Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

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.

Sorry, but "bullshit" is not an adequate rebuttal to my argument. There is MUCH to accept and acknowledge, you simply refuse to do so, because you reject spiritual evidence. This is covered in the first two paragraphs of the OP. I literally began my argument establishing this very point, which you and others have continued to confirm throughout this thread. While I appreciate you reaffirming my point, you have not defeated my argument. If your point was to tell me that no physical evidence supports physical existence of a spiritual entity in a spiritual nature, then you have "won" ...however, since I made that point in the opening argument, there is no prize, just a "thank you" from me, for reaffirming part of my argument.

 

[Boss]

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.

But there is evidence we do experience spirituality, we've been doing this for over 70k years.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Physical evidence yes but it's the interpretation of the evidence that is subjective uh oh we are back to faith again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

Because of the many interpretations within the theories that defy logic.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Nothing more than a biased view here.

 

[newpolitics]

, you must evaluate the overwhelming spiritual evidence
.

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

Exactly. Definitive proof cant mean something immaterial that is nowhere to be found in the entire universe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

Once again you show your ignorance concerning Science.

 

[newpolitics]

Thank you for admitting the secularists theories have been refuted.

How have you come to this errant conclusion?

Because of the many interpretations within the theories that defy logic.

Except that they don't. None of them. Anywhere. It is entirely based on evidence, so it can't be Illogical. It isn't some abstract, written syllogistic proof with premises and a conclusion. It is an posteriori postulation that explains the evidence perfectly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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..

You can claim anything you like but that does not mean it was accurate.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Physical evidence yes but it's the interpretation of the evidence that is subjective uh oh we are back to faith again.

Nothing is anything with you, except what you believe, of course. Then it is something.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

But there is evidence we do experience spirituality, we've been doing this for over 70k years.

Not just us. Neanderthals too.

 

[daws101]

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.

But there is evidence we do experience spirituality, we've been doing this for over 70k years.

do we now? have any proof that what you call spirituality is not just misfiring neurons
btw where do you get the 70k number from?

 

[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

Once again you show your ignorance concerning Science.

again, that would be you..

 

[Youwerecreated]

How have you come to this errant conclusion?

Because of the many interpretations within the theories that defy logic.

Except that they don't. None of them. Anywhere. It is entirely based on evidence, so it can't be Illogical. It isn't some abstract, written syllogistic proof with premises and a conclusion. It is an posteriori postulation that explains the evidence perfectly.

If you were accurate they could answer the origins question. They have not been able to show a mechanism for Macro-evolution that is above reproach.

 

[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..

You can claim anything you like but that does not mean it was accurate.

yes you do claim everything except fact.. and it's never accurate..

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

Once again you show your ignorance concerning Science.

again, that would be you..

Would you like to compare reume's again monkey boy ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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..

You can claim anything you like but that does not mean it was accurate.

yes you do claim everything except fact.. and it's never accurate..

 

[daws101]

Because of the many interpretations within the theories that defy logic.

Except that they don't. None of them. Anywhere. It is entirely based on evidence, so it can't be Illogical. It isn't some abstract, written syllogistic proof with premises and a conclusion. It is an posteriori postulation that explains the evidence perfectly.

If you were accurate they could answer the origins question. They have not been able to show a mechanism for Macro-evolution that is above reproach.

bullshit! there is no special mechanism for the false premise of macro evolution. evolution is evolution period.

Macro-evolution is specious speculation...and it's highly reproachable.to say it isn't is arrogant and ignorant, but hey look who always brings it up!

 

[daws101]

Once again you show your ignorance concerning Science.

again, that would be you..

Would you like to compare reume's again monkey boy ?

that's resume' and do you really want to have your ass handed to you again!

 

[daws101]

You can claim anything you like but that does not mean it was accurate.

yes you do claim everything except fact.. and it's never accurate..

you've just proven my point.