Are you an atheist? if so, What is your POV about God?

[McBell]

Have you read the Bible?

yes

And if you do read it, are you interested in the testimony, or are you looking to discredit the book?

yes

Have you ever tried defending faith in God?

yes

Has God ever seen you make an attempt to understand Him?

I do not know.
Because unlike you, I do not think I speak for god.

 

[McBell]

Okay then...it looks like you're all set to go.

huh?
go where?
I haven't packed

 

[Sonofason]

I disagree.
Why?
Dreams.

Actually, something physical is happening in the human mind when it dreams. We do not dream without something physically happening within our brains.

 

[McBell]

Actually, something physical is happening in the human mind when it dreams. We do not dream without something physically happening within our brains.

Good point.
However, where does that leave your god?

 

[Sonofason]

yes


yes


yes


I do not know.
Because unlike you, I do not think I speak for god.

Well that's nice. I wasn't asking you. If I have a question for you, I will address you.

 

[Sonofason]

Good point.
However, where does that leave your god?

As something as real as a brain.

 

[McBell]

Well that's nice. I wasn't asking you. If I have a question for you, I will address you.

Tough ****.
I answered them.
Deal with it.
Now if the best you got in dealing with it is to ignore it, then so be it.
Reveals much more about your position than anyone elses.

 

[McBell]

As something as real as a brain.

Except there is objective empirical evidence for the brain.
In fact, as you pointed out, there is even objective empirical evidence for dreams.

so once again, where does that leave your god?

 

[`mud]

Beyond the ultimate transparency !
~
'mud

 

[Willamena]

Okay what if the claim is that a big invisible elephant spirit is in the room? Would you have sufficient lack of evidence to be certain that there is no big invisible elephant spirit in the room?

And you are right, the evidence I have for God's existence is not of the sort one can share with others. I wouldn't even try to explain it.

If it makes a noise, despite being invisible, or interacts in any other sensible way, it's there. Else, I have no reason to believe it.

 

[Willamena]

He was simply trying to make the point that you cannot either prove nor disprove that there are fairies in your garden.

Evidence is never proof, anyway. It's just a finger pointing at the moon.

 

[Willamena]

...it is not so easy to convince someone of a God when it is their intent to oppose the existence of God. And of course that is where you are. You will never know God until you seek God, and you will never seek God if you remain intent on disbelief.

It's not like belief is a choice.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, something physical is happening in the human mind when it dreams. We do not dream without something physically happening within our brains.

That is moving the goalposts from looking at dreams to looking at the brain.

 

[Windwalker]

Actually, he was merely trying to help you understand why he does not believe in a god. He was simply trying to make the point that you cannot either prove nor disprove that there are fairies in your garden.

My point still stands. He compared God to something like a fairy, or a yeti, or an ET, or any other fantastical creature. What if someone does not believe God is a creature of any sort? The comparison demanding evidence would not, nor could not apply.

The same is true of all of the god claims. But until sufficient evidence is put forth for the existence of either fairies or gods, one should not just assume they exist.

Not it's not. Only if those god claims had this as some sort of creature, or being, or entity, or any sort of "object" outside oneself. The demand only applies to radical dualistic definitions of God.

Everybody on the planet has a different definition off what they think a god should be. To assume you have somehow come to the definitive answer to that question seems rather arrogant.

To assume I assume that is what's rather presumptive. I don't, nor ever would make such an insane claim.

 

[Shad]

I Think your definition of religion is a bit off.

I said religious concept as in one that falls under the philosophy of religion.

A religion is a set of beliefs and disciplines regarding a deity of sort.

See above.

Deism has no doctrines, disciplines or any belief that a God of any sort is controlling or have anything that affects our existence..

See above

That's quite far from religion.

Only when you ignore what I post and replace it with religion when I said religious concept.

 

[Shad]

I do not accept your conclusion. An experience is an experience.

Experiences can be misinterpreted and the conclusions based upon can be wrong. You have no way to confirm your experience nor conclusion.

You labeling my experience of God as an experience that cannot be compared to any other experience is worthless to me.

No I am simply saying an experience you have that you have no way to confirm externally is us. While the Sun is not an internal experience only unique to you and can be confirmed.

An experience is an experience.

See above

If you have an experience, it is always physical. You cannot recall having any experience that does not involve a physical encounter of some kind or another.

Irrelevant

 

[Willamena]

Experiences can be misinterpreted and the conclusions based upon can be wrong. You have no way to confirm your experience nor conclusion.

The interpretation of an experience is not the experience. What's concluded of an experience is not the experience. And lastly, and most bigly, experience is neither private nor public, as evidenced that it can be either.

 

[Shad]

The interpretation of an experience is not the experience. What's concluded of an experience is not the experience. And lastly, and most bigly, experience is neither private nor public, as evidenced that it can be either.

When someone is stating what an experience was this is making a conclusion. The conclusion is not divorced from the experience the second someone tries to evaluate it. If someone claims to have an experience of God that is a conclusion they are making.

Personal experience is horrible evidence as it is unverifiable.

 

[Willamena]

When someone is stating what an experience was this is making a conclusion. The conclusion is not divorced from the experience the second someone tries to evaluate it. If someone claims to have an experience of God that is a conclusion they are making.

Personal experience is horrible evidence as it is unverifiable.

I disagree. A conclusion is made *about* an experience.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I disagree. A conclusion is made *about* an experience.

Not to just jump in but on the conversation as a whole you two have been going on I feel it needs to be said that experiences are simply new information. The experience itself jumbles us with out of context information and we then formulate context by interpreting the information. After we are able to interpret the information we can come to a conclusion about the experience. But its still an exoteric reception of information. People often get the wrong conclusion about what really happened depending on the circumstances. I personally think that if we are given the wrong tools to interpret things we will almost always come to a false conclusion.

The "god" experience most people have is no extraordinary experience but rather a mundane one that they have interpreted incorrectly because they use the wrong tools to interpret them.