I've looked in many ways beyond the physical.  I've used prayer, sight, feeling (emotion and touch), process, miraculous changes, scientific method, etc. 

To answer the question in a way you'd want it to be answered, I'd have to know what non-physical science, sense, process, etc. you would accept to better understand? 

Sight, sound, touch, taste, smell. 

I assume the second question further clarifies the intentions of the first, so I'll answer as one question.  Sorry if that was not your intention, just let me know.

I account for what I personally see, but not only. I take what other people say they experience and compare it to other claims as well as Biblical basis and what I've experienced myself.  I know God well enough to usually know when someone's experience is made up or real and whether it was most likely from God or not. 

Cap, why do you include the physical in your "looking beyong the physical"?

Also, when you look for a "Bibliical basis" in an experience, how much does your bias play into it? That is, are you looking at what the Bible actually says or what you think it says/means?

Supernatural implies fallacy.  It's really just the term.  Spiritual or non-physical is what I try to focus on to avoid the definitions bias.  I've gotten in enough debates about the term to learn not to use it in what I"m trying to explain.

So when you say that the non-physical can be physically detected (the senses are physical)...?

The best you or anyone can do is tell me what the spritual/non-physical world is not. It's interesting but it doesn't answer the question "What is it?".

We are physical beings.  As far as I understand our senses are physical.  The spiritual can affect the physical.  Usually it's more through senses. 

Please understand that's just one small part of understanding.  It's one of many reasons why I believe.  The topic of non-physical is about trying to understand something beyond physical.

I don't know if that made any sense.  Sorry

There are a few reasons for that approach:

1.  You understand the physical, therefore it's best to compare to something you can actually grasp.

2.  In our languages, we have made words that describe physical becasue we're physical beings.  There are only a few words that talk about anything beyond physical.  Emotion's one, but to understand emotion, we digress back to physical explanations.  That doesn't mean that emotions don't exist however. 

As far as studies on Spiritual.  One example of a study used a CAT scan to observe electronic impulses in the brain when in a spiritual meditation.  This I think included spiritual interaction.  I don't quite remember. 

Anway, the outcome was exactly what I expected.  They noticed hightened brain activity in the metitative state.  That's a physical outcome.  It did not conclude that this person was actually talking to a spirit or having any spiritual encounter, though most meditating individuals would lower their brain activity to meditate. 

I'm not sure how to explain to you what the spiritual is.  I'm not sure what you'd be looking for.  In my experience, it's really something you'd need to experience yourself.  All I can tell you is how to go about understanding it. 

Caposkia, just to make it clearer why I hammered the 'wind' thing, I regard that as one of the most illogical, stupid arguments put up to defend the God hypothesis, and we get variations on it so often. Actually the 'feel' version is somewhat less dumb that the one about not 'seeing' the wind.

Up to that point you used it, I really thought you had more understanding and insight than that.

I understand that the above is your firmly-held belief, and I've been short with you previously because I've never found the Bible to be as helpful as scientific hypothesis in answering my questions. For instance, I couldn't possibly read the creation myth and take it at face value, and then conclude that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. That's just heavily unlikely. The way that radioisotopes work, we can have a decent idea of how old the earth is without consulting the bible. In fact, if we had not separated ourselves from biblical dogmatism in the enlightenment, we might never have known what radioisotopes are.

Oh, I see. No, the burden of proof (really, evidence) is still with you, I'm afraid. It's an extraordinary claim to say that a character featured in a story is not only real, but a completely reliable account of that character. That is the claim you make. Just by name, Nicholas Nickleby could be real. Nicholas Nickleby as described by Dickens is much less likely to have been a real person. Not just because he's a fictional character, but because of the very specific description of Mr. Nickleby. Less likely is the key to my point. I'm not saying that never was there ever a Nicholas Nickleby. In fact, I'm not saying that it is impossible that there is a God, or that there is a Santa Claus or aliens among us. I maintain that those things are extremely unlikely.

So that we can be fair to one another, this is obviously our impasse. My trust of the scientific method and mathematics is much greater than that of claims written 2,000 years ago by people who had yet to really explore historical rigour. Certainly Sallust wanted his account to be free of flaw, and so did Herodotus. But their works were not historically rigorous in the modern sense. The accounts of the Bible are likewise suspect. Just as I would judge Sallust to be self-serving, so do I judge the authors and compilers of the bible. They shouldn't be completely discounted, but it's fair to say that they had something to gain by writing in a certain way and exaggerating.

This is the third time you've used wind. Wind is moving air. Air is matter, and thus material. It is available to be measured. Gods make themselves unavailable for measure at all times, and completely. In that way, they behave the same as a figment of your imagination. Can't measure that, but it doesn't mean it's not a figment of your imagination. However, that doesn't substantiate the figment. I understand that "wind" is a coupling of air and movement, but if we're using terms in a relaxed way, then Santa Claus doesn't exist, right? I mean in the most colloquial use of the word "exist", Santa isn't there. Probably. That's the level of my belief in God.

But it always is testimonial. It's a belief and a relationship in something you believe is true despite its heavily unlikely nature. You (and a culture of others) picked writings to believe. But you've done so without critical thinking. If there were critical thinking involved, you would doubt if what you're reading is true, which you presumably cannot once you've committed to the idea that God is real.

Not entirely true. I want to understand the mechanism that makes you believe in something that never works its way into the physical world. I imagine you've told yourself the same thing about many gods. Perhaps Wotan and Zeus are not YHWH, but they once had a following, and were just as earnestly worshipped. Now we have Scientologists honestly believing in alien lordship. Human beings do this. We make gods who resemble our cultural superego. That's a much easier explanation than the idea that all these gods actually exist, and are just hiding, waiting for us to screw up.

It's the Nicholas Nickleby example above. Could there have been an entity that did not exist (that is, did not take part in the physical plane - same difference) and fit the exact description of a fictional character? It's possible, just highly unlikely that a real Nicholas Nickleby walked the earth. In the same sense as Santa and his flying reindeer.

But He did change. He stopped all that slaughter and slavery that he thought was the way the Israelites should behave originally. After Jesus, there are no orders to kill, and no orders to enslave.

That's sort of the problem. I don't understand the God character because of His Conflicting Nature in the Bible, but you occasionally do understand God, and have no problem educating others. Is it that there's nothing in the Bible specifically talking about other gods? Or just that because YHWH is a jealous god, that you shouldn't spend too much time cavorting with the gods of others?

Again, I don't know how you figured out that you're right, here. Was that the luck of the draw? Jews have the same God that Christians do, and share a common history. But somehow you can tell that they're wrong. This is your knowledge of God, that seems to be beyond what you could know.

These are all fine questions, but what could we come away with saying simply that this was the work of God? If planes went into the twin towers because that was the "will of Allah", and Allah managed to get them in under God's radar, then what does this say of God? 

But you do understand how God works, so you'd be able to tell me whether or not Allah was able to sneak some planes by Him. Or push Hurricane Katrina ever closer to the houses of the less fortunate, and not to the rich people. That seems inconsistent with the opinions on rich people written in the New Testament.

That's practically the definition of not existing.

It IS always a possibility. But an equally possible explanation to anything where you'd say "God did it" is "Wotan did it", "Zeus did it", or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it". Since all you have to go on are the writings in the Bible, and those are equally as credible as the stories of the Koran, or the earliest creation myths, you have a nearly infinite array of non-physical entities whose behaviour cannot be confirmed outside of their respective stories. 

Science is clear on things that are falsifiable: if any statement is able to be falsified, it can make its way into scientific knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

God is not falsifiable because observation and experiment do not apply to God. The only statements regarding God come from The Bible. God cannot be observed or measured, and so removes Himself from the realm of the quantifiable real.

Now ... does there exist a separate plane in which all the gods congregate outside of the realm of reality? Maybe. But then how could such a creature be understood? How could you possibly understand that creature to be like human beings, if that creature has no participation in the physical plane? You would doubt my faith in the existence of leprechauns and fairies just as I doubt your faith in God.

I'll play along for a bit:

No meteorologist that I know of would properly refer to a day as windless.  Usually they would say "calm" which according to the Beaufort Wind Scale is an estimate of wind speed.

This is what I'm talking about when I say people try to make things more complicated than they are.  The strait forward simple and precice answer for the definition of wind is "the movement of air".  It doesn't need to get more complicated than that. 

e.g. wind: (following definitons are referenced by number from dictionary.com when "wind" was put in the search field)

1. air in natural motion.

12. air carrying an animal's odor or scent.

Granted wind is any and all of the definitons that come up, but it also can be the 2 listed above.  Air carrying a odor or scent is not always moving fast enough to feel it. 

You suggested more detail in my answers.  Is that what you were looking for?

this is all I've been trying to say

it's because you try to make it more complicated than it is.  Whether you want to believe it or not, wind is simply the movement of air, nothing more, nothing less.  Air is always moving.  How much more strait forward and clear can we get with this?

The definition is not unconventional, it is the first definiton that comes up in every dictionary I've looked at one way or another.  see the reference of definitons above.  It is widely understood in the scientific community to be that way. 

notice it still got lost however, no matter how simple the concept was.  Why was it so hard to see the movement of air as "wind"?  I understand it to be because you've never considered wind anything beyond what you could feel.  Is that true?

It seems to be the case.  Though usually when that's the case, people try to say I change the meaning of the word.  I think we've clearly established that I have taken the literal basic meaning of the word and nothing more or less. 

I kept on this longer because this is usually the fallout when it comes to "religious" discussion.  People know it one way, so when I present something different, it can't be true because that's not how you know it.  Do you see the point of this whole analogy yet? 

Just to note, we're starting to see there were more layers to this analogy than first assumed. 

I've presented a few things already.  Have you not considered them?

Also, this is why I presented a challenge to you to "try it yourself".  Even if you've been there, dispensationalism and cults can really mess up your perception of what is real and true.  I'm asking you to try it without the guidance per-se of a religious organization. 

This may still require you to talk to Christians and/or explore religious organizations in your area, but you'd go into any of that with a controlled mind and understanding that anything you are told or presented you are going to take and only accept if you find it to be true yourself through reflection, research, prayer and understanding. 

The trick to all of this is you'd have to do what many people who even claim to follow Christ don't do.  You'd have to persue God with your whole heart.  Sincerely seeking Him out.  It's a task most on here have not been up to taking.  I would have no idea whether you'd be fully seeking Him out or not either.  This would be a personal journey.  The choice is always yours.

alright

I think it's clear then.  Neither of us are dodging each others questions.  From here on, they are misunderstandings until otherwise noted.  I'm on here not to dodge, but to challenge what I know.

Alright, one example.  I'll keep it breif and to the point for now and if more detail is needed, then we'll go from there:

A friend of mine was as he says, "running with the devil".  I'm not very well versed in his complete history, but I do know he has claimed spiritual experiences in that life.  I'm not sure to what extent.

He came to know Christ through the movie "The Passion".  He says he couldn't understand how someone could go through what Christ did and not fight back or condemn them. 

This view comes from an understanding that he was aware of Christ's existence, but was not accepting of His ways.

Once he found Christ, from that day on his life changed dramatically.

He changed from a man you'd run in fear from due to the fact that he'd probably leave you bleeding in an alley if you didn't to someone with the biggest heart in the world and is a very compassionate and loving Character. 

Granted this change took some time and wasn't comnpletely overnight.  His life change was fast still.  People who have known him for years can't understand logically how he changed so fast and dramatically. A complete 180. 

His quote of his life change; "I went from wanting to travel the world exploring different cultures and people so I could kill them, to wanting to travel the world, exploring different cultures and people so I can save them." 

For 20 years he used to hurt people.  It took less than 1 year for him to change completely. 

let's go from here.   

I work with what you give me.  I'm sorry you misunderstand my understanding and insight.  Due to the fact that you think I have less than you thought before leads me to believe you still didn't understand.  I'm not at all saying in any way that I think I'm smarter than your or extremely insightful for that matter.  These analogies aren't ones that I've made up, but what I've understood from people who are known for their insightfulness and understanding of the subject matter.   

Therefore, I can say with certainty that you still didn't understand. 

After my responses, do you have a better comprehension?

This is where I would like to go from here actually.  It's apparent that my belief and following may be different than you think.

Your example of a 10,000 year old Earth:

Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that the Earth is 10,000 years old or less, but more precisely, it backs up scientific claims of an Earth that is Billions of years old. 

To clarify this misunderstood belief.  The English Bible (possibly other languages, I don't know) translate in Genesis God's creation in "days".  However, if you research the Hebrew word in it's place, you'll see that the word isn't exactly "days' and is actually a reference to an unknown period of time.  It was generally understood before the translation of those periods of time into days that those periods of time logically were much much longer. 

The reason why it's translated into days is becuase the Hebrew word used cannot be accurately translated into English.  The best way to do it was to claim a specific period of time that the majority of people would understand be it that the word suggested a specific period of time but didn't reference to how long that was. (this is my comprehension of it anyway.  I still don't see the justification of such a translation and think there could have been better words to use.) 

The Hebrew word specifically when translated into English would be saying something like: "a specific period of time".  To put it into Genesis, they would have had to translate it as, "The first specific period of time God... then, the second specific period of time which was the same length of time as the first period of time, God..."  I guess it was just easier to say "day".

I would like to stay focused on this and other misunderstandings like this.  I'm not however going to ignore the rest of your post. 

If you were unaware of the existence of a Duck Billed Platypus and I described it to you, how likely would that animal be to actually exist in your understanding?

did I miss your point?

I actually like to use scientific method.  It doesn't necessarily have to do with material objects.  It can be used in any process of discovery.

You see the issue with others on this site and defining wind as is.  Who said God cannot be observed?  he cannot be physically observed, but that doesn't mean people have not observed him.  There are many who believe and many who do not follow God that would disagree with your statement.

have you read the part about how I came to know Christ?

ok, God did work his way into the physical world though through Christ...  Though that's what I'm talking about, that's just a story to you right?

highly unlikely keeps coming up.  I guess I should ask what would make God more likely in your understanding?

due to the fact that Jesus fulfilled the law.  He took the penalty for all of us who seek that forgiveness.  There was no scape goat before.

no, the Bible isn't my reasoning for believing, it is my way of better understanding God and understanding who I should be as a follower of Christ.

one example.  The muslims believe in Jesus Christ as a powerful prophet.  However, for Jesus to claim all he did, including being the Son of God as he did (the Muslims do not believe he is the Son of God) for the Muslim faith to be true and to accept Jesus as they do, they would have to accept the fact that Jesus among their other prophets are liars. 

not that allah got it under God's radar (though to clarify, Allah and YHWH are historically understood to be the same God, just different followings of Him), but that God allowed it to happen.  We might not understand, but the future dramatically changed because of that event. Only God would know what could have come from either future.  There's I'm sure more than we know.  

yes, but that doesn't mean I understand why those events were allowed to take place. 

Don't forget that the planes going into the towers was the act of people.  God will not affect free will and therefore would not stop a persons choice to fly planes into the World Trade Centers.

therefore memories do not exist. 

We're getting lost here.  I've claimed to believe the Bible stories to be true.  I haven't been focusing on them as my source for happenings.  You're in control of where we go. I'll just answer what you ask to the best of my ability.

I've been saying there's much more than the Bible.  Maybe you and I should not talk about Biblical happenings until later. 

I still want to stick on the first topic just to clarify what i believe and what you understand to be true.

would i?  What would be your reasoning for believing? I'm sure if it's something you feel I should consider to be true, you'd have more than just the stories to back it up just as I do about God.