In regards to atheism.

[Hapsburg]

I know, it arose along with our modern lifestyle, which emerged from hunter-gatherers, who, it is theorized, are largely polytheistic due to the nature of their environment.

That's an exaggeration of monotheism's antiquity. It arose much later than agriculture; hell, much later than urban living. It's fairly recent, arguably arising with Judaism and its desperate attempts to maintain its cultural identity in the midst of repeated forced relocation and occupation. Zoroastrianism and Atenism are precedents, and are older than Judaism, but their alleged monotheism is ambiguous. Monotheism as we think of it, i.e. Abrahamic religion, is much more recent and it certainly wasn't an inevitable result of civilisation. In fact, monotheism is rather atypical as far as theologies go.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I know, it arose along with our modern lifestyle, which emerged from hunter-gatherers, who, it is theorized, are largely polytheistic due to the nature of their environment.

How do you know this?

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Maybe there are things which aren't observable to some, but to others. That would seem to be the case given that God (at least in it's basic form) has been believed in from the beginning of known history.

Belief in something does not equate to that thing actually existing.
If some things are observable to some and not others then the reality is that the thing exists and is simply unobservable to some people.
There are not two realities.
Just one.
Subjective interpretation of that one reality is where differences lie.
Similarly that thing may not actually exist, and the interpretation that one has that they have observed it is simply a misinterpretation of what does actually exist.

Within your world view, which has a lot to do with how you perceive reality, you have decided that God does not exist. My world view holds that God does exist. Both views have basis in our perceived reality.

And both views are just interpretations or misinterpretations of a single reality.
Who is correct?
Can we know?

People who believe in God, generally see little evidences within the fabric of their perception, which if God existed, by definition, that would be a way to comprehend the existence of God (by definition).

"I tawt I taw a puddy tat a creepin' up on me!"
And by "puddy tat" I do of course mean circular reasoning...
Unfortunately it works the other way (and just as fallaciously): people who believe in the non-existence of God generally see little evidences within the fabric of their perception which, if God did not exist, by definition, that would be a way to comprehend the non-existence of God (by definition).

It's all about your position on the matter.

Which makes God a subjective matter.

If God does exist, then you are within God, and God is within you. If you look outside of yourself for God, then you may develop a false conception of what God as you would be looking for something separate to yourself, or something which is unobservable by human sense perception.

If God does not exist, then you are not within God, and God is not within you.
And anything you believe you perceive as God is simply a misperception, a misinterpretation of reality.

Why aren't you more concerned with where this concept of God originated? Apart from the giant conspiracy theories abound, ie, God was invented to explain thunder, or God was invented to control masses, ideas which cannot be verified, where is the study of this.

Why class them as conspiracy theories?
How do you know they are?

The scriptures, whether you want to accept it or not, are very sophisticated, and very profound. And some of these scripture were written thousands of years ago. It is hardly likely that they evolved with man. But you're entitled to think they. So in this way you have already concluded that God does not exist.

"Is this an argument from personal incredulity I see before me...?"
You'll need more than "It is hardly likely...".
To many it is highly likely that they did evolve with man, but you're entitled to think otherwise.

In my opinion. Belief or non belief in God, is a fundamental thing, not something we come to acquire. But over the course of our existence we can come to alter our beliefs through experiential knowledge, and informational knowledge (which be ultimately be strengthened by good intelligence and of course experience.

If by "alter our beliefs" you mean "acquire" then this is a contradiction.
Or do you mean that we might change the nature of our non-belief, but always have it remain as a non-belief?[/I]

 

[spidergoat]

How do you know this?

jan.

Science.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Science.

What science?
Give me a link.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

"Polytheism is prevalent among tribes in the Amazon basin (the Sherenti, Mundurucu, and Tapirape) and in the rain forests of Africa (the Ndorobo), New Guinea (the Keraki and Ulawans), and Southeast Asia (the Iban of Borneo and the Mnong Gar and Lolo of Vietnam). But desert dwellers—the bedouin of Arabia, the Berbers of the western Sahara, the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert, the Nuer and Turkana of the Kenyan/Sudanese desert—are usually monotheistic. Of course, despite allegiances to a single deity, other supernatural beings may be involved, like angels and djinns and Satan. But the hierarchy is notable, with minor deities subservient to the Omnipotent One.
This division makes ecological sense. Deserts teach large, singular lessons, like how tough, spare, and withholding the environment is; the world is reduced to simple, desiccated, furnace-blasted basics. Then picture rain forest people amid an abundance of edible plants and medicinal herbs, able to identify more species of ants on a single tree than one would find in all the British Isles. Letting a thousand deities bloom in this sort of setting must seem natural. Moreover, those rain forest dwellers that are monotheistic are much less likely to believe that their god sticks his or her nose into other people’s business by controlling the weather, prompting illness, or the like. In contrast, the desert seems to breed fatalism, a belief in an interventionist god with its own capricious plans.

Another major difference was brought to light by Melvin Ember. Desert societies, with their far-flung members tending goats and camels, are classic spawning grounds for warrior classes and the accessories of militarism: military trophies as stepping stones to societal status, death in battle as a guarantee of a glorious afterlife, slavery. And these cultures are more likely to be stratified, with centralized authority. A cosmology in which an omnipotent god dominates a host of minor deities finds a natural parallel in a rigid earthly hierarchy.

Textor’s work highlights other differences between desert and rain forest societies. Purchasing or indenturing wives is far less prevalent among rain forest peoples. And in rain forest cultures, related women tend to form the core of a community for a lifetime, rather than being shipped off to serve the expediency of marriage making. In desert cultures, women typically have the difficult tasks of building shelters and wandering in search of water and firewood, while the men contemplate the majesty of their herds and envision their next raid. Among rain forest cultures, it’s the men who are more likely to do the heavy lifting. Rain forest cultures also are less likely to harbor beliefs about the inferiority of women; you won’t be likely to find rain forest men giving thanks in prayer that they were not created female, as is the case in at least one notable desert-derived religion. Finally, desert cultures tend to teach their children to be modest about nudity at an earlier age than in rain forest cultures and have more severe strictures against premarital sex..."

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/aug/desert-people

 

[Jan Ardena]

"Polytheism is prevalent among tribes in the Amazon basin (the Sherenti, Mundurucu, and Tapirape) and in the rain forests of Africa (the Ndorobo), New Guinea (the Keraki and Ulawans), and Southeast Asia (the Iban of Borneo and the Mnong Gar and Lolo of Vietnam). But desert dwellers—the bedouin of Arabia, the Berbers of the western Sahara, the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert, the Nuer and Turkana of the Kenyan/Sudanese desert—are usually monotheistic. Of course, despite allegiances to a single deity, other supernatural beings may be involved, like angels and djinns and Satan. But the hierarchy is notable, with minor deities subservient to the Omnipotent One.
This division makes ecological sense. Deserts teach large, singular lessons, like how tough, spare, and withholding the environment is; the world is reduced to simple, desiccated, furnace-blasted basics. Then picture rain forest people amid an abundance of edible plants and medicinal herbs, able to identify more species of ants on a single tree than one would find in all the British Isles. Letting a thousand deities bloom in this sort of setting must seem natural. Moreover, those rain forest dwellers that are monotheistic are much less likely to believe that their god sticks his or her nose into other people’s business by controlling the weather, prompting illness, or the like. In contrast, the desert seems to breed fatalism, a belief in an interventionist god with its own capricious plans.

Another major difference was brought to light by Melvin Ember. Desert societies, with their far-flung members tending goats and camels, are classic spawning grounds for warrior classes and the accessories of militarism: military trophies as stepping stones to societal status, death in battle as a guarantee of a glorious afterlife, slavery. And these cultures are more likely to be stratified, with centralized authority. A cosmology in which an omnipotent god dominates a host of minor deities finds a natural parallel in a rigid earthly hierarchy.

Textor’s work highlights other differences between desert and rain forest societies. Purchasing or indenturing wives is far less prevalent among rain forest peoples. And in rain forest cultures, related women tend to form the core of a community for a lifetime, rather than being shipped off to serve the expediency of marriage making. In desert cultures, women typically have the difficult tasks of building shelters and wandering in search of water and firewood, while the men contemplate the majesty of their herds and envision their next raid. Among rain forest cultures, it’s the men who are more likely to do the heavy lifting. Rain forest cultures also are less likely to harbor beliefs about the inferiority of women; you won’t be likely to find rain forest men giving thanks in prayer that they were not created female, as is the case in at least one notable desert-derived religion. Finally, desert cultures tend to teach their children to be modest about nudity at an earlier age than in rain forest cultures and have more severe strictures against premarital sex..."

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/aug/desert-people

You claim that science has shown that monotheism arose along with our modern lifestyle, which emerged from hunter-gatherers, who, it is theorized, are largely polytheistic due to the nature of their environment.

Where is the science?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

It's hardly even a theory, it's an observation.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Belief in something does not equate to that thing actually existing.

No shit Sherlock.

If some things are observable to some and not others then the reality is that the thing exists and is simply unobservable to some people.
There are not two realities.

Firstly, you have said the same thing I said, and secondly I didn't say that there are two realities. That nonsense was spouted by spidergoat. Stick to what I say, and we will get further, quicker.

Subjective interpretation of that one reality is where differences lie.
Similarly that thing may not actually exist, and the interpretation that one has that they have observed it is simply a misinterpretation of what does actually exist.

You failed to point out that it could also exist, and it is as is interpreted. It's subjective.
Truth lies in the subjective. That's where the real fun is.

And both views are just interpretations or misinterpretations of a single reality.
Who is correct?
Can we know?

Who is this ''we''?
Truth isn't about being correct. Truth just is.
If you genuinely accept some experience as actual, but your conclusion was based on something that you think ought to be, then in time that same experience will eventually show itself for what it is, and we have to accept it, because it is true despite what we may think, or believe. Truth is the standard.

"I tawt I taw a puddy tat a creepin' up on me!"
And by "puddy tat" I do of course mean circular reasoning...
Unfortunately it works the other way (and just as fallaciously): people who believe in the non-existence of God generally see little evidences within the fabric of their perception which, if God did not exist, by definition, that would be a way to comprehend the non-existence of God (by definition).

What is up with you people?

Of course it works both ways. I did, after all, say that some people believe God exists, and some don't. It is true for both sides.

Which makes God a subjective matter.

God is a everything, matter.

If God does not exist, then you are not within God, and God is not within you.
And anything you believe you perceive as God is simply a misperception, a misinterpretation of reality.

Precisely. It is true that you are not within God, and God within you, because God doesn't exist. That is the position of the atheist.

Why class them as conspiracy theories?
How do you know they are?

Because from the atheist perspective, they have been bombarded with all these lies in systematic ways, in a bid to control them. That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

"Is this an argument from personal incredulity I see before me...?"
You'll need more than "It is hardly likely...".
To many it is highly likely that they did evolve with man, but you're entitled to think otherwise.

Of course it is highly likely to an atheist that God, and scripture evolved with man, because God does not exist (to them).

If by "alter our beliefs" you mean "acquire" then this is a contradiction.
Or do you mean that we might change the nature of our non-belief, but always have it remain as a non-belief?[/I]

No. I mean you can come to realise God, if you put away these pointless barriers.

jan.

 

[Kristoffer]

"Truth lies in the subjective"?

Seems like nonsense to me.

Make me think otherwise.

 

[Baldeee]

No shit Sherlock.

You said that maybe there are things observable to some and not to others, and cited God as an example as God "has been believed in from the beginning of known history."
If you think it is a case of "no shit Sherlock" that belief does not equate to existence, then why do you cite God as an example due to a lengthy period of belief in God?

Firstly, you have said the same thing I said, and secondly I didn't say that there are two realities. That nonsense was spouted by spidergoat. Stick to what I say, and we will get further, quicker.

You have said that for some God exists and for others God does not exist.
This points to two realities, not one.
The reality is that God either exists or God does not exist, unless God's existence is purely a subjective matter with no objective basis.

You failed to point out that it could also exist, and it is as is interpreted.

You already did that.
I was pointing out the alternative.

It's subjective.

Then please don't claim it as fact, or indeed as reality, unless you are positing a subjective rather than objective reality?

Truth lies in the subjective. That's where the real fun is.

Perhaps, but it doesn't get us any closer to establishing God as existing or not as anything objective, but rather merely as something subjective, like an emotion.

Who is this ''we''?

I am referring to the collective "we".
We as a species, as individuals, as a society etc.

Truth isn't about being correct. Truth just is.

Agreed, but for us to recognise the truth we must know it to be so.
The question I asked is how we can know that we are correct in such.

If you genuinely accept some experience as actual, but your conclusion was based on something that you think ought to be, then in time that same experience will eventually show itself for what it is, and we have to accept it, because it is true despite what we may think, or believe. Truth is the standard.

Only if what we interpret the experience (that we genuinely acceptance as actual) is correct in use first instance and not some misinterpretation.

What is up with you people?

Of course it works both ways. I did, after all, say that some people believe God exists, and some don't. It is true for both sides.

If it works for both sides then it is not an argument that has any merit in helping resolve the issue.

God is a everything, matter.

Then God either exists or does not and it is contradictory to keep saying that for some God exists and for others he does not.

Precisely. It is true that you are not within God, and God within you, because God doesn't exist. That is the position of the atheist.

If God does actually exist then surely God is within everything and everyone, and everything and everyone is within God, irrespective of the belief or otherwise of the person?
And similarly if God does not actually exist then it doesn't matter if you belief or not, God is not within everyone nor everyone within God.
If God is subjective, depends on perspective, then you would be quite valid in your statements.
But if God is objective then your statements seem flawed as contradicting that objectivity.

Because from the atheist perspective, they have been bombarded with all these lies in systematic ways, in a bid to control them. That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

It does from your perspective, I have no doubt, but for you to be able to claim them as lies you can surely point to something that provides proof of the truth?
Oh, no, that's right.
You can't.
And I think you mean "from the theist perspective", as from the atheist perspective the "lies" seem like rationally acceptable explanations.
And again, the argument you give works both ways: from the atheist perspective, theists have been bombarded with all these lies in systematic ways, in a bid to control them.

Of course it is highly likely to an atheist that God, and scripture evolved with man, because God does not exist (to them).

Chalk another up for the subjectivity of God.

No. I mean you can come to realise God, if you put away these pointless barriers.

And similarly you can come to realise God does not exist, or perhaps even is simply unknowable, if you put away these pointless barriers that you have.
Your arguments all work both ways, Jan.
They are circular.
They thus lack any merit in helping bridge the divide, if such is even possible.

But I don't think it can be any other way.
It is an impossible task for either side who hold genuine beliefs regarding the existence or non-existence of God to be able to argue for the actuality of what they believe in.
To me, and to many others, God is unknowable, and your (plural) efforts in vain to explain the actuality of your belief just furthers that notion, reinforcing it to me as the most rational position.

And from such a position, weak atheism most naturally follows.

 

[Jan Ardena]

"Truth lies in the subjective"?

Seems like nonsense to me.

Make me think otherwise.

I can't. You have to see it for yourself (if what I propose is true).
If what I propose is false, then I assume that you know the truth about where truth lies.
It is up to you to make me think otherwise, by stating the truth.

jan.

 

[Yazata]

To say "for some God exists and [for] others God doesn't exist" appears to just be a confused way of writing "some people believe in the existence of God and some don't".

Ask yourself why you have to rationalize it like that?

In order to try to make it logically consistent. Otherwise we are left with the claim that God both does and doesn't exist.

I'll tell you. For you it is more likely that God does not exist. But you're not entirely closed to the idea of God. You want confirmation in a way that convinces you that God exists.

(God exists) & ~(God exists) is a logical contradiction.

But even if God was to show that He existed, you may well not see it because it doesn't match your expectation, which is routed to what it is you require to accept, or believe that God exists.

So are you arguing that God exists for everyone, and some people fail to recognize and acknowledge God's existence because they have improper expectations or something? If that's what you are saying, then you would seem to be agreeing with what I wrote to Fraggle, up above.

If God does exist, then you are within God, and God is within you. If you look outside of yourself for God, then you may develop a false conception of what God as you would be looking for something separate to yourself, or something which is unobservable by human sense perception.

Well, what are the claims that are made about God?

He's a big blustering Jewish guy who appears on mountaintops, a crudely legalistic Arab guy who appears in caves or a lithe sexy Indian guy who drives chariots. He's an impersonal cosmic principle, the incomprehensible Source of all that is. He orders the worst sorts of genocide and he is the personification of love. He's crudely anthropomorphic and he transcends all human concepts. He's absolute unity as he divides into three. He is totally separate and distinct from the created order yet is one with it. He is necessary being and existence that died and arose from the grave. He delivers different and inconsistent special revelations to different people. He is totally self-sufficient yet he needs our worship.

What is the most comprehnsive sources of information about God?

Is there such a thing? Certainly each monotheistic religious tradition is built around the conviction that it preserves unique and authoritative revelations from what they imagine is their one single God. And each tradition possesses kind of a counter-current that holds that each individual must seek knowledge of God for him/herself, often through contemplative practices.

Given God's definition, what would need to be observed in order to justify the idea that God exists.

The idea that there is a single authoritative definition of God's essence that the God-concepts of all monotheistic traditions share in common is a universalizing intellectual construct, seemingly the product of a lowest-common-denominator process.

As to what observation would justify the belief that God exists, I don't know of any. What finite human experience could possibly justify confidence that what is experienced is an infinite being? What experience can justify belief that the object of the experience is a suitable object of religious worship?

Why aren't you more concerned with where this concept of God originated?

Why don't you explain your own apparent beliefs about 'shruti'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śruti

The scriptures, whether you want to accept it or not, are very sophisticated, and very profound.

I agree. Some 'scriptures' more than others. Some of the Indian scriptures are among the most sophisticated. I'm studying the Pali canon, and interestingly it contains very little that you assure us is common to all scriptures. The same thing can be said about the Jaina sutras. These works are indisputably religious scriptures, but they are definitively 'nastika' from the orthodox Vedic point of view.

And some of these scripture were written thousands of years ago. It is hardly likely that they evolved with man.

Why not? The people who lived thousands of years ago were just as intelligent as people today. There's no reason why they can't have produced profound ideas. Of course we would expect their thought to have a very different style than our own, since its context was so different.

Again, you need to explain the theories of 'shruti' that seem to be implicit in most of your posts. You believe that the 'Vedas' are timeless and of divine origin, don't you? And since you think that your one God appears in countless manifestations, you are assuming that all religions are simply additional manifestations of your Vedic God, right? Hence they must all share whatever defining characteristics that the Vedas supposedly assign to God.

In my opinion. Belief or non belief in God, is a fundamental thing, not something we come to acquire.

Sure, if our theology insists that some God-essence already dwells inside us as our innermost transcendental being, then that would seem to follow. God isn't something that one discovers externally, God is already present within. We can realize it or we can continue to live in ignorance and samsara.

But how do you know this? Are you a yogin who has realized it for himself? Or are you simply accepting it on the basis of your faith in what you believe are revealed 'scriptures'?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You said that maybe there are things observable to some and not to others, and cited God as an example as God "has been believed in from the beginning of known history."
If you think it is a case of "no shit Sherlock" that belief does not equate to existence, then why do you cite God as an example due to a lengthy period of belief in God?

Neither you or I know if ''God'' is a made up concept. Everybody came into this world with this fixture, already in place, much like any other fixed observable phenomena. Like other phenomena, it has to be comprehended and understood, by humans, because it is obviously for humans. So my reason isn't because people have believed since time immemorial, but that it is here, and we can interact with it, just like other phenomena.
I see information about God as natural phenomena.

Then please don't claim it as fact, or indeed as reality, unless you are positing a subjective rather than objective reality?

Regarding ''truth'', fact is not the right category. A fact can be arrived at without the need for truth, or for what is the actual truth. Facts may help one come to the understand the truth of a situation, or take you further away from it.

Perhaps, but it doesn't get us any closer to establishing God as existing or not as anything objective, but rather merely as something subjective, like an emotion.

That's how you see it.
Maybe you don't utilise the subjective side in a beneficial way. The subjective is not a dirty word. I'm not afraid of it, and as such use to my benefit. It can be used to conjure all kind of situations. But eventually you can use it in accordance with the objective. Like a pen, paper, and mind, working together to produce a scientific document explaining current facts.

I am referring to the collective "we".
We as a species, as individuals, as a society etc.

The collective ''we's'' are simply a load of ''I's''.
That's what it always boils down to. The individual.

Agreed, but for us to recognise the truth we must know it to be so.
The question I asked is how we can know that we are correct in such.

Because, the truth is all there is, everything else is false. That means we are truth, and we don't have to go outside of our self to unravel the truth. We merely have to accept things as they are, without any prior expectation. In this way we can only be truth.
To perform this is a lot more difficult that we can imagine, which is why we have religion (another natural phenomena).

Only if what we interpret the experience (that we genuinely acceptance as actual) is correct in use first instance and not some misinterpretation.

Real experiences aren't difficult to interpret, especially if they occur regularly (which experiences do). It is possible that people can know something to be true, but use that truth to manipulate. This is a human ability.

Also you find that other people have been, or are going through the same experience you've had, and these aren't necessarily objective, but purely subjective in nature. Truth can also be gleaned subjectively from that.

If it works for both sides then it is not an argument that has any merit in helping resolve the issue.

It is a different kind of argument, and when addressed in the proper manner, it has merit.
But you cannot treat it the same way you treat everyday observation. Maybe that is the critical psychological difference between the atheist and the theist.
Ultimately knowledge can only be perceived by an individual, because only an individual can discriminate between truth and false. If the individual decides to follow others way of thinking, then even this is individualistic, because the individual has made that decision for whatever reason.

Then God either exists or does not and it is contradictory to keep saying that for some God exists and for others he does not.

If somebody is wrong in their analysis, or mistaken in their assessment, it doesn't mean they're not telling the truth. They are telling the truth according to their understanding of the subject. It is their understanding that is at fault.

As far as I know, I happen to be in this existence where there happens to be information about God. Taken at face value, at it's core, it explains who and what I am, how and why I am here, and what happens upon dissolution of the material body. It seems silly, and suspect (some cases) to deny outright that it could be true, without good reason.

If God exists (according to this information), we are both spiritual, and material. Our spiritual aspect is transcendental to material nature. Our material aspect is governed by material nature. So it is possible to view God from both perspectives. When taken from the material perspective, God cannot, and does not exist to the materialist in truth, because the material world seems to works according to it's own laws, and therefore there is no need, or inclination of God.

And again, the argument you give works both ways: from the atheist perspective, theists have been bombarded with all these lies in systematic ways, in a bid to control them.

That's not usually the claim of theists. Theists try to make sense of God, because they believe in God.
It doesn't make sense to claim that God is a lie, while trying to comprehend Him. Atheists do not try to comprehend Him, and when they do, they change their tune. Lack of scientific evidence as a reason for God's existence is a farce, and a barrier.

Chalk another up for the subjectivity of God.

I don't believe in furry teapot overlords, so it's highly likely, given the nature of the claim it their existence, that I'm going to think it's nonsense, and as such not take it seriously. That is the position of atheists in relation to God.

And similarly you can come to realise God does not exist, or perhaps even is simply unknowable, if you put away these pointless barriers that you have.

There's no point in that. Natural phenomena, the information contained within scriptures, gives an explanation of the very things that interest us at a deep level. For me to realise that God does not exist, is to outrightly deny that phenomenon. It's much easier to accept it, and draw a conclusion from what you can relate to.

To me, and to many others, God is unknowable, and your (plural) efforts in vain to explain the actuality of your belief just furthers that notion, reinforcing it to me as the most rational position.

God is unknowable, because you deny the information.
You won't give yourself the opportunity to know God.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

In order to try to make it logically consistent. Otherwise we are left with the claim that God both does and doesn't exist.

These aren't presented as facts. They are presented as observation, and as such the observation can be deemed to be factual, as it is actually the case. For some God exists, and for some God doesn't exist. As far as the individuals who hold an opinion, there positions are considered truth.

(God exists) & ~(God exists) is a logical contradiction.

So either God exists, or He doesn't. What reason is there to believe that He doesn't?
I've already given reason as to why He does, to Baldee.

He's a big blustering Jewish guy who appears on mountaintops, a crudely legalistic Arab guy who appears in caves or a lithe sexy Indian guy who drives chariots. He's an impersonal cosmic principle, the incomprehensible Source of all that is. He orders the worst sorts of genocide and he is the personification of love. He's crudely anthropomorphic and he transcends all human concepts. He's absolute unity as he divides into three. He is totally separate and distinct from the created order yet is one with it. He is necessary being and existence that died and arose from the grave. He delivers different and inconsistent special revelations to different people. He is totally self-sufficient yet he needs our worship.

So why couldn't this be objectively true, or at least some of these?
If you say ''no evidence'', then state what you would regard as evidence in order to claim it as fact.

Is there such a thing?

Yes.
Scriptures.

The idea that there is a single authoritative definition of God's essence that the God-concepts of all monotheistic traditions share in common is a universalizing intellectual construct, seemingly the product of a lowest-common-denominator process.

They all agree that God is the first cause. They all agree, or have sects within the culture, that God is a spiritual being. That is to name just two things.

As to what observation would justify the belief that God exists, I don't know of any. What finite human experience could possibly justify confidence that what is experienced is an infinite being? What experience can justify belief that the object of the experience is a suitable object of religious worship?

If you don't know of any, why assume that an individual can even experience an infinite being an infinite being? As if that is what individuals do ascertain the existence of God.
Self realisation can justify the belief that God is worthy of worship.

Why don't you explain your own apparent beliefs about 'shruti'?

What do you mean?

I agree. Some 'scriptures' more than others. Some of the Indian scriptures are among the most sophisticated. I'm studying the Pali canon, and interestingly it contains very little that you assure us is common to all scriptures. The same thing can be said about the Jaina sutras. These works are indisputably religious scriptures, but they are definitively 'nastika' from the orthodox Vedic point of view.

You make the mistake of seeing them as different, almost competing ideologies.
Religion is administered according to time, place, and circumstance.
Buddha does refer to Lord Brahma as the creator, and so does the Bhagavat Purana (as secondary creator). It seems also that he prophesied Jesus, describing him as holy. He also claimed that God, both existed and non existed.

Why not? The people who lived thousands of years ago were just as intelligent as people today. There's no reason why they can't have produced profound ideas. Of course we would expect their thought to have a very different style than our own, since its context was so different.

Well, they believed in God, and they were at as intelligent as we are today. So maybe you're missing something.

Again, you need to explain the theories of 'shruti' that seem to be implicit in most of your posts. You believe that the 'Vedas' are timeless and of divine origin, don't you? And since you think that your one God appears in countless manifestations, you are assuming that all religions are simply additional manifestations of your Vedic God, right? Hence they must all share whatever defining characteristics that the Vedas supposedly assign to God.

Why shouldn't they all be referring to the same personality/force?
Cultures differ all the while, even go to war with each other. But they are basically the same, they eat, sleep, have sex, and defend/fight. The thing to do is to look for the similarities, not the differences.

Sure, if our theology insists that some God-essence already dwells inside us as our innermost transcendental being, then that would seem to follow. God isn't something that one discovers externally, God is already present within. We can realize it or we can continue to live in ignorance and samsara.

But how do you know this? Are you a yogin who has realized it for himself? Or are you simply accepting it on the basis of your faith in what you believe are revealed 'scriptures'?

To me this is common sense, and the beginning of the journey, not the end.
Why do I need to have faith in scriptures? Either it makes sense to you or it doesn't.
Who else but yourself can discriminate between truth and false. The truth is already here, and within everything, you don't have to be a scholar to know truth, and I mean an honest appraisal of your perception. You are the observer, and can, with practice, observe the comings and goings of your thoughts and actions. It is the observer who is able to know God.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Neither you or I know if ''God'' is a made up concept.

I'm glad you accept that.

Everybody came into this world with this fixture, already in place, much like any other fixed observable phenomena. Like other phenomena, it has to be comprehended and understood, by humans, because it is obviously for humans. So my reason isn't because people have believed since time immemorial, but that it is here, and we can interact with it, just like other phenomena.
I see information about God as natural phenomena.

No, you see God as equivalent to nature.
You have no reason to accept that God is real other than the fact that you believe God is real, and you believe that scriptures are more than just Man's view but are divinely inspired.
You simply argue from the cyclical nature of having to have belief in order to believe.
You believe, therefore you believe.
But your arguments in support of such rely on the truth of that which you believe in, which is unable to be shared with those that do not believe.
And such arguments have no merit for those people.
Yet you claim they do, yet your arguments in support of that are simply confirmation of the need to believe in order to be able to believe.
Cyclical.

Regarding ''truth'', fact is not the right category. A fact can be arrived at without the need for truth, or for what is the actual truth. Facts may help one come to the understand the truth of a situation, or take you further away from it.

I'm sorry, I disagree totally with this.
A fact is, by definition, the truth.
So to say that "a fact can be arrived at without the need for truth, or for what is the actual truth" is just absurd.
Name one fact that is not also the truth and you will name something that is not actually a fact.
Now some facts may be quite specific, and these might be subjective truths - in that they are specific to the individual.
An example might be that one considers it a "fact" that a certain painting is beautiful.
The "fact" here is that the person finds the painting to be beautiful, not that the painting is beautiful.
But facts are necessarily true.
And what is true is necessarily a fact.

That's how you see it.
Maybe you don't utilise the subjective side in a beneficial way. The subjective is not a dirty word. I'm not afraid of it, and as such use to my benefit. It can be used to conjure all kind of situations. But eventually you can use it in accordance with the objective. Like a pen, paper, and mind, working together to produce a scientific document explaining current facts.

None of which actually addresses the point.
Yes, I utilise the subjective as much as the next person.
Everyone does.
But, to restate: "...it doesn't get us any closer to establishing God as existing or not as anything objective, but rather merely as something subjective..."
So if you're going to respond, please make it relevant to the point you're addressing, and we will get further, quicker.

The collective ''we's'' are simply a load of ''I's''.
That's what it always boils down to. The individual.

No shit Sherlock.
You asked who this "we" is... and you know... so why ask?

Because, the truth is all there is, everything else is false. That means we are truth, and we don't have to go outside of our self to unravel the truth. We merely have to accept things as they are, without any prior expectation. In this way we can only be truth.

Then why invoke a deity?
Why not accept things as they are... as simply natural, with no ability to know anything outside of the closed universe in which we reside.
You preach sense in this regard but your arguments clearly show you fail to follow your own preachings, and create a prior expectation through the scriptures you hold as truth.

To perform this is a lot more difficult that we can imagine, which is why we have religion (another natural phenomena).

It can be argued that all of Man's endeavours are similarly natural, given that we are a natural product of the universe.
If you intend to imply that religion is somehow more natural than building a shelter, than consumerism, capitalism, democracy, communism etc, then you'll have to excuse me if I ask you to support that claim with something more than mere confidence.

Real experiences aren't difficult to interpret, especially if they occur regularly (which experiences do). It is possible that people can know something to be true, but use that truth to manipulate. This is a human ability.

Real experiences are easy to interpret, but not always easy to interpret accurately / correctly.
Hence we have the word "illusion".
People can not know something to be true without proof.
They can merely have confidence in their belief until such time.

Also you find that other people have been, or are going through the same experience you've had, and these aren't necessarily objective, but purely subjective in nature. Truth can also be gleaned subjectively from that.

A shared subjective truth is still subjective and not objective.
And such truths have no bearing on the objective truth or not of God's existence.
All your arguments in this regard seem to confirm that you consider God a subjective truth, yet it is the objective truth that we are trying to get to the bottom of.
I have assumed throughout this that you understand what it is to be subjective as opposed to objective?

It is a different kind of argument, and when addressed in the proper manner, it has merit.

Please give an example of how it can have merit?
How can it be addressed "in the proper manner" when logically it is circular and thus fallacious from the outset.
It is the circular nature that results in it also being able to similarly support the opposite argument, equally as fallaciously.
So please explain this comment, as I feel that you are merely trying to hand-wave away the issue.

But you cannot treat it the same way you treat everyday observation. Maybe that is the critical psychological difference between the atheist and the theist.

If that were true then only difference here would be that the theist lacks the same level of critical thought.

Ultimately knowledge can only be perceived by an individual, because only an individual can discriminate between truth and false.

Again I totally disagree with this.
An individual is not able to discriminate as easily as you can imagine - hence we all make mistakes.
The only thing that can discriminate between true and false is reality itself, as it is incapable of being false.
If you are simply referring to subjective truth then yes, the individual is the only one capable, but then that is simply a subjective truth and not the objective truth that we are trying to establish.
You reject that God is simply a subjective matter, yet everything you argue confirms that you hold it to be subjective.

If the individual decides to follow others way of thinking, then even this is individualistic, because the individual has made that decision for whatever reason.

i.e. subjective.

If somebody is wrong in their analysis, or mistaken in their assessment, it doesn't mean they're not telling the truth. They are telling the truth according to their understanding of the subject. It is their understanding that is at fault.

i.e. subjective.

 

[Baldeee]

As far as I know, I happen to be in this existence where there happens to be information about God.

God as objective truth or God merely as an unproven concept?
The latter then uses circular reasoning to support itself, akin to "God is everything, therefore everything is evidence of God, therefore God exists".

Taken at face value, at it's core, it explains who and what I am, how and why I am here, and what happens upon dissolution of the material body. It seems silly, and suspect (some cases) to deny outright that it could be true, without good reason.

Strong atheists certainly deny it is true.
I don't.
Most agnostic atheists don't deny it is true.
We simply don't know.
You claim to know yet all your arguments reveal belief in a subjective God.

If God exists (according to this information), we are both spiritual, and material. Our spiritual aspect is transcendental to material nature. Our material aspect is governed by material nature. So it is possible to view God from both perspectives. When taken from the material perspective, God cannot, and does not exist to the materialist in truth, because the material world seems to works according to it's own laws, and therefore there is no need, or inclination of God.

If.
Is that sufficient for you to believe?
An unfalsifiable notion that satisfies some of your subjective concerns / questions?

That's not usually the claim of theists. Theists try to make sense of God, because they believe in God.

Most people who would claim to be theists do so because they were indoctrinated to believe through parental and societal norms.

It doesn't make sense to claim that God is a lie, while trying to comprehend Him. Atheists do not try to comprehend Him, and when they do, they change their tune. Lack of scientific evidence as a reason for God's existence is a farce, and a barrier.

And believing simply because it satisfies the ego is also a farce, and a barrier.
But I disagree that atheists do not try to comprehend God.
They do try.
But noone can explain God to them in a way that makes it comprehensible to them.

I don't believe in furry teapot overlords, so it's highly likely, given the nature of the claim it their existence, that I'm going to think it's nonsense, and as such not take it seriously. That is the position of atheists in relation to God.

So you believe.
But then you tar all atheists, both strong and weak, with the same brush, or simply ignore the agnostic atheist.

There's no point in that. Natural phenomena, the information contained within scriptures, gives an explanation of the very things that interest us at a deep level. For me to realise that God does not exist, is to outrightly deny that phenomenon. It's much easier to accept it, and draw a conclusion from what you can relate to.

Please do not equate "natural phenomena" with "the information contained within scriptures" unless you accept that all human endeavours are "natural phenomena".
Otherwise you are simply begging the question.
And your "gives an explanation of the very things that interest us at a deep level" seems to confirm that it is a matter of satisfying the ego at the expense of critical thought.
It might explain things, but how do we know that the explanations are correct?
That the explanations are true, beyond being subjectively so?

God is unknowable, because you deny the information.
You won't give yourself the opportunity to know God.

Unknowable is meant as an absolute.
Similar to God existing or not.
If something is unknowable then I do not mean it subjectively but objectively.
It is not a case of "unknowable to me" but simply "unknowable".
We can make up theories (including "God") to answer questions but we have no way of truly knowing if they are correct or not.
As I see it only a lack of critical thought, predominantly through circular reasoning it seems, can lead to any other conclusion.
Nothing you have said thus far suggests otherwise.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Then the old

No, you see God as equivalent to nature.
You have no reason to accept that God is real other than the fact that you believe God is real, and you believe that scriptures are more than just Man's view but are divinely inspired.

No. I see God as the author of nature.
For me to accept that God is not real, would be to deny the information.
What's the point of that?

You simply argue from the cyclical nature of having to have belief in order to believe.
You believe, therefore you believe.

We've already been through this. Belief is not necessary to come to any conclusions about God. Belief in God goes beyond whether or not God exists. The atheist deny's God as a character that could be the supreme being, and look for God through their world view, and the theist doesn't deny God, through their worldview. It has nothing to do with belief at that stage, only acceptance.

I'm sorry, I disagree totally with this.
A fact is, by definition, the truth.

...

1. A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).

2. Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste.

3. Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a true fact,[7] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.

Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority. Roger Bacon wrote "If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."

I don't know what you think, but personally I think number two is the clincher.

None of which actually addresses the point.

I beg to differ.

But, to restate: "...it doesn't get us any closer to establishing God as existing or not as anything objective, but rather merely as something subjective..."
So if you're going to respond, please make it relevant to the point you're addressing, and we will get further, quicker.

What do you mean by us?
Didn't I say that ''we'', ''us'', them, and they, are a bunch of ''I's'', and it is up to the individual to discriminate?

This is what I mean about the atheist position. It does not accept God, period, because God doesn't exist, so they can interpret scriptures, definition of God how they choose to.
But it is quite clear that you haven't given the subject of God real thought (outside whether or not His existence can be proven), and therefore do not ask the right questions.

A shared subjective truth is still subjective and not objective.

It is still knowledge, strengthened by the fact that other have had the same experience.
It is silly to deny that, because you want to win an argument.

And such truths have no bearing on the objective truth or not of God's existence.

What do mean by the objective truth of God's existence?
What do you mean by God?

Then why invoke a deity?

Who is invoking a diety?
Why are you denying the information regarding God.
As far as you and I are concerned, this information has been around beyond known history. Yet you deny it without comprehension.

How can it be addressed "in the proper manner" when logically it is circular and thus fallacious from the outset.
It is the circular nature that results in it also being able to similarly support the opposite argument, equally as fallaciously.

This is nothing but an attack. You have a poor fund of knowledge regarding the subject matter of God, and you refuse to take part in this discussion by constantly putting these idiotic charges out there. I've never said one has to believe in order to believe, that is absurd, and apart from anything else, it suggests that one can choose at will what to believe.

If that were true then only difference here would be that the theist lacks the same level of critical thought.

The atheist is the one who lacks, not the theist.
The atheist is the one without, not the theist.

An individual is not able to discriminate as easily as you can imagine - hence we all make mistakes.

And we all learn from mistakes, or at least have the opportunity. This is what I referred to earlier. Discrimination ultimately comes from us, and that knowledge permeates it way into all aspects of our life, subjectively and objectively. Part of the skill is learning how to balance our lives in this way.

You reject that God is simply a subjective matter, yet everything you argue confirms that you hold it to be subjective.

God's effects are objective, and our communication to God is subjective, because He is defined as pure spirit, and our essential self, is also defined as pure spirit. You don't have to believe that to comprehend and make sense of it.

God as objective truth or God merely as an unproven concept?

In my world, things look designed because they are designed, which for me is objective evidence of God, for you God is an unproven concept because He doesn't bend to your will, and write His name across the sky.

Again, two different natures, with two different conclusion which are true from each perspective.

Strong atheists certainly deny it is true.
I don't.
Most agnostic atheists don't deny it is true.
We simply don't know.
You claim to know yet all your arguments reveal belief in a subjective God.

You think you don't deny it, but you do. You certainly do not accept it.

If.
Is that sufficient for you to believe?
An unfalsifiable notion that satisfies some of your subjective concerns / questions?

In this forum there are two perspectives that are held to be truth as far as we know.
For you God does not exist, and I can respect that, so I do not talk positively of God's existence (most of the time), because we just would get passed anything. Hence the reason for ''if''.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It might explain things, but how do we know that the explanations are correct?
That the explanations are true, beyond being subjectively so?

We're not looking for ''correct'', that is a different thing. When you fall in love, it is neither correct or incorrect. It is the thing itself, known only to those who experience it.

The truth is extremely simple, it's just that we have a hard time accepting it, especially if it contradicts our worldview. It can be difficult.

If something is unknowable then I do not mean it subjectively but objectively.

Same difference. The subjective and the object do not work independently of each other.
You've simply denied God, which is why God is unknowable to you.

And believing simply because it satisfies the ego is also a farce, and a barrier.

Why do you have to sour the discussion with remarks like this?
To say that there is no evidence for God, is either a strawman, or a nonsense.
Your position is simple, you don't accept God, but in order to justify it, you have bring God to your level, hence there must be evidence, like there is evidence of dinosaurs. This is denying the information, with utmost intention, with comprehension of what it is you are denying. You have to deny it, to maintain your position, hence it is you who require
ego rubs.

Please do not equate "natural phenomena" with "the information contained within scriptures" unless you accept that all human endeavours are "natural phenomena".

Now look, here you are asserting that the information contained within scriptures are human endeavours, yet you have absolutely no proof whatsoever. And on top of that, you don't even make an effort to comprehend who and what God is, by way of studying that information.

And your "gives an explanation of the very things that interest us at a deep level" seems to confirm that it is a matter of satisfying the ego at the expense of critical thought.

Why does it?

As I see it only a lack of critical thought, predominantly through circular reasoning it seems, can lead to any other conclusion.

You're either
lying, or not reading my responses clearly.
My reasoning isn't circular.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

No. I see God as the author of nature.
For me to accept that God is not real, would be to deny the information.
What's the point of that?

Information is not necessarily true.
Just because you are told something doesn't mean you have to accept it.
Critical thinking.

We've already been through this. Belief is not necessary to come to any conclusions about God. Belief in God goes beyond whether or not God exists. The atheist deny's God as a character that could be the supreme being, and look for God through their world view, and the theist doesn't deny God, through their worldview. It has nothing to do with belief at that stage, only acceptance.

Many atheists do not deny God as a character that could be the supreme being, but they don't assume / believe from the outset that God exists.
You are merely confirming what you have been told previously, that you argue from an a priori assumption of God's existence.
And you claim that there is nothing circular?
Assume God exists... everything is evidence of God... therefore God exists.
Just as circular as. assuming God does not exist... everything is evidence of God's non-existence... therefore God does not exist.

I don't know what you think, but personally I think number two is the clincher.

Then I suggest you stick to it.
Facts are not subjective.
You claimed that it was subjective (see post #109) and now you are claiming it as a fact / truth.
You don't really know what subjective means, do you?
I'm sure you've been told in the past.

I beg to differ.

Please do elaborate - or is this the extent of your rebuttal?

What do you mean by us?
Didn't I say that ''we'', ''us'', them, and they, are a bunch of ''I's'', and it is up to the individual to discriminate?

In this instance "we" refers to you and me... the two in this exchange.
But why are you trying to create an argument over the use of the word "we" when you know full well what it means?
Whether we use the term "we" or "a group of individuals who each..." the meaning is the same.

This is what I mean about the atheist position. It does not accept God, period, because God doesn't exist, so they can interpret scriptures, definition of God how they choose to.
But it is quite clear that you haven't given the subject of God real thought (outside whether or not His existence can be proven), and therefore do not ask the right questions.

So you think you trying to argue about what you see as an incorrect use of the term "we" (that I use to refer to a group of people / "I"s) is somehow evidence that I haven't given the subject of God real thought?? uzzled:

It is still knowledge, strengthened by the fact that other have had the same experience.
It is silly to deny that, because you want to win an argument.

Knowledge is understood to be, at the most basic level, a justified true belief.
A shared interpretation of an experience is not knowledge unless it is true.
And you have already offered option 2 above as a reasonable understanding of that: to remind... "Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste."
Interpretations are merely opinions.
So you can show these subjective experiences to be objectively true?

What do mean by the objective truth of God's existence?

The actuality of God's existence, whether there is anyone to perceive God or not - i.e. not subjective.

What do you mean by God?

At its most basic level: "The original cause".

Who is invoking a diety?

You are: "I see God as the author of nature."

Why are you denying the information regarding God.

The same reason I deny information about anything that is unproven.

As far as you and I are concerned, this information has been around beyond known history.

Agreed, we can not know who wrote the information nor for what purpose.
Oops, you have issue with my use of "we"?

Yet you deny it without comprehension.

As I deny all information that I do not comprehend.
From what I do comprehend I have no reason to accept it as true.
Maybe you are confusing me with someone who claims it is therefore false?
Who claims that God does not exist?

This is nothing but an attack.

Against your argument, yes.
You appear to argue in a circular manner.
You have offered nothing that suggests otherwise.

You have a poor fund of knowledge regarding the subject matter of God, and you refuse to take part in this discussion by constantly putting these idiotic charges out there. I've never said one has to believe in order to believe, that is absurd, and apart from anything else, it suggests that one can choose at will what to believe.

I note you skip the past where I ask you to actually support your statement that such arguments can have merit.
But "believe in order to believe " does not suggest what you think at all - it suggests that if you don't you won't, and if you do, well, you do.
Crossing into or out of the circular cycle I would imagine is extremely difficult, certainly not something one can do at will.

The atheist is the one who lacks, not the theist.
The atheist is the one without, not the theist.

Ah, yes, the old "No I'm not, you are!" argument.
Impressive.

And we all learn from mistakes, or at least have the opportunity. This is what I referred to earlier. Discrimination ultimately comes from us, and that knowledge permeates it way into all aspects of our life, subjectively and objectively. Part of the skill is learning how to balance our lives in this way.

I still don't think you understand what is meant by objective and subjective as being discussed.
Please can you humour me and provide an explanation of what you think they mean?

God's effects are objective, and our communication to God is subjective, because He is defined as pure spirit, and our essential self, is also defined as pure spirit. You don't have to believe that to comprehend and make sense of it.

So you believe with regard the definitions.
To those who don't hold to those definitions your explanation is meaningless.
To rely on those definitions to make your argument cogent is to introduce a prior assumptions, the soundness of which no doubt will only be explained through circular reasoning.

In my world, things look designed because they are designed...

Either things are designed or they are not.
If they look designed to you then that is far as you can go with your claim: "I think they look designed".
You can not claim that they are designed - that much is simply belief, and you can thus add "and I believe that is because they are designed".

which for me is objective evidence of God, for you God is an unproven concept because He doesn't bend to your will, and write His name across the sky.

And you clearly don't know what objective means.
All you are describing is subjective.
If it applies to one person's point of view and not another it is subjective.
If it is evidence that is only evidence depending on your point of view then it is subjective.

Again, two different natures, with two different conclusion which are true from each perspective.

i.e. Subjective.
Which is no evidence for or against the objective nature of God's existence.

You think you don't deny it, but you do. You certainly do not accept it.

It may depend on what you mean by "deny" I suppose.
It is a rather woolly word.
To clarify: I don't think it is true or false.
I am of the opinion that I don't think it is possible to know one way or the other.
I do not accept it as true.
But I also do not accept it as false.