Existence of spiritual beings (invisible?): on experience, facts, and reason

Spanish is one of the official languages of the Philippines. I am very sad that my people are what I may honestly say, fickle folks. Another word to describe my people, shallow. They have 'succeeded' to forget 300 years of Spanish civilization and culture, and yes, language. The government even took away the courses in Spanish language, from the college curriculum.
Ouch! I did not know that.
You see, TimB, there are skeptics who deny the existence of anything that is not visible [perceptible], like Nickell and McGaha. But they are not being critical, not thinking on truths, facts, and logic. From the perception of a visible phenomenon i.e. event, like for example, the rising of the sun in the morning and its setting in the evening, man has reasoned all the way to the existence of a creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, i.e., God. The rising and setting of the sun is the visible or perceptible phenomenon, and the invisible or imperceptible God is the cause of the phenomenon, in ultimate terms of course. Nickell and McGaha are talking about ghosts, etc., but they are not factoring into their thinking the fact that we only know about some 4% of the visible i.e. perceptible universe, the rest of the 96% are not known to man with his visual faculty by which he senses visible or perceptible things and phenomena; but there exists indeed 96% of the whole universe no matter that only 4% are known visibly or perceptibly. That 96% of the whole universe exists and scientists come to their conclusion on its existence, namely, the 96% of the whole universe, by critical thinking on truths, facts, and logic, all the way to the ultimate cause, God. But there are scientists and it is the fad today, to not go into the ultimate causality which is God, the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning. The refusal of today's scientists to go beyond, beyond, beyond... all the way to God, that is an example of a taboo with today's scientists; but it has not been always like that with scientists in the whole history of science.
Well, scientists, based on what is perceptible, have hypothesized that there was a BIG BANG. They don't seem content, to me, with that knowledge. There are efforts to try to perceive what happened at moments closer and closer to the initiation of that BIG BANG. As far as the hypothesized existence of a vast portion of our universe that is, currently, imperceptible, I expect that there will continue to be scientists who will try to develop methodologies and technologies to begin to perceive it. If and when they do, we don't yet know what they will find. You assume that if they learned enough, they would eventually find that it is "God" that set it all off, and that "God" is behind its operation. That is simply a "God of the gaps" argument. i.e., anything that we don't yet know or are unable to perceive, must be God. There was a time when we didn't know why the wind blows, and some assumed that it must be God doing it. Then we eventually learned that hot air rises, and the uneven surfaces of the Earth, warming and cooling, were involved in the circulation of our air. In our past, when vast numbers of people suddenly got sick and died, many people assumed that God was angry for some reason and just decided to kill them off. Then we eventually learned about certain microbes that are involved in plagues. We don't need to assume that there is a God. We just need to have a tolerance for not knowing, while maintaining a desire to know. We don't really need to explain what we are not yet prepared to explain. We just need to keep trying. But in the meantime, it is not helpful, in my opinion, to assume that it is "God" that started it all and is behind everything that we cannot yet perceive and understand.

Three things to consider about these unusual claims that invisible spiritual beings exist.

  1. There is no way to confirm the nonexistence of invisible spiritual beings.
  2. Those who don’t believe in these so called beings are under no obligation to prove that they don’t exist.
  3. The onus is on those making the claim that invisible spiritual beings exist, to provide proof of the existence of these so called beings.
    As someone who does not believe in these invisible spiritual beings, I can only say again, and again, and again, that I am not persuaded at all by any of the evidence that has been provided.

What exactly is the “‘God of the gaps’ argument”?
That is a ploy to cover up the lack of critical thinking with folks who do not think at all critically, but resort to cliché.
Now, what is it to prove something exists?
On critical thinking?
Dear readers here, do genuine critical thinking and tell me what exactly is the socalled God of the gaps argument, availed of by deniers of God to convince people that there is no God, or there is no proof for God existing.
I can predict that you will go into dodges, instead of coming up with critical thinking to prove God not existing.
You MUST first to begin at all to engage in critical thinking to prove that something exists or does not exist, present your concept of the thing that you claim to exist or to not exist.
So, readers here, I challenge you to present your concept of God, for you who want to prove God does not exist, or also for you who care to prove that God exists.
Please do not bring in extraneous matters, attend to (1) your explanation of what is the socalled God of the gaps argument, and also (2) what is it to prove that something exists or does not exist.
But first and above everything else, (3) what is your concept of God? For you cannot be into proving something exists or does not exists, unless you first have a concept of that something: otherwise you will be talking nonsense.
I wait with bated breath to read your post answering to each of the three questions I present above, or just only one of the three, any one at all.

What exactly is the "'God of the gaps' argument"? That is a ploy to cover up the lack of critical thinking with folks who do not think at all critically, but resort to cliché. Now, what is it to prove something exists? On critical thinking? Dear readers here, do genuine critical thinking and tell me what exactly is the socalled God of the gaps argument, availed of by deniers of God to convince people that there is no God, or there is no proof for God existing. I can predict that you will go into dodges, instead of coming up with critical thinking to prove God not existing. You MUST first to begin at all to engage in critical thinking to prove that something exists or does not exist, present your concept of the thing that you claim to exist or to not exist. So, readers here, I challenge you to present your concept of God, for you who want to prove God does not exist, or also for you who care to prove that God exists. Please do not bring in extraneous matters, attend to (1) your explanation of what is the socalled God of the gaps argument, and also (2) what is it to prove that something exists or does not exist. But first and above everything else, (3) what is your concept of God? For you cannot be into proving something exists or does not exists, unless you first have a concept of that something: otherwise you will be talking nonsense. I wait with bated breath to read your post answering to each of the three questions I present above, or just only one of the three, any one at all.
Mdjess, Please give an example of how you can prove something that is claimed to be supernatural doesn't exist. A concept of God does exist. In fact many different concepts of God exist. Most are completely ludicrous. But do any of those concepts match a real existing entity? Based on all that I have learned and experienced, so far, I would say, very probably not. But in regards to scientific inquiry, it doesn't matter. If something akin to one of the concepts of God actually exists in the natural universe, scientific advances, if they continue, may reveal that. However, so far, scientific advances have only revealed that most concepts of God that have come up so far, are a bunch of superstitious mumbo jumbo.

From TimB [addressing me]:
“Mdjess, Please give an example of how you can prove something that is claimed to be supernatural doesn’t exist.”
Do you notice, TimB, that you have introduced a new term, ‘superantural’, that from my part I nave not mentioned at all in my posts here.
If I have, then show me the texts where I have used the term ‘supernatural’, and I will apologize to you most sincerely.
What is my point about you bringing in a new term like supernatural?
Here: you are going into a non-critical way of exchanging ideas, because there are enough materials for us to work on, without messing up the exchange with introducing a term that has no usefulness for the present, except to mess up the actual current concern, namely, the three questions I am proposing for us all posters and readers here to work on with our brain cells:

Please do not bring in extraneous matters, attend to (1) your explanation of what is the socalled God of the gaps argument, and also (2) what is it to prove that something exists or does not exist. But first and above everything else, (3) what is your concept of God? For you cannot be into proving something exists or does not exists, unless you first have a concept of that something: otherwise you will be talking nonsense. I wait with bated breath to read your post answering to each of the three questions I present above, or just only one of the three, any one at all.
For the present don't busy your mind with the term supernatural, just concentrate on existence or non-existence. Is that not obviously more simple and easy and constructive and productive to dwell our minds on, by not bringing in a new term, like supernatural? If I may, let you just tell me in your next post, what is your stock concept of God, in say just 50 words, simply the concept only. If you have any stock concept of God in your mental database, please bring it forth; if not, then you can read up on the definitions of God in the standard English dictionaries, and formulate a concise, precise, and intelligible concept of God, from the definitions of God you come across in dictionaries.
From TimB [addressing me]: "Mdjess, Please give an example of how you can prove something that is claimed to be supernatural doesn’t exist." Do you notice, TimB, that you have introduced a new term, 'superantural', that from my part I nave not mentioned at all in my posts here. If I have, then show me the texts where I have used the term 'supernatural', and I will apologize to you most sincerely. What is my point about you bringing in a new term like supernatural?...
Pardon my assumption. Generally, most concepts of God include the supernatural. You have not stated your concept of God, previously. If I had recognized that your concept of God does not include the supernatural, my request would have been: Please give an example of how you can prove something that is imperceptible does not exist?
From TimB [addressing me]: ... Here: you are going into a non-critical way of exchanging ideas, because there are enough materials for us to work on, without messing up the exchange with introducing a term that has no usefulness for the present, except to mess up the actual current concern, namely, the three questions I am proposing for us all posters and readers here to work on with our brain cells:
Please do not bring in extraneous matters, attend to (1) your explanation of what is the socalled God of the gaps argument, and also (2) what is it to prove that something exists or does not exist. But first and above everything else, (3) what is your concept of God? For you cannot be into proving something exists or does not exists, unless you first have a concept of that something: otherwise you will be talking nonsense. I wait with bated breath to read your post answering to each of the three questions I present above, or just only one of the three, any one at all.
For the present don't busy your mind with the term supernatural, just concentrate on existence or non-existence. Is that not obviously more simple and easy and constructive and productive to dwell our minds on, by not bringing in a new term, like supernatural? If I may, let you just tell me in your next post, what is your stock concept of God, in say just 50 words, simply the concept only. If you have any stock concept of God in your mental database, please bring it forth; if not, then you can read up on the definitions of God in the standard English dictionaries, and formulate a concise, precise, and intelligible concept of God, from the definitions of God you come across in dictionaries.
You seem angry, Mdjess. I wonder what your hostility is about. Anyway, please give me an example of how one can prove that something that is imperceptible does not exist. Then I will answer one or more of your questions.

I notice that you are going into a devious manner of exchanging thoughts with me, and I will be wasting my time reacting to your dodging posts.
Take the way you write questions as the two examples below, they are indicative of a devious heart and mind:

“Mdjess, Please give an example of how you can prove something that is claimed to be supernatural doesn’t exist." "Anyway, please give me an example of how one can prove that something that is imperceptible does not exist. Then I will answer one or more of your questions."
You ask me to prove something supernatural does not exist, or something imperceptible does not exist. That is a devious manner of asking a question, because you do not set the space and time circumstances, in which circumstances of space and time something is to be proven to not exist [in]. That is what I always notice with people like you from the way you ask a negative question, because that kind of a question cannot be answered at all without exhausting all the space and time dimensions of the universe, which reach of such dimensions no human can ever be capable of. Here is a lesson for you in critical thinking with asking a question as also in answering a question: in the eventuality that the issue has to do with existence, you must demand where and when the thing is supposed to be existing in or not existing in. Yes, you can prove a negative, if the asker or you demand from the asker, that he set the space and time where and when the thing is to be proven to exist or not exist [in]. So, you can prove that there is no Bigfoot in the house now, by bringing your questioner to search the house thoroughly, every nook and corner and cranny. Okay, TimB, read my concept of God below, and produce also your concept of God, and we will work sincerely and honestly in the quest for the answer to the question "Does God exist?" Read again my post below but pay attention to the text in bold.
You see, TimB, there are skeptics who deny the existence of anything that is not visible [perceptible], like Nickell and McGaha. But they are not being critical, not thinking on truths, facts, and logic. From the perception of a visible phenomenon i.e. event, like for example, the rising of the sun in the morning and its setting in the evening, man has reasoned all the way to the existence of a creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, i.e., God. The rising and setting of the sun is the visible or perceptible phenomenon, and the invisible or imperceptible God is the cause of the phenomenon, in ultimate terms of course. Nickell and McGaha are talking about ghosts, etc., but they are not factoring into their thinking the fact that we only know about some 4% of the visible i.e. perceptible universe, the rest of the 96% are not known to man with his visual faculty by which he senses visible or perceptible things and phenomena; but there exists indeed 96% of the whole universe no matter that only 4% are known visibly or perceptibly. That 96% of the whole universe exists and scientists come to their conclusion on its existence, namely, the 96% of the whole universe, by critical thinking on truths, facts, and logic, all the way to the ultimate cause, God. But there are scientists and it is the fad today, to not go into the ultimate causality which is God, the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning. The refusal of today's scientists to go beyond, beyond, beyond... all the way to God, that is an example of a taboo with today's scientists; but it has not been always like that with scientists in the whole history of science.
Cease and desist already from your devious mind and heart in the exchange of ideas among fellow seekers of knowledge. Present your concept of God when you write again, in concise, precise and intelligible words, otherwise you are wasting the time and trouble of everyone.

<![CDATA[

I notice that you are going into a devious manner of exchanging thoughts with me, and I will be wasting my time reacting to your dodging posts.
Take the way you write questions as the two examples below, they are indicative of a devious heart and mind:

“Mdjess, Please give an example of how you can prove something that is claimed to be supernatural doesn’t exist." "Anyway, please give me an example of how one can prove that something that is imperceptible does not exist. Then I will answer one or more of your questions."
You ask me to prove something supernatural does not exist, or something imperceptible does not exist. That is a devious manner of asking a question, because you do not set the space and time circumstances, in which circumstances of space and time something is to be proven to not exist [in]. That is what I always notice with people like you from the way you ask a negative question, because that kind of a question cannot be answered at all without exhausting all the space and time dimensions of the universe, which reach of such dimensions no human can ever be capable of...
Mdjess, You accuse me of having a devious heart and mind, when my request was an echo of what YOU commanded in post #23, when YOU said for me or others to answer "what is it to prove that something exists or ]>
...Yes, you can prove a negative, if the asker or you demand from the asker, that he set the space and time where and when the thing is to be proven to exist or not exist [in]. So, you can prove that there is no Bigfoot in the house now, by bringing your questioner to search the house thoroughly, every nook and corner and cranny...
Ah. You answered my request, (although, only after belligerently casting dispersions on my character). So, as I said I will answer one or more of your questions in subsequent post/s.
... Cease and desist already from your devious mind and heart in the exchange of ideas among fellow seekers of knowledge. Present your concept of God when you write again, in concise, precise and intelligible words, otherwise you are wasting the time and trouble of everyone.
Again, you accuse me of having a devious mind and heart. (Could you be projecting?) You also infer that my attempts to communicate with you are wasting time and a trouble for everyone, I suggest that you look into your own heart, and ask what all the anger is about. Okay. My concept of God: "God" is a concept. It was conceived by humans, in great part, as a way of explaining things that happen, for which we have no concrete way of explaining. As to an actual existing God, I do not know what that would be. Might it, as you seem to suggest, be an entity that is the operator behind, and initial cause of our reality? I doubt it. I doubt it so much, that in practical terms, I would lean toward the statement that there is no such thing (at least nothing that resembles the plethora of conceptions of "God" that have permeated human religious history). You demanded conciseness, so I will stop there, for now.

I knew I had heard this style before, “creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning” finally clued me in. His name is Yrreg Ballera, he’s a young man from the Philippines. He’s on twitter. He seems to be working from a book of apologetics and has no original thoughts of his own.

I knew I had heard this style before, "creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning" finally clued me in. His name is Yrreg Ballera, he's a young man from the Philippines. He's on twitter. He seems to be working from a book of apologetics and has no original thoughts of his own.
I had not heard of "a book of apologetics" so I googled it. I see now that people who choose to believe things based on faith rather than discernable reality, may often require books to coach them on defending their belief system. Perhaps Mdjess has chosen this forum in order to practice defending his faith. That could explain his defensiveness/belligerent insults, as an insecurity re: his belief system might elicit such.

You also might want to google, “creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning" , you’ll see all his user names and the same arguments all over the interwebs. Any post now, he should start talking about the noses on our faces and how plain they are.

Plain noses? That should be interesting.

The stock information of peoples using the English language distinguishes between material beings and spiritual beings. Material beings are what we might identify as anything at all which are accessible to scientific investigations with our conscious senses or/and with laboratory instrumentation. Spiritual beings are what we might identify as anything at all which are not material beings as described above.
That seems pretty straightforward. The only spiritual beings I'm aware of exist inside people's heads, in other words inside material bodies. Therefore they (the physical bodies in which they reside, that is) are visible. Can you demonstrate the existence of any other kind of spiritual being? One that exists independently of a physical body?
The stock information of peoples using the English language distinguishes between material beings and spiritual beings. Material beings are what we might identify as anything at all which are accessible to scientific investigations with our conscious senses or/and with laboratory instrumentation. Spiritual beings are what we might identify as anything at all which are not material beings as described above.
That seems pretty straightforward. The only spiritual beings I'm aware of exist inside people's heads, in other words inside material bodies. Therefore they (the physical bodies in which they reside, that is) are visible. Can you demonstrate the existence of any other kind of spiritual being? One that exists independently of a physical body? I suggest looking up the definition of *Tulpa*
Tulpa (Tibetan: སྤྲུལ་པ, Wylie: sprul-pa; Sanskrit: निर"मित nirmita[1] and निर"माण nirmṇa;[2] "to build" or "to construct") also translated as "magical emanation",[3] "conjured thing" [4] and "phantom" [5] is a concept in mysticism of a being or object which is created through sheer spiritual or mental discipline alone. It is defined in Indian Buddhist texts as any unreal, illusory or mind created apparition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa