Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[S.J.]

If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final. The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again. The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver. Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal. Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.
Then the obvious question is "Where does the spirit come from and how did it get in the body"? It had to come from somewhere.

You first need to define your terms regarding this "spirit" thing. Metaphysics and mysticism aside, this "spirit" you claim exists has no properties which can be quantified.

It doesn't have physical properties because it isn't physical. I'm not going to play that game of "defining" a non-physical entity so you can cause a distraction by picking apart the definition. I would think that people who claim to have scientific minds would not be so narrow-minded as to think that because you can't see something and define it, that it couldn't exist. Science is supposed to be open to all possibilities, is it not?
Your mind seems to be sealed shut.

 

[numan]

.
Instead of jumping immediately to the question of "God", it might be useful to begin with the baby-step of considering how an immaterial entity might differ from, and interact with, a material entity.

One of the conundrums of European philosophy is: How can an immaterial Form act on a material substance?

This question reveals a complete misunderstanding of an "immaterial Form". It presupposes a tinge of materiality still adhering to the Form. Forms are nothing like matter: almost every property of a Form is diametrically opposed to the properties of matter.

Yet Forms and material existence are also mutually dependent; each appears in the world supported by the other. Only insofar as a wheel approaches circularity is it said to "exist" as a wheel. A cart-driver woud certainly refuse to put any non-circular object on the axle of his cart. On the other hand, circularity is certainly dependent on sensible objects in order to be manifested. Circularity does not "exist," but it is manifested by things which do exist. Yet again, things which "exist" do so only through an immense concatenation of Forms. In physics, for example, when we try to understand what a material object is, we find that it dissolves into a warp of electric fields on a woof of magnetic forces. These, in turn, when subjected to analysis, reveal new "existences" and new Forms: elementary "particles," units of "action," and quantum fields. Each time we try to tease out what is before our eyes, we find that it disappears to reveal a new content functioning through new Forms.

Forms are eternal and unchanging: there is no difference between a circle today and a circle a billion years ago. Things that we say "exist," on the other hand, are subject to any number of causal interactions which may alter or destroy them. They are never exactly the same from moment to moment. A Form, however, does not undergo interaction, it is interaction! When conditions permit it to operate, a Form springs forth fully-blown from the brow of Zeus---and then vanishes away when conditions end its functioning.*

Forms are unaffected by space and time. All Forms are present everywhere; but in any particular phenomenon, only some Forms are predominate. Gravity determines that "circularity" strongly predominate in the physical shape of the Sun --- the function "squareness" is almost entirely absent. Yet "squareness" also is important to the nature of the Sun; for example, in determining the time it takes for photons to percolate from the center of the Sun to the surface in their "random walk" through the mass of the Sun.
_____________________________________

* This is not strictly true---first, it may leave a causal residue which affects the future history of phenomena; second, no function or force ever ceases completely; we say that it ceases when it becomes too weak to be distinguishable in the random fluctuations in the environment.
.

 

[S.J.]

If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final. The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again. The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver. Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal. Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.

This comparison is inadequate. This "spirit" could be just the way the car works when all the parts of the car are put together in the right way to permit the efficient functioning of the car.

You might say that you could take the car apart, destroying its way of functioning, and then put it back together, and bingo! it is the same as it was before being disassembled.

This way of looking at things falls apart when applied to the body and the way it functions. The animal body is incredibly complex; at death, it immediately starts to disintegrate, and it would very quickly become impossible to put it back together in any way that even remotely resembled its state before death.

Moreover, the irreducible uncertainty inherent in all quantum mechanical phenomena guarantees that, even in principle, the body could never be reconstructed precisely as it existed before death.

In the physicalist view, there is nothing "extra" added to the car other than its various parts and the way they are put together.

You may object that it is absurd to imagine a car without a driver as a part of the way it works, but this is also invalid. We are very close to designing cars driven by complex electronic computers which can perform all the functions of a human driver -- indeed, perhaps perform them better than could a human.
.

If we had no spirit, we would all be exactly the same. And again, instead of addressing the point of my post, you're attacking my analogy of the car and driver. Another distraction.

 

[edthecynic]

If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final. The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again. The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver. Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal. Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.
Then the obvious question is "Where does the spirit come from and how did it get in the body"? It had to come from somewhere.

You first need to define your terms regarding this "spirit" thing. Metaphysics and mysticism aside, this "spirit" you claim exists has no properties which can be quantified.

I think its much more simple than that.

Spirit is probably just the ancient word for what we describe as consciousness, just like their understanding of the function of the organ of the heart is what we understand to be the function of the brain.... soul is what they thought of as the mind.

Losing their soul would equate with losing their mind. A person whose soul was possessed by a demon would be a victim of mind control.

An unclean spirit would translate as a dirty mind.

Nothing supernatural or mystical about any of it.

Spirit or soul or essence, as it is called in philosophy, is what lives on after the physical being ends. For example the essence/spirit/soul of a composer lives in their music after the existence of their physical body is no more. The spiritual is existential, existence precedes essence. The metaphysics Boss pushes is the exact opposite, essence precedes existence. We can observe and prove the existence of the existential, as I have shown with the composer, but there is no example or proof of the existence of the metaphysical. The metaphysical exists only by faith.

 

[emilynghiem]

If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final. The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again. The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver. Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal. Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.

This comparison is inadequate. This "spirit" could be just the way the car works when all the parts of the car are put together in the right way to permit the efficient functioning of the car.

You might say that you could take the car apart, destroying its way of functioning, and then put it back together, and bingo! it is the same as it was before being disassembled.

This way of looking at things falls apart when applied to the body and the way it functions. The animal body is incredibly complex; at death, it immediately starts to disintegrate, and it would very quickly become impossible to put it back together in any way that even remotely resembled its state before death.

Moreover, the irreducible uncertainty inherent in all quantum mechanical phenomena guarantees that, even in principle, the body could never be reconstructed precisely as it existed before death.

In the physicalist view, there is nothing "extra" added to the car other than its various parts and the way they are put together.

You may object that it is absurd to imagine a car without a driver as a part of the way it works, but this is also invalid. We are very close to designing cars driven by complex electronic computers which can perform all the functions of a human driver -- indeed, perhaps perform them better than could a human.
.

If we had no spirit, we would all be exactly the same. And again, instead of addressing the point of my post, you're attacking my analogy of the car and driver. Another distraction.

Dear Numan and SJ: how about explaining the concept this way:
that the WHOLE is greater than the sum of the parts?

This applies to laws, as it applies to people.

Does this help?

 

[emilynghiem]

OK Boss and Newpolitics:
so we agree that God is in dispute over whether this can even be defined in a universal way.
and agree that spirituality or spiritual universe is also being assumed.

What about "collective level"
Do you both have a concept of either truth or human relations/existence
having a "collective level" outside our present perception based on empirical evidence,
where this "collective level" or perception thereof requires some interpretation BEYOND physical justification.

Can we discuss the abstract perception of truth or humanity on a "collective level"
and agree that exceeds current physical evidence we can prove on hand.

Do you comprehend WHAT spirituality is? I mean, I understand you don't believe in it, but do you even comprehend what it is? It's the relationship between humans and the spiritual universe, so it had no purpose to 'spiritually exist' without humans to experience it. That does not mean the spiritual universe didn't exist. Unless you have conclusive proof otherwise, we can assume the spiritual universe was created the same time the physical universe was created. So this is like proving dark existed before light.

This is what people in denial often do. They construct illogical paradigms, in order to support what they refuse to believe. By your reasoning, nuclear fission didn't exist until man discovered it. Before that moment, it was an impossibility. We can also apply your reasoning with physical existence, where is your proof that we are in a physical existence, and this isn't all just a figment of imagination?

...Hold on, I need to reload the bong!

You don't get to assume that a spiritual universe exists, and pass that off as fact. This is called a proof by assertion, and is completely unacceptable by any evidential standards. Nor can you make a claim, and then try to switch the burden of proof onto everyone else, as you have blatantly done above. You don't get to say "Unless you have conclusive proof otherwise, we can assume the spiritual universe was created the same time the physical universe was created." No, you need to first prove that a spiritual universe exists. Appealing to humans' inter-subjective experience over the course of 70,000 or a million years does not get you there.

P.S. even if none of this works,
and we agree we are making assumptions or assertions to begin with,

can we agree to start with "ASSUMING these things exist,"
then can we work BACKWARDS from there,
and show that any objections as to WHY these things
do not exist, or are not consistent and therefore not universally inclusive,
then each and all such conflicts or objections CAN BE RESOLVED.

So if all counterclaims or counterexamples can be
resolved or explained using the universal constructs (even if these are assumed)
this shows they are universally consistent or true
because they can explain all things even the objections to them.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final. The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again. The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver. Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal. Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.

This comparison is inadequate. This "spirit" could be just the way the car works when all the parts of the car are put together in the right way to permit the efficient functioning of the car.

You might say that you could take the car apart, destroying its way of functioning, and then put it back together, and bingo! it is the same as it was before being disassembled.

This way of looking at things falls apart when applied to the body and the way it functions. The animal body is incredibly complex; at death, it immediately starts to disintegrate, and it would very quickly become impossible to put it back together in any way that even remotely resembled its state before death.

Moreover, the irreducible uncertainty inherent in all quantum mechanical phenomena guarantees that, even in principle, the body could never be reconstructed precisely as it existed before death.

In the physicalist view, there is nothing "extra" added to the car other than its various parts and the way they are put together.

You may object that it is absurd to imagine a car without a driver as a part of the way it works, but this is also invalid. We are very close to designing cars driven by complex electronic computers which can perform all the functions of a human driver -- indeed, perhaps perform them better than could a human.
.

If we had no spirit, we would all be exactly the same. And again, instead of addressing the point of my post, you're attacking my analogy of the car and driver. Another distraction.

Since no two trees are identical under your definition they must have spirits. No two potatoes are identical either. Does that mean they also have spirits?

 

[Boss]

but there is no example or proof of the existence of the metaphysical.

There is no PHYSICAL example or proof. Logically, there wouldn't be, else it would not be spiritual.

You are all trying to demand a physical existence of a spiritual entity, and that will never work. As long as you will only see the physical evidence, only recognize the physical universe, and only acknowledge physical existences, you will never be able to comprehend spirituality or spiritual evidence. You're stuck in a logic quagmire of your own making. Spirit is non-physical by definition, but you can't accept it because it is non-physical, and you only accept physical, which is not spiritual.

I imagine it does seem quite preposterous to someone who doesn't understand or comprehend the spiritual universe. Those who are blind to spirituality, are unable to see anything but physical evidence as evidence. There is no physical proof, there will never be any physical proof of a spiritual entity, or it would then become a physical entity. We can either open our minds to the possibility of spiritual existence and spirituality, or we can remain closed-minded, believing the physical universe is all that exists. But for 70k years, billions of humans have professed a profound spiritual belief. This isn't a fluke or coincidence, and it's not something that can casually be dismissed, as so many non-spiritual believers want to argue.

People who know me will ask, why do you argue so vigorously there is a god, when you are basically an atheist? I don't believe in any organized religion, I think they are inferior man-made beliefs developed to explain something man has a hard time grasping. That said, I most definitely have the advantage in this argument, because I know for certain there is a spiritual aspect and higher spiritual power. I have felt the strength of this power, I have seen the results in my own life. To attempt to convince me that it doesn't exist, would be the equivalent of me trying to convince you that your mother doesn't exist.

 

[Boss]

This comparison is inadequate. This "spirit" could be just the way the car works when all the parts of the car are put together in the right way to permit the efficient functioning of the car.

You might say that you could take the car apart, destroying its way of functioning, and then put it back together, and bingo! it is the same as it was before being disassembled.

This way of looking at things falls apart when applied to the body and the way it functions. The animal body is incredibly complex; at death, it immediately starts to disintegrate, and it would very quickly become impossible to put it back together in any way that even remotely resembled its state before death.

Moreover, the irreducible uncertainty inherent in all quantum mechanical phenomena guarantees that, even in principle, the body could never be reconstructed precisely as it existed before death.

In the physicalist view, there is nothing "extra" added to the car other than its various parts and the way they are put together.

You may object that it is absurd to imagine a car without a driver as a part of the way it works, but this is also invalid. We are very close to designing cars driven by complex electronic computers which can perform all the functions of a human driver -- indeed, perhaps perform them better than could a human.
.

If we had no spirit, we would all be exactly the same. And again, instead of addressing the point of my post, you're attacking my analogy of the car and driver. Another distraction.

Since no two trees are identical under your definition they must have spirits. No two potatoes are identical either. Does that mean they also have spirits?

When a tree paints the Mona Lisa or a potato composes Beethoven's 5th Symphony, we can discuss this. Until then, you are just being obtuse about a well-made point.

 

[Derideo_Te]

but there is no example or proof of the existence of the metaphysical.

There is no PHYSICAL example or proof. Logically, there wouldn't be, else it would not be spiritual.

You are all trying to demand a physical existence of a spiritual entity, and that will never work. As long as you will only see the physical evidence, only recognize the physical universe, and only acknowledge physical existences, you will never be able to comprehend spirituality or spiritual evidence. You're stuck in a logic quagmire of your own making. Spirit is non-physical by definition, but you can't accept it because it is non-physical, and you only accept physical, which is not spiritual.

I imagine it does seem quite preposterous to someone who doesn't understand or comprehend the spiritual universe. Those who are blind to spirituality, are unable to see anything but physical evidence as evidence. There is no physical proof, there will never be any physical proof of a spiritual entity, or it would then become a physical entity. We can either open our minds to the possibility of spiritual existence and spirituality, or we can remain closed-minded, believing the physical universe is all that exists. But for 70k years, billions of humans have professed a profound spiritual belief. This isn't a fluke or coincidence, and it's not something that can casually be dismissed, as so many non-spiritual believers want to argue.

People who know me will ask, why do you argue so vigorously there is a god, when you are basically an atheist? I don't believe in any organized religion, I think they are inferior man-made beliefs developed to explain something man has a hard time grasping. That said, I most definitely have the advantage in this argument, because I know for certain there is a spiritual aspect and higher spiritual power. I have felt the strength of this power, I have seen the results in my own life. To attempt to convince me that it doesn't exist, would be the equivalent of me trying to convince you that your mother doesn't exist.

In order for a PHYSICAL entity like yourself to FEEL this alleged POWER it must have MANIFESTED itself in a PHYSICAL manner. If instead you only IMAGINED this alleged POWER in a SPIRITUAL sense then your argument is 100% ANECDOTAL and carries no logical weight whatsoever.

You have a knack for destroying your own arguments.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If we had no spirit, we would all be exactly the same. And again, instead of addressing the point of my post, you're attacking my analogy of the car and driver. Another distraction.

Since no two trees are identical under your definition they must have spirits. No two potatoes are identical either. Does that mean they also have spirits?

When a tree paints the Mona Lisa or a potato composes Beethoven's 5th Symphony, we can discuss this. Until then, you are just being obtuse about a well-made point.

So your latest kneejerk deflection is that all art must come from human spirituality?

Those pictures above were painted by an elephant.

Can a human being create something as beautiful as a flower?

 

[Boss]

Boss, I see what you are trying to do. You are trying to follow the evidence. This is good, and is how science works, however. The problem is a question of evidence. We live in a physical universe.

No, we live in a physical AND spiritual universe, you only have familiarity with the physical universe because you are a physical entity. Science is a man-made system of examining the physical world, it does not apply to the spiritual universe. When we attempt to apply physical science to the spiritual world, it fails, because spirituality can't be supported by physical evidence, it's the wrong kind of evidence. You assume this means there is "no proof" but all it really means is, there is no physical proof, but there shouldn't be any, and we shouldn't expect any. It's illogical that physical proof would ever exist for a spiritual entity, because this would then make it a physical entity. IF god did switch back and forth from a spiritual entity to a physical being, you'd still argue there is no proof that god is a spiritual entity, because you don't comprehend spiritual evidence.

By your own definition, the spiritual can not exist in the physical, otherwise it would no longer be spiritual, but physical.

Nope... didn't say that. Spirituality has existed in the physical world for at least 70,000 years. Spiritual entities do not have or require physical evidence. They DO exist, but "exist" means something different in a spiritual sense, than it means in a physical sense, and this is where you have difficulty comprehending it, because you lack the understanding of spirituality. If a spiritual entity could provide physical evidence of it's existence, it would qualify itself as a physical entity, just by doing so, and it would cease to be a spiritual entity at that point, because there is a physical basis for it's existence.

Yet, you are claiming that spiritual evidence does exist in the physical universe.

I said that you are unable to recognize or acknowledge spiritual evidence, and demands for physical evidence is illogical. Spiritual evidence does exist, evidence is not a spiritual entity, it can exist in a physical sense, it's evidence, not a spirit. "Spiritual evidence" means it is evidence based on spirituality and not physical science.

Here again, you contradict yourself. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the spiritual can not exist in the physical, which you claimed when resisting the idea of a spiritual god existing in the physical, and then turn around and say that spiritual evidence exists in the physical universe. This so contradictory. You are saying the spiritual can exist in the physical, AND the spiritual can not exist in the physical.

Again, "evidence" is not a spirit. It can certainly exist in the physical world. I also never said "spiritual can not exist in the physical" it most certainly does 'spiritually exist' in the physical world. There is no contradiction, just you lying about what I said, AGAIN!

The only kind of evidence is physical evidence.

You keep saying this, and my OP pointed out that I fully understand YOU BELIEVE it, so do you think you are telling me something new here? It's what I've said all along, you don't acknowledge spiritual evidence, and you believe the only "evidence" or "existence" possible, is physical.

We live in a physical universe. Not a spiritual one.

Nope... We EXIST in a physical universe, we LIVE in a physical AND spiritual one.

When you say spiritual evidence, you are trying to pass off subjective experience as objective, because "spiritual evidence" is entirely subjective, and this, subject to a host of human cognitive biases which disallows you to establish the source of your subjective experiences. This is why your "spiritual evidence" is not evidence of the spiritual. You need to understand this. I am not simply precluding spirituality for the fun it. I am being logical, while you are trying to pass off subjectivity for objectivity, and that is supremely arrogant.

I'm not trying to "pass off" anything. There is no subjectivity, humans have been spiritual creatures as long as they have roamed the earth. Objectivity with spiritual evidence works the same as it does for physical evidence, you first have to believe in the basis for it. If I reject physical science, then physical science explanations are "subjective" to me. I can't objectively rationalize physical science if I don't believe it.

 

[Boss]

but there is no example or proof of the existence of the metaphysical.

There is no PHYSICAL example or proof. Logically, there wouldn't be, else it would not be spiritual.

You are all trying to demand a physical existence of a spiritual entity, and that will never work. As long as you will only see the physical evidence, only recognize the physical universe, and only acknowledge physical existences, you will never be able to comprehend spirituality or spiritual evidence. You're stuck in a logic quagmire of your own making. Spirit is non-physical by definition, but you can't accept it because it is non-physical, and you only accept physical, which is not spiritual.

I imagine it does seem quite preposterous to someone who doesn't understand or comprehend the spiritual universe. Those who are blind to spirituality, are unable to see anything but physical evidence as evidence. There is no physical proof, there will never be any physical proof of a spiritual entity, or it would then become a physical entity. We can either open our minds to the possibility of spiritual existence and spirituality, or we can remain closed-minded, believing the physical universe is all that exists. But for 70k years, billions of humans have professed a profound spiritual belief. This isn't a fluke or coincidence, and it's not something that can casually be dismissed, as so many non-spiritual believers want to argue.

People who know me will ask, why do you argue so vigorously there is a god, when you are basically an atheist? I don't believe in any organized religion, I think they are inferior man-made beliefs developed to explain something man has a hard time grasping. That said, I most definitely have the advantage in this argument, because I know for certain there is a spiritual aspect and higher spiritual power. I have felt the strength of this power, I have seen the results in my own life. To attempt to convince me that it doesn't exist, would be the equivalent of me trying to convince you that your mother doesn't exist.

In order for a PHYSICAL entity like yourself to FEEL this alleged POWER it must have MANIFESTED itself in a PHYSICAL manner. If instead you only IMAGINED this alleged POWER in a SPIRITUAL sense then your argument is 100% ANECDOTAL and carries no logical weight whatsoever.

You have a knack for destroying your own arguments.

Didn't destroy a thing. I disagree with your analysis, because the spiritual force certainly was realized, and perhaps it was a physical manifestation, but I can't provide physical evidence to support that. I do know that this spiritual power exists, nevertheless.

 

[numan]

'
ART IS NATURE SPEEDED UP AND GOD SLOWED DOWN

Can a human being create something as beautiful as a flower?

Examine a painting of a flower through a magnifying glass or a microscope, and you will soon find cracks, gashes and flaws. But examine a real flower, and there is no end to the beauty, harmony and elegance -- it is beauty all the way down.

From the balance of the fundamental constants of physics, from the structure of the whole Cosmos, down to the mysterious microcosm and its quantum mechanical structure there is balance, elegance and a Beauty which may justly be called "Divine".

Is it all an accident? Or is it the work of an Infinite Mind?

When our feeble monkey minds try to penetrate into such profound levels of Existence, perhaps there is no true difference between Accident and Infinite Mind, and they blend into One Reality.
.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is no PHYSICAL example or proof. Logically, there wouldn't be, else it would not be spiritual.

You are all trying to demand a physical existence of a spiritual entity, and that will never work. As long as you will only see the physical evidence, only recognize the physical universe, and only acknowledge physical existences, you will never be able to comprehend spirituality or spiritual evidence. You're stuck in a logic quagmire of your own making. Spirit is non-physical by definition, but you can't accept it because it is non-physical, and you only accept physical, which is not spiritual.

I imagine it does seem quite preposterous to someone who doesn't understand or comprehend the spiritual universe. Those who are blind to spirituality, are unable to see anything but physical evidence as evidence. There is no physical proof, there will never be any physical proof of a spiritual entity, or it would then become a physical entity. We can either open our minds to the possibility of spiritual existence and spirituality, or we can remain closed-minded, believing the physical universe is all that exists. But for 70k years, billions of humans have professed a profound spiritual belief. This isn't a fluke or coincidence, and it's not something that can casually be dismissed, as so many non-spiritual believers want to argue.

People who know me will ask, why do you argue so vigorously there is a god, when you are basically an atheist? I don't believe in any organized religion, I think they are inferior man-made beliefs developed to explain something man has a hard time grasping. That said, I most definitely have the advantage in this argument, because I know for certain there is a spiritual aspect and higher spiritual power. I have felt the strength of this power, I have seen the results in my own life. To attempt to convince me that it doesn't exist, would be the equivalent of me trying to convince you that your mother doesn't exist.

In order for a PHYSICAL entity like yourself to FEEL this alleged POWER it must have MANIFESTED itself in a PHYSICAL manner. If instead you only IMAGINED this alleged POWER in a SPIRITUAL sense then your argument is 100% ANECDOTAL and carries no logical weight whatsoever.

You have a knack for destroying your own arguments.

Didn't destroy a thing.

As always you are entitled to YOUR opinion.

I disagree with your analysis, because the spiritual force certainly was realized, and perhaps it was a physical manifestation, but I can't provide physical evidence to support that. I do know that this spiritual power exists, nevertheless.

Your ANECDOTE holds no weight as far as proof is concerned. That you have convinced yourself does not come anywhere remotely near to equating to "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists". Why are you incapable of making the obvious distinction that your PERSONAL beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the matter?

 

[Boss]

Since no two trees are identical under your definition they must have spirits. No two potatoes are identical either. Does that mean they also have spirits?

When a tree paints the Mona Lisa or a potato composes Beethoven's 5th Symphony, we can discuss this. Until then, you are just being obtuse about a well-made point.

So your latest kneejerk deflection is that all art must come from human spirituality?

Those pictures above were painted by an elephant.

Can a human being create something as beautiful as a flower?

Why do you people have such a difficult time quoting me accurately?

I never claimed all art must come from human spirituality. Someone made the point that we would all be the same if not for our spirits, and you countered with potatoes and trees, as examples of things that are all different and not the same. What you failed to grasp, is potatoes and trees lack human spirit, and human spirit drives inspiration. The art examples are cute, but they aren't masterpieces. Because someone taught an elephant to use a paintbrush, doesn't mean the elephant is creatively driven by inspiration... else, elephants would have been painters thousands of years ago, without the help of a human trainer.

 

[Boss]

Your ANECDOTE holds no weight as far as proof is concerned. That you have convinced yourself does not come anywhere remotely near to equating to "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists". Why are you incapable of making the obvious distinction that your PERSONAL beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the matter?

"Proof" to you, means PHYSICAL proof, that's all you will acknowledge or believe in. As long as you are completely and totally closed-minded to spirituality, you can never be shown any evidence you will consider valid, because physical evidence can't ever prove a spiritual entity. I've covered this already, numerous times in this thread, why do we keep having to go through it? I understand, you reject spiritual evidence, you don't believe in a spiritual universe, everything has to be supported by physical evidence for you to accept it, I get that... it's why it's impossible to ever prove god's existence to you.

I presented the definitive proof that god exists, in the OP. But if you don't believe in spiritual evidence, it doesn't matter, the case can't be made, you are expecting something illogical, which is some kind of physical proof to prove a spiritual entity, and that ain't gonna happen.

 

[numan]

Now to the "definitive proof" part. Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence, we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient people of Lake Mungo, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony. This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality.

No, you are jumping way beyond the evidence. What it indicates is the probable existence of ritual -- not "spirituality."

Ritual, or even belief in demons, may be no more than a quirk of our large brains and labile mental processes. It is no proof that these beliefs are about real things -- indeed, the crudity of the beliefs is evidence of the opposite.
.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your ANECDOTE holds no weight as far as proof is concerned. That you have convinced yourself does not come anywhere remotely near to equating to "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists". Why are you incapable of making the obvious distinction that your PERSONAL beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the matter?

"Proof" to you, means PHYSICAL proof, that's all you will acknowledge or believe in. As long as you are completely and totally closed-minded to spirituality, you can never be shown any evidence you will consider valid, because physical evidence can't ever prove a spiritual entity. I've covered this already, numerous times in this thread, why do we keep having to go through it? I understand, you reject spiritual evidence, you don't believe in a spiritual universe, everything has to be supported by physical evidence for you to accept it, I get that... it's why it's impossible to ever prove god's existence to you.

I presented the definitive proof that god exists, in the OP. But if you don't believe in spiritual evidence, it doesn't matter, the case can't be made, you are expecting something illogical, which is some kind of physical proof to prove a spiritual entity, and that ain't gonna happen.

Mindlessly repeating your utterly debunked and failed OP does not help your position one iota. Furthermore making ignorant assumptions about other posters doesn't help either. The only person here with a closed mind is YOU because you refuse to acknowledge the validity of the arguments that are refuting your nonsense. You have failed to support your position with logic too. In summary all you have left is your PERSONAL FAITH which is so far removed from "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists" as to no better than any other religious believer in this forum.

 

[edthecynic]

You first need to define your terms regarding this "spirit" thing. Metaphysics and mysticism aside, this "spirit" you claim exists has no properties which can be quantified.

I think its much more simple than that.

Spirit is probably just the ancient word for what we describe as consciousness, just like their understanding of the function of the organ of the heart is what we understand to be the function of the brain.... soul is what they thought of as the mind.

Losing their soul would equate with losing their mind. A person whose soul was possessed by a demon would be a victim of mind control.

An unclean spirit would translate as a dirty mind.

Nothing supernatural or mystical about any of it.

Spirit or soul or essence, as it is called in philosophy, is what lives on after the physical being ends. For example the essence/spirit/soul of a composer lives in their music after the existence of their physical body is no more. The spiritual is existential, existence precedes essence. The metaphysics Boss pushes is the exact opposite, essence precedes existence. We can observe and prove the existence of the existential, as I have shown with the composer, but there is no example or proof of the existence of the metaphysical. The metaphysical exists only by faith.

but there is no example or proof of the existence of the metaphysical.

There is no PHYSICAL example or proof. Logically, there wouldn't be, else it would not be spiritual.

You are all trying to demand a physical existence of a spiritual entity, and that will never work. As long as you will only see the physical evidence, only recognize the physical universe, and only acknowledge physical existences, you will never be able to comprehend spirituality or spiritual evidence. You're stuck in a logic quagmire of your own making. Spirit is non-physical by definition, but you can't accept it because it is non-physical, and you only accept physical, which is not spiritual.

I imagine it does seem quite preposterous to someone who doesn't understand or comprehend the spiritual universe. Those who are blind to spirituality, are unable to see anything but physical evidence as evidence. There is no physical proof, there will never be any physical proof of a spiritual entity, or it would then become a physical entity. We can either open our minds to the possibility of spiritual existence and spirituality, or we can remain closed-minded, believing the physical universe is all that exists. But for 70k years, billions of humans have professed a profound spiritual belief. This isn't a fluke or coincidence, and it's not something that can casually be dismissed, as so many non-spiritual believers want to argue.

People who know me will ask, why do you argue so vigorously there is a god, when you are basically an atheist? I don't believe in any organized religion, I think they are inferior man-made beliefs developed to explain something man has a hard time grasping. That said, I most definitely have the advantage in this argument, because I know for certain there is a spiritual aspect and higher spiritual power. I have felt the strength of this power, I have seen the results in my own life. To attempt to convince me that it doesn't exist, would be the equivalent of me trying to convince you that your mother doesn't exist.

Without realizing it, the way you edited my post proves you know you are wrong.
Thank you.

I did what you have not been able to do, I gave proof of the spiritual. The non-physical spirit of the composer lives long after the physical being has passed. What galls you is the composer had to exist first before the spirit of his music could live after his passing, and his existential spirit does not prove the existence of a God. Obviously it is you who has no conception of the spiritual since you cannot see its existential nature.

Maybe as a musician I have special insight into the spiritual nature of music, but I doubt it. Your spirit exists in everything you do, good or bad. It is a shame you are so completely unaware of the spiritual all around you.