Out of curiosity, what's the issue with Bayesianism?
I mainly ask because the state of the art for road collision safety reviews (part of my field) heavily relies on the Empirical Bayes method.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are there any good arguments for God?
- Thread starter Tiberius
- Start date
I mainly ask because the state of the art for road collision safety reviews (part of my field) heavily relies on the Empirical Bayes method.
allfoak
Alchemist
Faith is a necessary element of everyone's life.
To use it for other things and then decide it is not valid for the use of understanding the inner man is rather disingenuous.
I get the sense that you're equivocating between different definitions of the word "faith". No, it is not a necessary element of everyone's life to accept factual claims without any reason to do so.
I also see no reason to assume that what you propose will lead to "understanding the inner man"... though this is a moot point, since I can't switch my beliefs off and on the way you're suggesting.
allfoak
Alchemist
There is no other faith than the faith that we all have.
The way it is defined and used is not my concern.
The word "faith" can mean anything from "loyalty" to "accepting something as true without evidence" and many definitions in between. You're asking us to accept something without evidence, and when asked to justify yourself, you claimed (paraphrasing) that we all do it sometimes, so why not do it this time, too?
Hopefully you can see why this position is foolish.
Expressing yourself clearly isn't your concern?
allfoak
Alchemist
What is no of my concern is that you think what i say is foolishness.
I can't change that.
Faith is something we have first and use second.
Faith has substance because it is a part of us, you can't choose not to have it, you can only choose not to use it.
It is evidence of things not seen because it is unseen itself, but its existence is undeniable.
Faith is not a concept, it is a part of who we are as human beings.
That depends. If your ideas are sound and it's just a communication issue, you can certainly change my mind.
Word salad.
allfoak
Alchemist
These are not "my ideas".
We are talking about faith and it's validity or lack thereof.
You say that the use of faith is the acceptance of something without evidence.
I say that the evidence comes through the exercise of our faith.
There is no way to convince you of what i just said.
You either accept it and act on it to prove it true or false or you don't.
At this point it seems obvious that you don't even understand me, so there is little probability that you will act on anything i say.
I said that this is one of the definitions of faith and seemed to be the one you're hinting at.
Well, you seem to be doing your darndest to make yourself hard to understand.
Was my restatement of what you suggested (i.e. that if you first convince yourself, then you'll find what you suggest convincing) a fair representation of your position?
I'm still (eagerly) awaiting for objective evidence that the physical universe exists. Have asked for this in many places, have seen many attempts, and none that I've seen that establish/provide objective evidence. I feel entirely open to considering any such evidence.
I do not consistently deny that I am a participant in this universe, and do (very much) understand that I perceive it as 'reality.' Still doesn't mean I currently have objective evidence for its existence, nor have I been shown that evidence. IMO, I haven't even come close to it. I kinda wish I had. I would've thought by now it would've presented itself. Fairly surprised it has not.
Objective evidence to me, would mean, I'm not using anything that is of the physical universe to then suggest that is objective proof of it's existence. IMO, that would be akin to saying God of the bible is real, because the bible says so. Or perhaps more like saying that my self in a night time dream exists (objectively) because laws of physics apply there, and because anyone within that 'place' can tell me I am real, and they are 'not me'. It is upon waking, and being away from that place that I understand that place/state, while I perceived it (and myself) as existing, was not real.
So, suffice it to say, I do not think of the physical universe as 'reality.' I think it exists, but not even sure what 'exists' means, other than I participate in said universe, have experience with it, and yet have no objective evidence that indicates it is reality.
Thus for me, a strong theist, I care so very little about the 'creation' of this physical universe. All interesting tales that at times do seem to hold some relevance to who I am / who we are, but far more often than not, have next to nothing to do with my daily life. Be it a 'creation' tale or a 'scientific' account. I find them interesting. Some more than others. But ultimately, I see it closer to pointless in helping my understanding.
I know God exists. I also believe it, think about it, understand it, doubt it, deny it, entertain it, ignore it, so on and so forth. But I know it in the way I say I know many things. Many of the classic definitions / understandings of God usually fascinate me, but don't align with how I actually understand God. I have no issues equating (the word) God with many other words. It could be arbitrary but I really do see God as Source of all things. And yet, I make a distinction between God the Father/Mother and God the One / All / Us / Everything. Not a separation between the two, but a distinction. Glad to elaborate on that as might be desired in dialogue, but the absolute non-separation of God is important to my Knowledge of what God is.
Within the physical universe / illusion, I feel the evidence for God is, how you say obvious. It is not hidden. But attempting to see God with physical eyes takes discernment. And a basic understanding of what is it that is seeing. Put another way, I believe God is within me. Within every body. Or better, every one. I find it possible to deny the existence of God in anyone, including me. Find that very easy at times.
I do usually equate God with Love. Which is another word (symbol) that has many meanings. And many of those fall way short of how I understand the concept, as if the term has been distorted or adapted to only apply to physical things attracted to one another and then 'joining' (though, not really). So, then I'll use the combined terms of 'unconditional love' which for me is what Love is. When it is not 'unconditional,' it is not Love.
Having experience(s) with Love has greatly impacted my understandings of what I choose to identify as God. Could be Flying Spaghetti Monster (in name) for all I care. That experience has varied in apparent circumstances, yet shown a consistent quality that I find hard to put into words, but not impossible. It has entailed glimpses, ephiphanies, aspects of particular relationships, etc. But it has also, or I have also had phases (periods of consecutive days) where it was all I was experiencing. Were it is not for these experiences, I could conceivably be more of a believer than a strong theist. And because I do not currently self identify as being in that type of phase, I find hindsight to, rather easily, judge and reduce that previous experience to something far less than what it was (or still is) for me. Very easy to reduce it.
One of the key things during these phases, was acute realization that everyone/thing is 'there' already, in the state of Love. With the phase shift where I perceive myself as not there, I find it easy to conclude no one is there and it might take another million years for even one of us to think we might get close to there. Probably just a pipe dream. A fanciful wish for humanity that doesn't match with all the horrible things I could rattle off if given just a minute of anyone's time. During the phase, all those 'horrible things' were honestly welcomed opportunities. Very trivial in any sense of 'order of difficulty' to overcome.
I fully believe everyone reading this sentence (and countless others) have had own experiences and connections with Love. Thus, it makes abundant sense to me that ye are Gods. Which is evidence I consistently use to back up the claim God exists.
I do not consistently deny that I am a participant in this universe, and do (very much) understand that I perceive it as 'reality.' Still doesn't mean I currently have objective evidence for its existence, nor have I been shown that evidence. IMO, I haven't even come close to it. I kinda wish I had. I would've thought by now it would've presented itself. Fairly surprised it has not.
Objective evidence to me, would mean, I'm not using anything that is of the physical universe to then suggest that is objective proof of it's existence. IMO, that would be akin to saying God of the bible is real, because the bible says so. Or perhaps more like saying that my self in a night time dream exists (objectively) because laws of physics apply there, and because anyone within that 'place' can tell me I am real, and they are 'not me'. It is upon waking, and being away from that place that I understand that place/state, while I perceived it (and myself) as existing, was not real.
So, suffice it to say, I do not think of the physical universe as 'reality.' I think it exists, but not even sure what 'exists' means, other than I participate in said universe, have experience with it, and yet have no objective evidence that indicates it is reality.
Thus for me, a strong theist, I care so very little about the 'creation' of this physical universe. All interesting tales that at times do seem to hold some relevance to who I am / who we are, but far more often than not, have next to nothing to do with my daily life. Be it a 'creation' tale or a 'scientific' account. I find them interesting. Some more than others. But ultimately, I see it closer to pointless in helping my understanding.
I know God exists. I also believe it, think about it, understand it, doubt it, deny it, entertain it, ignore it, so on and so forth. But I know it in the way I say I know many things. Many of the classic definitions / understandings of God usually fascinate me, but don't align with how I actually understand God. I have no issues equating (the word) God with many other words. It could be arbitrary but I really do see God as Source of all things. And yet, I make a distinction between God the Father/Mother and God the One / All / Us / Everything. Not a separation between the two, but a distinction. Glad to elaborate on that as might be desired in dialogue, but the absolute non-separation of God is important to my Knowledge of what God is.
Within the physical universe / illusion, I feel the evidence for God is, how you say obvious. It is not hidden. But attempting to see God with physical eyes takes discernment. And a basic understanding of what is it that is seeing. Put another way, I believe God is within me. Within every body. Or better, every one. I find it possible to deny the existence of God in anyone, including me. Find that very easy at times.
I do usually equate God with Love. Which is another word (symbol) that has many meanings. And many of those fall way short of how I understand the concept, as if the term has been distorted or adapted to only apply to physical things attracted to one another and then 'joining' (though, not really). So, then I'll use the combined terms of 'unconditional love' which for me is what Love is. When it is not 'unconditional,' it is not Love.
Having experience(s) with Love has greatly impacted my understandings of what I choose to identify as God. Could be Flying Spaghetti Monster (in name) for all I care. That experience has varied in apparent circumstances, yet shown a consistent quality that I find hard to put into words, but not impossible. It has entailed glimpses, ephiphanies, aspects of particular relationships, etc. But it has also, or I have also had phases (periods of consecutive days) where it was all I was experiencing. Were it is not for these experiences, I could conceivably be more of a believer than a strong theist. And because I do not currently self identify as being in that type of phase, I find hindsight to, rather easily, judge and reduce that previous experience to something far less than what it was (or still is) for me. Very easy to reduce it.
One of the key things during these phases, was acute realization that everyone/thing is 'there' already, in the state of Love. With the phase shift where I perceive myself as not there, I find it easy to conclude no one is there and it might take another million years for even one of us to think we might get close to there. Probably just a pipe dream. A fanciful wish for humanity that doesn't match with all the horrible things I could rattle off if given just a minute of anyone's time. During the phase, all those 'horrible things' were honestly welcomed opportunities. Very trivial in any sense of 'order of difficulty' to overcome.
I fully believe everyone reading this sentence (and countless others) have had own experiences and connections with Love. Thus, it makes abundant sense to me that ye are Gods. Which is evidence I consistently use to back up the claim God exists.
allfoak
Alchemist
allfoak
Alchemist
@9-10ths_Penguin
The truth of the existence of God can be known by testing it for one's self.
The first thing that is needed of course is to first accept the possibility that God exists... Faith.
Why would one even bother if they didn't think the possibility existed?
In other words, there was some faith in the possibility of the existence of God
Then it is necessary to act on the information available to prove it for one's self.
Faith is a part of us, it not something we have to conjure up.
It is something that is a part of us and we can use it when and as we please.
Everyone puts their faith in someone or something.
Atheists put their faith in science and the information that scientists publish and teach.
the put no faith in religion.
We are unable to test for ourselves what we are told about the cosmos , so we all accept much on "faith".
There is nothing wrong with that necessarily, unless it is done blindly.
The same thing that many religious people do.
Not all of the information that is given to the public is complete or even the truth.
We accept it because it comes from the "authorities" on the subject.
This is true of religion as well as science.
Faith is a gift, without it we would be unable to function.
Faith can atrophy from not exercising it, or it can grow by using it, but it is always there.
Those with little faith are often bitter people.
Those with great faith are often very patient and empathetic people.
If i am still not making myself clear then i am sorry.
I have done my best to explain something that has to do with the structure and use of the mind not matter.
The two must be investigated differently.
They have different rules and require different tools and even a different language.
The truth of the existence of God can be known by testing it for one's self.
The first thing that is needed of course is to first accept the possibility that God exists... Faith.
Why would one even bother if they didn't think the possibility existed?
In other words, there was some faith in the possibility of the existence of God
Then it is necessary to act on the information available to prove it for one's self.
Faith is a part of us, it not something we have to conjure up.
It is something that is a part of us and we can use it when and as we please.
Everyone puts their faith in someone or something.
Atheists put their faith in science and the information that scientists publish and teach.
the put no faith in religion.
We are unable to test for ourselves what we are told about the cosmos , so we all accept much on "faith".
There is nothing wrong with that necessarily, unless it is done blindly.
The same thing that many religious people do.
Not all of the information that is given to the public is complete or even the truth.
We accept it because it comes from the "authorities" on the subject.
This is true of religion as well as science.
Faith is a gift, without it we would be unable to function.
Faith can atrophy from not exercising it, or it can grow by using it, but it is always there.
Those with little faith are often bitter people.
Those with great faith are often very patient and empathetic people.
If i am still not making myself clear then i am sorry.
I have done my best to explain something that has to do with the structure and use of the mind not matter.
The two must be investigated differently.
They have different rules and require different tools and even a different language.
I'm willing to grant that God's existence may be possible, provided it isn't a form of God I've already dismissed as self-contradictory. That's as good as you're going to get without giving justification for more.
Acting on the information I have, I've come to the conclusion that the way things are fits much better with the assumption that no gods exist than with the assumption that a god or gods exist. Do you have new information to change my mind?
If your God exists physically, then I would expect the tools that work with matter to work when demonstrating that your God exists.
And it *is* physical existence we're talking about. I don't object to the claim that God exists "as a concept" (generally - recognizing that concepts are models of the things being conceived and not the things themselves).
allfoak
Alchemist
@9-10ths_Penguin
People like having their idols.
It makes things much simpler to be able to point to an historic figure and say "he/she is my god"
That satisfies most.
For me, not so satisfying.
I tried the jesus god for a while, that is how i got my start in religion.
I needed more assurance in my salvation than belief in a memory of some human/god.
After many years of searching i have managed to come up with some answers that didn't make me look like Peter Pan or Charles Darwin.
While i encourage the proper use of faith and science i do not approve of make believe or a materialist perspective of life.
I will post some of what the hermetic tradition says about this substantial reality and leave a link for the rest, perhaps you would like to read it, perhaps not, it is up to you of course.
"Under, and back of, the Universe of Time, Space and Change,
is ever to be found The Substantial Reality--the Fundamental
Truth."--The Kybalion.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/kyb/kyb06.htm
[URL="http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/this-that-the-reflections-of-allfoak.170295/page-8#post-4516567"]You can find the Seven Hermetic Principles here[/URL]
People like having their idols.
It makes things much simpler to be able to point to an historic figure and say "he/she is my god"
That satisfies most.
For me, not so satisfying.
I tried the jesus god for a while, that is how i got my start in religion.
I needed more assurance in my salvation than belief in a memory of some human/god.
After many years of searching i have managed to come up with some answers that didn't make me look like Peter Pan or Charles Darwin.
While i encourage the proper use of faith and science i do not approve of make believe or a materialist perspective of life.
I will post some of what the hermetic tradition says about this substantial reality and leave a link for the rest, perhaps you would like to read it, perhaps not, it is up to you of course.
"Under, and back of, the Universe of Time, Space and Change,
is ever to be found The Substantial Reality--the Fundamental
Truth."--The Kybalion.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/kyb/kyb06.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/kyb/kyb06.htm
[URL="http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/this-that-the-reflections-of-allfoak.170295/page-8#post-4516567"]You can find the Seven Hermetic Principles here[/URL]
Accepting the possibility that God exists is not faith. For instance, I think it is entirely possible that God exists, even if I do not believe for a second that He does.
The same applies to a non numerable infinity of things that could possibly exist. E.g. Galactic emperor Xenu, Or the great Juju at the bottom of the ocean.
Ciao
- viole
McBell
Admiral Obvious
exactly.
For me it works both ways.
There is not enough evidence for me to believe that god exists, however, I do not discount the possiblity, however unlikely i think that possibility to be, that god does exist.
Faith would be the word I use to describe my belief in the 'reality' of the physical world.
Excuse me, but I beg to differ. How rude.