the case against the case against god

[Simon Moon]

A coherent definition for the term doesn't need to be used, because we know what is meant by it's use over time like how we learned most words (not through a dictionary). Some things like love are experienced and are better known through experience, and can't really be put in precise words.

Not true.

When in comes to existential claims, to have a meaningful conversation, we need to be discussing the same thing. Without your definition, there can be no meaningful discussion.

I have heard as many definitions for the word 'spiritual' as the number of people I have asked.

You're always assuming that God doesn't exist when you ask these questions how we would know. If God doesn't exist, there obviously would be no way to know as it would be a falsehood. In the case of God existing however, it seems odd, to say, it's impossible that he gives us knowledge of himself or makes us able to witness the spirit existing.

No.

I am not starting from the assumption that a god does not exist. I am simply stating that the claim that one does exist has never met its burden of proof. I am simply unconvinced by any argument that has been made, since they are all fallacious.

I am not claiming that a god does not exist. I am stating that there is no logical or evidential reason to believe one does exist.

I'm not saying that is is impossible for a god (if one exists) to give us knowledge. All I am saying is that for every case I have ever heard of where someone makes this claim, there are better, purely natural explanations.

If a spirit exists, why wouldn't it be possible for us to know we are beyond material and aren't just a product of chemical reactions inside the mind?

This 'spirit' needs a definition.