Provide Proof God Does Not Exist & Proof of Evolution Theory (verse, religion)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's what I say. It does not prove anything, so it does not really help your case that there is something wrong or denialist about those who view the world from the physical perspective. That is the only one with 'proove'. It is wrong to give credit to any other perspective.
Proof of what? If it works then it is unexplained HOW it works. At one time nobody understood how a kid knew how to suckle or a bird to fly. 'God' was too, too easy an answer. Now DNA gives us the answer. Unexplained is just unexplained.
The unexplained is not 'Explained' as 'Spiritual. It is not evidence of anything other than there are things we can't yet explain. We knew that. I have heard the claims, but haven't seen the proof. Besides, didn't I see somewhere that these claims are denied by the organizations who are supposed to employ these people?
I don't know what you are saying here. It is only brain activity (reason) that explains anything.
Intuition is greatly misunderstood. We confuse experience, unperceived signals and plain statistical bias and tell ourselves that 'Something is going on'. Yes, something, but nothing that can be taken as hard evidence for 'Spiritual'. And I know what the agenda is here. It is the incremental credibility ploy (might be a fallacy - I think maybe the fallacy of the beard...in reverse) whereby if you can get something accepted, like maybe some undersea formation, some DNA feature, some physical effect that science can't account for, some miracle that can't be disproved, some prediction that panned out, some locked back that cleared up just as sawbones called (happened to me once ) anything that can be used to slip the credit card of 'something can't explain' into the crack of the science door so as to dump all the fantastic unproven claims and say that we have to disprove all of that or science cannot be believed.
The burden of proof is on the claimant to show that there is something 'spiritual' or supernatural is what you mean going on. The fact is you can't because, as Born - again agnostic Boxcar found to his irritation, anything supernatural that is explained, becomed Natural. Anything that is not remains unexplained. The supernatural remains unproven/unexplained because no-one can explain it.
What we know is either explained or not explained yet - Mind, some definite proof of NDE/OOB or of prognostication or faith - healing. We get a lot of stuff that remains anecdotal if not debunked and the hard cases just seem to vanish. The list of CLAIMS and anecdotes goes on an on, but the plural of anecdote is not 'Data'. The list of hard evidence for the supernatural. spiritual or divine is as short a book as 'Doomsday predictions that came true'.
When you have nothing but a grab - bag of unchecked and unvalidated anecdotes, claims and speculations, you have nothing. You have nothing worth using as a basis for thought and reason other than the physical - the materialist default.
I think if you did not take my comments out of context they would make sense. Brain activity as registered by scientists when people have a spiritual awakening only shows that there is brain activity and not that there is a place in the brain that is "tricked" into believing in God. And people who believe in God are not here to convince you of His existance, but rather you are often here to find reasons. I only share my reasons to assist in your search. As for the psychic analogy. If a person claims to be psychic and provives specific information that turns out to be true and the police find the person then the psychics abilities are real. There is no need for further proof of anything.
I think if you did not take my comments out of context they would make sense. Brain activity as registered by scientists when people have a spiritual awakening only shows that there is brain activity and not that there is a place in the brain that is "tricked" into believing in God. And people who believe in God are not here to convince you of His existance, but rather you are often here to find reasons. I only share my reasons to assist in your search. As for the psychic analogy. If a person claims to be psychic and provides specific information that turns out to be true and the police find the person then the psychics abilities are real. There is no need for further proof of anything.
Obviously I can't agree for the reasons given above and before. Succinctly, while the unproven causes behind what science or research can show is happening could be true, until they are validated, there is no rational reason to take them as true.
Similarly, yes, if a person's (claimed) psychic abilities appear to deliver, then we obviously need to research that as it is known that apparent 'results' can be misinterpreted, and in any case, that does not explain how it working. Moreover, I am far from certain that these claims have been substantiated.
All you are saying is that these unverified claims should be accepted because it suits your argument. And that is what has been wrong with your case from post 1.
Obviously I can't agree for the reasons given above and before. Succinctly, while the unproven causes behind what science or research can show is happening could be true, until they are validated, there is no rational reason to take them as true.
Similarly, yes, if a person's (claimed) psychic abilities appear to deliver, then we obviously need to research that as it is known that apparent 'results' can be misinterpreted, and in any case, that does not explain how it working. Moreover, I am far from certain that these claims have been substantiated.
All you are saying is that these unverified claims should be accepted because it suits your argument. And that is what has been wrong with your case from post 1.
I think the term is a "reductionist". Someone who believes that everything, absolutely everything can be reduced to something physical. I guess I'm one who does not believe that and feels there are things of a nature that are beyond the physical.
I think the term is a "reductionist". Someone who believes that everything, absolutely everything can be reduced to something physical. I guess I'm one who does not believe that and feels there are things of a nature that are beyond the physical.
Unfortunately, feelings have been shown to be a particularly unreliable way of gathering evidence about the real world. If that's all you've got, you shouldn't expect anyone else to find anything you say convincing in the least.
Unfortunately, feelings have been shown to be a particularly unreliable way of gathering evidence about the real world. If that's all you've got, you shouldn't expect anyone else to find anything you say convincing in the least.
Anyway, I don't think anyone can prove one way or the other. Only God can convert someone like He did this woman. Who better to prove to you that God exists than God? You won't believe anyone else anyway.
This is the kind of stuff that makes me go
The story is so poorly written and has no background. She goes to a priest asking about God, so she was clearly seeking religion as it was...and they don't say whether or not she was raised religious.
When people talk like this, I wonder how they are not considered to be insane by the majority of the population. "God spoke to me" is a sign of schizophrenia...you're hearing voices because you're crazy not because some magical man in the sky chose you over the 7,000,000,000 people on this planet to convert. Seriously, I just don't get how people can be so brainwashed.
God exists because he says he does. God exists because I have a 2000 year old book that says he does. No evidence proving it to be a fallacy will be acceptable because God is above facts, reason, logic and evidence.
Who does God worship? Is he a narcissist who worships himself, or is he an Atheist like those of us who are more evolved?
I think the term is a "reductionist". Someone who believes that everything, absolutely everything can be reduced to something physical. I guess I'm one who does not believe that and feels there are things of a nature that are beyond the physical.
We are trapped in a circular argument, pal because you persistently misrepresent my position and the atheist position and indeed the science position on the material default and the unknown, though I concede that definitions of materialism (that I have read (1) do look rather denialist, which is why I am chary about signing up to any 'Ism' other that atheism which is merely the lack of a belief in any god.
For the last time, we do not deny the unknown, we just say that belief in unknowns as being either this or that as a believable (and indeed life-changing) fact, is absurd and irrational.
We further say that the 'knowns' are indeed believable and it is absurd and irrational not to believe in the verified data as fact. That is the rationale of the materialist default, for us, at any rate. If you simply cannot get it through your head that opting for what we can prove or at least what has some decent evidence rather than for what is not proven and had no decent evidence, is the obviously rational default position, then discussion with you is evidently a waste of time, other than to let others see how skewed theist reasoning is by their Godfaith.
(1) But then definitions of atheism that I have read do not reflect my views or indeed that of atheism and i have to say that they are wrong, and probably reflect the erroneous popular usages of the terms.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-29-2012 at 05:33 AM..
Reason: general tigy up, and a footnote. I need my footnote first thing in the morning.
The fact that not everyone does removes it as evidence
Evidence is the same every time
Not in these cases besides we all know just as some people need for there to be a God or Gods there are some whom beg/hope every moment of the day there is not one/any (talk about scary and creepy).
Not in these cases besides we all know just as some people need for there to be a God or Gods there are some whom beg/hope every moment of the day there is not one/any (talk about scary and creepy).
What is scary and creepy is that theists cannot imagine anyone approaching the evidence re. God - claims without either a desire to prove it true or a desire to prove it false. The idea that someone might simply want to know what the evidence says seems to be unable to penetrate the ivory theist carapace.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) anything that can be used to slip the credit card of 'something can't explain' into the crack of the science door so as to dump all the fantastic unproven claims and say that we have to disprove all of that or science cannot be believed.
