Is God Real?

Science doesn't discover reality... it invents it relative to the human perspective. Science is what you call one HUUUGE approximation. Hope that helped. Your reality is what you make of it Cris... rationally. I keep telling you.... get a 'reality' check.
Click to expand...

I have said this in many threads. The problem with a science is the tendency to see the world in objective absolutes, when science is only a tool to describe some universal property of nature. Nihilism is the only thing we know.
 
Another corollary of my opinion is this: you might not be absolutely sure of what is real, from a rational point of view. Faith is what makes you sure of what is real. And the trick is that the 'approximation' might just be exactly on the mark... but how would you know? Statistics might seem to help, but I don't think it does. It doesn't define accuracy, it defines uncertainty, within uncertainty.:p
 
Originally posted by MarcAC
Science describes that which is observed. It does nothing else. Where people think there is anything else to it, they are kidding themselves, or do not know the nature of what they study/advocate. Science describes matter in terms of particles. You don't think those particles have to exist do you? Observations fit the hypothesis/theory/model. If observations contradict the hypothesis/theory/model, they are revised. Science is, simply, another form of language. Now consider all the languages we have here on earth. Science doesn't discover reality... it invents it relative to the human perspective. Science is what you call one HUUUGE approximation.
Click to expand...

God cannot be observed.
He does not exist to the human perspective.
Thus, science cannot acknowledge Him.
The rational mind cannot acknowledge Him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For such wise comments Marc, I still don't see how you can have faith in a god if you refute that absolutes exist. It would be like agod-fearing Steven Hawkings.
 
Observing God

Originally posted by MarcAC
----------
God can be oberved. The rational mind can acknowledge him.
----------
(So can the irrational mind.)
 
Originally posted by and2000x
For such wise comments Marc, I still don't see how you can have faith in a god if you refute that absolutes exist. It would be like agod-fearing Steven Hawkings.
Click to expand...
I didn't say absolutes don't exist. My point was that we can never agree on whether they do or not interpersonally. We can only accept their existence within ourselves. That's a product of pure, simple, unadulterated faith.
 
Marc, I think you are treading in the hot water of solipsism.
 
Ha . . . Ha

Originally posted by MarcAC
God can be observed.
Neither does infra-red radiation without visual aids.
The rational mind can acknowledge him.
Click to expand...

Firstly, God cannot be observed. If you want to demonstrate that He can, you'd better provide an appreciable source.

Secondly, infrared radiation can be observed with visual aids. God cannot be observed with or without them. Once more, provide some evidence for your case if you believe He can.

Thirdly, the truly rational mind doesn't treat empty claims with credulity; you must offer proof, amigo. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by and2000x
Marc, I think you are treading in the hot water of solipsism.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have the faintest conception of the territory into which he errs.
He's just a brainless underling deserately plucking amorphous, vaporish excuses from the proverbial nether, vainly trying to fortify his dry, stupid, passe, vacuous platitudes.

Marc, you and your effete cult are the lost sheep; Reason is the Voice in the Wilderness, to whose cries your regressive kind is deaf . . . and your God is as dead now as He was the day His mourners bore His lacerated carcass down from His bete noire, Golgotha.
 
Ha . . . Ha... ?

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Firstly, God cannot be observed. If you want to demonstrate that He can, you'd better provide an appreciable source.
Click to expand...
You. I'm sure you can appreciate that.
Secondly, infrared radiation can be observed with visual aids. God cannot be observed with or without them. Once more, provide some evidence for your case if you believe He can.
Click to expand...
The evidence is within you. You need to test it for yourself. I cannot show you something which is within me. I can only describe it and you can try to experience it for yourself.
Thirdly, the truly rational mind does treat empty claims with credulity; you must offer proof, amigo. :)
Click to expand...
No. You must find proof.
 
Originally posted by Redoubtable
Reason is the Voice in the Wilderness, to whose cries your regressive kind is deaf . . . and your God is as dead now as He was the day His mourners bore His lacerated carcass down from His bete noire, Golgotha.
Click to expand...
So reason is your God? Oh...or maybe you were using a personification of sorts? Great... another religious zealot.
 
I equated reason with John the Baptist, not God, you acolyte of the prodigious nothingness, you!

Reason and God???

I can understand your bumbling conflation of the two:

Reason is only an idea. So is your God.

Both ideas? Yes.
The same? No.

There is one crucial iota of divergence between these two ideas:
Reason is not God, because whereas Reason is useful, God is an extraneous, flowery, valueless fantasy.

Instead of being circuitous and sophistic, why don't you support your God . . . using reason?:p



Originally posted by MarcAC
You. I'm sure you can appreciate that.
The evidence is within you. You need to test it for yourself. I cannot show you something which is within me. I can only describe it and you can try to experience it for yourself.
No. You must find proof.
Click to expand...

. . . the characteristic religionist elusiveness at its best. I think they call this particular fraud "witnessing".

Don't post here if you can't defend your premises, you lousy phoney.

I have no beliefs to justify. Ergo, I need no proof.

You, on the other hand, are the one with the belief; prove it yourself, cat. :D

Originally posted by MarcAC
A gelogist will see exquisite beauty in a pile of dirt.
Click to expand...

Bingo, comrade!

Just as a geologist as "submerges" him or herself in the study of the earth, and, thus, becomes infatuated therewith, you have immersed yourself in falsehood, and have come to love it.

As Medicine Woman says, God is an addiction.

Andy and I and many others, we're addicted to realism and practicality.
Admittedly, those opiates aren't nearly as euphoric as your God-dope, but that's just 'cause they don't make empty promises.
Maybe you could give 'em a try, hombre? :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reason is not God, because whereas Reason is useful, God is an extraneous, flowery, valueless fantasy.
Click to expand...
No, that describes the disbelieved God. The believed God enforces relevance, morality, values and a productive life that is not fantasy. Reason unexercised and unrealized is just as flowery and impotent a myth as the disbelieved God.
 
Jenyar,

No, that describes the disbelieved God. The believed God enforces relevance, morality, values and a productive life that is not fantasy. Reason unexercised and unrealized is just as flowery and impotent a myth as the disbelieved God.
Click to expand...
Yes this is very true.

To a large extent it is irrelevant that God does not exist, the issue is entirely about what people believe. The fact that they have no factual basis is apparently unimportant. The terror of hell, if believed true, is a powerful motivating force to lead a moral life. The real belief in a wonderful loving father figure that will solve all problems actually generates happiness and a productive life.

That God is a fictional character doesn’t matter when the human mind can generate positive benefits all by itself.

But all that this means is that God is no more than just a giant placebo. I.e. he is totally without substance but the consumers have been erroneously convinced otherwise.
 
You might say the same for the justice system in the whole.

As long as you realize that the perceived irrelevance between what people believe, the ability of the belief to shape their lives, and the reality of what they believe in, is just how you prefer to explain their experience. You account for it one way, they account for it another way, but the experience is undeniable. That the Bible's contents must necessarily be in the past favours the sceptic perspective, but it comes down to the same preference. The Bible describes a way of life and experience that is significant to those who live in such a relationship with God, but has otherwise been just the natural course of events to everybody else. Where there were encounters that caused interaction between the different viewspoints, there were those who believed and those who didn't. The point where momentum is overcome and faith is established, will always draw a line between believers and unbelievers.

If God says the substance of His presence is our lives, and his presence in our lives is in the faith that moves us to obey His command of love, then that claim is attested for, or in other words: true. But like all truth that is dependent on experience, it can only be perceived by those who actually experience it.

If God is a "placebo", He is one of substance - more significantly, a substance that is indistinguishable from reality itself. Personal preference and interpretation then becomes just a different perspective on the same reality.
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
The Bible describes a way of life and experience that is significant to those who live in such a relationship with God, but has otherwise been just the natural course of events to everybody else.
Click to expand...
Do you mean, for example, like where they slaughter all of the Midianites save for the 30,000 virgin women, girls, and infants that they distributed among themself? Or are you talking about the fish-fry involving "about five thousand men, beside women and children"? Or, perhaps, the very common experience of life within the belly of a big fish?
 
You Atheists all remind me of Sesame Street numbering lessons.

Does the 2 think the 159 is real? Can the 4 see the 987? Even the simple 2 knows that infinity is god where all the numbers and possibilities are available.

Can we multiply ourselves to see god. Can we reach the ceiling of our universe? Can we ever see infinity? Aren't all infinities equal? Isn't equal means 1. Do we have to see the ONE infinity to trust that it exist? Can a number denounce the UNiversal numbering system on the basis that they don't see the other numbers. Why do Atheists denounce any order or system? Why do Atheists denounce belongness to a creation system? Based on what do you claim your independance while you have no control on how you came or when you leave this world?

PS. Do you ever why do they use the term universe to describe infinite bounds? Do you ever wonder what uni means?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top