Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

[TagliatelliMonster]

All you can see is the test? Wow.
I am so glad RF is not the only place we find scientists.

I'll spell it out for you then. It is self evident. It is not a personal experience. Do I have to put my hand in a sharks mouth to know what the results are? Is that my personal expectation? No. It is not... and we all know that.

So telling me about personal experience, is a strawman.
I said...
This is proof for me, and it can be scientifically tested.
All that is required, is to take all the people who read, study, appreciate, and apply the principles in the Bible, along with thousands of other people, and evaluate the results.
Then I mentioned the features of such a test, and the limitations on science, where that is concerned.

So the focus was never on the test.
Then I said... So, while we have the proof, and it be really proof, science cannot verify it. Nor can atheists disprove it.
We have the proof. We don't need science for that.

Everyone who was not born yesterday, and knows what a shark is, do not need a scientist to tell them what a shark does, do they?
Science can't tell them if the shark will bite them either, so we don't need a peer reviewd paper telling us anything that we can clearly see.
This Scientism worship is really becoming an annoying beast. I look forward to when God kills that beast.

We hold these truths to be self evident...

Promiscuity in adults
Having multiple sexual partners is linked with risks such as maternal deaths and complications, cancers, sexually transmitted infections, alcohol, and substance use, and social condemnation in some societies.

Effects of human sexual promiscuity - Wikipedia​

Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Smoking also increases risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems of the immune system, including rheumatoid arthritis.

Health Effects | Smoking and Tobacco Use - CDC​

Drug use can lead to dependence and addiction, injury and accidents, health problems, sleep issues, and more. Drug use affects you and those close to you.

Know the Risks of Using Drugs | SAMHSA​

Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Smoking also increases risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems of the immune system, including rheumatoid arthritis.

Health Effects | Smoking and Tobacco Use - CD​

Violence a global public health problem - SciELO​

Community violence can include physical assaults between young people, sexual violence in the workplace and neglect of older people

Profanity | World Problems & Global Issue​

Union of International Associations
http://encyclopedia.uia.org › problem
Profanity. Other Names: Swearing Bad language. Indecent speech. Foul language. Vulgar language. Verbal obscenity. Swear words.


Surely you can post the contrast, can't you?
If you can't, please let me know.

None of the links you posted have anything to do with religion.
None of those bad habits require religion to not engage in them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The part where you extract one sentence, fro a post, and say some that is totally foreign to the context of the post.

The sentence I quoted is the summary of the argument of your post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, I'll ply along.
Whose testimony,? Yours?
Where did you get these dreams from? Your head?
...and the revelation and visions cane from where?

From believers in the Great JuJu at the bottom of the sea, who's lives have been transformed for the better according to the standards of the religion of the Great JuJu

 

[Valjean]

All you can see is the test? Wow.
I am so glad RF is not the only place we find scientists.

I'll spell it out for you then. It is self evident. It is not a personal experience. Do I have to put my hand in a sharks mouth to know what the results are? Is that my personal expectation? No. It is not... and we all know that.

[/QUOTE]
Self-evident, commonsense facts are what impeded the growth of human knowledge for thousands of years, till science eventually came along with demands for testing rather than assuming.

So telling me about personal experience, is a strawman.
I said...
This is proof for me, and it can be scientifically tested.
All that is required, is to take all the people who read, study, appreciate, and apply the principles in the Bible, along with thousands of other people, and evaluate the results.
Then I mentioned the features of such a test, and the limitations on science, where that is concerned.

[/QUOTE]
"...proof for me" ???
Wouldn't such testing be impracticable, with so many variables?
If it could be done, why has it not been done?

Then I said... So, while we have the proof, and it be really proof, science cannot verify it. Nor can atheists disprove it.
We have the proof. We don't need science for that.

[/QUOTE]
Balderdash! You have no proof, unless you've completely redefined the term.
"Proof for me" leads me to suspect you have.

Everyone who was not born yesterday, and knows what a shark is, do not need a scientist to tell them what a shark does, do they?
Science can't tell them if the shark will bite them either, so we don't need a peer reviewd paper telling us anything that we can clearly see.
This Scientism worship is really becoming an annoying beast. I look forward to when God kills that beast.

...And we don't need scientists to tell us that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. We can clearly see that.
(Do you see the analogy and reference here?)

 

[Nakosis]

When speaking about evidences and proofs with regards to God here I am not speaking about scientific proofs but spiritual proofs. I believe that the human mind cannot grasp God so it is fruitless trying to prove God scientifically as we are told He is Spirit. Then to prove God we need to look at spiritual evidences.

What are spiritual proofs and evidences of God? Some say the virtues. Others, the transformative effect the Teachings of the Great Spiritual Teachers have had on the character of the individual and society. Still others say miracles.

Readers might like to contribute by adding how their Prophet’s teachings transformed the life of the individual and society or add their own spiritual proofs of God’s existence.

Spiritual evidence is feelings. You feel better, you feel inspired you feel peace you feel hope etc...

So yes it is very hard to quantify feelings in any scientific way.
However, feelings can be manipulated in various ways.
Spiritual practices are successful if they can learn to successfully manipulate your feelings. If they can do that, they don't have to worry about facts.

What would you say is the goal of spiritual practice? To make you feel better about yourself? Life?
The concept of God is there to help you feel better. You can do this without God but it seems a lot easier for people to do this with a God belief.

So your evidence for God is that believing in God makes you feel better?
I'm not trying to make a strawman argument for you. This is based on my experience of the process.
Believing in God made me feel better. That's true.

Now, I have gotten past the need to believe in a God to feel better about life. Was I transformed by these beliefs? Yeah, sure. I'm not sure I would have gotten to the point of no longer needing them.

 

[nPeace]

?????????? --- Science doesn't claim to demonstrate "what it cannot consider."

True.
People do that.

Science stays in its lane, it knows its limits. It makes no proclamations of value, purpose, morality, &c.

Again, that's people. Then they might call it science.
Please tell that to those who keep asking for the scientific evidence for God.

Religion is the trespasser here. It's constantly making unevidenced claims of objective truth.

Can you give an example, please.

Science is the best and most robust source of truth. It's the gold standard. Science is a research modality. Religion is not; it discourages research that might threaten orthodox doctrine.

Really. That is not what I heard.
However, let me test you on that claim.
What is the truth about God? What is the purpose of life? What happens after death? Is there an afterlife? What will happen to the earth? What does the future hold? Is this life all there is? What is the source of true happiness? How did life begin?

I'm not done.
While we are here, I might as well ask. If science is a study to find out answers about the natural worlds, is there any guarantee it will find those answers, and can we be sure we have found answers that are accurate?

Religion has been around for thousands of years. It has yet to come to any consensus of major principles.

Well if you did not get my point the last time, I am not sure you even gave it a thought.
Lumping all science in one package, and saying that they all deal with the same thing is something an unreasonable person would do.
Doing the same with religion, is equally unreasonable.
No one says Biology deals with the same studies a Chemistry, hence why person vehemently oppose those who mention Abiogenesis along with the theory of evolution.

Religion has many branches. You know this.
So this is an obvious strawman. To repeat - there is a consensus of major principles in the religion that applies those principles. James 1:27 describes that religion.

Till the advent of science, religion had not even worked out the nature of the solar system, the germ theory, tides, weather, evolution, &al.

Religious people knew the earth was circular, and not supported on anything thousands of years before science, of our modern era.
They also knew that the universe began to exist, and while today's science, is still grappling with the answer to the question of how the universe began, religious people knew the answer.

Science doesn't claim inerrant truth. All discoveries and theories are provisional. They're modified as new knowledge emerges. This is a strength, not a defect.
Religion generates no new knowledge. It makes inflexible, ontologic claims impermeable to contrary facts.

Not so. The things the Bible says are discovered to be true.
Apart from the above mentioned, the discoveries of Bible characters, cultures, events surrounding these... have been discovered, revealing why the Bible does not change. It is accurate - precise in its details, which are facts.
Facts do not change.

There are many examples, I could mention... especially of those that were denied, but later exonerated.
This is in stark contrast to science, which changes so called facts, ever so often.

Religion is not a reliable source of truth. Science, though not perfect, is the best we have.

I think you are babbling at this point. See above.

We do not worship science.

Actually, your words above prove the contrary.

Science is its own harshest critic. It immediately attacks every new discovery or hypothesis and attempts to find flaws in it; criticizing, testing, and retesting. The process demands efforts to disprove every proposal. That's what makes it more reliable than religion, which discourages criticism (blasphemy, heresy).

Science is a study - an ongoing one. It never claims to have proven the truth of anything.
The Bible, on the other hand, is no an ongoing study of anything. It presents the cold hard facts.
Deniers of those facts, are often forced to acknowledge those facts... not by choice - by force. As one famous singer sang... Face the facts Jack. That's what they have to do. They don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Please give one example of religion discouraging criticism, because I am hearing a lot of allegation, which just sound like that - allegations.
Let's hear you back them up.

 

[Valjean]

So virtues do not exist? Virtues are the essence of what all religions teach. And by practising virtues such as love, justice, unity and compassion there are no benefits? All the virtues are from God. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle all acknowledged God.

Not all religions subscribe to these virtues. There is little consensus in religion.

 

[nPeace]

None of the links you posted have anything to do with religion.

Glad you at least got that.

None of those bad habits require religion to not engage in them.

The point is all those living by Bible standards do avoid all of them.
Glad to know you acknowledge they are "bad habits"... including using profanity.

 

[nPeace]

The sentence I quoted is the summary of the argument of your post.

What a terrible summary, and a twisted extension about Muslims.

 

[nPeace]

You seem to be having problems with the QUOTE system.
Are you using the multi-quote feature?

Self-evident, commonsense facts are what impeded the growth of human knowledge for thousands of years, till science eventually came along with demands for testing rather than assuming.

Are you claiming that no commonsense knowledge was useful and beneficial, until the 18th-19th century?

"...proof for me" ???
Wouldn't such testing be impracticable, with so many variables?
If it could be done, why has it not been done?

You lost me.

Balderdash! You have no proof, unless you've completely redefined the term.
"Proof for me" leads me to suspect you have.

I have proof, that I ate breakfast a few hours ago. I did not use peer reviewed papers.

...And we don't need scientists to tell us that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. We can clearly see that.
(Do you see the analogy and reference here?)

I don't need to know that, in order to live.

 

[Valjean]

Okay, I'll ply along.
Whose testimony,? Yours?
Where did you get these dreams from? Your head?
...and the revelation and visions cane from where?

It's an analogy, nPeace. He's comparing your theist apologetics to the defense of his imaginary god. You're citing the same "evidence," so what makes your claim more robust?

 

[nPeace]

It's an analogy, nPeace. He's comparing your theist apologetics to the defense of his imaginary god. You're citing the same "evidence," so what makes your claim more robust?

I know what he is doing. I'm not "dumb" - obtuse... as you seem to think.
I'm playing along. Why stop the game, when it's now getting started?

You see. The difference with the guy who has visions, dreams, revelations, and testimonies, which cause him to see the Great JuJu at the bottom of the sea, is that he is describing a brain storm - a tornado that just spun off of his mind.

The Bible writers demonstrate that visions and dreams were not imagined thoughts, but divine - God breathed - knowledge.
Bible prophecy is both reliable and accurate.
The history of the Bible is both reliable, and accurate.
We can trust the testimony of credible witnesses. You disagree?

 

[Valjean]

You seem to be having problems with the QUOTE system.
Are you using the multi-quote feature?


Are you claiming that no commonsense knowledge was useful and beneficial, until the 18th-19th century?

I'm claiming that common sense and the self-evident sometimes turn out flat wrong, and can hinder understanding and progress.

You lost me.

Experiments become exponentially more complex and error prone when they test things with more than one variable, like the impact of hundreds of different religious principles on diverse populations. Your proposed experiment is impracticable.

Aside: When such experiments have been tried they've produced Afghanistans.

I have proof, that I ate breakfast a few hours ago. I did not use peer reviewed papers.

You do not.
This is why these same arguments keep coming up. You construct straw men. You misconstrue and don't seem to understand what's meant by proof or evidence.
You may have strong evidence and a justified belief, but not proof, in any technical sense.

Maybe it's some of this elusive "proof for me"

I don't need to know that, in order to live.

Dodging the question?
I suspect you didn't get the analogy.

 

[Valjean]

You see. The difference with the guy who has visions, dreams, revelations, and testimonies, which cause him to see the Great JuJu at the bottom of the sea, is that he is describing a brain storm - a tornado that just spun off of his mind.

Exactly! Just like the justifications, "evidence" and "proofs" theistic apologists use. Same-same.

The Bible writers demonstrate that visions and dreams were not imagined thoughts, but divine - God breathed - knowledge.

They claim. They testify. I do not see any demonstrations, unless they're claims of demonstrations.

Anyone can claim visions and dreams, many do, and they're not in agreement.
Can we reproduce -- test -- these visions and dreams? If not, they're just hearsay.

Bible prophecy is both reliable and accurate.
The history of the Bible is both reliable, and accurate.

This is demonstrably false, as any biblical historian or critic can point out.
Even a casual reading turns up contradictions and falsehoods.

We can trust the testimony of credible witnesses. You disagree?

Generally I do, but my trust hinges on credibility.

 

[Valjean]

Spiritual evidence is feelings. You feel better, you feel inspired you feel peace you feel hope etc...

So yes it is very hard to quantify feelings in any scientific way.
However, feelings can be manipulated in various ways.
Spiritual practices are successful if they can learn to successfully manipulate your feelings. If they can do that, they don't have to worry about facts.

What would you say is the goal of spiritual practice? To make you feel better about yourself? Life?
The concept of God is there to help you feel better. You can do this without God but it seems a lot easier for people to do this with a God belief.

So your evidence for God is that believing in God makes you feel better?
I'm not trying to make a strawman argument for you. This is based on my experience of the process.
Believing in God made me feel better. That's true.

Now, I have gotten past the need to believe in a God to feel better about life. Was I transformed by these beliefs? Yeah, sure. I'm not sure I would have gotten to the point of no longer needing them.

If only the religious would admit that their practices and beliefs were such psychotherapeutic modalities, and stop promoting them as objective truth and imposing them on others, we'd have no further arguments.

On the down side, we might have no further Religious Forums either....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Careful, here. In my experience nPeace doesn't understand analogy.

It wasn't an analogy, though.

"Fulfilled" prayers are a sort of correlation that does count as weak evidence for the existence of God.

... and by the same token, unfulfilled prayers are also the sort of correlation that counts as weak evidence against the existence of God.

 

[dybmh]

I can't "prove" that virtues are evolved traits, nor do I believe you can "prove" they are from God.
What i can do is something I believe you can't do - link to a scientific peer reviewed paper discussing evidence for the case that they are evolved - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/fig...0.1752781?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab.

As for your comment asking if I can prove you wrong, I believe that is a logical fallacy called shifting the burden of proof.

So what scientific peer reviewed paper can you link to discussing the evidence that God was the one who hardwired humans?

In my opinion.

Are you sure that this article says what you think it says? Did you read it, or are you just basing this on the abstract? When I read the abstract it could be the opposite of what you're claiming.

The concept of a fundamental virtue domain is introduced to clarify issues in the virtue literature surrounding the cross-cultural universality of virtue concepts. Fundamental virtue domains are defined as directly and clearly reflecting behavioral tendencies that contribute substantially to survival and flourishing, without implying ubiquity or cultural essentialism. Evidence for this case is drawn from comparative evolution suggesting cross-species adaptations serving similar functions to the virtue domains, some of which may underpin the human potential to act virtuously.​

IOW, it could be that there is evidence of a universal component of virtue which is not evolving over time. Could be. One would need to read the paper to see what it's actually saying.

I see this a lot when it comes to the request for peer-reviewed literature. All that's provided is the title and an abstract, but the actual paper itself is not readable by the person posting it, nor to any of us who are following the debate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We hold these truths to be self evident...

Promiscuity in adults
Having multiple sexual partners is linked with risks such as maternal deaths and complications, cancers, sexually transmitted infections, alcohol, and substance use, and social condemnation in some societies.

Effects of human sexual promiscuity - Wikipedia​

But the Bible supports having multiple sexual partners... for men, at least.

Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Smoking also increases risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems of the immune system, including rheumatoid arthritis.

Health Effects | Smoking and Tobacco Use - CDC​

AFAICT, the Bible doesn't say a word about smoking tobacco.

Drug use can lead to dependence and addiction, injury and accidents, health problems, sleep issues, and more. Drug use affects you and those close to you.

Know the Risks of Using Drugs | SAMHSA​

AFAICT, the Bible says nothing about drug use.

Violence a global public health problem - SciELO​

Community violence can include physical assaults between young people, sexual violence in the workplace and neglect of older people

But the Bible often supports violence.

This story just came up in my feed the other day:

Oklahoma Republicans vote to let teachers hit kids with disabilities

A bill that would prohibit schools from using corporal punishment to discipline students with disabilities failed to pass Oklahoma's House of Representatives.

www.newsweek.com

The opponents of a bill to outlaw using violence to punish kids with special needs in public schools cited several passages of the Bible to justify why they thought violence against special needs kids is sometimes not only warranted but actually required by God's commands.

Profanity | World Problems & Global Issue​

Union of International Associations
http://encyclopedia.uia.org › problem
Profanity. Other Names: Swearing Bad language. Indecent speech. Foul language. Vulgar language. Verbal obscenity. Swear words.


Surely you can post the contrast, can't you?
If you can't, please let me know.

AFAICT, the Bible says nothing about profanity.

 

[nPeace]

I'm claiming that common sense and the self-evident sometimes turn out flat wrong, and can hinder understanding and progress.

Why not apply that same standard?
Science, has turned out dead wrong, so why not consider all science, hindering understanding and progress?

If you are not saying that all commonsense and self evident things turned out wrong, I don't know, because you did not answer my question.

Experiments become exponentially more complex and error prone when they test things with more than one variable, like the impact of hundreds of different religious principles on diverse populations. Your proposed experiment is impracticable.

Sorry. that does not help.

Aside: When such experiments have been tried they've produced Afghanistans.

What?

You do not.
This is why these same arguments keep coming up. You construct straw men. You misconstrue and don't seem to understand what's meant by proof or evidence.
You may have strong evidence and a justified belief, but not proof, in any technical sense.

Maybe it's some of this elusive "proof for me"

Proof - evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
I felt empty. I ate. Now I feel full. Proof, I ate.
Yes I did

Dodging the question?
I suspect you didn't get the analogy.

That was a serious question. I thought it was rhetorical.
if that's an analogy, it's very poor. It seems to be suggesting we need science for everything.
If that's not what it's saying, then it's not fitting, and if that's what it's saying, it's not only not fitting, but is going in circles.

I threw frisbees, balls, dropped hammers, cups, dishes. I know which requires more force to go further, and which travels, or falls faster.
I don't need science for that, and anything beyond that is irrelevant to my life... like the sun being 93,000,000 miles away.

That knowledge is only good for drawing me closer to God, whose wisdom and love is seen in his handy works.

 

[nPeace]

Exactly! Just like the justifications, "evidence" and "proofs" theistic apologists use. Same-same.

No. You can't see clearly, looking through the lens you are using currently.
He is making claims with no supporting evidence. The Bible writers are making claims with supporting evidence.
Cannot be the same.

They claim. They testify. I do not see any demonstrations, unless they're claims of demonstrations.

Of course you can't. How could you, if your head is stuck in the sand.

Anyone can claim visions and dreams, many do, and they're not in agreement.

Whom do you mean? People today?
They can claim from now till thy kingdom come, what does that have to do with anything?
Scientists are not in agreement. So what's your point?

Can we reproduce -- test -- these visions and dreams? If not, they're just hearsay.

Done. Repeatedly.

This is demonstrably false, as any biblical historian or critic can point out.

Here we go again... calling historians and scholars, non-Biblical scholars so long as they do not agree with your position.
Does any Biblical scholar really point that out? No. Opinions vary, and not all agree.
Please don't appeal to majority. That would be an Argumentum ad Populum.

Even a casual reading turns up contradictions and falsehoods.

Until they are helped to see what the careful reader sees. The stubborn biased critics run along with their misrepresentations.

Generally I do, but my trust hinges on credibility.

Okay, then.