Classical arguments for the existence of God (Buddhism, Commandment, originate)
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.
You would have to do what mystics do in order to obtain that personal experience, then you would understand. All mystics have the same experiences of God. It has been tested by them throughout the ages. It changes their lives for the better. I would suggest your reading Dr. Andrew Newberg's books. That is the closest a person who has not had the experience can come to understanding it. Or read books that explain the experiences that mystics have. There are people that have had such experiences that were not even mystics, and their lives have been changed because they know. Many people are just materialists and so want to see proof in a lab or some other material way. It just doesn't happen that way.
You apperently make the mistakes of...
1. Assuming all "mystics" get in touch with Jehovah.
2. I am an Athiest.
"Mystics" are nothing special in the realm of the religious.
The ability to discern the difference between reality and possible self delusion
A "personal truth" is not truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
"Mystics" are nothing special
so then people like the Dalia Lama, Martin Luther King, Chief Sealth, Mahatma Gandhi, the Baal Shem Tov, and Siddhārtha Gautama are.....nothing special?
they are frauds and phonies?
they are delusional and crazy?
they are filled with dishonesty and deceit?
they are lacking in intelligence and common sense?
are you honestly saying you know better, and know more, than the people listed above?
Location: where the moss is taking over the villages
2,184 posts, read 5,547,781 times
Reputation: 1270
if one doesn't entertain the notion of an internally percieved reality, then of course that one person will not likely have a shred of patience for those who do.
classical arguments for the existence of god plainly serve the proponents with their own flavor of rationale. therefore, it would be a circuitous argument of no satisfaction to the more non-theistic people! it tends to be an endless roundabout of dissatisfaction.
mystics: if it weren't for them, i'd have no temptation to believe in spirituality. it's the poetry of their lives & hence their inspiration that drives some of us to forego the cold reality of simple outward & scientific empiricism in favor of poetic interpretation of an internally perceived reality.
as my boyfriend tends to be of the atheistic leaning sort, strongly so, he certainly must find compensating factors on my side as i'm totally leaning towards a different & emotional empiricism (totally subjective & unprovable on a scientific front) of speculating on the unseen & unknown...
meanwhile, it seems Nature is allowing a few more sunny days in the PNW: go out & enjoy! take your sunshine & run with it!
so then people like the Dalia Lama, Martin Luther King, Chief Sealth, Mahatma Gandhi, the Baal Shem Tov, and Siddhārtha Gautama are.....nothing special?
they are frauds and phonies?
they are delusional and crazy?
they are filled with dishonesty and deceit?
they are lacking in intelligence and common sense?
are you honestly saying you know better, and know more, than the people listed above?
please comment. thank you.
Ignoring your strawmen for the moment, I am saying that they cannot know anymore than anyone else.
Argument but no logic. It is for you to prove that the is something better. that's the way logic works. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
You apparently didn't get it the first time so here it is again:
"This is the problem with joining a discussion in progress, it's easy to come to misguided and hasty conclusions."
"I've simply asserted that the moral argument provides an additional reason to believe in the existence of a transcendent being. Concerning the question of moral relativity, I'm simply asking how it is possible to have a basis for morality if man is the final arbiter of morality. How is it possible to claim anything to be wrong if wrong always rests in the eye of the beholder?"
Are you able to comprehend the fact that I've made no claims whatsoever?
You come charging in demanding proof that a transcendent being exists and I'm supposed to roll over?
Here is an example of your sort of logic: The judge in court, due to the presumption of innocence, proceeds to instruct the prosecutor that he will not hear the case or allow a presentation of any evidence due to the presumption of innocence.
I will credit you with being honest enough to admit that there exists no basis for morality in a world where man is the arbiter of morality.
Thank you. Perhaps you can help agnostic soldier to come around to a more reasonable viewpoint.
You apparently didn't get it the first time so here it is again:
"This is the problem with joining a discussion in progress, it's easy to come to misguided and hasty conclusions."
"I've simply asserted that the moral argument provides an additional reason to believe in the existence of a transcendent being. Concerning the question of moral relativity, I'm simply asking how it is possible to have a basis for morality if man is the final arbiter of morality. How is it possible to claim anything to be wrong if wrong always rests in the eye of the beholder?"
Are you able to comprehend the fact that I've made no claims whatsoever?
You come charging in demanding proof that a transcendent being exists and I'm supposed to roll over?
Here is an example of your sort of logic: The judge in court, due to the presumption of innocence, proceeds to instruct the prosecutor that he will not hear the case or allow a presentation of any evidence due to the presumption of innocence.
I will credit you with being honest enough to admit that there exists no basis for morality in a world where man is the arbiter of morality.
Thank you. Perhaps you can help agnostic soldier to come around to a more reasonable viewpoint.
Good. If you are making no claims, then you must concede that there is no reason to suppose anything other than man - made moral codes, with the limitations of relative morality. since you do not contest it, I presume that you accept the existence of such without me having to somehow prove it.
If you propose anything further than that, you are making a claim and it is up to you to support it. If you are not, then it's argument over, I'd suppose. If there's anything I've misunderstood by jumping in here, I'd love to hear what.
Quote:
Here is an example of your sort of logic: The judge in court, due to the presumption of innocence, proceeds to instruct the prosecutor that he will not hear the case or allow a presentation of any evidence due to the presumption of innocence.
This is only showing your complete lack of ability, comprehension or possibly, honesty in debate. The judge in this case, presuming innocence (the analogy is not exact of course) is asking for evidence of guilt. the burden of proof is in the person claiming something more than the 'innocence'. Iam asking you to support your claim. I am not refusing to hear any case or allow a presentation of evidence. I am asking for it. If you have no claim to make, then you have no evidence. Case dismissed. Why do I have to explain this to you?
Good. If you are making no claims, then you must concede that there is no reason to suppose anything other than man - made moral codes, with the limitations of relative morality. since you do not contest it, I presume that you accept the existence of such without me having to somehow prove it.
We exist. Your 'logic' presumes that we should automatically assume that there is no cause or reason for our existence.
Morality must be presumed to be relative - even though the Bible and ten commandments exist. By your 'logic' we must automatically assume the Bible to be fallacious.
Despite the existing classical arguments for God's existence, by your 'logic' we must automatically assume them to be nonsense even if there are no other reasonable and/or logical alternatives presented.
Jesus must be presumed to have never existed despite all the obvious evidence to the contrary - or - or if he did exist, must be presumed to be something or someone other than what he claimed to be. Despite the fact that Christianity and the church has continued on and on for hundreds of years with all manner of various 'scholars' trying their best to shoot it down.
I could keep going but I think that's quite enough.
No thanks. I'll go with faith + reason + logic.
I can't take the huge leap of blind faith that is apparently demanded by your world view.
We exist. Your 'logic' presumes that we should automatically assume that there is no cause or reason for our existence.
Morality must be presumed to be relative - even though the Bible and ten commandments exist. By your 'logic' we must automatically assume the Bible to be fallacious.
Despite the existing classical arguments for God's existence, by your 'logic' we must automatically assume them to be nonsense even if there are no other reasonable and/or logical alternatives presented.
Jesus must be presumed to have never existed despite all the obvious evidence to the contrary - or - or if he did exist, must be presumed to be something or someone other than what he claimed to be. Despite the fact that Christianity and the church has continued on and on for hundreds of years with all manner of various 'scholars' trying their best to shoot it down.
I could keep going but I think that's quite enough.
No thanks. I'll go with faith + reason + logic.
I can't take the huge leap of blind faith that is apparently demanded by your world view.
1. No cause or reason is neccessary for our existance. One must presume these before one can make any attempt to prove it. That is called a Circular Argument Fallacy. One must believe to believe.
2. Morality existed LONG before your bible or your god, and exists in areas totally uneffected by same today. Therefor, it is indeed relative.
3. Logic cannot be offered as concrete proof. It may generate hypothesis, of course, but considering the plethora of evidences and theories surrounding our "existance and reason for existing", there simply is no foundation for te argument of some creator deity being the source of everything.
4. There is no non-biblical evidence for the existance of a historical Jesus, and considering that the Bible is fraught with self-contradictions and disproven myths and miracles, it cannot be offered as self-supporting evidence. Therefor, there is simply no valid evidence for the existance of a historical Jesus, and in light of the complete and utter lack of non-biblical evidence, it is quite safe to state that he did not exist.
Also, the only reason that Christianity has survived and flourished is Constantine making it the state religion at the most opportune time for the religion to avalanch into the vacum left by the fall of the Roman Empire, as well as heavy indoctrination of the youth using fear tactics during a heavily supersticious era, political power brokering, and conversion at the point of the sword among other concerns, including the empire building habits of England, France, and Spain. The latter is far more responsible for the "success" of Christianity than any form of "truth" within the religion.
If Christianity had survived and flourished because it contained some "universal truth", it would indeed be universal.
I am saying that they cannot know anymore than anyone else.
it sounds to me like what you are saying is since you are unable to discern or validate or "prove" any wisdom or inspiration, your solution is to say therefore that it's all of equal value
if someone can't tell the difference between the National Enquirer and the Torah, then it points to a problem with the person's ability to discern what they read. If a person can not distinguish for themselves the difference between a comic book and a speech by Martin Luther King, then it points to the person's ignorance and severely limited capacity to live life.
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.
meanwhile, it seems Nature is allowing a few more sunny days in the PNW: go out & enjoy! take your sunshine & run with it!
