The debate over the Criteria for existence continues:
-is a lack of physical observation and materialistic experience sufficient to Disprove God's existence?
-is emotional or immaterial experience of God sufficient to Prove it?
here's an argument For the existence of God:
1-god is spirit: therefore immaterial and invisible
2-therefore the existence of God CANNOT BE TESTED by mere lack of physical evidence of his being or residence
(2a-example: the lochness monster. does it exist? well, can we find it? see it? does it leave 'footprints'? does it show up on sonar? we look for physical evidence of the existence of physical beings, supplemented by deduction and induction.)
(2b-how does one look for immaterial beings?)
3-immaterial, invisible things exist, such as: Purpose, Truth and Falsity, Knowledge, Character, Innocence, Logic, Commitment, and the Emotions.
(3a-this is a short list. most any concept, quality, or abstract thing would qualify)
(3b-materialists would say knowledge, etc, and especially emotions are not abstract but are merely chemicals and electricity in the brain.
This is an insufficient description- emotions may have a physical cause (i disagree) and a physical manifestation (indisputable) and still transcend them-
knowledge may be stored physically and still be abstract- form is not matter, yet interacts with it. commitment, etc, are even less physical.
What of truth? logic? modern science has these as their foundation: having the intent to discover Reality (the True way things are) by methodical, logical means.)
4-therefore, a materialist does not have a complete, comprehensive, exhaustive knowledge of the universe
(4a-and can only describe the physical manifestations of immaterial things, not their essence. just like someone may follow the letter of the law and disobey the Spirit of it. this is the use of a technicality to escape the intent and purpose of a rule)
5-therefore the test of God's existence is not materialistic.