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.
Oddly, I find myself in agreement. Everything is made of the same Stuff and came from the same source. I just don't think it talks to us or believe that the Jesus story is its current correspondence -course.
Suggesting that a thing is the source of itself seems counterintuitive and potentially contrived ... While I'm not saying such a thing couldn't counterintuitively be true, lacking any evidence for it, I prefer to think of the universe as merely eternal, winking in and out of existence cyclically, likely interplaying with other universes, but not sentient or interested in what I eat for breakfast. That seems a lot less forced than ascribing sentience and intentionality to the universe. But whatever float's people's boat, I guess.
Originally Posted by hutennis
Not only it is not circular reasoning, it is not any kind of reasoning, because it is physical evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Fair enough; my objection was trying to marginalize it by calling it circular reasoning. Calling it just plain evidence is good enough for me.
I'm sure that calling something "evidence" which is not evidence at all may very well be good enough for you.
For all I care you can call orange an apple or call mountain an air.
Does not concern me a bit.
It would not be something reasonable and rational person would do. That's for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hutennis
Now, instead of presenting reasoning as evidence for God (which happens to be a very bad evidence b/c it is a very bad reasoning) you are welcome to put forward actual physical evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
That's what that specific statement we have been talking about did, but I guess it was simply something perhaps you're not ready to accept.
So you are just ignoring the whole discussion and with a stone face continue to insist on calling "that specific statement" (which is nothing more but perfect example of very bad logic) an evidence.
Moreover, you make it look like it is my fault that I don't see it that way, b/c "it is simply something perhaps I'm not ready to accept".
Again, let me be a perfectly clear.
The reason "it is simply something perhaps I'm not ready to accept" is very simple.
"That specific statement" can not be accepted as evidence by any reasonable and rational person b/c it is not an evidence
I'm sure that calling something "evidence" which is not evidence at all may very well be good enough for you.
For all I care you can call orange an apple or call mountain an air.
Does not concern me a bit.
It would not be something reasonable and rational person would do. That's for sure.
So you are just ignoring the whole discussion and with a stone face continue to insist on calling "that specific statement" (which is nothing more but perfect example of very bad logic) an evidence.
Moreover, you make it look like it is my fault that I don't see it that way, b/c "it is simply something perhaps I'm not ready to accept".
Again, let me be a perfectly clear.
The reason "it is simply something perhaps I'm not ready to accept" is very simple.
"That specific statement" can not be accepted as evidence by any reasonable and rational person b/c it is not an evidence
There are those that perceive God as ALL THAT EXISTS. So, anything that exists is evidence of God.
If ALL isn't God relative to us, what could possibly be? ALL is as "Godly" as it gets.
That YOU don't perceive ALL THERE IS as God is inconsequential. As long as anyone does...that's all it takes.
Just like if anyone perceives you as a "friend"...even if it is only one person...then you are a friend....aaaaaaand, friends exist.
That's how it works. That you don't like it, or can't comprehend the concept, notwithstanding.
Oddly, I find myself in agreement. Everything is made of the same Stuff and came from the same source. I just don't think it talks to us or believe that the Jesus story is its current correspondence -course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Suggesting that a thing is the source of itself seems counterintuitive and potentially contrived ... While I'm not saying such a thing couldn't counterintuitively be true, lacking any evidence for it, I prefer to think of the universe as merely eternal, winking in and out of existence cyclically, likely interplaying with other universes, but not sentient or interested in what I eat for breakfast. That seems a lot less forced than ascribing sentience and intentionality to the universe. But whatever float's people's boat, I guess.
I can concur with both of you (i.e., lacking anything else which is truly provable which would indicate that it is not true or not necessarily true). That is, what we ALL seem to be saying (Arequippa, Mordant, and myself) is neigther we nor anyone else can (thus far up to this point in time) make a provable case or even a quasi-credible case that there is ANY type of mindful agent or agents which is behind the workings of the cosmos (the entirety of existence) . . . so, lacking this (at least lacking this thus far up to this point in time), all we seem to be left to fall back on-- if we are guided by pure intellectual honesty --is that we DO know that existence itself exists (for we are ourselves immersed in it) and sometimes existence operates to our liking or benefit and sometimes it doesn't. We simply know that it IS (it exists) but do NOT know that there is mindfulness of any type behind it. We can speculate about the prevalence of mindfulness or agency behind it and entertain thoughts about it but can't prove it in any way, shape, or form (thus far), so therefore our intellectual honesty tells us to not go there without such a basis of provability to back it up.
I do NOT have an agenda or predisposition to disprove or invalidate the "God" concept at all costs. I DO, rather, have a predisposition to go wherever the evidence (i.e., true and valid evidence that merits being called "evidence" . . . not false claims of evidence nor pseudo-evidence). bUU and MysticPhD (among some others here): You'll just have to take my word for it that this is my only driving motivation-- i.e., Intellectual honesty at all costs. Regardless of what the implications of taking that course entails. It is called being a TRUE truth seeker. I only want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and hence don't willfully seek to concoct "truth" or assume "truth" as truth or devise a presmed "truth" that appeals to my own pet notions. The true "truth" is whatever it is.
There are those that perceive God as ALL THAT EXISTS. So, anything that exists is evidence of God.
If ALL isn't God relative to us, what could possibly be? ALL is as "Godly" as it gets.
That YOU don't perceive ALL THERE IS as God is inconsequential. As long as anyone does...that's all it takes.
Just like if anyone perceives you as a "friend"...even if it is only one person...then you are a friend....aaaaaaand, friends exist.
That's how it works. That you don't like it, or can't comprehend the concept, notwithstanding.
Yeah, right.
Just one "tiny" detail you conveniently ignore.
No one disputes that what we all agree to put a label "friend" on actually exists.
Even if no one calls me a friend, even I don't have a single friend, friend is out there.
I know what it is regardless whether I have one or not.
The label "friend" covers very specific definition. No other label is being used to cover this very specific definition. No other label is needed.
Your "God" label you what to use for some reason, not only doubles up on already existing and perfectly sufficient label. It also comes loaded with some supernatural meanings which no one can neither explain nor justify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll Why not just say "There is no mindful entity that we typically give the name of "God"; there is just 'existence' itself and "existence' itself has no values, no character, no sympathies or wants or expectation, no agenda, et al; existence just simply IS (i.e., existence [the universe, the cosmos] simply exists")?
(Response by bUU to the above-seen quote): Why do you think it smart to express a perspective in the negative? That's ridiculously naive and unskilled. Try expressing it normally, as a positive statement of the inverse.
I better way to state my above quote would be to rephrase it (more verbosely) as such:
As far as humanity can thus far truly ascertain with provable evidences (i.e., not simply mere suppositions or conjectures or assertions motivated or promulgated by any of us being guided by an agenda to assume what "the truth" is before actually being able to prove what the "truth" really is to the satisfaction of all of us), we have no credible basis, in all intellectual honesty, for making an assertion or presumption that some type of mindful entity or entities underlies the workings of the cosmos and whatever prevails in the cosmos (of which most humans tend to give such a mindful entity the label of "God" or even give that generic label a personal name). It is understandable how it may seem to be otherwise to ANY of us but we can't say, in all intellectual honesty, that such an assertion is truly provable to the satisfaction and acceptability of all of us who are truly guided by intellectual honesty through-and-through. With all of us hopefully being guided by pure and full intellectual honesty, all we appear to thus far be able to say with certitude or reasonable certitude is that we only have evidence that "'existence itself exists" and this "existence" itself can't thus far be demonstrated or proved to entail a mindfulness behind it which has values, character, sympathies, wants, expectations, agendas, et al. Lacking anything else, thus far, to truly be able to prove to the contrary, all we are left to say, in all honesty (not being guided by a pre-subscribed agenda or bias), is that existence just simply IS (i.e., the universe or the cosmos simply exists and functions as it does and we can't honestly discern a mind or minds operating and guiding it all). Or if there actually IS a mind or minds guided it to whatever degree, said mind or minds apparently doesn't reveal itself to ALL OF US in a credible way that ALL OF US can agree upon.
Is the above re-phrasing more palatable to you (coming across as less dogmatic or even non-dogmatic to you) and does it succeed in conveying to you that I am NOT dog-headed and insisting that I absolutely know "the truth" beforehand and push it upon everyone (even if my phrasing may, at times, be less than ideal to convey my true character and underlying motivations)? My true character and motivations are that I deem myself to be what I call a "TRUE truth seeker" who thinks of himself as being guided by the pursuit of intellectual honesty at all costs . . . even if that, in the end, entails me saying "I don't truly know" or "We don't truly know". I am not guided by personal emotional needs or preconceived allegiances; if "the truth" (or what I best perceive and discern to be "the truth") takes me in a different course from where I am or was previously, so be it. Saying I am a "TRUE truth seeker" is to contrast myself with those who will say that they are "truth seekers" but, in reality, it is more honest to deem about them that they instead hold fast to their ideas AT ALL COSTS and don't follow through the apparent logic presented to them to its inescapable or seemingly-inescapable conclusions.
Look, I was raised to be a religious (or semi-religious) Jew and was later a Protestant conservative evangelical born-again Christian. When the evidence(s) were undeniable enough to move away from those, I ultimately did move away from those. Yet I didn't outright embrace "atheism" (or at least not what is called "strong atheism"). My ultimate position (to this date) is to say "I don't know the ultimate truths about the nature of our existence . . . and neither do you (unless you or I can TRULY prove to the contrary). It is more an agnostic position. Some would call it "agnostic atheism" but, rather than say "atheism" (for saying "atheism" always seems to imply so-called "strong atheism"), I simply state "non-theism" or "conditional non-theism" (i.e., I don't take it upon myself to actively embrace and promote the idea of a mindful and interventionist entity or entities behind the cosmos and all that prevails within the cosmos . . . but only based on the reality that neither I nor anyone else thus far can prove such a contrary assertion to my intellectually-honest-based sensibilities and/or to the satisfaction of ALL of us who truly can be said to be intelligent, discerning, and intellectually honest).
Most discussions I've had with atheists, or even believers of other religious beliefs, have involved some kind of proof. In religion it is all about theological arguments. In science is about empirical facts based on scientific propositions. Then there is the everyday world where law dictates various kinds of evidence: circumstantial, direct, or eyewitness accounts. I know, much of this has been posted. Just thought I'd add my two cents. The most difficult area for proving one's point is religion. How about medieval wars between Protestants and Catholics as an example of what happens when people of different faiths disagree.
My favorite idea about religious proof are eyewitness stories. When someone says you can't prove God what do you say? My favorite reply is to refer to all those OT prophets. Either they were liars or they really experienced God. But how can you prove it? If you have a religious experience, or experiences, naysayers might say those are delusions, or you need to see a psychiatrist.
I have experienced some strange replies to my supernatural dreams and visions, some really bizarre. My first experience was many years was when I told a foreign missionary of my dreams. His reply was Satan gave me those dreams. What do you say when someone says you're possessed by Satan? Mostly, you avoid telling people. Well, I kind of forgot what that clergyman said until years later. Assuming a positive attitude, I asked our local pastor to lunch. I live in a small town of about 1,900 people. Everything was going well, we both liked the food. Then, I began telling him what I had learned about God, angels, and Satan from my dreams. He was attentive until I told him about a dream informing me that Jesus was God and not the son of God. The pastor suddenly got up from the table and bolted from the restaurant. Apparently he didn't like what I said about Jesus. The problem is my pastor lives nearby on the same street. Recently, I wrote down all of my dreams and visions. Since last year when I had a vision about God's duality, I've had no further supernatural dreams or visions. A couple months ago my wife and I were sitting at a table with two retired pastors. They had been friendly, so I thought they might be interested. I asked them if they would be like a copy of my dream and vision statement. One replied, "I for one do not want to see it!" The other pastor put his head down concurring. I guess the word is out, I believe supernatural things that don't agree with Christian theology.
In short, don't have dreams and visions that disagree with popular ideas. If you do, keep you head down, or learn to be diplomatic. The big problem with supernatural experiences is there is no empirical evidence and it is difficult to convince people of eyewitness stories.
Here's the difference between evidence in religion and science: Unlike religion, science can provided sensible answers to questions concerning the Universe, while religion always encourages people to "lean not on their own understanding, but to trust...with all their being".
I could never be satisfied by a biblical response. I am deeply satisfied by unfettered inquiry.
Thank you, bUU. You saved me a lot of typing. Contrary to UsAll's contention that I am a victim of inferred agency, it is he who is the victim. His view of reality as disconnected and separate "things" is what leads him to conclude that any mention of a source for everything MUST mean a separate agent. He seems not to realize that existence itself is sufficient to be the Source. I use an analogy to our own body as a "universe." Imagine the perspective from sentient individual cells and biota that comprise us. To them we would be God as they tried to understand the reason for their existence and their transient cellular lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll
I can concur with both of you (i.e., lacking anything else which is truly provable which would indicate that it is not true or not necessarily true). That is, what we ALL seem to be saying (Arequippa, Mordant, and myself) is neigther we nor anyone else can (thus far up to this point in time) make a provable case or even a quasi-credible case that there is ANY type of mindful agent or agents which is behind the workings of the cosmos (the entirety of existence) . . . so, lacking this (at least lacking this thus far up to this point in time), all we seem to be left to fall back on-- if we are guided by pure intellectual honesty --is that we DO know that existence itself exists (for we are ourselves immersed in it) and sometimes existence operates to our liking or benefit and sometimes it doesn't. We simply know that it IS (it exists) but do NOT know that there is mindfulness of any type behind it. We can speculate about the prevalence of mindfulness or agency behind it and entertain thoughts about it but can't prove it in any way, shape, or form (thus far), so therefore our intellectual honesty tells us to not go there without such a basis of provability to back it up.
I do NOT have an agenda or predisposition to disprove or invalidate the "God" concept at all costs. I DO, rather, have a predisposition to go wherever the evidence (i.e., true and valid evidence that merits being called "evidence" . . . not false claims of evidence nor pseudo-evidence). bUU and MysticPhD (among some others here): You'll just have to take my word for it that this is my only driving motivation-- i.e., Intellectual honesty at all costs. Regardless of what the implications of taking that course entails. It is called being a TRUE truth seeker. I only want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and hence don't willfully seek to concoct "truth" or assume "truth" as truth or devise a presmed "truth" that appeals to my own pet notions. The true "truth" is whatever it is.
You are mired in the separateness and agency nonsense and I suspect have not really thought about my analogy in any great depth. IF our cells and the biota that comprise us WERE SENTIENT, by what mechanism would we ever be able to make their true purpose known to them? Clearly everything that happens in their brief cellular lives is NOT the result of our will or direct actions, merely the mandates of our continued survival and the roles they play in it. True, some pain signals (prayers??) indicating cellular problems are delivered to our consciousness and we can try to address the source of them in limited ways. But even though we ARE the very Source of everything that exists in their little cellular world, we are certainly not omnipotent nor omniscient.
The big problem with supernatural experiences is there is no empirical evidence and it is difficult to convince people of eyewitness stories.
The big problem with supernatural experiences is that none of them is actually supernatural.
All of them have perfectly natural explanation.
But it is very difficult to convince some people that neither them nor their experiences are in any way special.
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.
