Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

I could say the same about you.You could... But what I'm trying to do is get you to understand what I am trying to say, and you're just paying attention to the first layer, so to speak.No to ask for a demonstration would mean to ask for someone to visually show how or why.I did say basically a demonstration, didn't I? Demonstration- "display showing HOW to do something: a presentation to others of the way in which something works or is done"Why- "asking reason: for what reason"How- "in what way: used to ask or report questions or to introduce statements about the manner in which something happens or is done"So let's apply those definitions to your examples: For what reason did your drink spill? It landed on it's side. Gravity. The lid wasn't on. There was liquid in it, and that's what happens when they fall.In what way did your drink spill? I knocked it over with my arm.If I were to say, "For what reason are you on CreateDebate?", you'd probably say something along the lines of "because I like to debate."If I were to say, "In what way are you on CreateDebate?", you'd probably say, "the internet" or "my computer."Not always, they can though, you need to specify what you mean by why, and what you mean by how, without them being equivalent.They cannot be equivalent. That defies the very nature of the words.We probably have different ideas of "spirituality" and perhaps "materialism" to but I am pretty sure our ideas on the latter have a good amount of common ground.Spiritual- "of soul: relating to the soul or spirit, usually in contrast to material things"Spirit- "life force of person: the vital force that characterizes a human being as being alive"Materialism- "focus on possessions: devotion to material wealth and possessions at the expense of spiritual or intellectual values"Their is no accepted definition of spirituality, so you could define what you mean by it.Well, the church definition is that spirituality is "church property or revenue", which sounds more like materialism, doesn't it? I posted the definition I go by up above.but our beliefs can be OF objective things, and subjective things.An example? I don't think opinions should be facts, but I do think they should be based on facts.To an extent. I believe that the world is older than six thousand years because of dinosaur fossils. The existence of dinosaur fossils is a fact. But a lot of our beliefs are based on theories. I believe in the Big Bang and evolution because there is evidence, but they aren't facts. A lot of what people see as evidence against God, I see as evidence for God. So it all depends on the person.Facts don't worsen your opinion they only strengthen it, so the opinion with the less facts but same amount of reasoning, is more fallacious or unsubstantiated, or false.The existence of a God doesn't have any more evidence against it than your beliefs, so what are you calling false? Ultimately, we have never observed an intelligent being come from something that is non-intelligent, so it can even be said that evidence for an intelligent creator is more plausible than there not being one... But we can't prove it. You can point out the evidence against the world's religions, that is fine, but there is evidence for an intelligent creator, and there is also, depending on the interpretation, evidence against an intelligent creator. Who can disagree with that? I think it is a bit controversial, but I actually agree with you, time is nothing, however it isn't an illusion.Illusion- "something with deceptive appearance: something that deceives the senses or mind, e.g. by appearing to exist when it does not or appearing to be one thing when it is in fact another"I was arguing that the past's existence would be the existence of things having happened.Yeah, I know... But like I said, happened isn't happening. I guess you could say that memory exists, if that is what you mean.I can not answer your questions unless you differentiate your two questions, in ways that are not equivalent, so that I can understand how they are different.I have multiple times, and I even went into more detail this time, so hopefully it helps. The only time Why means something truly different from how, is when an intention or purpose is implied.That is assuming that there is no purpose. It would be more reasonable to say that the how we can often explain based on our observations, but the why is often unknown. How do we exist? We can say the location of the earth, sun, moon, water... We're just set up perfectly to sustain life... But why do we exist? We didn't have to exist and we have a good idea of how we exist, but what is the reason? It could very well be that there is no reason, therefore the why question is unnecessary. Scientists often try and solve the how... Philosophers usually deal with the why.