Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i know god is real from the practical results in my own life
which are not there without god
I am 100% certain there is a God, our dearest Heavenly Father... the Creator of All.
When I receive God's Divine Love flowing into my soul... I know it's coming from God's Holy Spirit, because it's God's essence and substance. I have felt God's presence and His substance.
Everyone needs to feel "Fresh Fire"... and then you'll know that God exists and that you are blessed.
But we know that calculus does make sense. Your argument is just a reworking of the 'You cannot see the wind' fallacy.
No, I did not say that. I said God IS reality. My argument is "those trees, those ARE the forest." And calculus makes no sense what so ever.
Quote:
Someday you will stop rejecting those sound and telling objection simply on the basis of 'what you prefer to believe'
Absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I said "many religions have always said God is not a personal, literal entity, and hence it is pointless to have one argument against all conceptualizations of God."
Quote:
Wrong. They were making god -claims from the start, yes. But the rhetorical trick of calling what we know is not god "God" and then arguing that this means that God exists and then leaping to a god that is pure imagination is a different thing entirely.
It is not a claim to say "reality is God," it is an opinion. If you are arguing that no human should ever have an opinion you are arguing for a loss of humanity.
Quote:
Because the hubby does not then chop his wife up and put her in jars. And I can understand the various ways of calling Reality "God" and "God" reality, and I deplore them, simply because crafty theists use the convention to try to wangle god onto the debating table.
It is a title used in different context, and is is obvious that that is what I was getting at.
Which is where we came in and is where we end up whatever one of your specious argument you employ.
Quote:
Like I say. It is not atheists who have to define God. Your analogy is as flawed as the rest of your logic. It is not about who knows what is or what is not a correct definition of God, but of who is using a logical fallacy.
THERE IS NO "CORRECT" DEFINITION OF GOD AS THERE IS NO "CORRECT DEFINITION OF HOT!!!!!!!!
HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND!!!!????
And yes, I define GOD as being a metaphor for reality, as have countless religious throughout human history!
Just because you can't understand these very, VERY simple concepts doesn't mean anything.
I am NOT arguing for a literal, personal God. I do not believe in a personal God. I believe God is...here, there, everywhere. And no, I DID NOT MAKE THIS UP MYSELF.
Quote:
The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name.
(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven
and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all
things.
Always without desire we must be found,
If its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.
Tao te Ching
I define God as the ultimate non-atheist did. He said
"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that"-Joseph Campbell.
So go ahead, argue that that God doesn't exist. And no, saying "that doesn't make sense" is not an argument because calculus doesn't make any sense to me, so does calculus not exist? And saying "well, most people don't believe that" is not an argument because that's basically an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Going around complaining that no one can understand things is just arrogance and hubris. Especially if all you are doing is redefining words to suit yourself. The "God is all reality" crowd are saying nothing at all. They are doing little more than displaying a fetishism for the word "god" which, since traditional and common understandings of the words have been shown to be unsubstantiated nonsense..... are simply redefining the word so they can hold on to it.
We have a word for reality. It is reality. We have a word for the universe. It is universe. We have a word for everything. It is everything. So simply changing the word "god" to mean these things might make someone feel big and clever, and that they understand things other people do not, but in reality it does nothing and says nothing. It is just linguistic gymnastics, empty, useless, and misleading.
If you want to call things "god" that require you to make up definitions for words, have at it. But any lack of understanding in others is your failing, not theirs. And the linguistic gymnastics add nothing, say nothing, and do not make you as clever and superior as you clearly imagine yourself to be.
Is there any reason to think "god exists in terms of an intelligent or intentional non-human agency that created the universe? No there is not. Are t here many things we already have words for that people like to call "god". Sure there are. LOADS. And those "gods" certainly exists, because people simple define them into existence. God is the bottle of water on my desk right now. Loe and behold.... therefore god exists!!!
I really don't believe that either of the two extremes of your poll is an intellectually legitimate answer. I always say that my beliefs are based on experience, observation, study and intuition. All four of those - including some startling direct experiences and a great deal of study - convince me to a near-certainty that consciousness survives death. This conviction gets me pretty far down the path toward a belief in some type of god (although it by no means compels a belief in a god).
The same formula - some startling direct experiences, a great deal of observation and study, and a strong intuition - has led me to a solid conviction that Christianity provides the best explanation for the reality in which we live and is probably true. Ergo, I try to live my life as though it were true, while acknowledging that I cannot achieve a level of "absolute certainty."
My experience has been that people who stake out a dogmatic position one way or the other have seldom done the level of digging into the issues that I have done over the past five or six decades. They have staked out a position on the basis of very little experience, observation, study or intuition, typically relying on dubious authority figures and the mass media or simply finding a landing spot that they find comfortable or appealing.
I really don't believe that either of the two extremes of your poll is an intellectually legitimate answer. I always say that my beliefs are based on experience, observation, study and intuition. All four of those - including some startling direct experiences and a great deal of study - convince me to a near-certainty that consciousness survives death.
Then it would be "intellectually legitimate" to note, as you did, that this has nothing to do with the OPs thread. The thread is about whether a deity exists, not about whether consciousness survives death. There could be a god, and it could be that consciousness does not survive death. Consciousness could survive death, but that does not mean there is a god. There could be other reasons why it survives death.
So if we are going to discuss the "intellectual legitimacy" of the poll the OP created, then it would be worth doing so by addressing what the poll is actually about, and not some tangential, possibly unrelated, question the OP never asked.
That said however I have no idea what "intellectual legitimacy" the claim consciousness survives death has either. There is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer.... much less in your post.... to substantiate such a notion.
The best we can do at this time is say we do not fully understand human consciousness, how it operates, or how it comes about. Yet while this statement is entirely true, what is also entirely true is that 100% of what we DO currently understand about consciousness links it to the brain. 0% of what we currently understand about it suggest a possible disconnect of any sort between the two, let alone following the death of the brain.
Nor would I rely on intuition as a basis for thinking there is a god. Intuition and things like "common sense" fail us with remarkable and consistent regularity. And we quite well understand the evolutionary basis for why our intuitions would evolve prone to the misconception there is a god. So not only is intuition not a substantiation of any kind for a god.... we are quite aware of it's biases and errors and the reasons for them.
Yes people believe there is a god, yet people believe there is an after life, but there is currently NO arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to substantiate those beliefs at this time..... and plenty of data on why we would be moved intellectually and emotionally to believe things like it anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bo Pepys
My experience has been that people who stake out a dogmatic position one way or the other have seldom done the level of digging into the issues that I have done over the past five or six decades. They have staked out a position on the basis of very little experience, observation, study or intuition, typically relying on dubious authority figures and the mass media or simply finding a landing spot that they find comfortable or appealing.
Then you will be truly overjoyed to find that my position as I described it above is not based on a single thing you have here described from your previous experiences. I neither have a dogmatic position on the matter, nor am I emotionally invested in any way in being right, or in there being no god or no after life, nor have I had any lack of digging or study or reading or research, nor have I relied or rely on a single authority figure of any sort, let alone the mass media, nor do I find what is comfortable or appealing to have any bearing whatsoever on what I believe to be true.
All I do is acknowledge the reality I observe, and as I said the reality that I observe is that the idea....... that the creation and/or maintenance of our universe has anything to do with a non-human intelligent intentional agency...... upon which things like Christianity and Islam are based..... is an idea that comes before us not just lacking in... but entirely devoid of...... any substantiation of any sort to lend it credibility. It is merely an entirely unsubstantiated hypothesis and nothing more.
It's so funny reading here...because the way my mind works is
God is the reality...the trees...no....they look like trees....good job!
Any professional illusionist would be proud!
I do not believe that any gods exist. If I am wrong, I am wrong but so would be the ones who believed in the wrong god which could be each and every person on this planet. I have lived a life that I would not be ashamed to have to defend to any diety or human.
All I do is acknowledge the reality I observe, and as I said the reality that I observe is that the idea....... that the creation and/or maintenance of our universe has anything to do with a non-human intelligent intentional agency...... upon which things like Christianity and Islam are based..... is an idea that comes before us not just lacking in... but entirely devoid of...... any substantiation of any sort to lend it credibility. It is merely an entirely unsubstantiated hypothesis and nothing more.
You are too kind in dignifying it with the label "hypothesis" IMO. Lest someone imagine that you have suggested that it is a falsifiable, and therefore scientifically testable hypothesis, I would tend to characterize it as an "unsubstantiated assertion".
"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." seems an apt use of "hypothesis" to me. Certainly having no evidence AT ALL counts as "limited" in my book. There is a book by Victor Stenger called "God: The failed hypothesis" which is also worth a read for anyone who likes picking up book recommendations out of threads like this.
Certainly however it would be nice if any of these theists pretending to talk the talk of science, but failing utterly, would come forward with at least one testable and falsifiable claim. Alas I have not yet met one making any claims that they do not couch in language that puts it beyond the veil of reason and inquiry. And the vast majority of deists and theists who define "god" at me end up defining a god who's existence and actions are entirely indistinguishable from said god not existing at all.
"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." seems an apt use of "hypothesis" to me. Certainly having no evidence AT ALL counts as "limited" in my book. There is a book by Victor Stenger called "God: The failed hypothesis" which is also worth a read for anyone who likes picking up book recommendations out of threads like this.
Certainly however it would be nice if any of these theists pretending to talk the talk of science, but failing utterly, would come forward with at least one testable and falsifiable claim. Alas I have not yet met one making any claims that they do not couch in language that puts it beyond the veil of reason and inquiry. And the vast majority of deists and theists who define "god" at me end up defining a god who's existence and actions are entirely indistinguishable from said god not existing at all.
Yes it is a perfectly valid use of the word for people who understand the nuances of the different senses in which it can be used. It is just that many theists we've engaged here don't demonstrate a command of those nuances. They can't tell the difference between "theory" in the scientific vs the colloquial senses, much less whether a hypothesis if scientifically valid. Much less whether they have any intention of investigating it in any way that doesn't beg the question or allow confirmation bias.
So to me the god proposition you are discussing is just assertions all the way down, so to speak. Empty claims not to be dignified with "sciencey" words.
But I am not the Word Police ... just pointing it out for what it is is worth. I know what you mean ;-)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I said "many religions have always said God is not a personal, literal entity, and hence it is pointless to have one argument against all conceptualizations of God." 
