APP - Proof That God Exists

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ah, yes, that age-old question argued between seculars and non-seculars, Atheists and Christians, and greatest minds of our times. We've had the debates here before, numerous times, and it's always interesting to me, how we never begin by setting some foundations of understanding with regard to context. We immediately seem to jump into the usual talking points, and have the same argument over and over. Let us attempt to slow this down a bit, and begin by coming to understanding on the meanings and context of the question, before we attempt to answer the question.

We need to agree on what 'exists' means first. Do we mean, in a physical sense? I think it's safe to say, God doesn't exist in a physical sense. Most forms of belief in a god, require the god to be superior to physical man, therefore, we can presume any God would have to exist in a form outside of our physical world. Can we agree? Now, I can say that I know the Christian religion, for instance, believed God existed in a physical man, Jesus Christ. Much of their religious doctrine of belief is centered around his teachings, but for the most part, God's are not of the physical world, they are superior beings or entities, and outside of our physical universe. Given this information, to require God to exist in a physical sense, or to be proven to exist by physical sciences, is pretty useless and irrelevant.

So, God doesn't exist in a physical sense, and it's pointless to try and prove existence with physical parameters. In order to properly examine the question, we need to evaluate 'exist' as meaning, in a spiritual sense, because that is what God is, a spiritual entity. Now, whether something 'exists' in a spiritual sense, is very difficult, in fact, impossible to prove or disprove. Much of this relies on faith or comprehension of the individual. For instance, let's take something else that is 'not of the physical world' like a dream, and examine this. When you have a dream, did the events actually happen in the physical world? No, of course not. But the events did happen in your dream, you remember them vividly. You can come to me and tell me what you dreamed, and I can choose to have faith and believe you, or not. You can't physically prove you dreamed what you said, and your dream is in essence, your comprehension of what you recall. Did the events of your dream take place in the physical world? Then why would you require physical proof of their existence? To properly evaluate a spiritual entity, you have to apply spiritual criteria, which largely relies on faith.

Now, you will say, but we need more than "faith!" And the simple fact of the matter is, even the most sophisticated math and science, relies on faith. The very principles of all physical science, rely on the order of the universe to remain the same at all times and never change. Gravity always works in a predictable way, we have faith that it will continue to do so. If you believe in a theory of evolution, you must have faith the theory is correct. So we have faith in whatever we believe, whether it is faith in physical science applied to the physical universe, or spiritual faith applied to the spiritual realm. To conflate the difference between physical and spiritual realms, is often the result on not first properly defining the context of the question. If we are going to honestly ask the question, we must apply the proper parameters and context. We can't leap back and forth from the physical realm and demanding physical proof, and back to the spiritual realm, they are two different things.

It would be as if, you have someone who doesn't believe in physical sciences and thinks the rain is caused by God crying. You can show him all the physical proof you want, but he doesn't believe in the physical sciences. He refuses to acknowledge them, and insists the rain is caused by God crying. You ask him for 'proof' and he promptly replies; "Because God told me so! Can you prove he didn't?" Of course, you can't, and he is basing his belief on a spiritual faith, devoid of any belief in physical science, but the point is, rain is not caused by God crying, we know through physical science, what causes rain. The same can be said for seculars and Atheists, who demand physical proof and refuse to acknowledge the spiritual realm. If you aren't willing to open your mind to the possibility of something else, you will remain as ignorant as the example presented, closed-minded to understanding and in the dark on this most prolific question.

The spiritual evidence for the spiritual existence for a spiritual God, is overwhelming. Countless spiritual believers can attest to this. Accounts of people overcoming tremendous adversities, outright 'miracles' brought about through their faith and prayers, years of oppression and bondage overcome, great nations created. The evidence of God's work can be seen in our flowers and life, in our mountains and sunsets, and in the face of every newborn child. Tracking our civilizations, we find that mankind has always been spiritual in nature. Psychologists have said, if God didn't exist, man would have to invent it. We are hard-wired this way, to worship in a spiritual way, something greater than self. This has been an aspect of humans since humans began. Some believe, it is ultimately what led to the rise of modern civilization.

Now, being that humans have always held this particular character trait, and we know through studies of animal behavior, all inherent intrinsic behavior is present for a reason, we have to presume there is a reason for humans to be inclined to spirituality, there is no other scientific explanation for this. To this day, 95% of the world population, believe in something greater than self. Of course, these beliefs range widely, and to varying degrees, but only 5% are true Nihilists, and do not believe in anything at all. We can't argue with the physical sciences here, if the species has always worshiped, there must be a fundamental purpose for it. So sayeth, Darwin, anyway.

The bottom line is, we haven't really answered the question, because the question is subject to interpretation and understanding of context. Regardless of which way you answer the question, your answer relies solely on faith and you have no physical evidence to support it. However, the spiritual existence of God doesn't require or need physical proof.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

interesting and stimulating.....haven't ever approached the issue from this angle before......how much does a memory weigh?.....what color is an idea?....is knowledge metaphysical?.....was the concert that Mozart imagined something that can be studied by science?......

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

interesting and stimulating.....haven't ever approached the issue from this angle before......how much does a memory weigh?.....what color is an idea?....is knowledge metaphysical?.....was the concert that Mozart imagined something that can be studied by science?......

Exactly. There is an almost immediate misconception when arguing God's existence, that physical science can apply here, when it can't apply, by definition. Just as physical science can't apply to dreams, thoughts, or imagination. There are things we commonly know and understand are not explained or proven with physical science, because physical science doesn't apply. This is not to say physical science is no good, or inadequate, or that it can't one day discover something connecting to spirituality, anything is possible. It's just that physical science can't explain supernatural things, just as it can't explain dreams and thoughts.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

We need to agree on what 'exists' means first. Do we mean, in a physical sense? I think it's safe to say, God doesn't exist in a physical sense.

I think you are going to need to have a more stringent definition of "physical," given that I already disagree with some of what you say in following paragraphs.

Defining god in the physical sense is the only relevant way to define god. Every other way isn't provable and the question is meaningless with regards to real world applications. That does not mean however, that a god couldn't exist in the physical sense. If we are to believe in a god, most religions would have you believe that said god is all powerful. There is no reason why, if a god did exist, that it couldn't create a universe that it existed in while also not being bound by the the constraints of the universe.

Most forms of belief in a god, require the god to be superior to physical man, therefore, we can presume any God would have to exist in a form outside of our physical world. Can we agree?

nope.

to require God to exist in a physical sense, or to be proven to exist by physical sciences, is pretty useless and irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant. if you cannot prove god in any falsifiable context, the question of god is no more valid than the question of santa claus.

let's take something else that is 'not of the physical world' like a dream, and examine this.

A dream is a part of the physical world. So your premise is faulty already. Can you touch it with your hands? No. but that doesn't mean it isn't "part of the physical world" Dreams can be scientifically measured. Even the types of dreams one is having can have different results on the body. A scarier or more intense dream may raise your heart rate over a pleasant dream. The neurons in your brain are accessing stored memory information based on the interactions in your life. And although science doesn't have the full capabilities of extracting this data, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

In fact, scientists are getting even better at this task. Scientists have recently been able to map images in the brain with a database of images on file. The result is being able to actually SEE what the brain is imaging in real time. No doubt this technology will only get better with the future.

source: http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity
(check it out, it's awesome).

So yeah, maybe dream is a bad example, but I doubt you can think of anything that we experience or interact with that isn't "of the physical world" So I am tempted to nip this bad logic chain in the bud. Though I guess we'll continue for now . .

When you have a dream, did the events actually happen in the physical world? No, of course not.

yes they did.

Now, you will say, but we need more than "faith!" And the simple fact of the matter is, even the most sophisticated math and science, relies on faith. The very principles of all physical science, rely on the order of the universe to remain the same at all times and never change. Gravity always works in a predictable way, we have faith that it will continue to do so. If you believe in a theory of evolution, you must have faith the theory is correct. So we have faith in whatever we believe, whether it is faith in physical science applied to the physical universe, or spiritual faith applied to the spiritual realm. To conflate the difference between physical and spiritual realms, is often the result on not first properly defining the context of the question. If we are going to honestly ask the question, we must apply the proper parameters and context. We can't leap back and forth from the physical realm and demanding physical proof, and back to the spiritual realm, they are two different things.

You are drawing a false equivalency. The theories of science have been tested over and over again, and are falsifiable. The faith in gravity is by no means the same as a faith in a non-provable, non-falsifiable entity that doesn't exist in the physical world. This all reads as simply "hey, you can't make fun of me for having faith, because you have faith too" It's really entirely without merit. They are not the same thing, not even slightly.

The same can be said for seculars and Atheists, who demand physical proof and refuse to acknowledge the spiritual realm. If you aren't willing to open your mind to the possibility of something else, you will remain as ignorant as the example presented, closed-minded to understanding and in the dark on this most prolific question.

If someone is saying god is crying, I can present falsifiable, demonstrable, physical evidence that you are incorrect. The same cannot be said for the inverse. Again, not the same. False equivalence.

The spiritual evidence for the spiritual existence for a spiritual God, is overwhelming. Countless spiritual believers can attest to this. Accounts of people overcoming tremendous adversities, outright 'miracles' brought about through their faith and prayers, years of oppression and bondage overcome, great nations created. The evidence of God's work can be seen in our flowers and life, in our mountains and sunsets, and in the face of every newborn child. Tracking our civilizations, we find that mankind has always been spiritual in nature. Psychologists have said, if God didn't exist, man would have to invent it. We are hard-wired this way, to worship in a spiritual way, something greater than self. This has been an aspect of humans since humans began. Some believe, it is ultimately what led to the rise of modern civilization.

Overcoming adversities isn't evidence for a god. The same could go with your miracles, "success of prayer" and the creation of nations, all can easily be explained by natural occurrences.

Now, being that humans have always held this particular character trait, and we know through studies of animal behavior, all inherent intrinsic behavior is present for a reason, we have to presume there is a reason for humans to be inclined to spirituality, there is no other scientific explanation for this.

Humans are social creatures. We also strive on structure, hierarchy, rules, regiments, and social interaction. All things religion provides, but religion in spirituality aren't inherent in this. It just fills a void, that could easily be filled without it religion itself. It doesn't mean we have some genetic yearning for reuniting with our god, or finding spiritual enlightenment. It has much more to do with cooperation being evolutionarily advantageous.

To this day, 95% of the world population, believe in something greater than self. Of course, these beliefs range widely, and to varying degrees,

it's so vauge and broad it loses all sense of meaning when discussing the concept of god. People could interpret that society is greater than oneself, or that love and good will to others is greater. Or the achievement of mankind is greater than oneself. This does not imply religion or again, some type of genetic yearning for spiritual enlightenment.

if the species has always worshiped, there must be a fundamental purpose for it. So sayeth, Darwin, anyway.

This also isn't necessarily true. There are many things we have that are part of being human that have become redundant and no longer needed. Take your appendix for example. Just because we have it, doesn't' mean we need it. Just because we have a history of interacting in a certain way, doesn't mean there is a fundamental, higher purpose either.

your answer relies solely on faith and you have no physical evidence to support it. However, the spiritual existence of God doesn't require or need physical proof.

If you can't prove the existence of god, then having a discussion on god's existence is rather meaningless. Most of your argument boils down to "hey, you have faith in things too, so belief in god is the same!"

Belief in gravity doesn't give equal weight to the existence of god. And as we speak here and now, gravity is demonstrable, verifiable, falsifiable, able to be interacted with. god is not.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

When you have a dream, did the events actually happen in the physical world? No, of course not.
yes they did.

dude....Scarlet Johannsen did NOT have sex with you......

 

[apple0154]

Ah, yes, that age-old question argued between seculars and non-seculars, Atheists and Christians, and greatest minds of our times. We've had the debates here before, numerous times, and it's always interesting to me, how we never begin by setting some foundations of understanding with regard to context. We immediately seem to jump into the usual talking points, and have the same argument over and over. Let us attempt to slow this down a bit, and begin by coming to understanding on the meanings and context of the question, before we attempt to answer the question.

We need to agree on what 'exists' means first. Do we mean, in a physical sense? I think it's safe to say, God doesn't exist in a physical sense. Most forms of belief in a god, require the god to be superior to physical man, therefore, we can presume any God would have to exist in a form outside of our physical world. Can we agree? Now, I can say that I know the Christian religion, for instance, believed God existed in a physical man, Jesus Christ. Much of their religious doctrine of belief is centered around his teachings, but for the most part, God's are not of the physical world, they are superior beings or entities, and outside of our physical universe. Given this information, to require God to exist in a physical sense, or to be proven to exist by physical sciences, is pretty useless and irrelevant.

So, God doesn't exist in a physical sense, and it's pointless to try and prove existence with physical parameters. In order to properly examine the question, we need to evaluate 'exist' as meaning, in a spiritual sense, because that is what God is, a spiritual entity. Now, whether something 'exists' in a spiritual sense, is very difficult, in fact, impossible to prove or disprove. Much of this relies on faith or comprehension of the individual. For instance, let's take something else that is 'not of the physical world' like a dream, and examine this. When you have a dream, did the events actually happen in the physical world? No, of course not. But the events did happen in your dream, you remember them vividly. You can come to me and tell me what you dreamed, and I can choose to have faith and believe you, or not. You can't physically prove you dreamed what you said, and your dream is in essence, your comprehension of what you recall. Did the events of your dream take place in the physical world? Then why would you require physical proof of their existence? To properly evaluate a spiritual entity, you have to apply spiritual criteria, which largely relies on faith.

Now, you will say, but we need more than "faith!" And the simple fact of the matter is, even the most sophisticated math and science, relies on faith. The very principles of all physical science, rely on the order of the universe to remain the same at all times and never change. Gravity always works in a predictable way, we have faith that it will continue to do so. If you believe in a theory of evolution, you must have faith the theory is correct. So we have faith in whatever we believe, whether it is faith in physical science applied to the physical universe, or spiritual faith applied to the spiritual realm. To conflate the difference between physical and spiritual realms, is often the result on not first properly defining the context of the question. If we are going to honestly ask the question, we must apply the proper parameters and context. We can't leap back and forth from the physical realm and demanding physical proof, and back to the spiritual realm, they are two different things.

It would be as if, you have someone who doesn't believe in physical sciences and thinks the rain is caused by God crying. You can show him all the physical proof you want, but he doesn't believe in the physical sciences. He refuses to acknowledge them, and insists the rain is caused by God crying. You ask him for 'proof' and he promptly replies; "Because God told me so! Can you prove he didn't?" Of course, you can't, and he is basing his belief on a spiritual faith, devoid of any belief in physical science, but the point is, rain is not caused by God crying, we know through physical science, what causes rain. The same can be said for seculars and Atheists, who demand physical proof and refuse to acknowledge the spiritual realm. If you aren't willing to open your mind to the possibility of something else, you will remain as ignorant as the example presented, closed-minded to understanding and in the dark on this most prolific question.

The spiritual evidence for the spiritual existence for a spiritual God, is overwhelming. Countless spiritual believers can attest to this. Accounts of people overcoming tremendous adversities, outright 'miracles' brought about through their faith and prayers, years of oppression and bondage overcome, great nations created. The evidence of God's work can be seen in our flowers and life, in our mountains and sunsets, and in the face of every newborn child. Tracking our civilizations, we find that mankind has always been spiritual in nature. Psychologists have said, if God didn't exist, man would have to invent it. We are hard-wired this way, to worship in a spiritual way, something greater than self. This has been an aspect of humans since humans began. Some believe, it is ultimately what led to the rise of modern civilization.

Now, being that humans have always held this particular character trait, and we know through studies of animal behavior, all inherent intrinsic behavior is present for a reason, we have to presume there is a reason for humans to be inclined to spirituality, there is no other scientific explanation for this. To this day, 95% of the world population, believe in something greater than self. Of course, these beliefs range widely, and to varying degrees, but only 5% are true Nihilists, and do not believe in anything at all. We can't argue with the physical sciences here, if the species has always worshiped, there must be a fundamental purpose for it. So sayeth, Darwin, anyway.

The bottom line is, we haven't really answered the question, because the question is subject to interpretation and understanding of context. Regardless of which way you answer the question, your answer relies solely on faith and you have no physical evidence to support it. However, the spiritual existence of God doesn't require or need physical proof.

Two points worth considering.

Our predisposition to worship may be the result of having experienced alien visitors in the distant past. From the mention of Vimanas or flying chariots in Indian culture to cave drawings depicting beings in space suits to Ezekiel's wheel the operators of such vehicles would definitely appear to be gods by the people living in those days.

The second point to consider is does a technologically advanced race constitute gods? There were isolated islands during the Second World War where the allies dropped food for the inhabitants in order for the allies to occupy part of the island. After the war the inhabitants built replicas of airplanes out of sticks hoping the “gods” would return with food.

(Excerpt) Cargo cult activity in the Pacific region increased significantly during and immediately after World War II, when the residents of these regions observed the Japanese and American combatants bringing in large amounts of material. When the war ended, the military bases closed and the flow of goods and materials ceased. In an attempt to attract further deliveries of goods, followers of the cults engaged in ritualistic practices such as building crude imitation landing strips, aircraft and radio equipment, and mimicking the behavior that they had observed of the military personnel operating them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

Perhaps mankind’s affinity to worship has nothing to do with intrinsic behavior but is due to something that actually happened in the past and the stories have been embellished down through the ages.

Maybe switching between dimensions is nothing more than a technological achievement not currently understood. Maybe it’s natural for our spirit to live on after death in another dimension which has nothing to do with gods.

While the existence of God doesn’t require proof we, as a species, must be careful not to be lulled into complacency. Where do we draw the line between the lazy, unemployed person lying on the couch believing if God wanted him to work an employer would call vs someone who believes a death was simply God calling one “home”.

Are murderers simply carrying out God’s will as did those believers who attacked and killed the various tribes occupying Jewish lands, in the past? The Philistines, the Amalekites, the Moabites, etc.

It is incumbent upon humanity to continue the search for God for there can be no peace until the question is definitively answered.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I think you are going to need to have a more stringent definition of "physical," given that I already disagree with some of what you say in following paragraphs.

Defining god in the physical sense is the only relevant way to define god. Every other way isn't provable and the question is meaningless with regards to real world applications. That does not mean however, that a god couldn't exist in the physical sense. If we are to believe in a god, most religions would have you believe that said god is all powerful. There is no reason why, if a god did exist, that it couldn't create a universe that it existed in while also not being bound by the the constraints of the universe.

This is the same as saying the only relevant way to explain rain is by spiritually understanding God caused it. If you have shut your mind to any other possibility, you are correct, that would be the only way it could ever be explained to you, because you will dismiss everything else. You are trying to demand a spiritual entity be proven with physical science, and physical science simply isn't adequate to evaluate or prove spiritual entities. It's great for proving things of the natural world, but useless when it comes to the supernatural.

And sure, God could provide us with physical proof of his existence, there's no reason an omnipotent entity couldn't do this, but why would God need to? God doesn't have a desire for you to believe in him, he really doesn't care if you do or not. It doesn't hurt his feelings, he doesn't lay awake at night worrying about all the people who don't believe in him. His strength and power doesn't rely on people having faith, it's pretty much the other way around.

nope.

It's entirely relevant. if you cannot prove god in any falsifiable context, the question of god is no more valid than the question of santa claus.

So you believe that if any God exists, it has to exist and be provable in a scientific way? Again, I refer you to my analogy of the man who doesn't believe in physical science, and thinks the rain is caused by God crying. You have stubbornly set your mind on this, and refuse to budge. Science does not deal with things that are supernatural, no matter how much you demand the supernatural be proven with science.

A dream is a part of the physical world. So your premise is faulty already. Can you touch it with your hands? No. but that doesn't mean it isn't "part of the physical world" Dreams can be scientifically measured. Even the types of dreams one is having can have different results on the body. A scarier or more intense dream may raise your heart rate over a pleasant dream. The neurons in your brain are accessing stored memory information based on the interactions in your life. And although science doesn't have the full capabilities of extracting this data, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

In fact, scientists are getting even better at this task. Scientists have recently been able to map images in the brain with a database of images on file. The result is being able to actually SEE what the brain is imaging in real time. No doubt this technology will only get better with the future.

source: http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity
(check it out, it's awesome).

A dream is certainly not part of the physical world. What happens in your dream is not actually happening in the physical world. As I said in the OP, YES scientists can hook you up to a machine that can tell if you are dreaming, and you do have physical evidence a dream is happening. But if the dreamer wakes to tell you he dreamed of purple unicorns, you have no way of determining with science, whether this actually happened in his dream.

So yeah, maybe dream is a bad example, but I doubt you can think of anything that we experience or interact with that isn't "of the physical world" So I am tempted to nip this bad logic chain in the bud. Though I guess we'll continue for now . .

Our thoughts, emotions, and imagination. Love. Remorse. Forgiveness. Hate. Fear. Pride. Science simply can't prove or disprove these things. Can you show me any scientific proof that you love your mother? You can tell me you do, but can you prove it with science?

yes they did.

So if you dream you are King Marshmallow, and you rule over Marshmallow land, and ride a purple unicorn.... that actually physically happens? Okay smart guy, prove it?

You are drawing a false equivalency. The theories of science have been tested over and over again, and are falsifiable. The faith in gravity is by no means the same as a faith in a non-provable, non-falsifiable entity that doesn't exist in the physical world. This all reads as simply "hey, you can't make fun of me for having faith, because you have faith too" It's really entirely without merit. They are not the same thing, not even slightly.

LOL... What I am hearing is, faith is not always faith, sometimes faith is faith, but other times it's not. It's okay for me to have faith, because I am smart, but you are dumb so your faith is meaningless.

FAITH is FAITH, just like TRUTH is TRUTH. There is no other way to have an intelligent conversation on this. Faith is simply what you believe to be the truth, and it can apply to things related to science, as well as things not related to science. Science relies largely on faith in the physics and properties of the universe remaining constant, there is no scientific proof that this will forever and always be the case, the entire dynamic of our universe could change tomorrow, we don't know. We can reasonably predict it won't, because it hasn't, and we can have faith that it won't, but we can never be absolutely certain of this, therefore, it requires faith.

If someone is saying god is crying, I can present falsifiable, demonstrable, physical evidence that you are incorrect. The same cannot be said for the inverse. Again, not the same. False equivalence.

You can present all the evidence you want to someone who refuses to accept it, what difference will it make to them? I can present age-old accounts of God's direct interaction and earliest relationship with man! You refuse to believe it, so what good does it do? Again, it comes down to what you have faith in.

Overcoming adversities isn't evidence for a god. The same could go with your miracles, "success of prayer" and the creation of nations, all can easily be explained by natural occurrences.

Well, yes it is, especially when those who overcame the adversity credit God and proclaim they could have never done it without Him. Again, what you are trying to do, is apply your physical science criteria where it doesn't belong. You are simply closing your mind to any other possibility, and refusing to acknowledge the evidence as it's presented. The same as the guy who thinks rain is God's tears, you've dismissed any other possibility, and refuse to accept any other explanation.

Humans are social creatures. We also strive on structure, hierarchy, rules, regiments, and social interaction. All things religion provides, but religion in spirituality aren't inherent in this. It just fills a void, that could easily be filled without it religion itself. It doesn't mean we have some genetic yearning for reuniting with our god, or finding spiritual enlightenment. It has much more to do with cooperation being evolutionarily advantageous.

I disagree with your theory.

it's so vauge and broad it loses all sense of meaning when discussing the concept of god. People could interpret that society is greater than oneself, or that love and good will to others is greater. Or the achievement of mankind is greater than oneself. This does not imply religion or again, some type of genetic yearning for spiritual enlightenment.

Again, I disagree. If we were to study any other species, and noted some inherent behavior which had been present in the species for as far back as we could find, we would have to conclude that such a behavior is fundamental to the species in some way. Maybe we can't explain it, maybe we don't understand exactly what the correlation is, but we can be reasonably certain the attribute doesn't simply reside in the species for no apparent reason. We can also rationalize, for this behavior to persist through time, with the influx of academia and knowledge, and still be present in 95% of the species, it must be pretty important. That means, it can't be explained away with trivial thought.

This also isn't necessarily true. There are many things we have that are part of being human that have become redundant and no longer needed. Take your appendix for example. Just because we have it, doesn't' mean we need it. Just because we have a history of interacting in a certain way, doesn't mean there is a fundamental, higher purpose either.

The appendix is a vestigial organ, not a behavioral trait. Show me the scientific example of, and I'll open this up to ANY living organism, which exhibits a vestigial behavioral trait? In other words, show me the example of anything living, which behaves in a way that is completely unnecessary and without purpose because it is no longer required, yet the behavior persists because it always has? Can you cite an example of this? I can't think of any, and I would think this makes my point. If humans have been intrinsically and inherently drawn to worship spiritually, for all their existence, there must be a fundamental reason and purpose for the species.

If you can't prove the existence of god, then having a discussion on god's existence is rather meaningless. Most of your argument boils down to "hey, you have faith in things too, so belief in god is the same!"

Belief in gravity doesn't give equal weight to the existence of god. And as we speak here and now, gravity is demonstrable, verifiable, falsifiable, able to be interacted with. god is not.

Ah... but you have FAITH that gravity will be verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable, and will remain constant. You can't prove it always will be. Again, FAITH is FAITH, it doesn't matter whether we are talking about faith in something we can falsify or predict, or whether we are talking about something we can't see or measure in a physical sense. And YES, it does ultimately come down to whether or not you have faith in God and believe he exists.

 

[apple0154]

And sure, God could provide us with physical proof of his existence, there's no reason an omnipotent entity couldn't do this, but why would God need to? God doesn't have a desire for you to believe in him, he really doesn't care if you do or not. It doesn't hurt his feelings, he doesn't lay awake at night worrying about all the people who don't believe in him. His strength and power doesn't rely on people having faith, it's pretty much the other way around.

Say what?????????? The first commandment reads, “You shall have no other gods before me.”

And then we have:

Exod.20 [5] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exod.34 [14] For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Deut.4 [24] For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Deut.5 [9] Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

Deut.6 [15] (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

Josh.24 [19] And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.

 

[Phantasmal]

Say what?????????? The first commandment reads, “You shall have no other gods before me.”

And then we have:

Exod.20 [5] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exod.34 [14] For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Deut.4 [24] For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Deut.5 [9] Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

Deut.6 [15] (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

Josh.24 [19] And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.

Isn't Yahweh at war with Satan or human souls? If he doesn't care why did he send Jesus?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Dixie's typical response to this is that he is a spiritualist/theist and not a Christian.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Say what?????????? The first commandment reads, “You shall have no other gods before me.”

And then we have:

Exod.20 [5] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exod.34 [14] For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Deut.4 [24] For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Deut.5 [9] Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

Deut.6 [15] (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

Josh.24 [19] And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.

What you are referring to, are the Christian interpretations of what God said to them. We do not know if God commanded these things, or that Abraham's God is THE God. We can have faith in this, and many people do. It has nothing to do with my statement. Why would an omnipotent being "require" anything of mortals? Your will to worship is free, God doesn't have a need for this. God doesn't depend on you and I to do anything, it really makes no difference to God. Now, you can believe that God wants you to behave a certain way, or that a certain behavior is pleasing to God, but then again, why would an omnipotent being require pleasure?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie's typical response to this is that he is a spiritualist/theist and not a Christian.

Well I do believe Apple raises a valid point here, many Christians believe in a God who has human attributes, and I am not so sure God has human attributes, or would have any need for them, as a God. Maybe he does, and he created man in his image, like the Bible says, I've just always had a hard time believing that.

Personally, I believe organized religions are man's way of understanding spirituality and trying to comprehend something they can't really comprehend. In order to relate, they create a God in their image of God, who amazingly enough, has humanistic characteristics of love, forgiveness, jealousy, anger, etc. Most Christians will agree, God has the power to wipe us all out and start over, anytime he wants. So why would he be angry or jealous? He could just thump us off his apple whenever he pleases, right? God doesn't have human emotions because God doesn't need human emotions, it's one of the perks of omnipotence.

My spiritual understanding of God (and yes there is one), is best defined to the average person, as positive energy mass. This unique energy force is flowing through our universe constantly. Some have referred to a spiritual energy known as "karma" and what I personally believe, is very closely related. Now, a positive energy mass doesn't get it's feelings hurt if you don't believe in it, does it? Such an energy force, doesn't get jealous or angry, or need to forgive you for your sins. It simply exists and flows, and does what it does, regardless of what we do. But here's the really cool and neat part... We can tap into that energy force!

I know this to be true, because I do it all the time. Let me give you 'science-believers' a little test... For the next 90 days, refrain from all negative thoughts, behaviors and actions. Only do positive and good things, behave in a positive way with all the people around you. Say nice things to people, offer to help or share, do good things as much as you can, and refrain from doing negative or bad things. I will even leave it up to you to determine in your own mind, what is "bad" and what is "good" but you are the one who has to be honest with yourself on this, if you honestly think something is negative or bad, you can't 'justify' it, you need to avoid doing it. Do this, like I say, for 90 days and see what happens. I promise, you will see a difference in your life. It takes about 90 days, for some, the results begin to be seen almost immediately, others it takes longer, but in 90 days, you will see a difference in your life you never dreamed was possible.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Are murderers simply carrying out God’s will as did those believers who attacked and killed the various tribes occupying Jewish lands, in the past? The Philistines, the Amalekites, the Moabites, etc.

I think it shouldn't be difficult to distinguish between a man sitting in his mother's basement who says he heard God tell him he had to murder the old man who lived next door, and a tribe of hundreds of thousands of people who saw their deity lead them across the desert for forty years as a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day.....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Ah, yes, that age-old question argued between seculars and non-seculars, Atheists and Christians, and greatest minds of our times. We've had the debates here before, numerous times, and it's always interesting to me, how we never begin by setting some foundations of understanding with regard to context. We immediately seem to jump into the usual talking points, and have the same argument over and over. Let us attempt to slow this down a bit, and begin by coming to understanding on the meanings and context of the question, before we attempt to answer the question.

We need to agree on what 'exists' means first. Do we mean, in a physical sense? I think it's safe to say, God doesn't exist in a physical sense. Most forms of belief in a god, require the god to be superior to physical man, therefore, we can presume any God would have to exist in a form outside of our physical world. Can we agree? Now, I can say that I know the Christian religion, for instance, believed God existed in a physical man, Jesus Christ. Much of their religious doctrine of belief is centered around his teachings, but for the most part, God's are not of the physical world, they are superior beings or entities, and outside of our physical universe. Given this information, to require God to exist in a physical sense, or to be proven to exist by physical sciences, is pretty useless and irrelevant.

So, God doesn't exist in a physical sense, and it's pointless to try and prove existence with physical parameters. In order to properly examine the question, we need to evaluate 'exist' as meaning, in a spiritual sense, because that is what God is, a spiritual entity. Now, whether something 'exists' in a spiritual sense, is very difficult, in fact, impossible to prove or disprove. Much of this relies on faith or comprehension of the individual. For instance, let's take something else that is 'not of the physical world' like a dream, and examine this. When you have a dream, did the events actually happen in the physical world? No, of course not. But the events did happen in your dream, you remember them vividly. You can come to me and tell me what you dreamed, and I can choose to have faith and believe you, or not. You can't physically prove you dreamed what you said, and your dream is in essence, your comprehension of what you recall. Did the events of your dream take place in the physical world? Then why would you require physical proof of their existence? To properly evaluate a spiritual entity, you have to apply spiritual criteria, which largely relies on faith.

Now, you will say, but we need more than "faith!" And the simple fact of the matter is, even the most sophisticated math and science, relies on faith. The very principles of all physical science, rely on the order of the universe to remain the same at all times and never change. Gravity always works in a predictable way, we have faith that it will continue to do so. If you believe in a theory of evolution, you must have faith the theory is correct. So we have faith in whatever we believe, whether it is faith in physical science applied to the physical universe, or spiritual faith applied to the spiritual realm. To conflate the difference between physical and spiritual realms, is often the result on not first properly defining the context of the question. If we are going to honestly ask the question, we must apply the proper parameters and context. We can't leap back and forth from the physical realm and demanding physical proof, and back to the spiritual realm, they are two different things.

It would be as if, you have someone who doesn't believe in physical sciences and thinks the rain is caused by God crying. You can show him all the physical proof you want, but he doesn't believe in the physical sciences. He refuses to acknowledge them, and insists the rain is caused by God crying. You ask him for 'proof' and he promptly replies; "Because God told me so! Can you prove he didn't?" Of course, you can't, and he is basing his belief on a spiritual faith, devoid of any belief in physical science, but the point is, rain is not caused by God crying, we know through physical science, what causes rain. The same can be said for seculars and Atheists, who demand physical proof and refuse to acknowledge the spiritual realm. If you aren't willing to open your mind to the possibility of something else, you will remain as ignorant as the example presented, closed-minded to understanding and in the dark on this most prolific question.

The spiritual evidence for the spiritual existence for a spiritual God, is overwhelming. Countless spiritual believers can attest to this. Accounts of people overcoming tremendous adversities, outright 'miracles' brought about through their faith and prayers, years of oppression and bondage overcome, great nations created. The evidence of God's work can be seen in our flowers and life, in our mountains and sunsets, and in the face of every newborn child. Tracking our civilizations, we find that mankind has always been spiritual in nature. Psychologists have said, if God didn't exist, man would have to invent it. We are hard-wired this way, to worship in a spiritual way, something greater than self. This has been an aspect of humans since humans began. Some believe, it is ultimately what led to the rise of modern civilization.

Now, being that humans have always held this particular character trait, and we know through studies of animal behavior, all inherent intrinsic behavior is present for a reason, we have to presume there is a reason for humans to be inclined to spirituality, there is no other scientific explanation for this. To this day, 95% of the world population, believe in something greater than self. Of course, these beliefs range widely, and to varying degrees, but only 5% are true Nihilists, and do not believe in anything at all. We can't argue with the physical sciences here, if the species has always worshiped, there must be a fundamental purpose for it. So sayeth, Darwin, anyway.

The bottom line is, we haven't really answered the question, because the question is subject to interpretation and understanding of context. Regardless of which way you answer the question, your answer relies solely on faith and you have no physical evidence to support it. However, the spiritual existence of God doesn't require or need physical proof.

Well if you have "Proof" of God of what use is faith?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

interesting and stimulating.....haven't ever approached the issue from this angle before......how much does a memory weigh?.....what color is an idea?....is knowledge metaphysical?.....was the concert that Mozart imagined something that can be studied by science?......

How much does a ham sandwhich weigh? blah, blah, blah.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

How much does a ham sandwhich weigh? blah, blah, blah.

???....you don't think you can weigh a ham sandwich?......

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well if you have "Proof" of God of what use is faith?

You need faith even in the presence of proof, do you not? Honestly, think about that for a moment. Is there anything you can "prove" that doesn't require your faith and belief? In fact, one could argue from a philosophical point, it is impossible to have faith and belief without "proof." There has to be something which makes you believe and have faith, in the first place. Now we can argue over what is legitimate "proof" and what is perception of "proof" to an individual, and we get right back to the fundamentals of the OP, it all boils down to what you have faith in. If you have no faith in spirituality, you could hardly have faith in God, therefore, you are not going to believe in God and you will reject any "proof" presented by others, because you lack this faith. It doesn't mean "proof" doesn't exist, it simply means you reject the "proof" and call it bullshit.

I'll remind you once again, the point of the OP was not to answer the question, it was to examine the context and understand the question from a more appropriate context. I readily admit the question isn't answered, it can't be answered, that is why it continues to be argued. My only goal was to have people think about the context of the question, and examine it's legitimacy in a fair way. Some have been able to do that, others like you and Grind, want to run straight back to the safety of the argument in your old familiar context, an argument you believe you can win, because you are too afraid to explore other possibilities.

You can't demand physical proof of a supernatural thing, it's as silly and pointless as demanding science be explained by spirituality. The spiritual and physical worlds are two entirely different things, so why would parameters of one fit the other? Why would requiring physical proof for a supernatural entity, be any less ridiculous than requiring supernatural proof of the physical? In my opinion, one is as bad as the other. We must put things in their proper context before we answer the question.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

[for the record, it's pointless for me to bother arguing about something with dixie. I realized I was wasting my time. No offense dixie, but we just aren't going to sync up on this]

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

[for the record, it's pointless for me to bother arguing about something with dixie. I realized I was wasting my time. No offense dixie, but we just aren't going to sync up on this]

You're correct. My position is, the question can't be answered without proper understanding of context, which you refuse to allow, and any answer requires individual faith. Your position is, the question has already been answered by science and god doesn't exist, and there is no need for you to enlighten yourself further. So yes, it's a complete and total waste of your time, you are dismissed!

 

[cancel2 2022]

???....you don't think you can weigh a ham sandwich?......

How much does umami weigh?