Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[newpolitics]

Only religious people get angry when the existence of their "God" is debunked with reason and logic which is what you are doing right now. That you have to project your anger and hatred onto those who are upholding their own freedom from religion rights just exposes how deeply religious you actually are.

You've not debunked anything with reason or logic. You've attempted to apply an illogical criteria by demanding physical proof of something that is not physical in nature. This is the only "reason" you have presented for rejecting the possibility. Even the principles of the scientific method are ignored by you. Science has not drawn the conclusion that a spiritual realm doesn't or can't exist, or for that matter, can't ever be proven by physical evidence. Science itself, remains open to the possibility of things we don't yet know, but you reject any possibility of spirituality. You are defying your own first-principles of science in doing so, and it doesn't even seem to dawn on you.

What you are presenting as evidence isn't evidence. There is no such thing as "spiritual evidence." There is simply "evidence." You have invented a category that contains the conclusion. This is begging the question. It is a logical fallacy, therefore, your argument fails. You have not even attempted to counter this refutation, because you cant, since its true. You don't understand logic, so you will ignore this as unimportant, even though it is crucial. This is the nature of your delusion: to ignore the crucial.

What we would really need from you is supernatural causation. You have failed to provide this.

 

[HUGGY]

Actually Boss, there was a god. But that was a long time ago. Me and my boys took care of it We wrote a song to commemorate the event:

Steely Dan 2003-Godwhacker - YouTube

Ther ought to be a law that a great old group from the seventies should be prohibited from writing and performing any new music if it takes away from thier main body of work which in the same law should be considered a national treasure.

True story.

 

[newpolitics]

Let me make it real simple for you: you are trying to prove the spiritual. You can't use the spiritual to prove the spiritual, when the spiritual hasn't been shown to exist at all. This is circular. It is called begging the question. This is a logical fallacy. What this means is that you fail at reaching your conclusion. Because your evidence already has the quality of being spiritual, you've started out with an assumption that contains your conclusion. Begging the question.... Basic logical fallacy, at the heart of your pseudo-argument.

For whatever reason, you have failed to refute this. You haven't even tried. Then you hypocritically accuse me of avoiding the OP. Stop being an ass, grow up, and start addressing the myriad refutations throughout this thread of your OP, instead of accusing everyone of avoiding your "spiritual evidence," which is your conclusion in disguise.

 

[Boss]

"In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority. Outside of East Asia and some European countries atheist or non-believer percentages are typically in the single digits. The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs...

"... At one time all societies everywhere presumably believed in gods or god until the advent of the classical philosophical systems in East Asia and Science in the West. Atheism was very slow in becoming an openly asserted system of non-belief in the West with little or nothing before the late 18th Century in terms of positively asserted unequivocal atheism. Although there have always been individuals who in fact were, or like Socrates were accused of being atheists, only in the late modern period has statistically sound information become available."

"...Galen writes "Many previously reported characteristics associated with religiosity are a function not of belief itself, but of strong convictions and group identification."

A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports:


"The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.
In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).[9]"

Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, we have already determined that not all "atheists" reject the possibility of a "spiritual" existence. I am a prime example of someone who falls in this category, and I'll bet that when it comes right down to it, if people are completely honest, this is true with virtually everyone in this thread.

Answer me this; Are you willing to say that you do not believe it is possible for another realm of existence to be present in the universe, except the one you understand as the physical one? Now.... don't IGNORE the question, answer it honestly.

IF you believe it possible another realm could exist, you are like most human beings. IF you do not believe it is possible, you are among the 5% who profess a belief in nothing, a Nihilist. The problem with believing it is impossible that spiritual nature exists, is you are actually practicing a FAITH-BASED BELIEF, and not practicing scientific evaluation. However... the "problem" with accepting the possibility of spiritual existence, means you have to objectively accept spiritual evidence, which is overwhelming.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Only religious people get angry when the existence of their "God" is debunked with reason and logic which is what you are doing right now. That you have to project your anger and hatred onto those who are upholding their own freedom from religion rights just exposes how deeply religious you actually are.

You've not debunked anything with reason or logic. You've attempted to apply an illogical criteria by demanding physical proof of something that is not physical in nature. This is the only "reason" you have presented for rejecting the possibility. Even the principles of the scientific method are ignored by you. Science has not drawn the conclusion that a spiritual realm doesn't or can't exist, or for that matter, can't ever be proven by physical evidence. Science itself, remains open to the possibility of things we don't yet know, but you reject any possibility of spirituality. You are defying your own first-principles of science in doing so, and it doesn't even seem to dawn on you.

What you are presenting as evidence isn't evidence. There is no such thing as "spiritual evidence." There is simply "evidence." You have invented a category that contains the conclusion. This is begging the question. It is a logical fallacy, therefore, your argument fails. You have not even attempted to counter this refutation, because you cant, since its true. You don't understand logic, so you will ignore this as unimportant, even though it is crucial. This is the nature of your delusion: to ignore the crucial.

What we would really need from you is supernatural causation. You have failed to provide this.

Where in the heck do you go to school ? since when is human behavior not evidence ? The only fallacy at work here is your ability to reason.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What would be nice, is if you learned something about logic, and then used it. Because right now, you are seriously missing the mark. Nowhere in this thread is a proof for anything. Quite literally. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but don't claim definitive proof for god and then let us down with such a poorly constructed argument. Try putting your argument in syllogistic form, and see how far you get. Then you will realize you can't deductively get to "god exists" using your premises. Not by a long shot.

I have given an argument from the standpoint of Logic that goes ignored that does suggest a designer (GOD).

Not ignored exactly. Just dismissed as irrelevant. There is just nothing logical about appeals to supernaturalism.

You have brought up arguments that are long known to be flawed, and therefore they are categorized as arguments that are basically pointless. Whenever I see deliberately self-destructing arguments, I point out that the fallaciousness of them is so overwhelming, one has to consciously and deliberately blind oneself to the flaws.

First, let me make an assumption that we are in agreement that god(s) have no attributes other than those that most Theists apply to him after acknowledging that he/her is beyond human comprehension. So how does a mere mortal apply these various attributes to the incomprehensible? Like most religionists, you drench your gods with human attributes while at the same time claiming “he” is beyond our power to understand.

Perhaps what you assert as divine can be divined (in which case it would belong to the natural world). But theists insist the supernatural does not belong in the natural realm and to that the materialist says, “Okay, then by definition it is not rational and if it is not rational, knowable, extant, etc. then it is indistinguishable from nothingness. Hence, why believe it is true?"

It's not irrelevant You just have no answer for it nor do you like it that my argument trumps your your belief system.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why don't you kids go honor your mother and Give Thanks to GOD your mother did not believe in Abortion!

 

[Hollie]

I have given an argument from the standpoint of Logic that goes ignored that does suggest a designer (GOD).

Not ignored exactly. Just dismissed as irrelevant. There is just nothing logical about appeals to supernaturalism.

You have brought up arguments that are long known to be flawed, and therefore they are categorized as arguments that are basically pointless. Whenever I see deliberately self-destructing arguments, I point out that the fallaciousness of them is so overwhelming, one has to consciously and deliberately blind oneself to the flaws.

First, let me make an assumption that we are in agreement that god(s) have no attributes other than those that most Theists apply to him after acknowledging that he/her is beyond human comprehension. So how does a mere mortal apply these various attributes to the incomprehensible? Like most religionists, you drench your gods with human attributes while at the same time claiming “he” is beyond our power to understand.

Perhaps what you assert as divine can be divined (in which case it would belong to the natural world). But theists insist the supernatural does not belong in the natural realm and to that the materialist says, “Okay, then by definition it is not rational and if it is not rational, knowable, extant, etc. then it is indistinguishable from nothingness. Hence, why believe it is true?"

It's not irrelevant You just have no answer for it nor do you like it that my argument trumps your your belief system.

You have never offered a coherent explanation for "it". You have never even offered evidence for "it". So yes, it is irrelevant.

 

[numan]

answer me this; are you willing to say that you do not believe it is possible for another realm of existence to be present in the universe, except the one you understand as the physical one? now.... Don't ignore the question, answer it honestly.

mathematics
.

 

[numan]

It's hard to convince me the most intelligent species of all has suffered from mass delusion for 70k years....

Most of the human beings who have ever lived believed that the Sun went around the Earth.
.

 

[Hollie]

I have given an argument from the standpoint of Logic that goes ignored that does suggest a designer (GOD).

Not ignored exactly. Just dismissed as irrelevant. There is just nothing logical about appeals to supernaturalism.

You have brought up arguments that are long known to be flawed, and therefore they are categorized as arguments that are basically pointless. Whenever I see deliberately self-destructing arguments, I point out that the fallaciousness of them is so overwhelming, one has to consciously and deliberately blind oneself to the flaws.

First, let me make an assumption that we are in agreement that god(s) have no attributes other than those that most Theists apply to him after acknowledging that he/her is beyond human comprehension. So how does a mere mortal apply these various attributes to the incomprehensible? Like most religionists, you drench your gods with human attributes while at the same time claiming “he” is beyond our power to understand.

Perhaps what you assert as divine can be divined (in which case it would belong to the natural world). But theists insist the supernatural does not belong in the natural realm and to that the materialist says, “Okay, then by definition it is not rational and if it is not rational, knowable, extant, etc. then it is indistinguishable from nothingness. Hence, why believe it is true?"

Whenever I see deliberately self-destructing arguments, I point out that the fallaciousness of them is so overwhelming, one has to consciously and deliberately blind oneself to the flaws.

You rejected my argument on the basis that a spiritual entity doesn't provide physical proof. The fallaciousness is you insisting on illogical evidence that never can exist. If spiritual entities provided physical proof, they would be physical entities, defined by the existence of physical proof. In order to examine the possibility of a spiritual god, you have to examine spiritual evidence, not physical. But you reject spiritual evidence as nonsense, so god can never be proven to you, nor are you capable of examining the possibility.

Physical science and the scientific method, NEVER draw conclusions. It is all probability and prediction, based on observation and testability. Nothing is definitive with science, it always leaves the door of possibility open. Understanding this, what if you were attempting to explain something science is relatively certain about, to someone who totally rejects science? Every theory you present, is met with... "god didn't say it, so it must not be true!" Repeatedly, you show the physical evidence, the scientific data and formulas, the details of scientific examination, and it is consistently rejected by someone who refuses to accept physical science, and insists that "god did it!" Is there ANY way to get through to such a person? Will you EVER convince them, if they won't accept physical science?

The same exact problem applies to you in this debate. You refuse to accept spiritual evidence and cling to physical science. Your mind is closed to any other possibility. I presented an argument which contains both spiritual and physical evidence, but you reject the spiritual evidence, and offer casual excuses to explain away the physical evidence. If physical science were definitive and could definitively prove spiritual entities do not exist, I would accept your argument, but that's not the case.

You are still insisting that there is evidence for something you claim exists, ie:: “spiritual evidence”, yet you cannot coherently define what that is. You cannot provide evidence for it. So yes, you are describing “nothing”.

At the core of any debate lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective inferences drawn from that evidence. I have no means or methods to evaluate the non-objective claims of something you call "spirituality” but remain unable to define, present no evidence for, and cannot provide demonstration for. I have no choice but to recognize that evidence is the final arbiter of what we define as facts.

You have obviously opted for something connected with Theism, mysticism or some derivative to account for what you call “spirituality”, yet I’m not even clear as to what you hope to accomplish by doing so. As to whether an individual chooses to accept a naturalistic or supernatural view, science has no say in the matter. Science cannot substantiate what cannot be tested, directly observed, falsified, or has left no physical trace. You seem to be attempting to discredit science by asserting that there are extant supernatural forces. Yet, you offer no evidence to support that supernaturalism.

The "supernatural" argument is not a valid one. What people expect vs. what they would prefer to believe means little, if anything, in science. If it were so, then we should have thrown out Einstein's theories of General and Special Relativity a long time ago, not to mention that weird Quantum Mechanics nonsense (That's sarcasm, folks). If people have trouble accepting or believing something in science, then it is not the fault of science. I, for one, find nothing about naturalistic evolution which offends my common sense or expectations. No one is under any obligation to explain why supernaturalism is not the most reasonable explanation for existence. It is the supernaturalism advocates who must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why they think that the products of nature must have been subject to supernaturalism. To date, they have not done so and in fact, appeal instead to a wide array of nonsensical and unproven supernatural assertions. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to emotion and fear.

At a fundamental level, you presume your argument with the assertion that there is something called “spirituality” which stands authoritative. You engage your beliefs by claiming the only guidelines for supporting your are those you assert as a recipient of your own “spirituality”. We can either accept or disregard those assertions, but you are adamant: They are real, they are true, and no amount of data to the contrary will convince you otherwise.

You proceed by having an open-ended standard, i.e., "I assert it to be true, hence it is true". That’s fine. Just don’t presume that others are going to be convinced of any of it.

 

[BreezeWood]

answer me this; are you willing to say that you do not believe it is possible for another realm of existence to be present in the universe, except the one you understand as the physical one? now.... Don't ignore the question, answer it honestly.

mathematics
.

the Garden is the Physical Presence and proof of Gods existence .... for which mathematics does not apply -

in 750 million years there has not been a Leaf or a blade of Grass similar to another and never will be.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority. Outside of East Asia and some European countries atheist or non-believer percentages are typically in the single digits. The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs...

"... At one time all societies everywhere presumably believed in gods or god until the advent of the classical philosophical systems in East Asia and Science in the West. Atheism was very slow in becoming an openly asserted system of non-belief in the West with little or nothing before the late 18th Century in terms of positively asserted unequivocal atheism. Although there have always been individuals who in fact were, or like Socrates were accused of being atheists, only in the late modern period has statistically sound information become available."

"...Galen writes "Many previously reported characteristics associated with religiosity are a function not of belief itself, but of strong convictions and group identification."

A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports:


"The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.
In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).[9]"

Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, we have already determined that not all "atheists" reject the possibility of a "spiritual" existence. I am a prime example of someone who falls in this category, and I'll bet that when it comes right down to it, if people are completely honest, this is true with virtually everyone in this thread.

Answer me this; Are you willing to say that you do not believe it is possible for another realm of existence to be present in the universe, except the one you understand as the physical one? Now.... don't IGNORE the question, answer it honestly.

IF you believe it possible another realm could exist, you are like most human beings. IF you do not believe it is possible, you are among the 5% who profess a belief in nothing, a Nihilist. The problem with believing it is impossible that spiritual nature exists, is you are actually practicing a FAITH-BASED BELIEF, and not practicing scientific evaluation. However... the "problem" with accepting the possibility of spiritual existence, means you have to objectively accept spiritual evidence, which is overwhelming.

Why do you preposterously ASSUME that if another realm exists that it MUST be "spiritual" in nature? Other realms could just as easily be physical but comprised entirely of dark matter and dark energy. Once again your innate religiosity exposes the absurdity of your erroneous presumptions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

answer me this; are you willing to say that you do not believe it is possible for another realm of existence to be present in the universe, except the one you understand as the physical one? now.... Don't ignore the question, answer it honestly.

mathematics
.

the Garden is the Physical Presence and proof of Gods existence .... for which mathematics does not apply -

in 750 million years there has not been a Leaf or a blade of Grass similar to another and never will be.

More arrant nonsense. They are ALL "similar to another". What you are trying to claim is that they are not "identical". There again you are wrong because some species of plants reproduce by cloning themselves which means that they have identical DNA. FYI grasses only began evolving around 55 million years ago.

 

[numan]

In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority....

One of the many attractive features of Chinese culture is that, for centuries, a large percentage of the Chinese population has regarded religion as a branch of fantastic humor.

One need only read the centuries-old Chinese novel Journey to the West to see this abundantly. This allegorical exposition of Buddhist religion and philosophy, and the slap-stick adventures of the Monkey-King Wu-Kong ("Enlightened Emptiness") and the Venerable Monk Tripitaka, even today, are comedic favorites in Chinese movies and childrens' shows.
.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority....

One of the many attractive features of Chinese culture is that, for centuries, a large percentage of the Chinese population has regarded religion as a branch of fantastic humor.

One need only read the centuries-old Chinese novel Journey to the West to see this abundantly. This allegorical exposition of Buddhist religion and philosophy, and the slap-stick adventures of the Monkey-King Wu-Kong ("Enlightened Emptiness") and the Venerable Monk Tripitaka, even today, are comedic favorites in Chinese movies and childrens' shows.
.

Monkey-King Wu-Kong ("Enlightened Emptiness") must finally be the "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists" that the OP has been searching for all this time.

 

[S.J.]

We can't SEE thoughts, emotions, reason, but we know they are there because we see the results they produce, much like air. That's logic.
One-dimensional thinkers (like the ones on this thread) don't consider the possibility that a higher power could exist because they can't apply familiar scientific principals to verify it. Their faith in science is as misplaced as any religions they mock.
Science deals strictly with the physical world and that's all people like NP can handle, even though we know non-physical forces (like hate, fear, love) drive our physical world. They are close-minded people, which is ironic when you consider that scientific thinking is supposed to be open to all possibilities.

 

[Boss]

Not ignored exactly. Just dismissed as irrelevant. There is just nothing logical about appeals to supernaturalism.

You have brought up arguments that are long known to be flawed, and therefore they are categorized as arguments that are basically pointless. Whenever I see deliberately self-destructing arguments, I point out that the fallaciousness of them is so overwhelming, one has to consciously and deliberately blind oneself to the flaws.

First, let me make an assumption that we are in agreement that god(s) have no attributes other than those that most Theists apply to him after acknowledging that he/her is beyond human comprehension. So how does a mere mortal apply these various attributes to the incomprehensible? Like most religionists, you drench your gods with human attributes while at the same time claiming “he” is beyond our power to understand.

Perhaps what you assert as divine can be divined (in which case it would belong to the natural world). But theists insist the supernatural does not belong in the natural realm and to that the materialist says, “Okay, then by definition it is not rational and if it is not rational, knowable, extant, etc. then it is indistinguishable from nothingness. Hence, why believe it is true?"

Whenever I see deliberately self-destructing arguments, I point out that the fallaciousness of them is so overwhelming, one has to consciously and deliberately blind oneself to the flaws.

You rejected my argument on the basis that a spiritual entity doesn't provide physical proof. The fallaciousness is you insisting on illogical evidence that never can exist. If spiritual entities provided physical proof, they would be physical entities, defined by the existence of physical proof. In order to examine the possibility of a spiritual god, you have to examine spiritual evidence, not physical. But you reject spiritual evidence as nonsense, so god can never be proven to you, nor are you capable of examining the possibility.

Physical science and the scientific method, NEVER draw conclusions. It is all probability and prediction, based on observation and testability. Nothing is definitive with science, it always leaves the door of possibility open. Understanding this, what if you were attempting to explain something science is relatively certain about, to someone who totally rejects science? Every theory you present, is met with... "god didn't say it, so it must not be true!" Repeatedly, you show the physical evidence, the scientific data and formulas, the details of scientific examination, and it is consistently rejected by someone who refuses to accept physical science, and insists that "god did it!" Is there ANY way to get through to such a person? Will you EVER convince them, if they won't accept physical science?

The same exact problem applies to you in this debate. You refuse to accept spiritual evidence and cling to physical science. Your mind is closed to any other possibility. I presented an argument which contains both spiritual and physical evidence, but you reject the spiritual evidence, and offer casual excuses to explain away the physical evidence. If physical science were definitive and could definitively prove spiritual entities do not exist, I would accept your argument, but that's not the case.

You are still insisting that there is evidence for something you claim exists, ie:: “spiritual evidence”, yet you cannot coherently define what that is. You cannot provide evidence for it. So yes, you are describing “nothing”.

I have provided evidence for it, 70,000 years of human civilization accompanied by human spirituality, an attribute that distinguishes our species from all other living things.

At the core of any debate lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective inferences drawn from that evidence.

This is true, so why do you continue to interpret physical evidence un-objectively? Biased by the "belief" that spirituality does not exist? Physical evidence alone, doesn't show spirituality exists or doesn't exist, it is inconclusive. To continue to demand some kind of physical evidence for a spiritual entity, is franky, illogical. Objectively, we have to examine the possibility that human spiritual connection, which has existed as long as we have, which is profound and distinct in our species, which defines and distinguishes our species over all other living things... MIGHT have something to do with what makes us so much different from all other living things.

I have no means or methods to evaluate the non-objective claims of something you call "spirituality” but remain unable to define, present no evidence for, and cannot provide demonstration for. I have no choice but to recognize that evidence is the final arbiter of what we define as facts.

I established in the first two paragraphs of the OP that this is the problem with answering this question. You do not recognize spiritual evidence, and you find convenient excuses for the physical evidence. God can never be proven to you, I have state this in my argument, and you have again confirmed it to be true. I totally understand, you will ONLY accept physical evidence, and ONLY believe in physical existence. It's impossible to ever prove god to you. In order to prove god, the spiritual nature of god is destroyed, and god becomes a physical entity, not a spiritual one. This is an illogical and impossible criteria to meet. Which is convenient for you, since you reject spirituality.

You have obviously opted for something connected with Theism, mysticism or some derivative to account for what you call “spirituality”, yet I’m not even clear as to what you hope to accomplish by doing so.

No, I keep having "theism" thrown in my face, because your reasoning for rejecting spirituality centers around your bigoted hatred for religion. This is self-evident by the way you continue to go back to the religion well, to try and make this a theological argument. There is also no "mysticism" involved in my argument or beliefs. This is a buzz word you are using to ridicule my position and portray it as invalid.

As to whether an individual chooses to accept a naturalistic or supernatural view, science has no say in the matter. Science cannot substantiate what cannot be tested, directly observed, falsified, or has left no physical trace.

Two point to consider here; a) If science has no say, why are you arguing from the perspective that it does or should, or that it's logical to expect it? b) When did science conclude that spirituality cannot be tested, directly observed, falsified, or have a physical trace?

You seem to be attempting to discredit science by asserting that there are extant supernatural forces. Yet, you offer no evidence to support that supernaturalism.

70,000 years of human civilization intrinsically tied to some kind of spiritual connection. A noted psychiatrist one said: If God didn't exist, man would have to invent it. His point was, that the human psyche is irrefutably tied to a spiritual connection... it's WHO WE ARE!

The "supernatural" argument is not a valid one.

Only because your mind has rendered it invalid.

What people expect vs. what they would prefer to believe means little, if anything, in science.

Then why do you keep clinging to what you would prefer to believe? Why do you keep relying on science to answer questions you admit that science cannot answer?

If it were so, then we should have thrown out Einstein's theories of General and Special Relativity a long time ago, not to mention that weird Quantum Mechanics nonsense (That's sarcasm, folks). If people have trouble accepting or believing something in science, then it is not the fault of science.

I've not rejected science, but science hasn't proven what you seem to think it has.

 

[Boss]

"In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority. Outside of East Asia and some European countries atheist or non-believer percentages are typically in the single digits. The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs...

"... At one time all societies everywhere presumably believed in gods or god until the advent of the classical philosophical systems in East Asia and Science in the West. Atheism was very slow in becoming an openly asserted system of non-belief in the West with little or nothing before the late 18th Century in terms of positively asserted unequivocal atheism. Although there have always been individuals who in fact were, or like Socrates were accused of being atheists, only in the late modern period has statistically sound information become available."

"...Galen writes "Many previously reported characteristics associated with religiosity are a function not of belief itself, but of strong convictions and group identification."

A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports:


"The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.
In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).[9]"

Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, we have already determined that not all "atheists" reject the possibility of a "spiritual" existence. I am a prime example of someone who falls in this category, and I'll bet that when it comes right down to it, if people are completely honest, this is true with virtually everyone in this thread.

Answer me this; Are you willing to say that you do not believe it is possible for another realm of existence to be present in the universe, except the one you understand as the physical one? Now.... don't IGNORE the question, answer it honestly.

IF you believe it possible another realm could exist, you are like most human beings. IF you do not believe it is possible, you are among the 5% who profess a belief in nothing, a Nihilist. The problem with believing it is impossible that spiritual nature exists, is you are actually practicing a FAITH-BASED BELIEF, and not practicing scientific evaluation. However... the "problem" with accepting the possibility of spiritual existence, means you have to objectively accept spiritual evidence, which is overwhelming.

Why do you preposterously ASSUME that if another realm exists that it MUST be "spiritual" in nature? Other realms could just as easily be physical but comprised entirely of dark matter and dark energy. Once again your innate religiosity exposes the absurdity of your erroneous presumptions.

You are absolutely correct, there could be a realm which is not spiritual OR physical. I never meant to imply (because I didn't state) that another realm MUST be spiritual. In context of the current conversation, I presumed we were defining "spiritual" to be that which is not "physical," but I certainly want to clarify this, so that everyone understands.

So, are you now saying that you believe it is possible another realm does exist, which we can't comprehend from our physical realm? Just want to make sure you've answered my question.

 

[numan]

We can't SEE thoughts, emotions, reason, but we know they are there because we see the results they produce, much like air. That's logic.

It's not logic if you assume that thoughts are "things" in the same way that air molecules are "things".
.