[Boss]

Religion is a beautiful placebo. Science is, well hard facts, If I had hard facts ALLHA or JESUS Really did all that magical mystical stuff, sans all the mysticism, I and most of the rest of us would support religion in a heartbeat. But that isn't happening. Jesus being resurrected from the grave to prove we are all immortal. Why? Why didn’t god cleanse the world of sin to begin with? Why not? God LOVES us enough to condemn us to mortality when he controls the totality of the universe of all time? Something isn’t adding up here. Religion is nonsense.

I'm sorry, but science is most definitely not "hard facts." In fact, virtually everything in science is a prediction of probability, not a conclusion or fact.

Now Mary, most all of your post deals with a religious manifestation of god, practiced by Christian believers. Is there a short-circuit in your mind that makes you automatically assume that any time "god" or "spiritual" is discussed, it can only possibly mean this particular incarnation made by men? Are you just not capable of understanding that my argument regarding human spirituality doesn't have beans to do with religious constructions? Because I keep having to explain this here, as you and others continue to speak as if I am making an argument for existence of a particular type of god.

I can join you in bashing on Christians, if that makes you feel better? Why does an 'omnipotent' god have human attributes like "anger" and "jealousy?" If the Christian god wants us to all be without sin, why doesn't he just make us behave this way? Or better yet, why not just bestow spiritual awareness on you, so that you have no doubt in your mind that spirituality exists? If someone is purely evil, why does god have to wait until he dies to send him to hell, why not just zap his ass to hell immediately? All of these questions are compelling in a debate of theology and religious belief, but that is not the question I have argued.

I am a non-religious person, many people call me an Atheist. However, I do believe in a spiritual nature, a spiritual force, which resides in a spiritual realm of our universe. To me, THAT is GOD. I routinely connect with this force in my personal life, so I KNOW it exists, I don't have to prove it to myself. When people tell me god doesn't exist, it's like me telling you that your mother doesn't exist. Over the course of human history, BILLIONS and BILLIONS of humans have experienced this same connection to something spiritual. The fact that you continue to reject it, doesn't mean it isn't there. The fact that it can't be proven with physical science, is completely logical, since it is not of the physical realm.

 

[newpolitics]

"Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[16] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today"

"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a self-imposed convention of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

 

[Boss]

What other kind of scientific evidence is there, besides physical? None. This is the concept of methodological naturalism, and is what science is bounded to.

Again, the parts of physical science I used in my argument, are related to physical nature, physical observation, and methodological naturalism. The problem is, these things alone, can not definitively prove (or disprove) an entity that is not physical. It is illogical to expect this.

Science, again, is not "bound" by anything. To "bound" science, only to the things we currently know and comprehend, is simply ignorant of science and the scientific method. You can say that we have no present scientific proof for things which are spiritual, but it doesn't mean that will forever be the case, you simply don't know what hasn't been discovered... yes, I know, that must be a shocker to someone with your ego and brain, but it's true.

 

[newpolitics]

What other kind of scientific evidence is there, besides physical? None. This is the concept of methodological naturalism, and is what science is bounded to.

Again, the parts of physical science I used in my argument, are related to physical nature, physical observation, and methodological naturalism. The problem is, these things alone, can not definitively prove (or disprove) an entity that is not physical. It is illogical to expect this.

Science, again, is not "bound" by anything. To "bound" science, only to the things we currently know and comprehend, is simply ignorant of science and the scientific method. You can say that we have no present scientific proof for things which are spiritual, but it doesn't mean that will forever be the case, you simply don't know what hasn't been discovered... yes, I know, that must be a shocker to someone with your ego and brain, but it's true.

You know not of what you write. Science is bound by methodological naturalism.


"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.


However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

 

[newpolitics]

Nothing of your "physical evidence" point anywhere near a god.

 

[Boss]

"Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[16] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today"

"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a self-imposed convention of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All you are doing, is continuing to make the point I made in the OP. Physical science alone, can never explain the supernatural or spiritual. Yet this is the only thing you will accept as valid evidence. You reject spiritual evidence, which is why god can never be "proven" to you. In my argument, I do use some physical scientific evidence, but I admitted, by itself, it doesn't prove anything. We do know a great deal by observing behavioral attributes in living things, this is physical science. By itself, it can be dismissed, as you have also proven.

So I have presented a valid and legitimate argument, which relies on spiritual and physical evidence, and does definitively answer the question of spiritual existence. You refuse to accept the spiritual evidence, and knock over the physical evidence, then proclaim victory. You haven't refuted my argument, you continue to confirm it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is no scientific evidence for god, and here you are blatantly contradicting the OP which concedes this, so go start your own thread if you want to make a different argument for a different definition of god, because clearly yours and boss's are different (from what I've been able to gather of boss's, since he feels content in not supplying a definition.)

The OP most certainly did not concede there was no scientific evidence, it actually presented some very valid scientific evidence. The OP states there is no PHYSICAL evidence that can prove spiritual existence of a spiritual entity. Science only deals with the physical realm, and while we can certainly use knowledge from science to support the argument for spirituality, we can't "prove existence" in a physical nature, because such a thing is illogical.

So you're back on phishing for a definition again? We've covered this already, you do not need to "define" something, in order to confirm it exists. A spiritual power can exist without conforming to any preconceived notion of it's characteristics.

The OP most certainly did concede that no scientific evidence exists for god. Once again, you are going back on yourself.

Wrong, there is biological evidence that shows it was a purposeful design. You believe in miracles I believe in a designer.

 

[newpolitics]

"Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[16] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today"

"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a self-imposed convention of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All you are doing, is continuing to make the point I made in the OP. Physical science alone, can never explain the supernatural or spiritual. Yet this is the only thing you will accept as valid evidence. You reject spiritual evidence, which is why god can never be "proven" to you. In my argument, I do use some physical scientific evidence, but I admitted, by itself, it doesn't prove anything. We do know a great deal by observing behavioral attributes in living things, this is physical science. By itself, it can be dismissed, as you have also proven.

So I have presented a valid and legitimate argument, which relies on spiritual and physical evidence, and does definitively answer the question of spiritual existence. You refuse to accept the spiritual evidence, and knock over the physical evidence, then proclaim victory. You haven't refuted my argument, you continue to confirm it.

Physical science... as opposed to what? I just demonstrated that there is no other type of science. I don't you don't like being backed into a corner, so please, just concede the point, and this can all end.