Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

[nPeace]

And your dishonest cherry picking

More personal attacks. Keep it up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's on;y a cover up for not laughing at yourself.
You seem to have a problem listening to anyone but yourself.
If you did, you would see there is a difference, but you can't because you can only hear yourself.
There is a big difference, which I repeatedly highlighted. Lol.

You completely failed to point out any difference.

Not when it is verified with evidence, No.

Then you can just point to the evidence instead of the testimony.
If there is evidence, then testimony is irrelevant.

The fact that testimony is being stressed, is evidence of the fact that there is no evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry. No. Try reading what is said by others, and not reading what you write, and you will see.
I'm not the only one pointing out that you have conversations with yourself... and we all know why.
Why bury your head in the sand.
Come up for air, chief.

Nothing but hot air again.

 

[nPeace]

Pointing out a double standard, is not a personal attack.

Making personal comments about a user is not a personal attack?
So if I called you a liar, what am I doing?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

More personal attacks. Keep it up.

Once again, pointing out cherry picking, is not a personal attack.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Making personal comments about a user is not a personal attack?
So if I called you a liar, what am I doing?

Pointing out a double standard, is not a personal comment.

I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[nPeace]

You completely failed to point out any difference.


Then you can just point to the evidence instead of the testimony.
If there is evidence, then testimony is irrelevant.

The fact that testimony is being stressed, is evidence of the fact that there is no evidence.

No. I repeatedly pointed out that the testimony is supported by evidence. Clearly you were not listening.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. I repeatedly pointed out that the testimony is supported by evidence. Clearly you were not listening.

I see you claim that repeatedly, yes. Like all other apologists.
All bite and no bark.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What did St Augustine mean? Did he mean, God said it, and so there is no need to second guess God? Or did he mean, we read it in the Bible, so no need to think about it? As you can see, there are two different 'interpretations' of what Augustine said.
You seem to be running with the latter. Are you? If yes, why?

You seem to be referring to, ""Scripture gives no false information." & "Since God has spoken to us it is no longer necessary for us to think." Yes, more like your second variation. I understand his words to mean that scripture is a complete source of information, everything in it is correct, and nothing not in it deserves consideration.

My understanding of what he said, is that there is no need to go searching into the unknown, just because you do not want to accept the known to come up with bogus answers like multiverse and such like.

I agree that he means, "that there is no need to go searching into the unknown," although I think he means no value when he says no need, but I don't agree with the reason you gave. He's saying that there is nothing else that can be known worth knowing.

Did you forget that this began with, "Those who think that religion discourages research and questioning, have really pulled the wool over their eyes" and a request for examples? Can you comment on whether you believe "there is no longer any reason to think" is an example of discouraging investigation?

This sounds like the scientists who said yesterday, Blah Blah Blah. This is the case, and then came back the next day and said, Blah Blah Blah. No. Sorry, this is the case. We thought that was the case. What's wrong with that. I thought you guys said that's how science works. Or is this a case of the man who prayed, "Lord, I thank you that I am not like that other man."?

That was in reference to Luther's comment, ""People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." That reminds you of scientists updating their scientific narratives with the arrival of new evidence not accounted for by the previous model? This is Luther objecting to new science that contradicts his faith-based religious beliefs, and it's also an example of the church discouraging curiosity in and investigation of anything but the Bible.

Again... Context. Your own reasoning - Not reason, which Martin knows full well the Bible encourages.

Luther was a harsh critic of reason:

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but-more frequently than not-struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." - Martin Luther

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther

"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." - Martin Luther

"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason." - Martin Luther

"To be a Christian, you must "pluck out the eye of reason." - Martin Luther

The opinions of scholars falsifies nothing.

Evidence properly understood can falsify erroneous claims.

The Bible does not contain guesses.

All of its unevidenced claims including that a deity exists are guesses, and most are unfalsifiable. We were just discussing Augustine and Luther's ideas of what kind of thought is a waste of time. They say empiricism, but I consider consideration of unfalsifiable claims pointless.

Is this your definition of empirical - by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.?

Yes, but I would add guessing to logic. Any method independent of evidence is nonempirical.

According to that reasoning, we know nothing. It's just scientists telling us things. Is that what you are saying?

No. I wrote that "if you are correct that [the ancients in biblical times] actually knew that [the earth was spherical], then they knew it scientifically - by properly interpreting evidence according to the laws of reason, the way the ancient Greeks determined that."

Run that by me again. This time, in its most basic form.

That was in response to, "No, they didn't. That was pure speculation common to all primitive cultures with a creation myth, hence the appearance of the word creation in the phrase" in reference to the Bible writers knowing that the universe had a beginning. Creation myths are common across multiple cultures, and every creation myth assumes that the world had a beginning. That's what the word creation means in that phrase - creating the world.

 

[nPeace]

You seem to be referring to, ""Scripture gives no false information." & "Since God has spoken to us it is no longer necessary for us to think." Yes, more like your second variation. I understand his words to mean that scripture is a complete source of information, everything in it is correct, and nothing not in it deserves consideration.

That's not what I got. That's equivalent to saying, the man said don't think about eating. That's not worth considering.
That's blowing someone's words out of proportion.

I agree that he means, "that there is no need to go searching into the unknown," although I think he means no value when he says no need, but I don't agree with the reason you gave. He's saying that there is nothing else that can be known worth knowing.

No. You are seeing only atheistic propaganda. That does not make any sense.

Did you forget that this began with, "Those who think that religion discourages research and questioning, have really pulled the wool over their eyes" and a request for examples? Can you comment on whether you believe "there is no longer any reason to think" is an example of discouraging investigation?

Atheist think one sided. They see nothing beyond their misrepresentations and erroneous assertions. That's all I will say, on that.

That was in reference to Luther's comment, ""People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." That reminds you of scientists updating their scientific narratives with the arrival of new evidence not accounted for by the previous model? This is Luther objecting to new science that contradicts his faith-based religious beliefs, and it's also an example of the church discouraging curiosity in and investigation of anything but the Bible.

Luther was a harsh critic of reason:

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but-more frequently than not-struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." - Martin Luther

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther

"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." - Martin Luther

"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason." - Martin Luther

"To be a Christian, you must "pluck out the eye of reason." - Martin Luther

Why do atheist accuse Christians of quote mining, and then turn around and do the same thing?
I think atheist listen too much to their pastors.
Richard Dawkins is wrong: Martin Luther was not against “Reason” or “Logical correctness”
...and as I said, atheist see only their closed-minded propaganda.

Here are some quotes from Luther.
When Luther appeared before Emperor Charles V and the Diet at Worms, Germany, which was an assembly of princes and representatives from the free cities, no argument was presented to prove his views unscriptural. There was actually no discussion, but only a demand that he recant. In his reply he again appealed to the Scriptures as supreme authority by saying: “Since then Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”

At first glance, Martin Luther’s attitude toward human reason seems ... well ... unreasonable. He did, after all, repeatedly refer to it as a “whore.” He also, quite famously, derided this human capacity by speaking facetiously of “Odomina Ratio” (“Madam Reason”) in his polemics against Erasmus. Fortunately, academic treatments of the subject usually begin by pointing out that Dr. Luther was no enemy of reason. He was not an uncritical fundamentalist who blindly accepted the biblical text without rational thought, even if he sounds to us a bit like that from time to time. To imagine him as such is to place him in a category that did not even exist in the sixteenth century.
More recent scholarship has focused on the philosophical sophistication of the Father of the Reformation. To refute the “irrational Luther” argument, one need only look at the collection of essays by leading scholars in The Devil’s Whore: Reason and Philosophy in the Lutheran Tradition, with its three sections addressing Luther’s own philosophical education, his impact on continental philosophy, and his influence on philosophy still today. Luther was a rational thinker par excellence.
As is generally pointed out, Luther held natural reason in very high regard, describing it in The Disputation Concerning Man [1536] as “that most beautiful and most excellent of all things.”

Luther clearly appreciated hyperbole and crass invective, but he did not throw out this particular slur as a general insult for things and people he did not like. His choice of words here was quite deliberate. For Luther, there is indeed something problematic about reason beyond its inadequacy and pride. There is an adulterous disloyalty in human reason that Luther identified, and that we must recognize if we are to understand Luther correctly.​

Evidently atheists are being misled by their own gullibility for desired propaganda.

Evidence properly understood can falsify erroneous claims.

All of its unevidenced claims including that a deity exists are guesses, and most are unfalsifiable. We were just discussing Augustine and Luther's ideas of what kind of thought is a waste of time. They say empiricism, but I consider consideration of unfalsifiable claims pointless.

I don't think you consider scientists interpretations guesses. So it's evident bias is at play here.
We don't have to guess who is behind accurate prophecy. It's not man. That's a given.

Yes, but I would add guessing to logic. Any method independent of evidence is nonempirical.

It says, observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
Where does that put most of today's science claims ?

Any method independent of evidence.???
Well, doesn't that put us back at square one? What is evidence? It's either empirical, or it's not... and a lot of your theories are not. There are mere hypotheses. Whale evolution for one, which is the best example you have for macoevolution.

No. I wrote that "if you are correct that [the ancients in biblical times] actually knew that [the earth was spherical], then they knew it scientifically - by properly interpreting evidence according to the laws of reason, the way the ancient Greeks determined that."

...and I am saying that scientist tell us the sun is 93,000,000 miles away from the earth, and we go by what they tell us. We do not know it scientifically.
Have you traveled to the sun and measured the distance? No. You repeat what you hear.
Bible writers wrote down what they heard... from God... not man.

That was in response to, "No, they didn't. That was pure speculation common to all primitive cultures with a creation myth, hence the appearance of the word creation in the phrase" in reference to the Bible writers knowing that the universe had a beginning. Creation myths are common across multiple cultures, and every creation myth assumes that the world had a beginning. That's what the word creation means in that phrase - creating the world.

Oh. You were just giving your personal opinion.
I do not agree.

 

[nPeace]

Pointing out a double standard, is not a personal comment.

I don't know what else to tell you.

Saying I have double standards is not a personal comment about my character.
Are you listening to yourself here, or what you try to convince yourself of.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Science is a research modality, it questions everything and encourages skepticism. Religion discourages research and questioning, and celebrates lack of skepticism (faith).
There is a method to science: Observation, hypothesis forming, testing, review and retesting. All these are discouraged by religion.
Science relies on empirical evidence. Religion relies on faith in ancient, unsupported texts, often by unknown authors.

Religion does all these things but concerns itself with spiritual instead of material matters. The investigation of truth is the same no matter which sphere one is investigating. Things like the virtues can definitely be tested. So for example when is it best to show mercy and when should justice be applied. The law of physics doesn’t have an author but that doesn’t matter. Principles are tested.

 

[loverofhumanity]

"Proofs" imply objective evidence. There aren't any.

There are plenty of spiritual proofs God exists. The virtues. The Prophets.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't think we're too far apart about the principles, but we diverge quite a bit on the method. I try to follow a morality based on doing no harm and treating others with decency, respect and inclusion, while using my common sense. If the moral solution is unclear to me, I know who to ask. Works well enough for me.

What we call ourselves is really irrelevant. Our actions and deeds are what define who we really are.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What do love, justice, unity or compassion have to do with religion?

Religion is inherently opposed to unity - religion is a kind of division, after all - and religious teachings generally do a poor job on the other three things you listed.

Religions go through stages. When they begin they are effective but over time decay and only the outward practices remain. So each religion has its spring, summer, autumn then winter. Today religions are in their winter, organisations, but lacking the virtues you mentioned. That is why religion is renewed from age to age by God. Today those virtues have been revived once again by the appearance of a new Messenger of God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Virtue is a human thing.

Don't need nor require any God concept for that.

Without the aid of great spiritual Teachers I believe we would still be barbarians. And These Teachers all get their inspiration from the same Source - God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

I believe humans are wonderful and awesome but often make unwise decisions and choices based purely on spiritual ignorance. This is where an Educator is indispensable. From time to time God sends an Educator to guide and give direction. For instance. The Arabian Peninsula was once occupied by barbaric tribes who fought and pillaged continuously. However when Muhammad appeared, He education them, united them and established a great nation with laws and a constitution.

Today we see the world is bowed down by sorrow, trouble and grief having wars currently (Syria, Myanmar, Ukraine) and having had two world wars. We are in dire need of direction now and once again God has sent an Educator with a plan to help guide us out of this mess. Alone we have been unable to stem the tempest of war. Time and again treaties have been signed only for another conflict to break out elsewhere. Only by turning to God and His latest Messenger is my belief, that we have any chance of peace.

 

[Truthseeker]

Science is a research modality, it questions everything and encourages skepticism. Religion discourages research and questioning, and celebrates lack of skepticism (faith).
There is a method to science: Observation, hypothesis forming, testing, review and retesting. All these are discouraged by religion.
Science relies on empirical evidence. Religion relies on faith in ancient, unsupported texts, often by unknown authors.

That depends on the individual believer. Some believers believe blindly, but others question and start from an attitude of skepticism.

 

[loverofhumanity]

When we speak of evidence, there is only a few types that are legitimately evidence. The first is empirical observation, the foundation of scientific method. The second is good logic.

The problem with "spiritual proofs" is that they violate the rules of logic, thus are worthless.

There is a really really good series on YouTube on the psychology of belief. It is a set of twelve short videos, each of which explores a different common form of irrational reasoning used by religionists. The videos go into appropriate detail, showing how valid experimentation has documented that these sorts of assumptions are flawed. Because it is a group of 12 videos, I cannot paste the link to all twelve -- that would overwhelm my post. But if you want to find it, go to YouTube, search for "psychology of belief" and look for the series that has twelve videos and a picture of Satan in classic red suit.

I will provide the link to just one, for those who prefer not to be bothered with searching.

It’s not possible to judge religion as if it were matter because it involves spiritual life not physical existence. The huge mistake psychology makes, a science still in its infancy, is that it has no proper definition of the human being. It does not know what we are so everything that flows from that wrong definition leads to wrong understanding and wrong diagnosis.

On the other hand religion gives a definition of man that can cure all humanity’s ills. Once we know what a human being is then we can administer the remedy. If science ignores religion it will be to its own detriment.

Even lately a renowned Psychologist Martin Seligman began promoting ‘Positive Psychology’ which is all about virtues. He says this about virtues and where they came from.

The belief that we can rely on shortcuts to happiness, joy, rapture, comfort, and ecstasy, rather than be entitled to these feelings by the exercise of personal strengths and virtues, leads to legions of people who in the middle of great wealth are starving spiritually. While psychology may have neglected virtue, religion and philosophy most assuredly have not, and there is astonishing convergence across the millennia and across cultures about virtue and strength. Confucius, Aristotle, Aquinas, the Bushido samurai code, the Bhagavad-Gita, and other venerable traditions disagree on the details, but all of these codes include six core virtues: Wisdom and knowledge Courage Love and humanity Justice Temperance Spirituality and transcendence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So virtues do not exist? Virtues are the essence of what all religions teach. All the virtues are from God. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle all acknowledged God.

Virtues belong to people and their society. And as an atheist, I consider prophets to be frauds or psychologically imbalanced.
That was some 2,400 years ago. What they believed is of no relevance to me.