What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

Some might argue that spirituality is a state of mind rather than actual existence.

 If to exist is as I described, i.e. to have actual being whether material or spiritual, then "spiritually" would denote that which is wholly or partly not material.

What even is spirit?

Essence.

If you believe that my argument meets the description of your assessment, 

How do we test for the existence of some "wholly or partly not material thing"?

What does it mean to exist if you are not referring to material existence?

Ok please define essence.

Well that is what I'm trying to fund out right now.

How do we test for the existence of some "wholly or partly not material thing"?

Why does it need to be tested?

What does it mean to exist if you are not referring to material existence?

Make explicit the parameters of that which I've emboldened.

Ok please define essence.

The property without which one/it would lose its capacity to be identified as oneself/itself; an intrinsic quality that determines its fundamental character. 

Well that is what I'm trying to fund out right now.

So you levied a bald assertion?

How else would we know it exists?

Everything that I know of is a part of our local representation of space time (the observable physical universe) what do you mean by exist if you don't mean part of the observable universe?

So just the actual thing itself? That just sounds like an ordinary physical object or energy wave.

Unless you mean something else we fan dispense with the word spirit as being a useless term which does not differentiate between a material and non material thing.

I made a prediction.

If after this discussion it turns out I was wrong I will happily admit it

but so far you are having trouble even defining terms.

How else would we know it exists?

You're not answering the question. Why does it need testing?

Everything that I know of is a part of our local representation of space time (the observable physical universe) what do you mean by exist if you don't mean part of the observable universe?

You're "smuggling." (More so redefining ad hoc.) Substantiate the necessary biconditional between materialism and observation.

Note: in my description of perceive, the term "observe" is included.

Unless you mean something else we fan dispense with the word spirit as being a useless term which does not differentiate between a material and non material thing.

It is useless to differentiate the material and the immaterial, especially given that former is fundamentally informed by the latter.

So just the actual thing itself? That just sounds like an ordinary physical object or energy wave.

Your concern is not what it "sounds like." Sounds like is your impression, not a reflection of my statement.

I made a prediction.

You're a psychic?

but so far you are having trouble even defining terms.

Really? Have I not defined every term you've requested?

Tested for. Detected. Observed objectively and measured. Otherwise how do we know it exists?

Our senses would seem to only react to physical material forces.

If you cannot demonstrate some non physical thing let alone how we would detect one then you cannot blame such a thing exists.

Since immaterial is colloquially considered to be a synonym for non being or a lack of existence

perhaps you could define immaterial the way you are using it.

If I have the wrong impression I got it from you.

The things that a knives have without which they cannot be defined or recognized as a knife are a blade and a grip (or at the very least a tang) those are physical objects.

If this isn't what you meant then I request a more comprehensive/accurate definition. 

No but I have reasonable expectations about this conversation based on past experiences

in fact I don't know exactly what psychic even means so unless you are prepared to offer a definition maybe we should drop it.

Clearly not as I am asking for clarification in this very message.

Tested for. Detected. Observed objectively and measured. Otherwise how do we know it exists?

You're still not answering the question. You're attempting to have me prove you wrong (i.e. "Otherwise how do we know it exists"?) rather than you proving your statement. Why does existence need to be tested for? That is your claim, not mine.

Our senses would seem to only react to physical material forces.

"Seem" is not an argument; seem is your impression 

An example of the non-physical would be a number.

perhaps you could define immaterial the way you are using it.

Conceptual.

Sure, that would be the "spirit" of a knife. What is your essence?

 I don't concern myself with impressions in serious discussions. You'll never see me use the terms, "seems," "looks/sounds like," "appear," etc. in arguments I author because they are not relevant. 

Psychics claim to make "predictions" usually based on probing for intimate information.

you need help understanding something I've stated, then I take no issue in helping you clarify

Verify the provided definitions at your leisure if you bear questions of their "accuracy."

Things may exist that cannot be confirmed to exist but from pur perspective there is no difference between a thing which cannot be detected and a thing which does not exist.

There doesn't need to be a test in order for something to exist necessarily but it must be a test before we can claim it e ists otherwise we are making an assumption,

and argument from ignorance.

You can make zero accurate statements about an unobservable and untestable thing.

Perhaps but without some demonstration that there is more than a physical component any hypothesis which includes one can be dismissed out of hand.

Any abstract concept relies on a thinking agent to conceive it. All thinking agents of which I am aware are physical in nature and so if we are going to consider abstract concepts nonphysical (something I remain unconvinced of since brain activity is physically measurable) then it is still an emergent property of the physical unless demonstrate otherwise/

Concepts as I have already explained are sufficiently explained by physical means.

Apparently electrical signals and chemical reactions in my brain. So nothing immaterial or nonphysical. 

Human beings may not be capable of one hundred percent certainty on nearly any point.

I am only certain of one thing for example beyond the shadow of a doubt. I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be completely illusory.

Now if I accept these experiences at face value then I can make certain determinations about this perceived reality especially through the rigorous application of the scientific method but knowledge claims that are too certain are generally a result of flawed reasoning.

The only true wisdom lies in the understanding that we know nothing. 

Is my answer rather than a clarification of terms. So which is it? Are you willing to help clarify your language or am I to somehow verify what you mean when you use a term without your input?

"Our" perspective? I've made no such claims. Nonexistence is incoherent. In order to perceive the nonexistent, it must consist of no perceptible information on itself. How would one, for example, know something does not exist if it does not exist? If one is able to identify the nonexistent, much less identify it as "not existing," then the nonexistent provides perceivable information rendering it existent.

1. All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)

2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)

3. Therefore God exists.

Exactly....Case not proven.

a thing which doesn't exist produces an equal amount of evidence as a thing which does exist but which we cannot demonstrate to exist.

No they do not please see above for an explanation of why.

You mean like claiming something exists which you cannot demonstrate simply because it cannot be disproved? 

Independent and repeatable (preferably peer reviewed) scientific demonstration of the proposition in question.

Because your experience, as is mine, is inextricably subjective. Either we can test for the presence of a thing or we cannot.

If we cannot then it necessarily either exists but we cannot demonstrate its existence or it does not exist.

If we cannot test for or detect something we should not maintain a belief in said thing. 

That is why existence needs to be tested for. 

That is the consensus of neurologists.

It is a sufficient explanation and it is observable and testable in reality.

There is observably a measurable physical correlation.

If you wish to claim some extra component it is you who must demonstrate your claim.

Seeing is irrelevant to proving the existance of a proposition. Our eyes can be deceived.

I have had a CAT scan and I can inform you with a high degree of confidence that my brain is in my head.

Yes. I will just have to settle for a high degree of confidence in the issue given my apparent inability to have objective certainty on any given issue except that I am experiencing something.

Just the opposite. Even "reality" may not exist. I accept our shared reality as a convenience only and only because it is the only "reality" that I can percieve.

It would be far more accurate to say that I have confidence in the efficacy of the scientific method in separating fact from fiction only because of the physical effects on our world and our standard of life.

Also a method, or set of behaviors, is an existent part of the physical world. The scientific method is not immaterial it is physical and the proof of its efficacy precedes my belief.

This seems like a non sequitur to me. I am uncertain how you have determined that there is nothing that is objective or why that would lead to the ability to know everything let alone the necessity.

I have explained why I do not accept that perceived = existent 

Your definition of percieved is to be aware, understand, identify and/or observe. Unless you can demonstrate that any one has ever become aware of understood identified or observed any actual

I do not accept that this is true

This conclusion does not follow from your dubious premises.

Please feel free to reformulate your argument in light of these issues 

I'm aware of God; I identify God (obviously through his name); I've observed God. There: I've demonstrated a perception of God.

Sooooooooooo.

Is it definitely one or the other sec. 

God either, ( exists )  orrrrrrrrrr  ( does not exist )? 

Unless you can demonstrate some god(s) I have no reason to believe that you percieve, observe, identify

and are aware of more than your own internalized feelings about the concept of some god(s).

Unless of course you are willing to grant the existence of every god ever believed in by any human.

You mean like the confidence that precedes your acceptance of the scientific method? Why does it have to be "more"?

I've never been unwilling. All gods exist.

I just stated that I perceive, identify, and observe God.

No. My confidence does not precede the method the method showing its efficacy precedes my confidence. My confidence is contingent. 

Well they all certainly have been equally demonstrated.

Do you also believe in big foot, the lochness  monster, alien abduction and fairy dust?

This is called a bald assertion. It is a logical fallacy not a demonstration of reality. 

Then you're applying circular reasoning because when asked, you stated you have confidence in the scientific method. 

Do you also believe in big foot, the lochness  monster, alien abduction and fairy dust?

Do I believe in them? No. Do I believe they exist? Yes.

It's not a bald assertion. My statement concerns a single, subjective observer: I. My statements are true by virtue of my stating them. They're not falsifiable.

Proving that something doesn't exist is unnecessary, if said something cannot be proven to exist in the first place.

...you stated you have confidence in the scientific method.

Nothing can come from nothing, there must be an eternal entity that exists and can generate other entities.

You're claiming that you acknowledge things can exist without being tested for, while simultaneously arguing those things cannot be claimed to exist or "expressed" as existent without being tested.

Now if we apply your standard, how are you able to substantiate your first claim without conducting any tests?

In your own words (in the absence of tests): "Otherwise, how do we know it exists?" Your statements contradict. Your standard through your own tacit admission is limited.

How do we test for the existence of some "wholly or partly not material thing"?

Why does it need to be tested?

It is useless to differentiate the material and the immaterial, especially given that former is fundamentally informed by the latter.