Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The one thing of which I am certain is, we on this thread all live in one world. The second thing we all know is, we don't agree. But in the final analysis, I am not here to placate anyone, just to point out the one fact that is obvious to all but the oblivious, THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN IOTA OF PHYSICAL PROOF AS TO WHETHER OR NOT GOD EXISTS.
To clarify I would say even though we don't agree we can align what we do believe as true.
I AGREE there has not been proof and also AGREE God can never be proven because of the scope. To prove there is one source of all the truth life and laws of the universe
is faith based and beyond man's finite perception which is going to be biased/limited.
That's why I ask us to focus on proving a consensus can be reached by aligning what we do call the same or similar concepts/principles in life, and using that as a framework.
Proving a consensus on meanings/concepts is NOT the same as trying to prove those things exist which we are both saying cannot be done.
No, we cannot prove this system of alignment "proves anything exist" that it seeks to represent.
but we can agree what things do have MEANING or relevance for each of us, then these are the laws/variables we use to define it, and they align as universally inclusive of all people participating that we could represent. and anything conflicting we agreed how to resolve those things so it does not introduce contradictions.
Since we can do that, but can never prove the actual things like God exist,
why not just prove the process of how consensus is reached and apply that system.
There IS one way for proof of God to be found.One and only one...
God could prove Himself.
I think I'd go with pillars of fire blocking all of the abortion clinics and gay bars, but I'm probably more cynical than God. Ass-U-Me-ing God IS, that is.
To clarify I would say even though we don't agree we can align what we do believe as true.
I AGREE there has not been proof and also AGREE God can never be proven because of the scope. To prove there is one source of all the truth life and laws of the universe
is faith based and beyond man's finite perception which is going to be biased/limited.
That's why I ask us to focus on proving a consensus can be reached by aligning what we do call the same or similar concepts/principles in life, and using that as a framework.
Proving a consensus on meanings/concepts is NOT the same as trying to prove those things exist which we are both saying cannot be done.
No, we cannot prove this system of alignment "proves anything exist" that it seeks to represent.
but we can agree what things do have MEANING or relevance for each of us, then these are the laws/variables we use to define it, and they align as universally inclusive of all people participating that we could represent. and anything conflicting we agreed how to resolve those things so it does not introduce contradictions.
Since we can do that, but can never prove the actual things like God exist,
why not just prove the process of how consensus is reached and apply that system.
There IS one way for proof of God to be found.
God could prove Himself.
I think I'd go with pillars of fire blocking all of the abortion clinics and gay bars, but I'm probably more cynical than God. Ass-U-Me-ing God IS, that is.
I'm partial to walking on water, but an oenophile friend of mine would like water turned into wine.
No operational definition of "spiritual"?
I certainly provided enough question to start with.
No operational definition means it doesn't exist.
It is impossible to have an operational definition of an unprovable subject. Only varying opinions of it, and the inevitable and dynamic popularity contests that surround such opinions.
Without empirical proof (repeatability and/or overwhelming evidence and documentation), there ain't no defining anything.
For example: Pictures, or it didn't happen!
The one thing of which I am certain is, we on this thread all live in one world. The second thing we all know is, we don't agree. But in the final analysis, I am not here to placate anyone, just to point out the one fact that is obvious to all but the oblivious, THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN IOTA OF PHYSICAL PROOF AS TO WHETHER OR NOT GOD EXISTS.
Essentially, there is nothing than can be proven.
Now, the most logical and objective reasoning should lead us to the consideration, the best way to evaluate the existence of something spiritual is to evaluate spiritual evidence. Again, this requires the individual accept a possibility of spiritual existence, otherwise there is no such thing as evidence. Those who accept the possibility of spiritual nature have found a great deal of spiritual evidence to support their belief in a spiritual God. The evidence for this is human spiritual connection spanning the entirety of the species existence.
There IS one way for proof of God to be found. One and only one...
God could prove Himself.
I think I'd go with pillars of fire blocking all of the abortion clinics and gay bars, but I'm probably more cynical than God. Ass-U-Me-ing God IS, that is.
Yes, you are cynical. I think energy and gravity should reveal themselves to us and let us know they are not spiritually inspired. They could start by not being immortal, by being creatable and destroyable... like other physical things. Why can't they just do that and then we could put this whole argument to rest?
I mean... If gravity is SO great, why does it have to kill so many innocent people. They fall off a building or ladder, and gravity just kills them for no reason. It should be like a giant marshmallow, when they hit the ground it could change it's characteristics to break the fall! And energy, it mercilessly kills people too! Electricity, for instance, should be more benevolent and caring, give us a little warning before it unleashes it's power on an unsuspecting individual. We should be able to stick our tongue in a light socket and maybe get a really sour taste or bitter... yeah, bitter would be best... then we'd know it was present and wouldn't die trying to taste it!
So here is what I propose... I will have a talk with God about proving Himself to you, and you have a talk with energy and gravity! Maybe we can even get emily involved as a mediator? Together, we can all be happy in a perfect little world!!
There IS one way for proof of God to be found.
God could prove Himself.
I heard the perfect thing this weekend on one of those Sunday morning animal shows. They took one monkey away and the others knew something was up so they started freaking out. The zoologist said "like all animals they have a healthy fear of the unknown" And that is why you believe in a god.
Just a few more chromizones and those apes would believe in god(s) too. Maybe they do. Maybe they think we're gods. And we must be since they have always thought we were. Maybe they are right, right?
Oh, and I saw another story where 5 different religions clashed in Yugoslavia and the historian giving the guy a tour was explaining now the politicians riled them up. I reject your premise that every society that has abandoned god has been fucked up. That doesn't have to be the way it is.
I also watched a religious show on how man's law isn't as good as gods law because of abortion. But in the next sentence he acknowledged how we are destroying this planet with pollution. So I say thank GOD we have aborted those billion people. This planet can't afford them.
Anyways, my point is, god is a silly reason to ban abortion when we clearly need population control. And some people just can't/shouldn't/don't want to raise children. So I say we will do just fine without god's laws as long as we have laws.
We may still have to fight the ISIS/Muslim religion still thought.
P.S. Did you think about the number of young people that say they believe in god? Went from 80 to 70 to 60 today in just a few years. Are you sure religion is here to stay? I say it's a dieing thing. Sure we'll always have cults yes but it won't be 80% of the population.
And seriously, I don't buy it that less religion equals higher crime. I think higher unemployment and desperation cause those things. I'm living proof you don't have to believe there is an invisible man watching you and you can still be a good person. No god necessary. Maybe for you but you're the past. Already too far brainwashed.
Hi [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]
1. If we all agree to drop imperfect statements we don't agree with, this is already considered itfitzme's statement and not something to be proven or disproven by others.
people could say the same of you, that your statement unless it's proven that energy is not spiritual, how can you say it isn't, etc.
and dns has make a blanket complaint that all our statements are subject to "not proven/nobody knows" as a disclaimer on all that we are saying anyway. it's all relative and opinion from our own perspective.
if we stick to where we agree, that's faster and fewer points than disproving or proving all the other points we already don't agree on so let those go.
So your idea is for us to abandon our positions on this because we can't prove them empirically, but at the same time, accept ifitzme's position because we can't disprove it? And by doing this, we are going to somehow reach a universal consensus? No... what that is called is conceding your argument and accepting an idiotic point for the sake of getting along. I'm not interested in that. Good luck to you, if that is the strategy you want to try.
2. I am trying to find out what itfitzme was really trying to say.
Well let me help you out with that. He is trying to say that science has disproved God. He sees 400+ years of physical science not being able to examine, evaluate or falsify that which is spiritual, as empirical evidence the spiritual doesn't exist. You want to accept that premise so we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya. Again... Good luck, I am not interested in such a strategy.
Essentially, there is nothing than can be proven.
Now, the most logical and objective reasoning should lead us to the consideration, the best way to evaluate the existence of something spiritual is to evaluate spiritual evidence. Again, this requires the individual accept a possibility of spiritual existence, otherwise there is no such thing as evidence. Those who accept the possibility of spiritual nature have found a great deal of spiritual evidence to support their belief in a spiritual God. The evidence for this is human spiritual connection spanning the entirety of the species existence.
It could be argued that it can be proven that you are a pompous BS artist.
But seriously, regarding spirituality, you seem to require spiritual evidence to conform to your pontification. Very few people will deny the existence of the spiritual, as a musician I know the spirit of the composer lives after their physical existence ends. The argument is whether the physical creates the spiritual, as with the composer, or the spiritual creates the physical, which has no proof.
But seriously, regarding spirituality, you seem to require spiritual evidence to conform to your pontification. Very few people will deny the existence of the spiritual, as a musician I know the spirit of the composer lives after their physical existence ends. The argument is whether the physical creates the spiritual, as with the composer, or the spiritual creates the physical, which has no proof.
But seriously, regarding spirituality, you seem to require spiritual evidence to conform to your pontification. Very few people will deny the existence of the spiritual, as a musician I know the spirit of the composer lives after their physical existence ends. The argument is whether the physical creates the spiritual, as with the composer, or the spiritual creates the physical, which has no proof.
What is your proof that the physical created the spiritual in the composer? Seems if that were true, we'd all be like Beethoven and Davinci. Same physical make up, same brain and physical attributes, same chemistry and composition. How do you know their creativity wasn't inspired by spiritual nature?
I don't require anything. That's the mistake you and others continue to make here. I don't care what you choose to believe, that's up to you. I am simply making a philosophical and logical point about objective evaluation. If we examine physical evidence to prove the physical, we have to examine spiritual evidence to prove the spiritual. So, no pontification, just logic and reason.
But seriously, regarding spirituality, you seem to require spiritual evidence to conform to your pontification. Very few people will deny the existence of the spiritual, as a musician I know the spirit of the composer lives after their physical existence ends. The argument is whether the physical creates the spiritual, as with the composer, or the spiritual creates the physical, which has no proof.
What is your proof that the physical created the spiritual in the composer? Seems if that were true, we'd all be like Beethoven and Davinci. Same physical make up, same brain and physical attributes, same chemistry and composition. How do you know their creativity wasn't inspired by spiritual nature?
I don't require anything. That's the mistake you and others continue to make here. I don't care what you choose to believe, that's up to you. I am simply making a philosophical and logical point about objective evaluation. If we examine physical evidence to prove the physical, we have to examine spiritual evidence to prove the spiritual. So, no pontification, just logic and reason.
By how the composition can move me to joy or tears when I play it long after the physical composer has passed. How you get from there to we all should be like Beethoven simply because having common physical attributes like a brain and fingers somehow must make us all exactly the same, even though we can be a different height and weight for example, is a bit of a stretch.
Except that, as usual, you provide no clear definition for what the spiritual is nor how you or anyone else can objectively observe it. This is further complicated by your vague descriptions of the interaction between the spiritual and the physical, the questions of whether and how one can effect the other, etc. Your logic only holds up if one begins by accepting a premise with no evidence; that the spiritual exists and does so in a way described by you.
You also have yet to clearly explain just how you come by your knowledge of the spiritual, nor have you explained why the rest of the world is unable to see the evidence that you do. You generally start talking about religious belief when this is brought up, despite your own stated belief that religions are merely poor interpretations of the spiritual connection which you, and quite possibly you alone, understand.
By how the composition can move me to joy or tears when I play it long after the physical composer has passed. How you get from there to we all should be like Beethoven simply because having common physical attributes like a brain and fingers somehow must make us all exactly the same, even though we can be a different height and weight for example, is a bit of a stretch.
By how the composition can move me to joy or tears when I play it long after the physical composer has passed.
We both agree that is spiritual. The question is whether the physical alone created it or the spiritual working through the physical?
By how the composition can move me to joy or tears when I play it long after the physical composer has passed. How you get from there to we all should be like Beethoven simply because having common physical attributes like a brain and fingers somehow must make us all exactly the same, even though we can be a different height and weight for example, is a bit of a stretch.
By how the composition can move me to joy or tears when I play it long after the physical composer has passed.
We both agree that is spiritual. The question is whether the physical alone created it or the spiritual working through the physical?
...even though we can be a different height and weight for example...
Do you think the composer's height and weight are relative to their composition? I would argue that no two great artists physical characteristics are exactly the same. Also, there are many humans with their exact physical attributes but not a bone of 'creativity' in them. So what I am not seeing is where physical attributes have anything to do with what they produce.
But hey... as emily says, we're at a starting point here where we both agree, you do comprehend something we can experience is 'spiritual' because of how it effects you. I actually think you've taken a step out of the darkness here. The other day you proved immortality exists, today you've proven spirituality exists. Congratulations!
In fact, much of what you consider to be physical is spiritually manifested. Like energy and gravity.
God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.
By how the composition can move me to joy or tears when I play it long after the physical composer has passed. How you get from there to we all should be like Beethoven simply because having common physical attributes like a brain and fingers somehow must make us all exactly the same, even though we can be a different height and weight for example, is a bit of a stretch.
By how the composition can move me to joy or tears when I play it long after the physical composer has passed.
We both agree that is spiritual. The question is whether the physical alone created it or the spiritual working through the physical?
Well there is no denying that until the physical composer existed there was no composition. The physical composer clearly came first and then the composition, there is no denying that, as to the spiritual working through the physical is pure speculation. We know without a doubt that the physical composer is essential for the composition, but there is doubt as to whether the spiritual is essential for the composer. Like the existence of God, it can't be ruled out but there is a question about whether it is needed.
