You can believe whatever you want. Just don't expect others to share your beliefs.
More importantly, stop preaching and contain your CTMU spam to your own thread.
Should not Humanity be More Important than any god ?
- Thread starter river
- Start date
You can believe whatever you want. Just don't expect others to share your beliefs.
More importantly, stop preaching and contain your CTMU spam to your own thread.
The flaw of the atheistic argument is the failure to acknowledge the claim that "God exists" let alone "in our heats" in their inquiry process. And thus is not even taken as a serious hypothesis.
We acknowledge the claim. We just don't believe it is true.
As for being a "serious hypothesis", you're simply confirming your use of a strawman, as atheism offers no hypothesis... it is the rejection as true of a specific claim / belief that theists hold.
And you are aware that God is unscientific as far as being an hypothesis goes, right?
As for being a "serious hypothesis", you're simply confirming your use of a strawman, as atheism offers no hypothesis... it is the rejection as true of a specific claim / belief that theists hold.
And you are aware that God is unscientific as far as being an hypothesis goes, right?
Yes. But it is testable.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
My God is a pacifist by natures law. God is perfect in every way he will just submit and heal your mortality and imperfections. There is no violence of anger in love.
There are billions of us who are convinced about the existence of God .
Are you convinced if dark matter or dark energy ?
Are you convinced about the Big Bang. ?
And yet NOT ONE SINGLE ONE of those billions can provide any objective evidence to support that belief.
You know why people are convinced about those things?
Because the objective evidence leads to the conclusion.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
There's no such thing as "objective evidence". Evidence by its very nature is a fact or measurement interpreted to prove a specific theory or hypothesis. For example, a murder victim may have DNA evidence of her husband on her body. But that doesn't mean he killed her. He's her husband afterall. Evidence is not objective. It is a spinning of data to support a preconclusion. It only makes sense in a given explanatory context. It doesn't exist in itself.
The believers are convinced because Gods manifestation in their life.. Now you will tell me there is a gravitational attraction of light .
Next B.B. is the beginning of time . when expansion started , why not the universe always existed and the B.B. is only a segment of time in an infinite time scale . You don't have a positive proof nor I.
No, they're convinced because they believe "god" manifested in their lives.
Ah, goal-post shifting.
I mention evidence and you talk about proof.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
That's true of anyone who claims to have the answers to all the really deep questions facing humanity. But it is the questions themselves that have always fascinated me the most. The answers, coming from both religion and science, have always seemed to me to be trite and inadequate. The questions themselves are deep and vast and eternal, and that is the openness we must learn to live within. It's what distinguishes true spirituality from religion, and the true spirit of science from mere scientism.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
The existence of God is no longer a question for whom?
You? You think that you already know all the answers, right? And you are here to teach/preach the divine Truth to the rest of us it seems.
I'm interested in many of the same things that you are interested in and have devoted my life to thinking about them and inquiring into them. That's what motivates my interest in philosophy. I don't have any final answers to offer anyone and I don't believe that anyone does, including you.
Sadly, none of your grand cosmic ideas are any help to me at all. In most cases, I can't even understand what you are saying. It rarely makes much sense to me. On the occasions when I can understand it, I have no reason to join you in believing what you believe. And you seem to have no interest in or ability to provide me with the necessary reasons.
In my opinion it's precisely your conviction that you already possess all the answers, your desire to pose as everyone else's spiritual/metaphysical teacher, that blinds you and prevents you from becoming a real inquirer into the cosmic mysteries.
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that there is.
Those kind of considerations are what makes things more complicated than many people (including some right here on Sciforums) imagine.
In order to measure the length of something, we need to possess the concept of length and some algorithmical method to produce a numerical value for it. (We often have several different methods that come together in consilience to produce the same results.) We need to be able to establish reference to whatever it is that we propose to measure. Measurement of length is obviously relative and relational to many different things (including relative motions and whatnot.) But given all that kind of philosophical stuff, inquirers who make measurements of the same physical world variables will typically obtain the same values, values which do seem to tell us something about the thing that's being measured and not just about ourselves and our own beliefs.
In my opinion, the idea of producing the same kind of evidence of God as we produce when measuring physical world variables is much more problematic, since we appear to have no understanding of what kind of thing gods are supposed to be, how to establish reference to a god should gods exist, what methods to use to gather information about gods, or how to best interpret any information that we do manage to gather.
And it isn't at all clear what other kinds of evidence might be more applicable to gods or how to distinguish when it is evidence of gods themselves and not just evidence of somebody's belief in or feelings about gods.
Last edited:
Are you appealing to popularity as somehow being proof of your claim?
Dark energy and dark matter are things predicted by what seem to be the most rational models we currently have. But they are not guaranteed to be correct, they could still require fine-tuning or be completely overturned at a later date, such is the way with science. Am I "convinced" about them? Convinced about them in what way? That they are true? They might be. They are theoretical at the moment.
The evidence for the latter is surprisingly good, and I accept it as the most rational explanation we currently have for how the universe formed. But again, it might be proven to be incorrect, or a better theory might arise.
Please do elaborate? Please describe the test and I am sure some here will undoubtedly explain to you why it is not scientific.
Objective evidence does exist, and is evidence that remains true irrespective of perspective.
The interpretation of that evidence might be subjective, but the evidence itself can be objective.
Yes, and here you need to distinguish between the measurement (the evidence) and the interpretation of that evidence.
Indeed. The objective evidence here is that the victim had a certain person's DNA on her body. Does anyone dispute that evidence? Does the evidence hold true irrespective of the perspective? Yes.
The interpretation (that the husband therefore killed the victim) is subjective, but the interpretation is not the evidence.
You need to distinguish between the evidence and the interpretation thereof. Objective evidence is the fact.
Your example might also just be highlighting the difference in usage of the term in science compared to a court of law. In science the evidence is simply the measurement, the data, the fact. The hypothesis is the explanation that uses and fits with the evidence. If it doesn't fit with the evidence then the hypothesis is flawed and will be discarded.
In law, evidence is that which is used to support a case, so is often cherry-picked to support a particular story that the defence or claimant is working to, but there is no need for the conclusions to be sound and valid, it merely need be "beyond reasonable doubt" in the eyes of the jury etc. but the jury have no requirement to use anything but their own gut feel, prejudice, ignorance, emotion.
But in both cases the evidence can be objective, and it is the subsequent interpretation of that evidence that is subjective.
Of course. I have, on at least 10 occasions, causally influenced to brightness of the lighting in the room I was in locally with thought. The first occasion was when I was contemplating Langan's "Telesis". That particular day happened but once and never again in following attempts at influence through contemplation of that particular word. The second occasion was when I was feeling particularly Quantum. On this particular day I overpowered the Devil's attempts at possession (interception of mind) by focus and meditation, not to mention martial arts. (sidenote: one can die and resurrect, Batman's done it, so has Superman, not to mention Jesus Christ. Few people have. Don't expect them to broadcast it. PS Yes, I do know the first two are comic book characters). By the way, I have heard voices of pure evil knocking and surreptitiously prodding me to open the door for them so that I may look into their eyes and become unfocused. I said nothing to them. And in that particular moment the lighting in the room I was in was expanding in terms of brightness through my mind. "They:" saw it through the peephole I am sure as they were saying "please" in an evil, surreptitious tone. Their weakness was evident.
Your "test", given that it seems to have sporadic results, seems simply to be a case of apophenia on your part: A coincidence, accompanied by egocentric bias, asserts itself as a meaningful pattern where none actually exists. This has probably been explained to you almost as many times as you have exampled the test.
As for feeling "Quantum"... I refer to my previous comments: make sense or don't post.
For the rest, if you are seeing a therapist I suggest you discuss with them such matters as the voices you hear. If you are not yet seeing one, might I kindly suggest that you do, even if just to get yourself checked out. Hallucinatory voices, if that is what they were, might well be a symptom of some underlying issue.
As for feeling "Quantum"... I refer to my previous comments: make sense or don't post.
For the rest, if you are seeing a therapist I suggest you discuss with them such matters as the voices you hear. If you are not yet seeing one, might I kindly suggest that you do, even if just to get yourself checked out. Hallucinatory voices, if that is what they were, might well be a symptom of some underlying issue.
Your assessment is one of ignorance and bias.
The evidence was objective.
The evidence was objective.
The evidence, yes. Your interpretation, no.