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.
There is nothing that actually exists that needs to be accounted FOR BY the existence of Santa or the Easter Bunny. That is not true about God. There IS something that actually exists (reality) that needs to be accounted FOR and is currently unknown (or unknowable).
There are Christmas presents that need to be accounted for. Santa is supposedly what accounts for them, or so we like to tell our children. Of course there are far better things to account for Christmas presents.
There IS a reality that needs to be accounted for but the key difference is that while there are flesh and blood people who demonstrably account for who obtains and conveys Christmas presents at Christmastime, and actual brick and mortar factories that we can show make these products, there is nothing whatsoever demonstrable about god as an explanation for reality. You cannot produce god for my examination, and from all accounts, he'd not be amenable to my scrutiny anyway, as he's excessively modest, and tetchy about anyone violating his personal space.
Meanwhile, although we don't have a 100% accounting for all aspects of reality, we do know a great deal about it and have an excellent method (the scientific one) for building on that knowledge, which has grown exponentially in the past four centuries or so. We have greatly improved the knowledge of humanity by this method and we have every reason to expect to continue to do so.
You know what my response to this is, Arq. You can NOT therefore claim the default because that IS asserting that there is "No God" responsible for our reality. That IS a positive claim about the unknown . . . much as you seek to deny it. You prefer to say we don't need to assign responsibility for the existence of our reality . . . it is OK to not know. That is a preference . . . NOT a default. God as the reason for our reality is also a preference. BOTH are a priori presumptions based on preference. If you claim either one as default . . . you are making an unsubstantiated positive assertion, period.
No...I'm sure I said this before...we do NOT assert there is No God. We do not believe in the claim because the evidence is not good enough. We prefer the materialist default because the evidence is sound enough in that it demonstrably explains many processes in a way that does not require a god.
This is very basic stuff. I don't know why it is so difficult for you...and those chaps at Stanford, apparently.
"Must because our minds are too highly trained, Majiccthise."
I could turn the tables and ask why the other senses the brain uses to interpret reality (which are equally disconnected from the stimuli) are believed and accepted . . . but this one is deemed to be tricked or a dysfunction? Why is the interpretation of God's presence NOT an accurate one . . . but the interpretations of all the other senses are? Why default to the exception instead of the rule?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
If I put one of those tinfoil helmets your'e talking about on you and you sensed god, I would not. Either god is present, or not. Which one of us is correct?
If we both had such a helmet stimulating our god spot, I daresay that the specifics of our experience would not match, either.
Usually you provide logical arguments in rebuttal . . . but these were so off the beam that they require no response. Of course the brain can be tricked. Of course the brain can be dysfunctional. I am NOT suggesting that the God Helmet is causing someone to experience God. It is obviously tricking the brain. But in tricking the brain . . . it revealed an new sensory modality . . . fields. Since our reality is comprised of fields . . . this is noteworthy. Your examples above are silly. There IS no presence detectable by the brain in a normal state. The brain is tricked into sensing an artificial field. If you both had helmets on . . . you would both be sensing artificial fields. They prove nothing other than the brain can sense fields.
If we were smart enough . . . and we are making enormous strides in this area . . . we could artificially stimulate the optic areas of the brain with the correct stimuli and cause the brain to interpret it as seeing the color yellow. The brain would interpret it as yellow . . . but there would be no actual yellow to see. The brain would be tricked artificially. The same thing is true when the brain is tricked by a weak artificial field and interprets it as the presence of God and oneness.
What this evidence provides is support for those of us who alter our brain state and detect the presence of God . . . WITHOUT any artificial stimuli. When we alter our brain state in meditation or truly devout prayer . . . we tune our consciousness so that it is somehow resonant with the consciousness field of God. Hence we sense God . . . and there is NO artificial stimuli present to account for it.
Hence we sense God . . . and there is NO artificial stimuli present to account for it.
No, what you sense is something you are calling "God". It may not represent anything beyond the confines of your brain, or it might be in response to an external stimuli most reasonable people would not call a god.
Quote:
the consciousness field of God
So the god is producing some type of radiation that can be tested? If so, this seems like a material process and not worthy of the "god" label.
Most atheists I know just want to feel superior to the rest. There is no proof of a non-existence of God...anymore than there is the existence of an all powerful eternal entity. I play it safe because I am slightly more intelligent than most atheists...I believe...besides...what harm can it do? There are more benefits in being a believer than not...and it is the safer route. Had a conversation with my second daughter about the universe...She found it mind boggling that it is possible that there is no end....I said .....That is just GOD showing off.....how grand he is....eternity and endlessness are a powerful concept...as is GOD.
No...I'm sure I said this before...we do NOT assert there is No God. We do not believe in the claim because the evidence is not good enough. We prefer the materialist default because the evidence is sound enough in that it demonstrably explains many processes in a way that does not require a god.
This is very basic stuff. I don't know why it is so difficult for you...and those chaps at Stanford, apparently.
"Must because our minds are too highly trained, Majiccthise."
You have been plying this rhetorical tirck for far too long, Arq. There is NO materialist default because a default would be a positive assertion of a state of reality . . . in your case a "No God" state. That is an unsubstantiated positive claim. I know why it is so difficult for you and your cohort to accept . . . "God-o-phobia."
There are Christmas presents that need to be accounted for. Santa is supposedly what accounts for them, or so we like to tell our children. Of course there are far better things to account for Christmas presents.
There IS a reality that needs to be accounted for but the key difference is that while there are flesh and blood people who demonstrably account for who obtains and conveys Christmas presents at Christmastime, and actual brick and mortar factories that we can show make these products, there is nothing whatsoever demonstrable about god as an explanation for reality. You cannot produce god for my examination, and from all accounts, he'd not be amenable to my scrutiny anyway, as he's excessively modest, and tetchy about anyone violating his personal space.
Meanwhile, although we don't have a 100% accounting for all aspects of reality, we do know a great deal about it and have an excellent method (the scientific one) for building on that knowledge, which has grown exponentially in the past four centuries or so. We have greatly improved the knowledge of humanity by this method and we have every reason to expect to continue to do so.
What to do, what to do ...
The caliber of your argumentation has seriously declined recently, Mordant. I don't have to produce God for any reason other than to assert God as the default. But NEITHER of us can assert ANY default because we have no positive proof of a Source for our reality. It is ALL preference based on differential knowledge and experiences, period.
To equate the easter bunny and Santa Clause as akin to God is not a good comparison. Most know those are fictional. But God? Not so fast. Whether God exists or not, the perception of a god is ingrained in every culture on earth, be it relatively new or ancient. This concept built cities, empires and universities and cultures. So, to dismiss or equate god as the tooth fairy is not fair. I don't mean that God exists but that mankind seems to be hardwired for it, and perhaps for a reason we just have not grasped yet. It could be man's desire for answers and God fit nicely. It could be man's desires for power etc. But for sure its much more complex, I believe, than the face of a hardwired god.
The Piraha have no concept of creation because they live in the moment.
Quote:
If you ask them about God, they don’t understand it, even when you translate it.
Quote:
What are the lessons we can learn from the Pirahã? Well, for one thing, the Pirahã are happy without god. And that violates a lot of the predictions not only of religious folks but of anthropologists, who believe that god is an essential ingredient of all cultures. That’s false. There are cultures that get by just fine without any concept of god.
The Piraha have no concept of creation because they live in the moment.
Very interesting nana, thanks for sharing.
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.
