Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[newpolitics]

Oh, and how do you support disbelief?
You can't support something that doesn't exist. Logic...

 

[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.

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.

Yes, it is evidence that spirituality is not related to survival.
No, there is little evidence Neanderthals were "spiritual" and NO evidence they were "religious."
Inherent behavior for all of mankind's existence, is indeed evidence of something. You don't believe in spiritual nature and refuse to accept spiritual evidence, therefore, a spiritual entity is impossible to prove to you, unless we happen to find physical evidence, which might very well be possible, but it's not logical.

 

[newpolitics]

Also, science certainly does make conclusions and uses facts. It concludes deductively when forming a theory. Absolute certainty is a red herring, and nowhere did I insinuate this, which you are implying heavily. It is understood in scientific epistemology that all truths are are "temporary" until disproven. If there is no evidence at all, NO CLAIMS ARE MADE. You are being unscientific in your methodology, given your total lack of physical evidence. Remember methadological naturalism. Science is bound to it. You know nothing of science if you think otherwise. How many times do I need to restate things?

 

[newpolitics]

Claiming something supernatural automatically disqualifies you from being scientific. Yet, here you are, lecturing me about science, while you are claiming god. Don't mince my words. Science doesn't claim the supernatural doesn't exist, simply that it is beyond the scope of its methodology. This is entailed in the concept of methadological naturalism, which we went over, yet here you are, saying that I claim certainty about about scientific claims. Nor did I imply this.

 

[newpolitics]

Yet you continue to rely on the lack of physical evidence to support your disbelief in possibility of something not physical in nature.

.

This is the most asinine statement I've ever heard. Using this standard, I can make any claim I want without any evidence, and you are in no position to refute me. You just refuted your own argument, btw.

A giant tooth fairy exists that created the universe. She has purple wings, has a great smile, and is a really nice. There is no physical evidence of this, and you shouldn't expect to find any, because she is not a physical entity. Therefore, it is true. Any attempt by you to refute this is just your not accepting non-physical evidence.

Your claim is no better than the crap I just wrote. Actually, it is worse. I defined my claim.

 

[newpolitics]

Because I don't comprehend you gibberish. Begging WHAT question? You haven't said!

Apparently, you know nothing about logical fallacies. It is then no wonder that you make so many of them. "Begging the question" is a logical fallacy that employs circular logic, where the conclusion is contained in the premise. It is circular because you are assuming that which you are trying to prove. In this case, you are assuming the spiritual when you start with "spiritual evidence," and conclude with a spiritual realm. Hence, your argument fails. You can't have a valid and sound argument when it contains a logical fallacy.

There is no logical fallacy here, except for your own. You expect physical evidence to support spiritual entities. The circular logic is, god must not exist because spiritual entities have no physical evidence. Or.. I don't need to prove god doesn't exist because no physical evidence can prove god exists.

I am not assuming there is spirituality, it's a proven fact there is. People have been spiritual since they've been human. The results of humans being spiritual, connecting with something spiritual, and practicing spirituality, provides overwhelming spiritual evidence. You don't recognize it, you refuse to accept it, you will not acknowledge it. That simply does not mean it's not there, no matter how much you reject it, hate it, or attack it.

What is amazing to me is, how you totally abandon scientific method. You arrogantly assume, since physical science can't currently measure spiritual existence, it won't ever be able to do so. You simply can't know this, and to assume it, is contradicting scientific method. It defeats the whole purpose of science to do what you are doing, drawing a conclusion as to the existence of a spiritual entity. Science has not concluded this, YOU have. Where you have drawn conclusions, science continues to ask questions.

We can observe other living things, and we see NO example of anything that is duped into a behavior to "explain the unknown" or whatever. We see NO examples of animal behavior which persists simply because of social pressure from the other animals. In EVERY case, we find that animal behavior has a purpose fundamental to the species. Everything you have suggested to explain away human spirituality, contradicts what we've observed in other animals.

What we can be relatively certain about is this, whether a spiritual "god" or "entity" exists, humans have a fundamental reason and purpose for needing to be spiritually connected to something. It's how we're built, it defines us, it is our most distinctly unique characteristic.

Its a proven fact that there is a spiritual realm?

 

[newpolitics]

Most importantly, non-physical evidence does not equal spiritual evidence. This is a false dichotomy. You have not demonstrated that the only two options are physical and spiritual,
therefore non-physical doesn't imply spiritual. Non-physical could mean an infinite number of possibilities, which may or may not exist at all. Another logical fallacy on yours.

 

[daws101]

There is no physical evidence, but spiritual nature and spiritual entities aren't physical. As the OP states, unless you accept spiritual evidence, it's not possible to prove spiritual existence. Page after page, you and others continue to reaffirm this point, and I thank you.

bullshit! we live in a physical universe.. even thought has a physical component..
if spiritual entities existed.. they would also have a physical component..

Who has established that it doesn't? Not science.

We understand a physical universe because we exist in a physical realm. Nothing has concluded there is no other possible realm other than physical. Just because you reject a spiritual realm on the basis that it doesn't provide physical evidence, doesn't mean it isn't there. Nothing has established it's not there, including physical science.

Scientifically, God Does Not Exist: Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist

There is No Role for God in Science, No Explanation that God can Provide

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide


A popular objection to atheists' arguments and critiques of theism is to insist that one's preferred god cannot be disproven — indeed, that science itself is unable to prove that God does not exist. This position depends upon a mistaken understanding of the nature of science and how science operates. In a very real and important sense, it is possible to say that, scientifically, God does not exist — just as science is able to discount the existence of a myriad of other alleged beings.



What Can Science Prove or Disprove?

To understand why "God does not exist" can be a legitimate scientific statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in the context of science. When a scientist says "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does not exist on the moon."

All such statements are casual short-hand for a more elaborate and technical statement: "this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."

What should be most obvious about the more technically accurate statement is that it isn't absolute. It does not deny for all time any possible existence of the entity or force in question; instead, it's a provisional statement denying the existence of any relevance or reality to the entity or force based on what we currently know. Religious theists may be quick to seize upon this and insist that it demonstrates that science cannot "prove" that God does not exist, but that requires far too strict of a standard for what it means to "prove" something scientifically.



Scientific Proof Against God

In God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:
1.Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2.Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
3.Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4.If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
5.If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity and is modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: God, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, God cannot exist as defined. The modification limits the sort of evidence to that which can be predicted and tested via the scientific method.



Certainty & Doubt in Science

Nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond a shadow of any possible doubt. In science, everything is provisional. Being provisional is not a weakness or a sign that a conclusion is weak. Being provisional is a smart, pragmatic tactic because we can never be sure what we'll come across when we round the next corner. This lack of absolute certainty is a window through which many religious theists try to slip their god, but that's not a valid move.

In theory, it may be possible that someday we will come across new information requiring or benefiting from some sort of "god" hypothesis in order to better make sense of the way things are. If the evidence described in the above argument were found, for example, that would justify a rational belief in the existence of the sort of god under consideration. It wouldn’t prove the existence of such a god beyond all doubt, though, because belief would still have to be provisional.

By the same token, though, it may be possible that the same could be true of an infinite number of other hypothetical beings, forces, or other things which we might invent. The mere possibility of existing is one that applies to any and every possible god, but religious theists only try to use it for whatever god they happen to personally favor. The possibility for needing a "god" hypothesis applies equally as well to Zeus and Odin as it does to the Christian god; it applies equally well to evil or disinterested gods as it does to good gods. Thus even if we limit our consideration to the possibility of a god, ignoring every other random hypothesis, there's still no good reason to pick out any one god for favorable consideration.



What Does "God Exists" Mean?

What does it mean to exist? What would it mean if "God exists" were a meaningful proposition? For such a proposition to mean anything at all, it would have to entail that whatever "God" is, it must have some impact on the universe. In order for us to say that there is an impact on the universe, then there must be measurable and testable events which would best or only be explained by whatever this "God" is we are hypothesizing. Believers must be able to present a model of the universe in which some god is "either required, productive, or useful."

This is obviously not the case. Many believers work hard trying to find a way to introduce their god into scientific explanations, but none have succeeded. No believer has been able to demonstrate, or even strongly suggest, that there are any events in the universe which requires some alleged "god" to explain. Instead, these constantly failing attempts end up reinforcing the impression that there is no "there" there — nothing for "gods" to do, no role for them to play, and no reason to give them a second thought. It's technically true that the constant failures don't mean that no one will ever succeed, but it's even more true that in every other situation where such failures are so consistent, we don't acknowledge any reasonable, rational, or serious reason to bother believing.

Scientifically, God Does Not Exist - Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist - No Role for God in Science, No Explanation that God can Provide

 

[daws101]

It's not irrelevant You just have no answer for it nor do you like it that my argument trumps your your belief system.

another classic false declarative from wyc.
none of you arguments trump anything, even the smallest bit of analytical logic is enough to dismantle them...

Well so far this is the only post worth a response by you. By all means dismantle the argument or go to sleep.

already have.. your willful ignorance prevents you from accepting it.

 

[Boss]

AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing FAITH!

 

[Boss]

Scientifically, God Does Not Exist: Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist

This is not true. It may be your FAITH, but Science has determined no such thing.

 

[daws101]

Even if we accept the legitimacy of the term 'spiritual evidence’ (I don’t), we should always ignore this kind of 'evidence’ because we know for a fact that it points in the wrong direction far more often that it points in the right one.

In the world there are about 10,000 distinct, mutually exclusive religions (not counting sub denominations), all of them with members who are of very strong faith. Members of these religions rely on what they might call spiritual evidence to be sure that they are following the correct doctrine.

We know that the members of at least 9,999 of these religions have reached the wrong conclusion from their spiritual evidence. If we’re optimistic we can assign spiritual evidence a 1 in 10,000 chance of being reliable; in other words we know that spiritual evidence, if it can ever be trusted, is vastly more often misleading that it’s ever reliable.

Even if we assume that one of the religions is true, if you follow a religion the chances are overwhelmingly high that your religion belongs to that massive group of 9,999 that are false—and your deep conviction that you are on the right team does nothing to change those odds.

 

[daws101]

AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing FAITH!

false .....I can say conclusively that gravity works and it not faith...
I can also say conclusively there is no quantifiable evidence for spiritual entities...and it's not faith..
as explained before faith is in lieu of evidence..

 

[Boss]

bullshit! we live in a physical universe.. even thought has a physical component..
if spiritual entities existed.. they would also have a physical component..

Who has established that it doesn't? Not science.

We understand a physical universe because we exist in a physical realm. Nothing has concluded there is no other possible realm other than physical. Just because you reject a spiritual realm on the basis that it doesn't provide physical evidence, doesn't mean it isn't there. Nothing has established it's not there, including physical science.

Scientifically, God Does Not Exist: Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist

There is No Role for God in Science, No Explanation that God can Provide

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide


A popular objection to atheists' arguments and critiques of theism is to insist that one's preferred god cannot be disproven — indeed, that science itself is unable to prove that God does not exist. This position depends upon a mistaken understanding of the nature of science and how science operates. In a very real and important sense, it is possible to say that, scientifically, God does not exist — just as science is able to discount the existence of a myriad of other alleged beings.



What Can Science Prove or Disprove?

To understand why "God does not exist" can be a legitimate scientific statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in the context of science. When a scientist says "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does not exist on the moon."

All such statements are casual short-hand for a more elaborate and technical statement: "this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."

What should be most obvious about the more technically accurate statement is that it isn't absolute. It does not deny for all time any possible existence of the entity or force in question; instead, it's a provisional statement denying the existence of any relevance or reality to the entity or force based on what we currently know. Religious theists may be quick to seize upon this and insist that it demonstrates that science cannot "prove" that God does not exist, but that requires far too strict of a standard for what it means to "prove" something scientifically.



Scientific Proof Against God

In God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:
1.Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2.Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
3.Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4.If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
5.If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity and is modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: God, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, God cannot exist as defined. The modification limits the sort of evidence to that which can be predicted and tested via the scientific method.



Certainty & Doubt in Science

Nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond a shadow of any possible doubt. In science, everything is provisional. Being provisional is not a weakness or a sign that a conclusion is weak. Being provisional is a smart, pragmatic tactic because we can never be sure what we'll come across when we round the next corner. This lack of absolute certainty is a window through which many religious theists try to slip their god, but that's not a valid move.

In theory, it may be possible that someday we will come across new information requiring or benefiting from some sort of "god" hypothesis in order to better make sense of the way things are. If the evidence described in the above argument were found, for example, that would justify a rational belief in the existence of the sort of god under consideration. It wouldn’t prove the existence of such a god beyond all doubt, though, because belief would still have to be provisional.

By the same token, though, it may be possible that the same could be true of an infinite number of other hypothetical beings, forces, or other things which we might invent. The mere possibility of existing is one that applies to any and every possible god, but religious theists only try to use it for whatever god they happen to personally favor. The possibility for needing a "god" hypothesis applies equally as well to Zeus and Odin as it does to the Christian god; it applies equally well to evil or disinterested gods as it does to good gods. Thus even if we limit our consideration to the possibility of a god, ignoring every other random hypothesis, there's still no good reason to pick out any one god for favorable consideration.



What Does "God Exists" Mean?

What does it mean to exist? What would it mean if "God exists" were a meaningful proposition? For such a proposition to mean anything at all, it would have to entail that whatever "God" is, it must have some impact on the universe. In order for us to say that there is an impact on the universe, then there must be measurable and testable events which would best or only be explained by whatever this "God" is we are hypothesizing. Believers must be able to present a model of the universe in which some god is "either required, productive, or useful."

This is obviously not the case. Many believers work hard trying to find a way to introduce their god into scientific explanations, but none have succeeded. No believer has been able to demonstrate, or even strongly suggest, that there are any events in the universe which requires some alleged "god" to explain. Instead, these constantly failing attempts end up reinforcing the impression that there is no "there" there — nothing for "gods" to do, no role for them to play, and no reason to give them a second thought. It's technically true that the constant failures don't mean that no one will ever succeed, but it's even more true that in every other situation where such failures are so consistent, we don't acknowledge any reasonable, rational, or serious reason to bother believing.

Scientifically, God Does Not Exist - Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist - No Role for God in Science, No Explanation that God can Provide

This is basically establishing what I stated in the first two paragraphs of my OP.

It is a long drawn-out pontification of this simple point: Refusal to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence, prohibits god from ever being proven. Over and over, the author refers to "we find no evidence" but what is meant is "no physical evidence." Science deals with PHYSICAL evidence, not spiritual. In order to verify spiritual existence, you must evaluate the overwhelming spiritual evidence, which is not physical evidence, and which, you do not accept or believe in. We continue to go in circles with this, but I pointed this out in the first two paragraphs of the OP, you are simply reaffirming my point.

 

[Boss]

AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing FAITH!

false .....I can say conclusively that gravity works and it not faith...
I can also say conclusively there is no quantifiable evidence for spiritual entities...and it's not faith..
as explained before faith is in lieu of evidence..

No, you can't say that unless you abandon science and practice faith. You can say that science predicts gravity works and will work, that is a true statement.

I concluded in the first two paragraphs of the OP in this thread, that there is no physical evidence, quantifiable or otherwise, so you are only confirming what I said. The evidence which proves spiritual existence is largely spiritual evidence, which you do not accept. You have FAITH that, because there is no quantifiable physical evidence of a spiritual entity, it must not "exist" and you are probably correct, a spiritual entity does not have physical evidence of physical existence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

, you must evaluate the overwhelming spiritual evidence
.

The term "Definitive Proof" completely excludes phony "spiritual evidence" of any sort whatsoever.

 

[Boss]

Even if we accept the legitimacy of the term 'spiritual evidence’ (I don’t), we should always ignore this kind of 'evidence’ because we know for a fact that it points in the wrong direction far more often that it points in the right one.

In the world there are about 10,000 distinct, mutually exclusive religions (not counting sub denominations), all of them with members who are of very strong faith. Members of these religions rely on what they might call spiritual evidence to be sure that they are following the correct doctrine.

We know that the members of at least 9,999 of these religions have reached the wrong conclusion from their spiritual evidence. If we’re optimistic we can assign spiritual evidence a 1 in 10,000 chance of being reliable; in other words we know that spiritual evidence, if it can ever be trusted, is vastly more often misleading that it’s ever reliable.

Even if we assume that one of the religions is true, if you follow a religion the chances are overwhelmingly high that your religion belongs to that massive group of 9,999 that are false—and your deep conviction that you are on the right team does nothing to change those odds.

Again, you are trying as so many have, to conflate religion and spirituality, and they are not the same thing. Religion is a manifestation of spiritual belief. It is created by man in an attempt to understand something not of the physical realm, which man can connect with, and has done so for all of humanity. It is strong evidence that humans have an intrinsic connection with something outside the physical realm we understand through science, but that does not mean that religion is correct in the various incarnations it has developed, ALL religion could be totally wrong. In fact, saying that spirituality is "supernatural" could also be totally wrong, we do not know conclusively. At this time, we have no physical evidence to support spirituality, but that does not mean we will never have. This is the arrogance of man at play, we always look at the universe as if we currently have all the answers, and we simply don't. You have drawn conclusions based on what science can offer evidence for at this time, but while you have drawn a conclusion, science continues asking questions. You have stopped practicing science, and have adopted a faith and belief. Congrats!

 

[Boss]

, you must evaluate the overwhelming spiritual evidence
.

The term "Definitive Proof" completely excludes phony "spiritual evidence" of any sort whatsoever.

Nope. Again, this is explained in the first two paragraphs of the OP. Maybe you should read it again? We must first define the terms, and if you reject spiritual evidence, you can never find definitive proof of a spiritual entity. If you only recognize physical existence, you can never comprehend spiritual existence, the term is of no use to you.

 

[daws101]

Who has established that it doesn't? Not science.

We understand a physical universe because we exist in a physical realm. Nothing has concluded there is no other possible realm other than physical. Just because you reject a spiritual realm on the basis that it doesn't provide physical evidence, doesn't mean it isn't there. Nothing has established it's not there, including physical science.

Scientifically, God Does Not Exist: Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist

There is No Role for God in Science, No Explanation that God can Provide

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide


A popular objection to atheists' arguments and critiques of theism is to insist that one's preferred god cannot be disproven — indeed, that science itself is unable to prove that God does not exist. This position depends upon a mistaken understanding of the nature of science and how science operates. In a very real and important sense, it is possible to say that, scientifically, God does not exist — just as science is able to discount the existence of a myriad of other alleged beings.



What Can Science Prove or Disprove?

To understand why "God does not exist" can be a legitimate scientific statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in the context of science. When a scientist says "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does not exist on the moon."

All such statements are casual short-hand for a more elaborate and technical statement: "this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."

What should be most obvious about the more technically accurate statement is that it isn't absolute. It does not deny for all time any possible existence of the entity or force in question; instead, it's a provisional statement denying the existence of any relevance or reality to the entity or force based on what we currently know. Religious theists may be quick to seize upon this and insist that it demonstrates that science cannot "prove" that God does not exist, but that requires far too strict of a standard for what it means to "prove" something scientifically.



Scientific Proof Against God

In God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:
1.Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2.Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
3.Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4.If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
5.If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity and is modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: God, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, God cannot exist as defined. The modification limits the sort of evidence to that which can be predicted and tested via the scientific method.



Certainty & Doubt in Science

Nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond a shadow of any possible doubt. In science, everything is provisional. Being provisional is not a weakness or a sign that a conclusion is weak. Being provisional is a smart, pragmatic tactic because we can never be sure what we'll come across when we round the next corner. This lack of absolute certainty is a window through which many religious theists try to slip their god, but that's not a valid move.

In theory, it may be possible that someday we will come across new information requiring or benefiting from some sort of "god" hypothesis in order to better make sense of the way things are. If the evidence described in the above argument were found, for example, that would justify a rational belief in the existence of the sort of god under consideration. It wouldn’t prove the existence of such a god beyond all doubt, though, because belief would still have to be provisional.

By the same token, though, it may be possible that the same could be true of an infinite number of other hypothetical beings, forces, or other things which we might invent. The mere possibility of existing is one that applies to any and every possible god, but religious theists only try to use it for whatever god they happen to personally favor. The possibility for needing a "god" hypothesis applies equally as well to Zeus and Odin as it does to the Christian god; it applies equally well to evil or disinterested gods as it does to good gods. Thus even if we limit our consideration to the possibility of a god, ignoring every other random hypothesis, there's still no good reason to pick out any one god for favorable consideration.



What Does "God Exists" Mean?

What does it mean to exist? What would it mean if "God exists" were a meaningful proposition? For such a proposition to mean anything at all, it would have to entail that whatever "God" is, it must have some impact on the universe. In order for us to say that there is an impact on the universe, then there must be measurable and testable events which would best or only be explained by whatever this "God" is we are hypothesizing. Believers must be able to present a model of the universe in which some god is "either required, productive, or useful."

This is obviously not the case. Many believers work hard trying to find a way to introduce their god into scientific explanations, but none have succeeded. No believer has been able to demonstrate, or even strongly suggest, that there are any events in the universe which requires some alleged "god" to explain. Instead, these constantly failing attempts end up reinforcing the impression that there is no "there" there — nothing for "gods" to do, no role for them to play, and no reason to give them a second thought. It's technically true that the constant failures don't mean that no one will ever succeed, but it's even more true that in every other situation where such failures are so consistent, we don't acknowledge any reasonable, rational, or serious reason to bother believing.

Scientifically, God Does Not Exist - Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist - No Role for God in Science, No Explanation that God can Provide

This is basically establishing what I stated in the first two paragraphs of my OP.

It is a long drawn-out pontification of this simple point: Refusal to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence, prohibits god from ever being proven. Over and over, the author refers to "we find no evidence" but what is meant is "no physical evidence." Science deals with PHYSICAL evidence, not spiritual. In order to verify spiritual existence, you must evaluate the overwhelming spiritual evidence, which is not physical evidence, and which, you do not accept or believe in. We continue to go in circles with this, but I pointed this out in the first two paragraphs of the OP, you are simply reaffirming my point.

bullshit! since there is nothing to accept or acknowledge, logic would dictate that nothing is being prohibited as no actual hard evidence (just hearsay) has been produced to be prohibited.
I win.

 

[daws101]

AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing FAITH!

false .....I can say conclusively that gravity works and it not faith...
I can also say conclusively there is no quantifiable evidence for spiritual entities...and it's not faith..
as explained before faith is in lieu of evidence..

No, you can't say that unless you abandon science and practice faith. You can say that science predicts gravity works and will work, that is a true statement.

I concluded in the first two paragraphs of the OP in this thread, that there is no physical evidence, quantifiable or otherwise, so you are only confirming what I said. The evidence which proves spiritual existence is largely spiritual evidence, which you do not accept. You have FAITH that, because there is no quantifiable physical evidence of a spiritual entity, it must not "exist" and you are probably correct, a spiritual entity does not have physical evidence of physical existence.

once again using the F word..
if a spiritual entity has no physical component we can never experience it, as everything we experience is physical even the so called spiritual is a electrochemical reaction to stimuli.