Religion Vs God

[Jan Ardena]

jpappl,

Because you asked me what I mean't by "of course it's wrong" the bible that is. So I asked, are you a creationist ? If you are not, then you are admitting that it's wrong.

So your question was not specifically relating to the "creationist movement", ie, the earth was created in 6 twenty four hour days?
I believe that the universe weas the result of a creative intelligence (god), but I am not a creationists.
And I believe that the bible contains essential truths.

It was created or happened obviously, that is all we know so far, hopefully we will get more answers.

Out of the two, it is more likely to have been created, as it appears to
have been, by our understanding of creation. As we have no experience of
things poofing into existence without some cause, our belief in such a phenomenon, or hope to get positive answers, amounts to blind-faith.

The key is as you said, stay open to the new information.

That's all well and good, but my life, my responsibilities, are in the here and now. As such I have to make decisions based on, not only my objective experiences, but also my sufbjective ones. I haven't got time to sit and wait
for hopes and dreams about something that can never be conclusively proven, by a system incapable of understanding anything but the objective.

I am willing to listen to either one or both.

How can God be proven scientifically?

I have previously stated I would.

But are you?
There are philosophical proofs onf God's existence, but atheists are not
interested. I gather you are atheist

That's just it Jan, it's all words with nothing to back it up, in fact the real problem for most reasonable people is the evidence contradicts it.

The evidence of which you speak, cannot contradict the God's existence, unless you have a definition of God, which can be contradicted by the evidence.
If not, please cite evidence which contradicts God's existence.

So I am choosing to follow the evidence.

Then you might as well say God does not exist, because you will never
find direct evidence of God in the dirt, or in bones, or combining chemicals, ect...

What other than it exists ?

I'm just asking.
Do you have evidence that contradicts the BG, in the same way you claim
to have evidence that contradicts the bible.
We are talking about God, right?

What does that have to do with my statement, you lost me there.

You're saying there is no evidence for God, yet you cannot say what would
constitute actual evidence of God, most probably apart from some giant inconsistency in natural laws, which in and of themselves would not be evidence of God's existence.
If of course you are prepared to believe that
God existed upon such an event, then your would position would be no different to that of any other believer.

Are you calling the Bhagavad Gita evidence for god ?

To say that something is evidence for god, is to say that other things aren't evidence for god. That doesn't make sense.
There is no scriptoral definition of God, that supports the idea that God is somehow completely separate from any part of His creation.

The BG or any scripture does not set out to prove God's existence, so to derive the idea of proof from them seems a pointless endeavour.

jan.

 

[wynn]

The BG or any scripture does not set out to prove God's existence, so to derive the idea of proof from them seems a pointless endeavour.

This is interesting.
I have heard from theists of various denominations that scriptures are proof of God's existence or that scriptures prove God's existence.

 

[Dywyddyr]

jTo say that something is evidence for god, is to say that other things aren't evidence for god.

What?

That doesn't make sense.

You're right it doesn't make sense. But then it isn't true either.

Just because X is claimed as evidence for anything does NOT state that Y, Z or A can't also be evidence for that same thing.

 

[wynn]

To say that something is evidence for god, is to say that other things aren't evidence for god. That doesn't make sense.
There is no scriptoral definition of God, that supports the idea that God is somehow completely separate from any part of His creation.

Sure, if God exists and He is the Creator and Maintainer of everything, then everything is (in some way) evidence of His existence.

However, this line of reasoning is useless if what we are after is proof of God's existence.

It does seem though that some of the evidence (such as sriptures or personal experiences of God) is more theistically relevant or persuasive than other.

 

[Jan Ardena]

This is interesting.
I have heard from theists of various denominations that scriptures are proof of God's existence or that scriptures prove God's existence.

"Bhagavad Gita" means 'song/word of God', meaning that
God Himself sung these words to explain Himself, not to prove
that He exists. It is already accepted, and explained, by God, that
there are souls who do not believe.
The same can be said in the bible; "the fool has said in his heart....."

jan.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

"Bhagavad Gita" means 'song/word of God', meaning that
God Himself sung these words to explain Himself, not to prove
that He exists. It is already accepted, and explained, by God, that
there are souls who do not believe.
The same can be said in the bible; "the fool has said in his heart....."

jan.

If what you say is true then the Sasquatch is real because he sang a song proclaiming he is real. I will write a story about this. I can do followup stories for the Yeti and the Lochness monster and the Lake Champlain monster and Ogopogo and then all mythical monsters and call it a religious text. And then I can start the Church of the Holy Shit monsters are real. What do you think you think that would hold water do you think it would be able to go mainstream. I think not and when you come to that conclusion about Monsters then well apply the same logic to the Bible K.

 

[wynn]

Perhaps what people are actually after when they seek "proof of God's existence" is "believing in God is a meaningful way".

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

To say that something is evidence for god, is to say that other things aren't evidence for god.

What?

What are the claims for God's exsistence?
If we take the claim that God is the original cause (creator) of the heavens and the earth, it's in habitants, and all perceptions. What is left, outside of that, to study and conclude that God exists?

Just because X is claimed as evidence for anything does NOT state that Y, Z or A can't also be evidence for that same thing.

But when A,X,Y, and Z are claimed as evidence for something, then it become
pointless to act as though some are sclaims, and others aren't.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

However, this line of reasoning is useless if what we are after is proof of God's existence.

This is true.
But there are methods (yogas) given by God, which can prove His existence.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If what you say is true then the Sasquatch is real because he sang a song proclaiming he is real. I will write a story about this. I can do followup stories for the Yeti and the Lochness monster and the Lake Champlain monster and Ogopogo and then all mythical monsters and call it a religious text. And then I can start the Church of the Holy Shit monsters are real. What do you think you think that would hold water do you think it would be able to go mainstream. I think not and when you come to that conclusion about Monsters then well apply the same logic to the Bible K.

I get your point.
But then we are back where we started.

What would you accept as evidence of God's existence?

jan.

 

[wynn]

If what you say is true then the Sasquatch is real because he sang a song proclaiming he is real. I will write a story about this. I can do followup stories for the Yeti and the Lochness monster and the Lake Champlain monster and Ogopogo and then all mythical monsters and call it a religious text. And then I can start the Church of the Holy Shit monsters are real. What do you think you think that would hold water do you think it would be able to go mainstream. I think not and when you come to that conclusion about Monsters then well apply the same logic to the Bible K.

Something about Bigfoots and monsters etc. you mention above certainly is real, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them.

What exactly that something that is real about them is, is another matter.

For example, it is real that some people have an interest in Bigfoot and monsters etc. The numerous books, tv shows, conversations etc. about them testify that some people do have an interest in Bigfoot and monsters etc.

The other things that are real about these beings or in relation to them, this is a matter of a case-by-case investigation.

 

[Dywyddyr]

What are the claims for God's exsistence?

Beside the point.

But when A,X,Y, and Z are claimed as evidence for something, then it become pointless to act as though some are sclaims, and others aren't.

Also wrong. Your previous comment implied that there is only one incidence of evidence (for anything). Which is untrue.
If I claim I own a particular car it could be evidenced by me producing the receipt with my name on it, or checking the official records at the DMV (or wherever) or simply from the fact that no-one else ever drives it and it's kept in my garage. Neither one of which invalidates the reliability of any of the others.

Signal,
This is true.
But there are methods (yogas) given by God, which can prove His existence.

If that were the case why haven't these "proofs" been demonstrated?
Because they aren't proofs, simply ways of providing a subjective experience (which may or may not be accepted as "proof" by the particular individual using that method).

 

[wynn]

This is true.
But there are methods (yogas) given by God, which can prove His existence.

Why did God provide those methods, which can prove His existence?

Was He interested in proving His existence? If yes, why?

Did He anticipate people's troubles with accepting things merely on (blind) faith, and instead provided methods for arriving at certainty?

 

[wynn]

If that were the case why haven't these "proofs" been demonstrated?
Because they aren't proofs, simply ways of providing a subjective experience (which may or may not be accepted as "proof" by the particular individual using that method).

Ultimately, what else do we have access to, but "subjective experiences"?

 

[Grim_Reaper]

I get your point.
But then we are back where we started.

What would you accept as evidence of God's existence?

jan.

A foot print some hair a picture things of that nature there is more proof that the monsters exsist then there is of God. And as I said before if there where a book of stories about said monsters antics and special abilities then what would make them less real then a GOD.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Ultimately, what else do we have access to, but "subjective experiences"?

Tch.
There's never a consensus?
What I call an apple isn't what you call an apple?
But what you might call "experience of god/ ufo/ ghost" I could call "hallucination".
Because there's no way I can share what you've experienced.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Tch.
There's never a consensus?
What I call an apple isn't what you call an apple?
But what you might call "experience of god/ ufo/ ghost" I could call "hallucination".
Because there's no way I can share what you've experienced.

You can if you take the same drugs ...... Had to add that bit lol....

 

[wynn]

There's never a consensus?
What I call an apple isn't what you call an apple?
But what you might call "experience of god/ ufo/ ghost" I could call "hallucination".
Because there's no way I can share what you've experienced.

A consensus can only exist within a community of people with a similar level of expertise or qualification.

If you refuse to gain that expertise or qualification, there probably is no way for you to share what others have experienced.

This is true in every area of life I can think of, not only in spirituality.

For example, if you don't do a triple salto, there probably is no way for you to share what others have experienced who did do the triple salto.

 

[Dywyddyr]

A consensus can only exist within a community of people with a similar level of expertise or qualification.

Um okay.
So because I'm not a horticulturist or a veterinarian you and I can't agree on "apple" or "dog"? Expertise? Qualification? There are MANY things common to everyone's life that are taken as a consensus. That's how we manage to communicate.

If you refuse to gain that expertise or qualification, there probably is no way for you to share what others have experienced.

Or alternatively, if something is so nebulous as not to exist for many how real is it? (For a given value of "real" of course).

This is true in every area of life I can think of, not only in spirituality.

Agreed. It was years before I accepted that there was any such thing as a "taxi".

For example, if you don't do a triple salto, there probably is no way for you to share what others have experienced who did do the triple salto.

The experience of yes. The actuality of, no. It can be demonstrated. (Plus which, the triple jump was more or less de rigeur at school sports anyway... ).
That was my point however. Experience is subjective, which is all that you'd get from yoga (as "proof"), not an actual, demonstrable proof. In addition to which MY experience won't necessarily be anything like the same as YOUR experience.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

What are the claims for God's exsistence?

Beside the point.

Why?

Also wrong. Your previous comment implied that there is only one incidence of evidence (for anything). Which is untrue.

I am saying that to demand evidence of God, means that other things aren't evidence. This doesn't make sense given the universal scriptoral definition of God.

If I claim I own a particular car it could be evidenced by me producing the receipt with my name on it, or checking the official records at the DMV (or wherever) or simply from the fact that no-one else ever drives it and it's kept in my garage. Neither one of which invalidates the reliability of any of the others.

This is irelevant.
We are talking about the claim of the origin of everything.
But you seem to be reluctant to discuss the claim.

If that were the case why haven't these "proofs" been demonstrated?
Because they aren't proofs, simply ways of providing a subjective experience (which may or may not be accepted as "proof" by the particular individual using that method).

Then if these aren't proofs, please provide an explanation of what ARE proofs.

jan.