Scientific Evidence of God

[PostmodernProphet]

you clearly don't.
When did man develop the power of thought? What is thought? Is it for example, ' There is a berry, I will eat it.' or is it 'There is a red berry and a green berry. I will not eat the green berry BECAUSE ...., but I will eat the red berry.' or is it. ' It's a nice day today. I wonder if there are any berries ready to be picked. Maybe I'll take a stroll later and see.' or is it, 'I am feeling good today. I have just seen my image in a pool of water, I must do something with my hair.'
When did 'man' develop the power of self awareness? Was he what we recognise as man? Was Heidelbergensis self aware? It lived for 500,000 years. Was it the same at the end as it was at the beginning?
So, you see, the question you are asking and the conclusions you are drawing just do not work.
Now, you might like to ask, 'what was the stimulus that led man to wonder about his surroundings and assign blame or responsibility to an unknown force?' You might ask 'what are the earliest signs of spiritual man?' and by 'man' do you mean homo sapiens, homo neanderthalis, heidelbergensis, australiopithicus or what? If you mean simply homo sapiens then it is likely that all development of thought and self awareness existed and that would include awareness of a spiritual self.

Understand?

I understand you've just made the argument that Pavlov was testing for rationalism......

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But scientific evidence is more conlusive that 'hey, that just might be'. Evidence generally proves something. You said you could make that case. You didn't.

No, evidence can't really prove anything. Men can examine evidence and draw conclusion of proof from it, but the evidence itself is inanimate, and doesn't draw conclusions. Evidence is also subjective, it can mean different things to different people depending on their perspectives. What I view as evidence, you may not... such is the case with what I have presented in this thread. Although I see what I presented as legitimate scientific evidence that is incontrovertible, you don't see it as being evidence, so if you don't see it as evidence, it isn't evidence to you.

Correction again... I never said I could "make that case" or anything remotely close. I said I could present scientific evidence to suggest there might be a God, and I think I did that. It certainly hasn't been refuted as of yet.

 

[Lowaicue]

I understand you've just made the argument that Pavlov was testing for rationalism......

No. I have shown that discussion on when man became capable of spirituality and when he became capable of rational thought are matters that cannot sensibly be argued.
I cannot see anything that has been written in this thread that presents a rational argument one way or another.
Rather as other threads that have argued about the beginnig of life as evidence to support the contention that abortion is right or that it is wrong. It is pointless, not because no two people can agree, but because these matters are un-arguable.
Anyway there is one undeniable truth and that is that you and others, who so choose, may continue batting any ball, you and they wish, to and fro, even if you cannot understand the futility of such action.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. I have shown that discussion on when man became capable of spirituality and when he became capable of rational thought are matters that cannot sensibly be argued.
I cannot see anything that has been written in this thread that presents a rational argument one way or another.
Rather as other threads that have argued about the beginnig of life as evidence to support the contention that abortion is right or that it is wrong. It is pointless, not because no two people can agree, but because these matters are un-arguable.
Anyway there is one undeniable truth and that is that you and others, who so choose, may continue batting any ball, you and they wish, to and fro, even if you cannot understand the futility of such action.

I'm not really sure what you just said, but I would like to address a few things I THINK you said. Virtually anything can be argued, and most things can be argued sensibly. This question of human spirituality and reason, and which came first, or if they came at the same time, is not an argument that will produce a winning side. It will always be an inconclusive argument. It is speculation and opinion, and we will never really KNOW what happened way back when. My purpose in this thread, was to introduce a science aspect (animal behavioral traits) as the basis of an argument for God. Nothing I have posted has been refuted or proven incorrect, or found to be unscientific. Therefore, it indeed qualifies as legitimate scientific evidence of God. It doesn't PROVE God, it is merely evidence, you can determine your own conclusions from it.

On the issue of when life begins, I just spent over a week arguing with Apple, who insisted that life does not begin at conception, and science discovered that life does begin at conception in 1832. I'm sorry, but that is not an arguable point, it is not subject to someone's opinion, it is a scientific fact of the matter, life begins at conception. The debate over abortion is a completely different argument, again, it is subject to your opinion.

There is no lack of understanding of the futility on my part, I never expect that I am radically changing minds here with my arguments. I present things to think about and consider, perhaps they are things you haven't thought to consider, perhaps they are things that make you look at an issue from another perspective and have better understanding of how others view something? This thread is not designed or intended to "prove Atheists wrong" or "prove God exists" or anything like that, it is merely a discussion about a controversial issue, where people have a wide variety of opinion.

 

[Lowaicue]

I'm not really sure what you just said, but I would like to address a few things I THINK you said. Virtually anything can be argued, and most things can be argued sensibly. This question of human spirituality and reason, and which came first, or if they came at the same time, is not an argument that will produce a winning side. It will always be an inconclusive argument. It is speculation and opinion, and we will never really KNOW what happened way back when. My purpose in this thread, was to introduce a science aspect (animal behavioral traits) as the basis of an argument for God. Nothing I have posted has been refuted or proven incorrect, or found to be unscientific. Therefore, it indeed qualifies as legitimate scientific evidence of God. It doesn't PROVE God, it is merely evidence, you can determine your own conclusions from it.

On the issue of when life begins, I just spent over a week arguing with Apple, who insisted that life does not begin at conception, and science discovered that life does begin at conception in 1832. I'm sorry, but that is not an arguable point, it is not subject to someone's opinion, it is a scientific fact of the matter, life begins at conception. The debate over abortion is a completely different argument, again, it is subject to your opinion.

There is no lack of understanding of the futility on my part, I never expect that I am radically changing minds here with my arguments. I present things to think about and consider, perhaps they are things you haven't thought to consider, perhaps they are things that make you look at an issue from another perspective and have better understanding of how others view something? This thread is not designed or intended to "prove Atheists wrong" or "prove God exists" or anything like that, it is merely a discussion about a controversial issue, where people have a wide variety of opinion.

B+ (which is quite good for me.)

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No. I have shown that discussion on when man became capable of spirituality and when he became capable of rational thought are matters that cannot sensibly be argued.

what does that have to do with whether animals are capable of either?....that's what we are arguing about.....

 

[Lowaicue]

what does that have to do with whether animals are capable of either?....that's what we are arguing about.....

I guess it rather depends on how you define firstly intelligence and secondly thought. Not forgetting, of course, the point at which what we 'call' animals became what we call 'humans'.
We know that some animals are capable of deductive thought but, until we learn to communicate with them, we will have no idea of their spirituality or lack of it. They certainly do not exhibit regular signs of spirituality. However Homo Neanderthalis did show signs of spirituality. Was Homo Neanderthalis a human being? or is that title reserved for homo sapiens (thinking man)?
Once again I would say that the point is not arguable. Or if it is any argument is based solely upon conjecture and repeated gainsay and if that is what you want then go ahead.
Perhaps we should look at what 'man' has done with his rational and spiritual thought. Then we can see, perhaps, that one must contradict the other.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

No, evidence can't really prove anything. Men can examine evidence and draw conclusion of proof from it, but the evidence itself is inanimate, and doesn't draw conclusions. Evidence is also subjective, it can mean different things to different people depending on their perspectives. What I view as evidence, you may not... such is the case with what I have presented in this thread. Although I see what I presented as legitimate scientific evidence that is incontrovertible, you don't see it as being evidence, so if you don't see it as evidence, it isn't evidence to you.

Correction again... I never said I could "make that case" or anything remotely close. I said I could present scientific evidence to suggest there might be a God, and I think I did that. It certainly hasn't been refuted as of yet.

True. Morons see things differently than smart people.