I saw God yesterday, therefore, God Exists
I was thinking what if someone, say a friend, comes to you and say's " I heard God talk to me yesterday and he/she told me thus and so", would you believe it? Or, " I saw God and he spoke to me and told me not to be afraid about...". Or perhaps even still, along the lines of phenomenology, if someone has an experience where they felt : " it was like I heard a voice that said not to worry, I will take care of you. Then out of nowhere, people came into my life and provided answers to my problem I was having."
The point is, if you did not experience any of those things, what would compel another uninterested person to believe, or think, or infer, that those experiences were a result of some sense of Deity? The concept of Revelation basically describes or explains the so-called phenomenal experience that may have occurred in (our stream of) consciousness. And understanding that those experiences are primarily subjective in nature (a Subjective Truth), how would one in turn, go about proving a God exists without an objective verification? Is it through inductive reasoning?
One scenario could be that unless God, hypothetically breaks into a world wide internet transmission or appears on TV where a collective body would see, there wouldn't be such an objective verification possible. And even so, one could still argue that God's appearance was somehow fake or photoshopped.
And so my so-called thesis statement is, what do people expect when someone say's God Exists? Here's somewhat of an example or parody:
Layperson: God spoke to me yesterday
Atheist: Yeah right, and Santa Claus spoke to me too
Theist: That's awesome, I had a similar experience
Layperson: Oh thanks Theist. But Atheist, aren't you being cynical?
Atheist: No, I just don't believe in God
Theist: Don't worry layperson, he's in denial or angry about something or another
Layperson: Well, I could understand the anger and resentment from say religious fundamentalism and nonsensical ontological rhetoric about God's attributes.
Atheist: Yeah, that's right. It makes no sense
Theist: The atheist has no faith.
Layperson: Well, aside from having a so-called religious experience, perhaps in fact, the atheist never had one. Beyond that subjective experience, much of life does not make sense anyway. So, what is the atheist's argument based upon? I mean, he doesn't even understand his own (conscious) existence, so how could he know that a God doesn't exist? Besides, science still hasn't been able to create a universe.
Atheist: No, life and the universe makes perfect sense, I can prove it!
Theist: Yeah, so can I!
Layperson: Okay you guys, prove to me that life and existence is purely objective (a priori), logical and all figured out... (ToE).
So for the 101 student, what are people looking for to prove God's existence? What domains of Philosophy are appropriate? What domains of Science are appropriate?
The point is, if you did not experience any of those things, what would compel another uninterested person to believe, or think, or infer, that those experiences were a result of some sense of Deity? The concept of Revelation basically describes or explains the so-called phenomenal experience that may have occurred in (our stream of) consciousness. And understanding that those experiences are primarily subjective in nature (a Subjective Truth), how would one in turn, go about proving a God exists without an objective verification? Is it through inductive reasoning?
One scenario could be that unless God, hypothetically breaks into a world wide internet transmission or appears on TV where a collective body would see, there wouldn't be such an objective verification possible. And even so, one could still argue that God's appearance was somehow fake or photoshopped.
And so my so-called thesis statement is, what do people expect when someone say's God Exists? Here's somewhat of an example or parody:
Layperson: God spoke to me yesterday
Atheist: Yeah right, and Santa Claus spoke to me too
Theist: That's awesome, I had a similar experience
Layperson: Oh thanks Theist. But Atheist, aren't you being cynical?
Atheist: No, I just don't believe in God
Theist: Don't worry layperson, he's in denial or angry about something or another
Layperson: Well, I could understand the anger and resentment from say religious fundamentalism and nonsensical ontological rhetoric about God's attributes.
Atheist: Yeah, that's right. It makes no sense
Theist: The atheist has no faith.
Layperson: Well, aside from having a so-called religious experience, perhaps in fact, the atheist never had one. Beyond that subjective experience, much of life does not make sense anyway. So, what is the atheist's argument based upon? I mean, he doesn't even understand his own (conscious) existence, so how could he know that a God doesn't exist? Besides, science still hasn't been able to create a universe.
Atheist: No, life and the universe makes perfect sense, I can prove it!
Theist: Yeah, so can I!
Layperson: Okay you guys, prove to me that life and existence is purely objective (a priori), logical and all figured out... (ToE).
So for the 101 student, what are people looking for to prove God's existence? What domains of Philosophy are appropriate? What domains of Science are appropriate?
Comments (81)
Quoting 3017amen
Call me a cynic for subscribing to the old adage "When you talk to g/G it's prayer, but when g/G talks back it's probably schizophrenia" which I'd first heard back in the late '70s in Jesuit high school from a devout priest. :eyes:
I choose not to guess either way...although it seems certain that one is correct.
If a person says, "There are no gods"...I know that person is just sharing a blind guess.
If a person says, "At least one god exists...and that god has (in some way) revealed itself to me"...I just ask, "How do you know you are not deluding yourself?"
I've encountered several people who claim to have had a god reveal itself to them...but have never had one of them respond reasonably to the question I ask. Most merely offer, "I know I am not deluding myself"...and then refuse to discuss it further.
Not sure if that is applicable to what you are discussing here, but I hope it does.
The Jebbies were good that way. They were tough, but they were about as down to Earth as any of the orders.
this is a common theme associated with private schools associated with the Roman Papacy. The Roman Papacy has had alot of scandals in the past 40 to 50 years related to sexual conduct.
Hey 180!
Thanks for that. Actually, I'm the one who had the latter experience. I could go into somewhat shocking details of totally unplanned happenstance; an unsolicited phone call from a lending institution(s) for ALOT of money, an unsolicited individual appearing at my doorstep offering me something, an unsolicited employer offering me something, and a few more unsolicited things... . All of which I accepted to my delight.
Your comment made me think that, ironically enough, I had dated a Christian girl in college who said she was a schizophrenic, and hindsight being 20/20, I should have explored that with her a bit more...of course I don't know how much of it she would have been aware of anyway. It's an interesting thing to study though... . That maybe answers one of my questions about which domains of science could speak to phenomenology: cognitive science. Of course, we can also make inferences based upon other sciences... .
Hey Frank!
Well, one possible 'logical' response could be in that scenario, as well as other scenarios or experiences: "Either God exists, or there is a heck of a lot of coincidence. And I choose to believe in the former/latter ."
And that sort of speaks to the concept or so-called logic behind Pascal's Wager (excluding the apologetic's about punishment, etc. etc.).
As I've pointed out elsewhere - Predicates attributed (by scriptures? theology? metaphysics?) to g/G that entail evidence in the world which could not be caused by any other worldly (i.e. natural) entities and, thereby, be used as search parameters (i.e. where is g/G? when is g/G? what g/G has done that differentiates it from not-g/G?)
NB: Defeasible (& abductive, hypothetical-deductive) reasoning suffices. "Proof" obtains only in formal domains such as mathematics.
(a) Ontology (+ modal logic? actualist rather than possibilist).
(b) Epistemology (re: fallibilistic (e.g. Peirce, Dewey, Popper-Feyerabend) rather than justificatory).
Conservation laws (i.e. fundamental physical symmetries) + physics (e.g. thermodynamics, quantum cosmology), chemistry (e.g. nucleogenesis, mass spectronomy + carbon-dating), & biology (e.g. neo-darwinian evolution, population genomics + proteomics, cognitive neuroscience).
Ignoring the use of "believe" in that comment, I have no idea of what that means. Do you choose the former or the latter?
As I have mentioned several times...it is a toss up between Pascal's Wager and Occam's Razor for the most worthless philosophical prattle. Neither, in my opinion, is worth the ink used to print it on a page.
Can you give me some examples there?
Quoting 180 Proof
Are you saying formal logic will not provide much help? If so, of course, I would agree. However, except for the following:
1. Abstract mathematical reasoning itself v. the Darwinian thought process.
2. The mathematical secret to the physical world (underlying same)
3. Laws of gravity not required for survival
There are more, but that's all for now :blush:
Quoting 180 Proof
Examples, in form of propositional statements?
Quoting 180 Proof
Example, in the form of propositional statements or judgements?
And, thanks for your contributions!
If spam is now proof of God, then he truly is Satan.
Frank!
The former. I'm saying that the concept of a God certainly exists. Why wouldn't it? A concept of Santa exists too. Is there a difference to you? And is that subjective? And is subjectivity wrong, right or incorrect?
How would, in your view, Occam's razor square with theoretical physics and/or common everyday inference?
If your spam resulted in winning the lottery (not that that happened to me), would you then call your spam evil? (LOL)
If spam is God, then he's sitting right next to the Nigerian Prince in my trash folder. Hope they're enjoying each other's company!
Sorry for this observation; are you one of those stereotypical angry atheists? Do you have an axe to grind about something?
Sorry, without you adding anything constructive, your one-liner political statements seem to indicate such. Actually, ironically enough, you seem to be the typical Atheist from the OP/parody. (LOL)
You say this without any realization of irony, I presume?
You say this without any realization of ad hominem , I presume?
Again the irony: there are indeed ad hominems in our conversation. But you won't find them in my posts.
Funny, I could have sworn you meant to say contradiction.
LOL
Sorry, but you'll have to be less cryptic about that one.
Just attempting to understand where you stand, Amen. The "I believe in the former/latter" did not compute.
Yeah, the concept of a god exists...but what does that do for the conversation. The concept of everything for which there is a word...exists.
Maybe I am dense, but I do not understand what point you are trying to make.
In my opinion, Occam's razor is crap...and MUCH too given to misuse. But even if used the way Occam intended...it leads to error as often as to truth. It is totally useless in much (perhaps most) of modern physics and quantum mechanics.
It is a simplistic look at how to do science...and while it may have had applicability back in the 14th century...it has almost none right now. (Same holds for most philosophical paradigms constructed to show a God exists.)
Frank!
Great comments, thanks. Well, lets parse the meaning of concepts and reality. If it is true that we live primarily in an abstract reality, what would it be to distinguish between what is real and not real?
For instance, other than the physical, it appears that there are more abstract things existing than there are concrete things existing (if you were to include the concept of time) to a value of 3 to 1 (the mental, mathematics, time itself, and the physical--respectively)? In other words there are more abstract things that exist, no?
Quoting Frank Apisa
I thought that probability theory ( justification of Occam's razor ) was alive and well, no?
I think the concept of faith has changed dramatically from the way it was presented in ancient texts from the way we consider it now. We consider faith to be that unshakable belief that comes to us without any sort of empirical proof, arising out of a sense of wonder, the impossibility of offering other explanations, and hope, emotion, or whatever. Someone who believes in God because he saw God is not a man of great faith any more than someone who believes in trees because he saw a tree. You can't prove God by reference to empirical evidence because if you did, you would be misunderstanding the epistemological method for believing in God, which is through faith alone.
Kierkegaard wrote that he found Abraham's acceptance of God's request that he sacrifice Isaac to be the ultimate act of faith. Abraham didn't question, but he just went up the mountain to kill his son that he loved so dearly. I found that act not one of faith at all, though, not at least as we currently understand faith to be. The text shows that Abraham spoke directly to God, that God told him that his wife Sarah would bear a child at the age of 90, and then she did. If God told me my 90 year old wife was going to get pregnant and then she did, I would believe in God because of that, not because of any great faith.
My point being that when you say "God," and I think of the God of the Old Testament, I think you prove his existence in ancient times by seeing such things as his speaking the universe into existence, his warning of and then bringing a great flood, his having manna fall from heaven, his splitting of the red sea, and many other miracles. If that all happened back then, you didn't need faith. Today, you just gotta believe. Which means you don't prove God exists now, you try to offer people the advantages of belief, which is why converting someone to a religion is such a different process than convincing someone their house is on fire.
If existence is just an illusion...there is no way to do that. I do not know...and neither does anyone else.
Question: Is existence an illusion?
Only reasonable answer: Beats the hell out of me.
I have no idea...and I suspect neither does anyone else. We can make guesses...and play with those guesses...but EXISTENCE may be something so different from what homo sapiens is able to conceptualize...that best to just leave it be.
We don't even know for certain what exists right here in the supposed space we occupy. There may be dimensions of REALITY that humans cannot sense...and cannot even envision.
Probability theory is NOT a justification of Occam's razor. Nothing is. It was a thought that came up at one point in our history...and now is virtually useless.
I repeat what I said earlier: Using Occam's razor will result in as many incorrect conclusions as correct.
Both Faith and scientific theories are spectrums. Scientific theories have been disproven in the past (and yes i do believe in evolution). Faith can be based on almost no real sense of reality, some partial sense, or faith can be my good friend said he would give me $10 tommorow, so i'm going to be feeling confident he'll give me the $10 tommorow.
Scientific theories are very often proven with test result of 90%, 95% apparent certainty, but once in blue moon a variable or angle of perspective was overlooked, and thus the equation (or sometimes equations) changes completely (including output), and the theory atleast to a significant degree is disproven. This happens sometimes.
We have had this discussion before but what the heck, let's try again. Maybe it will get better.
If you are having conversations with God, what is there to prove? The whole thing about proof, as something that people do, is to make something necessary beyond any doubt. If God starts talking to me in clear language that my tiny mind understands, it will be life changing and incommunicable to others. Other people don't want to hear about the good time I am having with God.
And I don't blame them for their resentment. It is really annoying to have other people claim a relation to stuff that others don't feel, share, or understand.
What could make for a different outcome?
It ought to read: I saw God yesterday, therefore God existed yesterday.
Today is a new mystery.
true fiscal conservatism, embraced by people who are supposed to like true fiscal conservatism. I'm only half joking.
i suppose the answer you are looking for is the cliche, "religionist XYZ should love their neighbor as themselves", and then more people would be open to embrace a particular religion.
Not in your life time buddy. :)
On the contrary. More space should be given to individual experience without the need for explaining why.
I honestly don't know what the subject you are talking about. I know it is common for most users to ask for a clarification, just to prove a point or something along those lines, but at this point in time i don't know the context of what you are saying.
More space for what type of house to live in or what video game to buy? I agree with that. If you apply that phrase you gave to alot of things i would agree? But perhaps not all.
What is the context that you meant?
oh wait now i see. brb.
Amen (the user) was saying he hypothetically might have saw God or diety, what is wrong with sharing that experience? I suppose you might say such things are so flippant that they aren't worth emphasizing by religionists.
i guess thats fair.
One way to look at it is that the language of the mystics will never square with that of those who are interested in the boundary between the possible and what have you.
For myself, the two registers are too far apart to have an argument with each other.
But others do not feel or think that way.
My point of view is not close enough to others to make an argument either way.
I accept the criticism that such a point of view doesn't try to sort out a lot of issues.
But I own that lack of clarity. I don't blow it off as unimportant.
i more or less agree.
In a word: power. And that means prediction and control. We care about what can help or harm us. Feed the hungry. Foil the tyrant. Heal the sick. To an unbeliever like myself, religion taken literally looks like wishful thinking. I wish there was a benevolent god. It's such a nice idea that I'm amazed I haven't let myself believe it without evidence. The skeptical path is a dark one. It's a manifestation of elitism through a 'dietary restriction' (what the mind will accept as reliable.)
"Believe in" it, huh?
accepting and believing are both spectrums, and these are two spectrums with very similar meanings atleast in the case when they are used in certain contexts.
I could have said "i accept evolution" or "i accept the theory of evolution" or "i accept that the theory of evolution is true".
Perhaps at one time to be an atheist or agnostic was being a rebel, however in this day and age such people are dime a dozen. The two main characters in the movie "Juno" describe most people who come out of high school in America.
But i should say being a rebel or different doesn't neccesarily equate to being an ethical person.
It does seem as though the theory of evolution has a lot going for it. My guess would be that where we are not...where all living things are now...evolved from some earlier forms.
That "believe in" construct just sits so poorly with me, I mention it from time to time.
Valentinus!
I don't quite remember the previous discussion, but in any case I agree with your premise.
Once more, there are plenty of illusionary and/or mysterious things in life that seem real (paradoxical: time, conscious existence, abstract truth's, etc.) and so I never understood why an atheist could feel comfortable with their position. It actually seems a bit ignorant, considering all the knowledge out there. Perhaps their inability to disprove that a God exists results in that resentment you mentioned...
For example, if someone has a William James 'religious experience' (as you alluded), that is real to them. That is their truth; their experience of God, whatever that would comprise phenomenologically...
And so, I can't really answer your question about what would make a different outcome(?)
Hanover!
Thank you for those thoughts, relative to the distinctions of Faith v. experience that is... . I agree with you for the most part. However, if one did not have the ability to experience actual experience itself (or experience empirical evidence), then there would be no reason to believe through say, inductive reasoning, that phenomenal happenstance actually exists. Pragmatically, that has value and a purpose. It helps to provide for a meaning. Otherwise, we are just brains in a jar, pontificating about something or another. So, we can embrace experience as a meaningful thing.
Conversely, you mentioned the sense of wonderment (that exists a priori without experience). That in itself is a metaphysical property of consciousness (conscious existence). An innate thing that we have which has no biological/evolutionary advantages. And so yes, I would agree, that in itself, could lead to a cognitive feeling or justification of a faith. Similar to the other synthetic a priori judgements like : all events must have a cause.
Of course Kant believed in those innate structures of thought from consciousness, however, we know he never took the Kierkegaardian leap of faith.
I'm okay with the paradigms of Faith, Hope, and Love. What would Darwin say about those metaphysical properties of conscious existence, I wonder :cool:
Frank!
I realize that word 'Belief' gets under your skin. It would be intriguing to explore some of the reasons with you, as I don't recall us ever chatting or reading about that... . Can you elaborate on your contempt of same?
Christian!
I get a sense that you are opposed to the dichotomization of creation and evolution. Can they co-exist? For instance, in a similar fashion, theoretical physicist Paul Davies has a theory about the concept of a di-polar God, are you familiar with that?
Most of the time the words "believe/belief" don't bother me at all. "I 'believe' I'll take a wizz before heading to the store" is not gonna faze me a bit. "I 'believe' the GIANTS are gonna have a great season"...is fine with me.
But in a Philosophy forum...when matters of the true nature of the REALITY of existence are being discussed, I think the words are inappropriate.
For instance, a person saying, "I believe there are no gods" is really saying, "It is my blind guess that no gods exist."
Why not say it that way? Why disguise it?
That give you a taste of my distaste of the words. If you want to travel further down this path, we can do so. Not sure it is appropriate for this thread, though.
Am!
Just so I understand, was the answer to that question in the OP, comprise your forgoing thoughts about religious paradigm's or dogma or fundamentalism, etc. etc.?
Since you are a Christian, i can't be accused of evangelizing and break forum rules so
Genesis chapter 2, KJV, ESV, New Arabic version, and also Hebrew all point to an old earth. Are you familiar with time dilation or special relativity?
Proverbs chapter 1 KJV says we need to embrace spectrum and also dark sayings (as in deep and heavily implicit statements).
Job chapter 12 says "speak to the earth and it will teach you"
Job also says that God/Jesus Christ created the universe or earth with tremendous wizdom which would imply it took a long time or his thoughts raced through his head and he ran a ridicoulous number of scenarios to produce the wizdom to make heavens (universe) and the earth the way it is.
There is also the cliche verse from the new testament "a day is a 1000 years and a 1000 years is a day for God"
Then there is the verse out of the book of Hebrews that says if we do XYZ we can enter into God's 7th day which implies his 7th day isn't a 24 hour day.
One of the words for day in Hebrew is Yom, yom is not neccesarily a 24 hour day. I believe yom is used in genesis 1 and 2.
Back in my Yom (day), we had to walk up hill both ways and we didn't have shoes. Are you familiar with that joke or cliche?
Evolution while possibly might not be the reality of everything does not break whatsoever with either the old testament nor the new testament, unless you can prove otherwise.
also check out genesis chapter 1 & possibly do a google translate of genesis chapter 2 for new arabic version NAV.
In any of the versions i mentioned before pay attention genesis 2:4 and i think maybe genesis 2:7 (not sure about 2:7 because its been a while). You should read the whole chapter.
Once again because you are a Christian this can't be classified as evangelizing.
Frank!
Well, I get it, sort of... . I mean I get the ambiguous usage.
And it's okay to parse the meaning of belief because in my opinion it is still germaine. It seems to me that faith and belief are closely related. For example, at the risk of redundancy, the Kantian judgment that all events must have a cause, is based on an element of faith or belief, or something...
And the so-called pragmatics of that proposition or judgement (or irony in the case of the atheist), is the essence of , or what drives the logic, behind thoretical physics. In other words, most all physical theories start with a synthetic premise. A premise that can be tested. Part of the scientific method.
So there is some sort of belief system at work in our consciousness...
I agree with this. They are related.
"Belief" (in the context we are discussing) is a blind guess about the unknown.
"Faith" is INSISTING that the blind guess is correct.
Here's the so-called definition standards:
Belief:
1.an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work" ·
synonyms:
guess · speculation · surmise · fancy · notion · suspicion · presumption ·
•something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
"we're prepared to fight for our beliefs" ·
synonyms:
opinion · view · viewpoint · point of view · attitude · stance · stand ·
•a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs" ·
synonyms:
ideology · principle · ideal · ethic · conviction · doctrine · teaching · dogma · tenet · canon · article of faith · credence · creed · credo · code of belief
2.
(belief in)
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics" ·
Faith:
1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:
trust · belief · confidence · conviction · credence · reliance · dependence · optimism · hopefulness · hope · expectation
2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"
synonyms:
religion · church · sect · denomination · persuasion · religious persuasion · religious belief · belief · code of belief · ideology · creed · teaching · dogma · doctrine
•a system of religious belief.
"the Christian faith"
synonyms:
religion · religious belief(s) · religious persuasion · religious conviction ·
•a strongly held belief or theory.
"the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe"
Frank!
I don't think Belief is a blind guess. Belief, in the context we are discussing (synthetic a priori statements/judgements) are not blind in the sense of what is referred to as a person having blind faith. A belief is both an innate sense of something (an idea existing), along with some empirical evidence that infers existence or possibility. Life without a belief system, or life without a system of beliefs, would not allow our sense of wonderment to flourish. Flourish in the context of scientific discovery, advanced cognition, and other quality of life (meaning/purpose) features of conscious existence.
Now all that relates back to metaphysical elements of consciousness which transcends Darwinism, yes?
You don't, huh?
Okay.
On the question, "Does at least one god exist...or do no gods exist?"...
...tell me how a response in either direction is NOT a blind guess?
There is absolutely nothing one can do to answer that question...except to make a blind guess. One could just as easily flip a coin.
No I don't. Philosophically, you could say belief is all part of a justified true belief, belief system.
If I tell you I saw God, or had a religious experience, would you believe me? If I read that someone saw God in a history book, or had a religious experience in a history book, should I believe them? What if the teacher teaches me, a something; is that true?
Faith would be trusting what I said, or what I read, is true. Which begs the question, what is true? (What does truth really mean.)
Thoughts?
Not sure what to say...you are moving all over the place rather than discussing a single issue.
I am saying that a statement like "I 'believe' there are no gods"...is nothing more than a blind guess about whether any gods exist or not.
I also am saying that a statement like "I 'believe' (in) God" also is nothing more than a blind guess about whether any gods exist or not.
You seem to disagree.
If you are...tell me how either of those statements is NOT a blind guess.
"i have faith that my mother will get the job"
Mom went to school for x years and got y certificates.
Mom is not a crack head
To some extent Mom is qualified for the job.
This type of faith (a very common faith) is not blind faith. not all faith is blind faith.
"IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING!"
I have written those words several times in this thread.
I am discussing people using the words "believe/belief" and "faith" IN THE CONTEXT OF A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE.
It really has nothing to do with your mother, Christian. Surely she is a fine woman...learned, educated...and not a crack-head. I hope she gets the job.
thanks she got the job! She is a cocktail waitress at the bunny ranch in Nevada.
If the multiverse exists, then what you're mis-understanding as God is actually community.
You project that some immaterial form exists.
This may be so, but why would it encompass all of the universe and work alone? Isn't that better a 2 man job? So God is less significant than you'd first thought.
The [I]moderators of existence[/I] are just that.
Member 'of existence' is a more crucial topic.
How things can exist. How the universe came to be. Etc. All fall into that category.
It isn't all reduced to one being, but perhaps one, or multiple types of being are involved in the creation of simulation. That's a species, not a deity.
Well Frank, this subject is not for the faint of hearts. It's quite comprehensive. Think of it this way, virtually all domains of Philosophy invoke God. So, that didn't come from me, it came from Philosophy :gasp:
Quoting Frank Apisa
I'm trying to, you're not listening Frank. Let's start with this train of thought:
If I tell you I saw God, or had a religious experience, would you believe me? If I read that someone saw God in a history book, or had a religious experience in a history book, should I believe them? What if the teacher teaches me, a something; is that true?
Are you sure?
Quoting wiyte
What is; wonder, the will, colors, love, sentience, music, mathematics, change, and of course, consciousness? (What is the nature of those things and can they be explained logically without paradox?) Is that/those things metaphysical or material?
How things can exist. How the universe came to be. Etc. All fall into that category.
It isn't all reduced to one being, but perhaps one, or multiple types of being are involved in the creation of simulation. That's a species, not a deity.
I'm not following you exactly there...I guess I'll ask the rhetorical question; how do things exist? (Through what methodology, axiom, or domain of Philosophy & Science?)
How did God come to be?
Then why arent there others exploiting this nature of becoming a God?
Did he secure the position by not letting anyone else become a God?
When something first begins, there's likely a variety of similar existences all using the same method. Call it a playground of the Gods.
I'd be more understanding. I'd look at the 'playground' equally as I'd look at the Gods.
So what you're confusing as God is actually the nature of Gods.
(Nothing like deities, more like a species).
1. Answer: Not sure; how did your own existence come to be; is it infinitely regressive you think? If the answer is yes, that may answer part of your question. Otherwise, you're left with the simple act of creation, your mom and dad's procreation :chin:
Then why arent there others exploiting this nature of becoming a God?
2. Answer: do not understand the question, please re-state(?)
Did he secure the position by not letting anyone else become a God?
3. Answer: same as item 2.
Quoting wiyte
I'm not following you wiyte, is that the answer to my questions?
LOL
Okay...you are still going to bullshit around.
No problemo. I just thought you were serious.
I'll leave you to your fallacy then.
How did God come to be?
The bible suggests that in the beginning was God. It skips how God came to be.
In answering my only question in this post, you would discover 'becoming a God'. When at the time of before the universe, 'becoming a God' is a measure of what's possible. You, at this time. become a God if you do this. Therefore, likely a species exists.
I'm not explaining to you again. If you mis-understand.
Something did something to become God, something created God.
Frank!
What's the problem, I thought we were engaging in discursive debate? I hope you are not acquiescing by silence/not answering my questions concerning belief... .
Gosh, you are 'dropping like flies'. Think about my answers and come back with some constructive criticism when you can!
Be well!
I am interested in YOU answering my question first...then we can go to your question.
Here it is again:
[b]I am saying that a statement like "I 'believe' there are no gods"...is nothing more than a blind guess about whether any gods exist or not.
I also am saying that a statement like "I 'believe' (in) God" also is nothing more than a blind guess about whether any gods exist or not.
You seem to disagree.
If you are...tell me how either of those statements is NOT a blind guess.[/b]
Yes. I disagree. Please see my response and follow-up query. Are you not able to debate those?
I KNOW YOU DISAGREE, AMEN.
I am asking why you think either or both of those statements are NOT just blind guesses.
Yes Frank, and I am saying that, by positing my simple questions about belief, those should make sense to you and provide part of the answers...but you refuse to dialogue with me.
I don't know what else I can do. Do you want to parse the differences between objective and subjective truth's? I asked you what was the nature of a truth, and you said I was 'all over the place'. Then I answered that a belief can be held philosophically as a justified true belief.
And so in the specific context of the OP, you refused to answer the questions concerning what might be a type of belief, hence:
If I tell you I saw God, or had a religious experience, would you believe me? If I read that someone saw God in a history book, or had a religious experience in a history book, should I believe them? What if the teacher teaches me, a something; is that true?
Okay...I'm not going to get an answer...and I am tired of asking.
Maybe we will meet in another thread.
Quoting 3017amen
Try thinking about those questions relative to the OP. You might find the answer you are looking for....
Otherwise, I get it. No problem, if you are not ready to dialogue with me, till next time Frank!
Be well my brother!
Stay safe yourself, Amen. Same to everyone in the forum.
Quoting 3017amen
My answer addressed only one conception of religion. Personally I find religion to be symbolically true in many ways and cases. Various important repeatable insights are encoded in religious texts, art, and rituals. But I understand that to be a dominant and uncontroversial view.
For experiences of God/gods to be taken as more than metaphors for states of mind, I suggest that power is what would convince, if it were indeed manifest. Instead the so-called problem of evil suggests the rhetorical necessity for a hidden or mysterious God. The 'obvious' lack of benevolent divine rule has to be explained away somehow.
I agree that it's no longer rebellious to be irreligious. I'd say that the dominant religion has simply changed. It's all on the front page of the culture war. The trans issue (to name just one) is a 'theological' problem. People were once terrified of being called atheists and are now terrified of being called racists, homophobes, etc. At the same time, someone like Jordan Peterson (who remembers him now?) could become almost instantly famous by casting himself as a rebel against the 'rebellion.'
I have seen Juno, and I agree with what I think is your implicit criticism of a certain predictable persona. I follow pop culture, and certain themes and heroes have been repeated, repeated, repeated. At the same time, godlessness is a difficult path, even as it becomes more common. The young, beautiful, and rich are living in the high-tech garden of delights, so they are exceptions perhaps.
"godlessness is a difficult path"
Based on your response you would agree godlessness (what you mean by godlessness based on the context) is a spectrum. Simple example: many Christian people are godless.
Until this country embraces true fiscal conservatism (overly-simplified: need to modify building codes)(not just raise taxes or lower taxes), it will be hard to be a moderate godless person or any person who can percieve other people's problems to a certain threshold.
Our generation has been wiped out by lazy & war mongering politicitians, suicide, a subset of Republicans who don't know what true fiscal conservatism, and as well corruption in the domestic sphere which is atleast indirectly the result of a corrupt church.
There are infact alternatives to suicide.
#Shark_Fighter_Nation
or
#Fight_A_Rattle_Snake_With_A_Pair_Of_Garden_Shears
Have a great week Sir!
I think the notion of god as a creator and the fact that gods began as beings who controlled nature says it all - god(s) were explanations of natural phenomena and of nature itself. The problem is that the explanation (god) is a product of shoddy thinking - more of a vague notion than a carefully considered inference.
Isn't it obvious then that as the suns pass by, as people put the idea of god under the lens of rigorous logic, that flaws will be detected in our conception of the divine? In other words, proving god will be next to impossible; its origins in the dim intellect of our ancestors is to blame.
So, it's not as much a matter of what kind of proof will satisfy the questioning skeptic as it is about the inherent flaws in the concept of god. Think of it; if god were defined as being as emotional as us, having flaws as we all do, imperfect so to speak, then many atheistic arguments like the problem of evil wouldn't pack the punch it does with the current definition of god as perfect in every way.
Well said TMF!! I believe 'carefully considered inference' bridges the domains of both science and philosophy. And all that of course, is looking at the problem through the macro lens, as you suggest. Nevertheless, while logical inference is the wind that propels us into the next dimension of a newness/awareness, and/or a new way of Being. It is apposed to the contrast of deduction and the limitations thereto. And that is mostly because living life is not A or B, it's A and B. In other words, the irony is that while deduction is very useful in its own right, it cannot exclusively help us with the human condition and our way of Being. But you already knew all that!
With respect to the concept of God that you mentioned, I think about the omni-trilemma, or Epicurus Trilemma . We must remember that these were just humans who came up with the idea. Hence the fallibility of same. (Although one could reconcile part of the omni-attributes/dilemma if one incorporates randomness from, say, physics into a notion of macro-inference and/or other analogous/metaphorical ways of Being.)
In any case, we can't stay trapped in the logic of language here because we know that the meaning of life stuff, concerns us more with things that transcend language itself... . And so back to your idea of sentience, along with the notion that if one were to combine that with experience, phenomenology(ineffable phenom), existentialism, cosmology & metaphysics/consciousness, we would abdicate Dr. Spock's pure reason by subordinating that to the higher reaches of human nature; life isn't so bad after all :snicker:
And all of that would suggest yet another domain being relevant here: cognitive science. Of course, William James, Carl Jung, AH Maslow, and other's would be somewhat germane there...
You'll have to read 'the book' and suck the sweet meats (i.e. aporia & arguments) off of these bones (i.e. criteria, methods & vocabulary) for yourself then. I'll be sure to ring the cannibell when this still-moveable feast (i.e. manuscript draft) is finally self-served.
:up: 180, Danke Schon!
“God is the name we give to the science we don't understand. Science is the name we give to the God we don't understand.”
? Steve Maraboli, Unapologetically You: Reflections on Life and the Human Experience
"Deus, sive natura."
~Lil Benny (previously Lil Barry)