Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Montrovant]

Again, "circular reasoning" does not mean something is wrong! In this case, it is absolutely accurate and correct, in order to acknowledge spiritual evidence, you must believe in spiritual evidence. The same applies to physical science. If this is funny to you, I am sorry. It's a relatively simplistic concept of logic and common sense, it shouldn't have to be pointed out to you.

Circular reasoning may not mean you are wrong, but it does mean that attempting to discuss the subject is pointless.

Also, it is not the same with physical science. It is entirely possible to see and acknowledge the existence of physical sciences without believing in their results. No one needs to believe that scientific testing exists in order to see such a test.

I did not say spiritual is made up of something that can't be objectively observed. You aren't reading my words. I can't communicate with you if you won't read my words. Spiritual is non-physical, but it most certainly can be objectively observed by people who believe in spiritual nature. It can not be objectively observed by those who reject spiritual evidence. There is no basis in logic for spiritual entities to have physical evidence, and you can never physically prove something spiritual.

I'm not sure if you understand objectivity. If you must believe in it in order to observe it, it is not objectively observable.

Again, we have over 70k years of evidence that billions of people most certainly have spiritually connected to something. You see, this is where you are becoming confused. You assume, since you refuse to see spiritual evidence, no one else is able to. The spiritual evidence is overwhelming, it's right there in front of you, but you continue to refuse to accept spiritual evidence.

We have years of evidence that billions of people most certainly believe in something. That something has varied pretty wildly. You equate all supernatural beliefs to the spiritual and claim that since people have always believed in fantastic answers to the unexplained questions of life, there is a hidden realm of the spiritual that exists. But that realm is only accessed by those who believe in it.

Oh I know Darwin got things wrong, namely, his explanation of how a complex human eye evolved. He admits that if the eye can't be explained through natural selection, it can't be the product of evolution. Well, what he explained, and what many scientist believed until recently, is that a photoreceptor cell was a predecessor to the human eye, but the systems are completely different and work in a different way. The eye could not evolve the way Darwin explained.

I am not speculating anything with regard to Darwin, I've read his book. I understand the principles of natural selection and evolution, and I know that it simply can't have the predictive power to "know" what parts are needed before they are needed. IF natural selection IS this powerful, it is more of a miracle than God or an intelligent designer.

Of course there is no predictive power to natural selection. That would require it to be something intelligent. The idea behind natural selection, as I understand it, is that it is just an explanation for why certain creatures survive and others don't. It is a concept, not a tangible thing. So it cannot predict, or determine, or DO anything. It is just a description.

All you are doing is confirming the point I made in the first two paragraphs of the OP. You don't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence. This has been established, it was the very FIRST point I made in my argument, I don't understand why you continue to reaffirm it. There IS objective evidence for people who believe in spiritual nature. Billions and billions have attested to this, some went to their graves fighting to protect their spiritual beliefs. You believe there is no objective evidence because you reject spiritual evidence. I am not saying that to be insulting or rude, just stating a fact of life... you don't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence, you mind is closed to it, so you obviously can not see spiritual evidence, and dismiss it as imagination.


The only way to objectively observe spiritual evidence, is to believe and accept spiritual nature. Billions and billions have done this, and because you can't do this, doesn't mean others can't. My definition of spiritual is "non-physical." I never claimed it couldn't be objectively observed and evaluated. It simply can't meet your criteria of providing physical evidence, because it isn't physical in nature.

This is just a rehash of your previous silliness. If you must believe in the spiritual to observe it, it is not objectively observable.

Well, the people who don't believe in intelligent design or creationism, claim that the miracle of life sprang forth from primordial soup when the planet was cooling. Then they posit a theory for abiogenesis, where all life sprang forth miraculously from a single cell organism. Were WE the only place around who got the primordial soup? Just so happened? We went down that road, there are a LOT of "just so happened" events to ponder. If any of them had "not so happened" we wouldn't have life on Earth.

You missed my question to you... WHY are the conditions not appropriate on other planets? Same universe, same materials available, same relative environment in the vacuum of space, why didn't other planets form atmospheres with layers to protect life from radiation and ultraviolet rays? 'Just so happens' we were the lucky planet? Now, we haven't looked at much of the universe, but we have looked at many planets and moons, and the only place in the universe we have found life is here. If life were some natural phenomenon, it would be happening elsewhere, all around us on other planets, which had the same elements to work with as Earth had, as we are all part of the same universe. But that is not what we see.

I don't know why conditions differ on various planets and moons. That they do is, unlike your spiritual evidence, objectively observable.

As to your whole 'just so happens' repetitiveness, I've been over that already. The odds of winning the lottery are pretty slim, but someone is constantly doing it. We have observed so many planets and moons, and from those observations estimated there are so many more, that at least one planet having the proper conditions seems far less strange. I don't know why Earth had the right conditions.

I don't know that other planets haven't had the same conditions as Earth. Neither do you. Humanity, as has been said, has directly observed only the tiniest portion of the universe. There could be millions of planets that have had or currently have life in just our galaxy. We simply can't tell with current technology. But there is no reason to assume that a natural origin for life means that life should occur everywhere. That's just asinine.

At least your mind is open to possibility. That's a start. The thread title is posed as a question. I did this to illustrate, it is a question that can only be answered if we are willing to accept and evaluate spiritual evidence. This is needed because we must first establish terminology, so that we are talking about the same things. You see, if someone does not believe in a spiritual nature, they can't process terms like "exist" in their minds. To "exist" can only mean, to physically exist, if you don't recognize spiritual existence. It's an illogical dichotomy for a spiritual god to physically exist. It can never meet that criteria, or it is no longer spiritual in nature.

Why can't a god be both spiritual and physical in nature? Certainly the entire concept of god is one of a being that created the physical universe, and often one that continues to affect the physical universe. More, the concept of a soul is often that of a spiritual component to we physical humans. Why can the spiritual and the physical be married in so many ways, but not in a god?

At some point, continued coincidence starts becoming suspect, wouldn't you agree? If you went with a friend to Vegas, and they started gambling and winning, and this went on all night, you'd say... hey, it's a coincidence, the got lucky... but then, a second and third night, same thing, weeks roll by, they can't lose. A month later, they are making headline news as the luckiest person ever, they haven't lost yet... they keep winning every time... at what point to do you admit that it's not just luck and coincidence? I can accept that one or maybe two things, happened by coincidence. But when I see literally millions of things that had to happen to a certain degree and order, in harmony with other things happening, over and over for millions of years, the astounding nature of our climate system and weather, the wondrous beauty we see in nature, the intricacy of mechanical engineering of the simplest organisms. Life is amazing and miraculous, it simply did not happen by accident.

You can believe what you want. No one can, at this point, say with certainty how life began. It's not something I feel the need to argue.

I will say again, however, that your seeming problems with the unlikely odds of proper conditions for life seem strange to me given the numbers we are dealing with in something the size of the universe.

You dismiss spirituality as "imagination." As I said, you have closed your mind to spiritual evidence, you think it's over-fertile imaginations run wild. Ironically, I do believe this explains Religion. I think all organized religions are simply man's imagination, trying to grapple with this spiritual thing they are intrinsically connected to. There can be no denying, humans are spiritually connected to something, it's not imagination.

To believe spirituality is merely man's imagination, you relegate man to one of the stupidest forms of life to ever exist, because nothing else we know of, does this. Animals do not behave inherently for all of their existence because of something they imagine, which simply isn't there. It doesn't happen with any living organism we know of, but you claim it's happened with humans, for all of our existence. I reject that argument.

You have closed your mind to religion, you think it's over-fertile imaginations run wild. See what I did there?

If spirituality is man's imagination, that doesn't make us one of the stupidest forms of life to ever exist. In our experience it would make us what we are, the most intelligent. What other life forms that we've seen can imagine answers to things they cannot explain? Most animals may be incapable of any kind of imagining. That would be an intellectual capacity in humans that other animals do not possess, that doesn't make us stupid. It might make us wrong, but to be fair, it also might make us the only creatures trying to answer the kinds of questions we use our imaginations to create answers to in the first place.

Oh, and I haven't actually dismissed spirituality as imagination. I merely countered your argument that belief in the supernatural is evidence of a non-physical, spiritual existence.

When you have some evidence that doesn't require a person to believe in it before they can believe in it, get back to me.

 

[Boss]

How many planets have we been able to study closely?

How many planets have we observed?

Do you really think we know that Earth is unique based on our incredibly limited experience?

We've been through this before YWC. You are basically saying that, having picked up a handful of sand from the beach, and having seen one of the grains of sand being a different color than the others, that the differently colored grain of sand is unique on the entire beach. No need to bother looking at the other trillion grains of sand, this tiny portion is all that's needed!

Not what is being said at all. Look at just the moon aspect... if the moon had not collided with Earth, sending it into a wobbling rotation, the planet would not have seasons. The seasons are of fundamental importance to almost all plant life, it is how they pollinate and reproduce. Other animals depend on plant life and couldn't' exist without it. If the moon had been larger or smaller, or struck the planet differently, the wobble and seasons would be much different. But the moon happened to be the perfect size and began orbiting Earth as a satellite, exerting not too much or too little gravitational counterforce, to create oceanic tides. Without the tides, many life forms in the sea could not exist, this is how they time reproduction. Had the moon been larger or came to orbit more closely, the tides would be massive and there would be little dry land. Further out, and lack of tide would have caused the oceans to stagnate.

Any reasonable or objective analysis, has to conclude life on Earth would not be the same without the moon, and may not even exist at all. I'm sure some smarty will weigh in on this, and disagree, but no reasonable person can think life would be anything like we know it to be, if we didn't have seasons and tides naturally instructing life's process.

Another thing to look at is our amazing atmosphere. While science geeks can explain how it works and how the atmosphere formed, they can't explain why we were so freaking lucky. You see, it just so happens, the elemental layers of the atmosphere protect all living things from deadly radiation and ultraviolet rays. Without the atmosphere, life could not exist on Earth.

Finally, because of our proximity to the sun, and large vast oceans, convection currents are formed, which enables millions of other life forms, and again, provides vital reproductive elements that would not exist otherwise. Combine all of the things I've mentioned, and you get our climate. While there are certainly extremes, our climate compared to that of other planets, is quite stable. The most fascinating thing is, if we didn't have evaporation or rain, which is caused by the aforementioned anomalies, life could not survive.

What we see is a concerted effort on part of nature, to make life possible on Earth. Some think this 'just so happens' to be the case, I believe it's too much coincidence to dismiss.

 

[edthecynic]

How many planets have we been able to study closely?

How many planets have we observed?

Do you really think we know that Earth is unique based on our incredibly limited experience?

We've been through this before YWC. You are basically saying that, having picked up a handful of sand from the beach, and having seen one of the grains of sand being a different color than the others, that the differently colored grain of sand is unique on the entire beach. No need to bother looking at the other trillion grains of sand, this tiny portion is all that's needed!

Not what is being said at all. Look at just the moon aspect... if the moon had not collided with Earth, sending it into a wobbling rotation, the planet would not have seasons. The seasons are of fundamental importance to almost all plant life, it is how they pollinate and reproduce. Other animals depend on plant life and couldn't' exist without it. If the moon had been larger or smaller, or struck the planet differently, the wobble and seasons would be much different. But the moon happened to be the perfect size and began orbiting Earth as a satellite, exerting not too much or too little gravitational counterforce, to create oceanic tides. Without the tides, many life forms in the sea could not exist, this is how they time reproduction. Had the moon been larger or came to orbit more closely, the tides would be massive and there would be little dry land. Further out, and lack of tide would have caused the oceans to stagnate.

Any reasonable or objective analysis, has to conclude life on Earth would not be the same without the moon, and may not even exist at all. I'm sure some smarty will weigh in on this, and disagree, but no reasonable person can think life would be anything like we know it to be, if we didn't have seasons and tides naturally instructing life's process.

Another thing to look at is our amazing atmosphere. While science geeks can explain how it works and how the atmosphere formed, they can't explain why we were so freaking lucky. You see, it just so happens, the elemental layers of the atmosphere protect all living things from deadly radiation and ultraviolet rays. Without the atmosphere, life could not exist on Earth.

Finally, because of our proximity to the sun, and large vast oceans, convection currents are formed, which enables millions of other life forms, and again, provides vital reproductive elements that would not exist otherwise. Combine all of the things I've mentioned, and you get our climate. While there are certainly extremes, our climate compared to that of other planets, is quite stable. The most fascinating thing is, if we didn't have evaporation or rain, which is caused by the aforementioned anomalies, life could not survive.

What we see is a concerted effort on part of nature, to make life possible on Earth. Some think this 'just so happens' to be the case, I believe it's too much coincidence to dismiss.

It is one thing to say that if we didn't have tides and seasons that LIFE on Earth would be different, as you did at first, but it is quite another to claim that nature is making an effort to make life POSSIBLE on Earth. As was already pointed out bacteria can live in almost any extreme condition without tides, seasons, the moon or whatever. It was also pointed out that on the deep ocean floor there is a whole ecosystem that lives without tide, season, moon and sun feeding off of sulphur spewed by volcanic vents.

Human life may need special conditions, but life itself is not so demanding!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How many planets have we been able to study closely?

How many planets have we observed?

Do you really think we know that Earth is unique based on our incredibly limited experience?

We've been through this before YWC. You are basically saying that, having picked up a handful of sand from the beach, and having seen one of the grains of sand being a different color than the others, that the differently colored grain of sand is unique on the entire beach. No need to bother looking at the other trillion grains of sand, this tiny portion is all that's needed!

Not what is being said at all. Look at just the moon aspect... if the moon had not collided with Earth, sending it into a wobbling rotation, the planet would not have seasons. The seasons are of fundamental importance to almost all plant life, it is how they pollinate and reproduce. Other animals depend on plant life and couldn't' exist without it. If the moon had been larger or smaller, or struck the planet differently, the wobble and seasons would be much different. But the moon happened to be the perfect size and began orbiting Earth as a satellite, exerting not too much or too little gravitational counterforce, to create oceanic tides. Without the tides, many life forms in the sea could not exist, this is how they time reproduction. Had the moon been larger or came to orbit more closely, the tides would be massive and there would be little dry land. Further out, and lack of tide would have caused the oceans to stagnate.

Any reasonable or objective analysis, has to conclude life on Earth would not be the same without the moon, and may not even exist at all. I'm sure some smarty will weigh in on this, and disagree, but no reasonable person can think life would be anything like we know it to be, if we didn't have seasons and tides naturally instructing life's process.

Another thing to look at is our amazing atmosphere. While science geeks can explain how it works and how the atmosphere formed, they can't explain why we were so freaking lucky. You see, it just so happens, the elemental layers of the atmosphere protect all living things from deadly radiation and ultraviolet rays. Without the atmosphere, life could not exist on Earth.

Finally, because of our proximity to the sun, and large vast oceans, convection currents are formed, which enables millions of other life forms, and again, provides vital reproductive elements that would not exist otherwise. Combine all of the things I've mentioned, and you get our climate. While there are certainly extremes, our climate compared to that of other planets, is quite stable. The most fascinating thing is, if we didn't have evaporation or rain, which is caused by the aforementioned anomalies, life could not survive.

What we see is a concerted effort on part of nature, to make life possible on Earth. Some think this 'just so happens' to be the case, I believe it's too much coincidence to dismiss.

It is one thing to say that if we didn't have tides and seasons that LIFE on Earth would be different, as you did at first, but it is quite another to claim that nature is making an effort to make life POSSIBLE on Earth. As was already pointed out bacteria can live in almost any extreme condition without tides, seasons, the moon or whatever. It was also pointed out that on the deep ocean floor there is a whole ecosystem that lives without tide, season, moon and sun feeding off of sulphur spewed by volcanic vents.

Human life may need special conditions, but life itself is not so demanding!

What other planet is found to have life?

 

[edthecynic]

Not what is being said at all. Look at just the moon aspect... if the moon had not collided with Earth, sending it into a wobbling rotation, the planet would not have seasons. The seasons are of fundamental importance to almost all plant life, it is how they pollinate and reproduce. Other animals depend on plant life and couldn't' exist without it. If the moon had been larger or smaller, or struck the planet differently, the wobble and seasons would be much different. But the moon happened to be the perfect size and began orbiting Earth as a satellite, exerting not too much or too little gravitational counterforce, to create oceanic tides. Without the tides, many life forms in the sea could not exist, this is how they time reproduction. Had the moon been larger or came to orbit more closely, the tides would be massive and there would be little dry land. Further out, and lack of tide would have caused the oceans to stagnate.

Any reasonable or objective analysis, has to conclude life on Earth would not be the same without the moon, and may not even exist at all. I'm sure some smarty will weigh in on this, and disagree, but no reasonable person can think life would be anything like we know it to be, if we didn't have seasons and tides naturally instructing life's process.

Another thing to look at is our amazing atmosphere. While science geeks can explain how it works and how the atmosphere formed, they can't explain why we were so freaking lucky. You see, it just so happens, the elemental layers of the atmosphere protect all living things from deadly radiation and ultraviolet rays. Without the atmosphere, life could not exist on Earth.

Finally, because of our proximity to the sun, and large vast oceans, convection currents are formed, which enables millions of other life forms, and again, provides vital reproductive elements that would not exist otherwise. Combine all of the things I've mentioned, and you get our climate. While there are certainly extremes, our climate compared to that of other planets, is quite stable. The most fascinating thing is, if we didn't have evaporation or rain, which is caused by the aforementioned anomalies, life could not survive.

What we see is a concerted effort on part of nature, to make life possible on Earth. Some think this 'just so happens' to be the case, I believe it's too much coincidence to dismiss.

It is one thing to say that if we didn't have tides and seasons that LIFE on Earth would be different, as you did at first, but it is quite another to claim that nature is making an effort to make life POSSIBLE on Earth. As was already pointed out bacteria can live in almost any extreme condition without tides, seasons, the moon or whatever. It was also pointed out that on the deep ocean floor there is a whole ecosystem that lives without tide, season, moon and sun feeding off of sulphur spewed by volcanic vents.

Human life may need special conditions, but life itself is not so demanding!

What other planet is found to have life?

What other planet have we planted our feet on and drilled into its core?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It is one thing to say that if we didn't have tides and seasons that LIFE on Earth would be different, as you did at first, but it is quite another to claim that nature is making an effort to make life POSSIBLE on Earth. As was already pointed out bacteria can live in almost any extreme condition without tides, seasons, the moon or whatever. It was also pointed out that on the deep ocean floor there is a whole ecosystem that lives without tide, season, moon and sun feeding off of sulphur spewed by volcanic vents.

Human life may need special conditions, but life itself is not so demanding!

What other planet is found to have life?

What other planet have we planted our feet on and drilled into its core?

Was my question too difficult for you?

 

[edthecynic]

What other planet is found to have life?

What other planet have we planted our feet on and drilled into its core?

Was my question too difficult for you?

Stupid, yes, difficult, no.

Let me put it another way, of all the planets we have thoroughly explored, 100% of them have life.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What other planet have we planted our feet on and drilled into its core?

Was my question too difficult for you?

Stupid, yes, difficult, no.

Let me put it another way, of all the planets we have thoroughly explored, 100% of them have life.

Thanks for your dishonesty.

 

[Boss]

Again, "circular reasoning" does not mean something is wrong! In this case, it is absolutely accurate and correct, in order to acknowledge spiritual evidence, you must believe in spiritual evidence. The same applies to physical science. If this is funny to you, I am sorry. It's a relatively simplistic concept of logic and common sense, it shouldn't have to be pointed out to you.

Circular reasoning may not mean you are wrong, but it does mean that attempting to discuss the subject is pointless.

No, it just means what it means. (Sorry, more circular reasoning)

Attempting to prove god to someone who doesn't accept spiritual evidence, is indeed, pointless. This was the reason for making the point. It does no good to examine the question, "does god exist?" if the person you are asking, doesn't recognize spirituality, spiritual existence, spiritual nature, etc.

Also, it is not the same with physical science. It is entirely possible to see and acknowledge the existence of physical sciences without believing in their results. No one needs to believe that scientific testing exists in order to see such a test.

Not true. IF (hypothetical) I believe that god controls gravity, it does not matter how many times you demonstrate gravity with experiments of science, I reject science, I believe god controls it, and nothing you can ever show me will change my mind. Science also requires faith, believe it or not. Science never makes any determination on anything. Humans have faith in what science has shown them, and form conclusion.

I did not say spiritual is made up of something that can't be objectively observed. You aren't reading my words. I can't communicate with you if you won't read my words. Spiritual is non-physical, but it most certainly can be objectively observed by people who believe in spiritual nature. It can not be objectively observed by those who reject spiritual evidence. There is no basis in logic for spiritual entities to have physical evidence, and you can never physically prove something spiritual.

I'm not sure if you understand objectivity. If you must believe in it in order to observe it, it is not objectively observable.

Nonsense, you have to believe in science to objectively observe it. You're not making sense. Now, if you DON'T believe in something, you can never objectively observe it.

We have years of evidence that billions of people most certainly believe in something. That something has varied pretty wildly. You equate all supernatural beliefs to the spiritual and claim that since people have always believed in fantastic answers to the unexplained questions of life, there is a hidden realm of the spiritual that exists. But that realm is only accessed by those who believe in it.

That 'something' is fairly universal in concept. It may take on different incarnations, but the gist is, humans worship something greater than self, as a matter of inherent behavior. It's funny that you call this "fantastic answers" when I view the explanations for spontaneous natural origin to be fantastic. I think the idea that a creator is responsible, is a fairly simple answer, it's not fantastic at all.

Also, it is a debunked myth that spirituality exists to "explain the unknown." How many "unknown questions" remain from ancient man, that modern science has yet to answer? Anything? Bueller? Bueller? Yet, we don't see a massive departure from our "crutch" as science has explained away all the mystery. We see relatively the same percentage of humans being spiritually connected. You can't explain this, because it defeats your theory.

Well okay.... it's "fear of death!" THAT's why man is so tied to spirituality! We don't know what happens to us after we die, so this is why we invented spirituality.... problem is, this doesn't align with nature in anything we observe with any other form of life. Dogs and cats don't worry about what happens when they die. All of the little snappy and easy dismissals of spirituality fail, and we are left with the fact that humans have always been devoutly spiritual and connected to something spiritual in nature.

Of course there is no predictive power to natural selection. That would require it to be something intelligent. The idea behind natural selection, as I understand it, is that it is just an explanation for why certain creatures survive and others don't. It is a concept, not a tangible thing. So it cannot predict, or determine, or DO anything. It is just a description.

Exactly! So when people try to explain to me, how a photoreceptor spot, which is intended to detect light, managed to 'evolve' into a pinhole camera, it's not believable. Natural selection certainly didn't know how pinhole cameras work, so how is it responsible for such a transformation? Evolution is bound by limits, it can't predict and create.

I don't know why conditions differ on various planets and moons. That they do is, unlike your spiritual evidence, objectively observable.

As to your whole 'just so happens' repetitiveness, I've been over that already. The odds of winning the lottery are pretty slim, but someone is constantly doing it. We have observed so many planets and moons, and from those observations estimated there are so many more, that at least one planet having the proper conditions seems far less strange. I don't know why Earth had the right conditions.

The same person doesn't repeatedly win the lottery, if they did, you would conclude after three or four, that something was up with that, wouldn't you? Life on Earth is similar to the same person winning the lottery thousands of times. Now, you can choose to believe that person is just really lucky, or you can open your mind to the possibility something else is happening.

You don't know why Earth had the right conditions, and no one else seems to know. But "why" is often a hard question for science to answer. It can explain the "how" part, and do a pretty good job of it, but it's the "why" part that science struggles with. This gives us "theories" which are based in sound general principles and observations, but theories can be wrong. Again, "faith" often comes into play regarding scientific theory, there are people here who will argue that a scientific theory is pretty much a "fact" when that is simply not true.

I don't know that other planets haven't had the same conditions as Earth. Neither do you. Humanity, as has been said, has directly observed only the tiniest portion of the universe. There could be millions of planets that have had or currently have life in just our galaxy. We simply can't tell with current technology. But there is no reason to assume that a natural origin for life means that life should occur everywhere. That's just asinine.

You are correct, I didn't mean to imply we had looked over the entire universe and found no signs of life. If you were somehow confused, let the record be clear, I never meant to imply such a thing. All I did, was introduce the question, WHY?

If the origin of life was spontaneous and natural, and the abiogenesis theories are true, and all of this emerged from primordial soup, we should see at least some evidence of life out there. We don't even see atmospheres and conditions conducive for life. Maybe they exist and we've not discovered them? But you would think, if the ingredients are all over the universe, this miracle would be more abundantly present elsewhere.

Why can't a god be both spiritual and physical in nature? Certainly the entire concept of god is one of a being that created the physical universe, and often one that continues to affect the physical universe. More, the concept of a soul is often that of a spiritual component to we physical humans. Why can the spiritual and the physical be married in so many ways, but not in a god?

Well, Christians believe that Jesus was god in physical form. So, certainly, god could be both spiritual and physical, since that is the basis for Christianity. Interesting side note: When they mapped the human genome, all elements for what makeup a human being were accounted for, but there was a remaining fraction, I'm thinking it was like .004 or something, which could not ever be defined. It's part of our makeup, but we don't know what it is, and can't explain it. Some have speculated, perhaps this is our "soul?" Again, don't get caught being egocentric, science has not determined everything yet. Anything, is possible with science, including physical proof of spiritual nature.

I also want to address another point about the use of the word "god" here. What is meant? My OP argument does not define "god" in a traditional sense, but rather a metaphor. It is symbolic of whatever spiritual force man is connecting with, and has been connecting with since our origins. I do not profess to know the specific nature of that force, but I do not require this information to evaluate existence. Those who have rejected spiritual evidence, view "god" as something of an impossibility, because they cannot rationalize "existence" in any connotation other than physical. There certainly isn't a physically invisible man sitting on a cloud with a white beard and such. However, spiritual people believe in something spiritual, it doesn't have physical presence, it doesn't exist in a physical sense.

You can believe what you want. No one can, at this point, say with certainty how life began. It's not something I feel the need to argue.

I will say again, however, that your seeming problems with the unlikely odds of proper conditions for life seem strange to me given the numbers we are dealing with in something the size of the universe.

Yet, spiritual people will tell you with certainty, how life began.

Yes, the universe is big and we've not explored much of it. Still, if life is spontaneous, able to spring forth from primordial soup and all... it would seem that we'd find some kind of life elsewhere, and we haven't. I'm not saying we won't, or that it's not possible, or that my argument is based on this, just that it's curious to me... why were WE so lucky?

You dismiss spirituality as "imagination." As I said, you have closed your mind to spiritual evidence, you think it's over-fertile imaginations run wild. Ironically, I do believe this explains Religion. I think all organized religions are simply man's imagination, trying to grapple with this spiritual thing they are intrinsically connected to. There can be no denying, humans are spiritually connected to something, it's not imagination.

To believe spirituality is merely man's imagination, you relegate man to one of the stupidest forms of life to ever exist, because nothing else we know of, does this. Animals do not behave inherently for all of their existence because of something they imagine, which simply isn't there. It doesn't happen with any living organism we know of, but you claim it's happened with humans, for all of our existence. I reject that argument.

You have closed your mind to religion, you think it's over-fertile imaginations run wild. See what I did there?

If spirituality is man's imagination, that doesn't make us one of the stupidest forms of life to ever exist. In our experience it would make us what we are, the most intelligent. What other life forms that we've seen can imagine answers to things they cannot explain? Most animals may be incapable of any kind of imagining. That would be an intellectual capacity in humans that other animals do not possess, that doesn't make us stupid. It might make us wrong, but to be fair, it also might make us the only creatures trying to answer the kinds of questions we use our imaginations to create answers to in the first place.

If we're so smart, why would we create a mass delusion?

No, I don't see what you did with religion there, it looks like you are attempting to mock me, but I stand by what I said. Religion is evidence of mankind's intrinsic connection to something spiritual in nature. In order for man to 'make sense' of this spiritual force it connects with, religions were created. Those are the product of imagination, the spiritual connection is real, not imagined.

Oh, and I haven't actually dismissed spirituality as imagination. I merely countered your argument that belief in the supernatural is evidence of a non-physical, spiritual existence.

When you have some evidence that doesn't require a person to believe in it before they can believe in it, get back to me.

But it's not just simple "belief" in supernatural. That's the fundamental point you are missing here. It is a profound and intrinsic connection to something outside the physical, which man has connected to for all of it's existence. This is not a "belief" but an actual connection that is made between humans and something spiritual. I realize this is a hard point to accept when you don't "believe" but it's still a valid and legitimate point you need to consider.

As for your final request, it would be totally impossible for me to ever give you any information you would recognize as believable evidence, if you didn't believe in it. I don't know how else to put that... if you want to call it 'circular reasoning' so be it. I call it common sense. Are you NOT required to believe in principles of science to believe a scientific principle?

The definitive proof for a spiritual entity, is spiritual evidence. Those who accept spiritual evidence, have an overwhelming abundance of it to support the existence of god. For those who reject spiritual evidence, there will NEVER be enough evidence. It's illogical. It can't happen. Spiritual entities rely on spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence, and if they could be proven through physics, they would become "physical" entities.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What's spiritual evidence?

Read the thread, there is 37 pages of it. But you'll dismiss and reject it, because you don't accept spiritual evidence. You can't accept it, I understand this, it's why I began my argument establishing this first.

cmon man, sum it up for me, I don't have time for 37 pages.

The OP is the BLACK HOLE of all peer reviewed scientific knowledge and irrefutable logic. It won't matter what facts you provide or carefully constructed reasoned arguments you make. All of them will disappear beyond the event horizon as if they never existed and the exact same boring "spiritual evidence" claptrap will be endlessly repeated. You have three choices, (a) you walk away and get on with your life, or (b) you submit to the AUTHORITY OF BOSS without question, or (c) you come to the realization that he is just a close minded bigot who resorts to insults whenever he is proven wrong.

 

[Montrovant]

I can't believe this continues.

Let me put it this way. I want you to accept the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I cannot give you any evidence that his noodly appendages exist. You will know he exists once you believe he exists.

Are you going to now believe?

On the other hand....if you say god is in control of gravity, that's fine. I can still demonstrate gravity to you. The difference is that you are coming to a conclusion based on observations we can both experience. You don't have to believe in gravity to see the effects.

Your whole argument boils down to, 'because I say so'.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't? How do you know?

We all base our arguments on logic. It's simply a matter of whether our inferences are valid and our premises sound.

A person should be able to detect design in nature and there is a lot of evidence that logically would infer design in nature. Purposeful design is hard to be mistaken on using logic.

again more bullshit !
Vitalism

Vitalism is the belief that the life-principle is non-material. This originated with Stahl (17th century), and held sway until the middle of the 19th century. It appealed to philosophers such as Henri Bergson, Nietzsche, Wilhelm Dilthey,[18] anatomists like Bichat, and chemists like Liebig.[19] Vitalism included the idea that there was a fundamental difference between organic and inorganic material, and the belief that organic material can only be derived from living things. This was disproved in 1828, when Friedrich Wöhler prepared urea from inorganic materials.[20] This Wöhler synthesis is considered the starting point of modern organic chemistry. It is of historical significance because for the first time an organic compound was produced from inorganic reactants.[19]

During the 1850s, Helmholtz, anticipated by Mayer, demonstrated that no energy is lost in muscle movement, suggesting that there were no "vital forces" necessary to move a muscle.[21] These results led to the abandonment of scientific interest in vitalistic theories, although the belief lingered on in pseudoscientific theories such as homeopat

Again your main comment was the term " Bullshit "

Give it up you did the same thing here you did in the thread I called you on. What I stated was a known fact and I read it with many different creationists sources but confirmed their claims before posting it heck I posted the same thing in the creationism thread.

I would probably bet since you copy and paste so much crap from wiki that was your source for your quote above.

 

[Boss]

It is one thing to say that if we didn't have tides and seasons that LIFE on Earth would be different, as you did at first, but it is quite another to claim that nature is making an effort to make life POSSIBLE on Earth. As was already pointed out bacteria can live in almost any extreme condition without tides, seasons, the moon or whatever. It was also pointed out that on the deep ocean floor there is a whole ecosystem that lives without tide, season, moon and sun feeding off of sulphur spewed by volcanic vents.

Human life may need special conditions, but life itself is not so demanding!

How do you suppose volcanoes erupt?

If life itself is "not so demanding" why is there not more evidence of it, and the only place we've found it, is here?

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is one thing to say that if we didn't have tides and seasons that LIFE on Earth would be different, as you did at first, but it is quite another to claim that nature is making an effort to make life POSSIBLE on Earth. As was already pointed out bacteria can live in almost any extreme condition without tides, seasons, the moon or whatever. It was also pointed out that on the deep ocean floor there is a whole ecosystem that lives without tide, season, moon and sun feeding off of sulphur spewed by volcanic vents.

Human life may need special conditions, but life itself is not so demanding!

How do you suppose volcanoes erupt?

If life itself is "not so demanding" why is there not more evidence of it, and the only place we've found it, is here?

Seriously? You expect that it is possible for the Hubble telescope to spot microbial life at the bottom of an ocean on a planet circling a star hundreds of light years distant? There is no evidence (spiritual or factual) that you have even the slightest grasp of reality.

 

[Hollie]

How many planets have we been able to study closely?

How many planets have we observed?

Do you really think we know that Earth is unique based on our incredibly limited experience?

We've been through this before YWC. You are basically saying that, having picked up a handful of sand from the beach, and having seen one of the grains of sand being a different color than the others, that the differently colored grain of sand is unique on the entire beach. No need to bother looking at the other trillion grains of sand, this tiny portion is all that's needed!

Not what is being said at all. Look at just the moon aspect... if the moon had not collided with Earth, sending it into a wobbling rotation, the planet would not have seasons. The seasons are of fundamental importance to almost all plant life, it is how they pollinate and reproduce. Other animals depend on plant life and couldn't' exist without it. If the moon had been larger or smaller, or struck the planet differently, the wobble and seasons would be much different. But the moon happened to be the perfect size and began orbiting Earth as a satellite, exerting not too much or too little gravitational counterforce, to create oceanic tides. Without the tides, many life forms in the sea could not exist, this is how they time reproduction. Had the moon been larger or came to orbit more closely, the tides would be massive and there would be little dry land. Further out, and lack of tide would have caused the oceans to stagnate.

Any reasonable or objective analysis, has to conclude life on Earth would not be the same without the moon, and may not even exist at all. I'm sure some smarty will weigh in on this, and disagree, but no reasonable person can think life would be anything like we know it to be, if we didn't have seasons and tides naturally instructing life's process.

Another thing to look at is our amazing atmosphere. While science geeks can explain how it works and how the atmosphere formed, they can't explain why we were so freaking lucky. You see, it just so happens, the elemental layers of the atmosphere protect all living things from deadly radiation and ultraviolet rays. Without the atmosphere, life could not exist on Earth.

Finally, because of our proximity to the sun, and large vast oceans, convection currents are formed, which enables millions of other life forms, and again, provides vital reproductive elements that would not exist otherwise. Combine all of the things I've mentioned, and you get our climate. While there are certainly extremes, our climate compared to that of other planets, is quite stable. The most fascinating thing is, if we didn't have evaporation or rain, which is caused by the aforementioned anomalies, life could not survive.

What we see is a concerted effort on part of nature, to make life possible on Earth. Some think this 'just so happens' to be the case, I believe it's too much coincidence to dismiss.

You’re personalizing nature just as you personalize your gods.

There’s nothing to suggest that there is anything supernatural, “supermagical” or even special about existence. Natural law is the antithesis of "gods’ and your spirit worlds. You may think of “chance” (as it relates to life on earth), as randomness, when in fact natural law is decidedly non-random. All things being equal, natural law solves the same problems the same way every time. This invariance is the required property for order to emerge from chaos.

Formation of patterns does not indicate a personality or an intent. That is something theists and “spiritualists” wish to assign to it. That would be like saying a tornado has the intent to hit one house and by pass another.

In all discussions of "chance", one must remember that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

Suggesting mystical spirits or gods have any sort of intent is asserted by you, and of course, for all your attempts to insist that a spirit world exists, you have never provided anything more than “because I say so” as evidence for your claims.

Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. You simply refuse to supply any facts to support your claims to spirit worlds.

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer. If you or any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Boss]

I can't believe this continues.

Let me put it this way. I want you to accept the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I cannot give you any evidence that his noodly appendages exist. You will know he exists once you believe he exists.

Are you going to now believe?

Nope, but my OP argument doesn't claim that I will get you to see the evidence. I readily admit, you are not going to see the evidence, you reject it completely and in it's entirety. I love the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy, it works very well in a religious debate because it interjects yet another human incarnation of god. However, in a debate about spirituality, the Spaghetti Monster doesn't fly...pardon the pun. You see, there isn't 70k years of evidence that man has worshiped a spaghetti monster, as a fundamental part of it's human behavior. IF that were the case, I would suggest that maybe there IS such an entity, and people aren't suffering from widespread mass delusions for the course of their existence.

On the other hand....if you say god is in control of gravity, that's fine. I can still demonstrate gravity to you. The difference is that you are coming to a conclusion based on observations we can both experience. You don't have to believe in gravity to see the effects.

Your whole argument boils down to, 'because I say so'.

Demonstrate all you like, if I refuse to acknowledge or accept physical evidence, and maintain that "god did it" then you can never convince me. While you observe clear physical evidence, I reject that and observe the work of god. How do you get me to accept your evidence?

You have closed your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, and do not acknowledge spiritual evidence. Your brain does not comprehend spiritual existence, and conflates it with physical existence. This leads you to demand physical evidence to support something that is not physical in nature and by definition, is not supported with physical evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I notice you haven't credited them to the real authors..

again a mistake unlike, your ongoing fraud.

btw I could write a book on you failed attempts to feign first hand knowledge and expertize on these threads.
the difference is I can make mistakes as I don't claim to be something I'm not.
on the other hand, you.....

Take your pick several sources on that google search said what you said word for word lol.

I never claimed they were my words....
you on the other hand are so fucking arrogant you actually believed that no one would call you on it .
show some dignity and man up !

Are you that dense we argued this in the other thread lol. Still waiting on you to show what I quoted how it was not accurate as you claimed.

 

[Hollie]

How do you suppose volcanoes erupt?

"Spiritual" forces"?

If life itself is "not so demanding" why is there not more evidence of it, and the only place we've found it, is here?

You do realize that the search for life beyond our own planet is truly, only a few decades old, beginning in earnest with radio telescopes, Hubble, supercomputers, etc.

Remember, it was you "spiritualists" who believed for millennia that various gods controlled what we know are natural forces, that the earth was the center of the solar system and that the earth was flat.

 

[Youwerecreated]

dodge! it's not your theory and it's wrong.

Astrology was not my major but explain how what I stated was wrong ?

ok ! here we go. Astrology



Astrology consists of belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world. In the West, astrology most often consists of a system of horoscopes that claim to explain aspects of a person's personality and predict future events in their life based on the positions of the sun, moon, and other planetary objects at the time of their birth. Many cultures have attached importance to astronomical events, and the Indians, Chinese, and Mayans developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations.

Among Indo-European peoples, astrology has been dated to the 3rd millennium BCE, with roots in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications.[1] Through most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition. It was accepted in political and academic contexts, and was connected with other studies, such as astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.[2] At the end of the 17th century, new scientific concepts in astronomy and physics (such as heliocentrism and Newtonian mechanics) called astrology into question, and subsequent controlled studies failed to confirm its predictive value. Astrology thus lost its academic and theoretical standing, and common belief in astrology has largely declined.[3]

Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe (see pseudoscience). Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions. Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified.[4]:424 There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.[5]:249[6]


Astrology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not to be confused with Astronomy.



This article is about the scientific study of celestial objects. For other uses, see Astronomy (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with Astrology, the belief system claiming that celestial phenomena influence the lives and behavior of humans.

A giant Hubble mosaic of the Crab Nebula, a supernova remnant
Astronomy is a natural science that deals with the study of celestial objects (such as moons, planets, stars, nebulae, and galaxies); the physics, chemistry, mathematics, and evolution of such objects; and phenomena that originate outside the atmosphere of Earth (such as supernovae explosions, gamma ray bursts, and cosmic background radiation). A related but distinct subject, cosmology, is concerned with studying the universe as a whole.[1]

Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences. Prehistoric cultures left behind astronomical artifacts such as the Egyptian monuments and Nubian monuments, and early civilizations such as the Babylonians, Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Iranians and Maya performed methodical observations of the night sky. However, the invention of the telescope was required before astronomy was able to develop into a modern science. Historically, astronomy has included disciplines as diverse as astrometry, celestial navigation, observational astronomy, and the making of calendars, but professional astronomy is nowadays often considered to be synonymous with astrophysics.[2]

During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented towards the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results, and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.

Amateur astronomers have contributed to many important astronomical discoveries, and astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role, especially in the discovery and observation of transient phenomena.

Astronomy is not to be confused with astrology, the belief system which claims that human affairs are correlated with the positions of celestial objects. Although the two fields share a common origin they are now entirely distinct.[3]
Astronomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
anything else I can help you with bahahahahahahahahahaha!

Now show how my quote was not accurate ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

First of all, you don't know what has been discovered and kept secret by the government. There are plenty of stories of UFOs and aliens just like your "spiritual" evidence. Secondly, why does all life have to be the same as our carbon based life? There could be other forms of life all around us that we just can't recognize. And finally, most of what you said is specially needed for life, like tides, the atmosphere, etc, are not so important. There are living organisms at the ocean floor so deep that no light or tide can reach them who live off the sulphur spewed from volcanic vents on the ocean floor. Life is quite tenacious and adaptive. Hell, there are bacteria that live in the tiniest of gaps in deep granitic and basaltic formations that metabolize hydrogen.

Planet earth is full of diverse life and life that has the ability to adapt. What does life having the ability to adapt prove ? Why is this planet so unique from other planets like it was designed for life ?

speaking of lying, declaring that life was designed with zero proof is extremely dishonest..
the truth would be is you believe it was designed...

Only a hardened Ideologue will believe in coincidences over and over again