Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Tiberius]

When reading the scriptures and realizing that what I read is what happens to me and what is experienced during the practice it is an answer to me that the teaching is real.

I can not tell other people what they will experience if they practice a religious or spiritual teaching, that is for them to experience personally.

So, like I said, what you experienced could really be anything, and you just attribute it to a higher power.

 

[Tiberius]

Again: a singularity in the equations (of general relativity) happens when we know that both quantum effects and relativity will be significant, and we have no theory that covers that.

The fact that we have no theory to explain how they work does not mean there is zero evidence for them.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So, like I said, what you experienced could really be anything, and you just attribute it to a higher power.

I believe God do exist so yes my beliefs are that the teaching is from god.

It is a belief not a science

 

[PruePhillip]

Who, what, where, when, how, and WHY are all scientific principles of deduction. Physics is about the why of the universe. Something religion cannot speak for. Something from nothing is literally defined by modern physics. Overall, this argument is an example of a proof of logic, where philosophers attempt to "demonstrate" god with a logical syllogism alone, devoid of any confirming evidence. This is arguably inappropriate for establishing matters of fact. Religion and physics don't exist symbiotically for this very reason. As we learn more about our universe like the fact matter and energy cannot be destroyed so there has always been something the gaps that allowed god to hide are ever decreasing. Factual information is not the right yard stick for religion.

Favorite TV show 1960's, Why Is It So? Miller's explanation for why atmospheric pressure will collapse
a tin with low air pressure, for instance. That's a different 'why' to 'why are we here in the first place.'
Science says that something cannot come from nothing - but the whole universe came from nothing,
they say. That's a bit of a stretch, please explain. Ha!!!!!
God shouldn't reside in gaps because the bible isn't about 'how the heavens work' but 'how to get to
heaven.' I am quoting Galileo.

 

[ratiocinator]

The fact that we have no theory to explain how they work does not mean there is zero evidence for them.

It really isn't about how they work. You are looking at things back to front. At the 'start of the universe' and in the centre of black holes, the equations of GR contain singularities in situations where quantum effects would become significant (which it can't deal with), so we simply don't know what happens. Referring to the "don't know" as a singularity is inaccurate.

There cannot be direct evidence for singularities. Black holes have event horizons and our direct evidence for the early universe runs out way before we get to any supposed singularity.

 

[Mock Turtle]

3) Love: This is in my opinion the least convincing example, but still worthy of mention. My assertion is that Love in all its various forms is completely unpredictable and often unexplainable. This qualifes it as supernatural / spiritual. Even if there is a discovery of the fundamental neuro-chemical causes for all types of Love, I have a hard time believing that delivering this to people would result in predictable relationships.

Excuse me for butting in but from my experiences this one is as explainable as perhaps some of the others are, but I can't really discuss those, given that I haven't experienced any or have knowledge of, even if I have heard about such things.

My experience of having love-at-first-sight - a one-off and never to be repeated - was nothing like I had ever experienced before. It came to nothing because the subject of this was obviously not a suitable partner for myself (too young even if of legal age) and so was merely a feeling I had towards her. I reasoned subsequently that my unconscious mind was probably seeing her as the ideal that I might have been seeking at the time (even if she wasn't - our unconscious mind no doubt can be just as wrong as we are when conscious), just as we might have other ideals in our heads towards so many other things. I've tried to discuss this kind of feeling that might occur in different ways but no one has taken a bite yet. So I do think that such things are explainable, particularly when we discover more about our unconscious lives.

I have had relationships where it might be seen as love towards another but nothing like this particular experience (which I experienced as true love), and I would suggest that experiences like this might transfer to so many other areas - like appreciating art (the supreme representation of whatever), or indeed, how one might visualise God in any way (that magic moment when the light shines on one), such that the unconscious mind has a lot to answer for.

PS I've never had any sort of religious experience but I can well believe that what I experienced might feel similar to such - the dissolving of any barriers and feelings of love and joy, and perhaps ecstasy.

 

[Tiberius]

I believe God do exist so yes my beliefs are that the teaching is from god.

It is a belief not a science

At least we are agreed in that, that beliefs are inherently unverifiable.

 

[Tiberius]

It really isn't about how they work. You are looking at things back to front. At the 'start of the universe' and in the centre of black holes, the equations of GR contain singularities in situations where quantum effects would become significant (which it can't deal with), so we simply don't know what happens. Referring to the "don't know" as a singularity is inaccurate.

There cannot be direct evidence for singularities. Black holes have event horizons and our direct evidence for the early universe runs out way before we get to any supposed singularity.

So you're saying that there is no evidence for black holes because event horizons (which are predicted by the theory) prevent us from seeing them. And yet the very existence of the event horizons serves as evidence that there is a singularity creating said event horizon.

 

[ratiocinator]

So you're saying that there is no evidence for black holes because event horizons (which are predicted by the theory) prevent us from seeing them.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I already said there was evidence for black holes.

And yet the very existence of the event horizons serves as evidence that there is a singularity creating said event horizon.

No, it doesn't. An event horizon shows that the mass is inside its Schwarzschild radius. It's only applying general relativity to what happens inside that leads to a singularity - which is a good reason to think that the theory has reached the limit of its applicability.

I'm only trying to clarify a technical point here. When people talk about singularities as if they were actual physical things that have been established by current science, that is inaccurate.

But, whatever, suit yourself. Only trying to help.

 

[PruePhillip]

At least we are agreed in that, that beliefs are inherently unverifiable.

Most of what you experience is not 'inherently unverifiable'
everyone must take your word for it.
'Verifiable' things are for corporate proofs only.

 

[Deeje]

Would be be able to provide a source that shows that the underlying principles behind micro evolution and the underlying principles behind macro evolution are in some way fundamentally different?

Underlying principles? How can you have underlying principles for something that science cannot prove has ever happened, except in it’s own collective imagination?

Adaptation is not really evolution.....what did Darwin observe on the Galápagos Islands? Were the finches becoming another species of bird?.....or were they just new varieties of finches? Were the iguanas on their way to becoming a different kind of lizard?....or were they still iguanas, simply adapted to a marine environment? Weren’t the tortoises just a different variety, adapted to life away from their mainland cousins? Where is the evolution? All I see is adaptation.....changes in appearance, but not changes in “kind”.

Please show us conclusive evidence that amoebas (lets not even mention abiogenesis) can morph over time to become every kind of life form that has ever existed on earth.....that something microscopic accidentally came into existence one day for no apparent reason, and came fully equipped to eventually transform itself into every earthy creature, some the size of a three story building ......and you think science can prove this.....? You have to know they can’t.

The genetic evidence says you are incorrect.

There is no genetic evidence for ‘amoebas to dinosaurs’...if there is, please provide it......and while you’re at it, can you please identify all those phantom “common ancestors” we keep seeing on those evolutionary graphs or trees. These “trees” need branches that spring from these supposed “ancestors” that can never be identified. Without them, evolution is not a tree, but a telegraph pole.

Believe it if you like.....but don’t expect me to.....

 

[Colt]

What possible reason would I have to believe this? And, as I keep saying, it wasn't a concept that convinced be, it was an experience.

I was 100% sincere at the time. The epitome of what you described (#356); "If you really desire to find the Loving Father then you will need to do that work yourself rather than demanding second hand reports from those who have." What I found was nothing but emotional self-deception. It's an empty promise. It didn't work.

Added: And of course, if a god exists, it is hiding. Look at all the endless different and contradictory version of god(s) people believe in. This is not the world we would expect if a god existed and wasn't hiding itself from people.

I'm assuming you had certain ideas about God based on the belief system you were born into and were deeply disappointed at some point? You lost faith/trust. What was that experience? You can PM me if you like.

God is spirit, therefore we have to discern God there. God is love. God is Unity. Its not that God is hiding but some look for their own concept of what God should be and they look in the wrong place.

To search for God is to search for everything. To find God is to find everything. We follow the truth no matter where it takes us, no matter what old ideas we will have to discard.

"God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality." UB

Why would God stoop to violating your free will, to denying you the right to the thrilling adventure of finding truth/God for yourself through experience???

 

[leroy]

The problem is that you are specifying the end point before it starts.

To continue your analogy, what if I decided that I will check the shape of the clouds, and the first ten shapes I see, whatever they may be, I will use as the written characters for the term "Good Morning" in ten different languages. I then tell you that those shapes are the characters for "Good Morning." Would you conclude design in this case?

Would you conclude design in this case?

no..... but how would you apply this new analogy to the FT argument?

 

[Rise]

Let's see if I can be convinced.
...
I'm ready to be convinced. Are you?

Your attempt at debate is a non-starter because you are proposing a fallacious standard for the debate.

The objective truth of an argument and it's conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you decide you are convinced it's true.

Logic is objective. It's either valid or invalid.

If you want to dispute the objective truth of a conclusion then the only way you can do that is by giving logical reasons why it's logic is faulty, it's evidence false, or it's premises false.

You don't refute a logically proven conclusion by simply waving your hand and saying "I'm not convinced".
Because your ability to be convinced by something is not the objective metric by which something is determined to be true.

That falsely assumes that you would automatically believe an argument if it were well established enough as true, so if you don't believe it then it must not be true or it can't be established to be true - which is the logical fallacy of begging the questions/circular reasoning.

It is entirely possible you simply refuse to accept a true argument because you don't like the implications of it's conclusion. To think you are beyond doing that, so that you don't need to abide by the objective standards of logic to determine what is true, is the height of arrogance and won't lead you to truth. It will only cause you to re-enforce what you already believe by rejecting any objective truth that doesn't conform to what you already want to believe is true.

If you can't logically demonstrate any fault with the other person's argument then you don't have any basis for not believing it's true.

 

[ratiocinator]

God is spirit, therefore we have to discern God there. God is love. God is Unity. Its not that God is hiding but some look for their own concept of what God should be and they look in the wrong place.

If a god exists, it is quite clearly hiding by not being plain for everybody to 'see' (in some way) without effort. It is doubly true if it doesn't respond to sincere seekers. The multiplicity of faiths and their different (and contradictory) understanding of god(s) is evidence enough of that, even without my own experience (which just confirmed that conclusion).

To search for God is to search for everything. To find God is to find everything. We follow the truth no matter where it takes us, no matter what old ideas we will have to discard.

Relying on one's own personal experiences is the very opposite of trying to find the truth, unless you're only interest is truths about yourself.

"God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality." UB

Another recipe for self-deception.

Why would God stoop to violating your free will, to denying you the right to the thrilling adventure of finding truth/God for yourself through experience???

Free will with respect to a creator god is logically incoherent. Even leaving that aside, just providing people with information about reality is not denying them any sort of 'free will'. Why would providing everybody with the knowledge that god exists be a denial of 'free will'?

 

[Marcion]

If a god exists, it is quite clearly hiding by not being plain for everybody to 'see' (in some way) without effort. It is doubly true if it doesn't respond to sincere seekers. The multiplicity of faiths and their different (and contradictory) understanding of god(s) is evidence enough of that, even without my own experience (which just confirmed that conclusion).

God is an extention of your own I-consciousness, your own higher self. Most people are still partly stuck in animality which clouds their consciousness so God cannot be experienced (if you can call it that!). That makes it seem as though God is hiding.
In order to know or reach God, you have to lose your lower self and expand into your Higher Self (God).
The difference between religions or faiths is due to their imperfections. The reality of God is the same for everyone or everything because the division in multiple beings is just a projection, a kind of illusion which is a temporary relative truth only. God is abolute Truth.

Relying on one's own personal experiences is the very opposite of trying to find the truth, unless you're only interest is truths about yourself.

There is no other way or path to God than through the self or I-consciousness. This has nothing to do with your personality or personal ideas or projections. It is as if God is inside of you and creating the illusion that you have an individual self. You can break that illusion and become one with absolute truth. But you will have to surrender your small self first.

Another recipe for self-deception.

You have clearly not understood what cOLTER was trying to tell you.

Free will with respect to a creator god is logically incoherent. Even leaving that aside, just providing people with information about reality is not denying them any sort of 'free will'. Why would providing everybody with the knowledge that god exists be a denial of 'free will'?

Free will is always embedded in the Cosmic Will (of God). In order to become one with God, you will have to go through all sorts of ordeals (clashes and cohesions) in order to lose your lower self. It will have to be powdered down by going through many problems and overcoming obstacles. It is your own free will to decide to stop creating new obstacles and go straight towards the goal by speeding up the process of clash and cohesion. You can also choose to get lost in animal propensities and postpone that ultimate happiness (in God) for as long as you wish.

This longing for God or spiritual liberation is something which has to grow naturally in a human being, it cannot be imposed. The attraction for the Great is not something that comes to everyone at the same time. The information for Reality as you call it lies waiting for you, but it cannot be reached in an intellectual way, you will have to struggle along the spiritual path after the attraction for the Great has ripened enough in you.

 

[ratiocinator]

God is an extention of your own I-consciousness, your own higher self.

So just in the mind, then?

Most people are still partly stuck in animality...

Kind of goes with actually being an animal, I guess.

...which clouds their consciousness so God cannot be experienced (if you can call it that!).

If it's god that has made us like that, it is exactly the same thing as god deliberately hiding. The mechanism is irrelevant. If a god has created the world and humans in such a way that we cannot easily perceive it, then it is hiding from us.

The rest is basically a further list of assertions about what you believe. You've provided no reason as to why I should take them seriously or why I should listen to you rather than some other kind of theist and their ideas about god.

If believing all that makes you happy, I guess that's fine for you, but I'm not going to just take somebody's word about things like this, sorry.

 

[Marcion]

So just in the mind, then?

No, not just in the mind. Consciousness is above the mind, mind is a projection from or within the Consciousness. God cannot be reached by moving around inside your mind, only through pure consciousness. It is a process of surrender, not of "doing" something in your mind. Only the preparations are done by using the mind.

Kind of goes with actually being an animal, I guess.

Human beings are not animals. Their human dharma is to do spiritual practices and speed up their spiritual progress. Animals have to follow their own animal dharma's which are directed by the will of God. People who don't follow their human dharma are less than animals, because animals do follow their dharma.

If it's god that has made us like that, it is exactly the same thing as god deliberately hiding. The mechanism is irrelevant. If a god has created the world and humans in such a way that we cannot easily perceive it, then it is hiding from us.

Yes, He is hiding in the sense that He cannot be seen by thinking or using the senses. But he can be reached by spiritual practices. Even when that happens though you are not experiencing it in the moment, only afterwards you will realize what has happened to you. This is because your small I-consciousness cannot be there at the same time as the Cosmic Consciousness. When one is there, the other is gone. In that sense it is not really hiding.

The rest is basically a further list of assertions about what you believe. You've provided no reason as to why I should take them seriously or why I should listen to you rather than some other kind of theist and their ideas about god.

If believing all that makes you happy, I guess that's fine for you, but I'm not going to just take somebody's word about things like this, sorry.

Intellectuals are not suited for spiritual practice, they have too much ego and no longing for the Great.

 

[ratiocinator]

Human beings are not animals.

Factually incorrect. As for the rest, again, obviously it's what you believe, but I can see no reason at all to believe it myself. The world is full of people who'll tell me exactly how reality works according to their own personal faith or tradition. At the very least, most of them must be wrong.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Intellectuals are not suited for spiritual practice, they have too much ego and no longing for the Great.

So I guess God wanted us all to remain ignorant and not to educate ourselves, given that the most religious tend to be in the countries where education levels are low. So what of the future? Ban education? Something doesn't compute.