Does God Exist?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
you find the notion of application following a hypothesis absurd?
... and once again, if a person is hell bent to remaining on their laurels, they won't be able to evidence a god damn thing
No, I find this:
Absurd. As if only I would believe I could see the evidence which is not there without believing.
If they don't want to see the cool troll from the forest they choose to remain in the dark. Yes.
Are you suggesting that if only I tried really hard I could provide evidence that god exists.
If so, and I am assuming you are saying that I have not done so and therefore have missed or am missing the evidence. I must also assume that you have done the work, so please enlighten us with you evidence ?
But according to LG you are still the high-school dropout without the correct qualifications... so it would be pointless. :/ Hey ho.
jpappl
being qualified means you know how to apply yourself appropriately
Discussing the evidence for something outside of a discussion of how one should be appropriately situated to discern such evidence is outside of the standard narrative of scientific/logical analysis.
I use "believe" in the sense of something that could be tentatively possible. If you don't think that something (whatever it may be) is tentatively possible, you probably won't make too many advances in the field of application
Personal effort is only fruitful when coupled with the relevant application - for instance if I tried really hard to slice bread with a microphone or amplify my voice with a bread knife hooked up to a speaker, it probably would be fruitless and frustrating.
once again, evidence is arrived at through being qualified
being qualified means you know how to apply yourself appropriately
Discussing the evidence for something outside of a discussion of how one should be appropriately situated to discern such evidence is outside of the standard narrative of scientific/logical analysis.
Ok that's fair. If you are using the word in that sense I have no issues, and I have never claimed that the possibility can not exist, just that I don't believe it does.
Sure. I've seen people a street corner in L.A. do things like that.
How does one go about being qualified to know god exists without evidence ?
Yes, there is no way to know if god exists because there is no evidence that there is a god, and there is no way of proving it one way or the other at this time. However, since there is no evidence and no way of obtaining evidence "in the normal sense of obtaining evidence" why do people believe there is a god ?
Again, if you believe, fine. If you claim to know, prove it.
What if you do have evidence? What if, instead of saying it's evidence for the existence of 'God", you say it's evidence for the existence of something else, which is otherwise known as 'God'?
You say that the idea is from 'evidence', which is experience, and that an idea is a product of the same mind that experiences 'God', or whatever you want to call it. This exists because there is something that your mind can experience, which is your true self. There are as many ways to experience your 'self', as there are to experience anything. You can see, hear, taste and feel something, which leads to a logical conclusion that 'God' has four aspects.
Actually there are an infinite number, but everyone can experience these four aspects because everyone has these 4 sensory aspects of themself. Blind people can see the same thing as sighted people, deaf people can hear the same thing as people with normal hearing, etc. This is true for some fundamental reason - we're all built roughly the same way.
You say that the idea is from 'evidence', which is experience, and that an idea is a product of the same mind that experiences 'God', or whatever you want to call it. This exists because there is something that your mind can experience, which is your true self. There are as many ways to experience your 'self', as there are to experience anything. You can see, hear, taste and feel something, which leads to a logical conclusion that 'God' has four aspects.
Actually there are an infinite number, but everyone can experience these four aspects because everyone has these 4 sensory aspects of themself. Blind people can see the same thing as sighted people, deaf people can hear the same thing as people with normal hearing, etc. This is true for some fundamental reason - we're all built roughly the same way.
jpappl
Classical empiricism?
ok
You apply the same general principle that you would for evidencing any other knowledge based claim - you develop some degree of faith in the relevant authority or an element of instruction. Even a child's chemistry set comes with instructions
I have serious problems with the absolute nature of your statement. You could say that you have no evidence of god, or even perhaps you have no evidence of persons who have evidence of god (although even this statement is subject to demanding scrutiny)
And the normal sense is what?
Classical empiricism?
One glaring embarassment with the belief that empiricism has the monopoly on all knowledge based claims is that this claim cannot be empirically established.
Yes. With repeatable consistent examples, validation.
There was nothing absolute about my statement. "Yes, there is no way to know if god exists because there is no evidence that there is a god, and there is no way of proving it one way or the other at this time. "
If you note, at the end "at this time". We may be able to establish evidence for or against such. However as I said if you have evidence now, then let us know what it is and where we can find it. I will assume it can be repeated over and over, like the experiments in a childs chemistry set so that it can be validated.
Do you believe in aliens ? Do you believe in trolls ?
If no, why ?
Again, extrodinary claims such as these need to have an established point of proof. We know there are bears in the woods, we don't need to prove bears exist everytime someone says they saw one. But we need to establish proof that aliens, trolls and god(s) exist before we can make such leaps of faith without evidence.
Why are you avoiding the fact that you believe but you have no evidence. Just admit that you are a believer and you can't prove it. I have no issue with that. But if you want to claim you know and continue to state that I am just not opening my eyes and therefore can not see, then show me the evidence.
jppl,
If you have never been loved, or have loved (seriously), you will never understand what love is. .
It seems that reality can only be fully understood by reality, no matter how irrational it may seem on the outside.
Asking for physical evidence of God is a nonsense, and I believe you are sticking to those guns because you know it is a nonsense.
jan.
LG said:
jppl said:
If you have never been loved, or have loved (seriously), you will never understand what love is. .
It seems that reality can only be fully understood by reality, no matter how irrational it may seem on the outside.
Asking for physical evidence of God is a nonsense, and I believe you are sticking to those guns because you know it is a nonsense.
jan.
jpappl
at the moment I am deconstructing your belief system.
You say there is no evidence for the claim of god (which is debatable ... but besides this ...)
There is also no evidence that empiricism has the monopoly on all claims of knowledge.
This is self evident, because this claim cannot be empirically established.
In short, you are a believer.
The real question you should be asking is what are the required qualifications.
Even to see the sun rise in the morning requires that you face the east
sure
Your statement is full of absolutes .... unless you can indicate how, at this moment, you have a complete grasp on the nature of all claims made in favour of god. If you have an absence of knowledge about the instructions of chemistry sets, you could probably also make the same (absolute) statement about the non-evidence that surrounds them too.
at the moment I am deconstructing your belief system.
You say there is no evidence for the claim of god (which is debatable ... but besides this ...)
There is also no evidence that empiricism has the monopoly on all claims of knowledge.
This is self evident, because this claim cannot be empirically established.
In short, you are a believer.
even if that is true in regards to myself, it makes me wonder why you cannot see yourself in the same light
and once again, discussing of issues of evidence divorced from issues of qualification is not only unscientific but illogical.
The real question you should be asking is what are the required qualifications.
Even to see the sun rise in the morning requires that you face the east
meh
more explanations ...
Shouldn't the question go: "Does God transcend logic"?
Answer: The inventions of our "weak" minds, can never explain that which is transcendent of thought. Our minds can only use words and thoughts, which although "God-given", cannot understand God, we can only be 'aware'.
Meh, I prefer much less loaded terminology, like "self", instead of a word that comes with all sorts of (useless) baggage attached to it.
Answer: The inventions of our "weak" minds, can never explain that which is transcendent of thought. Our minds can only use words and thoughts, which although "God-given", cannot understand God, we can only be 'aware'.
Meh, I prefer much less loaded terminology, like "self", instead of a word that comes with all sorts of (useless) baggage attached to it.
Jan
Quite the opposite, you are sticking to your ridiculous position that I should not require evidence of God because you don't have any.
LG
A believer in what ?
With regards to the idea or belief in or not of God, I am a believer and readily admit that. I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, but I can't prove a god or gods do not or have not existed. Can you ?
However, as I have tried to point out to you. The burden is on the one making the claim. If you say you believe in a god, the requirement for evidence is for you to show me, not the other way around. Unless you want to keep it to yourself, which is fine.
If I believe there is a troll in the forest and I don't tell anyone, nobody will ask for proof. If I start telling people I believe there is a troll in the forest, don't you think they should ask for proof before believing me ?
The burden is not for you to prove there is no troll in the forest in that instance. Just like it is not my burden to prove god does not exist, because there is no evidence of any kind to justify a belief in a god or gods.
Just dancing here. You have no proof. Simple as that.
You believe in something with no justification for your belief and yet you and Jan accuse me of being divorced from reality. Comedy, pure comedy.
Quite the opposite, you are sticking to your ridiculous position that I should not require evidence of God because you don't have any.
LG
A believer in what ?
With regards to the idea or belief in or not of God, I am a believer and readily admit that. I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, but I can't prove a god or gods do not or have not existed. Can you ?
However, as I have tried to point out to you. The burden is on the one making the claim. If you say you believe in a god, the requirement for evidence is for you to show me, not the other way around. Unless you want to keep it to yourself, which is fine.
If I believe there is a troll in the forest and I don't tell anyone, nobody will ask for proof. If I start telling people I believe there is a troll in the forest, don't you think they should ask for proof before believing me ?
The burden is not for you to prove there is no troll in the forest in that instance. Just like it is not my burden to prove god does not exist, because there is no evidence of any kind to justify a belief in a god or gods.
Just dancing here. You have no proof. Simple as that.
You believe in something with no justification for your belief and yet you and Jan accuse me of being divorced from reality. Comedy, pure comedy.
Well if it's "God", that's hard to say, seeing how there's no logical way to rationalize a subject which is beyond logic. But you believe that you can believe things, I would say?jpappl said:
What if I say "the only gods we really know about, are us".
Or: "the only evidence is the evidence you can show yourself, I can't do it for you".
And, "God" is not like a troll in a forest, or some strange beast, or in fact, separate from us. Because we really are that.
At least, that's what I reckon. But about our selves, because the idea of God is the same idea.
not every theist calmly walks hand in hand with the school of fideism
Jpappl
“
as a brief introduction
BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
The only reason you say this is because you believe all claims of knowledge can be empirically validated.
The comedy is that there is no empirical evidence for this belief ....
once again, discussing of issues of evidence divorced from issues of qualification is not only unscientific but illogical.
“
that all claims of knowledge can be empirically demonstrated
but you have a rampant belief nonetheless which operates on an identical general principle (of what you accuse me of), .... so what gives?
there are tons of indications of the requirements all over the place
as a brief introduction
BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
you also might expect them to go to the forest, too
there is no evidence for persons who lay outside of the requirements, just like there is no evidence of trolls in a forest for persons who never go to the forest
:shrug:
The only reason you say this is because you believe all claims of knowledge can be empirically validated.
The comedy is that there is no empirical evidence for this belief ....
once again, discussing of issues of evidence divorced from issues of qualification is not only unscientific but illogical.
and thats simply because of the rotation of the planet, nothing divine
still requires qualifications though ... especially when you start talking about rotating planetsand thats simply because of the rotation of the planet, nothing divine