Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

Boss, et al,

This is the case of the "round-tuit."

For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists. Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

(COMMENT)

In my old age, my better half (the same 19 year old I married 35 years ago) surprised me recently. She would give me a chore to perform, and in a very confidant manner I would tell her: "When I get a round-tuit." Knowing full well that a "round-tuit" doesn't exist. But then, just after Christmas, we had this conversation, and I stated my prerequisite "round-tuit;" and she tossed me one.

Now, the question is: Is it real? OR Is it a creation of mans imagination?

How do I disprove it is a real "round tuit?"

Most Respectfully,
R

I've got one better... How can you prove that reality as we experience it, isn't a creation of man's imagination? Think about it... not so easy to answer that one.

We function in a reality governed by our five senses. Imagine, if we were unable to hear, could we have ever physically proven "sound" exists? What is "sound" if we have no ability to hear? The things we can "prove" with science, are limited to our five senses and what we can relate to in the reality we function in. Are we so arrogant as to believe there can be no more senses other than the ones we happen to possess?

 

[Hollie]

Sorry, but I'm too lazy to read 3500+ posts to get this answer. Has the definition of "God" for the purposes of the proving been settled on? A proof of X logically presupposed a common understanding of what is X.

For example, if by "God" is meant the "Clockmaker God" of the Enlightenment, what does a proof of that god tell us about the God of the Old Testament, or Odin for that matter?

I posit Oldfart's Conjecture: That the more the detailed the characteristics of a deity the more vulnerable it will be to refutation. Corollary: The more provable the existence of a deity, the more likely the characteristics of such a deity are such to make it trivial.

Any thoughts?

You can skip most of the 3500 posts, and find all you need in the OP. The first point in the OP argument, is to establish parameters and understandings of the terminology. I intentionally removed "God" from the constraints of having to conform to any particular religious incarnation for a reason. We do not need to define every detail to determine if something exists. The next point is, whether or not an individual can accept existence or presence of spiritual nature. If you don't believe spiritual nature exists, you can't evaluate spiritual evidence, which means you can never find "definitive proof" of god. If you can overcome this closed-minded prejudice, and open your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable.

This thread is full of reactionary responses from people who don't believe in spiritual nature. As I predicted in the OP argument, they are incapable of evaluating the spiritual evidence because they disbelieve in spiritual nature. The thread can literally grow to 10,000 responses, they are never going to believe in spiritual nature or be able to evaluate spiritual evidence. For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists. Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

That's such a wonderful argument. In order to believe in something you call "spiritual nature™", we must first accept something you call "spiritual evidence".

What is "spiritual evidence"?

"Spiritual evidence" is proof of "spiritual nature™"

How do we know this?

Because Boss says so!

 

[BreezeWood]

............

The thread can literally grow to 10,000 responses, they are never going to believe in spiritual nature or be able to evaluate spiritual evidence. For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists. Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

OP: You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity.

..... then it would be a physical entity.

there is no proof by the OP as a basic fallacy that the spiritual entity God does not have a physical presence or that a physical presence would be exclusionary for a spiritual entity -

proof of simultaneous existence of both spirit and form is the individual itself that both "connects to something greater than self" spiritually, while likewise retaining a physical / physiological form.


For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists ....

if the spiritual entity were to display itself by its physical nature the disbelievers would be satisfied of its existence.


the OP can only speculate why the Spiritual Entity chooses not to display itself in a physical form but can not stipulate that spiritual evidence is the only means to prove its existence - otherwise the OP is accurate in its account for spiritual evidence as a means of confirmation.


the reason the Spiritual Entity does not display itself physically is the reason, from time immemorial (for mankind) there is doubt it exists and is the primary basis for Atheism.


for the OP to insinuate all other life forms are not similarly connected to the spiritual entity does not take into account other life forms may not require as Atheist a physical display but rather simply have developed a purer spiritual connection that is beyond a period of doubt and may have a more satisfying connection.

 

[Hollie]

Boss, et al,

This is the case of the "round-tuit."

For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists. Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

(COMMENT)

In my old age, my better half (the same 19 year old I married 35 years ago) surprised me recently. She would give me a chore to perform, and in a very confidant manner I would tell her: "When I get a round-tuit." Knowing full well that a "round-tuit" doesn't exist. But then, just after Christmas, we had this conversation, and I stated my prerequisite "round-tuit;" and she tossed me one.

Now, the question is: Is it real? OR Is it a creation of mans imagination?

How do I disprove it is a real "round tuit?"

Most Respectfully,
R

I've got one better... How can you prove that reality as we experience it, isn't a creation of man's imagination? Think about it... not so easy to answer that one.

We function in a reality governed by our five senses. Imagine, if we were unable to hear, could we have ever physically proven "sound" exists? What is "sound" if we have no ability to hear? The things we can "prove" with science, are limited to our five senses and what we can relate to in the reality we function in. Are we so arrogant as to believe there can be no more senses other than the ones we happen to possess?

Oh, please. Grow up.

“Sound” is proven by pressure as the result of the movement of air. Those physical properties exist whether we are deaf of not. Anyone who has ever been to a live concert, close to the stage, can attest to the “thumping” one can feel from low frequency sounds.

Are you so arrogant to suggest that there are senses beyond those we can describe and define? Of course you are. So present your evidence for these “extra-human” senses. Just remember that you are obligated to support your claims with something more than “because I say so”.

 

[Boss]

Sorry, but I'm too lazy to read 3500+ posts to get this answer. Has the definition of "God" for the purposes of the proving been settled on? A proof of X logically presupposed a common understanding of what is X.

For example, if by "God" is meant the "Clockmaker God" of the Enlightenment, what does a proof of that god tell us about the God of the Old Testament, or Odin for that matter?

I posit Oldfart's Conjecture: That the more the detailed the characteristics of a deity the more vulnerable it will be to refutation. Corollary: The more provable the existence of a deity, the more likely the characteristics of such a deity are such to make it trivial.

Any thoughts?

You can skip most of the 3500 posts, and find all you need in the OP. The first point in the OP argument, is to establish parameters and understandings of the terminology. I intentionally removed "God" from the constraints of having to conform to any particular religious incarnation for a reason. We do not need to define every detail to determine if something exists. The next point is, whether or not an individual can accept existence or presence of spiritual nature. If you don't believe spiritual nature exists, you can't evaluate spiritual evidence, which means you can never find "definitive proof" of god. If you can overcome this closed-minded prejudice, and open your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable.

This thread is full of reactionary responses from people who don't believe in spiritual nature. As I predicted in the OP argument, they are incapable of evaluating the spiritual evidence because they disbelieve in spiritual nature. The thread can literally grow to 10,000 responses, they are never going to believe in spiritual nature or be able to evaluate spiritual evidence. For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists. Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

That's such a wonderful argument. In order to believe in something you call "spiritual nature™", we must first accept something you call "spiritual evidence".

What is "spiritual evidence"?

"Spiritual evidence" is proof of "spiritual nature™"

How do we know this?

Because Boss says so!

Because Boss says so, and billions of humans over the ages who profess to the miracles and blessings from spiritual nature, also say so. And because science confirms human behaviors say so. This is not refuted because Hollie says so.

 

[edthecynic]

Ed, when you say that something is "undestroyable and uncreatable" you are saying it is omnipotent. When you say it has "always existed and never ends", you are saying it is omnipresent. No one is changing the meaning of words, you are attempting to avoid the words we commonly use to describe the parameters you argued. It just so happens, these same attributes are also commonly applied to God. Nothing in science mandates that science has exclusives on certain words and their meanings, just like nothing in science says science can't discover spiritually understood things.

Like I said, if you think you've proven that energy can't be destroyed and doesn't have a beginning or end, you have defined the same parameters of God. Now, it doesn't matter if you proved God or not, you have at least proven God can exist. I applaud you, I think that is a monumental step for a non-believer, and perhaps it has broadened your mind.

When SCIENCE says energy can neither be created nor destroyed, SCIENCE says energy has existed and will exist in the same total quantity, in other words, energy is a constant, PERIOD. Scientific language does not use the multiple dictionary definitions for a word, in scientific language words have one meaning and one meaning only.

If YOU want to claim that God is the physical entity "energy" and not a spirit, be my guest, but don't attribute it to me.

What is the difference between scientific language and literary language

Answer:
first, they focus on different aspects of meaning. Scientific language depends on denotation while literary language depends on connotation.
second, the purposes for using these two kinds of language are different. The purpose for using scientific language is practical, that is to say, this language are used for describing the physical world. But the purpose for using literary language is to share the author's emotion, attitude and feeling.
third,they are different in form. when we use scientific language, we need not to create an asthetic experience. But when we use literary language, we have to pay attention to the choice of words and the sentence order. Poem is a typical example.

I give your tapdance an 8.4, Eddy! Nice original form, but the song is so overused and outdated. Still, your spin moves were world class.

I didn't argue that God is energy. I believe energy is a creation of God. I simply pointed out, your definition of an uncreatable, undestroyable, everlasting entity, is the same definition for God. I don't think you have proven that energy is God, but you certainly proved God is not only spiritually possible, but physically explainable. If energy can have these properties, then so can God.

We've not discovered physical evidence to prove God exists, but if we ever do, I can predict the reaction from the disbelievers will be, that God never was spiritual, since God would be proven physically. The problem here, again, is not that God doesn't exist, it is your inability to recognize things of spiritual nature. With your definition of "energy" we can see that you have the capacity to comprehend omnipotence, omnipresence, and everlasting life. You believe it and have faith in it, because it is written in a Science book.

As I stated earlier, humans are intrinsically inclined to spiritual belief, and your spiritual belief resides in Science. You even go so far as to make a case for "Holy Words" of Science, which can't be used in any other context. You are confused in thinking your "religion" is empirical and untouchable, because it seems to have the support of physical evidence. The fact remains, your theories, no matter how supportable, are reliant upon faith. Even the mathematics of physics, rely on faith that physics will remain constant. So, you are really not any different than 96% of the human species, you have spiritual faith, it just resides in the religion of Science.

Those are properties of a physical entity, therefore for God to have them God must also be a physical entity. So yet again you have established that the physical begets the spiritual.

Even though you have unknowingly established that the physical begets the spiritual, you have established that a physical energy God created itself in the form of a spiritual God who created energy which cannot be created.

 

[edthecynic]

I've got one better... How can you prove that reality as we experience it, isn't a creation of man's imagination? Think about it... not so easy to answer that one.

We function in a reality governed by our five senses. Imagine, if we were unable to hear, could we have ever physically proven "sound" exists? What is "sound" if we have no ability to hear? The things we can "prove" with science, are limited to our five senses and what we can relate to in the reality we function in. Are we so arrogant as to believe there can be no more senses other than the ones we happen to possess?

Science is in no way limited to the 5 senses. Where do you make this stuff up from?

With our machines and our sensors we have expanded our awareness. We have equipment that can detect radio waves, x-rays, etc., which are beyond our 5 senses.
You are the most ignorant pompous know-it-all I have ever encountered!!!

 

[Boss]

............

The thread can literally grow to 10,000 responses, they are never going to believe in spiritual nature or be able to evaluate spiritual evidence. For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists. Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

OP: You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity.

..... then it would be a physical entity.

there is no proof by the OP as a basic fallacy that the spiritual entity God does not have a physical presence or that a physical presence would be exclusionary for a spiritual entity -

proof of simultaneous existence of both spirit and form is the individual itself that both "connects to something greater than self" spiritually, while likewise retaining a physical / physiological form.


For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists ....

if the spiritual entity were to display itself by its physical nature the disbelievers would be satisfied of its existence.

I doubt it. What the disbelievers would say is: "See? I told you there was never any spiritual nature!" As I pointed out, science has discovered all kinds of things that were once thought to be controlled by spiritual nature, should I run down the list? Or can we agree, this has been the case throughout the history of science? Therefore, physical evidence of God would be met with the same smug criticisms and chortles from disbelievers in spiritual nature. They've constructed a no-lose proposition, because if God can be physically proven, then Spirituality becomes obsolete, and God becomes physical in nature.

the OP can only speculate why the Spiritual Entity chooses not to display itself in a physical form but can not stipulate that spiritual evidence is the only means to prove its existence - otherwise the OP is accurate in its account for spiritual evidence as a means of confirmation.

the reason the Spiritual Entity does not display itself physically is the reason, from time immemorial (for mankind) there is doubt it exists and is the primary basis for Atheism.

for the OP to insinuate all other life forms are not similarly connected to the spiritual entity does not take into account other life forms may not require as Atheist a physical display but rather simply have developed a purer spiritual connection that is beyond a period of doubt and may have a more satisfying connection.

I don't disagree with the point you are making here, it is indeed relevant and valid. After all, how can we know the personal spiritual connection of an ant or bird? In the spirit of demonstrating my agreement with what you've said, let me amend my previous statement: Humans appear to be the only creatures who are able to exhibit a utilization of their spiritual connection to inspire themselves, as a source of inner strength and optimism, which has been the basis for our empowerment and ultimately, our advancement as a species. Other living things may very well have spiritual connection, and their behaviors may be largely determined by spiritual nature's guidance, but they appear to be self-aware (satisfied) of this, if that's the case. Indeed, physical nature in total, does seem to conform to some system of harmony and not random chaos. It should be clear that something does guide this, and the simplistic theories of 'natural selection' simply can't explain it.

 

[Boss]

I've got one better... How can you prove that reality as we experience it, isn't a creation of man's imagination? Think about it... not so easy to answer that one.

We function in a reality governed by our five senses. Imagine, if we were unable to hear, could we have ever physically proven "sound" exists? What is "sound" if we have no ability to hear? The things we can "prove" with science, are limited to our five senses and what we can relate to in the reality we function in. Are we so arrogant as to believe there can be no more senses other than the ones we happen to possess?

Science is in no way limited to the 5 senses. Where do you make this stuff up from?

With our machines and our sensors we have expanded our awareness. We have equipment that can detect radio waves, x-rays, etc., which are beyond our 5 senses.
You are the most ignorant pompous know-it-all I have ever encountered!!!

LMAO.... How did you "detect" them, with your non-physical senses?

 

[Boss]

When SCIENCE says energy can neither be created nor destroyed, SCIENCE says energy has existed and will exist in the same total quantity, in other words, energy is a constant, PERIOD. Scientific language does not use the multiple dictionary definitions for a word, in scientific language words have one meaning and one meaning only.

If YOU want to claim that God is the physical entity "energy" and not a spirit, be my guest, but don't attribute it to me.

What is the difference between scientific language and literary language

Answer:
first, they focus on different aspects of meaning. Scientific language depends on denotation while literary language depends on connotation.
second, the purposes for using these two kinds of language are different. The purpose for using scientific language is practical, that is to say, this language are used for describing the physical world. But the purpose for using literary language is to share the author's emotion, attitude and feeling.
third,they are different in form. when we use scientific language, we need not to create an asthetic experience. But when we use literary language, we have to pay attention to the choice of words and the sentence order. Poem is a typical example.

I give your tapdance an 8.4, Eddy! Nice original form, but the song is so overused and outdated. Still, your spin moves were world class.

I didn't argue that God is energy. I believe energy is a creation of God. I simply pointed out, your definition of an uncreatable, undestroyable, everlasting entity, is the same definition for God. I don't think you have proven that energy is God, but you certainly proved God is not only spiritually possible, but physically explainable. If energy can have these properties, then so can God.

We've not discovered physical evidence to prove God exists, but if we ever do, I can predict the reaction from the disbelievers will be, that God never was spiritual, since God would be proven physically. The problem here, again, is not that God doesn't exist, it is your inability to recognize things of spiritual nature. With your definition of "energy" we can see that you have the capacity to comprehend omnipotence, omnipresence, and everlasting life. You believe it and have faith in it, because it is written in a Science book.

As I stated earlier, humans are intrinsically inclined to spiritual belief, and your spiritual belief resides in Science. You even go so far as to make a case for "Holy Words" of Science, which can't be used in any other context. You are confused in thinking your "religion" is empirical and untouchable, because it seems to have the support of physical evidence. The fact remains, your theories, no matter how supportable, are reliant upon faith. Even the mathematics of physics, rely on faith that physics will remain constant. So, you are really not any different than 96% of the human species, you have spiritual faith, it just resides in the religion of Science.

Those are properties of a physical entity, therefore for God to have them God must also be a physical entity. So yet again you have established that the physical begets the spiritual.

Even though you have unknowingly established that the physical begets the spiritual, you have established that a physical energy God created itself in the form of a spiritual God who created energy which cannot be created.

Wow, you are missing your own logic now, Eddy.

Those are properties you assigned to a physical entity. If they can apply to a physical entity, they could certainly apply to any spiritual entity. You've theorized it is physically possible to have a physical entity be everlasting, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Why can't this apply to spiritual entities? How do you KNOW that there is no physical evidence to support God? You just gave us some very compelling evidence, in my opinion, you established the physical possibility of everlasting life, omnipotence, omnipresence.

Well done!

 

[TemplarKormac]

I give your tapdance an 8.4, Eddy! Nice original form, but the song is so overused and outdated. Still, your spin moves were world class.

I didn't argue that God is energy. I believe energy is a creation of God. I simply pointed out, your definition of an uncreatable, undestroyable, everlasting entity, is the same definition for God. I don't think you have proven that energy is God, but you certainly proved God is not only spiritually possible, but physically explainable. If energy can have these properties, then so can God.

We've not discovered physical evidence to prove God exists, but if we ever do, I can predict the reaction from the disbelievers will be, that God never was spiritual, since God would be proven physically. The problem here, again, is not that God doesn't exist, it is your inability to recognize things of spiritual nature. With your definition of "energy" we can see that you have the capacity to comprehend omnipotence, omnipresence, and everlasting life. You believe it and have faith in it, because it is written in a Science book.

As I stated earlier, humans are intrinsically inclined to spiritual belief, and your spiritual belief resides in Science. You even go so far as to make a case for "Holy Words" of Science, which can't be used in any other context. You are confused in thinking your "religion" is empirical and untouchable, because it seems to have the support of physical evidence. The fact remains, your theories, no matter how supportable, are reliant upon faith. Even the mathematics of physics, rely on faith that physics will remain constant. So, you are really not any different than 96% of the human species, you have spiritual faith, it just resides in the religion of Science.

Those are properties of a physical entity, therefore for God to have them God must also be a physical entity. So yet again you have established that the physical begets the spiritual.

Even though you have unknowingly established that the physical begets the spiritual, you have established that a physical energy God created itself in the form of a spiritual God who created energy which cannot be created.

Wow, you are missing your own logic now, Eddy.

Those are properties you assigned to a physical entity. If they can apply to a physical entity, they could certainly apply to any spiritual entity. You've theorized it is physically possible to have a physical entity be everlasting, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Why can't this apply to spiritual entities? How do you KNOW that there is no physical evidence to support God? You just gave us some very compelling evidence, in my opinion, you established the physical possibility of everlasting life, omnipotence, omnipresence.

Well done!

Jesus was God's physical manifestation here on Earth. Did anyone happen to mention that?

 

[Boss]

Boss, et al,

This is the case of the "round-tuit."


(COMMENT)

In my old age, my better half (the same 19 year old I married 35 years ago) surprised me recently. She would give me a chore to perform, and in a very confidant manner I would tell her: "When I get a round-tuit." Knowing full well that a "round-tuit" doesn't exist. But then, just after Christmas, we had this conversation, and I stated my prerequisite "round-tuit;" and she tossed me one.

Now, the question is: Is it real? OR Is it a creation of mans imagination?

How do I disprove it is a real "round tuit?"

Most Respectfully,
R

I've got one better... How can you prove that reality as we experience it, isn't a creation of man's imagination? Think about it... not so easy to answer that one.

We function in a reality governed by our five senses. Imagine, if we were unable to hear, could we have ever physically proven "sound" exists? What is "sound" if we have no ability to hear? The things we can "prove" with science, are limited to our five senses and what we can relate to in the reality we function in. Are we so arrogant as to believe there can be no more senses other than the ones we happen to possess?

Oh, please. Grow up.

“Sound” is proven by pressure as the result of the movement of air. Those physical properties exist whether we are deaf of not. Anyone who has ever been to a live concert, close to the stage, can attest to the “thumping” one can feel from low frequency sounds.

Are you so arrogant to suggest that there are senses beyond those we can describe and define? Of course you are. So present your evidence for these “extra-human” senses. Just remember that you are obligated to support your claims with something more than “because I say so”.

The physical properties exist, but how would we, as humans with no capacity to hear, recognize these properties? Not as "sounds" we currently understand. Perhaps we would recognize them through sense of touch? What if some humans believed in sound and some people believed it was all our imaginations because of our complex sense of touch? What if those who believed in sound, had developed their ability to appreciate different sounds, and although they couldn't actually hear them, could still gain great benefit from being in the presence of them? Would the non-believers in sound, still be pounding their keyboards, 3600+ posts in, to disprove the kakamamie notion of sound?

 

[edthecynic]

I give your tapdance an 8.4, Eddy! Nice original form, but the song is so overused and outdated. Still, your spin moves were world class.

I didn't argue that God is energy. I believe energy is a creation of God. I simply pointed out, your definition of an uncreatable, undestroyable, everlasting entity, is the same definition for God. I don't think you have proven that energy is God, but you certainly proved God is not only spiritually possible, but physically explainable. If energy can have these properties, then so can God.

We've not discovered physical evidence to prove God exists, but if we ever do, I can predict the reaction from the disbelievers will be, that God never was spiritual, since God would be proven physically. The problem here, again, is not that God doesn't exist, it is your inability to recognize things of spiritual nature. With your definition of "energy" we can see that you have the capacity to comprehend omnipotence, omnipresence, and everlasting life. You believe it and have faith in it, because it is written in a Science book.

As I stated earlier, humans are intrinsically inclined to spiritual belief, and your spiritual belief resides in Science. You even go so far as to make a case for "Holy Words" of Science, which can't be used in any other context. You are confused in thinking your "religion" is empirical and untouchable, because it seems to have the support of physical evidence. The fact remains, your theories, no matter how supportable, are reliant upon faith. Even the mathematics of physics, rely on faith that physics will remain constant. So, you are really not any different than 96% of the human species, you have spiritual faith, it just resides in the religion of Science.

Those are properties of a physical entity, therefore for God to have them God must also be a physical entity. So yet again you have established that the physical begets the spiritual.

Even though you have unknowingly established that the physical begets the spiritual, you have established that a physical energy God created itself in the form of a spiritual God who created energy which cannot be created.

Wow, you are missing your own logic now, Eddy.

Those are properties you assigned to a physical entity. If they can apply to a physical entity, they could certainly apply to any spiritual entity. You've theorized it is physically possible to have a physical entity be everlasting, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Why can't this apply to spiritual entities? How do you KNOW that there is no physical evidence to support God? You just gave us some very compelling evidence, in my opinion, you established the physical possibility of everlasting life, omnipotence, omnipresence.

Well done!

No, they are properties that have been proven with a repeatable experiment, no theory or assignment about it.

But thank you for now admitting the the physical and spiritual are interchangeable after having vehemently denied it for this entire thread.

 

[Boss]

Those are properties of a physical entity, therefore for God to have them God must also be a physical entity. So yet again you have established that the physical begets the spiritual.

Even though you have unknowingly established that the physical begets the spiritual, you have established that a physical energy God created itself in the form of a spiritual God who created energy which cannot be created.

Wow, you are missing your own logic now, Eddy.

Those are properties you assigned to a physical entity. If they can apply to a physical entity, they could certainly apply to any spiritual entity. You've theorized it is physically possible to have a physical entity be everlasting, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Why can't this apply to spiritual entities? How do you KNOW that there is no physical evidence to support God? You just gave us some very compelling evidence, in my opinion, you established the physical possibility of everlasting life, omnipotence, omnipresence.

Well done!

Jesus was God's physical manifestation here on Earth. Did anyone happen to mention that?

For purposes of the OP question, I have intentionally avoided introducing any religious theocracy, because it taints the question of spiritual existence. Jesus was a physical being, and may have well been the physical incarnation of a spiritual entity, I have no proof of that, and make no such argument here. That is a theological belief, and while it does serve to prove that humans spiritually connect to something, it also tends to draw controversy, when this question deserves complete clarity.

The evidence of human connection to something spiritual, far predates Christian religion. In fact, it goes back to the very origins of our species. This isn't a theocratic argument, it is very scientific and based on physical evidence. It is important to remain focused on the physical evidence whenever we can, and for this reason, we must abandon religious preconception. That is not to dismiss religious beliefs, but rather, to remain focused on the question at hand and the physical evidence science can provide.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Those are properties of a physical entity, therefore for God to have them God must also be a physical entity. So yet again you have established that the physical begets the spiritual.

Even though you have unknowingly established that the physical begets the spiritual, you have established that a physical energy God created itself in the form of a spiritual God who created energy which cannot be created.

Wow, you are missing your own logic now, Eddy.

Those are properties you assigned to a physical entity. If they can apply to a physical entity, they could certainly apply to any spiritual entity. You've theorized it is physically possible to have a physical entity be everlasting, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Why can't this apply to spiritual entities? How do you KNOW that there is no physical evidence to support God? You just gave us some very compelling evidence, in my opinion, you established the physical possibility of everlasting life, omnipotence, omnipresence.

Well done!

No, they are properties that have been proven with a repeatable experiment, no theory or assignment about it.

But thank you for now admitting the the physical and spiritual are interchangeable after having vehemently denied it for this entire thread.

I would have to agree with this post.

 

[Hollie]

I've got one better... How can you prove that reality as we experience it, isn't a creation of man's imagination? Think about it... not so easy to answer that one.

We function in a reality governed by our five senses. Imagine, if we were unable to hear, could we have ever physically proven "sound" exists? What is "sound" if we have no ability to hear? The things we can "prove" with science, are limited to our five senses and what we can relate to in the reality we function in. Are we so arrogant as to believe there can be no more senses other than the ones we happen to possess?

Oh, please. Grow up.

“Sound” is proven by pressure as the result of the movement of air. Those physical properties exist whether we are deaf of not. Anyone who has ever been to a live concert, close to the stage, can attest to the “thumping” one can feel from low frequency sounds.

Are you so arrogant to suggest that there are senses beyond those we can describe and define? Of course you are. So present your evidence for these “extra-human” senses. Just remember that you are obligated to support your claims with something more than “because I say so”.

The physical properties exist, but how would we, as humans with no capacity to hear, recognize these properties? Not as "sounds" we currently understand. Perhaps we would recognize them through sense of touch? What if some humans believed in sound and some people believed it was all our imaginations because of our complex sense of touch? What if those who believed in sound, had developed their ability to appreciate different sounds, and although they couldn't actually hear them, could still gain great benefit from being in the presence of them? Would the non-believers in sound, still be pounding their keyboards, 3600+ posts in, to disprove the kakamamie notion of sound?

"The physical properties exist, but how would we, as humans with no capacity to hear, recognize these properties?"

I'll type this very slowly so you can understand it: "sound pressure waves".

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mans spiritual connection is not the only connection between God and man.

 

[Boss]

No, they are properties that have been proven with a repeatable experiment, no theory or assignment about it.

But thank you for now admitting the the physical and spiritual are interchangeable after having vehemently denied it for this entire thread.

I haven't denied anything. In fact, I made the point that physical sciences have often come along to "explain" what was previously thought to be something spiritually guided. (Yet humans remain 'delusional with spirituality' for some odd reason.)

As Rocco points out, the THEORIES regarding indestructible energy are indeed being questioned. There is never any "conclusion" made by science, those are made by MAN!

But I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you have defined a physical entity as being indestructible, omnipotent, and omnipresent, with no beginning or ending, everlasting life. I think this is a monumental breakthrough, especially for a non-believer!

As I said, if you didn't actually prove god's existence, you made a very strong case for the possibility.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The term Ruach should shed some light on this subject.

 

[Boss]

Oh, please. Grow up.

“Sound” is proven by pressure as the result of the movement of air. Those physical properties exist whether we are deaf of not. Anyone who has ever been to a live concert, close to the stage, can attest to the “thumping” one can feel from low frequency sounds.

Are you so arrogant to suggest that there are senses beyond those we can describe and define? Of course you are. So present your evidence for these “extra-human” senses. Just remember that you are obligated to support your claims with something more than “because I say so”.

The physical properties exist, but how would we, as humans with no capacity to hear, recognize these properties? Not as "sounds" we currently understand. Perhaps we would recognize them through sense of touch? What if some humans believed in sound and some people believed it was all our imaginations because of our complex sense of touch? What if those who believed in sound, had developed their ability to appreciate different sounds, and although they couldn't actually hear them, could still gain great benefit from being in the presence of them? Would the non-believers in sound, still be pounding their keyboards, 3600+ posts in, to disprove the kakamamie notion of sound?

"The physical properties exist, but how would we, as humans with no capacity to hear, recognize these properties?"

I'll type this very slowly so you can understand it: "sound pressure waves".

Why don't you read to the end of the post, dear? Instead of emotively reacting to post some smart ass remark, as soon as you get to something that sets you off? I asked you how would humans interpret these "sound pressure waves" if we couldn't HEAR them?

We would have physical evidence of something we could feel, but we couldn't see it or taste it, and we don't know what hearing is.... so would it be "real" or a product of our imaginations, created by our complex ability to "feel" things? We can see which side of the argument you would be on, regardless of any evidence presented from those kooky "sound worshipers!"