Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[Boss]

There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.

There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.

This is kind of self contradictory.

If god is real, it's not supernatural.

If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.

If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.

 

[G.T.]

There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.

There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.

This is kind of self contradictory.

If god is real, it's not supernatural.

If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.

If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.

spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven

they may be natural, they may not

same with something coming from nothing

just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.

if its possible, it is natural

 

[hobelim]

spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven

they may be natural, they may not

same with something coming from nothing

just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.

if its possible, it is natural

The way I see it, the entire debate, on both sides, is based on the misinterpretation of archaic terms.

In ancient times it was the belief that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness is seated in the organ of the brain. Knowing this, it can be understood that whenever scripture speaks about what goes on in the heart they meant to convey what is going on in the mind.

There is no such thing as a heart where any thoughts are perceived. Everything is perceived in the brain.

In the same way spirit was their word for consciousness. A person possessed by an unclean spirit was a person possessed by a filthy mind. When Jesus healed someone possessed by an unclean spirit it had nothing whatsoever to do with an invisible entity that inhabits people and makes them do naughty things, except if the cause of the defilement of the person's mind was contracted by being deliberately infected by someone elses filthy mind which would amount to demonic possession, their term for what we now would see as a victim of mind control..

In this way the subjects of spirits, unclean or holy, angels, demons, the heart, demonic possession, etc., as documented in scripture, using the minimal amount of intelligence required to add A+B, can easily be understood as not having anything whatever to do with a belief in the supernatural anymore than the psychiatric community is promoting a belief in the supernatural or referring to invisible entities when describing the disturbing symptoms of a person suffering from a multiple personality disorder.

 

[Hollie]

There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.

There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.

This is kind of self contradictory.

If god is real, it's not supernatural.

If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.

If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.

You hear voices and you claim to have ongoing communications with your asserted spirit realms. As long as you and you spirit realms don' pose a danger to yourself or others, have at it. Have all the communications, long walks in the park, whatever. However, you should be aware that your spiritual nature thing, whatever you believe it to be, is no more real or extant than other claims to supernatural objects de' art that people have invented.

 

[Justin Davis]

Wondering if Justin is going to go with evidence of a generic god or if he's going to use all the "evidence" that theists use such as a book someone wrote about the myth 80 years after it supposedly happened. Big difference.

In one of G.T.'s posts he implied that I just go with whatever Rawlings says like I just blindly believe whatever he says and don't think for myself. He says this even though I questioned something Rawlings said that was a contradiction. Rawlings acknowledged that I was right but as he explained, he doesn't really believe what he seemed to be saying. He admitted that he wrote something in a bad way that meant something he didn't mean to imply. That was an honest error. In other words, Rawlings can admit when he makes an error, and he listens to people and tries to understand them, just like the way he listens to dblack and tries to understand him and is open to dblack's suggestions. Rawlings doesn't just blow people off like the silly nanny Foxfyre who got all huffy says.

Also, I know that what Rawlings has been saying all along about the classical laws of thought and the principle of identity is right and that QW is wrong because I know about these things on my own from my own studies before I came to this forum. I've leaned a lot more about it from Rawlings though. And I didn't just take Rawlings word on constructive logic but took the time to study up on it so that I could understand what QW and him were talking about.
Anyone can understand the basic rules and terms of constructive logic without all the technical language of logic and stuff. That's why I've had it with QW. I can clearly see that what Rawlings is saying about classical and constructive logic is right and everything QW is saying is a lie. Everything QW said is wrong; even the things he said that are true about constructive logic are really lies because he implies these things mean things they don't. That's the game he's playing when he says to show him where he's wrong about constructive logic not using all the axioms that classical logic uses. That's not the point and that liar QW knows that's not the point. Rawlings knows that better than QW and that doesn't make anything Rawlings has said wrong.

QW reminds me of how the devil uses the truth as a lie by twisting it. (And this something that I also leaned from Rawlings, how to use one sentence as a paragraph to make a point of fact stand out.)

What G.T. doesn't understand about me is that I trust what God's word says because everything it says that is objectively apparent to everyone about the issue of origin is objectively apparent to everyone about the issue of origin all the way up to what the universal principle of identity tells us about God and what He can do. That is all Rawlings has been talking about on this thread. I agree with Rawlings because I have the same belief based on what the Bible shows to be true about these things from Romans 1:18 and other places in the Bible. That same idea and all of the objective facts that are in our minds are listed in the Bible. That is my foundational belief, the same belief Rawlings has, and it always has been. I had that understanding of things before I came to this forum.

I don't believe what I do because Rawlings believes it. That's just silly. I already believed these things from the Bible before I ever met him on this forum. I've been thinking about the details of the same idea for months on my own and with the leading of the Holy Spirit. The basic idea is not new to me. Rawlings is just more advanced than me in this knowledge, and from him I now know a lot more about it all. That's all. What he says logically and objectively follows. He has never given me any reason to think that he is not being honest and objective.

The objective facts about the issue of origin are the only things that Rawlings and I are talking about. They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.

Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.

 

[Justin Davis]

spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven

they may be natural, they may not

same with something coming from nothing

just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.

if its possible, it is natural

The way I see it, the entire debate, on both sides, is based on the misinterpretation of archaic terms.

In ancient times it was the belief that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness is seated in the organ of the brain. Knowing this, it can be understood that whenever scripture speaks about what goes on in the heart they meant to convey what is going on in the mind.

There is no such thing as a heart where any thoughts are perceived. Everything is perceived in the brain.

In the same way spirit was their word for consciousness. A person possessed by an unclean spirit was a person possessed by a filthy mind. When Jesus healed someone possessed by an unclean spirit it had nothing whatsoever to do with an invisible entity that inhabits people and makes them do naughty things, except if the cause of the defilement of the person's mind was contracted by being deliberately infected by someone elses filthy mind which would amount to demonic possession, their term for what we now would see as a victim of mind control..

In this way the subjects of spirits, unclean or holy, angels, demons, the heart, demonic possession, etc., as documented in scripture, using the minimal amount of intelligence required to add A+B, can easily be understood as not having anything whatever to do with a belief in the supernatural anymore than the psychiatric community is promoting a belief in the supernatural or referring to invisible entities when describing the disturbing symptoms of a person suffering from a multiple personality disorder.

That's one way of looking at it, but the whole of scripture doesn't back the view that fallen spirits of the angelic order don't exist. So there goes your theory, file 13, and you're just claiming to know something absolutely that no one could know absolutely without divine revelation. You’re asserting something subjective, mere personal opinion, as if it were objectively or universally apparent.

 

[Justin Davis]

"All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:

Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.


A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.

That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"

Actually, it does. A set is not an element of itself. (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!

You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as aspects of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god. Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person. In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.

However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.

Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.

OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.

"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "



They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement. It's not a dilemma for me. It works fine conceptually. The details are beyond us.

You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of the universal principle of identity. Hence, G = {F, S, H simultaneously} is preceded by A: A = A =. Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier simultaneously, wherein each element is a divine person. Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically? Yes. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion. But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity. Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well. But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.

I have to admit that I don't understand a lot about set theory. I do understand the difference between standard and non-standard theory and the difference between well-founded axioms and the more informal non-well-founded axioms. If you use "God the Father . . ." on the basis of A:A=A=A the set is not hanging in the air by itself, but because you have to do it expressively I like using parenthesis better, which is the way Henry does it.

 

[Hollie]

spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven

they may be natural, they may not

same with something coming from nothing

just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.

if its possible, it is natural

The way I see it, the entire debate, on both sides, is based on the misinterpretation of archaic terms.

In ancient times it was the belief that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness is seated in the organ of the brain. Knowing this, it can be understood that whenever scripture speaks about what goes on in the heart they meant to convey what is going on in the mind.

There is no such thing as a heart where any thoughts are perceived. Everything is perceived in the brain.

In the same way spirit was their word for consciousness. A person possessed by an unclean spirit was a person possessed by a filthy mind. When Jesus healed someone possessed by an unclean spirit it had nothing whatsoever to do with an invisible entity that inhabits people and makes them do naughty things, except if the cause of the defilement of the person's mind was contracted by being deliberately infected by someone elses filthy mind which would amount to demonic possession, their term for what we now would see as a victim of mind control..

In this way the subjects of spirits, unclean or holy, angels, demons, the heart, demonic possession, etc., as documented in scripture, using the minimal amount of intelligence required to add A+B, can easily be understood as not having anything whatever to do with a belief in the supernatural anymore than the psychiatric community is promoting a belief in the supernatural or referring to invisible entities when describing the disturbing symptoms of a person suffering from a multiple personality disorder.

That's one way of looking at it, but the whole of scripture doesn't back the view that fallen spirits of the angelic order don't exist. So there goes your theory, file 13, and you're just claiming to know something absolutely that no one could know absolutely without divine revelation. You’re asserting something subjective, mere personal opinion, as if it were objectively or universally apparent.

That last sentence defines the entirety of Christian apologetics.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:

Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.


A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.

That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"

Actually, it does. A set is not an element of itself. (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!

You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as aspects of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god. Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person. In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.

However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.

Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.

OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.

"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "



They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement. It's not a dilemma for me. It works fine conceptually. The details are beyond us.

You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of the universal principle of identity. Hence, G = {F, S, H simultaneously} is preceded by A: A = A =. Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier simultaneously, wherein each element is a divine person. Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically? Yes. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion. But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity. Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well. But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.

I have to admit that I don't understand a lot about set theory. I do understand the difference between standard and non-standard theory and the difference between well-founded axioms and the more informal non-well-founded axioms. If you use "God the Father . . ." on the basis of A:A=A= the set is not hanging in the air by itself, but because you have to do it expressively I like using parenthesis better, which is the way Henry does it.

Actually, either way is fine. The infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless. Non-standard set theory uses the axioms of implied negation instead, while just like standard theory it employs bijection, injection, surjection and cardinality for stability. In other words, my example is stable when conceptually anchored to the principle of identity semantically. That's why I kept using A: A = A = G (or whatever) in these expressions: the stability of bijection, in this case, via conceptualization.

Essentially, non-standard set theory merely suspends the axiom a set is not an element of itself for much the same reason that the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination are suspended as axioms in constructive logic: to amplify and explore new possibilities.

But both amrchaos' point regarding the shortcoming in my definitional assignations and your point about uniformity are well taken. But the only real concern here is one of convincing apologetics, i.e., avoiding the controversy between the traditionalists of standard theory and the proponents of the extrapolations that can be derived under the alternate axioms of non-standard theory. Like I said, the infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless, so there's no need to cause any irrelevant objections to arise that might get in the way. I just never thought about that particular wrinkle before. LOL! Hence, from here on out I will use parenthesis in a wholly expressive fashion as anchored to the principle of identity.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.

Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.

You're getting pretty good at this apologetics thing. That was masterful.

 

[emilynghiem]

"All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:

Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.


A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.

That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"

Actually, it does. A set is not an element of itself. (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!

You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as aspects of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god. Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person. In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.

However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.

Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.

OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.

"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "



They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement. It's not a dilemma for me. It works fine conceptually. The details are beyond us.

You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of the universal principle of identity. Hence, G = {F, S, H simultaneously} is preceded by A: A = A =. Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier simultaneously, wherein each element is a divine person. Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically? Yes. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion. But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity. Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well. But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.

I have to admit that I don't understand a lot about set theory. I do understand the difference between standard and non-standard theory and the difference between well-founded axioms and the more informal non-well-founded axioms. If you use "God the Father . . ." on the basis of A:A=A= the set is not hanging in the air by itself, but because you have to do it expressively I like using parenthesis better, which is the way Henry does it.

Actually, either way is fine. The infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless. Non-standard set theory uses the axioms of implied negation instead, while just like standard theory it employs bijection, injection, surjection and cardinality for stability. In other words, my example is stable when conceptually anchored to the principle of identity semantically. That's why I kept using A: A = A = G (or whatever) in these expressions: the stability of bijection, in this case, via conceptualization.

Essentially, non-standard set theory merely suspends the axiom a set is not an element of itself for much the same reason that the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are suspended as axioms in constructive logic: to amplify and explore new possibilities.

But both amrchaos' point regarding the shortcoming in my definitional assignations and your point about uniformity are well taken. But the only real concern here is one of convincing apologetics, i.e., avoiding the controversy between the traditionalists of standard theory and the proponents of the extrapolations that can be derived under the alternate axioms of non-standard theory. Like I said, the infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless, so there no need to cause any irrelevant objections to arise. I jusnever thought about that wrinkle before. Hence, from here on out I will use parenthesis in a wholly expressive fashion as anchored to the principle of identity.

I basically agree that it is better to be unconditional (since God can neither be proven or disproven given that God represents something infinite eternal behind man's finite and limited scope of perception information and communcation)

So whether or not
A. there IS a central universal Source of all life and laws in existence
B. All things naturally exist and were always in effect as self-existent, or had a start or process that doesn't involve a
singular intelligent force in charge, or have no beginning or no end that we can know for sure without conjecturing
C. there is no such anything of any sort

Our decisions shouldn't depend on ASSUMING one way or the other or REJECTING one way or the other, but should work REGARDLESS which of these ways it is. Especially when dealing with people who live under these different ways, so we can respect each other's boundaries.

We should be able to interact in harmony REGARDLESS of these different ways, so no matter what we do, we still get along, cause no harm, correct errors when made, and help each other make the most of life, relations and knowledge/resources we have available to share.

The point is really do we agree how to act
and work together; what laws or language do we use
to describe the relations we agree to follow between us;
and if we have different or conflicting laws religions beliefs or values,
how do we communicate and manage to reach agreement anyway.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That last sentence defines the entirety of Christian apologetics.

Hollie, if you would only be objective for once: put a name on your premise and back out of your paradigm long enough to enter into the OBJECTIVE world of first principles, which are apparent to us all regarding the problem of origin, you would see amazing things.

 

[Hollie]

They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.

Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.

You're getting pretty good at this apologetics thing. That was masterful.

Yep. The apologetics thing is typically replete with bluster and such pompous absolutes as: "Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves."

 

[G.T.]

They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.

Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.

You're getting pretty good at this apologetics thing. That was masterful.

Yep. The apologetics thing is typically replete with bluster and such pompous absolutes as: "Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves."

"or prove it to be true by saying its not true"

The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.

 

[Boss]

spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven

they may be natural, they may not

same with something coming from nothing

just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.

if its possible, it is natural

"Proven" simply means that which you find evidence to believe true.

Something doesn't come from nothing in nature. But you are correct, just because we haven't observed something, doesn't mean it's impossible. God, for instance.

 

[G.T.]

spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven

they may be natural, they may not

same with something coming from nothing

just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.

if its possible, it is natural

"Proven" simply means that which you find evidence to believe true.

Something doesn't come from nothing in nature. But you are correct, just because we haven't observed something, doesn't mean it's impossible. God, for instance.

My definition of proven is a little deeper than that, but to each his/her own.

 

[emilynghiem]

spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven

they may be natural, they may not

same with something coming from nothing

just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.

if its possible, it is natural

The way I see it, the entire debate, on both sides, is based on the misinterpretation of archaic terms.

In ancient times it was the belief that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness is seated in the organ of the brain. Knowing this, it can be understood that whenever scripture speaks about what goes on in the heart they meant to convey what is going on in the mind.

There is no such thing as a heart where any thoughts are perceived. Everything is perceived in the brain.

In the same way spirit was their word for consciousness. A person possessed by an unclean spirit was a person possessed by a filthy mind. When Jesus healed someone possessed by an unclean spirit it had nothing whatsoever to do with an invisible entity that inhabits people and makes them do naughty things, except if the cause of the defilement of the person's mind was contracted by being deliberately infected by someone elses filthy mind which would amount to demonic possession, their term for what we now would see as a victim of mind control..

In this way the subjects of spirits, unclean or holy, angels, demons, the heart, demonic possession, etc., as documented in scripture, using the minimal amount of intelligence required to add A+B, can easily be understood as not having anything whatever to do with a belief in the supernatural anymore than the psychiatric community is promoting a belief in the supernatural or referring to invisible entities when describing the disturbing symptoms of a person suffering from a multiple personality disorder.

That's one way of looking at it, but the whole of scripture doesn't back the view that fallen spirits of the angelic order don't exist. So there goes your theory, file 13, and you're just claiming to know something absolutely that no one could know absolutely without divine revelation. You’re asserting something subjective, mere personal opinion, as if it were objectively or universally apparent.

That last sentence defines the entirety of Christian apologetics.

Hi Hollie: If you are saying the principles in Christianity cannot be proven,
I disagree
1. studies on forgiveness show the correlation with better mental and physical health
while unforgiveness either causes or correlates with an estimated 80-90% of ills
This can be proven, and doesn't take a rocket scientist like you,
though I would ask for professional statisticians to set up studies to document the correlations

2. cases of using Christian spiritual healing to
cure Schizophrenic patients of demonic voices and obsessions
HAS been observed and many people can testify.

Again, maybe Rocket Scientists like you will apply your scientific brains
to set up formal research studies to document these cases
to show the diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of quantifiable stages
of sickness and cure can be spelled out and followed using the scientific method.

This can be proven,
and NO I DON'T expect you to take it on faith.

I EXPECT to "prove it can be proven" by PROVING it.

So unlike you Hollie, the Christians CAN use science to prove that
their teachings on forgiveness and spiritual healing work naturally
and consistently with science and medicine to cure and prevent ills of the mind body and social relations with others.

While you can never prove that there is no God.

You can prove people don't believe in God,
and others can prove people do believe.

We can prove that much.

As for spiritual healing and reconciliation,
we can prove that this relies on FORGIVENESS
while unforgiveness and rejection leaves conflicts unresolved.
Like DUH!

Does that really take a rocket scientist to prove?
It seems obvious, but it can be proven by statistics if you want to go there.

Sounds like you do or you won't believe
that the teachings in Christianity run parallel with
natural science and human nature, health and healing.

It's a natural process so of course it can be demonstrated
by science to work consistently, for people of all races, nationalities, religious and political affilations:
* Forgiveness correlates with ability to reconcile conflicts, and better health of mind body and relationships
* Unforgiveness correlates with inability to resolve conflicts, and more stress on mind and body and relations
including all abuses and crimes can be linked to unforgiven unresolved conflicts in the past projected outward.

We can go the Rocket Science path
and prove this so you can see proof that this can be proven,
using the traditional scientific way. That's fine, Hollie, and I believe the world will benefit.

 

[Boss]

There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.

There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.

This is kind of self contradictory.

If god is real, it's not supernatural.

If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.

If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.

You hear voices and you claim to have ongoing communications with your asserted spirit realms. As long as you and you spirit realms don' pose a danger to yourself or others, have at it. Have all the communications, long walks in the park, whatever. However, you should be aware that your spiritual nature thing, whatever you believe it to be, is no more real or extant than other claims to supernatural objects de' art that people have invented.

Oh but it IS real, and it's natural. That's the part you can't refute. You keep posting your opinion as if it's fact. Your mind has closed itself to possibilities for faith in disbelief. I don't need your permission to be spiritual, whether you think I am dangerous or not. In fact, it is that kind of closed minded intolerant thinking that I fear for my country. If you were given unfettered power, no telling at the heinous atrocities you'd commit against the religious.

 

[Boss]

spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven

they may be natural, they may not

same with something coming from nothing

just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.

if its possible, it is natural

"Proven" simply means that which you find evidence to believe true.

Something doesn't come from nothing in nature. But you are correct, just because we haven't observed something, doesn't mean it's impossible. God, for instance.

My definition of proven is a little deeper than that, but to each his/her own.

You can have whatever definition cranks your tractor, that's what 'proven' is.

 

[G.T.]

spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven

they may be natural, they may not

same with something coming from nothing

just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.

if its possible, it is natural

"Proven" simply means that which you find evidence to believe true.

Something doesn't come from nothing in nature. But you are correct, just because we haven't observed something, doesn't mean it's impossible. God, for instance.

My definition of proven is a little deeper than that, but to each his/her own.

You can have whatever definition cranks your tractor, that's what 'proven' is.

kay