Write4U
Valued Senior Member
How do you know God is a Him and not an *IT*?
Proof there is a God
- Thread starter JBrentonK
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Children are not scientists and their *virgin minds* will believe what they are shown and told is Truth.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
From what I have read, it is a *beautiful and impressive* museum (no expense spared). I am sure the exhibits are first class.
Unfortunately it is not an Art museum, it claims to be an Historical museum, but scientifically it is all wrong. And therein lies the problem.
Why does this process allow you to block the possibility of God's existence?
Erm.. more than the other stuff he mentioned.
How can I have failed at something I haven't attempted?
This isn't a discussion, it is you, others, blocking any attempt to understand who and what God is.
You do this by avoiding any discussion, or completely blocking any reasoning about God, regardless of God being real or not.
It is as though you're afraid to even discuss God.
Now I know you're talking bullshit.
There is no way to even comprehend the non existence of God. There is nothing anyone can do, say, demonstrate, or explain, that proves the non existence of God.
If I become an atheist, it is because I choose to, just like you.
No I haven't.
jan.
Does it matter?
I can refer to God as ''IT'' if it means we can have a meaningful discussion.
Would that work for you?
jan.
I think you have missed out "I think" at the start of your claim.
I find it very easy to comprehend the non-existence of God: There! I'm doing it right now.
You might try to argue that I am not doing it, that to comprehend God not existing is to comprehend the non-existence of everything given how God is defined, but then we get into the whole debate about how a definition does not necessitate existence, and thus it is possible for a non-existent thing to be defined as necessary. The definition would simply not relate to anything in reality.
The issue you struggle with is that you can not comprehend the non-existence of God. But others can. And do. You can not speak for everyone on this, and if you claim to you are simply lying.
Nor is there anything anyone can do, say, demonstrate, or explain, that proves the existence of God. The lack of such proof does not mean that it is impossible to comprehend the non-existence of God.
Is there anything you can do that proves the non-existence of anything that doesn't actually exist that is beyond the realm of scientific enquiry? Take alien UFOs as an example: can you prove that they do not exist?
Can you comprehend the non-existence of those things?
I for one can not prove that alien UFOs do not exist, but I have no difficulty in comprehending their non-existence. Not comprehending their existence for that matter.
i don't think you could choose to be an atheist, any more than I could choose to be a theist. I simply do not believe in the existence of God due to the way I think... And I can not choose to genuinely believe in something that goes against that thinking.
Similarly I think all you could choose to do is give lip service to atheism, but I do not think you could genuinely choose to not believe in God.
Okay let me try!
Nah! It's not real.
It's me telling myself that God does not exist, and trying to form a picture in my mind of no God. IOW it's me denying the existence of God.
That may work for you, but not for me.
I can comprehend it, but it is me convincing myself there is no God.
That means blocking out any notion that God exists.
It means blocking out any scriptural reference that may lead me to an obvious conclusion that it is likely that God exists.
I think I could state more side effects of convincing myself that God does not exist, but I'll leave it there.
Of course there are explanations, demonstrations that can prove God's existence. The scriptures being an obvious candidate.
Thoughtful atheists simply deny the existence of God,. They have no independent sources which leads to the obvious conclusion that God doesn't exist. If I am wrong then please demonstrate non existence, that is not based on denial.
Or mere opposition to scripture.
Exactly. You have put yourself in a position where you decide to not believe.
The best way to do this is to be in denial. This means blocking any positive input or enquiry, denying the rest, and attacking theism and theists.
It's constantly done here, this is how I know.
Undoubtedly if asked why you don't believe you claim lack of evidence. A convenient get out clause. But you have no independent reason that stands outside "no evidence". And you cannot explain how you know there is no evidence.
I could deny God, thereby convincing my self that God does not exist, and get cranky when folk start quoting scripture, or want to pray for me. Or just talk about God in a positive way.
It would be in my interest to stay amongst like minded people, and try to ban any talk about God or scripture.
Jan.
Not me. I wished I could believe but I couldn't. God is just such a silly concept.
Clearly. But don't assume that because it doesn't work for you that other people can't manage it.
I can. Others can. They don't start from the position you do that God exists, thus it becomes a relatively straight forward task.
So you say you can comprehend it, yet in your previous post you asserted categorically: "There is no way to even comprehend the non existence of God."
I'd rather not go down the path of dealing with your frustrating inconsistency, if it's all the same - so please try not to be.
Yet to others those same scriptural references might not lead to any such conclusion. Again, your entire generalised assertion is based on how you think, and your error is in assuming that everyone thinks like you. They don't.
I really don't think you would be able to convince yourself, Jan.
So you believe. Others look at them and see documents referring to a man-made superstition that has simply embedded itself into the fabric of most societies.
You are once again coming from the view that the default position is somehow belief in the existence of God. It isn't for many of us. We were born without that belief. We were indoctrinated in that belief but it didn't stick. Thus we are back to the default of not having belief. It is for those feeling we should believe to explain and convince us, not for us to demonstrate why we shouldn't.
But to put it simply: we are not convinced by that which has been put before us. You clearly are convinced. This is not a refusal on our part to accept what is true but an inability on your part to genuinely convince us that it is true in the first place.
No, I have not "put myself in a position" - I simply am this way - I was born like this and educated in a way that brought this side out. I have no control over how I think in such matters.
And again you shift the burden of proof to the other side.The best way to do this is to be in denial. This means blocking any positive input or enquiry, denying the rest, and attacking theism and theists.
It's constantly done here, this is how I know.
"Convenient"? If you see it as such. It is no more convenient than you knowing how to breathe.
But you are incorrect in that there is independent reason: there does not appear to be a need for God. It is unknown what gave rise to our universe, and certainly what might have given rise to that.
So we think we have no necessity (although you clearly think otherwise), and then coupled with there being no evidence (and for most of us we wouldn't be able to give you an answer as to what evidence would suffice - another issue you can't accept but stems simply from you not understanding our position) leads to our agnostic atheism.
And it would be mere lip service on your part. To use your style of argument: you know it would only be lip-service rather than genuine non-belief, and if you say otherwise you are lying.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Much better! Now we can look at the *Wholeness* of the universe (and its properties) in an objective manner.
We can begin by discarding the notion that humans are in the Image of the Wholeness. Humans are but a miniscule part of the Wholeness, no more special to the Wholeness as an ant, or any other unrelated life forms which MOST probably exist elsewhere in the universe. (see Robert Hazen).
But does that work for you?
Thoughtful atheists do not deny the existence of God. They just don't believe that God exists. To be in denial means that something must have been established as a fact that can be denied. The existence of God has not been established as a fact.
The conclusion that God doesn't exist is consistent with the conclusion that nothing that is supernatural exists. No ghosts. No witches. No invisible bunyips. No psychic powers. No divining the future from chicken entrails. No "Secret" that the universe will give you what you want if you only wish for it hard enough. No fairies at the bottom of the garden. No coming back from the dead. No God.
All consistent with everything that is actually established as a fact.
When it comes to scriptures, there are no scriptures that were not written by people. I don't know why you think your "scriptures" are to be elevated to some kind of authoritative statement over every other form of human knowledge. Your "scriptures" are in opposition to everything else that we know about the nature of the world in which we live. Well, not quite everything. They fit in nicely with all the other fantasy literature that has been written.
Can't you see that this is pointless? What if I say: you have put yourself in a position where you decide to believe. The best way is to be in denial of reality. That means blocking any positive input or inquiry, denying the rest, and attacking atheists and atheism.Exactly. You have put yourself in a position where you decide to not believe.
The best way to do this is to be in denial. This means blocking any positive input or enquiry, denying the rest, and attacking theism and theists.
It's constantly done here, this is how I know.
See? Two can play this game of claiming that the other is in denial.
Better to say a lack of any convincing evidence.
The point of my comment was that God is a silly concept to me. I don't "want to deny God" as you suggested. I would like to believe but the idea is too silly (to me) to take seriously. Do you take the Flying Spaghetti Monster seriously?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
yazata said:
Jan said:
They do? I don't think that you have any way of really knowing that.
You have faith that "God with an upper case 'G' is a generic description of Krishna. God is to be found in the heart of every living entity, according to Krishna Himself".
Those are your words, an expression of your own faith. You obviously got the idea from somewhere, from some teaching or teacher who imagines the Indian mythological figure Krishna as a deity. That much is obvious.
yazata said:
Jan said:
Because belief in the divinity of Krishna and in the monotheistic unity of all religion appears to me to be your faith Jan. It's implicit in virtually everything you write.
Are you embarrassed about your own beliefs? You needn't be, they are no more embarrassing than Christianity or Islam. Do you fear that committing yourself to something specific will make you vulnerable and give your opponents additional ways to attack you? Would you rather be attacking atheists' ideas, while keeping your own beliefs and faith commitments deeply in the shadows?
Jan said:
Because you are preaching a particular theological doctrine on this board: the innateness of religious knowledge, some kind of universalist monotheism and the idea that all religious scriptures from all cultures teach your brand of monotheism when they are rightly understood. You have argued in other threads that the fact that people can't name specific human authors for many religious texts means that those texts are particularly authoritative and suggested that they have a supernatural origin.
Jan said:
I'm not convinced that you have any answers. But you do tell atheists over and over to study 'scripture' to find answers (without specifying which scripture).
Jan said:
How do you imagine that people know about God? By hearing other people around them using the word in a whole variety of different ways? Or from some innate knowledge, that you believe is imprinted in their deepest self/soul?
yazata said:
Jan said:
I'm not convinced that he ever existed. But whoever composed the Gita (I'd guess that it went through many hands before it was fixed in written form and inserted into the Mahabharata epic) were almost certainly ordinary human beings. Presumably the Brahmins who passed down such traditional lore.
What's your own belief about who or what Vyasa was?
yazata said:
Jan said:
Sanatana dharma is what many Hindus in India call their religion. They don't like the name 'Hindu' because it has a Persian origin. So here's another traditional item of belief that you are preaching to us without acknowledging its origin: The idea that Indian tradition is eternal and primordial, and hence prior to all of the world's other religions which are basically corruptions of it.
Here's what you wrote earlier:
"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."
yazata said:
Jan said:
I never said that there is no evidence for God. I'm saying that defining the word 'God' is an impossible task in much of Christian theology, in the Eastern Orthodox traditions particularly. So what you demand that atheists do is something that many Christians believe can't be done.
I'll add that many Muslims and Hindus would agree.
yazata said:
Jan said:
I'm not interested in trying to explain Christian theology to you. Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence–Energies_distinction_(Eastern_Orthodox_theology)
Pay particular attention to the 'transcendence of God' and 'essence of God' sections (3.1 and 3.11).
Jan said:
I'm not simplifying anything. I'm the one who is arguing that the world's scriptures don't all teach the same thing. You are the one preaching a very particular kind of universalist-monotheist theology on this board, without acknowledging its peculiarity or its origins, while suggesting that it's somehow universal and innate to everyone if they would only let themselves realize it.
Jan said:
I'm not convinced that "scriptures" contain information about God. They do contain information about what their ancient writers and compilers believed (and wanted others to believe) about religious matters, matters that may or may not involve a monotheist 'God'.
Jan said:
You seem awfully eager to make atheists' personal subjective lives the subject of discussion.
And if you are unwilling to acknowledge the tradition that seemingly spawned so much of your belief, and if you insist instead that you arrived at it independently all by yourself, then your personal subjective life would seem to be central to the whole thing.
Jan said:
Because ideas about 'God', and the 'scriptures' in which those ideas are found, are the historical products of religious traditions. It's impossible to talk intelligently about particular concepts of 'God' or 'scripture' without acknowledging the traditions from which those ideas come.
Jan said:
Or at least the theology that you embrace insists that those things represent a common denominator.
Jan said:
What did you say about simplifying everything? Here you are trying to stuff all "proper religions" into a single theistic box while distinguishing them from religions that you consider improper. (Presumably the polytheistic and non-theistic ones and all those that don't emphasize "self realization and God realization".)
Jan said:
Eternal dharma, right?
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Of course there is. Atheists do it all the time.
True, but it can be shown (in principle) that such a God has no application to anything we have so far observed in the universe as we understand it.
No one can prove that cosmic pink unicorns don't exist. But that is not evidence that they do. And we can (in principle) show that the universe ticks along nicely without the involvement of cosmic pink unicorns.
What we'd be left with is a universe where God and CPUs could technically exist, but are effectively cooped up in a tiny windowless room at the far end of the universe playing cards and minding their own business.
But I doubt that would be a satisfactory resolution in the eyes of theists.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I am surprised someone has not suggested the big bang evolution of the universe suggests a point of creation which is unexplainable without god.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
When playing chess I try and attack from the opponents view point.
I guess that is happening I think some offer that view.
Paddoboy knew of them.
I guess that is happening I think some offer that view.
Paddoboy knew of them.
If you give small children the option of listen to a fairly tale; story time, or listen to you talk about schooling, most small children will prefer the fairy tale. The reason is the fairy tales comes easy and feels natural to most children. It creates a nearly global sense of ease in terms of learning in small children. Formal schooling, like math or language, takes more willpower because it is not as natural. Some children can do both, but all children can learn fairy tales with ease.
Small children are like clean slates that lack the bias and structuring of culture. They are bundles of natural instinct. The ease of fairy tale learning comes from these reaching natural instinct. It is analogous to teaching walking to children, who already walk naturally. They can get it right without trying. Schooling is where children become less natural and more structured to the bias of culture. Now you try to teach marching and not walking. This is not part of their natural instinct. This will take years of proper schooling.
Religions very often contain their own mythology, which are often called fairy tales, by atheists. The value of these fairy tales is they reach the natural parts of the brain, as inferred by the preference of small children who lack the unnatural structuring. Even a very young child will enjoy hearing of Adam and Eve and most will retain this even after one story. The parts of the brain, being used, are common to all children and all humans. This why religions can reach people of all demographics; rich and poor, young and old, male and female, black and white, as will as from all cultures.
Cultural learning is not as natural and tends to be more connected to a niche. This is why Christians, for example, may argue for and against abortion, but they all agree on the mythology Christmas. They agree on what reaches natural instincts of the inner child, common to all, but not on the learned niches of cultures who are not uniform.
Discussion, like you can't prove God, is analogous to saying wolves can't talk, therefore you should never read Little Red Riding Hood. It does not matter if the young brain is stimulated by this. Instead listen to cultural propaganda, only.
Anyone with natural instinct; religious, will find it harder to reach those who lack natural instincts. Nothing you can say will ever reach that deep in their psyche. But since most religious know this is still there, will keep trying.
Small children are like clean slates that lack the bias and structuring of culture. They are bundles of natural instinct. The ease of fairy tale learning comes from these reaching natural instinct. It is analogous to teaching walking to children, who already walk naturally. They can get it right without trying. Schooling is where children become less natural and more structured to the bias of culture. Now you try to teach marching and not walking. This is not part of their natural instinct. This will take years of proper schooling.
Religions very often contain their own mythology, which are often called fairy tales, by atheists. The value of these fairy tales is they reach the natural parts of the brain, as inferred by the preference of small children who lack the unnatural structuring. Even a very young child will enjoy hearing of Adam and Eve and most will retain this even after one story. The parts of the brain, being used, are common to all children and all humans. This why religions can reach people of all demographics; rich and poor, young and old, male and female, black and white, as will as from all cultures.
Cultural learning is not as natural and tends to be more connected to a niche. This is why Christians, for example, may argue for and against abortion, but they all agree on the mythology Christmas. They agree on what reaches natural instincts of the inner child, common to all, but not on the learned niches of cultures who are not uniform.
Discussion, like you can't prove God, is analogous to saying wolves can't talk, therefore you should never read Little Red Riding Hood. It does not matter if the young brain is stimulated by this. Instead listen to cultural propaganda, only.
Anyone with natural instinct; religious, will find it harder to reach those who lack natural instincts. Nothing you can say will ever reach that deep in their psyche. But since most religious know this is still there, will keep trying.
Last edited:
That only means that ANYTHING that we do not fully understand can be 'explained' by invoking the super natural. That is no explanation, IMO.
Part I made bold is NOT true:
No, that is only one of several explanation of why the universe exist; and a rather poor one at that, as it violates Occam's suggestion (not to assume God's existence with no evidence) AND violates the laws of nature as non-material things can not direct move / change material things, not even an atom. Here is the scientifically accepted POV about the creation of the universe.
“Steven Hawking's (and many others) idea is that a statistical fluctuation split zero energy into equal amounts of positive (from which mater evolved) AND negative energy (which is now accelerating the expansion of the universe). That has my respect as a likely cause, consistent with physic, (needing no magic miracle or super natural agents) of our universe's beginning - why it exists.
Your ideas are more closely related to those believing any myth with no math* or evidence that their fathers believed, such as the flat earth is carried on the back of a giant turtle. etc.”
Quote from: Post 104 here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-faith-a-reliable-path-to-knowledge.152142/page-6#post-3320263
OR:
“You start with zero energy and divide into two equal (in magnitude) parts. One positive and associated quote with normal matter and the other negative and associated with "dark energy." In some of his simplified talks for people like me, Hawking uses the analogy of seeing a huge pile of dirt (and not noting the hole it came from). I. e. the total energy of the universe is still zero as it was in the beginning. Conservation of energy is alive and well, thank you.”
Quote from post 75 here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-the-sky-is-dark-in-the-night.155763/page-4#post-3369471
*The math of the “expansion phase” of the very early universe is too complex for me (you too no doubt). The expansion was very rapid – thousand of times faster than the speed of light (Only mater, not space, is limited by that speed.) The expansion idea was created to solve a great mystery: Why the universe is as it exists. It could have come only from a very improbable and extremely small set of initial conditions, without the expansion.
It also solves the dilemma of why the negative and positive mass/energies did not immediately re-combine. Like the virtual electrons and positron pairs do, which are also now by the zillions each second, being created from nothing in the vacuum of space due to statistical fluctuation splitting opposites. I. e. they were separating much too fast to re-combine.
Last edited: