Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

Which came first, the physical school or the school spirit?

Now you are playing semantics games. Like the word "physical," the word "spirit" can have different meanings. In the dictionary, this is usually indicated by numbers, some words have literally dozens of meanings. The word "set" has over 400 possible meanings.

This discussion has nothing to do with "school spirit" and is about human spirituality. Now, you have made the point that human spirituality doesn't exist without humans, but you have not proven that a spiritual existence doesn't exist without humans. To make such a conclusion is the same as claiming physical existence doesn't exist without humans. Of course, humans can't realize physical existence if humans don't exist. But this is extremely retarded logic.

There you go again demanding that I must disprove your claims rather than YOU prove them. The burden is on YOU to prove that the spiritual exists without humans.

Nope, not going to let you turn the tables back around here, you made the argument that spiritual nature can't exist without humans. You've not proven that. It's not up to me to disprove your theory. It's up to you to prove your theory, which you can't do.

I proved that the spiritual comes after the existence of humans and gave an unassailable example of such.

No you did not. You proved that human spirituality can't precede human existence, but human understanding of physical nature can also not precede human existence.

You claim that the spiritual can also precede the existence of humans and therefore it is up yo YOU to prove it and give at least one unassailable example.

I can't even prove spiritual existence WITH human existence, using only physical evidence. This is admitted in the OP.

You have done neither. Whenever someone debunks your claims you simply dismiss them as not believing in the spiritual, including ME of all people!!!

I don't know why you believe you are special, but you've not debunked anything I have claimed.

I have made it very clear that I believe in existential spirituality but question metaphysical spirituality and so far you have not answered any of my questions. All you have done is pontificate the same debunked examples and mindlessly condemn any who do not accept them as someone not accepting the spiritual realm because it is not physical. Saying that humans have been spiritual for 70k years does not prove that that spirituality was metaphysical rather than existential no matter how many times you repeat it without proof. You have to prove that putting ocher in a grave was metaphysical spirituality and not existential spirituality, something you have not done yet.
Get it?

Nope, I don't get it. What you presented was essentially the old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" argument. Your theory is, the tree makes no sound, and I can't prove that it does. And logically speaking, if there is no human there to measure the sound waves, it can't be proven they existed. And what exactly does "exist" mean to someone who only recognizes physical existence? If you reject spiritual existence, you have no way of conceptualizing existence of a spiritual entity. Your mind does not allow "existence" to be anything other than physical, therefore, you believe it's impossible for something to have "existence" but not in a physical sense. Spiritual existence becomes an oxymoron, and you refuse to accept spiritual evidence.

 

[edthecynic]

you made the argument that spiritual nature can't exist without humans.

Link!

 

[numan]

Very little is known concerning the past it's merely opinion and speculation except for recorded history.

And even "history" is often lies and almost always the propaganda of those who won the wars.

However, careful research and probablistic arguments can often rise a bit above mere opinion and speculation.
.

 

[Boss]

you made the argument that spiritual nature can't exist without humans.

Link!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7233458-post843.html

"Without physical life, spirit cannot exist." ~edthecynic

 

[newpolitics]

Right on. That's what I thought: you had no response. Just the usual sideline cheer leading for your team because you can't actually debate for yourself.

You're not debating. You have offered no opposing view for the evidence for spirituality.

I have refuted his claim for the supernatural by pointing out logical flaws in his argumentation. I don't have to offer an opposing view. That would only be a red herring. You don't understand how argumentation works, do you?

 

[newpolitics]

I don't need to prove spirituality exists, it has existed for 70,000 years, we have evidence.

First of all, Neanderthals had spiritual belief, and this trend didn't start 70,000 years ago in humans. More like 200,000 years, since we've been human. So, we are not the only species to have this behavioral trait.

Again, time is irrelevant. If it had been 30,000 years, would that still count as evidence? 20? 10? 5? How many thousands of years do you need before belief means something is actually true? What is the cutoff and how have you determines that 70,000 constitutes evidence? Why can't humans simply be wrong?

Very little is known concerning the past it's merely opinion and speculation except for recorded history.

Thank you for confirming my point. This is a defeater for his spiritual evidence, and is all I've been saying. People's spirituality throughout history represent opinions. Not facts. They are definitionally subjective, not objective.

 

[Boss]

Very little is known concerning the past it's merely opinion and speculation except for recorded history.

And even "history" is often lies and almost always the propaganda of those who won the wars.

However, careful research and probablistic arguments can often rise a bit above mere opinion and speculation.
.

Correct, and when we examine the human species, we observe an inherent behavioral characteristic which distinguishes us from all other living things, spirituality. When we examine other living things and behavioral characteristics, we find no evidence these attributes exist because the species was fooled or tricked into the behavior. We find no evidence they rely on attributes which are irrational and unfounded or unimportant. In every example, we find inherent behaviors have fundamental purpose, a reason why they exist and remain an attribute of behavior in the species. These reasons are legitimate, and not because of "social pressure" from other animals.

It is suggested that human spirituality is the result of humans "explaining the unknown" but again, we see no evidence of any other living thing, needing to explain the unknown. Plus... that's precisely what Science does. If this were the reason for human spirituality, the introduction of science would supplant the need for spirituality, and it has not done so. There is much more to human spirituality than causal explanation can offer. According to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation for the phenomenon, is that a spiritual nature exists and humans have the ability to connect with it. That alone, doesn't prove it true, it simply says it's the simplest explanation, and is most logical, unless it can be replaced with an argument of greater explanatory power. So far, none have been presented.

 

[Youwerecreated]

SJ. Boss isn't even arguing whatever god you believe in, so I don't understand why you even think your on the same side. It is simply your virulent hatred of atheists that drives you to his side.

God and the angels are spirits why would we not be on the side of BOSS ?

Gods, angels, jinn, Bigfoot, etc., are of myth and legend.

If you say so but I do agree big foot is a myth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Very little is known concerning the past it's merely opinion and speculation except for recorded history.

And even "history" is often lies and almost always the propaganda of those who won the wars.

However, careful research and probablistic arguments can often rise a bit above mere opinion and speculation.
.

That is what you think of historians ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Right on. That's what I thought: you had no response. Just the usual sideline cheer leading for your team because you can't actually debate for yourself.

You're not debating. You have offered no opposing view for the evidence for spirituality.

I have refuted his claim for the supernatural by pointing out logical flaws in his argumentation. I don't have to offer an opposing view. That would only be a red herring. You don't understand how argumentation works, do you?

Get over yourself then by your reasoning I refuted the evolutionary theory due to logical flaws within the theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

First of all, Neanderthals had spiritual belief, and this trend didn't start 70,000 years ago in humans. More like 200,000 years, since we've been human. So, we are not the only species to have this behavioral trait.

Again, time is irrelevant. If it had been 30,000 years, would that still count as evidence? 20? 10? 5? How many thousands of years do you need before belief means something is actually true? What is the cutoff and how have you determines that 70,000 constitutes evidence? Why can't humans simply be wrong?

Very little is known concerning the past it's merely opinion and speculation except for recorded history.

Thank you for confirming my point. This is a defeater for his spiritual evidence, and is all I've been saying. People's spirituality throughout history represent opinions. Not facts. They are definitionally subjective, not objective.

Thank you for admitting the secularists theories have been refuted.

 

[newpolitics]

You're not debating. You have offered no opposing view for the evidence for spirituality.

I have refuted his claim for the supernatural by pointing out logical flaws in his argumentation. I don't have to offer an opposing view. That would only be a red herring. You don't understand how argumentation works, do you?

Get over yourself then by your reasoning I refuted the evolutionary theory due to logical flaws within the theory.

Evolutionary theory has physical evidence. You choose to deny this. Spiritual evidence on the other hand, is nowhere to be found, because it doesn't exist. Any perturbations in this universe that are caused supernaturally would still leave a physical trace. Without physical evidence, you have nothing.

 

[newpolitics]

Very little is known concerning the past it's merely opinion and speculation except for recorded history.

Thank you for confirming my point. This is a defeater for his spiritual evidence, and is all I've been saying. People's spirituality throughout history represent opinions. Not facts. They are definitionally subjective, not objective.

Thank you for admitting the secularists theories have been refuted.

How have you come to this errant conclusion?

 

[Hollie]

Very little is known concerning the past it's merely opinion and speculation except for recorded history.

And even "history" is often lies and almost always the propaganda of those who won the wars.

However, careful research and probablistic arguments can often rise a bit above mere opinion and speculation.
.

Correct, and when we examine the human species, we observe an inherent behavioral characteristic which distinguishes us from all other living things, spirituality. When we examine other living things and behavioral characteristics, we find no evidence these attributes exist because the species was fooled or tricked into the behavior. We find no evidence they rely on attributes which are irrational and unfounded or unimportant. In every example, we find inherent behaviors have fundamental purpose, a reason why they exist and remain an attribute of behavior in the species. These reasons are legitimate, and not because of "social pressure" from other animals.

It is suggested that human spirituality is the result of humans "explaining the unknown" but again, we see no evidence of any other living thing, needing to explain the unknown. Plus... that's precisely what Science does. If this were the reason for human spirituality, the introduction of science would supplant the need for spirituality, and it has not done so. There is much more to human spirituality than causal explanation can offer. According to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation for the phenomenon, is that a spiritual nature exists and humans have the ability to connect with it. That alone, doesn't prove it true, it simply says it's the simplest explanation, and is most logical, unless it can be replaced with an argument of greater explanatory power. So far, none have been presented.

Such nonsense. This "spiritually" term you're using as a smokescreen to press your religious agenda is pointless. Sentience and higher brain functions (AKA personality) fully account for human perception not found In other animals.


Our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants --yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.

We have evolved a sense of survival, it is evident in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we also see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.

Also, why would god create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities-just at a lower "wattage"?

Yet more confusion , making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would a god do this, particularly when the bible says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that god purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?

There's no mumbo jumbo of supernatural entities required to understand human sentience.

 

[newpolitics]

At best, without physical evidence, Boss, you are claiming a "Sensas Divinitas." At worst he is claiming nothing. Id like to know which evidence you have to support a Sensas Divinitas in humans? This is an old idea (Calvin?).

Again too, Neanderthals had religion too, so humans are not the only species to exhibit this behavior, as you keep claiming.

Lastly, Rationality does not factor into survival. Often, irrationality does. I'm not sure where you got the idea that rationality is a criteria for natural selection. The only criteria is that you survive, and reproduce. When Lemmings jump off a cliff, is that rational? Yet, here they are.

 

[Hollie]

God and the angels are spirits why would we not be on the side of BOSS ?

Gods, angels, jinn, Bigfoot, etc., are of myth and legend.

If you say so but I do agree big foot is a myth.

Humans have written books and passed on tales of Bigfoot just as they have done for tales of gawds, angels, jinn, etc.

Claims to Bigfoot are no more convincing than claims to your gawds. They all share a common theme for their "existence": human frailties of fear and ignorance.

 

[edthecynic]

you made the argument that spiritual nature can't exist without humans.

Link!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7233458-post843.html

"Without physical life, spirit cannot exist." ~edthecynic

And there is no proof otherwise, unlike existentialism which has been unassailably proven.

 

[Boss]

At best, without physical evidence, Boss, you are claiming a "Sensas Divinitas." At worst he is claiming nothing. Id like to know which evidence you have to support a Sensas Divinitas in humans? This is an old idea (Calvin?).

Again too, Neanderthals had religion too, so humans are not the only species to exhibit this behavior, as you keep claiming.

Lastly, Rationality does not factor into survival. Often, irrationality does. I'm not sure where you got the idea that rationality is a criteria for natural selection. The only criteria is that you survive, and reproduce. When Lemmings jump off a cliff, is that rational? Yet, here they are.

First of all, Neanderthals did not practice "religion." There is some disputable evidence they MAY have practiced some crude forms of spiritual belief, but this is highly subjective.

You can come up with all kinds of latin terms to make yourself sound smart, it doesn't win a debate. We've covered the "survival" excuse, it makes no rational sense. Millions of spiritual practitioners have been murdered because of their beliefs, it was not in the interest of survival that they continued to be spiritual... in fact, the opposite was true, it was very detrimental to survival for many years.

Nothing you have come up with to explain away human spirituality, has been adequate or legitimate. We either have to suspend logic, or reality, or both. And you continue to argue from a perspective that science has somehow "proven" that spiritual nature does not exist. It simply hasn't made such a conclusion, even though you seem to believe it has. Man could very well discover tomorrow, that physical evidence shows a spiritual existence. The fact that it doesn't do so today, means little to science. Yet you continue to rely on the lack of physical evidence to support your disbelief in possibility of something not physical in nature.

As I have previously stated (and this is profound, you should write it down): Whenever you have drawn a definite conclusion from scientific evidence, you have stopped practicing science and begun practicing faith. Science does not conclude things, it presents probabilities and predictions. You may believe that a "fact" has been determined, but science does not make such a distinction.

 

[Boss]

Link!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7233458-post843.html

"Without physical life, spirit cannot exist." ~edthecynic

And there is no proof otherwise, unlike existentialism which has been unassailably proven.

There is no PHYSICAL proof otherwise, and you REJECT spiritual proof. This is among the first points I made in the OP, and you continue to re-confirm my point.

 

[newpolitics]

At best, without physical evidence, Boss, you are claiming a "Sensas Divinitas." At worst he is claiming nothing. Id like to know which evidence you have to support a Sensas Divinitas in humans? This is an old idea (Calvin?).

Again too, Neanderthals had religion too, so humans are not the only species to exhibit this behavior, as you keep claiming.

Lastly, Rationality does not factor into survival. Often, irrationality does. I'm not sure where you got the idea that rationality is a criteria for natural selection. The only criteria is that you survive, and reproduce. When Lemmings jump off a cliff, is that rational? Yet, here they are.

First of all, Neanderthals did not practice "religion." There is some disputable evidence they MAY have practiced some crude forms of spiritual belief, but this is highly subjective.

You can come up with all kinds of latin terms to make yourself sound smart, it doesn't win a debate. We've covered the "survival" excuse, it makes no rational sense. Millions of spiritual practitioners have been murdered because of their beliefs, it was not in the interest of survival that they continued to be spiritual... in fact, the opposite was true, it was very detrimental to survival for many years.

Nothing you have come up with to explain away human spirituality, has been adequate or legitimate. We either have to suspend logic, or reality, or both. And you continue to argue from a perspective that science has somehow "proven" that spiritual nature does not exist. It simply hasn't made such a conclusion, even though you seem to believe it has. Man could very well discover tomorrow, that physical evidence shows a spiritual existence. The fact that it doesn't do so today, means little to science. Yet you continue to rely on the lack of physical evidence to support your disbelief in possibility of something not physical in nature.

As I have previously stated (and this is profound, you should write it down): Whenever you have drawn a definite conclusion from scientific evidence, you have stopped practicing science and begun practicing faith. Science does not conclude things, it presents probabilities and predictions. You may believe that a "fact" has been determined, but science does not make such a distinction.

It doesn't matter that people have died for their beliefs. That is human nature. This is not evidence of anything.

Neanderthals were likely spiritual, an yes, it could be called religious observance.

You have google. Look up the word if you don't know it means.

I don't have to explain away spirituality. It is not evidence of the spiritual.