Proof there is a God

[Jan Ardena]

The Buddhists would disagree with that. They believe in karma but don't believe in the existence of souls. That's one of the things most fundamental to and distinctive about the religion.

So, the obvious question is how transmigration can happen without any souls that transmigrate. The Buddhist answer is what they call 'dependent origination'. This is basically an ancient idea of causation, conceived in a moral as well as a physical way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idappaccayatā

The Buddhists imagine human beings as processes as opposed to substances. That applies especially to our psychological lives. There's no mind-substance in Buddhism, just a sequence of psychological events causally conditioned by past psychological events and casually conditioning future ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

So what extends from life to life isn't the persistence of any soul-substance, its just the chain of causal influences.



The Buddhists don't believe in the existence of souls, but do traditionally believe in heavens and hells. That's because the future and past causal chains don't necessarily extend into the future and past of this world. The Buddhist cosmology is basically a multiverse, with a whole hierarchy of realms characterized by how prevalent suffering is in them. I believe that Buddhists would argue that there is empirical evidence for the existence of these, since they correspond to states attainable in certain kinds of meditation (samatha particularly). In other words, it's possible to peek into some of the heavens during meditation.

That's the basis of a great deal of popular street-level ethics in Buddhist countries. Behave so as to earn a rebirth in a heavenly realm. That doesn't imply divine judgement since it's entirely causal.

And technically speaking, it won't even be you being born in that realm, just a being whose circumstances are shaped by your actions here and now. In Buddhism, there isn't even any essence-of-you that lasts from moment to moment in this life, just a chain of causal influences including memories. So arguably the being who is born in the next life is just as continuous with you today as you are continuous with your infant self right after birth. (In both cases, perhaps not so much since their isn't much continuity of memories.)

Buddhists philosophers put a lot of thought into the problems of personal identity for obvious reasons and current analytic philosophy has started paying attention to those ancient and early-medieval discussions in India which in many cases are more sophisticated and acute than Western thinking on the same problems.

Buddhist philosophers may not believe in the existence of the soul, but from what I understand that is not exactly what the Buddha taught.

The Buddha regarded soul-speculation as useless and illusory. He once said, 'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It might be comfortable for you to believe that, but it doesn't seem to be true at all. Children have to be told about the idea of divinity. Additionally, there are many commonly held beliefs that are wrong (many common beliefs about physics, for example, are demonstrably false).

Even if nobody tells them, they still find out, one way or another, because eventually there comes a time in everyone's life where they question their origins, what happens when they die, and if there is any purpose to life.
I know pop science is trying to come up with answers to these questions, but they always, inevitably, and obviously fall short.
Why? Because it is incapable of giving any relating to satisfactory answers. The answers only become satisfactory if we want them to be.

jan.

 

[Write4U]

The Christian doctrine basically holds that souls are what we have, as opposed to we are the soul, and have acquired a body.

And how does that happen?

It also holds that only human beings have souls, and animals don't, hence they eat animals whereas before they didn't.

This is word salad. Are you positing you that possessing a soul makes you a carnivore? You dont need canine teeth to eat veggies. Fact is that hominids are omnivores and evolved from omnivorous ancestors. This is scientific fact. Are you calling all science pop-science? If that is the case, can I call all religions pop-religions?

It wouldn't surprise me if these changes were the result of Roman intervention.

Ah, it was the Romans who were the bad guys and taught the Godly vegetarians to eat flesh?
Please do tell, how Romans intervened in the human consumption of flesh? It would make another great story in pop-religions. You might begin by explaining the difference between Roman humans and other humans. Perhaps they had greater knowledge of personal hygiene?
Did they suggest something like "burned offerings"? Why do we burn the meats we eat? I always thought it had something to do with "killing bacteria".
Why do you think pig meat was taboo?

Trichinellosis, also called trichinosis, is a disease that people can get by eating raw or undercooked meat from animals infected with the microscopic parasite Trichinella.

However man was allowed to eat certain types animal flesh if it was offered properly.

Ah, there it is, *burnt offerings*.

This was done to award the soul of the animal a human form in it's next life.

Of course we are allowed to eat flesh, just like every other animal (and some plants as well), because we are animals. If animals have no souls and man is an animal, how did souls *come into existence* in the first place?

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, ...................

 

[DaveC426913]

The answers only become satisfactory if we want them to be.

No truer words were ever spoken.

The term for this is wishful thinking.

 

[Write4U]

No truer words were ever spoken.

The term for this is wishful thinking.

* In the direction of greatest satisfaction*

 

[Jan Ardena]

And how does that happen?

How does what happen?

This is word salad. Are you positing you that possessing a soul makes you a carnivore? You dont need canine teeth to eat veggies. Fact is that hominids are omnivores and evolved from omnivorous ancestors. This is scientific fact. Are you calling all science pop-science? If that is the case, can I call all religions pop-religions?

The point is we don't possess a soul, we are the soul.
Humans are omnivores, so can and do eat meat, that is not a judgement call.

No I'm not calling all science pop science, and yes you can call all religion pop religion, if you like.

Ah, it was the Romans who were the bad guys and taught the Godly vegetarians to eat flesh?

That's not what I said or meant.

Of course we are allowed to eat flesh, just like every other animal (and some plants as well), because we are animals. If animals have no souls and man is an animal, how did souls *come into existence* in the first place?

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, ...................

It has nothing to do with being allowed or not allowed to eat flesh and/or consume blood.
Vegetarianism was part of the culture.

Where did I say that animals have no souls?
Did I not state that it is a common belief among modern Christianity that animals have no souls?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_vegetarianism

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No truer words were ever spoken.

The term for this is wishful thinking.

You're point being?

jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Are you going to respond to this:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/proof-there-is-a-god.152686/page-37#post-3369995

?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Where did that come from? How did you learn it?

Where did anything come from, and how did we learn about these things?

My guess is that it's an article of faith in ISKCON.

Why do you keep bringing up ISKON?

God is known through 'Krishna consciousness', and that is found within. God is either identical to or somehow revealed in the human soul/atman itself, right?

Krishna, is Krishna. God with an upper case 'G' is a generic description of Krishna.
God is to be found within the heart of every living entity, according to Krishna Himself.
He is understood to be identical in quality, to the living entity.

So presumably the ability to find God is already present within everyone if they would just seek it. So, why are you so sure that ISKCON and theistic Hinduism is correct about all that?

So, why are you so sure that ISKCON and theistic Hinduism is correct about all that?

Where have I ever asserted that ISKON and theistic Hinduism is correct?
Even in this response, I use the phrase ''it is understood''.

In my response to Billy T, I never once asserted that I am sure, or certain that the information is ''correct''.
Sometimes I may go a few sentences without adding ''it is understood'', and it may seem that I am saying it as a fact, so I will try and remember to keep adding it to avoid this unnecessary confusion.

You seem to be suggesting that every individual and every culture that has ever existed was monotheist. That's just historically false.

I wasn't suggesting any particular system. I'm just saying that there is always a supreme authority. Like James said, it is tradition.

If this idea of yours didn't come from ISKCON, where did it come from? Did you just dream it up for yourself? What reason can you give for why anyone else should believe it?

Where could it have come from?
I think this knowledge is innate, that we have a link to the source, hence I am a theist.

I can't give any reason why you or anyone else should believe what I believe, and I've never said that you or anyone else should believe what I believe.

We're simply having a discussion, where I'm on the side of the theist. You are on the side of the agnostic atheist (I presume), and Write4U is on the side of the atheist (I presume). Is there anything wrong with that?

The Pali Canon. The Jaina Sutras. Neither of those has a creator God.

In your mind, what's a 'scripture'? How do religious writings that you consider 'scriptures' differ from religious writings that aren't?

I don't think Buddha (the subject matter) lacked a belief in God.

I think scriptures are source of spiritual information, that is ultimately from God (to put it bluntly)
I think religious writing are writings made from religious people.
I think they differ in that religious writing can be what the writer wants to portray, about his/her opinion, experience, understanding, revelation, about God, or scripture.

Your constantly repeated demand that we define the word 'God' would seem to be an impossible task in much of traditional Christian theology. (I believe that many Muslims would agree.) Traditional Christian theology has often held that God is unknowable in his essence (his 'ousia') and that he is known by humans by his actions (his 'energies') in this world. That's mainstream theology in the Eastern Orthodox traditions.

I don't agree with you.
Early Christianity seems more related to eastern theology, in it's teachings, than it does to modern Christianity.
If God is infinite, and we are finite, then it would stand to reason that we cannot KNOW God in His entirety. How well do we know anyone, or even ourselves?
But why should it mean that we can't know Him within our limitations.

You're always trying to push everyone's emotional buttons. Suggesting that your opponents are afraid is a great way to keep them responding to you and of making you the center of their attention.

That's one way of looking at it. But why don't opponents explain why they believe God doesn't exist, or what would or could be the satisfactory scientific evidence that would make them accept. There are lots more questions they need to answer, but they seem very reluctant, choosing only to attack theism, or the theist.

I ask you questions all the while, about statements you make, and you either ignore them, or come back with responses similar to this one where you go down this line of questioning, and insisting that I'm an egotist or something. What about the points I've raised, with sources?

I want to know what religious traditions have influenced you. Do you consider yourself a member of any tradition now? Why do you quote the Gita? Are you currently or formerly a member of ISKCON?

I not sure that I am influenced by any tradition, let alone religious ones. But if I have been influenced it is not only by religious traditions. It by any tradition. Why is this important to you?

I quote the Gita because in it I find a complete description of God, whereas in the other scriptures I find partial description.
The Gita is not for any religious tradition, I find that it is the essential source of all religious tradition. I find that my comprehension of books like the Bible, or the Koran, is a lot clearer because I have a better idea of who and what God is.

If you aren't a member of any tradition, how in the world can you write as if you are the voice of religious tradition (scripture!) while not adhering to anything?

I think you're being harsh here. I'm simply representing a side of ''Religion'' that is obviously important, and heavily understated, and/or ignored here.

Are you trying to understand who and what God is? Or do accept that we cannot know?
Do you think scriptures are a good way to understand the concept of God?
If not, why not?

Even if you belong to no tradition, you must have had influences (the Gita is clearly one). Can tell us what your influences were?

Why is this information important to you?
What difference would such information make in this discussion?

jan.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Billy T]

... Here you are now trying to compare the doctrine of karma to the entirety of the Christian religion, when karma is but a single doctrine within the larger scope of the religion it forms part of.

No I was comparing the religous beliefs, not the Karma doctrine. Christianity has more than a dozen (OVC >12) vs only the one OVC they share. I. e. both re-incarnation religions and Christianity assume the existance of an immortal soul ("person" that does not die with the death of the body) to each get 1 added to their Occam Viloation Counts; but we know more life forms will be born for the soul to be re-incrnated into. We don't know that heaven (or a dozen other things) Christianity assumes, exist. That is why christianity's OVC > 12.

... You are simply misusing Occam's razor. karma is not a religion. It is a doctrine held within some religions, so your efforts to compare are fallacious.

I compared two religions, not doctrines. Yes Karma is a doctrine, like existance of virgin birth, devil, saints, forgivnes of sins, heaven, hell are assumed doctrines of Christianity.

... You mean other than the assumption of the existence of a soul, the assumption of transference of the soul, of a material plane by which soul can operate?
That alone is sufficient for the theory to be "chock full of assumptions from the get go".

Implicit in the assumption that the soul survives death is the idea that it is some where after death. Christianity and re-incarnation religions differ on where that "somewhere" is. It is a place known to exist for Re-incarnation (new borns) and a place POSTULATED TO EXIST place for Christianity. That postulate adds one more to Christianity's large OVC.

Note gravitational potential energy, like all potential energy, has a arbitary chosen point for zero value. Thus can be either negative or positive , depending on the choice.

 

[Yazata]

On the contrary. Every human being came into a world where it common KNOWLEDGE (knowledge being a natural aspect sentient beings) of a Supreme Being. As far as you, me, and every single atheist that ever existed is aware of it's fact. They have to introduce square two to try and shake it off.

Where did that come from? How did you learn it?

Where did anything come from, and how did we learn about these things?

You stated your belief that everyone is born with innate knowledge of God. I want to know the source of that belief. Did you dream it up for yourself, or did you learn it from the teachings some existing religious tradition?

My guess is that it's an article of faith in ISKCON.

Why do you keep bringing up ISKON?

Because you occasionally slip from your incessant attacks and challenges directed at everyone else and let the rest of us see a few hints of your own beliefs.

Like this:

Krishna, is Krishna. God with an upper case 'G' is a generic description of Krishna.
God is to be found within the heart of every living entity, according to Krishna Himself.
He is understood to be identical in quality, to the living entity.

Where have I ever asserted that ISKON and theistic Hinduism is correct?

You have stated (repeatedly in your many posts) that everyone is born with innate knowledge of God and you seem to assume that as a indisputable fact. You announce that atheists somehow already know this in the deepest part of them and are fighting in fear against it. And you have just written that "God is a generic description of Krishna. God is to be found in the heart of every living entity, according to Krishna himself."

Even in this response, I use the phrase ''it is understood''.

By whom? You love to pose as if you are the voice of religious tradition, while trying as hard as you possibly can to keep from identifying what tradition you think that you are speaking for.

You seem to be suggesting that every individual and every culture that has ever existed was monotheist. That's just historically false.

I wasn't suggesting any particular system. I'm just saying that there is always a supreme authority. Like James said, it is tradition.

Which tradition? You seem to be saying that monotheism is "tradition" in polytheistic and even in non-theistic religions. I think that what you are saying is simply false.

It seems to me you are repeating a doctrine over and over that you have dreamed up for yourself or have been taught by somebody: that all religions are one and ultimately teach the same thing (monotheistic religion as you personally conceive of it).

Humans are caused by God according to any scripture you care to mention

The Pali Canon. The Jaina Sutras. Neither of those has a creator God.

I don't think Buddha (the subject matter) lacked a belief in God.

I do. But the subject matter here is the content of "scripture". You suggested that all scriptures teach the same monotheistic thing. So I named two very important religious scriptures that clearly don't.

In your mind, what's a 'scripture'? How do religious writings that you consider 'scriptures' differ from religious writings that aren't?

I think scriptures are source of spiritual information, that is ultimately from God (to put it bluntly)
I think religious writing are writings made from religious people.
I think they differ in that religious writing can be what the writer wants to portray, about his/her opinion, experience, understanding, revelation, about God, or scripture.

Isn't that Hinduism's Sruti/Smriti distinction?

Sruti being divinely revealed, without a human author. (The Hindu Vedas up through the earlier Upanishads are believed to fall into this class.) Smriti refers to religious texts with human authors. Interestingly, the Bhagavad Gita is attibuted to the sage Vyasa, and thus is a Smriti work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śruti

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smriti

So once again we see you promoting Hindu ideas, in this case about textual inspiration, while suggesting that they are universal and common to all religion.

Your constantly repeated demand that we define the word 'God' would seem to be an impossible task in much of traditional Christian theology. (I believe that many Muslims would agree.) Traditional Christian theology has often held that God is unknowable in his essence (his 'ousia') and that he is known by humans by his actions (his 'energies') in this world. That's mainstream theology in the Eastern Orthodox traditions.

I don't agree with you.

A thing's essence is what makes it that thing and not something else. Asking for the defining characteristics of something is asking for a description of its essence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence–Energies_distinction

If God is infinite, and we are finite, then it would stand to reason that we cannot KNOW God in His entirety. How well do we know anyone, or even ourselves?
But why should it mean that we can't know Him within our limitations.

I does suggest that it's impossible for a human being to capture God in a definition.

I not sure that I am influenced by any tradition, let alone religious ones.

I don't think that you are being honest there. If it was true, then wouldn't it suggest that you are making up all of this and just inventing it in your own head? You aren't a divinely inspired prophet, Jan.

Why is this important to you?

Because you talk about "scripture" incessantly. You tell the rest of us to "read scripture". But scriptures (and the principles by which they are understood) are the product of traditions. And you continually refuse to commit to any single tradition.

You pose as if you are a spokesman for religion in its entirety, while promoting a very idiosyncratic vision of what religion is. You seem to think that all religion agrees on some kind of universalist monotheism, you promote the idea that all religions teach the same thing (your beliefs) when they are rightly understood - an understanding that might be radically different than how the adherents of those religions understand their own traditions.

I quote the Gita because in it I find a complete description of God, whereas in the other scriptures I find partial description.
The Gita is not for any religious tradition, I find that it is the essential source of all religious tradition. I find that my comprehension of books like the Bible, or the Koran, is a lot clearer because I have a better idea of who and what God is.

Right.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You're confusing knowledge with tradition. Just because something is traditional doesn't mean it is true.

At this point, whether god exists or not, is not the issue.

Tell me why I need your notion of a Supreme being, Jan.

You don't James R, you have your own notion of a Supreme Being.

It has no effect on my life, other than that I am obliged to interact with people like you from time to time who consider it important.

It's importance, and effects on your life, is not the issue here.
You have a notion of the Supreme Being. What you do with it is your business.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You stated your belief that everyone is born with innate knowledge of God. I want to know the source of that belief. Did you dream it up for yourself, or did you learn it from the teachings some existing religious tradition?

Observation.

Everyone passed a certain age has some notion of God.
If God was a made up concept, that idea, like all other man made ideas, would have bit the dust long ago.
Basically it is unlike any other idea.

You have stated (repeatedly in your many posts) that everyone is born with innate knowledge of God and you seem to assume that as a indisputable fact.

I disagree, my assertions match the claims of my opponents. If they don't have to qualify their claims with ''I believe, or I think'', why should I?

You announce that atheists somehow already know this in the deepest part of them and are fighting in fear against it. And you have just written that "God is a generic description of Krishna. God is to be found in the heart of every living entity, according to Krishna himself."

So what? Why do you have to bring up ISKON?
Why can't you just accept the statement for what it is?

When you make statements, I don't automatically look for the source of where you got it, then start questioning you about that source.
I accept that you're capable of coming to a conclusion by yourself.

You seem to think I have no mind of my own, relying on ISKON, or scriptures to find answers.

Atheists know about God, the same way theists know about God. The difference is they have chosen not to accept.
If that isn't true then please explain why they are atheist, and how they are convinced that there is no evidence for God.

Also please explain why they reject all scriptures, only using them to discredit theism.

Isn't that Hinduism's Sruti/Smriti distinction?

Not really, although I understand why you would make that connection.

Sruti being divinely revealed, without a human author. (The Hindu Vedas up through the earlier Upanishads are believed to fall into this class.) Smriti refers to religious texts with human authors. Interestingly, the Bhagavad Gita is attibuted to the sage Vyasa, and thus is a Smriti work.

Right but what is the status of Vyasadev?
Is he an ordinary human being?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śruti

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smriti

So once again we see you promoting Hindu ideas, in this case about textual inspiration, while suggesting that they are universal and common to all religion.

This idea as you call it was around long before the concept of hinduism. In fact it is called Sanatam-Dharma, loosely translated as the eternal occupation of the soul (living entity).
You can get inpsiration from any old thing.

A thing's essence is what makes it that thing and not something else. Asking for the defining characteristics of something is asking for a description of its essence.

If that is how you see it, how do you know that there is no evidence for God?

I does suggest that it's impossible for a human being to capture God in a definition.

Why?

I don't think that you are being honest there. If it was true, then wouldn't it suggest that you are making up all of this and just inventing it in your own head? You aren't a divinely inspired prophet, Jan.

Then as I stated before, I am influenced by everything that I have experienced, thought about, seen, heard, done, interacted with, and the list goes on. I make my choices based on everything, not just one particular thing.

The problem here is you're attempting to simplify everything by putting them in neat little boxes with name tags on, like we do with musical genres. The reality is, it's not like that. At least where I am concerned anyways.

Because you talk about "scripture" incessantly. You tell the rest of us to "read scripture". But scriptures (and the principles by which they are understood) are the product of traditions. And you continually refuse to commit to any single tradition.

We are in a Religion forum, but the overall theme is Science, not religion.
If we're discussing God, then we should look into scriptures because that is where we get the most information about God. Do you agree?

My personal, subjective life should not be necessary in these discussions. We haven't got to that point yet. There is still major confusion about God, so why venture into religion?

You pose as if you are a spokesman for religion in its entirety, while promoting a very idiosyncratic vision of what religion is. You seem to think that all religion agrees on some kind of universalist monotheism, you promote the idea that all religions teach the same thing (your beliefs) when they are rightly understood - an understanding that might be radically different than how the adherents of those religions understand their own traditions.

I don't see this in terms of labels (monotheism, polytheism, pantheism...), I look for the common denominator. This common denominator falls into two categories, self realization and God realisation.
All proper religions fall into that. Also religions aren't fixed, they come into being, then go out of being. They appeal to time, place, and circumstance. But the aim is always the same. That is what you have to look for to avoid confusion.

Even in this response, I use the phrase ''it is understood''.

By whom?

Whoever studies, and more importantly practice, and abide by the rules and regulations.

jan.

 

[Billy T]

... Everyone passed a certain age has some notion of God.
If God was a made up concept, that idea, like all other man made ideas, would have bit the dust long ago.
Basically it is unlike any other idea. ... jan.

First "notion of" is not "belief in." *
Second there are many things people above a certain age have notions of.
For exmple, money in its many different forms; Cows, certain shells, pieces of gold, government issued coin, Bitcon, etc.
People as have some notion of Justice, but don't always agree on what is just.
People have ideas /notions of Love & Hate. etc.

You are excessiely prone to making unsupport claims of uniqueness, about some of your beliefs. God is much more likely to be a man-made up concept than these things I have just listed, especially when various atributes are assigned to God (by man of course) such as "all powerful" "loving" "creater of the universe" etc.

* Most educated people have a notion of unicorns.

 

[Jan Ardena]

First "notion of" is not "belief in." *
Second there are many things people above a certain age have notions of.
For exmple, money in its many different forms; Cows, certain shells, pieces of gold, government issued coin, Bitcon, etc.
People as have some notion of Justice, but don't always agree on what is just.
People have ideas /notions of Love & Hate. etc.

You are excessiely prone to making unsupport claims of uniqueness, about some of your beliefs. God is much more likely to be a man-made up concept than these things I have just listed, especially when various atributes are assigned to God (by man of course) such as "all powerful" "loving" "creater of the universe" etc.

* Most educated people have a notion of unicorns.

So why go down the road of blocking the possibility of god's existence.
We obviously both know there's something more to this, than the other stuff you mentioned.

Would you not be interested in God, if you knew God existed?

Or would such a revelation change your life?

Jan.

 

[Billy T]

So why go down the road of blocking the possibility of god's existence.

That is impossible (so I don't try to show god does not exist). Non-existence is possible to prove only in the realm of mathematics.

... Would you not be interested in God, if you knew God existed?

Certainly. He could, if existing with even a small fraction of the powers men assign to him, prove his existence easily. For example, very openly (no magic tricks) change water into good wine in 1 second as we are drinking some, or walk on water (not ice).

Or would such a revelation change your life? Jan.

Not much, but I would cease to be an agnostic, and want to know what, if any, changes in the world he would make. For example would there cease to be children starving to death each minute? or would all carry on as is with no changes?

I. e. instead of the attributes man has given him (all loving, all powerful, etc.) he would prove that wrong and humans would then learn:

"God does not give a shit what we do to our selves." That seems to be the case now, or else he has no power to change anything. Impossible to know which now.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Certainly. He could, if existing with even a small fraction of the powers men assign to him, prove his existence easily. For example, very openly (no magic tricks) change water into good wine in 1 second as we are drinking some, or walk on water (not ice).

Is that what it would take for you to accept God exists?
I've seen magicians turn water into wine, and walk on water (not ice).
You'd accept some trick as proof of God?
It's little wonder you can't accept the reasoning .

I. e. instead of the attributes man has given him (all loving, all powerful, etc.) he would prove that wrong and humans would then learn:

lol!

"God does not give a shit what we do to our selves." That seems to be the case now, or else he has no power to change anything. Impossible to know which now.

I don't really know how to respondt o that, but appreciate your honesty.

jan.

 

[Billy T]

... I've seen magicians turn water into wine, ... jan.

Not while you are drinking it - that was my specification.

 

[Write4U]

So why go down the road of blocking the possibility of god's existence.

Objective critical thinking (reasoning).

We obviously both know there's something more to this, than the other stuff you mentioned.

Something more to *what*?

Would you not be interested in God, if you knew God existed?

Our discussion is proof that we are not blocking anything which might prove that God exists. You have been given plenty of opportunity to provide proof of God's existence, but you have just failed to offer persuasive arguments that a biblical God *must* exist.

Or would such a revelation change your life? Jan.

Not in the least. What would change? Adding a bible to my library. I already have 4 of those, and oddly they are all different. Just look up the various accounts of the story of "loafs and fishes".

But let me reverse the question; Would the revelation that God actually does NOT exist change your life?

And how would your life change? If you are a *good* person (which you seem to be), will you not remain a good person without a God to worship or would you suddenly go bonkers, just like all those other crazy atheists??

In fact, it is religious which tries to block science in spite of persuasive proofs of say *evolution*. Have you ever been to the Creationist Museum?

Consistent with a Young Earth creationist worldview, the museum exhibits depict the coexistence of humans and non-avian dinosaurs, portray the Earth as approximately 6,000 years old, and dispute the idea that biological life evolved into its current forms. The principles of the museum contradict the scientific consensus on evolution.
Scientists and educators have expressed concerns that the museum misrepresents science and could have a negative impact on science education.
Proponents of other religious beliefs about the universe's origins—including Old Earth creationism, theistic evolution, and intelligent design—have expressed criticism of the museum, saying that its rejection of scientific consensus damages the credibility of Christianity and its adherents.
Tenets of Young Earth creationism nevertheless enjoy substantial support among the general population in the United States, contributing to the museum's popularity.

 

[wellwisher]

What kind of proof of God would convince you. I ask this question, because if I showed proof you don't like, you will say there is still no proof. How about we speed up the process with you telling us what you will need to believe in God.

If a museum of creationist history, is sufficient to mess up the scientific compass of an atheist, he was never a real scientist. Maybe such atheists need to get into liberal arts, where everything is subjective and based on prestige. A good scientists is a rational and self sufficient thinker. He is not a subjective herd animal that follows orders. The fear of atheist, about the Museum, appears to be the fear that new orders might scatter their army, since none can think on their feet, but all need to be told what to think.

I look at a such a museum as an art museum, allowing to me appreciate the works of various artists.

I believe that Creationism tells us about the time in human history, when the human mind began to see the world differently. Genesis is the first scientific publication about cosmology and evolution. It is not the same as modern science, because it was the first and was published 6000 years ago. Darwin;s theory did not include genetics but I don't see anyone needing to purge this literature. It is will not cause any real scientist to assume genetics is real, because Darwin did not say so. This may only impact those who have been taught revisionist history.