U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-12-2018, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
16,066 posts, read 7,627,690 times
Reputation: 15997

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Evidence of what? The existence of our reality - the reason we exist? Quit being coy. Your default position is a mere preference so no evidence is required to refute it.
I didn't think so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2018, 03:46 PM
 
Location: WV and Eastport, ME
9,711 posts, read 9,916,689 times
Reputation: 6514
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
"Natural" is the swindle, Arq. What the hell IS natural? How would you differentiate it from "God's existence requires that things work this way?" You pretend that it is an explanation that differs. How so? How do "natural forces" differ from "God's very existence requires that things work this way?" It is a pure preference because you prefer no reason (no God) for your existence because our reality IS the reason (God) for your existence. But since it is unknown and NOT knowable you demand that the unknowable must somehow be known - produce the evidence. Pure preference and sophistry.
Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain to use how a person can tell the difference between "natural forces" and "God's very existence requires that things work this way." Transponder says things like gravity, relativity, laws of physics, chemical reactions, etc., are natural things. You say they are proof that God requires that things work this way. I can't understand how a sentient, omnipresent, all-powerful deity can be extrapolated from the fact that gravity holds us on the face of the earth, chemical reactions are predictable, etc. What makes these things absolutely attributable to God?
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2018, 10:22 PM
 
35,850 posts, read 24,049,767 times
Reputation: 5708
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
I didn't think so.
Your intellectual engagement of the issues is awesome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2018, 10:34 PM
 
35,850 posts, read 24,049,767 times
Reputation: 5708
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain to use how a person can tell the difference between "natural forces" and "God's very existence requires that things work this way." Transponder says things like gravity, relativity, laws of physics, chemical reactions, etc., are natural things. You say they are proof that God requires that things work this way. I can't understand how a sentient, omnipresent, all-powerful deity can be extrapolated from the fact that gravity holds us on the face of the earth, chemical reactions are predictable, etc. What makes these things absolutely attributable to God?
For clarity, I do not say God requires that things work this way. I said God's EXISTENCE requires that they work this way. It is a subtle distinction but a profound one based on the idea that God IS everything, i.e., everything is some part of God's functioning as a living entity. You are injecting beliefs ABOUT God when you ask "how a sentient, omnipresent, all-powerful deity" can be extrapolated from the existence of everything. It is as incoherent as to ask how you as a sentient being can be extrapolated from the functioning of your bowels and pancreas, etc. from the perspective of a sentient cell of your own body.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2018, 11:27 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
16,066 posts, read 7,627,690 times
Reputation: 15997
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Your intellectual engagement of the issues is awesome.
I prefer concrete thinking over tap dancing. I prefer evidence over clever debate.

You can't prove there's a god. Although I believe he existed, you can't even prove Jesus existed. You can't give any evidence for all the miracles, nor explain why so many miracles occurred 2,000+ years ago, but are never done today.

Those of us who are atheists have nothing to prove for one simple reason...for the vast majority of us, if you showed us concrete evidence, we'd believe. But you can't. I would love to be re-convinced there's a god. But for all your clever repartee, you provide no evidence to even begin to counterbalance the life that has passed before me over 68 years. I have heard all the excuses why -- when Christians pray and nothing happens -- god ignored them (he works in mysterious ways, he has other plans, etc.; which begs the question that if god is going to do what he wants, why bother to pray?). I'm tired of hearing fables of burning bushes, the parting of seas by a man, bread falling from heaven, a man being swallowed by a whale and living, immaculate conceptions, raising multiple people from the dead, men walking on water (that isn't frozen due to the weather), feeding the multitudes with a couple of fish, etc., when we know none of those things have happened in fully recorded history. I could make up all sorts of stuff, too, but that doesn't mean anyone would believe it; and if they did, I'd say, "Sucker!" Of course, I have seen one miracle -- the miracle of Christian moralists voting for an admitted grabber of you know whats, making him president. For me, that was next to the last straw.

Last edited by phetaroi; 02-13-2018 at 12:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2018, 05:43 AM
 
Location: WV and Eastport, ME
9,711 posts, read 9,916,689 times
Reputation: 6514
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
For clarity, I do not say God requires that things work this way. I said God's EXISTENCE requires that they work this way. It is a subtle distinction but a profound one based on the idea that God IS everything, i.e., everything is some part of God's functioning as a living entity. You are injecting beliefs ABOUT God when you ask "how a sentient, omnipresent, all-powerful deity" can be extrapolated from the existence of everything. It is as incoherent as to ask how you as a sentient being can be extrapolated from the functioning of your bowels and pancreas, etc. from the perspective of a sentient cell of your own body.
What a silly distinction. OK, then. What evidence do you have to support "the idea that God IS everything" as opposed to the idea that God is "a sentient being outside our reality?" So far, it looks like you and about 2 or 3 other people seem to think that God is everything while several Billion people think otherwise. What makes you think you are the only one(s) that got it right?
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2018, 09:10 AM
 
3,678 posts, read 872,289 times
Reputation: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
What a silly distinction. OK, then. What evidence do you have to support "the idea that God IS everything" as opposed to the idea that God is "a sentient being outside our reality?" So far, it looks like you and about 2 or 3 other people seem to think that God is everything while several Billion people think otherwise. What makes you think you are the only one(s) that got it right?
He has a PHD! Why wouldn't we believe him?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2018, 02:23 PM
 
35,850 posts, read 24,049,767 times
Reputation: 5708
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
For clarity, I do not say God requires that things work this way. I said God's EXISTENCE requires that they work this way. It is a subtle distinction but a profound one based on the idea that God IS everything, i.e., everything is some part of God's functioning as a living entity. You are injecting beliefs ABOUT God when you ask "how a sentient, omnipresent, all-powerful deity" can be extrapolated from the existence of everything. It is as incoherent as to ask how you as a sentient being can be extrapolated from the functioning of your bowels and pancreas, etc. from the perspective of a sentient cell of your own body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
What a silly distinction. OK, then. What evidence do you have to support "the idea that God IS everything" as opposed to the idea that God is "a sentient being outside our reality?" So far, it looks like you and about 2 or 3 other people seem to think that God is everything while several Billion people think otherwise. What makes you think you are the only one(s) that got it right?
It may seem silly to you, but it is far from it because I limit the evidence of God's existence to that which we can verify and not the beliefs and demands of humans about what God MUST be. You seem to have ignored or skipped over the bold above. It is essential to reorient your perspective from a separate entity observing a Reality of separate things to the perspective of a single sentient "cell" within a single living entity. It is not even controversial that the very existence of our Reality is the source of and reason everything exists or that we are within it. Leaving aside the very human concerns about Creator/creation that are unique to finite, separate sentient beings, that evidence alone meets the most basic and earliest conception of God as the source and reason we exist. ALL the other attributes assigned to God by humans are subject to question and debate on the merits, but NOT the existence of God.

Once that new perspective is adopted, the issue of infinite regress, composition fallacies, and other nonsense peculiar to the "separate things" perspective disappear. The existence of God issue then redounds to the realm of preference and bias that has plagued all theories about what our God (Reality) IS. Those who prefer no reason for their existence choose different labels for God. Those who acknowledge a reason for their existence choose God. The reasons for the disparate preferences vary widely and are usually tied to expectations of humans about God's other attributes and their relation to the existence of suffering. I came to an awareness of the existence of God through personal experience and devoid of expectations since I was an atheist with no expectations about any God. The Oneness of everything, despite my retention of a sense of self, was unmistakable and changed my life dramatically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2018, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
16,066 posts, read 7,627,690 times
Reputation: 15997
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It may seem silly to you, but it is far from it because I limit the evidence of God's existence to that which we can verify and not the beliefs and demands of humans about what God MUST be. You seem to have ignored or skipped over the bold above. It is essential to reorient your perspective from a separate entity observing a Reality of separate things to the perspective of a single sentient "cell" within a single living entity. It is not even controversial that the very existence of our Reality is the source of and reason everything exists or that we are within it. Leaving aside the very human concerns about Creator/creation that are unique to finite, separate sentient beings, that evidence alone meets the most basic and earliest conception of God as the source and reason we exist. ALL the other attributes assigned to God by humans are subject to question and debate on the merits, but NOT the existence of God.

Once that new perspective is adopted, the issue of infinite regress, composition fallacies, and other nonsense peculiar to the "separate things" perspective disappear. The existence of God issue then redounds to the realm of preference and bias that has plagued all theories about what our God (Reality) IS. Those who prefer no reason for their existence choose different labels for God. Those who acknowledge a reason for their existence choose God. The reasons for the disparate preferences vary widely and are usually tied to expectations of humans about God's other attributes and their relation to the existence of suffering. I came to an awareness of the existence of God through personal experience and devoid of expectations since I was an atheist with no expectations about any God. The Oneness of everything, despite my retention of a sense of self, was unmistakable and changed my life dramatically.
Gee, you're "aware" of God. So it must be true.

Some Hindus are aware of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Saraswathi, Lakshmi, Parvati, and Ganesha. So they must be real, too.

Muslims are aware of the truth and reality of Mohamed. So he must be a valid figure to worship, too.

Jim Jones was aware of god's wishes. He must have been right. And David Koresh. Matthew Hale. Michael Bray. Marshall Applewhite. Fred Phelps. All were aware of god and god's wishes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2018, 03:17 PM
 
35,850 posts, read 24,049,767 times
Reputation: 5708
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
Gee, you're "aware" of God. So it must be true.
Some Hindus are aware of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Saraswathi, Lakshmi, Parvati, and Ganesha. So they must be real, too.
Muslims are aware of the truth and reality of Mohamed. So he must be a valid figure to worship, too.
Jim Jones was aware of god's wishes. He must have been right. And David Koresh. Matthew Hale. Michael Bray. Marshall Applewhite. Fred Phelps. All were aware of god and god's wishes.
I detected a sincere anguish and angst in your rejection of God that I am certain is genuine and firmly based on experience. I have no desire to puncture whatever intellectual accommodation you have made to address that. I will simply state that there is only ONE Reality so there is only ONE God, whatever anyone prefers to call God based on their culture, and life experiences. The consciousness I encountered was unconditional love, acceptance, and joy in a Oneness that was inexplicably comprised of infinite diversity. I reject anything that is incompatible or inconsistent with those attributes. I suspect those products of human consciousness (thoughts and feelings) are subject to "reaping what they sow" in a refinement process to remove the dross. Perhaps God has a "spiritual anus" to eliminate the "waste" consciousness and "recycle" it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top