God in the Forest

[Yorda]

Why do you think so?

Coz everything is created by God, also all natural laws. So tsunamis are acts of God. If there would be no tsunamis in the world, it would be paradoxical and it simply wouldn't work.

 

[water]

Crunchy Cat,

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

No, no defense mechanism. You only interpret it as such.

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.

Mine are nothing special. They are all very plain.

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,

Thus, the how is answered. But not the why.

are going to help you find the answers and simply saying the answer is 'God'
is nothing more than an easy fantasy substitution.

I understand how to you, this is all an easy fantasy substitution.
But I am not you; my experience is not your experience.

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).

Then do so. Present a challenge. I won't have time during the week.

Stop thinking in terms of superiority and inferiority. This is about getting as
close to truth as possible and reality is the ultimate validation.

Your understanding of truth.

You are only answering the how-questions.

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

How vs. why.

Both religionists as well as non-religionists are not rarely confusing the answers to the how with the answers to the why.


It is the focus on the how that keeps people busy with the material, losing regard for the spiritual.

 

[water]

Coz everything is created by God, also all natural laws. So tsunamis are acts of God. If there would be no tsunamis in the world, it would be paradoxical and it simply wouldn't work.

The problem is in what value and importance we ascribe to the things that happen.
Are we starting with the understanding that God is omnipotent? If thus, does this make us imply God is whimsical and thus wicked?
Enter the importance of a proper understanding of God.

 

[geeser]

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

I'm not making a claim, it's not open to question, objective reality is fact, subjective is fantasy. because reality is of a wider or more comprehensive application than fantasy.

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

because light said this,

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

so I said

what you have to do is prove, it is in their imagination, that they have imagined it

to show that this is the only recourse, because god is only in the subjective mind, and therefore near impossible to prove to the fundimentalist that god does not exist in the subjective realm.

You have provided no justification. Only your alleged superiority.

no superiority here, it only take one instant of a thing to prove it exist in objective reality, but it can exist as much as you wish it to, in subjective reality.

And you have an immediate grasp on objective reality?

no, no more than any clear thinking individual.

An observer, with all the inherent flaws of observation?

of course, as anybody else, I can be flawed in my observation of objective reality, but I certainly cant in your subjective mind, that only pertains to you.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Water,

Crunchy Cat,
No, no defense mechanism. You only interpret it as such.

Then paraphrase and correct my mis-interpretation.

Mine are nothing special. They are all very plain.

Don't contradict yourself. If you find them highly valuable then they are
very special regardless of how plain or fantastic they appear.

Thus, the how is answered. But not the why.
I understand how to you, this is all an easy fantasy substitution.
But I am not you; my experience is not your experience.
Your understanding of truth.
You are only answering the how-questions.
How vs. why.
Both religionists as well as non-religionists are not rarely confusing the answers to the how with the answers to the why.
It is the focus on the how that keeps people busy with the material, losing regard for the spiritual.

How and why are both good questions to ask when exploring truth. Why is
the sky blue? Why do I ovulate? Why do I crap? The only 'how' I am asserting
is how to think and the 'why' is because it gets closer to the truth and reality
will validate it.

I think you're way too hung up on anthropmorphizing the 'why' question.
There doesn't have to be a motive. 'Why' does anything exist? The answer
doesn't have to be a result of motive. It may be something simple like
'because non-existence doesn't exist'

Then do so. Present a challenge. I won't have time during the week.

I am not takeing ownership of YOUR question. I do happen to know several
answers and will give it should you find some time to make the thread.

 

[superluminal]

- God exists, I know it.

How?

- Well, the bible, nature, love, It all makes sense.

Couldn't the bible just be stories made up by people to help them get by and explain a world full of natural mysteries?

- No! Of course not you silly!

Why not?

- Well, you see, it's God's inspired word. And god's word is truth.

Ok. So, you think that nature and love are evidence of god?

- Oh yes! Certainly! Every tree...

So, what if they just evolved from more primitive life?

- Oh, no way. They are just sooo complex they had to have a designer. And besides, the bible tells us that God created every living thing.

Oh right. You said the bible was god's inspired word. How did you know that again?

- Well because! Every good christian knows that the bible is gods true word!

But who told you that?

- Didn't you ever go to Sunday school?

Umm...

- Well, there you go. How do you ever expect to learn things if you're not taught right?

Yea, I guess your right. So how did the Sunday school teacher know the bible is gods true word?

- That's easy. In the bible it says...

Wait! I keep asking you how anyone knows the bible is the word of god and you keep referring to the bible. That's just...

- Now hold on there. There's all kinds of other evidence that god is real and the bible is his word.

Ok?

- Look around you. The trees, birds, the whole universe. How do you think they got there?

Evolution and physics?

- Ha! The bible is clear that god created it all! It explains the first people, the first animals, how god was unhappy and brought the flood which explains the fossils on mountain tops... See?

So, besides the bible, how did you know it's the word of god and it's true?

- Aren't you listening? God is real otherwise how did you get here?

My parent's had sex?

- Very funny. Your very existence is proof of god and his love.

Why?

- Because he created you! Sheesh!

But how do you know?

- Look, read Genesis. It's all there.

---------------------------------------------------

Loop and repeat N times until you are ready to kill someone. I think I'll stick to physics.

 

[water]

Crunchy Cat,

Then paraphrase and correct my mis-interpretation.

It is simply a matter of a different outlook.
Like, an optimist will see a glass and say it is half-full, while a pessimist, looking a *the same* glass will say it's half-empty.

Don't contradict yourself. If you find them highly valuable then they are
very special regardless of how plain or fantastic they appear.

I meant that they aren't special in the sense of being extreme in any way.

How and why are both good questions to ask when exploring truth. Why is
the sky blue? Why do I ovulate? Why do I crap? The only 'how' I am asserting
is how to think and the 'why' is because it gets closer to the truth and reality
will validate it.

I do not think that observing material objective reality will offer answers to why-questions.

I think you're way too hung up on anthropmorphizing the 'why' question.
There doesn't have to be a motive. 'Why' does anything exist? The answer
doesn't have to be a result of motive. It may be something simple like
'because non-existence doesn't exist'

While I think that you are denigrating and relativizing human importance -- the importance humans have to themselves and to the universe.

The why is a question that supposes a purpose in its answer. If you deny that there is a purpose to things, or that this purpose is arbitrary, then I find it redundant and menaingless to ask why-questions in the first place.

I am not takeing ownership of YOUR question. I do happen to know several
answers and will give it should you find some time to make the thread.

Oh. It's just an argument. Anyone can start a thread. One doesn't own ideas or questions.

 

[superluminal]

Gerglefrump?

I'm cavistating the dufroddle drangblatt in an effort to scrobbleate you. Please help.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat,

It is simply a matter of a different outlook.
Like, an optimist will see a glass and say it is half-full, while a pessimist, looking a *the same* glass will say it's half-empty.

I understand the anology and I don't see how it applies to the situation.

I meant that they aren't special in the sense of being extreme in any way.

Ahhhh, I see. Personally I think a completely new state of emotion and
perception is pretty extreme; however, it is a subjective call after all.

I do not think that observing material objective reality will offer answers to why-questions.

I think it can answer all the why questions... it's just hard to find the right
way to ask sometimes. Either way, it has correctly answered more why
questions than any other method to date.

While I think that you are denigrating and relativizing human importance -- the importance humans have to themselves and to the universe.

The why is a question that supposes a purpose in its answer. If you deny that there is a purpose to things, or that this purpose is arbitrary, then I find it redundant and menaingless to ask why-questions in the first place.

I think the importance of humans is whatever they decide it to be. That
decision is heavily influenced by the DNA encoding behavior. I've seen
that purpose issue arise before and it usually ends up with a 'why' question
addressing it. 'Why' must there be a purpose? The only coherent answer
that has ever arisen is "I need it to be", implying an emotional need that's
not satisfied.

Oh. It's just an argument. Anyone can start a thread. One doesn't own ideas or questions.

I think it's a good subject and I think the concept of ownership that I referred
to is being mistaken for something different (ex. maybe like owning a car).
Owning something in the context I used denotes a self-chosen responsibility
to take personal sustained action to achieve somethig the individual cares
about.

 

[water]

Crunchy Cat,

I understand the anology and I don't see how it applies to the situation.

Because of your outlook, you are bound to interpret my stance to be that of self-defence.
I can't convince you otherwise; just like for a pessimist that glass will be half-empty, no matter what anyone says.

I think it can answer all the why questions... it's just hard to find the right
way to ask sometimes. Either way, it has correctly answered more why
questions than any other method to date.

Yeah right.
"Why do we live? -- Chemicals."

Bhagavad-gita 3,3:

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that
there are two classes of men who try to realize the self.
Some are inclined to understand it by empirical, philosophical speculation,
and
others by devotional service.​

We're trying to do the same thing, but we do it in different ways. And also, with different motives. Which does lead to different results.

I think the importance of humans is whatever they decide it to be.

And such a position invites ultimate relativism and arbitrariness.

That
decision is heavily influenced by the DNA encoding behavior. I've seen
that purpose issue arise before and it usually ends up with a 'why' question
addressing it. 'Why' must there be a purpose? The only coherent answer
that has ever arisen is "I need it to be", implying an emotional need that's
not satisfied.

And this "emotional need" you heavily denigrate and relativize, making it subordinate to some aspect of evolution.

I think it's a good subject and I think the concept of ownership that I referred
to is being mistaken for something different (ex. maybe like owning a car).
Owning something in the context I used denotes a self-chosen responsibility
to take personal sustained action to achieve somethig the individual cares
about.

Ah. Now I am tempted to ask you -- "Why is it so? Why should it be so? Why your way and not my way?"

 

[Light Travelling]

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

Thats no argument at all, you miss the big picture. The tsunami is there SO that you could save their life. If there were no tsunami you would not be able to perform that courageous and loving deed.

 

[Light Travelling]

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.

You kind of miss the point here, conveniently changing the analogy so it works for you.

The point is - what if you cant go into the forest and see the tree, what if you cant put a camera there. What if it is a species of tree noone has ever seen before. Does that tree exist or not? Does it only begin to exist once someone has seen it / experienced it.

 

[Light Travelling]

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

Well I've never heard of underpant gnomes, but if you present the case for their existence I will be happy to consider it.

If you can show that all peoples across the world through out recorded history have believed in the underpant gnome. If you can show stories of thousands of people through out history who claim experience of the underpant gnome. And if you can show the relevence and importance that the underpant gnome has to the nature of us, life or reality I will consdier it. Cant say I will believe but I will definately consider.

I think it comes down to a thing called discrimination. Humans are endowed with a mental function called discrimination, which allows choice between one thing and another - the classification between good and bad, right and wrong, truth and false. Why we discriminate the way we do is a whole other subject, I can see though that it would have implications into who we are, what we are and why we are. (I havn't got time to explore that right now but I might have a bash later)!

 

[stefan]

The point is - what if you cant go into the forest and see the tree, what if you cant put a camera there. What if it is a species of tree noone has ever seen before. Does that tree exist or not? Does it only begin to exist once someone has seen it / experienced it.

if no one has seen the tree and theres no evidence for the tree( in fossil or dna records )it could be the oakabeechchestnut tree that has pink leaves and black fruit called banapears, that tastes like apples bananas a pears all at the same time, which also only bears fruit once every 4 years on a saturday, when there a z in the month. no it does'nt exist it's pure fantasy.
when there's evidence for it in the real world then, it exists.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat,
Because of your outlook, you are bound to interpret my stance to be that of self-defence.
I can't convince you otherwise; just like for a pessimist that glass will be half-empty, no matter what anyone says.

Of course you can. For example:

The glass is 50% full AND 50% empty.

Yeah right.
"Why do we live? -- Chemicals."

Bhagavad-gita 3,3:

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that
there are two classes of men who try to realize the self.
Some are inclined to understand it by empirical, philosophical speculation,
and
others by devotional service.​

We're trying to do the same thing, but we do it in different ways. And also, with different motives. Which does lead to different results.

We are trying to do the same thing (I agree). One set of results is tested
against reality. One set of results is tested against emotion. It's a case
of 'what is' vs. 'I feel' and I guantee the latter category can never provide a
true answer to a simple question like 'why do I see'.

And such a position invites ultimate relativism and arbitrariness.

And this only becomes a problem if 'human purpose' is demanded.

And this "emotional need" you heavily denigrate and relativize, making it subordinate to some aspect of evolution.

Very close. I don't make it a subordinate of an aspect of evolution. I do
suspect it is a result of how our behavior evolved due to social pressure.

Ah. Now I am tempted to ask you -- "Why is it so? Why should it be so? Why your way and not my way?"

No problem. It's simple, people who become owners spend 80% of their
focus doing something that will result in high quality on average. People
whom are not owners spend 20% of their focus doing something that will
result in much low quality on average.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You kind of miss the point here, conveniently changing the analogy so it works for you.

Don't blame me, it's reality that verified you're not comparing apples to apples. You chose to contradict it in the first place.

The point is - what if you cant go into the forest and see the tree,

I'll find someone in who can.

what if you cant put a camera there.

I'll find someone who can.

What if it is a species of tree noone has ever seen before.

How is that even remotely relevant?

Does that tree exist or not? Does it only begin to exist once someone has seen it / experienced it.

If a tree is present in reality then it exists regardless of human observation.
Reality tells us this.

 

[Light Travelling]

if no one has seen the tree and theres no evidence for the tree( in fossil or dna records )it could be the oakabeechchestnut tree that has pink leaves and black fruit called banapears, that tastes like apples bananas a pears all at the same time, which also only bears fruit once every 4 years on a saturday, when there a z in the month. no it does'nt exist it's pure fantasy.
when there's evidence for it in the real world then, it exists.

In which case you are saying that anything we have not yet discovered does not really exist, and it is only by discovering it / experiencing it that it comes into existence. In which case you are actually saying that we create reality by what we experience - or reality is a product of our minds and has no inherent existence outside of us. In which case any god which is a product of mind is equally as real as a tree that is the product of someones mind ! There is no difference.

If a tree is present in reality then it exists regardless of human observation.
Reality tells us this.

Well then you have to apply the same conclusion to the existence of god. - human observation or lack of it makes no difference whatsoever to the inherent existence of god.

 

[water]

Light Travelling,

You kind of miss the point here, conveniently changing the analogy so it works for you.

The point is - what if you cant go into the forest and see the tree, what if you cant put a camera there. What if it is a species of tree noone has ever seen before. Does that tree exist or not? Does it only begin to exist once someone has seen it / experienced it.

The only problem is, How could we ever even know of a thing that we have no evidence of?

But here, the general problem of evidence enters: ANY evidence can be disputed. There is no clearly preset criteria what constitutes compelling evidence. Plus, there is the inherent problem of the relativity of all observation and evidence.
75% IS NOT 100%.
...
98% IS NOT 100%.
It is common sense reasoning that turns 98% into 100%.

But at least as far as the philosophical argument goes, something CAN exist even though we do not directly know of it.
We cannot prove a negative, so we must assume it is possible that said thing exists.


* * *


Crunchy Cat,

Because of your outlook, you are bound to interpret my stance to be that of self-defence.
I can't convince you otherwise; just like for a pessimist that glass will be half-empty, no matter what anyone says.

Of course you can. For example:

The glass is 50% full AND 50% empty.

No, I cannot convince you otherwise. You are an atheist, and you are bound to see my theistic stance as that of self-defence.
We can't talk meaningfully to eachother, can't you see?
You and I speak different languages.

We are trying to do the same thing (I agree). One set of results is tested
against reality. One set of results is tested against emotion. It's a case
of 'what is' vs. 'I feel' and I guantee the latter category can never provide a
true answer to a simple question like 'why do I see'.

Straw.

Plus, What is?" is the fundamental question of philosophy, not of science. Science asks "How does this work?"

Science does not make claims about what there is in the world and what is not there. A scientific theory is merely a statistical model. It is meaningless to ask whether this model is adequate to reality or not; we can only ask whether its forecasts are in accordance with observation.

But here the problems of contaminating the sample, the effect of a self-fulfulling prophecy, and the inherent arbitrariness of common sense reasoning ("If it is 98% safe, you can rely on it." or "If the chance to get a tick is less than 1%, you needn't worry and needn't take precautions") -- all these problems come into play once trying to test and apply scientific theories.


Why do people see? So that they wouldn't get lost.

And such a position invites ultimate relativism and arbitrariness.

And this only becomes a problem if 'human purpose' is demanded.

You have let the complacency of the material world make you numb.

And this "emotional need" you heavily denigrate and relativize, making it subordinate to some aspect of evolution.

Very close. I don't make it a subordinate of an aspect of evolution. I do
suspect it is a result of how our behavior evolved due to social pressure.

You look down on this what you call "emotional need".
Your explanation/suspection -- "I do
suspect it is a result of how our behavior evolved due to social pressure" -- is pointless.

You can afford to think the way you think because you have the luxury of not having to find a purpose to your life.

No problem. It's simple, people who become owners spend 80% of their
focus doing something that will result in high quality on average. People
whom are not owners spend 20% of their focus doing something that will
result in much low quality on average.

You own shit.
Your life can be taken away in a second, and there is nothing you could do.
The concept of ownership is misleading.
The concept of dedication is not.

 

[water]

Crunchy Cat,

Don't blame me, it's reality that verified you're not comparing apples to apples. You chose to contradict it in the first place.

Reality -- and YOU know it, and we don't, right? ...

The point is - what if you cant go into the forest and see the tree,

I'll find someone in who can.

what if you cant put a camera there.

I'll find someone who can.

But will you believe them?!
It will be subjective evidence, and thus not reliable! Maybe they have manipulated the tape!

Does that tree exist or not? Does it only begin to exist once someone has seen it / experienced it.

If a tree is present in reality then it exists regardless of human observation.
Reality tells us this.

How do you know what reality tells you ...

 

[(Q)]

The only problem is, How could we ever even know of a thing that we have no evidence of?

You claim to know all sorts of things that have no evidence whatsoever. Why start contradicting yourself now?

But here, the general problem of evidence enters: ANY evidence can be disputed. There is no clearly preset criteria what constitutes compelling evidence.

Complete and utter nonsense. Please refrain from comment on that which you know nothing about. You, who has yet to form a rational thought, cannot possibly care about what constitutes evidence.

75% IS NOT 100%.
...
98% IS NOT 100%.
It is common sense reasoning that turns 98% into 100%.

Yet, YOU are perfectly willing to accept 0% as 100%.

You are an ocean of contradiction and confusion.