Evidence is proof, something that shows what is true. Truth is established by testifying, bearing witness, attesting, declaring under oath that what is testified to, is actuality. In a court of law, as in civil action, evidence is presented and the validity of this evidence is assessed by a judge or jury who rule on it; their decision is accepted and it is determined that proof has been established by a preponderance of the evidence

Throughout several millennia evidence has been presented that a spiritual existence or consciousness has mysteriously interacted with man’s spirit via inspirations to write what are considered the “Holy Scriptures” and to be the cause of miraculous healings; many physicians will attest to the latter. Is this not evidence, proof of an exterior influence, a spiritual existence which mankind has decided to call God. Human fallibility and misconceptions have labeled this God for the past several millennia as one who interfered with the natural forces and free will of people by threatening punishment to those who disobeyed his bidding. The God of our ancestors was humanized in order to have the masses adapt the thought processes to that time period which was fraught with superstitions.

Is spiritual consciousness a reality? Our spirit can often control the well-being of our body. As we look at the complex composition of a single cell to the compilations and complexities of everything in existence, the makeup of the entire universe, can we really conscientiously deny the possible existence of a structured guidance?

• There is no scientific evidence of god - yanniru - November 22, 2003 - 23:33 UTC
  • Such a statement is illogical even if there were not... - carefuluniverse - November 23, 2003 - 02:59 UTC
    • Yanniru is right here - tkorrovi - November 23, 2003 - 03:47 UTC
      • You seem to be saying Yanniru is sitting beside you. - kantolfir2 - November 23, 2003 - 05:59 UTC
        • It's just logic - tkorrovi - November 23, 2003 - 12:22 UTC
          • What are you saying here? Nothing? - kantolfir2 - November 25, 2003 - 20:50 UTC
            • The most important - tkorrovi - November 26, 2003 - 03:16 UTC
              • I saw you budge. You changed your views in four lines. - kantolfir2 - November 26, 2003 - 04:16 UTC
                • You budge - tkorrovi - November 26, 2003 - 14:26 UTC
                  • You can't? - kantolfir2 - November 26, 2003 - 19:09 UTC
                    • Unfortunately it was logic - tkorrovi - November 26, 2003 - 20:19 UTC
                      • Your elaborations are too brief; suspect you had nothing to say - kantolfir2 - November 27, 2003 - 03:29 UTC
                        • If it was so - tkorrovi - November 27, 2003 - 04:42 UTC
  • For Mike - yanniru - November 25, 2003 - 13:23 UTC
    • Yanniru swears to demagogue, and nothing but demagogue? - kantolfir2 - November 25, 2003 - 20:19 UTC
    • We have a difference as to what constitutes scientific evidence" - kantolfir2 - November 26, 2003 - 02:22 UTC
  • Evidence - treewilly - December 14, 2003 - 02:48 UTC