Okay well that was not I. You do not explicitly state that you are Christian, however your steadfast defense of Christianity and insistence it was the only religion you a lot about and mentioning of many Christian friends seemed to imply Christian belief, is this not the case? It's really odd you get uppity whenever people assume anything about your beliefs. You could clear that up pretty easily if you just said what you believed.

It means that I grew up in a Christian home and have a lot of Christian friends, yes. I don't say what I am, though, because to do so would require not a loose word such as Christian, but an actual description of my beliefs. The length of this thread is not enough to contain every nuance that is required to explain how it remains internally consistent, just as this thread is not long enough to contain every nuance that is required to explain quantum physics and how it works and is not contradictory. Were I to begin a serious discussion of what I believe, knowing this community, it would be an endless stream of me saying something, it being contended, and me having to clarify exactly what I meant because of some miscommunication, or omitted nuance, or what have you. Such a discussion would also require talking about personal reasons for why I think what I do, and a whole other slew of messy things. In lieu of that, I instead choose to leave it where I did, not committing to the weighted term Christian, where far too many preconceptions lie.

Aside from all that, I don't discuss that sort of thing in that sort of detail with just anybody. Frankly, I don't trust you guys enough to be that specific. This is not out of being converted or anything, it's just not something I discuss lightly.

It seems as though the question has boiled down to is whether faith can be used to determine if something is true or not. I don't really know what we're doing, arguing about what Deckmaster believes. For all I care, it is irrelevant to the present argument. I reaffirm everything I said earlier, and, as I expected would be required, give further clarification/examples.

I will restate the method that may be used to decide whether your Pink Unicorn or Spaghetti Monster or some other God may be true. You say that religion is a primitive form of explanation that has been replaced by the scientific method. This, however, is false. The scientific method has gained prominence because it provides useful results that can be used for the said 'progress' of humanity. Religion, however, is structured quite differently. Religion will not tell you why light is bent when it enters a different material, or why time is relative to the mass and speed of an object. What your forgetting is that religion doesn't explain science, despite its being useful. I will talk about the verifiability of religion in just a second.

Here is a brief outline of how the scientific method and religion are structured the same way. For science, first comes faith (more on that later), then observation, logic, and knowledge. Philosophy works with faith, then observation, logic, and finally knowledge.

Spiritual sense
When I spoke of a spiritual sense, please understand that I am trying not to generalize theology. I maintain the point of view of a spiritual sense. Many of you say that having a spiritual sense is an unintelligent claim. As for Omni, remote viewing and psychics are a little different than the spiritual sense I speak of. Although, if the scientific studies you linked to can be taken for any merit, then you are agreeing there is a spiritual sense? dantes-torment, that is true, you cannot observe this spiritual sense (disregarding for the moment Omni's links). This is partially why faith is required (please wait for the faith section before arguing).

I for one, can tell you that there is a spiritual sense, and that I use it every day to get insights/revelation/self-revelations. Well, why do you care if I tell you there's one? I use my spiritual sense, so I should tell you what its like, or how to use it? Well, no, I wouldn't be able to. Can you describe what seeing is like to someone who's been totally blind there whole life. No. You can tell them what you do to see, but you can't describe the actual experience.

Another example: If you've ever tasted salt, you will most likely be able to distinguish it from sugar. Say, however, that I've only tasted sugar and not salt. How would you describe what salt tastes like? You couldn't. You could tell me what it doesn't taste like, but unless I actually taste it for myself, I won't know what salt tastes like. Likewise, unless you actually use your spiritual sense, you'll never know how it is.

There are a lot of people that will agree that they have a 'spiritual sense.' Most religious peoples will agree. However, you must understand, when I use the phrase 'spiritual sense' I am using a commonly understood term, rather than a overgeneralized specific term. Normally, I would not refer to it as a spiritual sense, simply because my religion doesn't usually call it that. So, many people may be unaware what this spiritual sense is in the context of their own religion. Another note, it takes practice to recognize it. It seems as though it becomes more active with use and/or spirituality and may not be totally accessible at first. (Think Zen/Buddhism, they spend a lifetime refining their spirituality)

Faith
As I have observed, specifically from Omni's and Deckmaster's posts, there are some obvious misconceptions concerning faith. Deckmaster talks of placing one's acceptance in the validity, truth, or actuality of a predefined concept. This is a belief, not faith. Belief doesn't necessarily imply that someone has a certainty. Faith represents a higher level of confidence in something. It also places trust in future events and relates to things which must be trusted. Example: I would like to turn on my computer; I trust (have faith in a future event) that it will boot up when I press the power button. Faith, therefore, is used in every aspect of our lives. If I drop a bouncy ball, I have faith that it will come back up. If I turn the steering wheel to my car, I have faith that my car will turn. Likewise, if I seek a God through spiritual observation, I have faith that I will get an answer. It is the same faith that is used both in the scientific method and in religion. Obviously, there are more complex examples of exercising faith besides the ones listed. I could enumerate a couple hundred more if you would like.


I'm sorry if that were ambiguous. The process I describe is multi-step. First, we must have faith in order to start the process of questioning. After we have acted upon this faith, we receive answers/revelations about validity. Example: I first must have faith that if I type an addition problem into my calculator, it will give me the right answer; I act on this faith and type it in on my calculator; I learn that 2+2=4. What makes my god special? I don't believe my god is any exception, I'm sorry if that's the impression you got. As for using this method to test the validity of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster, be my guest!

Observation
I speak of the observation aspect of the process, simply because a number of you say that religious elements are not verifiable. Just as Newton's or Galileo's experiments may be reproduced and the results verified, the same can be done in religion. If someone has verified that Christ is the messiah, you can follow the same aforementioned outline to reproduce those results. I could give you an example of an process (based off of the outline) which I guarantee will verify an aspect of what I believe. However, my point is not to convert anyone, nor do I believe anyone wants to be converted. I merely desire that you understand that religion is a structured and repeatable process and can be used to prove philosophical elements.

Logic
I have nothing against logic. It is fully adequate in leading to useful knowledge. I am in no way saying that logic is flawed, faulty, etc.. What I say, is that logic cannot be used alone to explain philosophical elements, just as the scientific method will not work with only logic.


Thank you for clarifying. Observation (although there are other aspects) is the main focus, not logic. Without observation though, we wouldn't have anything to base our logic off of.


As I said before, the scientific method (logic) cannot be used to prove the existence of philosophical elements. I describe a method, however, in which they can be proven. It follows the same structure as the scientific method.

Well I'm glad this thread is thriving once more, but I think what I have to say is best saved for a new thread.

It seems to me that many of the disagreements in the past couple pages stem from ambiguity in definitions. Faith has several definitions, some of which differ widely in scope. The same is true for belief. Even truth has some wiggle room.

So how do we solve this? We could: a) each cite which definition(s) we're using in each post, b) give our own definition(s) in each post, or c) all agree to use the same definitions.

Here are my own definitions for the purpose of this thread:

Truth - that which is indisputably correct (e.g. theorems), or that which conforms to the tangible, observable reality.

Belief - that which one expects to be accurate, with or without supporting evidence.

Faith - that which one believes without verifiable supporting evidence.

Option A is the only plausible one. I can't imagine everyone agreeing on one set of definitions that will apply to everyone's arguments, nor will individual definitions be fair for the one making a post. For instance, your definition of truth requires that it be tangible, (if not indisputably correct), which leaves out quite a few stuff. I propose we state which definition of the terms at the beginning of each case you want to make.

Since, my case is the present one, I guess I'm obligated to define what definitions I was using. As said in my prefious post:

Faith: places trust in future events and relates to things which must be trusted

Belief: what eofpi said

Truth: what eofpi said, taking out the word 'tangible'; in addition, 'observable' without limitation to sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing.

I wouldn't call that truth at all, in any way.

Also, I don't know why we can't agree on set definitions for simplicities sake. If you want to introduce a concept which isn't accurately represented, introduce a new term. That minimizes confusion.

Okay, I'm fine with making a set of definitions for simplicities sake. Why can't truth be just a correspondence to fact or reality. Do we need to include clauses on the process of deciding whether something is truthful? The point of my previous posts is that the scientific method is not the only way in which we can arrive at truth. From eofpi's definition of truth, it requires that truth come by the scientific method. The scientific method is not the method to reach truth. It is a philosophy by which we may make conclusions.

If we use eofpi's definition of faith, faith in a religious context would no longer be faith. Religion is both verifiable and contains evidence (that is, the testimonies of millions). I'm fine with using that definition in general, but the faith I'm talking about is placing trust in future events.

The only definition of truth I like to deal with at all is axiomatic truth. Assumptions made to fit a proof can be challenged on grounds of reasonableness, which is a healthy part of debate, but defining truth as it relates to reality is a pointless.

I like to, when discussing philosophical matters with people, determine exactly what assumptions they have decided for themselves to make about the universe. It helps remove pointless sidelines in the debate about ideas such as faith. If it is assumed, then for them it is an absolute, if it is derived from things they assume, then for them it is again an absolute. If they believe it in spite of it not being derived from the axioms they assume are true, it's an absurdity, and faith is no justification.

I've never seen faith used as a justification of anything other than the axioms you mention. Said axioms (however many or few) are taken on faith and everything else proceeds from there. If something does not seem to proceed from said axioms in your view, then most likely (in my opinion) they did not list an axiom, your understanding of their axioms is wrong, your understanding of their logic is wrong, or they are insane. I don't think that the latter comes into play very often, personally.

I don't get how we can be arguing about what truth is, though. Isn't truth that which conforms to reality, whether we know it or not? It's not like the Earth was not round until we discovered it to be so. The argument seems to be more about one's personal conception of what is true than truth itself. Without assuming that our own conception is valid, at least at the axiomatic (wow, that's actually a word? Sweet...) level, wouldn't we be left in utter chaos? This doesn't mean that it's correct, but that goes for everybody.

I completely agree with Deckmaster. If you asked me how I know such and such religious thing is true, I wouldn't say, "Faith. It's true because I have faith that it's true." (unless your referring to some other definition of faith) Faith is only the initial step that jump-starts you to finding truth. I also stand by that truth is anything that conforms with reality.

For ikanreed's sake, here are my axioms for my previous post: I assume that there are senses that extend beyond the physical and I assume the possibility of a higher power.

That's pretty reasonable. The only questions that those axioms raise are "What is the physical(and likewise beyond it)?" and "What categorizes a power as higher?". I can understand how you might choose those fundamental assumptions, and wouldn't choose them myself because I don't like to categorize things in my own basic assumptions.

My definition of truth was intentionally narrow; the intent was for it to be a term describing that which we all agree is accurate. I very nearly confined it to only the mathematical half.

I admit that my definition of faith is suboptimal; that kind of thing happens when a mechanistic atheist tries to describe a concept so utterly foreign to him. As with truth, though, my intent was to provide a narrow definition; perhaps it was too narrow.

I know I didn't explain my intent in defining belief well enough, even though that definition is the only one that nobody's complained about. I meant for belief to encompass a spectrum of disputability, with truth at one end, faith at the other, and a bunch of other stuff in between (e.g. hunches, suspicions, reasoned expectations, etc.).

I'm confused as to how religion is verifiable, and how the testimonies of millions is compelling evidence in any way. Not only are there massive disagreements between those millions (between both conflicting religions and sects of those religions), such that not more than a very slim minority of people actually agree on any given set of beliefs, but what the masses believe is not firm evidence in the slightest (consider the countless beliefs throughout history which the majority of people held at one time or another which are patently false: flat earth theory, heliocentric theory, the Platonic elements, various atomic theories, phrenology, etc.).

God exists without time and space, he existed before time, will exist after, occupies all of space and time and all around it. He cannot read his "future mind" because he doesn't experience future as we know it, but knows what he thinks (his thoughts cannot be placed in any one moment in time).
He not only can, but always is in an infinite number of places in space-time.
Also, assuming he can do anything, he is capable of thinking he made a mistake, although he does to think it, and probably never did.

I haven't thought out this response much, so I'm just gonna say what comes to mind:

The reason I mentioned testimonies is because religion (or most religions I believe) base a lot off of it. In a court of law, a testimony will be used as evidence for/against said person. As that pertains with religion, millions of people that testify of such and such can be pretty strong. Of course strong testimonies can fall apart, as in the examples you gave (science-based). But if a couple million people give testimony that they know a Axolotl exists, it can make a pretty strong argument, especially if nobody has proved it wrong yet. In regards to disputes inside those millions, I usually refine my statistics to my own church. There are at least 80% of religious concepts that everyone in my church agree on. Taking those that are over 12 years old (simply because they have learned more) it would make around 12 million. But that's all I can be sure about.

So, I have this idea that most everything in society is coming to be based off of science/scientific method. I believe it came around during the Enlightenment age when people began to think that knowledge needs to be useful. Springing from that, useful knowledge needs to be proven with science/math. It seems as though terms such as verifiable and physical have come to have a requirement of proof by science/math. (e.g. Astral projection will not be referred to as physical until it can be proven by science) The verifiability I described earlier goes like this: Galileo performs an experiment; I perform the experiment; we get the same results. Or, in a religious context (following the methods I described earlier) Someone finds out God exists; I follow the same process and find out God exists; we get the same results. It is even somewhat confusing for me as well. Can religion be proven in a scientific context? Well, I don't really think so. I think its so ingrained in our society that something needs scientific proof to be true, that we all have narrowed visions. Its hard to think of being able to know something, even if we don't have a scientific proof for it.

There was this one guy who said that homosexuality was the result of evolution. Well, no, why aren't other animals homosexual? The problem with evolution is that its still a theory. There will never be enough evidence in order to prove evolution. Yet people live by evolution like religion, claiming they believe in science. Evolution isn't very useful science either. I guess natural selection is useful, but its different than evolution. What about string theory, or the big bang? Neither of them can be tested. Will we ever be able to prove strings and membranes control the universe? Perhaps we can find a mathematical proof for it that works, but we still won't be able to test or observe it. I guess its like that argument about photons on the first page of this thread. Maybe photons are really tiny clanking hammers in a small can. They make the math work, but we can't really test or observe what these photons actually are. I believe the philosophy of the scientific method is flawed in that it limits our progression. The approach of the scientific method is limited to define knowledge among that which is mathematically or experimentally proven. But there is so much more that is probably never going to be solved by solely these means.

I don't know if you believe in receiving revelation or inspiration, but I think it can provide a lot of insights in this world. The spiritual sense I speak of works by this revelation. It will reveal truth to you. In many regards, it is a fool proof way to truth. It is a method that isn't limited or requires observation or testing in order to gain knowledge (truth). I hate not to use a scripture (even though many probably don't care what scripture has to say), but scripture says that all truth comes by the Spirit. So, you can basically gain any knowledge through the spirit, since it isn't limited to observation/testing. You may ask whether this spiritual sense is unaffected by false input (like the five senses being wrong sometimes). Like the physical senses, the spiritual sense is also subject to be wrong. However, there is a way to determine whether you are receiving bad revelation or good (like logic can be used to determine whether input from your five senses is false). Unfortunately, I'm afraid some may say that the method is making too many generalizations. If you would like to read about it, 'tis here. I promise you, the same stuff applies to you, regardless of what religion you are (read it with an open mind, just take out all the references that you don't believe in). But disregard me if you think not...

On the notion of faith: the simple description of faith we use a lot is that faith is like a seed. When you plant a seed, we hope in things that are not seen, that is, that the seed will grow. If the seed grows, you know it was a good seed. In religion, if you want to know if God exists, you would figuratively plant this seed. If this 'seed' grows (truth being manifested through your spiritual sense) then you know it was a good seed, or, that God really does exist. For me, at least, it seems all rather simple and easy.

Oh! I forgot about those axioms. I'd say that the physical is the world that can be described by science/math. Beyond the physical, of course, would include things that aren't necessarily proved by science or math (e.g. God, Astral Projection). The 'higher power' I was referring to would be (specifically) the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. He "has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's." But this axiom doesn't necessarily need to be included, it could extend to anything that you would like to know about (using the 'religious' method I described). I mean, all you need to do is have an open mind that such and such has the probability to exist. So, I could follow the same method and test whether the FSM is true (as long as I am open to the fact that it could exist).

I used science-based examples not because there is some innate thing in science which makes its predictions unreliable, but rather the opposite: science is falsifiable, so we can disprove old hypotheses. Religious claims have no provable falsifiability, so they can't be proven wrong. This makes them weaker arguments because, if they can't be proven wrong under any circumstances, they are entirely worthless as predictive hypotheses. My point was that the number of people who believe something doesn't affect its truth. Geocentricism was more a faith-based claim than a science-based one, and it was wrong despite the millions in support for it. What makes religion different?



Why does requiring strong evidence for something before believing it have some negative connotation to you? Why does this requirement cause "narrowed vision"? Wouldn't adhering to something without question be a narrower wordlview?



I need to stop you there. Yes, evolution is a theory. So is gravity. As is relativity. Opponents of evolution constantly use the argument that it's "only a theory" without fully grasping the difference between the scientific and casual definitions of "theory". A scientific theory is some hypothesis that we have so much overwhelming evidence for that we might as well say it's true. Nothing is certain in the world, ever. We can never have enough evidence to completely prove evolution, or gravity, or relativity because it is impossible to conclusively prove something in the physical world; the only place that can happen is in mathematics and logic. On top of that, evolution is obvious if you fully understand it which, admittedly, can be a tough thing to do, and I'm not a good enough teacher to try to help you to understand it. Suffice to say, though, that I would be very surprised if evolution never happened, given the properties of organisms.

Also, yes, other animals are homosexual



People don't adhere to evolution because they believe in it religiously, they do because it is obvious and observable and there are far too many people who reject it and criticize it without understanding it at all, and refusing to learn anything beyond their flawed and misrepresented perspective.

String theory is not a widely held view in the scientific community, for the reasons you've said. The big bang theory is a more complicated case, and I can only recommend you read more about it. If you think the scientific theory is flawed, how would you go about gaining knowledge any other way while still filtering out things which are not true or otherwise useless.



I think the last sentence here is the most important and revealing. Yes, you could follow the same method to test whether the FSM is true, and it would be just as a likely as any other purely religious claims. This is precisely why I put no stock in faith: there is no way to differentiate the true or possible from the patently false. I can make up countless entirely fictitious beings and use my "spiritual sense" to prove their validity. That's the problem with your "sense": other senses can send back information that contradicts our beliefs. I can believe my phone is red, but when I see it I can't deny that it is blue. I can believe that it is spherical, but when I feel it I can't deny that it is rectangular. Your spiritual sense either returns positive feedback or noise. There is no negative feedback with which to hone the information.

The problem is that evolution lacks said evidence. We experience gravity every day, if we doubt it, we can throw a ball in the air and watch it fall. Evolution is different, if we doubt it, we cannot go and watch how the animal kingdom came to be. For one, it takes far too much time. For two, last I checked nobody was alive.

Don't go mixing micro and macro evolution, they are on completely different scales. The former is quite a lot less unlikely from an intuitive standpoint, as it involves small changes.

For the record, I have no issues with evolution so long as the "by chance" clause is left aside and replaced with "by God." There are holes in the theory, and that edit both fits my worldview and stays within the realm of scientific sanity. Last I checked, evolution's theory is similar to a toolbox: most of DNA being the toolbox and a small bit of it being blueprints, the latter being changed can have small to sweeping consequences on the organism. While this makes the concept of macroevolution intelligent, it begs the question: "Where did the toolbox come from?" That is the biggest flaw I currently see in the theory and one of the bigger reasons I would cite as to any attempt (even though such attempts are futile) to prove that God exists.

Oh, by the way, yes religion and science can coincide. It's actually relatively recently that the notion of them needing to stay in their separate corners has come about, from what I understand. Anyway...



See above. You saying that is like me saying that God is obvious if you fully understand Him. I do not believe that I have said that nor implied it, for the reason of it being a stupid claim.



See above, it is neither obvious nor observable on a macro level. Until you give me proof that somebody was alive through evolution, it will never be observable in my mind. As for criticizing it without understanding it, see above. I gave a rather specific critique based on the latest evolutionary theory I know, which breaks your claim.



By abiding by the other scientific theories? Yeah...that seems about right. A flaw with String theory never made the rest of science go asunder.



You misunderstand the analogy. Picture a man with only one sense: sight. Day one, he sees a blue apple. Day two, a green apple. Day three, a red one. Days four through fifty, it is still red. Day fifty one, it appears blue. Day fifty two, one glance looks purple, but upon closer inspection it is red. His likely conclusion? His sight was borked day one, day two, day fifty one, and upon a quick glance on day fifty two.

It is important to note that what you "discern" is not things like "the bus will be 10 minutes late", but things that are spiritual. There is no conflict with other senses because they "sense" different things. I draw the line of insanity about when somebody starts claiming that they're sensing physical things.

And don't forget that it's an analogy. No analogy is perfect.

Luckily for us then that we are not limited to only sight. It would be equally reasonable for the man to assume that the apple changes color, he could always build a microscope to better verify such a hypothesis by looking for pigment producing cells. Or a camera that observed the apple and recorded if it changed color or not.
You could always look through the fossil record for some evidence of Macro-evolution. You can literally see the different species forming from different ancestor species. Micro-evolution is really the same thing, minus a million years. Saying the two are different are like observing a seedling grow a few inches, returning twenty years later to see a mature tree, and saying it was the result of entirely different processes. Nylon decomposes although it did not exist till the 20th century because bacteria evolved that were able to eat it.

I was giving an example of how one sense could provide negative feedback about its previous findings. Those are all also true, but open to the same errors. He could think that pictures change color if his sight was wacked once in a while, or that his camera was not set up correctly. No matter, he's still making judgments based on only one sense.



There is a huge difference between rehashing old evidence and obtaining new evidence. If I doubt gravity, that means that I am calling into question all of the old evidence against it. By performing a new experiment (throwing a ball), I am getting new evidence.

If you're measuring something in physics class, do you rely on one experiment, or do you gather a data set to reduce the possibility of error. The latter, right? Evolution can't be treated like that, we have only one set of evidence about macroevolution, and because of that we cannot claim to observe it.



By that logic one could observe a computer generating a skeletal program, come back a long while later, and find a complete program. Your logic states that it's reasonable to ignore the possibility of a third party, meaning that the poor programmer gets no credit.

Micro and macro evolution are on quite different scales, as they involve not only changing the physical attributes of the species to a far, far greater degree, but also potentially the chromosomal count. And I'm being rather conservative here.



That's microevolution. And did you forget that I mentioned that with a few slight modifications I have no problem with evolution as a theory?

This was interesting.

First to icu, the comic you linked to is making a lot of generalizations. We know a lot about photons, but if we were able to observe them, I believe we'd find out some things that we don't already know. But if observation doesn't matter... I know a lot about God and how God works in the physical world, but it won't matter at all if I am able to observe him or not.

Okay, as I said before, I hadn't thought out that response much. I see, however, that my point was lost when I tried to stick examples about evolution, string, or the big bang theories. I admit that testimonies (at least in your book) don't constitute a good argument, so I won't pursue it. I admit that I know probably far less than any of you on evolution (dantes, that link must be broken for me on homosexuality). So, this time, I'm going to say everything without any examples. If you want examples, I can put some in later.

The scientific method is a philosophy by which we can gain knowledge. It is a method that works. When I spoke of the scientific method as being flawed, I wasn't talking about the 'method.' In order to reach conclusions with the scientific method, the subject in question must be observable, testable, or provable (you know what I mean...). The imperfection in the scientific method is that it isn't able to prove everything. So this 'spiritual method' I describe is an alternate way in which we can gain knowledge, not limited by the requirements of the scientific method.

Now imagine I was Aristotle providing you with a new method in which you can gain knowledge:
You first need to have full desire to know the answer to something (unbiased/open mind). Exercise faith (the faith I talked about earlier), namely praying, fasting, etc. and you will receive an answer by a manifestation through your spiritual sense (same spiritual sense...).

Just as the physical senses only work in a certain way, the spiritual sense works only one way as well. When you speak of verifying made up stuff with our spiritual sense, that would be the equivalent of trying to verify that my phone is really red, when its really blue. That would require denying whatever your spiritual sense has told you. Also in the article is described how you can identify between bad/good input from your spiritual sense. You seem so biased that the spiritual sense can't be used to get a definite answer. Just because you want a definite yes or no answer, that may not be how you get it. I use my spiritual sense all the time and I am confident that I can identify between the right stuff and the bad stuff.

If I'm correct, accepting that the spiritual sense can help us receive answers is something we have trouble with. Let me answer a few of the questions in depth that you may be thinking:

Our five senses are subject to being wrong, what makes the spiritual sense so special that it isn't ever wrong?
Yes, the spiritual sense is subject to being wrong. The spiritual sense tends to be a quiet manifestation, in which "if we are preoccupied we may not feel it at all." There seems to be a strong connection (especially that which I have noticed) between physical distractions and our ability to interpret the spiritual sense.

Examples: When our sense are dulled by drugs/alcohol or when we are unable to fully act consciously; when there are high emotions/tensions/strains internally; when it may be hard to focus. Think of entering a room where there very quiet music playing. You may be talking with your friends or listening to a discussion and don't notice it. However, if someone told you that there is music playing, you will most likely have the desire to hear the music. You are now focusing on the music, and it is easy to recognize or notice. This analogy relates directly to how your spiritual sense works.

Why is this spiritual sense so hard to recognize? Why are the only people to feel it the one's who look for it?
This is only partially true. Yes, the spiritual sense may be difficult to recognize, but everyone has felt it and may feel it time and time again. The spiritual sense is similar to how Zen/Buddhism require years and years in order to fully tune in their spirituality. You probably don't use your spiritual sense often, so it may be hard to recognize at first. Maybe you just flat out don't believe you can have a spiritual sense. Well, that isn't going to get you very far, is it. At first, you won't necessarily have the 'constant companionship' of this spiritual sense like your other five sense do. Just think of it as a sense that's out of practice and you haven't used much. It'll take time to get it up to snuff.

I'll put more question/answer up as I think of them.

(I should probably note that I still maintain that claiming proof of anything to do with religion is silly, as people will believe what they want to. Just so that you guys don't forget and start assuming that about things I say.)

Okay, what I'm trying to do is not give you proof that God exists. All I'm saying is that 'scientific proof' is not valid in the field of religion. However, there are ways you can test whether God exists without the scientific method. I won't have specific proof I can just hand to you in a wrapped box. Proof, using the method I laid out, is only personally attainable.

Proof by definition is used to convince others, if it only works on yourself then it is a conviction not proof.