Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

I believe that when a person dies that is it it described in the bible like a state of sleep. I believe we are just a memory until the resurrection. I believe the spirit of a person is the breathe of life and I believe the soul is the blood. A living breathing organism is a living soul. If the blood of the organism is lost the soul is dead. If the breathe of an organism is lost that soul dies.

belief is only evidence of belief nothing more..
oh yeah, dead is dead...

Some of my beliefs are faith based that is correct.

 

[Gadawg73]

You continue to make it sound as though science has answered all of humanity's questions, Boss, which is clearly untrue. Science also does not provide comfort, nor give a guideline for living life as religions do.

Sure, many things that were once thought of as divine or magical have been explained through science. Humanity knows a lot more than it once did. But there are still plenty of questions, there are still plenty of hopes, there are still plenty of fears, all of which can be answered by various religions. If nothing else, simple fear of death remains a huge draw; most religions have some sort of afterlife, which I imagine can be a huge comfort in the face of death.

Your argument that we should see less belief in religion or the supernatural because of scientific advancement is wrong IMO. What we have seen is just what might be expected, a refinement of those beliefs, a trimming away of those things which can no longer be explained through supernatural means.

You give humanity and science far too much credit if you think our scientific advancement has progressed so far that, barring the spiritual connection you posit, religious and supernatural beliefs should no longer exist.

We know science has no clue about many things most importantly how life came in to existence.

A better clue than religion.

 

[BreezeWood]

We ask 'why' because we are capable of asking it. Other animals don't because they cannot. No spirituality is needed! Intelligence explains why other animals couldn't care less. That you believe our asking is evidence of the spiritual is one thing, but that other animals do not is evidence only of their inability to do so. How would they ask the question, with a spiritual connection, but without the intelligence to do so?

you have a dismal understanding of nature ... a lighthearted view might help.


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151523812709682

 

[Boss]

As I already said, you are making the huge mistake of assuming science has explained all the things which the religious and supernatural explained in the past. That is exceedingly strange considering your admitting that science can often explain the how but not the why.

So which is it? Can science explain all of the why's, which would lead to no need for the spiritual explanations, or is science still in the dark about many issues, some of them long-standing, profound philosophic questions, leaving plenty of things for the religious, supernatural and spiritual to answer?

We seem to be having two different arguments, the one I am presenting and the one you are reading. I'm not sure how to deal with that. My presenting either needs to improve, or your reading needs to.

I have never assumed that science has explained everything. The 'argument' was posited; human spirituality emerged as a way to explain the unexplained. So did superstition. As we see over time, science explains things of physical nature, superstitions fade away. This has not happened with human spirituality, at all. Religion may modify itself through these scientific findings, it may even rise or fall in popularity, but human spirituality remains unchanged in our species.

The question is not why do humans need a spiritual connection. The spiritual evidence is overwhelming, they have a spiritual connection and always will. This is what drives us, and everything we do as humans. It's what makes us ask why, when other animals couldn't care less. The question is, what is this spiritual power humans are connected to?

We ask 'why' because we are capable of asking it. Other animals don't because they cannot. No spirituality is needed!

I disagree. I think it is because of spirituality that we have this capacity while other animals don't.

Intelligence explains why other animals couldn't care less.

No it doesn't because other animals are more intelligent than us at certain things.

That you believe our asking is evidence of the spiritual is one thing, but that other animals do not is evidence only of their inability to do so.

That is circular reasoning. Other animals aren't spiritually connected.

How would they ask the question, with a spiritual connection, but without the intelligence to do so?

The spiritual connection would give them the ability, like in humans.

We are having two different arguments because your argument is contradictory. You have said that, without a spiritual connection, humanity should have stopped believing in the spiritual as science progressed and answered questions.

Not what I said. I said we could expect to see a rapid decline in spirituality with the advent of science and scientific discovery, and we haven't. It's unchanged. This proves spirituality does not exist to explain the unexplained.

That assumes that science must have answered either all questions, or enough that people would feel no need to believe in the supernatural.

No, it assumes that if the reason man 'invented' spirituality was to explain the unexplained, when science began doing a better job than spirituality, some people would have abandoned it. Science was invented to explain the unexplained, not spirituality.

That gives science and humanity too much credit.

I wasn't the one who posited this theory. I am merely pointing out the flaw in it. If humans created spiritual belief in order to explain the unexplained, and there was really nothing spiritual to connect to or believe in, then science would have destroyed spirituality a long time ago, much like it did with superstition. It hasn't destroyed it, nor has it really changed it, people are just as spiritually connected as ever.

Science has many, many questions still to answer, and science does not even attempt to answer many more. There are still many things which science cannot provide answers to but religion or supernatural beliefs can.

I haven't argued otherwise.

As I also already said, spiritual and supernatural beliefs can provide comfort or give guidelines for living that science cannot.

Correct, so there is a very real and fundamental purpose it serves to humans. I need to correct you on the continued use of the word "supernatural" when speaking of spirituality. I understand you believe it is supernatural, but this denotes something outside of nature, and spirituality is part of nature. As you concluded here, it serves a vital purpose to man. To those who believe in spiritual nature, spirituality is not "supernatural" at all, it is completely natural, spiritual nature.

So your argument about scientific discovery causing an end to supernatural, spiritual beliefs, if those beliefs are mere imagination, is wrong. Simple fear of death is probably enough to maintain spiritual beliefs even if they are nothing but imagination.

No, you misunderstood my argument, as I have pointed out above. I have asked you to explain to me why mankind has a fear of death, when no other animals seem concerned? Why do we ask why? Why do we need to know? I believe, it is because we are spiritually connected, different from all other living things. You've not refuted this argument.

Speaking of which, it seems contradictory to me to use human supernatural beliefs through history as evidence of the spiritual, while at the same time dismissing the idea those beliefs could simply be imagination, when you've pretty much said that many of humanity's older beliefs WERE nothing but imagination. If science has explained many phenomena that humans assigned imaginary supernatural beliefs to in the past, why is that evidence that there is SOME kind of supernatural force in the universe, but not evidence that humanity will imagine answers that don't exist?

Humans imagine answers that don't exist all the time, in this very thread, there are humans imagining that spirituality doesn't exist, even though the evidence shows it has existed in some form as long as humans have been around. I admit, spirituality does drive our imaginations to create religious dogma, much of which is imagination. This is certainly not evidence spirituality doesn't exist. As I stated before, religion is evidence that humans do spiritually connect to something, and have great imaginations. Because we are unable, as humans, to comprehend spiritual nature, our imagination tends to create an understanding based on things we can relate to. This gives us gods with human-like attributes, who have humanistic emotions and reactions. Again, these are all manifestations of a profound spiritual connection to something. It does not mean these manifestations are correct or accurate, but the fact they remain perpetual as a characteristic, is evidence that humans spiritually connect to something.

Put another way, if you accept that lightning and thunder are products of weather and not some kind of thunder god, and if you accept that the whole concept of a thunder god being what creates those things is nothing but a myth made up by people looking for any kind of explanation, why can't current supernatural beliefs be the same? Why can't all supernatural beliefs in history be the same? Why can't humans have been making things up for all of our history, rather than these imaginary beliefs being evidence of the spiritual?

Supernatural belief and spiritual belief are two different things. Spiritual belief involves a very real connection humans are making to some power greater than self, which is not evident in the physical realm, but is just as natural as physical nature. I understand the definitions can overlap, because "supernatural" is something not physically natural. However, this is where the distinction between those who accept spiritual nature and those who don't, comes into play, and why I made this the first point established in my argument.

In order to definitively answer the question in the OP, we have to first set aside our preconceptions regarding supernatural, superstition, religion, and imagination. We have to remain focused on the inherent behavioral attributes that define humans as distinctly different creatures. Yes, we are capable of astonishing things, but we are also spiritually connected and always have been. This is not delusion or product of imagination itself.

Can I prove that? Sure, but it will have to start with you surrendering to your spiritual self, and you aren't willing to do that yet. I can tell you, there are FAR more people on this planet, who will testify about the moment they surrendered to their spiritual self, and how it was the greatest day of their life, than people who have chosen to close their minds and reject spiritual nature. It has always been this way, it always will be this way, because this is what makes us humans.

 

[Montrovant]

Other animals being better at certain things does not equate to other animals being able to ask philosophic questions. I have seen no evidence other animals are capable of asking the questions that lead to religious, spiritual or supernatural beliefs.

You think we have our intelligence because of spirituality? Ok, but understand that is a belief with no objective evidence.

WHY would we see a rapid decline in spirituality with scientific discovery, when science cannot and often doesn't even attempt to answer some of the biggest questions that lead to spiritual, religious and supernatural beliefs? Science has certainly pared the beliefs down, but there are too many things that lead to these kinds of beliefs that are outside the purview of scientific discovery.

Some people HAVE abandoned spirituality. I don't know if there are more today than in the past, but it's certainly possible. Perhaps you are correct that as we advance scientifically we will see more people abandon spiritual beliefs and you are simply incorrect about the time it will take.

Science has in no way destroyed superstition. There are superstitions prevalent all over. We may have less of them because of science, but they are far from gone.

According to your definition the spiritual is not part of the physical world, that means it is not subject to natural laws, and is therefor supernatural.

Mankind may be the only species that thinks on death while safe and healthy, but other animals certainly appear to fear death; at the least, they actively try to avoid it when it comes calling. Prey animals don't simply accept that the predator is coming for them when they see one, do they? No, they run. That could be fear of death.
Then again, other animal species may not have the intellectual capacity to understand life and death, so perhaps they do not fear it. Again, though, it would be an example of how man's intelligence allows for the things you ascribe to a spiritual connection.

So again, you believe that human imagination fabricating various religious and supernatural beliefs is proof of a spiritual connection, but dismiss that possibility that human imagination could also be behind what you consider the spiritual.

You may not follow an organized religion, but your beliefs seem as ingrained and inflexible as any religious adherent. You talk often of open mindedness, of setting aside preconceptions, etc.....yet all you have done is bring your own preconceptions to this discussion and moved on assuming anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong. You have subjective evidence, where you have evidence at all. You use the belief of the religious to make your point, then dismiss that belief as imagination. You talk about how many people could testify to their spiritual connection at the same time you denigrate what they consider the very basis of that connection.

Your argument is just another version of 'my god is the one true god'. I have no problem with your belief, I'm not arguing it's validity or lack thereof. I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of some of your arguments and the fact that your claims of open mindedness seem disingenuous at best.

 

[Boss]

Other animals being better at certain things does not equate to other animals being able to ask philosophic questions. I have seen no evidence other animals are capable of asking the questions that lead to religious, spiritual or supernatural beliefs.

I didn't argue that other animals make spiritual connection. They obviously don't. You claimed humans ask why because they can, and this is circular reasoning. It doesn't explain why humans can and other animals can't. You attempted to explain that we are more intelligent, but that isn't always true. An adult chimp is probably smarter than a newborn human.

You think we have our intelligence because of spirituality? Ok, but understand that is a belief with no objective evidence.

Oh, but there is objective evidence. We have both our accomplishments which are superior to all other species, and our profound spiritual connection. It is objective to consider these two distinct attributes are related. Now either intelligence fostered spirituality or spirituality fostered intelligence, but they both define what humans are and why they are different.

From a purely logical standpoint, it makes no sense that intelligence fostered spiritual belief as a placebo for knowledge. It is much more believable to me, that spirituality fostered intelligence, inquisitiveness, the ability to reason and philosophize. Mostly because, there is no example of any living thing, creating something that it depends on fundamentally, but is only imaginary. But also because these two distinct attributes are what make us dramatically different than all other living things, and it can't be a coincidence.

WHY would we see a rapid decline in spirituality with scientific discovery, when science cannot and often doesn't even attempt to answer some of the biggest questions that lead to spiritual, religious and supernatural beliefs? Science has certainly pared the beliefs down, but there are too many things that lead to these kinds of beliefs that are outside the purview of scientific discovery.

Again, you are making my case better than I can myself here. Humans are intrinsically connected to something spiritually. We can't exist without it. Science can't answer all our questions. Science applies to physical nature and can't answer any spiritual questions.

Some people HAVE abandoned spirituality. I don't know if there are more today than in the past, but it's certainly possible. Perhaps you are correct that as we advance scientifically we will see more people abandon spiritual beliefs and you are simply incorrect about the time it will take.

There are far more people who have surrendered to their spiritual self, than people who have abandoned spirituality. It's the natural state of humans to be spiritual, and this has always been the case. You even admitted that humans need spirituality to explain what science can't explain. I'm not incorrect in the point I made, if spirituality were a placebo for knowledge which was missing, as that knowledge emerged, we'd see less spirituality. We haven't seen any decline whatsoever. Some religions may decline, that is common through history. Spirituality, in some form, remains relatively the same in the human species for all of our existence. It's part of who we are.

Science has in no way destroyed superstition. There are superstitions prevalent all over. We may have less of them because of science, but they are far from gone.

I didn't say science destroyed superstition entirely. In fact, there is a whole lot in religion that is nothing but superstition, in my opinion. However, people once held strong superstitious beliefs, which were not spiritually inclined or based, and those eventually turned into quaint novelties we recall today at halloween and whatnot. And sure, there are sports figures who wear the lucky jersey or whatever, I understand. I didn't mean to imply that science had eliminated all superstition.

According to your definition the spiritual is not part of the physical world, that means it is not subject to natural laws, and is therefor supernatural.

It's not subject to physical natural laws, because it is spiritual. I didn't define spiritual as "not a part" of the physical world, it is very much a part of it. I said it was non-physical in nature, which is entirely different. It's nature is spiritual, not physical. It does exist spiritually, it is present in the physical world, in a spiritual realm.

According to your definition of supernatural, black holes are supernatural phenomenon.

Mankind may be the only species that thinks on death while safe and healthy, but other animals certainly appear to fear death;

Never claimed other animals don't want to survive. All living things will try to survive. You said humans need spirituality to relieve their fears of death. I have asked you to explain why other animals don't seem to need something to relieve their fear of death, which they don't seem to have? You counter that with survival instincts? Really?

Again, though, it would be an example of how man's intelligence allows for the things you ascribe to a spiritual connection.

Or it could be that spirituality, which drives human intelligence, leads man to worry about his eternal fate in the spiritual nature, after his physical presence is gone.

So again, you believe that human imagination fabricating various religious and supernatural beliefs is proof of a spiritual connection, but dismiss that possibility that human imagination could also be behind what you consider the spiritual.

We've already established, or actually, you established, that spirituality is needed by humans to explain things science will never have an answer for. So it's not purely imaginary, is it? Humans fundamentally need to worship some power greater than self, in order to be who we are. This can't be any clearer, when you study the history of human behavior. There are people lining up to reject this, but reality can't be rejected.

You may not follow an organized religion, but your beliefs seem as ingrained and inflexible as any religious adherent. You talk often of open mindedness, of setting aside preconceptions, etc.....yet all you have done is bring your own preconceptions to this discussion and moved on assuming anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong. You have subjective evidence, where you have evidence at all. You use the belief of the religious to make your point, then dismiss that belief as imagination. You talk about how many people could testify to their spiritual connection at the same time you denigrate what they consider the very basis of that connection.

Your argument is just another version of 'my god is the one true god'. I have no problem with your belief, I'm not arguing it's validity or lack thereof. I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of some of your arguments and the fact that your claims of open mindedness seem disingenuous at best.

Why do you keep trying to make this a religious debate? Religions are often full of crap when it comes to understanding a spiritual god. In my argument, they only serve as evidence that humans do make some kind of spiritual connection to something, and they have vivid imaginations.

My argument doesn't have a thing to do with my personal god. I've made this abundantly clear, and I've corrected posters on the use of the various words, like "deity" to describe god. This is not a religious debate, it has nothing to do with religious incarnations of various gods that man has conjured up.

It is about the human spiritual connection that does exist in man, and always has. This intrinsic need that can't be filled by science, to have something to rely on for our most profound questions. You realized this yourself, it is needed by man. It can't be bred out, beaten out, burned out, or enlightened out. Human spirituality remains our most defining attribute, and by which, all other uniquely human attributes came.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You continue to make it sound as though science has answered all of humanity's questions, Boss, which is clearly untrue. Science also does not provide comfort, nor give a guideline for living life as religions do.

Sure, many things that were once thought of as divine or magical have been explained through science. Humanity knows a lot more than it once did. But there are still plenty of questions, there are still plenty of hopes, there are still plenty of fears, all of which can be answered by various religions. If nothing else, simple fear of death remains a huge draw; most religions have some sort of afterlife, which I imagine can be a huge comfort in the face of death.

Your argument that we should see less belief in religion or the supernatural because of scientific advancement is wrong IMO. What we have seen is just what might be expected, a refinement of those beliefs, a trimming away of those things which can no longer be explained through supernatural means.

You give humanity and science far too much credit if you think our scientific advancement has progressed so far that, barring the spiritual connection you posit, religious and supernatural beliefs should no longer exist.

We know science has no clue about many things most importantly how life came in to existence.

A better clue than religion.

No they don't their thoughts are dead on arrival.

 

[numan]

...This is not delusion or product of imagination itself.

Can I prove that? Sure, but it will have to start with you surrendering to your spiritual self, and you aren't willing to do that yet.

How do you tell the difference between "surrendering to your spiritual self" and surrendering to a delusion?

It's the natural state of humans to be spiritual....

It's the natural state of humans to be irrational and deluded.
.

 

[Boss]

...This is not delusion or product of imagination itself.

Can I prove that? Sure, but it will have to start with you surrendering to your spiritual self, and you aren't willing to do that yet.

How do you tell the difference between "surrendering to your spiritual self" and surrendering to a delusion?

Enlightenment through a moment of clarity.

It's the natural state of humans to be spiritual....

It's the natural state of humans to be irrational and deluded.
.

Only certain humans, such as yourself.

 

[Hollie]

...This is not delusion or product of imagination itself.

Can I prove that? Sure, but it will have to start with you surrendering to your spiritual self, and you aren't willing to do that yet.

How do you tell the difference between "surrendering to your spiritual self" and surrendering to a delusion?

It's the natural state of humans to be spiritual....

It's the natural state of humans to be irrational and deluded.
.

How does anyone "surrender to their spiritual self"?

What does that even mean? It sounds like something you would hear coming from a 1960's vintage hippie.

Maybe it's one of those new-wave religions coming out of the California pot head community.

"It's like... like, spiritual man, ya know".

Totally rad!

 

[BreezeWood]

...This is not delusion or product of imagination itself.

Can I prove that? Sure, but it will have to start with you surrendering to your spiritual self, and you aren't willing to do that yet.

How do you tell the difference between "surrendering to your spiritual self" and surrendering to a delusion?

It's the natural state of humans to be spiritual....

It's the natural state of humans to be irrational and deluded.
.

isn't the diversity of life - no blade of grass being the same, for all eternity, physical proof of the spiritual nature of each individual ?

spirituality and individuality being the same.

 

[Montrovant]

Other animals being better at certain things does not equate to other animals being able to ask philosophic questions. I have seen no evidence other animals are capable of asking the questions that lead to religious, spiritual or supernatural beliefs.

I didn't argue that other animals make spiritual connection. They obviously don't. You claimed humans ask why because they can, and this is circular reasoning. It doesn't explain why humans can and other animals can't. You attempted to explain that we are more intelligent, but that isn't always true. An adult chimp is probably smarter than a newborn human.

You think we have our intelligence because of spirituality? Ok, but understand that is a belief with no objective evidence.

Oh, but there is objective evidence. We have both our accomplishments which are superior to all other species, and our profound spiritual connection. It is objective to consider these two distinct attributes are related. Now either intelligence fostered spirituality or spirituality fostered intelligence, but they both define what humans are and why they are different.

From a purely logical standpoint, it makes no sense that intelligence fostered spiritual belief as a placebo for knowledge. It is much more believable to me, that spirituality fostered intelligence, inquisitiveness, the ability to reason and philosophize. Mostly because, there is no example of any living thing, creating something that it depends on fundamentally, but is only imaginary. But also because these two distinct attributes are what make us dramatically different than all other living things, and it can't be a coincidence.



Again, you are making my case better than I can myself here. Humans are intrinsically connected to something spiritually. We can't exist without it. Science can't answer all our questions. Science applies to physical nature and can't answer any spiritual questions.



There are far more people who have surrendered to their spiritual self, than people who have abandoned spirituality. It's the natural state of humans to be spiritual, and this has always been the case. You even admitted that humans need spirituality to explain what science can't explain. I'm not incorrect in the point I made, if spirituality were a placebo for knowledge which was missing, as that knowledge emerged, we'd see less spirituality. We haven't seen any decline whatsoever. Some religions may decline, that is common through history. Spirituality, in some form, remains relatively the same in the human species for all of our existence. It's part of who we are.



I didn't say science destroyed superstition entirely. In fact, there is a whole lot in religion that is nothing but superstition, in my opinion. However, people once held strong superstitious beliefs, which were not spiritually inclined or based, and those eventually turned into quaint novelties we recall today at halloween and whatnot. And sure, there are sports figures who wear the lucky jersey or whatever, I understand. I didn't mean to imply that science had eliminated all superstition.



It's not subject to physical natural laws, because it is spiritual. I didn't define spiritual as "not a part" of the physical world, it is very much a part of it. I said it was non-physical in nature, which is entirely different. It's nature is spiritual, not physical. It does exist spiritually, it is present in the physical world, in a spiritual realm.

According to your definition of supernatural, black holes are supernatural phenomenon.



Never claimed other animals don't want to survive. All living things will try to survive. You said humans need spirituality to relieve their fears of death. I have asked you to explain why other animals don't seem to need something to relieve their fear of death, which they don't seem to have? You counter that with survival instincts? Really?



Or it could be that spirituality, which drives human intelligence, leads man to worry about his eternal fate in the spiritual nature, after his physical presence is gone.

So again, you believe that human imagination fabricating various religious and supernatural beliefs is proof of a spiritual connection, but dismiss that possibility that human imagination could also be behind what you consider the spiritual.

We've already established, or actually, you established, that spirituality is needed by humans to explain things science will never have an answer for. So it's not purely imaginary, is it? Humans fundamentally need to worship some power greater than self, in order to be who we are. This can't be any clearer, when you study the history of human behavior. There are people lining up to reject this, but reality can't be rejected.

You may not follow an organized religion, but your beliefs seem as ingrained and inflexible as any religious adherent. You talk often of open mindedness, of setting aside preconceptions, etc.....yet all you have done is bring your own preconceptions to this discussion and moved on assuming anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong. You have subjective evidence, where you have evidence at all. You use the belief of the religious to make your point, then dismiss that belief as imagination. You talk about how many people could testify to their spiritual connection at the same time you denigrate what they consider the very basis of that connection.

Your argument is just another version of 'my god is the one true god'. I have no problem with your belief, I'm not arguing it's validity or lack thereof. I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of some of your arguments and the fact that your claims of open mindedness seem disingenuous at best.

Why do you keep trying to make this a religious debate? Religions are often full of crap when it comes to understanding a spiritual god. In my argument, they only serve as evidence that humans do make some kind of spiritual connection to something, and they have vivid imaginations.

My argument doesn't have a thing to do with my personal god. I've made this abundantly clear, and I've corrected posters on the use of the various words, like "deity" to describe god. This is not a religious debate, it has nothing to do with religious incarnations of various gods that man has conjured up.

It is about the human spiritual connection that does exist in man, and always has. This intrinsic need that can't be filled by science, to have something to rely on for our most profound questions. You realized this yourself, it is needed by man. It can't be bred out, beaten out, burned out, or enlightened out. Human spirituality remains our most defining attribute, and by which, all other uniquely human attributes came.

I'm not making this a religious argument. I am comparing your belief to religious belief in an attempt to show you that you can be just as intransigent and unmoving as those whose beliefs you use as proof yet denigrate at the same time.

I cannot figure out what you are trying to say sometimes. That mankind has worshiped various beings throughout history is not in question. If that is your definition of a spiritual nature, simply that people worship something beyond themselves, then yes, humanity has a spiritual nature. If, on the other hand, you use that worship as evidence that spiritual beings or forces exist (although they cannot be seen because they are not part of the physical universe) then I disagree.

I have not said that man cannot exist without worship or spiritual connection. I have said that science does not answer all the questions which lead to those kinds of beliefs. Some people do not feel a need to assign answers to those questions without evidence. Most, it seems, do. That some do not is already evidence such belief is not necessary.

I completely disagree that human spirituality is our most defining attribute. Human intelligence is IMO. There are various ways that intelligence manifests, including the belief in the supernatural or spiritual, which make us different from other species. This, however, is a debate with nowhere to go.

I still don't understand your inability to grasp what I'm saying about animal intelligence. Why don't animals need spirituality to assuage their fear of death? Assuming they feel a fear of death the way humanity does, they do not have the intelligence to create the supernatural comforts that we do. Again, they are not capable of thinking the things humanity does. Why ask a question like that?

Are you saying black holes are not part of the physical universe? I don't understand what you think my definition of supernatural is. I actually was using a dictionary definition : 'of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal'. Not sure how black holes fit into that.

One last time : believe what you will, just understand that your beliefs are subjective. You have not provided objective evidence of your conclusions.

 

[Montrovant]

...This is not delusion or product of imagination itself.

Can I prove that? Sure, but it will have to start with you surrendering to your spiritual self, and you aren't willing to do that yet.

How do you tell the difference between "surrendering to your spiritual self" and surrendering to a delusion?

It's the natural state of humans to be spiritual....

It's the natural state of humans to be irrational and deluded.
.

isn't the diversity of life - no blade of grass being the same, for all eternity, physical proof of the spiritual nature of each individual ?

spirituality and individuality being the same.

And yet another definition for spirituality!

Also, no blade of grass the same for eternity? What?

 

[daws101]

You are entitled to your opinion, but this isn't a matter of opinion. Simple logic dictates, if spirituality existed solely because man needs a way to explain the unexplained, then as man explained these things through science, spirituality would have all but vanished, like superstition. Once was the time, people adhered to superstitious beliefs... religiously! As science explained natural phenomenon, these beliefs faded away or remained as a quaint novelty. But science, as amazing as it has been, simply has not replaced the need in humans to be spiritually connected. In fact, some of the greatest scientists have also been very spiritually inclined. Newton transcribed most of the Protestant bible in his later years, and penned many religious writings. Francis Collins, the man who mapped the human genome, is a Christian. Even some of Steven Hawkins observations include the consideration of a non-physical part of our universe that we aren't aware of in the physical.

isn't a matter of opinion? spiritualty is all opinion...especially when you factor out the unprovable "spiritual evidence".

That spirituality exists is not an opinion. Humans have practiced it for at least 70k years.

Spiritual evidence is provable if you accept spiritual nature and existence, it is only unprovable physically. We've been over this, it's a logical dichotomy that can't be met. If you prove the spiritual with physical, you have rendered it physical in the process.

yes it does but not in the way you wish it did, spiritually like any belief system is just that, a belief.
I accept that you believe it to be something that can not be measured, but that makes it subjective ....so any conclusions or theories drawn from it are also subjective.

 

[daws101]

You continue to make it sound as though science has answered all of humanity's questions, Boss, which is clearly untrue. Science also does not provide comfort, nor give a guideline for living life as religions do.

Sure, many things that were once thought of as divine or magical have been explained through science. Humanity knows a lot more than it once did. But there are still plenty of questions, there are still plenty of hopes, there are still plenty of fears, all of which can be answered by various religions. If nothing else, simple fear of death remains a huge draw; most religions have some sort of afterlife, which I imagine can be a huge comfort in the face of death.

Your argument that we should see less belief in religion or the supernatural because of scientific advancement is wrong IMO. What we have seen is just what might be expected, a refinement of those beliefs, a trimming away of those things which can no longer be explained through supernatural means.

You give humanity and science far too much credit if you think our scientific advancement has progressed so far that, barring the spiritual connection you posit, religious and supernatural beliefs should no longer exist.

We know science has no clue about many things most importantly how life came in to existence.

false!

 

[daws101]

Don't flatter yourself I am just exposing your Ideological agenda one post at a time.

another classic false declaration

I was speaking to Hollie , you must have forgotten who you were signed in as.

false !

 

[daws101]

I believe that when a person dies that is it it described in the bible like a state of sleep. I believe we are just a memory until the resurrection. I believe the spirit of a person is the breathe of life and I believe the soul is the blood. A living breathing organism is a living soul. If the blood of the organism is lost the soul is dead. If the breathe of an organism is lost that soul dies.

belief is only evidence of belief nothing more..
oh yeah, dead is dead...

Some of my beliefs are faith based that is correct.

all of you beliefs are faith based..as you have no evidence to support them..

 

[daws101]

We know science has no clue about many things most importantly how life came in to existence.

A better clue than religion.

No they don't their thoughts are dead on arrival.

an assumptive false declaration.
presupposing that faith is better then fact.

 

[daws101]

...This is not delusion or product of imagination itself.

Can I prove that? Sure, but it will have to start with you surrendering to your spiritual self, and you aren't willing to do that yet.

How do you tell the difference between "surrendering to your spiritual self" and surrendering to a delusion?

It's the natural state of humans to be spiritual....

It's the natural state of humans to be irrational and deluded.
.

How does anyone "surrender to their spiritual self"?

What does that even mean? It sounds like something you would hear coming from a 1960's vintage hippie.

Maybe it's one of those new-wave religions coming out of the California pot head community.

"It's like... like, spiritual man, ya know".

Totally rad!

ah.... hollie totally rad is 80's
groovy or I can dig it would be 60's

just sayin'

 

[daws101]

How do you tell the difference between "surrendering to your spiritual self" and surrendering to a delusion?


It's the natural state of humans to be irrational and deluded.
.

isn't the diversity of life - no blade of grass being the same, for all eternity, physical proof of the spiritual nature of each individual ?

spirituality and individuality being the same.

And yet another definition for spirituality!

Also, no blade of grass the same for eternity? What?

that's what I said! blades of grass are for all practical purposes the same...
it's nice poetry but it's bullshit.