Religion Vs God

[Jan Ardena]

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.

How would you come to the conclusion that these items
are evidence of God's existence?

jan.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

How would you come to the conclusion that these items
are evidence of God's existence?

jan.

God himself would present them to me or at least to a televised audience. And I would know he was god by the little glowing halo that they all have.

 

[jpappl]

Jan,

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.

What I was saying is that if you are not a creationist than you are admitting the bible got it wrong. You believe the bible contains essential truths, but you are also admitting that a so called god inspired book has the most important part (the creation of all of this) wrong.

What does that say about the rest if it ?

“ 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.

No, it's not more likely since we have nothing to make such judgements by. It's unknown at this point that is all.

“ 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.

Yes, so you should be using what science has offered you because that is where the actual evidence is. The rest is purely faith, faith in stories.

“ I am willing to listen to either one or both. ”

How can God be proven scientifically?

Don't know, it would have to come out of it's supernatural state.

“ 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

Philosophical proofs, LOL.

“ 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.

I never claimed that the evidence contradicts gods existence directly. There is no evidence for gods existence and you can not prove something does not exist.

I claimed that the evidence contradicts the texts which claim to be god inspired. So how could god inspired texts be so wrong if they were god inspired ? Why don't you answer that first.

“ 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...

I am following the evidence, so yes I have come to the belief that god does not exist, but I am agnostic as well because there is no way to prove god either way. Religion, the original ideas for god and where and why they came to be is another story. Once again the evidence contradicts those, so what is one left with. Either follow the evidence or be a blind believer.

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

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.

Sure, if such an event unfolded for me to witness it and experience it.

Again, as I discussed with NM, that doesn't mean I should expect others to believe.

But like ufos and the like, if we have multiple witness videos etc from different angles etc, it might work.

There is no scriptoral definition of God, that supports the idea that God is somehow completely separate from any part of His creation.

Then it should be able to make itself known.

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.

It's pointless because it's not evidence. But I get your point.

 

[lightgigantic]

Um okay.
So because I'm not a horticulturist or a veterinarian you and I can't agree on "apple" or "dog"?

But you're not required to be a horticulturalist or a vet to determine what is an apple or dog (perhaps they might be called for if we were discussing digestive infections or stem grafting)

Expertise? Qualification? There are MANY things common to everyone's life that are taken as a consensus. That's how we manage to communicate.

And there are many things that do not.

THats why we tend to go to a lawyer to fulfill one need, a mechanic for another and a doctor for another one again. If it was all one, there would be no need to shop around.

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).

Interestingly enough, to follow that assertion one would be required to follow the discipline that supports the claim (or lay recourse to some other sort of discipline that is capable of contextualizing the claim of the other).

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

And do such things as taxi's stand at the pinnacle of technological/philosophical discourse.

Strawmans aside, the more sublime an issue, the more likely it will be that direct knowledge of it will be exclusive.

For instance, how do you know that humans have brains? Have you ever seen one sitting in someone's skull (or do you simply accept the authority of experts and the texts they govern as authoritative)?

The experience of yes. The actuality of, no. It can be demonstrated.

and demonstration requires application, yes?

(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.

I don't follow.

There is no subjective element to a demonstrative evidence?

In addition to which MY experience won't necessarily be anything like the same as YOUR experience.

Then how the hell do you suppose that any pedagogical system you acre to mention functions?
:shrug:

 

[Jan Ardena]

jpappl,

What I was saying is that if you are not a creationist than you are admitting the bible got it wrong. You believe the bible contains essential truths, but you are also admitting that a so called god inspired book has the most important part (the creation of all of this) wrong.

What does that say about the rest if it ?

What do you mean by creationist?

No, it's not more likely since we have nothing to make such judgements by.

Nonsense.
We can understand that everything has a cause, and because you cannot have an infinate number of causes, there must be an uncaused cause, from which everything else is caused. I call that cause God, you may call it whatever you like.
The idea of an eternal universe makes no sense.
On top of that, everything appears as though there is intelligence behind it, as opposed to just poofing into existence, making it up as it goes along.

It's unknown at this point that is all.

It is not unkown, we just do not agree.
It can only be one of two ideas, and the intelligent cause argument
wins hands down, everytime.

Yes, so you should be using what science has offered you because that is where the actual evidence is.

You're right, and I do.
But I would never take my car to florist to get fixed.

The rest is purely faith, faith in stories.

Yes, stories that are believed by people who are grounded in science.

Don't know, it would have to come out of it's supernatural state.

Exactly.
So as science cannot directly prove God's existence, why insist on scientific evidence as the sole source of proof?

I never claimed that the evidence contradicts gods existence directly. There is no evidence for gods existence and you can not prove something does not exist.

What would you expect to see if God existed, based on God's claims (i.e creation of the universe)?

I claimed that the evidence contradicts the texts which claim to be god inspired.

Which is why I asked you;
Where is the contradiction in the Bhagavad Gita, a scripture which claims not only inspiration from God, but spoke directly by God?

I am following the evidence, so yes I have come to the belief that god does not exist, but I am agnostic as well because there is no way to prove god either way.

It seems you are sticking to an interpretation of evidence, and concluding
there is no God, and using agnosticism as a crutch to appear reasonable.

Once again the evidence contradicts those,..

How does it?

Either follow the evidence or be a blind believer.

By following the evidence and concluding there is no God, is blind belief.
Even if someone believes in God because everything looks like it was designed, still is not as blind as your position. Because no reason whatsoever
to not believe in God, other than you don't want to. I can understand the agnostic position, but it is purely an intellectual one, not practical.

Sure, if such an event unfolded for me to witness it and experience it. Again, as I discussed with NM, that doesn't mean I should expect others to believe.

Why would you need others to believe?
How would that justify your experience?

But like ufos and the like, if we have multiple witness videos etc from different angles etc, it might work.

How about just multiple witnesses?

There is no scriptoral definition of God, that supports the idea that God is somehow completely separate from any part of His creation.

Then it should be able to make itself known.

Based on my point, it has, or God has, but you choose to deny it.

It's pointless because it's not evidence. But I get your point.

It's pointless because it's not about evidence, it already contains the whole.
The point of gaining evidence is to come the realisation, and understanding of that whole.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

God himself would present them to me or at least to a televised audience. And I would know he was god by the little glowing halo that they all have.

How would you know it was God?

jan.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

How would you know it was God?

jan.

I told you by the glowing halo over his head that will signify him as god at least in any Christian text I have seen the Halo accompanies the God like thing at every turn from Christ to angels So I think God would have to have the biggest bestest one every. It would like dwarf the sun for brightness....

 

[Jan Ardena]

I told you by the glowing halo over his head that will signify him as god at least in any Christian text I have seen the Halo accompanies the God like thing at every turn from Christ to angels So I think God would have to have the biggest bestest one every. It would like dwarf the sun for brightness....

Which text have you seen where God is accompanied by a Halo?

jan.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Which text have you seen where God is accompanied by a Halo?

jan.

I have not but there was the burning bush incident I assumed that in the modern age he wold appear via the mass media in person with a halo if not the halo perhaps the burning Bush.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have not but there was the burning bush incident I assumed that in the modern age he wold appear via the mass media in person with a halo if not the halo perhaps the burning Bush.

Why?

jan.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Why?

jan.

Because according to the texts he did in the past why not now.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because according to the texts he did in the past why not now.

So you have some belief in the texts then?

jan.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

So you have some belief in the texts then?

jan.

No none what so every I am just using them as an example only as there is no other proof of any thing god like.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No none what so every I am just using them as an example only as there is no other proof of any thing god like.

Good, you regard that as some kind of proof.

jan.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Good, you regard that as some kind of proof.

jan.

No I do not I had to use an example for you to have reference from.

 

[jpappl]

Jan,

What I was saying is that if you are not a creationist than you are admitting the bible got it wrong. You believe the bible contains essential truths, but you are also admitting that a so called god inspired book has the most important part (the creation of all of this) wrong.

What does that say about the rest if it ? ”

What do you mean by creationist?

Someone who believe in the story of genesis as it was laid out in the bible.

“ No, it's not more likely since we have nothing to make such judgements by. ”

Nonsense.
We can understand that everything has a cause, and because you cannot have an infinate number of causes, there must be an uncaused cause, from which everything else is caused. I call that cause God, you may call it whatever you like.
The idea of an eternal universe makes no sense.
On top of that, everything appears as though there is intelligence behind it, as opposed to just poofing into existence, making it up as it goes along.

You can call that cause god, but show me the evidence that the religions got this creation correct. This is my point. What god are you believing in. Seems that based on the scientific evidence, it contradicts the religious texts version of what god did and when he did it. So we can say that these texts are not the literal word of god and yet believe that god is everything and created the universe billions of billions of years ago. But what text describes this god ?

So if none of the religions have it right, what god are you believing in ? When did it start indeed ? Did it end ? Is god dead now ? and so on.

“ It's unknown at this point that is all. ”

It is not unkown, we just do not agree.
It can only be one of two ideas, and the intelligent cause argument
wins hands down, everytime.

Do you believe we evolved after gods creation or did he make us as we are now ?

“ The rest is purely faith, faith in stories. ”

Yes, stories that are believed by people who are grounded in science.

Yes there are those. I believe that those individuals were brainwashed into a religion by parents for the most part, now they have a hard time letting go of the religion.

“ Don't know, it would have to come out of it's supernatural state. ”

Exactly.
So as science cannot directly prove God's existence, why insist on scientific evidence as the sole source of proof?

Why believe in something we have no evidence to support. What other evidence would be proof for all.

“ I never claimed that the evidence contradicts gods existence directly. There is no evidence for gods existence and you can not prove something does not exist. ”

What would you expect to see if God existed, based on God's claims (i.e creation of the universe)?

I don't know, you believe in it, what should we expect to see ?

“ I claimed that the evidence contradicts the texts which claim to be god inspired. ”

Which is why I asked you;
Where is the contradiction in the Bhagavad Gita, a scripture which claims not only inspiration from God, but spoke directly by God?

Where is the evidence that anyone spoke to god ? What in there suggests that it is god inspired, IOW what could not have been made up.

Science is not contradicting it because it isn't claiming anything that would be contradicited by science. Just like a lot of stories in all of the religious texts.

I am following the evidence, so yes I have come to the belief that god does not exist, but I am agnostic as well because there is no way to prove god either way. ”

It seems you are sticking to an interpretation of evidence, and concluding
there is no God, and using agnosticism as a crutch to appear reasonable.

In fact I am reasonable. This is my position.

There is no way to know with the information at hand whether there is or is not a god and currently there is no way to prove it either way.

The religious texts are in question as many claims are contradicted by what we now know from science and discovery.

For me to believe in a god I would need some evidence, that does not need to be physical evidence, experience would suffice.

“ Either follow the evidence or be a blind believer. ”

By following the evidence and concluding there is no God, is blind belief.
Even if someone believes in God because everything looks like it was designed, still is not as blind as your position. Because no reason whatsoever
to not believe in God, other than you don't want to. I can understand the agnostic position, but it is purely an intellectual one, not practical.

Huh, no reason whatsoever to not believe in god. Again, where is the evidence for me to believe.

The agnostic position is simply to avoid the unanswerable position that there is or is not a god. Since nobody can say for sure, the only logical one is agnosticism. However, I am an atheist as well, at least currently, because I don't believe but I can't say that I know there is no god. So I am both. And yes you can be.

“ Sure, if such an event unfolded for me to witness it and experience it. Again, as I discussed with NM, that doesn't mean I should expect others to believe. ”

Why would you need others to believe?
How would that justify your experience?

I wouldn't need others to believe if I experienced such an event, but I would want them to.

But like ufos and the like, if we have multiple witness videos etc from different angles etc, it might work. ”

How about just multiple witnesses?

Do you believe in ET spacecraft flying in our airspace ? There have been many many mulitple witness sightings of UFO's does that constitute proof to the rest of us ?

“ Then it should be able to make itself known. ”
”

Based on my point, it has, or God has, but you choose to deny it.

Your point is ? Please explain exactly where you think god started or starts and ends.

Just how much influence does it have on our lives, our world now.

Is it our god or the god of the universe, IOW is it here for us or just the creator of all things etc ?

It's pointless because it's not evidence. But I get your point. ”

It's pointless because it's not about evidence, it already contains the whole.
The point of gaining evidence is to come the realisation, and understanding of that whole.

So if god is everything then you are expousing a more GAIA like version of what god is, essentially within everything. That is quite a different version of gods expressed in the religious texts.

That is also a position that would be impossible to prove, maybe. But at least it isn't falsified by our current knowledge base.

 

[wynn]

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.

There is a very general, everyday, lay consensus, and then there is the consensus of experts.

What lays have a consensus on what, for example, "gravity" or "mass" are, is quite a bit different from the consensus that professional physicists consider to be consensus on "gravity" or "mass".
In some ways, the two consensuses might be quite alike, but the experts have a much more detailed grasp on the topic in question.

Why would it not be the same with religion?


There are generally two areas in our culture in the West where people presume that things should be "self-evident", "graspable to everyone", "or they are bunk": art and religion.
With art, just like with religion, there is this stereotype that one has to understand it without much (or any) previous education, and that in fact one cannot learn to understand and appreciate it - one either has an inherent understanding of appreciation of it, or one does not (and should go to some dark corner and die of shame).

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 an ad populum.

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.

(Plus which, the triple jump was more or less de rigeur at school sports anyway... ).

I'm talking about the triple salto.

The experience of yes. The actuality of, no. It can be demonstrated.

That was my point however. Experience is subjective, which is all that you'd get from yoga (as "proof"), not an actual, demonstrable proof.

What is a "demonstrable proof"?

In addition to which MY experience won't necessarily be anything like the same as YOUR experience.

And what do you think follows from that?

 

[wynn]

Because no reason whatsoever to not believe in God, other than you don't want to.

There may be some good reasons to not believe in God: if we believe that God is an evil monster, and if we also believe we are inherently good.
Which seems to be the default for many Westerners - whether they are aware of it or not, whether they openly admit it or not: "God is bad (since evil happens and we'll burn in hell for all eternity if we don't accept Jesus); we are good; therefore it is only right that we do not wish to have anything to do with God."

So when such Westerners are told "There is no reason whatsoever to not believe in God, other than you don't want to", it is understandable that they will get upset. Believing in an evil, eternally vindictive god is, to many people, something so repugnant, that to not believe in such a god is something that goes without saying, it's even considered beyond choice or desire.

Why would you need others to believe?
How would that justify your experience?

To avoid solipsistic insanity ...
I suppose needing or wanting others to believe and experience the same about God as oneself is based on the assumption that expriencing God could make one defective or dysfunctional somehow, that one could lose one's sanity - and then one's life could become miserable.
Like when people experience natural catastrophes, UFO's, shark attacks and have other such intense experiences, they sometimes become insane.

And if God is considered to be in the same range of phenomena as natural catastrophes, UFO's, shark attacks and such, it's understandable that many people are reluctant to take the risk of experiencing God.

Based on my point, it has, or God has, but you choose to deny it.

There are two ways of denying something, AFAIK:
1. To deny something, it is first necessary to know the actuality of it. E.g. I put a pen in the drawer, I know it is there, but if you ask me about it, I can lie and say it isn't there.
2. To deny something on blind faith. E.g. I have no knowledge of where the pen is, but out of some agenda, I say it is not in the drawer when you ask me about it.

Which kind of denial do you have in mind when you speak of denying God revealing Himself?

 

[wynn]

Why believe in something we have no evidence to support.

Because we hope it would be good for us in some way.
We do that all the time.

For example, there is no evidence that the next person will treat me kindly. But if I treat them kindly, the chance that they will reciprocate kindly, rises significantly.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No I do not I had to use an example for you to have reference from.

So in essence you have no idea as to what you would regard as
proof of evidence of God, yet you say there is no evidence of God.

jan.