Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Hollie]

Clearly there are several posters who believe the case has been made. The question continues to elude those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence. You are correct, god will always remain unprovable to those who don't accept spiritual evidence. This confirms the first point raised in the OP argument, thanks.

It's dishonest to characterize people as "refusing to accept spiritual evidence" when you have never offered such evidence.
To claim there is evidence of something but then acknowledge that such evidence is not material, testsble or demonstrable in any meaningful way is silly.

Go back and read the OP again. To begin my argument, we had to establish terminology. If you don't accept spiritual nature, you have no concept of spiritual existence, the term makes no sense to you. Exist, means to have a physically measurable presence of existence.... that's what it means to you, and the concept of spiritual existence is beyond your understanding. The idea that god could ever be physically measurable or testable, is indeed silly. And it's silly for me to waste my time trying to prove god to you, because you will only accept physical evidence, and it's silly to try and prove a physical god exists.

Now, not everyone is like you. I know that may come a surprise, but soak it in, it's true. Some people have an understanding and acceptance of spiritual nature and spiritual presence. For those people, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. It's spiritual evidence, which you don't believe in, but you see.... that's what kind of evidence is required to prove spiritual existence and spiritual entities. These people have a long history of testimony to the benefits of things received through spiritual connection, it is so overwhelming, they had to invent a word to specifically apply to these benefits, they call them "blessings."

So... following two paragraphs of flailing about, we're left with nothing but "because I say so" as evidence for your claims.

 

[Boss]

Testimony as strong as most of the people who have ever lived being certain that the Sun goes around the Earth?
.

I know you believe this is a clever retort, but the only thing it illustrates, is how relatively young science is.

Actually, no. It was a relevant comparison of what people believed, "felt" was true and what appealed to theological convictions. Much like your claims to "spirituality".

So when science came along and explained that wasn't the case, why didn't humans abandon spiritual belief and devote themselves to praising and worshiping science instead?

I didn't claim spirituality, it exists. Humans have been practicing spirituality for thousands and thousands of years. Way longer than science. In fact, you can trace spirituality in humans back to the origin of the species. You can't show any examples of a human civilization which existed over any long period of time, without spiritual foundation. As a species, spirituality is our most defining attribute... that is science, not "my claims."

 

[daws101]

The earth's crust is made up of sedimentary rock. The sedimentary rock was distributed by rapid erosion and deposition by water let's not forget transportation. There is no evidence of global uniformity of strata over large spans of time.

You are reading opinions and taking it as a fact as usual.

How do you explain sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon with a river constantly running through it ?

false
We know that the Earth's crust is made of two grand categories of rocks: basaltic and granitic. Basaltic rocks underlie the seafloors and granitic rocks make up the continents. The seismic velocities of these rock types in the lab match the velocities in the crust down to the Moho, so we're pretty sure that the Moho marks a real change in rock chemistry. The Moho isn't a perfect boundary, because some crustal rocks and mantle rocks can masquerade as the other, but even so everyone who talks about the crust, whether in seismological or petrological terms, fortunately means the same thing.

In general, then, the crust has two types, oceanic crust and continental crust.

Oceanic Crust

Oceanic crust covers about 60 percent of the Earth's surface. Oceanic crust is thin and young—no more than about 20 km thick and never older than about 180 million years. Everything older has been pulled underneath the continents by subduction. Oceanic crust is born at the midocean ridges, where pressure upon the underlying mantle is released and the peridotite there begins to melt in response. The part that melts becomes basaltic lava, which rises and erupts while the remaining peridotite becomes depleted.

The midocean ridges migrate over the Earth like Roombas, extracting the basaltic component from the mantle as they go. What that means has to do with rock chemistry. Basaltic rocks contain more silicon and aluminum than the peridotite left behind, which has more iron and magnesium. Basaltic rocks are less dense. In terms of minerals, basalt has more feldspar and amphibole, less olivine and pyroxene, than peridotite. In geologist's shorthand, oceanic crust is mafic while oceanic mantle is ultramafic.

Oceanic crust, being so thin, is a very small fraction of the Earth—about 0.1 percent—but its life cycle serves to refine the rocks of the upper mantle into new rocks with a lighter blend of elements. It also extracts the so-called incompatible elements, which don't fit into mantle minerals and move into the liquid melt. These in turn move into the continental crust as plate tectonics proceeds.

Continental Crust

Continental crust is thick and old—on average about 50 km thick and about 2 billion years old—and it covers about 40 percent of the planet. Whereas almost all of the oceanic crust is underwater, most of the continental crust is exposed to the air.

The continents slowly grow over geologic time as oceanic crust and seafloor sediments are pulled beneath them by subduction. The descending basalts have the water and incompatible elements squeezed out of them, and this material rises to trigger more melting in the so-called subduction factory.

The continental crust is made of granitic rocks, which have even more silicon and aluminum than the basaltic oceanic crust; they also have more oxygen thanks to the atmosphere. Granitic rocks are even less dense than basalt. In terms of minerals, granite has even more feldspar, less amphibole than basalt and almost no pyroxene or olivine, plus it has abundant quartz. In geologist's shorthand, continental crust is felsic.

Continental crust makes up less than 0.4 percent of the Earth, but it represents the end product of a double refining process, first at midocean ridges and second at subduction zones. The total amount of continental crust is slowly growing.

The incompatible elements that end up in the continents are important because they include the major radioactive elements uranium, thorium and potassium. They create heat, which makes the continents act like electric blankets on top of the mantle. The heat also softens thick places in the crust, like the Tibetan Plateau, and makes them spread sideways.

Continental crust is too buoyant to return to the mantle. When continents collide, the crust can thicken to almost 100 km, but that is temporary. The limestones and other sedimentary rocks that form on the continents are likewise lighter than basalt. Even the sand and clay that is washed off into the sea returns to the continents on the conveyor belt of the oceanic crust. Continents are truly permanent, self-sustaining features of the Earth's surface.
About the Crust of the Earth


let me guess you got that bull shit from a creation science site.
oh yeah. I know you will not read the article which btw is not opinion but hard fact.
so read this " The limestones and other sedimentary rocks that form on the continents are likewise lighter than basalt. Even the sand and clay that is washed off into the sea returns to the continents on the conveyor belt of the oceanic crust."
slap dick.

Slap Dick is that all you've got.

The continental crust is the layer of igneous, sedimentary,

Look your favorite source.

Continental crust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do you think will move around during a global flood ?

since there was no 'great" flood nothing.
however during the uncountable number of not so great floods in earth history lot's of rock was transported but not enough to move continents.

 

[daws101]

prove it

it proves it's self
you have no argument ,that is to say you have no legitimate or valid argument.
just willful ignorance.

Are you kidding

no, just reveling your slapdickery.

 

[daws101]

How did so many marine fossils find their way to the Grand Canyon ?

Fossils

With marine environments creating many of the sedimentary rock layers in the canyon over the past 525 million years, marine fossils are quite common. Species changed over time, but similar fossils can be found in most of the marine-based rocks at Grand Canyon.

Stromatolites
The oldest fossils at Grand Canyon are 1,200 million to 740 million years old. Stromatolites are the limestone structures formed by photosynthesizing bacteria called cyanobacteria. They created layers of alternating slimy bacteria and sediment in very shallow water, dominating shallow seas until predators, such as trilobites, came into the picture. Today stromatolites only live in a few shallow ocean areas with high salinity. The salinity deters predation and allows the stromatolites to survive.
Fossils - Grand Canyon National Park

This kinda contradicts what you were trying to say in a previous post but I am well aware of the Grand Canyon site.

actually it supports it.

 

[daws101]

Stromatolites have been around for 3.5 billion years. The entire face of the earth has altered during that period. There are sea fossils on mountain tops but that is not evidence of the "great flood" but instead plate tectonics. It is quite pointless trying to explain the formation of the planet and the evolution of life upon it to those who will take one tiny thing out of context and use it as a club to beat up on science.

Like I am not aware of plate tectonics lol. That still does not explain marine fossils on mountain tops.

Like you are aware of plate tectonics, lol.

Regarding plate tectonics, do a search with terms such as "uplift" and "subsidence". Fossil sea shells on mountain peaks are not uncommon when those peaks were much lower in the distant past.

Did you ever get through 7th grade earth science?

major bump

 

[Boss]

It's dishonest to characterize people as "refusing to accept spiritual evidence" when you have never offered such evidence.
To claim there is evidence of something but then acknowledge that such evidence is not material, testsble or demonstrable in any meaningful way is silly.

Go back and read the OP again. To begin my argument, we had to establish terminology. If you don't accept spiritual nature, you have no concept of spiritual existence, the term makes no sense to you. Exist, means to have a physically measurable presence of existence.... that's what it means to you, and the concept of spiritual existence is beyond your understanding. The idea that god could ever be physically measurable or testable, is indeed silly. And it's silly for me to waste my time trying to prove god to you, because you will only accept physical evidence, and it's silly to try and prove a physical god exists.

Now, not everyone is like you. I know that may come a surprise, but soak it in, it's true. Some people have an understanding and acceptance of spiritual nature and spiritual presence. For those people, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. It's spiritual evidence, which you don't believe in, but you see.... that's what kind of evidence is required to prove spiritual existence and spiritual entities. These people have a long history of testimony to the benefits of things received through spiritual connection, it is so overwhelming, they had to invent a word to specifically apply to these benefits, they call them "blessings."

Wrong as usual. You are claiming a metaphysical nature for the spiritual which you have yet to prove. I have proven the existential nature of the spiritual and so far that is the only spiritual evidence that has been proven.

I've not claimed anything metaphysical or existential. There is a spiritual nature just as there is a physical nature, and it resides in the same universe and reality. It is not supernatural, it is part of nature itself. It is the force which enables the miracle of life. It is what makes common inorganic elements organic. It's what causes the properties of atoms in electricity to behave as they do, and gravity to behave as it does, and the laws of physics to be reliable, enabling science itself. It is what created the Big Bang, because there was nothing in the physical universe which didn't exist yet.

 

[daws101]

Like I am not aware of plate tectonics lol. That still does not explain marine fossils on mountain tops.

Like you are aware of plate tectonics, lol.

Regarding plate tectonics, do a search with terms such as "uplift" and "subsidence". Fossil sea shells on mountain peaks are not uncommon when those peaks were much lower in the distant past.

Did you ever get through 7th grade earth science?

Being a believer I would expect to find marine fossils on mountains so it fit's my theory. Fossils of sea creatures are found well above sea level on every continent. Heck the Himalayas at 0ver 29,000 feet they are found.

God spoke about plate tectonics here Psa 104:8 (The mountains rose, the valleys sank down) Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them.


So there were two reasons that plate tectonics took place there was water added from the rain and the great fountains of the deep were broken open adding molten rock could cause the ocean floor to rise.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

This is what caused the flood and plate tectonics. The marine fossils were swept over the mountains that is why they are found on mountain tops.

 

[daws101]

There was no biblical flood. Your wishing it were true is irrelevant.

I'll bet you a dollar that there was a flood.


And I'll bet another that it consumed the WHOLE world of some Monkeys...
I'll bet a third that the Monkeys told the story to any Monkeys who'd listen, and I'll make it four questions for five dollars that Monkeys can imagine.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC2waxMJ_5Y]"Imagine" - John Lennon - YouTube[/ame]

I really like the Beatles (historically speaking) but John Lennon is dead. That should tell you something. Pictures of young people cavorting are nice, but the reality is the young get old and the cavorting returns to a slowed craw... If one doesn't have heaven one has nothing to look forward to.

 

[numan]

I know you believe this is a clever retort, but the only thing it illustrates, is how relatively young science is.

Actually, no. It was a relevant comparison of what people believed, "felt" was true and what appealed to theological convictions. Much like your claims to "spirituality".

So when science came along and explained that wasn't the case, why didn't humans abandon spiritual belief and devote themselves to praising and worshiping science instead?

But, oh, intellectually Slippery One, that is completely irrelevant! The point is that you claim the universality of "spiritual belief" (whatever that may be) "proves" that it is a reality. I was pointing out that universality of a belief, no matter how long it has been believed, or how strongly believed, does not prove anything!! Belief that the Sun goes around the Earth was universal before Aristarchus, and near universal even after him! It was so strongly believed that if you had questioned it, most people would have thought that you were saying something as ridiculous as that white is black!! BUT THEIR BELIEFS WERE WRONG!!!!!!!

I didn't claim spirituality, it exists. Humans have been practicing spirituality for thousands and thousands of years. Way longer than science. In fact, you can trace spirituality in humans back to the origin of the species. You can't show any examples of a human civilization which existed over any long period of time, without spiritual foundation. As a species, spirituality is our most defining attribute... that is science, not "my claims."

But there you go again!! The dog returns to his vomit! That statement "proves" nothing! All that claimed "experience" proves NOTHING !!
.

 

[daws101]

Being a believer I would expect to find marine fossils on mountains so it fit's my theory. Fossils of sea creatures are found well above sea level on every continent. Heck the Himalayas at 0ver 29,000 feet they are found.

God spoke about plate tectonics here Psa 104:8 (The mountains rose, the valleys sank down) Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them.


So there were two reasons that plate tectonics took place there was water added from the rain and the great fountains of the deep were broken open adding molten rock could cause the ocean floor to rise.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

This is what caused the flood and plate tectonics. The marine fossils were swept over the mountains that is why they are found on mountain tops.

There was no biblical flood. Your wishing it were true is irrelevant.

Geological evidence of the flood you say that didn't happen.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0]Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 1 with Dr. Andrew Snelling - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8&feature=fvwp&NR=1]Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 2 with Dr. Andrew Snelling - YouTube[/ame]

bahahahahahahaha! this is not evidence it's pseudoscience proselytizing.
this is what evidence looks like: Ayers Rock Facts - Geology
•Both Uluru and Kata Tjuta are left overs of a huge sediment that has formed hundreds of millions of years ago:
•Sand was laid down in a basin which formed about 900 million years ago. Material continued to collect at the bottom of this ancient sea bed until about 300 million years ago.
•550 million years ago the area was lifted and folded and mountain ranges formed. These ranges eroded in the following millions of years, leaving huge sediments at the bottom.
•About 300 million years ago the seas disappeared. The remaining sediment folded and fractured again. In this major process the sediment layers that now form Uluru were tilted, so that today they are at a 85° angle. Kata Tjuta was tilted some 20°. The whole region was lifted up above sea level in the process.
•This means Uluru and Kata Tjuta are the only visible tips of a massive underground rock slab.
•You could even argue that the description of Uluru as a monolith is inaccurate, as it is actually part of this huge underground rock formation that also includes Kata Tjuta.
•The intriguing sculpted shapes, valleys and ridges, caves, potholes and plunge pools are the result of the last few hundreds of millions of years of erosion. The flaky surface is due to chemical decomposition.
•Uluru is made of arkose sandstone (a sandstone rich in feldspar), whereas Kata Tjuta is a conglomerate of gravel and boulders, cemented together by mud and sand.
•Uluru is naturally grey, but the iron content of the rock is "rusting" at the surface, resulting in the distinctive red iron oxide coating.
Ayers Rock Facts

 

[daws101]

What was nonsense ?

What you wrote. Did you somehow miss that I was responding to what you wrote?

Do you need pictures of the vents in the oceans to confirm what I am saying from a nonreligious site they got pictures of these vents in the ocean floor and I have posted them before is your memory slipping ?

pictures of vents in the ocean floors - Google Search

hey slap dick those hydro thermal vents are not the same as what's mention in the bible ...once again you're willfully and fraudulently misrepresenting the facts.

 

[Boss]

Actually, no. It was a relevant comparison of what people believed, "felt" was true and what appealed to theological convictions. Much like your claims to "spirituality".

So when science came along and explained that wasn't the case, why didn't humans abandon spiritual belief and devote themselves to praising and worshiping science instead?

But, oh, intellectually Slippery One, that is completely irrelevant! The point is that you claim the universality of "spiritual belief" (whatever that may be) "proves" that it is a reality. I was pointing out that universality of a belief, no matter how long it has been believed, or how strongly believed, does not prove anything!! Belief that the Sun goes around the Earth was universal before Aristarchus, and near universal even after him! It was so strongly believed that if you had questioned it, most people would have thought that you were saying something as ridiculous as that white is black!! BUT THEIR BELIEFS WERE WRONG!!!!!!!

I didn't claim spirituality, it exists. Humans have been practicing spirituality for thousands and thousands of years. Way longer than science. In fact, you can trace spirituality in humans back to the origin of the species. You can't show any examples of a human civilization which existed over any long period of time, without spiritual foundation. As a species, spirituality is our most defining attribute... that is science, not "my claims."

But there you go again!! The dog returns to his vomit! That statement "proves" nothing! All that claimed "experience" proves NOTHING !!
.

This is because you refuse to believe spiritual evidence, but much like the detractors of Aristarchus, your beliefs are wrong. It defies all reasonable logic that the smartest most advanced creatures would need to invent a placebo for knowledge and security blanket for irrational fears. That it would maintain this 'delusion' for it's entire existence, in order to enable the remarkable accomplishments man has achieved.

 

[Hollie]

So when science came along and explained that wasn't the case, why didn't humans abandon spiritual belief and devote themselves to praising and worshiping science instead?

But, oh, intellectually Slippery One, that is completely irrelevant! The point is that you claim the universality of "spiritual belief" (whatever that may be) "proves" that it is a reality. I was pointing out that universality of a belief, no matter how long it has been believed, or how strongly believed, does not prove anything!! Belief that the Sun goes around the Earth was universal before Aristarchus, and near universal even after him! It was so strongly believed that if you had questioned it, most people would have thought that you were saying something as ridiculous as that white is black!! BUT THEIR BELIEFS WERE WRONG!!!!!!!

I didn't claim spirituality, it exists. Humans have been practicing spirituality for thousands and thousands of years. Way longer than science. In fact, you can trace spirituality in humans back to the origin of the species. You can't show any examples of a human civilization which existed over any long period of time, without spiritual foundation. As a species, spirituality is our most defining attribute... that is science, not "my claims."

But there you go again!! The dog returns to his vomit! That statement "proves" nothing! All that claimed "experience" proves NOTHING !!
.

This is because you refuse to believe spiritual evidence, but much like the detractors of Aristarchus, your beliefs are wrong. It defies all reasonable logic that the smartest most advanced creatures would need to invent a placebo for knowledge and security blanket for irrational fears. That it would maintain this 'delusion' for it's entire existence, in order to enable the remarkable accomplishments man has achieved.

"This is because you refuse to believe spiritual evidence, but much like the detractors of Aristarchus, your beliefs are wrong. It defies all reasonable logic that the smartest most advanced creatures would need to invent a placebo for knowledge and security blanket for irrational fears. That it would maintain this 'delusion' for it's entire existence, in order to enable the remarkable accomplishments man has achieved, (because I say so -ed.)

Here ya' go. I corrected your post.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There was no biblical flood. Your wishing it were true is irrelevant.

Geological evidence of the flood you say that didn't happen.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0]Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 1 with Dr. Andrew Snelling - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8&feature=fvwp&NR=1]Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 2 with Dr. Andrew Snelling - YouTube[/ame]

bahahahahahahaha! this is not evidence it's pseudoscience proselytizing.
this is what evidence looks like: Ayers Rock Facts - Geology
•Both Uluru and Kata Tjuta are left overs of a huge sediment that has formed hundreds of millions of years ago:
•Sand was laid down in a basin which formed about 900 million years ago. Material continued to collect at the bottom of this ancient sea bed until about 300 million years ago.
•550 million years ago the area was lifted and folded and mountain ranges formed. These ranges eroded in the following millions of years, leaving huge sediments at the bottom.
•About 300 million years ago the seas disappeared. The remaining sediment folded and fractured again. In this major process the sediment layers that now form Uluru were tilted, so that today they are at a 85° angle. Kata Tjuta was tilted some 20°. The whole region was lifted up above sea level in the process.
•This means Uluru and Kata Tjuta are the only visible tips of a massive underground rock slab.
•You could even argue that the description of Uluru as a monolith is inaccurate, as it is actually part of this huge underground rock formation that also includes Kata Tjuta.
•The intriguing sculpted shapes, valleys and ridges, caves, potholes and plunge pools are the result of the last few hundreds of millions of years of erosion. The flaky surface is due to chemical decomposition.
•Uluru is made of arkose sandstone (a sandstone rich in feldspar), whereas Kata Tjuta is a conglomerate of gravel and boulders, cemented together by mud and sand.
•Uluru is naturally grey, but the iron content of the rock is "rusting" at the surface, resulting in the distinctive red iron oxide coating.
Ayers Rock Facts

How did this address the main question that your side has no answer for. 7 different layers of strata in every layer of strata around the earth we have both land fossils and marine fossils buried together explain away dumbshit. Scientists can't explain it away so I doubt you would Wikipedia boy. They used scientific evidence and the scientific method if you say otherwise you are either the dumbest person that ever owned a computer or you once again are talking out your ass and have no Idea what you copy and paste.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What you wrote. Did you somehow miss that I was responding to what you wrote?

Do you need pictures of the vents in the oceans to confirm what I am saying from a nonreligious site they got pictures of these vents in the ocean floor and I have posted them before is your memory slipping ?

pictures of vents in the ocean floors - Google Search

hey slap dick those hydro thermal vents are not the same as what's mention in the bible ...once again you're willfully and fraudulently misrepresenting the facts.

Numbnuts when the bible was written they communicated things the best they could. Do you actually think they ment fountains the way they are defined today ? You one stupid person atleast with ed I think he was joking lol.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You seem to be speaking in some kind of code language or broken sentences that don't make sense. I'm not sure what you are trying to say, none of this makes any sense to me.

If you can form coherent sentences and try again, it would be appreciated. I actually thought you made one of the most brilliant observations in the thread the other day, when you stated that "life itself, is spiritual." Maybe that was accidental, or maybe you meant something entirely different, but it's still a great observation.

4.5 billion years ago, the Earth was uninhabitable. It took at least a billion years or more, for the planet to cool down, the atmosphere to stabilize and conditions for supporting life to exist. The Bible only came along a couple thousand years ago, it is a religious book, inspired through spirituality. The Bible can be completely incorrect about god, and a spiritual power still exists. I'm not here to defend The Bible or any other religious teaching. My focus has been on the attribute of human spirituality, which has existed as long as humans have existed.

We connect to something spiritually, we always have and always will. Religions are merely evidence of this profound connection, whether they are correct or incorrect in depicting god. The fact that we can make this connection to some power greater than self, is what has enabled our advancement as a species. We're the only species with the capacity to connect spiritually, to a higher power.

Too bad you cannot prove that "connection" actually exists even with your bogus "spiritual evidence".

Proof would be a game changer for this average Monkey...

And for billions of other Monkeys too.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Too bad you cannot prove that "connection" actually exists even with your bogus "spiritual evidence".

Eyewitness testimony from billions of people across thousands of years, is mighty compelling evidence, in my opinion. Too bad you can't disprove their testimony.

So "billions of people" have actually SEEN your deity with THEIR OWN EYES? Whose anal cavity did you extract that fecal matter from?

 

[edthecynic]

Go back and read the OP again. To begin my argument, we had to establish terminology. If you don't accept spiritual nature, you have no concept of spiritual existence, the term makes no sense to you. Exist, means to have a physically measurable presence of existence.... that's what it means to you, and the concept of spiritual existence is beyond your understanding. The idea that god could ever be physically measurable or testable, is indeed silly. And it's silly for me to waste my time trying to prove god to you, because you will only accept physical evidence, and it's silly to try and prove a physical god exists.

Now, not everyone is like you. I know that may come a surprise, but soak it in, it's true. Some people have an understanding and acceptance of spiritual nature and spiritual presence. For those people, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. It's spiritual evidence, which you don't believe in, but you see.... that's what kind of evidence is required to prove spiritual existence and spiritual entities. These people have a long history of testimony to the benefits of things received through spiritual connection, it is so overwhelming, they had to invent a word to specifically apply to these benefits, they call them "blessings."

Wrong as usual. You are claiming a metaphysical nature for the spiritual which you have yet to prove. I have proven the existential nature of the spiritual and so far that is the only spiritual evidence that has been proven.

I've not claimed anything metaphysical or existential. There is a spiritual nature just as there is a physical nature, and it resides in the same universe and reality. It is not supernatural, it is part of nature itself. It is the force which enables the miracle of life. It is what makes common inorganic elements organic. It's what causes the properties of atoms in electricity to behave as they do, and gravity to behave as it does, and the laws of physics to be reliable, enabling science itself. It is what created the Big Bang, because there was nothing in the physical universe which didn't exist yet.

There you go again, first denying the metaphysical and then asserting the metaphysical. You have yet to prove any of the metaphysical claims you just made for the spiritual. You simply pontificate their existence.

 

[BreezeWood]

But, oh, intellectually Slippery One, that is completely irrelevant! The point is that you claim the universality of "spiritual belief" (whatever that may be) "proves" that it is a reality. I was pointing out that universality of a belief, no matter how long it has been believed, or how strongly believed, does not prove anything!! Belief that the Sun goes around the Earth was universal before Aristarchus, and near universal even after him! It was so strongly believed that if you had questioned it, most people would have thought that you were saying something as ridiculous as that white is black!! BUT THEIR BELIEFS WERE WRONG!!!!!!!

.

there is a difference when people attempt to define Spirituality and what it is they are attempting to define.

the attempt is the proof of its existence ... (and can be accomplished - the same as physical proof)

it is unclear from Boss whether there is a specific component to Spirituality for each physiological form that may be self supporting after the forms demise - or not ?