What counts as proof?

[arfa brane]

The only way to dispel doubt about the existence of God is to show someone how to see and hear God.

Your mind is incapable of comprehending it, so the best way to "see God" is to put thoughts aside. This is why religious teaching and doctrine doesn't cut it--God is not a collection of words in a book, but rather the inspiration for putting words in a book. Many people have done this; the Bible is just one example.

It's a bit ignorant to believe, in that case, that the words written in the Bible are the only true account of the nature of God. In any case, it wasn't the first account, but appears to have been an adaptation of earlier ones.

 

[Lori_7]

The only way to dispel doubt about the existence of God is to show someone how to see and hear God.

Your mind is incapable of comprehending it, so the best way to "see God" is to put thoughts aside. This is why religious teaching and doctrine doesn't cut it--God is not a collection of words in a book, but rather the inspiration for putting words in a book. Many people have done this; the Bible is just one example.

It's a bit ignorant to believe, in that case, that the words written in the Bible are the only true account of the nature of God. In any case, it wasn't the first account, but appears to have been an adaptation of earlier ones.

yes! thank you.

i think the reason that the same things are told and taught in different ways and at different times is because...they're true.

 

[arfa brane]

i think the reason that the same things are told and taught in different ways and at different times is because...they're true.

I think that all the different accounts through history (which were most likely oral traditions initially) most likely have a common origin.

I also think the "true nature" of God is really simple: it's that which is beyond the understanding of mind/intellect. In other words, our intellect and big brain is something else--it's responsible for all the confusion created by people who were inspired to write words in books about God, in the minds of other people who read the words and can't put their own thoughts aside.

 

[Raithere]

the answer to your question was an obviously implied "no", and then i went on to explain why...

Actually, I was hoping for a "yes". That you would insist that your experience takes primacy over others demonstrates a lack of empathy. This is the kernel from which the viciousness of historical religion is born. Denying others the right of their own conscience.

You see, I cannot contradict or argue against your experience. I might question the validity of your interpretation and certainly your assertions as they apply to something other than yourself, but ultimately I must allow that your experience is something that I cannot know. The most I can say at that point is that your experience is insufficient reason for me to believe. Yet this you don't seem to recognize.

no, it's still silly.

Indeed? Then I guess we should take those who are psychotically deluded off of their medications. Or, as above, is it only your place to choose whose experiences are real?

god will already know that, and you won't be kidding.

I wasn't kidding. Actually, I would be quite pleased to meet god. Of course it would be quite a surprise to find myself existing after my death but once I got over the shock I'd have more than a few questions for him. If that does happen, and in all seriousness, I do fully intend to ask him, "What the f**k?"

god rules the universe, at least.

That's at least a bit obscure.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

The only way to dispel doubt about the existence of God is to show someone how to see and hear God.

Obviously that's not true. Not everyone who has been shown how sees or hears god.

I also think the "true nature" of God is really simple: it's that which is beyond the understanding of mind/intellect.

The problem I have with this is that it begets the question. I agree that there is that which is beyond understanding. Existence itself seems to be. The trouble I have with this is then what is anyone talking about when they talk about God? To define it, to attempt to grasp it intellectually, is to lose it. So why bother with a label? Particularly one that is so laden with superstition and myth?

~Raithere

 

[jmpet]

I would like to thank Lori for our PM discussion, which is the reason I am still posting on this thread, instead of dismissing toltec as a lost soul.

Toltec- do you believe in karma? Not as a spiritual practice as much as a practical application to living a positive life? In a nutshell, if you do good deeds, goodness will come back to you. And if you live an evil life, bad things will happen to you in turn. Is this a simple enough concept for you to consider?

Secondly, would you be willing to read some religious text and think about it? I would recommend the first half of "The Cow" from the Qu'ran and Jesus' sermon on the mount- both set a clear spiritual path for those in the dark.

Third- do you believe that everyone who gets the death penalty deserves it? Do you think there are laws on man that if broken must be punished... do you believe in a standard of civility humans should live by?

 

[Lori_7]

Actually, I was hoping for a "yes". That you would insist that your experience takes primacy over others demonstrates a lack of empathy. This is the kernel from which the viciousness of historical religion is born. Denying others the right of their own conscience.

i don't insist that my experience takes primacy over others. what i insist is that i and everyone else owns their conscience and the consequences of it, namely their experience.

You see, I cannot contradict or argue against your experience. I might question the validity of your interpretation and certainly your assertions as they apply to something other than yourself, but ultimately I must allow that your experience is something that I cannot know. The most I can say at that point is that your experience is insufficient reason for me to believe. Yet this you don't seem to recognize.

i do recognize that.

Indeed? Then I guess we should take those who are psychotically deluded off of their medications. Or, as above, is it only your place to choose whose experiences are real?

not necessarily.

I wasn't kidding. Actually, I would be quite pleased to meet god. Of course it would be quite a surprise to find myself existing after my death but once I got over the shock I'd have more than a few questions for him. If that does happen, and in all seriousness, I do fully intend to ask him, "What the f**k?"

you don't have to wait until you die to meet god and ask him those questions.

That's at least a bit obscure.

~Raithere

well i think that one of the things god is, is law. that's why god is referred to as the creator and father.

 

[Lori_7]

I would like to thank Lori for our PM discussion, which is the reason I am still posting on this thread, instead of dismissing toltec as a lost soul.

hi! :wave:

 

[Bravowon]

I don't think any human can know for sure.
It's like asking for proof that shows that the universe is not eternal.
We can make assumptions based on evidence but must be prepared to change our mind when new evidence comes in. That's the lesson science has taught us; that and don't base you life on the fringes of understanding.
At the moment I don't think we are capable of confirming a supernatural god. The scope is too massive for any real understanding.
The so called proof we have at the moment can and is interpreted in so many different ways that is it essentially useless.

The “god in the clouds” would certainly raise the bar but it could turn out to be mischievous aliens playing a joke and we would be too pathetically inept to tell the difference.

As for religion, well, believe it if you will. For me it smacks of humanness. I can almost see the politics and psychology playing out. Also, while I could come to admire and respect a creator I don't believe in worship. For me, somebody overcoming their limitations is more praiseworthy than an omnipotent being and if the bible turns out to be true then I really would be horrified.

Just for interest sake, can you point to any hypothesis about the Christian god that has been put forward for peer review in the scientific method? It's really pointless talking about what proof would convince us, in that slightly condescending way, if none has been provided to reject.

 

[Skeptical]

Well stated Bravowon

The scientific method requires that any hypothesis that is credible must generate a testable prediction, which is then tested by experiment or novel observation.

What is the testable prediction from the God hypothesis?

 

[NMSquirrel]

The so called proof we have at the moment can and is interpreted in so many different ways that is it essentially useless.

what are the common denominators in each of those testimonies?

The “god in the clouds” would certainly raise the bar but it could turn out to be mischievous aliens playing a joke and we would be too pathetically inept to tell the difference.

(what is this?)

Well stated Bravowon

The scientific method requires that any hypothesis that is credible must generate a testable prediction, which is then tested by experiment or novel observation.

What is the testable prediction from the God hypothesis?

to what ends?
science tends to be flavored with 'how can we utilize' any discoveries..
if you were omnipotent, would you want someone trying to figure out how to manipulate you?

 

[arfa brane]

Obviously that's not true. Not everyone who has been shown how sees or hears god.

And the people who are shown and do see and hear God, is it true for them? Do they "need" to prove it, or even say anything about what they "see" and "hear"?

You may or may not realise that I am not referring to seeing with eyes, or hearing with ears--it's just a convenient terminology, the experience is beyond description, in actuality.
Does that mean someone who experiences nirvana, and never says a word about it (because they also realise it can't be described) is not being "scientific" and making a testable prediction?

I agree that there is that which is beyond understanding. Existence itself seems to be. The trouble I have with this is then what is anyone talking about when they talk about God? To define it, to attempt to grasp it intellectually, is to lose it. So why bother with a label? Particularly one that is so laden with superstition and myth?

Well, what is anyone talking about when they talk about their existence? Is "existence" laden with superstition and myth?

Let's see: humans often define themselves as superior to all other animals, but isn't that based on a myth, or even a self-delusion? Obviously humans are also animals.

There are humans who define their existence, and what they have to say about it, as being more "important" than that of other humans, often by describing others as "less" than human--there is apartheit, racism, religious intolerance, elitism etc. Humans are beset by myth and superstition when they confront the question of their own existence.

 

[Sarkus]

what are the common denominators in each of those testimonies?

Perhaps such things as a pre-existing belief in God, and thus the interpretion of the evidence to suit their pre-existing belief?
Or a psychological need to belief?

to what ends?
science tends to be flavored with 'how can we utilize' any discoveries..
if you were omnipotent, would you want someone trying to figure out how to manipulate you?

How possibly could an omnipotent being ever be manipulated?? Is this being not powerful enough to prevent such manipulation? Doesn't sound too omnipotent to me if that is the case? :shrug:

 

[NMSquirrel]

Let's see: humans often define themselves as superior to all other animals, but isn't that based on a myth, or even a self-delusion? Obviously humans are also animals.

There are humans who define their existence, and what they have to say about it, as being more "important" than that of other humans, often by describing others as "less" than human--there is apartheit, racism, religious intolerance, elitism etc. Humans are beset by myth and superstition when they confront the question of their own existence.

I exist therefore i am nuts..

(sounds like yur talking about alot of users here)

 

[arfa brane]

Another comment about the God delusion: the idea of an omnipotent supernatural God is also a myth--humans are mortal like all animals.

God is that which defies description, another myth is that something indescribable cannot be experienced--the "if you can't write it down it doesn't exist, it isn't science" myth.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Another comment about the God delusion:

more on this later..

the idea of an omnipotent supernatural God is also a myth-

is that a fact?

-humans are mortal like all animals.

what does this have to do with that?

God is that which defies description,

true enough

another myth is that something indescribable cannot be experienced--the "if you can't write it down it doesn't exist, it isn't science" myth.

glad to see you agree that god can be experienced,even if we can not define him..
so why are you calling yourself delusional?

 

[arfa brane]

more on this later..

Why later? Why not now?

is that a fact?

Is it not a fact?

what does this have to do with that?

What does a myth have to do with whether or not something is a "fact"?(??)

so why are you calling yourself delusional?

I'm not, I'm calling myself human and just as capable of being deluded as you are.

 

[NMSquirrel]

What does a myth have to do with whether or not something is a "fact"?(??)]

the idea of an omnipotent supernatural God is also a myth--humans are mortal like all animals.

i didn't get the comparison..

I'm not, I'm calling myself human and just as capable of being deluded as you are.

being capable of delusion and being delusional are two separate things..

 

[arfa brane]

being capable of delusion and being delusional are two separate things..

The first is apparently due to being human (animals are usually considered to be incapable of delusion, perhaps because for most animals there isn't time or the capacity to contemplate existence), the second depends on the first.

“... the idea of an omnipotent supernatural God is also a myth--humans are mortal like all animals.
”
i didn't get the comparison..

Well, I get it. But then I might be deluded after all...
To attempt an explanation though: humans are (intelligent) animals with mortal bodies, an immortal being with supernatural abilities could be seen as a convenient myth that helps us elevate our otherwise animal existence--God is only concerned with humans, God gives us dominion over all the other animals, etc.

Whereas the evidence is that our "dominion" is entirely due to our intelligence and technology. But there is still the problem of explaining this apparent advantage to ourselves (another side-effect, if you will, of having all those extra neurons); we also have this capacity for self-examination--hence an external all-powerful being who "confers" all this is a way to explain why we seem to be different.

We also assume that other animals don't contemplate their existence, that they don't have this capacity, nor do they require such a capacity.

 

[NMSquirrel]

animals are usually considered to be incapable of delusion, perhaps because for most animals there isn't time or the capacity to contemplate existence,

this can never be known..

God is only concerned with humans,

how arrogant a statement..

God gives us dominion over all the other animals, etc.

bet he regrets that..

we also have this capacity for self-examination-

and the capacity to avoid self examination.

We also assume that other animals don't contemplate their existence, that they don't have this capacity, nor do they require such a capacity.

thats a big assume..