What is the rational conclusion to draw when one sees a floating ball of light? Just curious in case I ever see one.
I'm sorry, but there is no god.
- Thread starter Micholi
- Start date
Nor have I ever seen one. But the rational conclusion would be reached after first rejecting all other possible conclusions - and not inferring within that conclusion anything more than what one actually experienced.
For example, concluding that it is "a ghost" is not only irrational (ghosts have never been proven to exist) but it infers upon the "floating ball of light" more than was actually experienced (namely the observation of a glowing ball of light) - as "ghost" has more implications than "floating ball of light" - such as human shape, a history within the living etc.
Yes falling back on some spiritual or supernatural explaination is usually the result of someone trying to grasp something that they cant understand and adding meaning to it.
The person who has seen said object is in a better position to interpret what they saw than the person who has not.
Heh...I agree with this. By definition.
How can a critical mind accept mysticism as the truth???
Faith in a god is illogical without proof.
I will keep searching for the truth in Science, the Bible, editorials, and any other source...hoping that God is merely beyond comprehension... hoping that one day I will encounter this God character in the Bible...but, I cannot deny that God likely does not exist.
Learned Hand
Registered Senior Member
Uhhhh, and so all bad comes from God? I thought that evil & despair are from he who was cast down from heaven. Perhaps God allows evil so that we have good and bad choices to make in life? Many people can do much good in their hearts for deformed or retarded children and make their "unfair" lives more endearing. Victims of child abuse can help steer others who have fallen under similar prey towards a very giving affect. Perhaps the most difficult thing a child can do in such situtation is to forgive; and behold the Lord's Prayer: "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." If a child can truly forgive such atrocity, does he not receive the same level of forgiveness from the Lord? The Golden Rule, you know.
I suggest picking up the works of philosopher and mathmetician Blaise Pascal. He logically proves not the existence of God, but that it is better for mankind to believe in Him than not to believe. A good place to start if you have no faith.
About the closest you are going to get as far as "proof" is near death experiences and pychic phenomenae (contacting the spirit world,etc).
Then it is up to you determine if there is any validity to them.
The problem with religous texts alone is although originally these two things may have inspired them, the ignorance of mans ego and desire for control,etc is also then factored into them.
Example: portrayals of God of what a certain group of peoples may have wanted God to be.
1. If you are a child, then you must follow rule 2.
2. You must hold an adult's hand while you cross the street.
For a child to not obey number 2, but tells other children they must obey, then it is hypocritical.
An adult is exempt from the rules. If the adult does not follow the rules set for the child, the child may wonder why they have to follow the rules. So, if God existed, then it is sending mixed signals...beautiful.
That is why we must try to look from the adult's perspective, and find out why they did not follow the rules and judge the decision. I deem God's decision as just for the sake of the rest of the children who are following the rules to remove the child who does not follow the rules.
Does that mean we should adopt the philosophy of God and think: Do as I say, not as I do?
Imprefect beings are incapable of implementing this philosophy without being hypocritical because the nature of imperfection is to break the established rules.
If God does not exist, then it is especially important not to follow specific rules that it set (like murdering the children who disobey their parents)...and God likely does not exist. If God does exist, then it is important to believe that Jesus died to fulfill the debt of imperfection.
This is a good reason for all theists to get their heads out of the Bible and seek out the wisdom of God and the truth of God's existence.
There is no verse in the Bible which reads that the Bible is the authority.
Get past the brainwashing mysticism crap and seek out the truth that is real...though I warn the theists that it is a hard road of discovery. But, I know if I end up returning to God it will be because I found that he exists, not because someone told me, or a book told me.
How can a theist preach and be true and genuine to himself and others, if he is not convinced that God exists?? There is no proof given in the Bible or in church. No preacher or scientist has it either. The truth is in Science. The truth is in life and history. Somewhere in the mix, the truth exists...whatever it is. I hope God is at the center of the truth, but I do not believe it is....prove me wrong.
Hmmm...yah I definitely am skeptical with psychic and death experiences...
Again, we are left with a choice about the validity of these claims.
It's no different than the choice about the validity of the Bible's claims.
If faith is just a choice, then it is unfair for God to expect us to throw reason out the window.
Right.
Wrong. If you die and and are still having conscious experience you'll be pretty convinced , right? No faith required.
Just to return to the topic a little... and maybe a dose of sanity...
Can someone tell me where the idea that "there is no god" comes from? Why would anyone question the claims of the various religions and come to such a silly conclusion?
And on the flip-side, if you are an atheist, what would drive you to declare that there was indeed a god?
Any thoughts?
For LG:
Let's forget whether or not I can demonstrate an electron to you. Could you compare and contrast the practical differences between the results of what I claim are electrons flowing, and the practical effects of god(s)?
Thanks.
Can someone tell me where the idea that "there is no god" comes from? Why would anyone question the claims of the various religions and come to such a silly conclusion?
And on the flip-side, if you are an atheist, what would drive you to declare that there was indeed a god?
Any thoughts?
For LG:
Let's forget whether or not I can demonstrate an electron to you. Could you compare and contrast the practical differences between the results of what I claim are electrons flowing, and the practical effects of god(s)?
Thanks.
envy of god - when guffy emotions hits one's head one speaks all sorts of nonsense
its not that they are different - its that they work along identical lines - one person can indicate electricity, and with a foundation of knowledge (and hopefully practice) can elaborate on the nature of electrons and another person can indicate the phenomenal world or the nature of being alive, and with a foundation of knowledge (and hopefully practice) can elaborate on the nature of god.
I have asked every single theist here and elsewhere who have claimed direct experiences to explain them. Not one has ever shown those experiences are little more than what they've conjured from their imaginations.
It's bunk.
No, all you are is a blind person claiming that sight is impossible because a sighted person can't convey to you in any way what they experience. To know what it is to see, one must actually have seen. The same way with mystical experiences. To actually know what it is like one must experience it oneself. The point is not whether or not you find the claims particularly convincing or not (after all, who really cares what any individual hairless monkey thinks?) The point is that not all religion is based on faith. Some of it is based on these experiences. For those who experience them they are universally regarded as an insight into reality (regardless of what their prior religous beliefs were). What makes you think the current level of human consciousness is the highest? Take a look around at how stupid and irrational most people are. Isn't it kind of arrogant to say that the normal everyday consciousness is an accurate perception of reality.
As far as these experiences not easily being put into words - sorry, but ineffability is part of the package, you have to experience it yourself to know what it is. If you dismiss them simply because they are ineffable then you are just a blind person saying sight is impossible.
http://www.srds.co.uk/begin/mystical.htm
Of course, a blind scientist will fully accept "sight" since sight is in no way necessary to deduce it, based on the existence of photons, which stems from a deep understanding of natural science.
This blind person you refer to is clearly a theist.
To know what the subjective experience is, of course. But not to accept the existence of it, based on simple scientific principles.
Which are all interpreted by the experiencer through the lens of faith. People regularly experience amazing mental ststes, some of which cause the experiencer to check him/herself into the hospital. It's usually the direct result of a tumor (benign or not) or some other malady causing a severe neurotransmitter imbalance.
Well, that's an outright fabrication on your part. In modern societies, they are recognized by many as delusions. See response above. Ancient tribal mentalities had no other way of interpreting them. That mentality still exists. Guess where? Theism.
Nothing. There are clearly real mental states and abilities that some humans possess - namely in savants - that still astound scientists. But they are repeatably demonstrable with real, measurable aspects.
Yes. I was just going to bring that up...
A spurious or chronic delusion. Happens to people all the time.
No one dismisses these experiences. The really do happen to people as I've just said about a dozen times. It's the interpretation of them as pointing to reality that's the problem. I've had some dreams that were almost what I understand "visions" to be like. But they were just dreams! And unless you can somehow verify these "experiences" as being "real" then why do you consider them as anything other than subjective phenomena?
You said it yourself above: "Take a look around at how stupid and irrational most people are." You do the same and tell me that there aren't liars, the truly ill, and the honestly confused, that will interpret the same thing we might experience as a vivid dream, as a "vision" and proclaim the kingdom of god.
No, if everyone were blind except for one person it doesn't matter how much information they know about a thing they would still have no way of knowing that things look a certain way. The sighted person would have no way of proving it either. If everyone were blind no matter how much you knew about objects they would still be clueless that objects actually look like something.
How so?
No, you can know all you want about photons and wavelengths and have no idea that things actually look a certain way. If everyone were blind a sighted person talking about colors would sound stark raving mad.
Faith has absolutely nothing to do with it. Faith is believing something without evidence. A person seeing whats right in front of them requires no faith. They know it through direct experience.
-This is you making an assumption that all mind states that deviate from everyday consciousness are pathological and delusional. We all accept that there are mind states in which a person is less in touch with reality. How do you know there are not mind states in which one is more in touch with reality? And from the perspective of these states our normal consciousness appears pathological.
-Normal people that have psychotic episodes and recover recognize that when they were in the psychotic episode they were out of touch with reality. Normal people that have mystical experiences when they return to regular consciousness think the mystical state is more real and our everyday consciousness is delusional in comparison.
- People that are psychotic have decreased well-being. People that have mystical experiences report increased well-being.
-Again, what makes you think our everyday consciousness is some kind of ideal state that there is nothing better than? Doesn't it make more sense that mind states exist on a continuum with psychotic people at one end, everday consciousness in the middle, and exceptional states above what is considered normal?
No, all your doing is making a massive assumption that all mental states that deviate from everyday consciousness is pathological and arbitrarily stating that its impossible that there could be a mind state above what we all normally have everyday.
So only that which is measurable is real? Seems lika an arbitrary metaphysical assumption to me.
Assumption that everyday consciousness could no way be improved upon and that all mental states that deviate from everyday consciousness is pathological. Assumption, and in my opinion doesn't even make intuitive sense. Its almost a kind of anthropocentirc thinking - that the universe is measured by man as he exists now.
What interpretation. The people that have these experiences feel that way. People that recover from psychotic episodes don't feel that way.
I've always thought of visions as waking dreams. Many people have had scientific breakthroughs during dreams - Crick, Kekule. These states of minds shouldn't be dismissed simply because they are non-quantifiable.
There are.
They exist too.
Perhaps.
They might. But you have to distinguish between "mystical experience" and "vision" first of all. In a vision things are seen and heard - in "mystical experiences" there is no seeing, or hearing, rather it is a change in the way the world/self/universe is perceived. You can dismiss it if you want but all it really boils down to is saying that our normal everday consciousness is as good as it gets as far as the perception of reality and that there are not exceptional states in which reality is perceived more clearly. It's a pretty bold claim for a hairless monkey to make.
Last edited:
Well no analogy is perfect. But this one did demonstrate that laws are made in response to the need for those laws in the population that those laws rule.
Right. If you are God then you make the rules for your creation you are not making the rules for yourself.
I believe God has the right to do whatever he pleases with His creation.
Thats you call. But God is not a man or an equal to mankind. He is above us and therefore The standards we use in relation to each other cannot be applied to Him.
No i don't think God is justified by His power. I think He is justified because of His perfection. God is perfect to judge and justified in carrying out judgements. If the Ultimate source of Wisdom deems it necessary to order the deaths of anyone then He has a very good reason to have that order carried out.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
The little ones where innocent. This is right. But being innocent and being killed is a ticket to eternity with God. You see death as the end. But physical death is not the end.
If you have an eternal perspective then you could well say that those innocents where actually given eternity with God because they where killed before they reached the age of understanding.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days