Why do the God-haters persist?

[daws101]

Boss, you did not say a person has to believe a thing is possible. Let me give you a couple of quotes.

No it isn't. It's very cool compared to lava.

There is testable evidence to prove spirituality. You have to first accept that spiritual nature exists and is real. Once you can do that, it's very easy to test and confirm it... billions and billions have done so.

Note you said that a person must first accept that spiritual nature is real before there can be any kind of testing.

Well, no hard head, it is not. Things aren't "anecdotal" simply because you've proclaimed them to be. I'm sorry that you feel someone bestowed the gift of rationality upon you alone, and only you get to decide these things. I assure you, everyone who believes in God doesn't share your opinion the evidence is anecdotal. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you can't infer your opinion on everyone else. Sorry!



Oh, but indeed I did provide it, and you rejected it as anecdotal. Wow you!



Well, yes it most certainly does change it. Nearly doesn't equate to every, not in any fucking dictionary I've ever encountered. So it completely changes the meaning of what was said, and you were completely dishonest about it, as you are continuing to be dishonest in claiming it doesn't change anything. We can see by this that you are not an honest person, you lie and when you're caught lying, you lie some more to cover up the first lie. This is probably because you lack a true moral compass, which is caused by your lack of a spiritual connection.



Well, no I didn't do that. Again, you simply feel compelled to lie. I've attributed nothing unexplained to anyone's belief in God. In fact, I said quite the opposite. If someone believes spirituality explains anything, they are as irrational and misguided as someone who claims science explains everything.



Yep... Like the power of God or Spiritual Nature.



No, my argument doesn't "suggest" anything, my argument clearly states the truth. It's impossible to believe something as proof if you don't believe in what it proves. I asked you for an example to contradict this, and you failed to present one.

You think belief comes first. I think the proof does.

But it doesn't, and you can't support your argument with an example. Show me one thing that you accept as "proof" that you don't believe in the thing it proves. Just one! You must first believe whatever it is the "proof" is supposed to prove.

I put the relevant sections in bold with this.

Maybe this is just a product of miscommunication. However, you have argued that a person must believe in something before they can do any testing to confirm it's existence and that belief comes before proof.

I'll grant that proof and evidence are not the same, so that may well be a semantics issue.

I can only guess that what you mean to say is that a person won't believe in something unless the proof they are given is something they can accept. That isn't quite the same as saying a person must believe before they are given proof.

proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...

 

[Boss]

proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...

Nope. Evidence is subjective to reasoning. You can believe something is evidence that is not evidence. You can value evidence more than I value the same evidence. You can think evidence is weak and I can think it's strong. I can believe evidence is conclusive and proves, while you think the exact same evidence isn't even evidence.

Proof is not mathematics. Proof is also subjective. Proof happens when you have conclusive faith in evidence. You can think something is proven because you have faith in the evidence, I can think something is not proven because I lack faith in the very same evidence, or don't consider it valid as evidence at all. Nothing mathematical makes this happen, it is subjective to reason and faith.

The mere fact that you don't seem to understand this, explains much of your problem. You have profound faith in your evidence as fact, and you reject anything you do not wish to accept as "invalid" evidence. You believe so faithfully in your evidence that it "proves" things to you. This becomes your truth, and nothing can dissuade your faith. Give yourself a funny hat and congregate, and you have a Religion!

 

[thebrucebeat]

proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...

Nope. Evidence is subjective to reasoning. You can believe something is evidence that is not evidence. You can value evidence more than I value the same evidence. You can think evidence is weak and I can think it's strong. I can believe evidence is conclusive and proves, while you think the exact same evidence isn't even evidence.

Proof is not mathematics. Proof is also subjective. Proof happens when you have conclusive faith in evidence. You can think something is proven because you have faith in the evidence, I can think something is not proven because I lack faith in the very same evidence, or don't consider it valid as evidence at all. Nothing mathematical makes this happen, it is subjective to reason and faith.

The mere fact that you don't seem to understand this, explains much of your problem. You have profound faith in your evidence as fact, and you reject anything you do not wish to accept as "invalid" evidence. You believe so faithfully in your evidence that it "proves" things to you. This becomes your truth, and nothing can dissuade your faith. Give yourself a funny hat and congregate, and you have a Religion!

Couldn't this just as easily be applied to the evidence you claim? How you KNOW the truth of your spirituality? You have claimed this many times.
Pot/kettle.

 

[daws101]

proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...

Nope

hey bossy

vidence
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, science is "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method." The core of the scientific method is using evidence to test theories. Evidence is specific observations of a given phenomenon. Galileo, the famed Italian scientist, was reputed to have collected evidence on gravitational forces by dropping balls from the top of the Tower of Pisa, timing how long they took to hit the ground. By analyzing this evidence, Galileo discovered that, disregarding air resistance, all objects accelerate at the same rate when falling. Galileo's experiment is a model example of the scientific method where theory is derived from observational evidence.

Proof
Proof exists when you can say that a statement or theory is absolutely true in all instances. Proof is a concept that is really only applicable in mathematics, because math deals with abstract concepts and definitions. The statement 1+1=2 is a true statement and will always remain true because the definitions of 1 and 2 never change. Definition statements and logic are used to create theorems, which are absolutely true or false.



Read more: What Is the Difference Between Proof & Evidence in Science? | eHow


all steaming pile rationalizing by boosy has been edit out.

 

[daws101]

proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...

Nope. Evidence is subjective to reasoning. You can believe something is evidence that is not evidence. You can value evidence more than I value the same evidence. You can think evidence is weak and I can think it's strong. I can believe evidence is conclusive and proves, while you think the exact same evidence isn't even evidence.

Proof is not mathematics. Proof is also subjective. Proof happens when you have conclusive faith in evidence. You can think something is proven because you have faith in the evidence, I can think something is not proven because I lack faith in the very same evidence, or don't consider it valid as evidence at all. Nothing mathematical makes this happen, it is subjective to reason and faith.

The mere fact that you don't seem to understand this, explains much of your problem. You have profound faith in your evidence as fact, and you reject anything you do not wish to accept as "invalid" evidence. You believe so faithfully in your evidence that it "proves" things to you. This becomes your truth, and nothing can dissuade your faith. Give yourself a funny hat and congregate, and you have a Religion!

Couldn't this just as easily be applied to the evidence you claim? How you KNOW the truth of your spirituality? You have claimed this many times.
Pot/kettle.

sometimes boosy forgets he's not a prophet and just a spewing anal orifice...

 

[Boss]

proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...

Nope. Evidence is subjective to reasoning. You can believe something is evidence that is not evidence. You can value evidence more than I value the same evidence. You can think evidence is weak and I can think it's strong. I can believe evidence is conclusive and proves, while you think the exact same evidence isn't even evidence.

Proof is not mathematics. Proof is also subjective. Proof happens when you have conclusive faith in evidence. You can think something is proven because you have faith in the evidence, I can think something is not proven because I lack faith in the very same evidence, or don't consider it valid as evidence at all. Nothing mathematical makes this happen, it is subjective to reason and faith.

The mere fact that you don't seem to understand this, explains much of your problem. You have profound faith in your evidence as fact, and you reject anything you do not wish to accept as "invalid" evidence. You believe so faithfully in your evidence that it "proves" things to you. This becomes your truth, and nothing can dissuade your faith. Give yourself a funny hat and congregate, and you have a Religion!

Couldn't this just as easily be applied to the evidence you claim? How you KNOW the truth of your spirituality? You have claimed this many times.
Pot/kettle.

Well, I know the truth because I experience it personally.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Nope. Evidence is subjective to reasoning. You can believe something is evidence that is not evidence. You can value evidence more than I value the same evidence. You can think evidence is weak and I can think it's strong. I can believe evidence is conclusive and proves, while you think the exact same evidence isn't even evidence.

Proof is not mathematics. Proof is also subjective. Proof happens when you have conclusive faith in evidence. You can think something is proven because you have faith in the evidence, I can think something is not proven because I lack faith in the very same evidence, or don't consider it valid as evidence at all. Nothing mathematical makes this happen, it is subjective to reason and faith.

The mere fact that you don't seem to understand this, explains much of your problem. You have profound faith in your evidence as fact, and you reject anything you do not wish to accept as "invalid" evidence. You believe so faithfully in your evidence that it "proves" things to you. This becomes your truth, and nothing can dissuade your faith. Give yourself a funny hat and congregate, and you have a Religion!

Couldn't this just as easily be applied to the evidence you claim? How you KNOW the truth of your spirituality? You have claimed this many times.
Pot/kettle.

Well, I know the truth because I experience it personally.

How would you share that as evidence to another?
How is that different from Son of Sam believing the dog was talking to him? He also would swear he experienced that personally.
That would be called anecdotal, but you don't believe that exists.

 

[Boss]

proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...

Nope

hey bossy

vidence
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, science is "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method." The core of the scientific method is using evidence to test theories. Evidence is specific observations of a given phenomenon. Galileo, the famed Italian scientist, was reputed to have collected evidence on gravitational forces by dropping balls from the top of the Tower of Pisa, timing how long they took to hit the ground. By analyzing this evidence, Galileo discovered that, disregarding air resistance, all objects accelerate at the same rate when falling. Galileo's experiment is a model example of the scientific method where theory is derived from observational evidence.

Proof
Proof exists when you can say that a statement or theory is absolutely true in all instances. Proof is a concept that is really only applicable in mathematics, because math deals with abstract concepts and definitions. The statement 1+1=2 is a true statement and will always remain true because the definitions of 1 and 2 never change. Definition statements and logic are used to create theorems, which are absolutely true or false.



Read more: What Is the Difference Between Proof & Evidence in Science? | eHow


all steaming pile rationalizing by boosy has been edit out.

Evidence - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
ev·i·dence noun \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
1a : an outward sign : indication

Proof - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
proof noun \ˈprüf\
1a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.
1b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.

So Merriam sez "evidence" is an indication of something... I may or may not believe it. It is subjective to my acceptance as such.

Proof is also subjective to my acceptance of the evidence, as I stated correctly.

 

[Boss]

What Is the Difference Between Proof & Evidence in Science? | eHow

Directly from YOUR link:

In popular scientific discourse, the unfortunate tendency is to use "proof" and "evidence" interchangeably. News stories refer to scientific experiments "proving" that some food has negative health consequences or that cellphones cause cancer. However, these experiments do not prove anything. They merely provide evidence that supports one theory or another while the theory itself cannot be proved or disproved.

------------------------------------------

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this state clearly that evidence and proof are not interchangeable? That was your claim when you said: "all uses of the the term [proof] are a lazy way of saying evidence." Seems you are in total disagreement with your own link, dawsy.

 

[Boss]

Couldn't this just as easily be applied to the evidence you claim? How you KNOW the truth of your spirituality? You have claimed this many times.
Pot/kettle.

Well, I know the truth because I experience it personally.

How would you share that as evidence to another?
How is that different from Son of Sam believing the dog was talking to him? He also would swear he experienced that personally.
That would be called anecdotal, but you don't believe that exists.

First you asked me how I know something is true, then you come back with how I can share that evidence with others. These are two entirely different problems. The thing is, I can't show you evidence of something you do not acknowledge existence of because you reject my evidence. If I believe black holes cannot exist, there is no 'evidence' I will ever accept for their existence. You can show it to me, and I can reject it. I can say your equipment is flawed, it's some unexplained phenomena, there is some other undiscovered physical explanation, the data is incorrect or invalid... until I am willing to accept that black holes are a possibility, I can't accept your evidence.

Such is the case for Spiritual Nature. Now, if you were to honestly accept that such a thing is a possibility, I can give you numerous ways to evaluate spiritual evidence and perhaps you would come to my same conclusion of truth, that it does exist. But we don't know because you've rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility. I can't do anything about that, but it doesn't change my mind about what I know to be the truth.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Well, I know the truth because I experience it personally.

How would you share that as evidence to another?
How is that different from Son of Sam believing the dog was talking to him? He also would swear he experienced that personally.
That would be called anecdotal, but you don't believe that exists.

First you asked me how I know something is true, then you come back with how I can share that evidence with others. These are two entirely different problems. The thing is, I can't show you evidence of something you do not acknowledge existence of because you reject my evidence. If I believe black holes cannot exist, there is no 'evidence' I will ever accept for their existence. You can show it to me, and I can reject it. I can say your equipment is flawed, it's some unexplained phenomena, there is some other undiscovered physical explanation, the data is incorrect or invalid... until I am willing to accept that black holes are a possibility, I can't accept your evidence.

Such is the case for Spiritual Nature. Now, if you were to honestly accept that such a thing is a possibility, I can give you numerous ways to evaluate spiritual evidence and perhaps you would come to my same conclusion of truth, that it does exist. But we don't know because you've rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility. I can't do anything about that, but it doesn't change my mind about what I know to be the truth.

But you never, ever give any evidence for anyone to evaluate. You don't have the courage of your conviction to provide the evidence for anyone to test your theory.
So you think Son of Sam might have been right, and you just don't accept the possibility so you can't evaluate the evidence, is that your point?

 

[Montrovant]

Well, I know the truth because I experience it personally.

How would you share that as evidence to another?
How is that different from Son of Sam believing the dog was talking to him? He also would swear he experienced that personally.
That would be called anecdotal, but you don't believe that exists.

First you asked me how I know something is true, then you come back with how I can share that evidence with others. These are two entirely different problems. The thing is, I can't show you evidence of something you do not acknowledge existence of because you reject my evidence. If I believe black holes cannot exist, there is no 'evidence' I will ever accept for their existence. You can show it to me, and I can reject it. I can say your equipment is flawed, it's some unexplained phenomena, there is some other undiscovered physical explanation, the data is incorrect or invalid... until I am willing to accept that black holes are a possibility, I can't accept your evidence.

Such is the case for Spiritual Nature. Now, if you were to honestly accept that such a thing is a possibility, I can give you numerous ways to evaluate spiritual evidence and perhaps you would come to my same conclusion of truth, that it does exist. But we don't know because you've rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility. I can't do anything about that, but it doesn't change my mind about what I know to be the truth.

You say that people in this thread have rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility, but I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion. Has anyone said there can be no such thing as spirituality?

Sure, some people may believe that nothing supernatural can exist, I just get the impression that you fall back on that as a convenient excuse as to why someone rejects your evidence as conclusive.

And while in general you are right that someone who considers something impossible will reject evidence to the contrary, it is possible that the evidence for something might prove so overwhelming as to change their view of what is or is not possible. To go back to a previous example I gave, if a pink unicorn were to be shown to a veterinarian, a horse vet let's say, if given a chance to examine the animal and see it wasn't a hoax they might find themselves believing in the existence of unicorns where before they thought it wasn't possible.

My point is that I think the type of evidence provided can be as important a consideration as the starting point of the person the evidence is meant to convince.

 

[Boss]

But you never, ever give any evidence for anyone to evaluate. You don't have the courage of your conviction to provide the evidence for anyone to test your theory.
So you think Son of Sam might have been right, and you just don't accept the possibility so you can't evaluate the evidence, is that your point?

Why do you keep bringing up Son of Sam? He was a mentally disturbed person. 85~90% of the human race isn't mentally disturbed, obviously. For all of human history, this number of humans weren't mentally disturbed, you can't honestly think that is the case, can you? So what does one lone nutbag have to do with anything we're discussing here?

It's not about courage of my conviction, you have already said you don't accept the possibility that spiritual nature exists, you think it's a ruse. The evidence I have is spiritual evidence because that's the only evidence you can use to evaluate spiritual nature, and you don't believe it exists. Billions upon billions of people have accepted the possibility of spiritual nature and verified their theory that it exists. They've given you their testimony, but you reject their evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature.

I've already told you that I can't change your mind for you, it's beyond my control. No evidence I can show you will ever be acceptable until you believe spiritual nature is possible. So what point is it to show you evidence you will simply reject and call anecdotal? Over and over and over again? It's sort of pointless for me to do that and even more pointless for you to ask. This doesn't change truth.

 

[Boss]

How would you share that as evidence to another?
How is that different from Son of Sam believing the dog was talking to him? He also would swear he experienced that personally.
That would be called anecdotal, but you don't believe that exists.

First you asked me how I know something is true, then you come back with how I can share that evidence with others. These are two entirely different problems. The thing is, I can't show you evidence of something you do not acknowledge existence of because you reject my evidence. If I believe black holes cannot exist, there is no 'evidence' I will ever accept for their existence. You can show it to me, and I can reject it. I can say your equipment is flawed, it's some unexplained phenomena, there is some other undiscovered physical explanation, the data is incorrect or invalid... until I am willing to accept that black holes are a possibility, I can't accept your evidence.

Such is the case for Spiritual Nature. Now, if you were to honestly accept that such a thing is a possibility, I can give you numerous ways to evaluate spiritual evidence and perhaps you would come to my same conclusion of truth, that it does exist. But we don't know because you've rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility. I can't do anything about that, but it doesn't change my mind about what I know to be the truth.

You say that people in this thread have rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility, but I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion. Has anyone said there can be no such thing as spirituality?

Sure, some people may believe that nothing supernatural can exist, I just get the impression that you fall back on that as a convenient excuse as to why someone rejects your evidence as conclusive.

And while in general you are right that someone who considers something impossible will reject evidence to the contrary, it is possible that the evidence for something might prove so overwhelming as to change their view of what is or is not possible. To go back to a previous example I gave, if a pink unicorn were to be shown to a veterinarian, a horse vet let's say, if given a chance to examine the animal and see it wasn't a hoax they might find themselves believing in the existence of unicorns where before they thought it wasn't possible.

My point is that I think the type of evidence provided can be as important a consideration as the starting point of the person the evidence is meant to convince.

Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.

Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable.

From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.

 

[daws101]

Nope. Evidence is subjective to reasoning. You can believe something is evidence that is not evidence. You can value evidence more than I value the same evidence. You can think evidence is weak and I can think it's strong. I can believe evidence is conclusive and proves, while you think the exact same evidence isn't even evidence.

Proof is not mathematics. Proof is also subjective. Proof happens when you have conclusive faith in evidence. You can think something is proven because you have faith in the evidence, I can think something is not proven because I lack faith in the very same evidence, or don't consider it valid as evidence at all. Nothing mathematical makes this happen, it is subjective to reason and faith.

The mere fact that you don't seem to understand this, explains much of your problem. You have profound faith in your evidence as fact, and you reject anything you do not wish to accept as "invalid" evidence. You believe so faithfully in your evidence that it "proves" things to you. This becomes your truth, and nothing can dissuade your faith. Give yourself a funny hat and congregate, and you have a Religion!

Couldn't this just as easily be applied to the evidence you claim? How you KNOW the truth of your spirituality? You have claimed this many times.
Pot/kettle.

Well, I know the truth because I experience it personally.

subjective experience is not evidence of objective truth.

 

[daws101]

What Is the Difference Between Proof & Evidence in Science? | eHow

Directly from YOUR link:

In popular scientific discourse, the unfortunate tendency is to use "proof" and "evidence" interchangeably. News stories refer to scientific experiments "proving" that some food has negative health consequences or that cellphones cause cancer. However, these experiments do not prove anything. They merely provide evidence that supports one theory or another while the theory itself cannot be proved or disproved.

------------------------------------------

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this state clearly that evidence and proof are not interchangeable? That was your claim when you said: "all uses of the the term [proof] are a lazy way of saying evidence." Seems you are in total disagreement with your own link, dawsy.

no it does not, that's you falsely interpreting interchangeability to fit your nonsense...not what was intended by the authors...

you missed this :Theories vs. Theorems
Scientists collect evidence and from there form theories. Every theory in science is falsifiable; that is, if new evidence surfaces that does not com+port with a current theory, then the theory needs revision. A scientist may then develop a new theory that addresses the old body of evidence as well as the new outlier data. Theorems, on the other hand, state unchanging mathematical laws. A proof is the attempt to use logic to verify these laws. The term "proof" is now understood as some fact that absolutely affirms a theory or idea.



Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_11403053_difference-between-proof-evidence-science.html#ixzz2xaa1FvRS

 

[thebrucebeat]

But you never, ever give any evidence for anyone to evaluate. You don't have the courage of your conviction to provide the evidence for anyone to test your theory.
So you think Son of Sam might have been right, and you just don't accept the possibility so you can't evaluate the evidence, is that your point?

Why do you keep bringing up Son of Sam? He was a mentally disturbed person. 85~90% of the human race isn't mentally disturbed, obviously. For all of human history, this number of humans weren't mentally disturbed, you can't honestly think that is the case, can you? So what does one lone nutbag have to do with anything we're discussing here?

It's not about courage of my conviction, you have already said you don't accept the possibility that spiritual nature exists, you think it's a ruse. The evidence I have is spiritual evidence because that's the only evidence you can use to evaluate spiritual nature, and you don't believe it exists. Billions upon billions of people have accepted the possibility of spiritual nature and verified their theory that it exists. They've given you their testimony, but you reject their evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature.

I've already told you that I can't change your mind for you, it's beyond my control. No evidence I can show you will ever be acceptable until you believe spiritual nature is possible. So what point is it to show you evidence you will simply reject and call anecdotal? Over and over and over again? It's sort of pointless for me to do that and even more pointless for you to ask. This doesn't change truth.

A long winded way of saying you are not willing to test your theory and share the evidence you say is compelling if only one would believe first.
Share! What are you afraid of? Having people see the basis for which this spirituality of hatefulness that you have cultivated was generated?
How do you know Berkowitz was disturbed? Maybe he was the only one that knew the spiritual truth! How do you know the dog didn't talk to him?
I think you just refuse to believe his evidence. You don't believe, so you can't see. Then you just label him "disturbed". If you believed first you would understand his evidence, but as it is nothing will make you believe, there is no evidence you would accept!
You see how that silly argument can be applied to any assinine proposition that you want to apply it to?

 

[daws101]

But you never, ever give any evidence for anyone to evaluate. You don't have the courage of your conviction to provide the evidence for anyone to test your theory.
So you think Son of Sam might have been right, and you just don't accept the possibility so you can't evaluate the evidence, is that your point?

Why do you keep bringing up Son of Sam? He was a mentally disturbed person. 85~90% of the human race isn't mentally disturbed, obviously. For all of human history, this number of humans weren't mentally disturbed, you can't honestly think that is the case, can you? So what does one lone nutbag have to do with anything we're discussing here?

It's not about courage of my conviction, you have already said you don't accept the possibility that spiritual nature exists, you think it's a ruse. The evidence I have is spiritual evidence because that's the only evidence you can use to evaluate spiritual nature, and you don't believe it exists. Billions upon billions of people have accepted the possibility of spiritual nature and verified their theory that it exists. They've given you their testimony, but you reject their evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature.

I've already told you that I can't change your mind for you, it's beyond my control. No evidence I can show you will ever be acceptable until you believe spiritual nature is possible. So what point is it to show you evidence you will simply reject and call anecdotal? Over and over and over again? It's sort of pointless for me to do that and even more pointless for you to ask. This doesn't change truth.

A long winded way of saying you are not willing to test your theory and share the evidence you say is compelling if only one would believe first.
Share! What are you afraid of? Having people see the basis for which this spirituality of hatefulness that you have cultivated was generated?
How do you know Berkowitz was disturbed? Maybe he was the only one that knew the spiritual truth! How do you know the dog didn't talk to him?
I think you just refuse to believe his evidence. You don't believe, so you can't see. Then you just label him "disturbed". If you believed first you would understand his evidence, but as it is nothing will make you believe, there is no evidence you would accept!
You see how that silly argument can be applied to any assinine proposition that you want to apply it to?

long winded bullshit is his specialty..

 

[Montrovant]

First you asked me how I know something is true, then you come back with how I can share that evidence with others. These are two entirely different problems. The thing is, I can't show you evidence of something you do not acknowledge existence of because you reject my evidence. If I believe black holes cannot exist, there is no 'evidence' I will ever accept for their existence. You can show it to me, and I can reject it. I can say your equipment is flawed, it's some unexplained phenomena, there is some other undiscovered physical explanation, the data is incorrect or invalid... until I am willing to accept that black holes are a possibility, I can't accept your evidence.

Such is the case for Spiritual Nature. Now, if you were to honestly accept that such a thing is a possibility, I can give you numerous ways to evaluate spiritual evidence and perhaps you would come to my same conclusion of truth, that it does exist. But we don't know because you've rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility. I can't do anything about that, but it doesn't change my mind about what I know to be the truth.

You say that people in this thread have rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility, but I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion. Has anyone said there can be no such thing as spirituality?

Sure, some people may believe that nothing supernatural can exist, I just get the impression that you fall back on that as a convenient excuse as to why someone rejects your evidence as conclusive.

And while in general you are right that someone who considers something impossible will reject evidence to the contrary, it is possible that the evidence for something might prove so overwhelming as to change their view of what is or is not possible. To go back to a previous example I gave, if a pink unicorn were to be shown to a veterinarian, a horse vet let's say, if given a chance to examine the animal and see it wasn't a hoax they might find themselves believing in the existence of unicorns where before they thought it wasn't possible.

My point is that I think the type of evidence provided can be as important a consideration as the starting point of the person the evidence is meant to convince.

Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.

Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable.

From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.

And here we are. You assume that everyone must see evidence as being as compelling as you do, despite your rants about the impossibility of proof and how subjective all evidence is.

Those things that you consider overwhelming evidence of an undefined god, other people do not. Even those who believe in a god or gods will not all find your evidence overwhelming. They might agree it is evidence, but those things by themselves they will not consider overwhelming; they use holy books or personal experiences as evidence as well, not simply the fact that the universe and life exist and follow certain rules.

So no, I don't reject those things as evidence god(s) exist because I refuse the possibility, but rather because I don't see it as overwhelming evidence. A rock exists, is that overwhelming evidence of god(s)?

Spontaneous generation of life is a mathematical impossibility? I'd love to see your evidence of that. I'm perfectly willing to admit my ignorance regarding the origin of life. Whether directed or by chance, I have no idea. I consider the fact that I do not know what the origin of life is to be evidence only of my own limitations, both as a human and individually.

I'm not sure what results you think are indisputable. I agree that people have believed in something supernatural, metaphysical, incorporeal, choose whatever term suits you. I disagree that such belief automatically means that those things exist, especially considering the wildly divergent specifics of those beliefs.

What the hell does string theory have to do with the conversation? Did I dismiss the possibility of string theory at some point?

That I don't consider the evidence you provide to be overwhelming does not, in any way, mean I refuse any possibility a god or gods exist.

 

[Boss]

You say that people in this thread have rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility, but I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion. Has anyone said there can be no such thing as spirituality?

Sure, some people may believe that nothing supernatural can exist, I just get the impression that you fall back on that as a convenient excuse as to why someone rejects your evidence as conclusive.

And while in general you are right that someone who considers something impossible will reject evidence to the contrary, it is possible that the evidence for something might prove so overwhelming as to change their view of what is or is not possible. To go back to a previous example I gave, if a pink unicorn were to be shown to a veterinarian, a horse vet let's say, if given a chance to examine the animal and see it wasn't a hoax they might find themselves believing in the existence of unicorns where before they thought it wasn't possible.

My point is that I think the type of evidence provided can be as important a consideration as the starting point of the person the evidence is meant to convince.

Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.

Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable.

From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.

And here we are. You assume that everyone must see evidence as being as compelling as you do, despite your rants about the impossibility of proof and how subjective all evidence is.

Well, no I didn't assume anything. I predicted you'd reject the evidence and you did. I admitted up front that you wouldn't be able to find the evidence compelling.

Those things that you consider overwhelming evidence of an undefined god, other people do not. Even those who believe in a god or gods will not all find your evidence overwhelming. They might agree it is evidence, but those things by themselves they will not consider overwhelming; they use holy books or personal experiences as evidence as well, not simply the fact that the universe and life exist and follow certain rules.

And once again, I did not ever claim that everyone would find my evidence compelling or overwhelming. I told you that I had evidence but you would reject it as evidence because you disbelieve what it proves. You gave me some shpeil about pink unicorns and argued for two pages about how that wasn't automatically true, and kept insisting I show you the evidence. So I did, and you reacted exactly the way I predicted you would.

There is tons more evidence I didn't post because there is no need to go to all that trouble, you're going to reject anything I present. I just barely scraped the surface, but it was enough to prove my point, that you would reject my evidence.

So no, I don't reject those things as evidence god(s) exist because I refuse the possibility, but rather because I don't see it as overwhelming evidence. A rock exists, is that overwhelming evidence of god(s)?

Well, yes you do, that's exactly why you reject the evidence. Just as if we had a pink unicorn, you would reject the evidence because you don't believe in pink unicorns. You would never accept anything as "evidence" because you'd argue pink unicorns can't exist. You'd find other explanations for the evidence, you'd claim it doesn't qualify as legitimate evidence, you'd refuse to ever accept it as valid evidence. Now, if some scientist came along and explained it, and said; "we though this was not possible, but we have now studied the data and have determined this pink unicorn does exist..." THEN you'd believe it, because your 'spiritual faith' has been substituted with science.

A rock exists... it came from something. Matter doesn't create matter.

Spontaneous generation of life is a mathematical impossibility? I'd love to see your evidence of that. I'm perfectly willing to admit my ignorance regarding the origin of life. Whether directed or by chance, I have no idea. I consider the fact that I do not know what the origin of life is to be evidence only of my own limitations, both as a human and individually.

Well you can go look it up if you like. Scientists have been exploring this possibility for over 100 years. They've done experiments with fruit flies and bacteria, the fastest reproductive life we can find, and through millions of generations, not even one new enzyme has spontaneously emerged. You'd need about 100 enzymes and 70 proteins to spontaneously emerge to just have one cell of any life form. With the fruit flies, and I assume the bacteria as well, they've attempted mutations with every conceivable possible scenario for early earth conditions and environment. They concluded the fruit flies "seem to be immune" to evolution. Now this is with an already-exiting organism in place. The possibility of any single-cell organism just spontaneously popping into existence is nil. You need the protein to create the DNA but the DNA is required to produce the protein.

I'm not sure what results you think are indisputable. I agree that people have believed in something supernatural, metaphysical, incorporeal, choose whatever term suits you. I disagree that such belief automatically means that those things exist, especially considering the wildly divergent specifics of those beliefs.

I didn't say they were indisputable to everyone, I predicted you would dispute them by rejecting them because you don't believe in the possibility of spiritual nature. You believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection, I presume. Well, if human spirituality were pointless and meaningless, without any valid justification, the species would have abandoned it over the tens of thousands of years humans were being slaughtered for practicing it. In spite of the detriment to survival, they retain the attribute, therefore it must be fundamentally important to humans. That's if you believe Darwin was correct.

I think I already explained why there is 'divergent specifics' ...it's because humans can't comprehend spiritual nature. We connect to something we can't comprehend. So what we've done, being the imperfect and fallible creatures we are, is to create various incarnations of what we think that thing is. This is actually more spiritual evidence that something real must exist.

What the hell does string theory have to do with the conversation? Did I dismiss the possibility of string theory at some point?

That I don't consider the evidence you provide to be overwhelming does not, in any way, mean I refuse any possibility a god or gods exist.

Well, like I said, string theory opens the door to endless possibilities. Perhaps what we define as our spiritual connection is some sort of cosmic connection to another universe? Perhaps our Creator God resides in another universe? Perhaps the intelligent design is produced behind the scenes in an alternate universe we haven't discovered? Can you say with certainty this is not possible? I can't, and I find it compelling evidence to support my belief in spiritual nature.

You do not find my evidence to be overwhelming precisely as I predicted you wouldn't, and it's because you reject the possibility of the premise. You'll never accept any evidence because you have to first believe something is possible, and you don't.