Evidence of the Non-Physical

[DNB]

You are again using a begging the question fallacy, simply assuming creation with the word used in your argument.

There is no objective evidence anything was created. Also the claim has no explanatory powers, so asking anyone to address the "explanation" is nonsense sorry. Claiming a deity did it, is not an explanation, precisely because it has no explanatory powers.

You're not comprehending either the cosmological, teleological, or moral arguments for the existence of God. All are based on empirical evidence. No one invented anything.

 

[ratiocinator]

You're not following either the cosmological, teleological, or moral arguments for the existence of God. All are based on empirical evidence. No one invented anything.

I've seem many versions of those, all of them obviously flawed, often comically so, and some aren't really even arguments for a god. What's more, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, postulating a god to 'explain' why this universe exists and is the way it is, just adds to the problem of existence, not answers it. It's like taking all the things we might muse about but don't have definite answers for, calling them 'god' and pretending that it's an explanation. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "this is difficult to understand, I dunno, it must be magic!"

 

[Sheldon]

You're not following either the cosmological, teleological, or moral arguments for the existence of God. All are based on empirical evidence. No one invented anything.

I have heard all those arguments at one time and another, and they offer no empirical evidence that supports creation or a deity. All three arguments are flawed in every version I've ever encountered, and often used known logical fallacies like special pleading or begging the question fallacies.

 

[joelr]

Yeah, you control the world and all understanding of what is relevant. Got you!

What is relevant in the discussion is what I'm trying to discuss. You are going into completely different topics. This response is just more misdirection, putting words in my mouth and makes no point?
we were discussing non-physical and my question was what evidence do you have for something non-physical?


"
And that has nothing to do with the topic. Psychology, philosophy, personal morality, personal codes, relationships, secular spirituality, nothing. I am talking about believing myths and using empirical evidence to show they are not true. These other things are not part of the discussion. Some of those do use forms of the scientific method when studies are done and evidence is reviewed.
These have nothing to do with "non-physical".

 

[joelr]

Thank you joelr for your very well informed response. I agree with all the facts that you presented, and to some degree, the conclusions also.
My point has always been to merely prove the spiritual dimension within man, and not the veracity or accuracy of the conclusions. No other creature on earth has such a capacity that allows themselves to act in a manner that is in defiance to their intellectual capacity. Man will drink himself to death, smoke cigarettes, have racist and bigoted sentiments, etc... - in short, convictions and desires that have absolutely no rational justification whatsoever. But, also, his incessant reverence for the gods, whatever they may be.

There is clearly a spiritual warfare going on within the heart of man, that no other creature on earth is susceptible to. Even the creatures with a fraction of the intelligence of a human, are more pragmatic and functionally sound than man has proven to be. Nor are animals capable of comprehending morals or religion.
There is a spirit within the constitution of man, and this spirit has a source that was not derived from stardust and protoplasm but from a spiritual entity.

Well mice will kill themselves when given a choice between water and cocaine in experiments. Humans are obviously more complex psychologically because our line of hominid apes trended towards higher intelligence over many species.
But you lost me on the spiritual warfare. I don't see how the spiritual war is clear. A psychological war is clear. But the concept of a soul doesn't really pan out and the spiritual entity doesn't either?
There is no evidence and it's redundant. When one suffers damage to the brain personality traits can completely change. So then is the person acting against the will of the soul?
Do all living things require a soul? Bugs? Cells? If not then a point comes where a soul enters the body? Again, redundant, we already have organisms evolving and growing. At some random point you throw in a soul?
It's also a Greek belief that became popular with Jewish thinking during the Greek occupation. For centuries the early Jewish scripture wasn't concerned much with the afterlife. Before that period older religions had no afterlife at all.

 

[DNB]

I've seem many versions of those, all of them obviously flawed, often comically so, and some aren't really even arguments for a god. What's more, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, postulating a god to 'explain' why this universe exists and is the way it is, just adds to the problem of existence, not answers it. It's like taking all the things we might muse about but don't have definite answers for, calling them 'god' and pretending that it's an explanation. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "this is difficult to understand, I dunno, it must be magic!"

Man has a spirit, therefore a spiritual entity or source of that spirit must exist. No conjecture over here.

 

[DNB]

I have heard all those arguments at one time and another, and they offer no empirical evidence that supports creation or a deity. All three arguments are flawed in every version I've ever encountered, and often used known logical fallacies like special pleading or begging the question fallacies.

Not at all, Sheldon, you're not being honest. They have enough merit to be taken seriously. One can regress only so far before one must declare that an eternal entity must have precipitated the motion of the universe. That's elementary reasoning. The ultimate conclusion may not be true in its entirety, hypothetically speaking, but it is not devoid of veracity nor rationality, logic and empirical evidence. Morality did not come from a material, or a non-spiritual source. Goodness typically defeats evil, it is the greater and more sound of the two dispositions.
There are evidences for the existence of a transcendent and eternal being, who is pure and righteous. You cannot assert that belief in a deity is without any substantiation.

 

[DNB]

Well mice will kill themselves when given a choice between water and cocaine in experiments. Humans are obviously more complex psychologically because our line of hominid apes trended towards higher intelligence over many species.
But you lost me on the spiritual warfare. I don't see how the spiritual war is clear. A psychological war is clear. But the concept of a soul doesn't really pan out and the spiritual entity doesn't either?
There is no evidence and it's redundant. When one suffers damage to the brain personality traits can completely change. So then is the person acting against the will of the soul?
Do all living things require a soul? Bugs? Cells? If not then a point comes where a soul enters the body? Again, redundant, we already have organisms evolving and growing. At some random point you throw in a soul?
It's also a Greek belief that became popular with Jewish thinking during the Greek occupation. For centuries the early Jewish scripture wasn't concerned much with the afterlife. Before that period older religions had no afterlife at all.

You said it yourself, man has a higher intelligence, ...I'll add, than any other creature on the planet. Why then, in so many ways, does he not act so?

 

[ratiocinator]

Man has a spirit, therefore a spiritual entity or source of that spirit must exist. No conjecture over here.

No, it's worse than conjecture, it's just a baseless assertion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Without refutation, there is a devil in this world and he has influenced man since the beginning of time.

You are wrong.
Without refutation, it's actually an extra-dimensional unicorn instead.

You fail to recognize the overt evidence of the spiritual realm.

Which evidence would that be?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're not following either the cosmological, teleological, or moral arguments for the existence of God. All are based on empirical evidence.

No. All are based on invalid assumptions, assumed conclusions, false premises, special pleading etc.
They read like an introduction to logical fallacies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Man has a spirit, therefore a spiritual entity or source of that spirit must exist. No conjecture over here.

Here's a great example of the assumed conclusion part.

"man has a spirit therefor man has a spirit"



Great argument you got there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not at all, Sheldon, you're not being honest. They have enough merit to be taken seriously. One can regress only so far before one must declare that an eternal entity must have precipitated the motion of the universe. That's elementary reasoning. The ultimate conclusion may not be true in its entirety, hypothetically speaking, but it is not devoid of veracity nor rationality, logic and empirical evidence. Morality did not come from a material, or a non-spiritual source. Goodness typically defeats evil, it is the greater and more sound of the two dispositions.
There are evidences for the existence of a transcendent and eternal being, who is pure and righteous. You cannot assert that belief in a deity is without any substantiation.

Feel free to create a thread for every one of these arguments and many of us will be happy to tear it a new one and show how they are fallacious nonsense.

 

[joelr]

You said it yourself, man has a higher intelligence, ...I'll add, than any other creature on the planet. Why then, in so many ways, does he not act so?

Lots of reasons. Nothing to do with a soul though.

 

[Sheldon]

Man has a spirit, therefore a spiritual entity or source of that spirit must exist. No conjecture over here.

This <Man has a spirit,> is the part that is (unevidenced...my inference) conjecture, the rest is a circular reasoning fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

Not at all, Sheldon, you're not being honest. They have enough merit to be taken seriously.

No they don't - but by all means present one and we can examine your claim.

One can regress only so far before one must declare that an eternal entity must have precipitated the motion of the universe. That's elementary reasoning.

Nope, it's yet another unevidenced claim.

The ultimate conclusion may not be true in its entirety, hypothetically speaking, but it is not devoid of veracity nor rationality, logic and empirical evidence.

A string of unevidenced and non contextual claims?

Morality did not come from a material, or a non-spiritual source.

Groovy, care to take a stab at demonstrating a shred of objective evidence for this claim?

Animals exhibiting morality.

Goodness typically defeats evil, it is the greater and more sound of the two dispositions.

Hilarious nonsense, firstly evil is a subjective viewpoint.

There are evidences for the existence of a transcendent and eternal being, who is pure and righteous.

Great, any chance you can demonstrate any?

You cannot assert that belief in a deity is without any substantiation.

I don't need to, until you offer anything objective. You might as well be claiming you have an invisible pet unicorn.

 

[DNB]

No, it's worse than conjecture, it's just a baseless assertion.

define baseless?

 

[DNB]

You are wrong.
Without refutation, it's actually an extra-dimensional unicorn instead.

You need to stop reading fairy tale books, it makes you sound adolescent.

Which evidence would that be?

Why is there a police force?

 

[DNB]

No. All are based on invalid assumptions, assumed conclusions, false premises, special pleading etc.
They read like an introduction to logical fallacies.

You're not following the rationale.

 

[DNB]

Here's a great example of the assumed conclusion part.

"man has a spirit therefor man has a spirit"



Great argument you got there.

likewise!