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.
Good post, Christy. There is this feeling that, over some debate with Mystic. he does make perfect sense. There's the idea that..well, the universe is pretty uneniably there and so is the earth and us. Sub atomic particles and speculations about the solipsistic universe aside, that can be taken as existent.
Then somewhow it all goes wrong when we say 'you can call that 'god' if you want to, so long as 'god' is no moe than what appears to be until there is evidence of something more'. Then we get these tirades about our arrogance or not seeing what's in front of us and it all seems to go off beam.
We have seen Mystic's evidence, eventually and thanks for that mate, we've been asking for it long enough and it seems to be little more than his own personal ecstatic experience.
The 'scientific evidence' he demanded has been given here and there. Not in detail, but the conclusions are there and going into detail would be rather like not accepting that Washington is the capital of America until a Columbia ordinance survey map has been discussed.
The gradual growth of organic consciousness and animal intelligence was mentioned, Einstein's flawed belief in an intelligent universe, the processes of matter, minerals, chemical and the like which really can hardly be seen to show any kind of Mind behind it - all this, if Mystic accepts the rules of Logic, does tend to put the ball in his court as regards the burden of proof.
I do fully understand that for those with Faith, it is hard to step aside and NOT assume a god or sorta god as an a priori given, and thus to assess what evidence there is for it rather than demand evidence against it. I do understand that. I really do. But it's not logic.
If the believer wants to reject logic (it's only man -made. God's logic is superior) they can, but then to claim that atheism is illogical is clearly not going to run. Agnostic - based Non - belief really is the only logical position without sound evidence. It really is the default.
I suppose all the concession I ever wanted is that Faith - theist faith - is just faith and has no good or sound logical, rational and (scientific) evidential support for it. That conceded, they can believe whatever they darn well like.
Hmmm...it is you that has given the title/label of the EXISTENCE OF A SOURCE OF ALL THAT EXISTS as God. Am I correct? Which means you are redefining the definition/concept of what most, if not all, humand would consider to be God. Below is the definition, as all know it, to be God:
I do not now nor have I ever DENIED that THERE IS A SOUCE FOR ALL...I just don't arbitrarily give it a title/label called God given the confusion this can cause...do you understand that? You can clearly see the confusion caused by this title/label just on this thread alone.
There is A SOURCE OF ALL THAT EXISTS....but not a one of us KNOWS WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what that source is and until we do KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, we can't and shouldn't redefine the definition/concept that all have of God and give it that title. We would be much better off calling it THE SOURCE OF ALL which would create much less confusion.
I am simply removing ALL the unproven and disputed BELIEFS about God to establish the generic EXISTENCE . . . the "Deer" we are seeking PARTIAL evidence for. You have just acknowledged that the "Deer" is real. The partial evidence then confirms its existence.
Quote:
You stated that you acquired the knowledge of THE SOURCE OF ALL being God by deep meditative revelation...you do understand how subjective this is don't you? I honestly believe that you believe in this revelation but this is NOT PROOF, SCIENTIFIC OR OTHERWISE, that the SOURCE OF ALL should be given the title/label God. Surely you can understand why others would have a problem with this given the definition/concept most have of the connotation God.
Believe me . . . I have been bombarded with myriad knee jerk reactions that reveal those problems continually.
Quote:
I am truly and sincerely looking forward to this...so that I can better understand where you are coming from.
Lass, before we need pay any attention to your reiterated message about the soul, you have to give some reason why we should suppose there is one; and before we should pay any attentions to your subjective assurances that your experiences are not subjective, why don't you pay a smigeon of attention to my PROOF that the messages you buy into (on that web-page you sometimes cite) are false. If you ignore the strongest possible evidence that you are buying into what is only in your head, then there is no earthly reason why any of us should listen to your broken record.
I'm sorry if it sounds impolite but your refusal to come down to earth is no reason why we should leave it.
The reason we have a soul is for our very existence, as without it, we are merely animals.
I am simply removing ALL the unproven and disputed BELIEFS about God to establish the generic EXISTENCE . . . the "Deer" we are seeking PARTIAL evidence for. You have just acknowledged that the "Deer" is real. The partial evidence then confirms its existence. Believe me . . . I have been bombarded with myriad knee jerk reactions that reveal those problems continually.I will endeavor not to disappoint.
I agree with you absolutely that the image/concept most have of God (as portrayed in the bible and any other holy books) are false....you'll get no argument from me over that man made concept. But unfortunately, because so many have this set image/concept of God, confusion will ensue and has throughout this thread.
So it is my understanding that you are basically redefining the concept of God that everyone holds....correct?
I agree with you absolutely that the image/concept most have of God (as portrayed in the bible and any other holy books) are false....you'll get no argument from me over that man made concept. But unfortunately, because so many have this set image/concept of God, confusion will ensue and has throughout this thread.
So it is my understanding that you are basically redefining the concept of God that everyone holds....correct?
For scientific purposes . . . we MUST restrict our definitions to the those elements that can be shown to exist. The concepts you refer to have additional (not replacement) BELIEFS about the generic "Deer." So . . . I am not re-defining . . . simply stripping it down to the scientifically verifiable essentials. This in no way interferes with the myriad BELIEFS about God (like consciousness/mindlessness) . . . but it definitely eliminates the refutation of God's EXISTENCE.
For scientific purposes . . . we MUST restrict our definitions to the those elements that can be shown to exist. The concepts you refer to have additional (not replacement) BELIEFS about the generic "Deer." So . . . I am not re-defining . . . simply stripping it down to the verifiable essentials.
OK...and exactly what are the "verifiable essentials" in your estimation?
Seems to me nobody is really interested in sharing beliefs here. Just a bunch of wannaberights. That includes the Atheists and Christians alike.
None of you have anything original to say and you say it often.
The person that said God consciousness is less likely than Santa Clause is a great example of a non-thinker.
What a waste of time.
It took you guys over a week to come to the conclusion that Atheists don't believe in a God consciousness.
Brutal.
Good way to prove you're wrong. Calling someone in a thread a nonthinker makes you look juvenile. It didn't take over a week. The posters that believe the claim still believe the claim and those that know it's wrong still know it's wrong. Also, a nonthinker is someone whom doesn't/can't think for themselves. I'm just offensive and condescending.
OK...and exactly what are the "verifiable essentials" in your estimation?
That the "Deer" is real (God is real) and that the partial scientific evidence(tracks, DNA,etc.) are indeed evidence of God's EXISTENCE . . . NOT some artifice called "Nature" . . . a distinction without justification. The default should point to something we know exists as a possible Source of the universal field. "Nature" does NOT . . . God consciousness DOES.
That the "Deer" is real (God is real) and that the partial scientific evidence(tracks, DNA,etc.) are indeed evidence of God's EXISTENCE . . . NOT some artifice called "Nature" . . . a distinction without justification. The default should point to something we know exists as a possible Source of the universal field. "Nature" does NOT . . . God consciousness DOES.
I simply submit, that the "Deer" analogy/logic fails miserably in regards to proving an existence for God. If we had never seen a deer and had no knowledge of what a deer is, we would not call the tracks evidence of a deer...we would be prescribing a label/definition to the tracks without having any knowledge about what that evidence really is...do you understand that? You are trying to compare apples and oranges here and you cannot do that with the unknowable...you are trying to compare something we have knowledge and evidence of against something we have no knowlege or evidence of.
Now, since we have no real "KNOWLEDGE" or "EVIDENCE" of exactly what/who God is, how can we then give that title/label to the SOURCE...a SOURCE, I might add, that we KNOW nothing about?
While you claim you are not redefining the concept of God (as is known by all today)...that is, in effect, exactly what you are doing when you give the UNKNOWABLE SOURCE the title/label God.
I simply submit, that the "Deer" analogy/logic fails miserably in regards to proving an existence for God. If we had never seen a deer and had no knowledge of what a deer is, we would not call the tracks evidence of a deer...we would be prescribing a label/definition to the tracks without having any knowledge about what that evidence really is...do you understand that? You are trying to compare apples and oranges here and you cannot do that with the unknowable...you are trying to compare something we have knowledge and evidence of against something we have no knowlege or evidence of.
::Sigh:: Analogies are used to illustrate a PRINCIPLE (in this case that of PARTIAL evidence as sufficient to establish existence) . . . and do NOT need to be literal comparatives. So your reference to the Deer not being as unknown as God is irrelevant to the principle. We do not know that a mind is controlling the processes and parameters of our existence that enable our science and our understanding, consciousness, etc. . . . but "something" IS. That is all that is necessary to the principle in the analogy . . . that the "something"(Deer") be real. Then the evidence becomes confirmatory. BUT . . . it does NOT answer the questions about the "other" attributes (consciousness/mindlessness, etc.) extant in the myriad BELIEFS about it.
Quote:
Now, since we have no real "KNOWLEDGE" or "EVIDENCE" of exactly what/who God is, how can we then give that title/label to the SOURCE...a SOURCE, I might add, that we KNOW nothing about?
That is a ubiquitous and false statement. We know the partial evidence you unjustifiably assign to the artifice "nature" without justification . . . and I have shown my view has the advantage of using a known feature of reality as the exemplar for the Source.
Quote:
While you claim you are not redefining the concept of God (as is known by all today)...that is, in effect, exactly what you are doing when you give the UNKNOWABLE SOURCE the title/label God.
It is you that has given the unknown source the unjustifiable label of nothing ("Nature") with no existing exemplar for the Source.
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.
