Not necessarily.
Just have to act as one or be oblivious to each other.

Even so, to me both parties are correct and both parties' claims are demonstrable.

How?

Consider we are one thing, spinning in place; like a spinning top.
The one thing is always itself, but its spin distorts it and it is always changing.

Now, why this wouldn't be evident to be demonstrated - is for the same reason that when you're inside a car, the car doesn't appear to be moving, lest you look through the window.
But there's no window to look through.

I won't speak on the application of mathematics, but their purpose appears to be mystical.
Such as: Why are there mathematics? Why can one apply mathematics, like the Fibonacci sequence to a lifeform?

It is when asking questions like that, that it appears odd and mystical.

Whereas when applied, it is quite mundane.

Mathematicians in Maya, Egyptian, Chinese, etc culture were essentially priests.
And they credit the discovery of math to divine beings.

Nietzsche argues that Being (i.e. a metaphysical world) might exist but it is indemonstrable. — philosophy

Being demonstrates itself by being.
If being may not be demonstrated, there is no being.
And if there is no being, how and why are we talking, not about it, but at all?

Our material lives are not sustained by religious tradition or mystical knowledge, but by electrical systems, construction principles, engineering principles, manufacturing principles, scientific principles, and the maintenance principles that maintain them. — schopenhauer1

Hmm.

I would say, they may be in some way, but we are simply oblivious to this way - as we are of our own breathing, most of the time.

Consider that religious tradition may have formed societal norms such as 'appropriate attire'.
A very clear impact of mysticism is mathematics. For instance the Maya Numerals.
It might seem like a silly notion, but the inspiration for mathematics according to ancient testimonies is 'divine'.

Not everyone can be an expert in the exacting minutia that is required to maintain the industrial/electronic/engineering behemoth systems that go into what actually sustains and maintains our daily living. — schopenhauer1

I would phrase it as, not everyone 'is' an expert. But sure.
In the same way, not everyone is an expert at cooking and not everyone understands the 'mystical'.

Consider the difference between the eyes of a human and the eyes of a mantis shrimp and try to form an analogy with the understanding of the 'physical' and the 'mystical'.

Here is how I sum it up:

Man suffers because he desires.
Having eaten the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, man desires good and if he does not acquire it, he is left with evil.
It is like a man running on a treadmill, he must continue running or he will fall off.
The object of man's desire has taken hold of him and his freedom goes away.

Man smells a bad smell and says: "Oh, how foul!"
So with images, sounds and touch that doesn't feel right.
This is because these stand out. They are sharp.
Like a drop of ink on a blank page.

So the problem lies with permanance.
Man assumes the state of permanance, and anything that damages his sense of permanance causes suffering.
For man to hold his state of permanance, as I have said, one must keep going and displace oneself.
It is this constant displacement which tires man out, and this fatigue - which is suffering.
If man should simply observe, all ills would pass him by.

The expectance of suffering is the focus on suffering - bringing about suffering.
Suffering is - the tangling of desire with what is.
If you simply take things as they come and go - victory and defeat dissipate, with them suffering and ecstasy. Leaving a serenity, like that of the clouds.

So, should the future concern you?
Think thusly: When the future arrives, it will arrive in the moment.
All the suffering of the future, will be in the present.
When you worry of the future, your suffering has already begun.

"With great power comes great responsibility"

And should you give common folk the power and responsibility, political leaders dissipate - becoming one of the many. In this sense, sure, they may want to keep the sheep in a pen - rather than playing about in a field.

A tighter group as opposed to a looser group, is like a book as opposed to some pages.
It can be good and help the group advance quite well.
But from the picture you're painting, seems like each group is just turning in to a stone to throw at the other group.

On the other side, just as you stated - the internet as a whole is a pen.
So keeping it tangled as it is, can be a great subterfuge.

So with our without internet, we could be just as well.
A bad smith is a bad smith, even with quality metal.

If it's any consolation, they laughed at man flying. And now aeroplanes are quite mundane.

A bit off-topic:
People also laugh at the idea of flight in ancient times.
Even though the Quimbaya Airplanes have been tested and the Nazca Lines seem to mimic 'modern' trails left in the sky.

Just goes to show, humanity is one foot dragging the other.

Both are accessible to everyone - in the sense that they're free to enter.

Not everyone knows how to open the door to enter.

As to whether it produces tangible results - I would say a code of conduct is something of the sort.

You just banned Commander Sigma.
How does that make you feel?

It still matters for the same reason that most things matters; the undigested Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - which is to say 'decisions'.

It matters in the same way that food and eating matter.
There is the edible mushroom and there is the poisonous mushroom.
One shall lead to one consequence and the other to another.
Man picks the consequence of his preference.

As to:

However, God and the mystical world are accessible to everyone. — schopenhauer1

This applies:

This understanding is not accessible to all. Even if you understand it "conceptually", not everyone can actually participate in each or sometimes any of these aspects. — schopenhauer1

Love, like other feelings, I would deem to be like glasses.

Regardless where we look, we look through our glasses - so we are in love.

The putting on and off of the glasses is conscious, albeit spontaneous.

Feel, comes and goes like the wind; where does it come from, where does it go? Who knows?
But when the breeze washes over us, we are immediately conscious of it and know - the wind has arrived.
The way wind changes our temperature, so feel changes a part of us, and we conclude - we feel.

It's not that the latter are not conscious, but that they are conscious in a different way.

In the physical sense of things:
Humans and animals are similar.
Humans and machines less so.
Humans and inanimate objects even less so.

Time is a slideshow.
Our sense of time is our view of the slideshow.
If we move it moves, if we stop it stops.

Is this the distinction you're looking for?

Some time ago, a man was walking by some magi.
As he walked by, he exclaimed: What wise magi!
Continuing his walk, he came across some octopi.
He exclaimed: What strange octopi!
Further on, he encountered some lotuses.
He exclaimed: What beautiful lotuses!
Then he paused for a moment and thought.
"Lotuses? Perhaps it is octopuses after all?"

"Why do atheists ask for evidence of God, when there is clearly no such evidence?"

I have thought about this.
And my answer is: They know no reconciliation.

Here is a reconciliation:
- God is everything.
- Everything is God.
- Everything is evidence of God.

Here is another:
- God is not everything.
- God is something.
- No one can see God.
- God is hidden.

Not sure I entirely follow, I think eternalism maybe correct (past, present, future all exist). 'Now' cannot exist eternally - if it did, the things within the universe (particles etc...) would have no temporal start and without a temporal start they could have no existence. — Devans99

I will try to explain.

Past, present and future are all now. They all exist now. Regardless of their distance.
Like two ends of a rope, past and future, are the same thing viewed from angles.

Imagine there is no now. Then this moment does not exist.
If this moment does not exist, there is no past and future; the whole bridge collapses.
If there is no past, present and future.
There is no time.
And yet there is time.
So there must be now and now is all there is.
The past, present and future exist in the now and because of it.
This is why the now is eternal.
And the temporal start you seek, is 'now'.

I understand, but I shall repeat myself.

All you see is what there is.
All you say is what there is.
All you do is what there is.
How do you see, say or do what there is not?
And what there is - is now.
It is always complete, but through manner of division - appears always going.
It is a static, and a man spins inside it - so the static spins.

You wrote, that 'something 'other' than only now exists'.
But if I told you that there is only now and now is eternal, to reconcile the two, would you believe me?
Now, you might ask, but if now came from nothing - nothing predates now, does it not?
It does not. There is no is, do, or be with nothing. Only nothing.
If nothing is, it is not nothing.

You may think time has a start. It does.
So, does it have an end? It does.
Its start is now and its end is now and its present also now.
That's it.

Are there non-valued dualities?

If they are non-valued, are they dualities?

Man and woman are valued as man and woman; if they are not, are they man and woman?

Good and bad are valued as good and bad.
Good is good for itself and bad is good for itself. If bad is bad for itself, is it good for good?

That said, religion was born in our cave years to explain natural phenomenons (storms, winds, etc) and since we were pretty ignorant in our caves, we decided it was the Gods. — Dagny

The Vedas go against this notion.

Consider the following.

Time has gone through and is always in all states.
It is a finished thing.

But we, you and me, are like the little moving part of the bar of a video player - showing only one frame.
And we keep going and going and going and it keeps coming and coming and coming, but it is already finished.
If the video was not complete, how would you play it?

Everything is set in place - static, and everything is moving because we move.

Both.

With the exception that there are no best guesses. Only guesses.

A cause is its own cause and effect.

In this sense: It is self-caused, having a cause - and causeless, having no cause.

Here's an analogy: You see it because it is there. It is there because you see it.

That's some lovely poetry there, but I'm more interested in the actual topic, which is about evidence for God, which isn't about evidence for an abstract object like a circle, because that isn't what God is. — S

How do you know that is not God?

Have you seen God?

If you have seen God, why do you deny God?

If you have not seen God, how do you know what God is?

You're still missing the point. — S

Precisely. I am missing the point.

While you are still looking for it and you'll never find it, because it is like trying to look at your eyes or reach the horizon. All you will accomplish is tiring yourself out.
Whereas if you were aware, it would come in to place all on its own.

Herein lies the difference.

I say, I can draw a circle and I can draw a circle because a circle exists. If a circle does not exist, I cannot draw it. I cannot think of it and I cannot make any concepts of it, because it does not exist.

What you say is that you can think of pink elephants, you can even draw one - but you do not see any pink elephants. They are nowhere to be found! Hence they are not evident.

I agree, it is not evident. Neither is the sculpture, before it is sculpted.

No, you presented an argument, and I explained the problem with it. — S

I asked a question. You did not answer.

Which is a nonsensical thing to do. — S

Maybe. Maybe not.

No it isn't. — S

Then conceptualize over what you cannot imagine and what doesn't exist, if you may.

You haven't demonstrated that there's an "object", which in this case would be the actual existence of God. — S

The object is the filling. The concept of the object is its outline. I explained that, didn't I?

why would the GOD continue to make it so difficult to KNOW its existence to people who are relatively sophisticated, relatively knowledgeable, less superstitious now? — Frank Apisa

Hide and Seek.

You're playing a trick with language, also known as sophism. — S

I play no tricks. I merely asked a question.

The particular something in this case would be a concept, more specifically God. No one is arguing over the existence of the concept, so if that was all you were getting at, then you've missed the point. What's being argued over is whether this concept has an actual referent. You haven't demonstrated that it does. — S

What I have done is removed the separation.
What you do, is simply add separation.

The concept of sound is sound itself. Without sound, there is no concept of sound; it becomes a concept of nothing.
Even if I should separate, as you do - the concept of the object exists mutually with the object, just as the outline with its filling.

That simply doesn't follow. — S

The possibility of something, refers to something.
If it does not exist, it would be nothing.
How do you refer to nothing?

I would take this as a lesson in perception.

If houses are turning into flowers, then flowers are turning into houses.
Flowers, as one might guess, house many things from the abstract to the exact. Practically, they function as houses.

But when one thinks of one's house, there is a disparity between it and the ocean.
Though the ocean houses many things and functions as a house, its frame is different from the house of a human; likewise from the flower, which houses pollen.
By meaning, these are all houses - by frame, they are the ocean, a man's house and a flower.

Consider what I've said - by graphite and diamond. The difference is the structure; the frame, no?
And even though one may know that they are chemically the same, one can easily distinguish one from the other.

I would be in self-denial; outside of that everything would go on without a care.

I will tell you God exists, but I will ask what does it matter?

Before the discovery of gold, gold existed, though it was not evident.
Now by the same characteristics, I say God exists - because it is possible.

But of course, it is not evident - and as the word would imply, that means there is no evidence to showcase. One is just left with the notion of God, unsure what to do with it.
God being nonevident - is like trying to point out water, fully submerged in it.
I cannot point out the water from within just as I cannot look at my own eyes; but I may be aware.

Even so, what does it matter?

When I sit by the campfire, it warms and enlightens me. I do not reciprocate, nor would I need to; but I am grateful.
Now, when I sit by a candle, its flame albeit smaller, operates in the same way. It warms and enlightens me.

My wife looks at me and shares with me her delight. She shares with me, she does not barter with me; she does not expect a reward. She loves me, not because I love her, but because she loves me.

So the woman at work, who looks at me and too shares her delight. She does not do this as an exchange, but for its own sake.

I see a thing that delights me, and I love that thing. That thing could be a stone on the side of the road; and it is doubtful the stone would reciprocate, yet I love it as I would love any other.

These are three variations of love, yes? Just as the candle, the torch and the campfire are three different housings for fire and the fire they house is of three different magnitudes, yes?
And yet all fire would warm and enlighten. Such is the case with love.
Love is the same wherever it goes, but its paths change.

I see no objection.

Great example of a non sequitur — Txastopher

Every living thing dies and every person is a living thing. This much is self-evident, no?

Consider the following: If the prisoner is told he will be hanged, he will expect to be hanged. The date turns irrelevant.

If he is expecting to be hanged, he cannot be hanged, because it will not be a surprise.

He will hang and he will not hang, leaving him 'hanging' as to when he will hang.
Perhaps this little metaphor is the surprise?

When one loves, one loves regardless if one is loved.
When one enjoys, one enjoys regardless if one is enjoyed.
Reciprocation is not affirmation, but a gift.

Does he stalk? Well as any parent.

You have yourself and what you are is a composition.

For lack of a better analogy, allow me to use soup. There are carrots, onions, water, meat. etc.
All of these on their own are ingredients, but mixed together they are soup. So is man - the soup of many ingredients and likewise yet an ingredient.

Does man have any control over the way man is? Certainly, to the extent that freedom would allow it.
Man is free to transmute oneself in to anything available. Now in truth, this would imply anything that is, but in practice man cannot transmute oneself in to something that isn't evident.
Said in simpler words: Man cannot change or be, what he cannot imagine.
Now again, a problem of practice arises; how does man change in to a bird, for instance?
Now, the bird is evident, but the method of change from man to bird is not evident.
And one must first become the method, before one becomes the bird.
Simply put: There is a gap, and no bridge.

As to how to present one's ideas in a manner that doesn't hurt - simply do not intend harm.