phlogistician,
Because that is His nature.
Yes, in trancendence.
That is like asking what is matter made of.
The concesus seems to be that neither matter nor energy can be created or, destroyed, only altered.
Why?
Liar.
Yeah right!
jan.
Because that is His nature.
Yes, in trancendence.
That is like asking what is matter made of.
The concesus seems to be that neither matter nor energy can be created or, destroyed, only altered.
Why?
Liar.
Yeah right!
jan.
SolusCado,
What I see you saying is more along the lines of this:
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm
With the god of the bible being crammed in there somehow.
What I see you saying is more along the lines of this:
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm
With the god of the bible being crammed in there somehow.
That is certainly one way of putting it. I think it is a bit more complex than that, but it would not be untrue to boil it down to that. Frankly, that applies to anyone of faith. They believe something because they choose to. There may be many different ways of describing what gives them faith, from "personal experiences" to "spiritual connections" but since all of those are manifested in our reality through ... well, OUR REALITY, they all boil down to "because we want to".
I for example am faced with two clear choices. The universe (whatever that may be, whether it is simply our visible spacetime, or an infinite number of P-Branes, or something else entirely) either came into being from nothing, or has existed "forever" (whatever that means in a pre-time reality) - or God has existed forever (whatever that means in a non-time reality). The nature of the definition of God lends itself better to such inscrutability than the universe itself, so - I choose faith.
There are other reasons I have aready posted, but the above is the most relevant to this conversation.
On the contrary - I have never said there is a need for God to exist. He either exists or doesn't regardless of whether we think he needs to for the universe to exist. I believe because I choose to. And I don't "claim" there is a God. I "believe" there is a God. There is a difference. It is clear though that the very concept of faith continues to elude atheists (which makes sense, as they have none). But that is what this all boils down to. FAITH. That's it. It's as simple as that.
Frankly, that gets into such deep philosophy that I don't care. If we are all living in the matrix, and I can't get out - I only care about reality as I perceive it.
Insomuch as the relationship between physical reality and God, yes. But I do believe in a supernatural realm, with supernatural beings. Not because anything in physical reality requires it, but because I have faith that it does. No proof, no evidence, faith.
If you can discuss it, defend it, value it and justify it, then it would appear it is based on something, it depends on something.
When a theist of a different tradition criticizes you and claims you're wrong, do you disagree with them, and if yes, on the grounds of what?
SolusCado,
Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to believe and of course nobody knows.
Which is why I don't care about others belief in god(s), I only have issue with claims of knowledge of exact paths etc to a particular god.
Which is why people like definitions of the god you believe in, otherwise there is no discussion.
Sure, what I am suggesting is that we can discuss, argue and speculate all we want about what might be etc, but we know we exist.
Anything beyond that is either not knowable or we don't know yet.
So, the choice should be "we are real" because that is all we know.
Whether that knowing is also an illusion is an unnecessary leap without evidence to support such a position.
Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to believe and of course nobody knows.
Which is why I don't care about others belief in god(s), I only have issue with claims of knowledge of exact paths etc to a particular god.
Which is why people like definitions of the god you believe in, otherwise there is no discussion.
Sure, what I am suggesting is that we can discuss, argue and speculate all we want about what might be etc, but we know we exist.
Anything beyond that is either not knowable or we don't know yet.
So, the choice should be "we are real" because that is all we know.
Whether that knowing is also an illusion is an unnecessary leap without evidence to support such a position.
No it isn't. Your inability to grant the existence of faith in the atheistic (which will, if the path proves typical, corner you into some odd twisting notions of deity) has no more basis in reason than your belief in deity.cado said:
And that is the issue: not the existence of faith, but its alignment with reason. You accept not only disjunction but an opposition that need not - should not, in my opinion - be accepted.
The jump to the supernatural is too quick, and muddles things. The laws of physics are human named patterns, human described - clearly they won't do for a deity. But that leaves a lot of room for aspects of the world as humans ever-partially grasp it that are neither "supernatural" nor mechanical.
That question has been long and diligently explored, with the full resources of human reason and effort, and no small degree of success. But then, the experts in matter are honest people.ardena said:
The consensus is that matter can be both created and destroyed.ardena said:
We? All I know is 'I'. You could just be a figment of my imagination.
Agreed. And incidentally, your statement that the choice should be "we are real" because that is all we know is also how I would describe free will. We have it because that is all we know.
Ok. Understood.
Quite simply, no time would mean no before or after. If God exists outside of time then it has no capacity to have a moment where it decides to create something and then another moment where it creates something.
The point was to help you understand that "truth" is not an identity for "reality".
Ok if a non-lie is true then what that means is that the content represented by the non-lie matches actual reality; therefore, truth itself isn't reality... it is only when what's represented in a persons mind matches reality. Similarly, something that isn't true is when what's represented in a person's mind doesn't match reality (as you have correctly pointed out).
In this case I would disagree. Humans have an interesting psychology where they can exercise belief (or absence of) independent of knowledge. I originally defined A-Belief as an absence of belief for or against some idea. You had an interpretation of anti-belief so I provided an example which you interpreted as agnosticism. I then provided the distinction to show A-Belief is a separate entity from agnosticism.
Quite simple. If you can use reality to cancel/alter your perception/cognitive abilities then it is not an illusion. For example, take a nice heaping dose of anesthetic. Your perception will be canceled. Apply a transcranial magnetic stimulation to your frontal lobe. You will suddenly be able to draw phenomenally better.
In this case God would have zero interaction with the universe. It wouldn't be any different than a universe it didn't create.
Of course you are. You even admitted it by stating that as our understanding or reality improves, you will move the goal posts of 'God' so that it is always beyond introspection.
You might not be personally, but most religions (including Christianity) do so quite aggressively.
Everyone has a hobby I suppose.
Spirituality is pleasure from deep appreciation. The "physical world" is simply reality.
Eventually the scientific tool set will show you that belief in weird things (like the paranormal) is part of how we psychologically adapted from an evolutionary standpoint. Anthropomorphism and hierarchical relations will be at the center stage of that journey.
Unless you're using the royal "we" there, any given solipsists would deny even that.
So, prove to me that you and I are "real."
Prove that you have free will. The fact that you think you do could just be an illusion, no? You might not even exist at all.
Only in reference to our sense of time. That isn't to say there is no other sense of time outside our own. To think about it from another perspective, what was before the Big Bang? Modern theories incorporate the idea of an infinite number of brane-universes that bump into each other, initiating big bangs. Time as we know it exists within each of those branes, but there is still something on the outside of each brane that is governed by that same sense of before and after.
Then just say so. I have no objection to that statement.
Ok, whatever. I am tired of the semantics game. Please provide a concise definition of agnosticism and atheism, for the purpose of this discussion and we can stick to that.
What on earth does that have to do with anything? What if the altered perception is just part of the illusion? This is an age-old discussion which can never be "proven" in any real sense. We all agree to call our perceptions reality because otherwise we'd have no sense of reality, and we'd never get anywhere.
Correct, which is why I find the atheistic objection to theism in and of itself to be ridiculous. Objections to certain theists I completely understand.
Beyond testability with physical science, not beyond introspection.
Not the ones I know. (Though I do know plenty who do.) In either case, since when do we judge people based on the stereotypes of the group? I thought we had moved past that when we moved past racism.
There's no "eventually" to it. I posted a link on here just the other day about how superstitions have a psychological effect that actually does improve one's performance, and suggested that this may be how prayer works. Evolutionary psychology is a subject I find deeply interesting. The difference that some on here STILL don't get is that I believe such things are the mechanisms through which God works. Indistinguishable from a universe in which there is no God. I get it. Either one could be the case. I choose to believe one; atheists choose to believe another. There will never be any way to know while we are alive.
You are echoing points that have already been made on this forum. I don't feel like repeating them.
Quadraphonics,
Do you believe you are real ?
Why wouldn't I/We take the simpliest answer. Whether it's just an illusion or not, since there is no evidence of an illusion and since I do exist, why add things that don't need to be added.
Give me a reason to consider it all an illusion.
Do you believe you are real ?
Why wouldn't I/We take the simpliest answer. Whether it's just an illusion or not, since there is no evidence of an illusion and since I do exist, why add things that don't need to be added.
Give me a reason to consider it all an illusion.
Last edited:
No such place, by all appearances.soulcado said:
No such agreement is evident in the case of "perceptions" that do not answer to reason. We all agree that perceptions are prone to error, and generally in need of clarification and explanation even when accurate.soulcado said:
To the extent that it is even at issue, theism "in and of itself" is not divorced from the actual beliefs of theists - a judgment call on theism soundly based on the beliefs and arguments of the existing theists is not ridiculous.soulcado said: