God in the Forest

[Light Travelling]

Philosophy 101 - If a tree falls down in the forest and noone hears it does it still make a noise? etc etc

well the same answer must be applied to;

If a tree is in the forest and noone is there to see it or hear it, does it still exist?

and then the same answer must be applied to;

If god is anywhere in existence and is not being currently seen or heard by humans, does it still exist?




And the point to this is not to prove god exists or to convince that god exists. It is to show that the concept of God cant be disproved.

 

[geeser]

t is to show that the concept of God cant be disproved

then this is a wasted thread, because there is no way you are going to disprove the concept of god, as it is subjectively real to all who believe in it, what you have to do is prove, it is in their imagination, that they have imagined it, but unfortunately those that believe, like anybody who believe he's seen or heard something thats not there,(ghosts, fairies, etc...) are so stubborn in that belief.
the only way to convince anybody like that, is to debate them with logic until they convince themselves, but still some refuse to see the truth.

and in answer to you forest question, if the forest is in your subjective mind then no it does'nt exist, but if the tree is in a real forest then we can always, go and visit it,
where as we cant visit a god, outside of our subjective minds.

 

[water]

Light Travelling,

If god is anywhere in existence and is not being currently seen or heard by humans, does it still exist?

I'm sure there are more verses on this, but I found this one to be pertinent:

Rom. 3:3-4:
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.​

It is a common argument against God and religion to say that since there exists evil in this world, how could a good God exist as well. The implication being that the state of this world reflects God. And that thus if there is no God to be seen here, then God does not exist. Or that, if people are faithless, this means God is unfaithful.

If the relationship between the Creator and the created were that of reciprocity, then the above argument would hold. But per definition, since God is a *creator*, the relationship between Him and the creation is not that of reciprocity, but that of *creation*.

It is possible though that the created does not know it is a created, and therefore it assumes a different relationship between itself and God, that assumed relationship often being reciprocity or passivity.

And the point to this is not to prove god exists or to convince that god exists. It is to show that the concept of God cant be disproved.

Nothing can be disproved, only temporarily discarded.
Once you enter the domain of proof, you thus enter the domain of evidence/premises -- and these are not ultimate, they are always up for review.
Once you enter the domain of proof, you are in the domain of agnosticism.


* * *


geeser,

then this is a wasted thread, because there is no way you are going to disprove the concept of god, as it is subjectively real to all who believe in it, what you have to do is prove, it is in their imagination, that they have imagined it, but unfortunately those that believe, like anybody who believe he's seen or heard something thats not there,(ghosts, fairies, etc...) are so stubborn in that belief.

Why would you have to prove that God is in their imagination?
What is driving you to prove that God is in their imagination?

Justify the pursuit of such proof.

the only way to convince anybody like that, is to debate them with logic until they convince themselves, but still some refuse to see the truth.

What truth? Whose truth?

and in answer to you forest question, if the forest is in your subjective mind then no it does'nt exist, but if the tree is in a real forest then we can always, go and visit it,
where as we cant visit a god, outside of our subjective minds.

... Here's a creation who doesn't know it is one.

 

[cato]

hello water, I would like to here your take on this old arguent.

It is a common argument against God and religion to say that since there exists evil in this world, how could a good God exist as well. The implication being that the state of this world reflects God. And that thus if there is no God to be seen here, then God does not exist. Or that, if people are faithless, this means God is unfaithful.

does evil exist? if so, where did it come from?

 

[water]

hello water, I would like to here your take on this old arguent.

does evil exist? if so, where did it come from?

My current take on this is that evil comes from disobeying or ignoring God.
Note that by this I mean acts humans do. I do not think tsunamis are evil, for example.

 

[Yorda]

that people do evil things are just part of their evolution. they have to do evil in order to understand that they should do good.

humans are not evil. evil is in contradiction to us. we want no evil. our bodies make us do evil. although, evil is not "evil". it is the thing which makes good possible.

if someone would cut of my hand, it would be evil. but it is evil only because i am a person. so evil comes from consciousness.

and if we extend this. the world is visible only because i am a person. so the world also comes from my consciousness. i push the world away from me and say that i am me and the world is not me.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Philosophy 101 - If a tree falls down in the forest and noone hears it does it still make a noise? etc etc

well the same answer must be applied to;

If a tree is in the forest and noone is there to see it or hear it, does it still exist?

and then the same answer must be applied to;

If god is anywhere in existence and is not being currently seen or heard by humans, does it still exist?

And the point to this is not to prove god exists or to convince that god exists. It is to show that the concept of God cant be disproved.

That's a great comparison of apples to anvils. I can go into a forrest and see
a tree, I can observe that it falls down, I can observe fallen trees which I
never personally saw fall, I can set up a video recorder to capture a falling
tree in my absence, etc. In other words the original tree-anaology stated
is supported by evidence.

The 'god' anaology has no such support.

 

[water]

That's a great comparison of apples to anvils. I can go into a forrest and see
a tree, I can observe that it falls down, I can observe fallen trees which I
never personally saw fall, I can set up a video recorder to capture a falling
tree in my absence, etc. In other words the original tree-anaology stated
is supported by evidence.

The 'god' anaology has no such support.

FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME:

You, nor anybody else, have no business trying to prove or disprove God. It is per definition beyond human power to do so (the created cannot prove it is created).

If God wants you to know Him, He will let you know.

After that, there is a reason or reasons to accept God, but none to deny Him, unless you wish to deny Him.

I don't know why you keep posting here about God and how there is no proof of God's existence.
This tells me that you are either
1. indulging in fighting strawmen
or
2. actively denying God.

 

[(Q)]

My current take on this is that evil comes from disobeying or ignoring God.
Note that by this I mean acts humans do. I do not think tsunamis are evil, for example.

Of course, tsunamis are good, they are considered, 'acts of god.'

So, I am doing evil when I save the life of a person, because I ignore and disobey your god?

 

[geeser]

Why would you have to prove that God is in their imagination?

because thats the only place it could possible reside.

What is driving you to prove that God is in their imagination?

nothing, I never stated I wished to change the mind of the delusional, I put it forward as an option.

Justify the pursuit of such proof.

why, it is already there, there is nothing To strive or gain or accomplish by pursuing it, it obvious to people with there eyes open.

What truth? Whose truth?

objective realitys.

 

[Yorda]

You, nor anybody else, have no business trying to prove or disprove God. It is per definition beyond human power to do so (the created cannot prove it is created).

I can't accept that I wouldn't be "the best". God can't be better than me. If he is the best, I must be him. Small children sometimes say: I am the best. It's because that's what they really are. Not the persons. Not the body. But the self within us, is perfect.

So, I am doing evil when I save the life of a person, because I ignore and disobey your god?

God is love and truth. If you do something loveful in an honest way, you obey God.

 

[android]

If a tree falls in a forest --- then it fell, and all of the things accorded to falling happened, whether perceived or not.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Water,

FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME:

You, nor anybody else, have no business trying to prove or disprove God. It is per definition beyond human power to do so (the created cannot prove it is created).

Ok miss authority on popular fantasy.

If God wants you to know Him, He will let you know.

After that, there is a reason or reasons to accept God, but none to deny Him, unless you wish to deny Him.

A fresh new leap in rationalization and congnitive dissonance I see.

I don't know why you keep posting here about God and how there is no proof of God's existence.
This tells me that you are either
1. indulging in fighting strawmen
or
2. actively denying God.

Tell me the story about the 'mercy' experience between yourself and 'God'.

 

[Raithere]

And the point to this is not to prove god exists or to convince that god exists. It is to show that the concept of God cant be disproved.

The problem is not disproving God, it is proving God.

There are an infinite variety of things that we might conceive of that we cannot disprove the existence of. Why pick one and ignore the others? Upon what grounds, for instance, do you disbelieve the existence of underpants gnomes?

~Raithere

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The problem is not disproving God, it is proving God.

There are an infinite variety of things that we might conceive of that we cannot disprove the existence of. Why pick one and ignore the others? Upon what grounds, for instance, do you disbelieve the existence of underpants gnomes?

~Raithere

Step 1: Collect underpants
Step 2:
Step 3: Profit!

 

[water]

(Q),

Of course, tsunamis are good, they are considered, 'acts of god.'

No, I have never claimed either of what you are stating above.

So, I am doing evil when I save the life of a person, because I ignore and disobey your god?

??
If you are saving the life of a person (as in saving them from drowning or from fire), then you have performed an act of obedience to God.


* * *

geeser,

Why would you have to prove that God is in their imagination?

because thats the only place it could possible reside.

On the basis of what are you making such a claim, and why do you think your basis is superior to any other?

What is driving you to prove that God is in their imagination?

nothing, I never stated I wished to change the mind of the delusional, I put it forward as an option.

Why? Why are you putting it forward as an option?

Justify the pursuit of such proof.

why, it is already there, there is nothing To strive or gain or accomplish by pursuing it, it obvious to people with there eyes open.

You have provided no justification. Only your alleged superiority.

What truth? Whose truth?

objective realitys.

And you have an immediate grasp on objective reality?
An observer, with all the inherent flaws of observation?


* * *


Crunchy Cat,

Ok miss authority on popular fantasy.

Read what I said.

A fresh new leap in rationalization and congnitive dissonance I see.

On your part, yes.

Tell me the story about the 'mercy' experience between yourself and 'God'.

This is just what it is -- mercy. It can't be explained; or at least I can't explain it. I can only tell you that God works in mysterious ways indeed. There was no sudden rapture, no visions, nothing of that sort (I am the first one to write such things off as superstition right away). It just happened, over time.
And it is not that I am now living in some sort of bliss or that all my problems were solved -- far from that. There is a tranquility and sense of a knowledge that I haven't known before, a new quality.

I understand that this can be done away as self-delusion, or personal progress in acquring better self-esteem, there's plenty of terms in psychology, philosophy and popular culture to write off what has happened to me as insignificant.

But it is important to me, and those who have also received that mercy are able to value it.


All in all, I don't know why self-proclaimed unbelievers discuss about God. The only argument they have to go with is the assumption that their method and knowledge are superior.
Atheists (ie. anti-theists) often go against theists for the exact same reason -- supposing that theists assume their theistic knowledge to be superior to the atheistic. When it is the theists who alwys claim they are merely imperfect vessels!

We do not assume superiority, but that atheists tell us we are, tells me something about the atheistic essential lack of understanding of God.


* * *

Raithere,

The problem is not disproving God, it is proving God.

First of all, ask why you desire proof.
Say that proof were possible. What would you do once you had that proof?

There are an infinite variety of things that we might conceive of that we cannot disprove the existence of. Why pick one and ignore the others?

Because not all interact with us.

Upon what grounds, for instance, do you disbelieve the existence of underpants gnomes?

At least on the grounds that they don't seem to have anything crucial to do with us.
But not only that.

One doesn't believe in God because one had proof of God -- whereby one had obtained this proof indepently of oneself.
One believes in God because God has incited one to believe in Him.

 

[(Q)]

If you are saving the life of a person (as in saving them from drowning or from fire), then you have performed an act of obedience to God.

Sorry, but you'll have to show me that from Scriptures, I can't simply take your word for it.

Tsunamis are good, they are acts of god. Obviously, there are not enough souls in heaven and the quotas must be filled.

 

[Yorda]

Tsunamis are good, they are acts of god.

I agree and a world without the possibility tsunamis and earthquakes would be impossible.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Water,

Crunchy Cat,

Read what I said.

I did. It was a position of authority resulting from a defense mechanism.

On your part, yes.

Whatever.

...There is a tranquility and sense of a knowledge that I haven't known before, a new quality... But it is important to me...

This is the crux of it all right here (and I am genuinely happy for you btw).
Somehow, you have achieved a state of emotion and perception that is a
very new and positive experience for you, something to be valued highly.

These types of states are something that I have experienced all throughout
my life. Some similar to yours and others completely different. From my
perspective, they are profound, earth shattering, euphoric, etc. multiplied
by a factor of a billion. I value them very much.

These event's are evidence of 'something'... possibly some combination of
aging, genetic variation, blood flow anomolies, etc. Asking questions,
experimenting, analyzing results, forming and testing hypothesis / theory,
are going to help you find the answers and simply saying the answer is 'God'
is nothing more than an easy fantasy substitution.

All in all, I don't know why self-proclaimed unbelievers discuss about God.

This deserves it's own thread. If you make it, they will answer (myself
included).

The only argument they have to go with is the assumption that their method and knowledge are superior.
Atheists (ie. anti-theists) often go against theists for the exact same reason -- supposing that theists assume their theistic knowledge to be superior to the atheistic. When it is the theists who alwys claim they are merely imperfect vessels!

We do not assume superiority, but that atheists tell us we are, tells me something about the atheistic essential lack of understanding of God.

Stop thinking in terms of superiority and inferiority. This is about getting as
close to truth as possible and reality is the ultimate validation. Will CH20
prevent decomposition? Try it out... reality will yield the answer. Does gravity
slow the passage of time? Stick two clocks in differing gravitational fields and
let reality yield the answer.

People who think in this manner will discover the earth is roughly a sphere.
People who think with belief will believe the earth is flat. One of these
groups of people will be much more aligned to the truth than the other.

 

[water]

If you are saving the life of a person (as in saving them from drowning or from fire), then you have performed an act of obedience to God.

Sorry, but you'll have to show me that from Scriptures, I can't simply take your word for it.

Some examples:

Matt. 10:42
And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.


Matt. 18:10-14
See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.​

Now, while you may not think that you are obeying God, it can be that you are performing deeds that are in accordance with His will. It can even be that God uses you to carry out what He desires -- even though you yourself disagree that the nature of your acting was such.

Matt. 25:34-40
Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'​

Similary as above -- you can perform acts of virtue that God approves of.

Tsunamis are good, they are acts of god.

Why do you think so?