Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[Balthazzar]

"Nothing is abundantly evident in life but, - I know God and understand the minute nature of my knowing"

Can you make sense out of this contradictory spaghetti on the wall response ? Nothing is evident in life you claim but somehow God is evident and you know and can explain (because you understand) how this God is evident in life.

OK -- if you can explain this evidence for God -- Fire away .. the crowd is all ears .. and is something I have been asking for 10 times .. in 10 posts .. please define your God .. with valid definition .. since you know and understand so well .. and explain why the soul is infinite ... the one and only thing that is abundantly evident that we know for sure.

"Stability - Grounding" .. as discussed - difficult to achieve without solid foundation = one not builty on fallacy and deception .. hearken not to the wolves in sheeps clothing .. why look to the dark when you have a true Prophet of Light on which to hear. The forked tongue of the snake charmers is not the p;ath to stability grounded in solid foundation Brother Balt hearken instead to the life giving words of the Prophet -- and it will become abundantly evident that the Soul is infinate .. and only then will you understand the nature of knowing .

I doubt any definition for "God" will ever be valid enough to satisfy some people. I'm a panentheist, so if you want a definition as it relates to my understanding and how the experiential knowing of objective and subjective reality relates to the term itself, I will lead you to that definition, specifically. Beyond this, the circular nature of your stance against my own has been noted and accepted, to which I bid you a nice day.

So, have a nice day.

 

[Sargonski]

I doubt any definition for "God" will ever be valid enough to satisfy some people. I'm a panentheist, so if you want a definition as it relates to my understanding and how the experiential knowing of objective and subjective reality relates to the term itself, I will lead you to that definition, specifically. Beyond this, the circular nature of your stance against my own has been noted and accepted, to which I bid you a nice day.

So, have a nice day.

Your stated definition "Panentheist" - "God of Everything" - is by definition invalid .. for the various reasons described. .. Your doubt is unwarranted (and another strawman fallacy) .. as I said anything but that .. or anything in between that and the God of Nothing .. these one in the same thus your definition is a circular God of nothing ... and not anything circular in my stance .. position .. definition.

The question stands .. can you define your God beyond "nothing" .. Quantify - Distinguish .. between a Human .. who is a God by being Part of everything .. "your words .. not mine" .. and something else .. ?

You have no understanding of such a God .. such is a ridiculous statement .. Understanding of the God of Everything ? explain what it is that you understand .. and provide evidence .. for this God of nothing of yours .. as l have done for MY God .. the evidence and in fact proof .. that the soul is infinite .. or put in a different way .. "Existence is Infinite" .. Listen to the Prophet .. hearken not to the voices of the charmers .. but to the Holy Grail put down before your eyes. "Existence is infinite" == the only thing we know for sure ..

Know this .. and know God .. as what is it that you want from this God anyway .. what favor for the God of Everything to perform .. beyond life after death ? Is this not the first gift you ask for ? .. now " tell me true .. tell me why .. was Jesus cruified .. and was it for this that Daddy died" - Roger Waters .

Why you reject the light Brother Balt .. the light the truth the way .. Infinity = Everything along the way = just like you asked for .. this is the God you have described .. that you reject and imbibe ?

Ponder the significance of the Grail .. do you need Proof that the first claim is true ? .. how about evidence ? and what kind might that be .. Do you understand your God "Infinity" .. Good then why would you doubt that existence is infinite .. when all the evidence around you screams this out .. and the smoking gun proof for the Great "I AM" -- is You Brother Balt !

 

[Balthazzar]

Perspectives are us, (inc.) incorporated.

Has a nice ring to it.

The collective mind consisting of various individuals contributing to the totality of.

What I acknowledge as true is not acknowledged as being true by everyone. I have my own little pool to which I belong, in the greater experience that permeates everyone able to experience anything at all. My part in the body itself, limited to my own perspective as an individual is my contribution to that experience.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

One's conclusion can be accepted as true given the evidence to support it only if the opposite the that conclusion cannot also be true using the same evidence. Lets say the claim is the existence of life proves that God exists. To support that conclusion you'd also have to provide evidence that life could not exist in the absence of a God IOW, Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible in light of the evidence provided.

I'd agree with that, but not necessarily in those terms. Showing that an idea is correct makes competing and mutually exclusive ideas incorrect by default. It I thought it was Wednesday and evidence reveals that it is actually Thursday, doesn't that make it also being Wednesday impossible?

But with regard to gods, yes, the same evidence that believers offer as evidence for a god is potentially explainable without resorting to gods. If that ever changes - that we uncover some fact that suggests an intelligent designer created our universe - then that at once affirms an extra-universal intelligent designer and disconfirms its nonexistence.

atheism is far more common in rich countries.... since there is less of a need to cope with harsh realities.

It's also why evangelists have more luck on Skid Row and Death Row than on Restaurant Row, and why Christian missionaries are more successful in third world nations than in modern Western democracies.

If "God is love", then love is the evidence. If "God is justice" then karma is the evidence. If "God is righteousness" then our moral ethicality becomes the evidence. If "God is our personal friend" then the feeling of our not being alone is the evidence of it. And on and on it goes.

You can remove the word "God" from all of that and nothing is lost. We should call love "love" and justice "justice," not God. You add nothing by calling these things God.

We can define God however we need to or want to, and we will then perceive God as being that in our reality. And no one can contradict us because no one knows what God is, or isn't, apart God being the ultimate source of 'what is'.

So why use that word God? You accomplish nothing doing that. You add no explanatory or predictive power to your understanding of such concepts - just added baggage. You know Occam's razor, right?

Nothing can exist in the absence of God, because God is the source-agency that makes all that is possible, possible

I call that the source of reality if reality it has one, and I don't assume that it has agency. There's some of that baggage that comes with using the word God. It comes packed with assumptions such as agency, and people start praying to that source or obeying rules others told them that this agency requires of them.

Calling reality "creation" does that as well. It immediately invokes a creator, whereas calling it reality does not.

So does calling the patterns. laws, and regularities of nature "design." It invokes an unspoken implication that the design was designed by a designer, whereas none of the other words I suggested do that.

Philosophical materialists never are.

Materialism works at the scale of unaided experience.

At the quantum level reality behaves differently, and we need other tools. At the scale of neurons and above, the brain is explainable materialistically in terms of cells, synapses, neurotransmitters and ion flow. But consciousness and thought likely occur at a smaller scale, where quantum effects dominate, and the concept that underlie materialism such as determinism and locality begin to vanish. Penrose has some interesting speculation about microtubules and tubulin molecules functioning as quantum computers, which are not algorithmic and thus transcend formal systems and Godel incompleteness.

You have no need for God?

Atheists are people that don't have that need.

DNA is a code type sequence.

As you've been told, DNA is not a literal code, which does require intelligence to create and intelligence to encode and decode using it (or intelligence to write software to do it).

Codes are conventional correlations, where it is arbitrarily agreed upon that one symbol is assigned to represent another, and can't be used except by conscious agents educated in how the substitutions are made.

Contrast that with that which is metaphorically called the genetic code. The correlation between anticodons and amino acids is physical and doesn't need to be learned. The associations are hardwired into the covalent bonds in the tRNA:

View attachment 97966

If you can't tell there is intelligence behind DNA I don't think I am going to be able to help you.

I wouldn't call it help, but you aren't going to impact a critical thinker and empiricist if you don't have a compelling, evidenced argument.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think this is a matter of opinion and a personal requirement as opposed to anything universally shared as being accurate.

That was in response to, "To provide a convincing argument you must show that given your statement the opposite of your conclusion could not be true."

The process is not as subjective as many people seem to think it is. The proper way to evaluate evidence and arrive as sound conclusions about it is to apply the academic rules of inference (reason, logic) without error or fallacy, which means learning the rules and applying them flawlessly. Too many are unaware that such rules even exist or what they can do for one who can deploy them successfully, and it seems that you fit this description given your comment. You seem to think all "logics" are equivalent, when and their conclusions just as good, but there is one tested method which works, and countless rogue logics that don't.

Consider addition. If one didn't know that there was one set of valid rules for adding addends to arrive at correct sums, then when he just guesses some answer or applies his own rogue rules of inference such as 2+2=5, and somebody who knows the rules, applies them faithfully, and disagrees saying that 2+2=4, he's likely to hear, "I think this is a matter of opinion and a personal requirement as opposed to anything universally shared as being accurate," which would be incorrect.

I dismiss [abiogenesis], because if it would be possible, we would see it happening in nature.

Here's some of that rogue logic now. As @F1fan suggested, abiogenesis is a protracted process that wouldn't be expected to occur except on a prebiotic planet or moon. Pre-existing life would be expected to prevent new abiogenesis.

If abiogenesis is possible, then it could be done in laboratory.

If abiogenesis is possible, it likely will be recreated in a laboratory, just not yet. Not today.

Though they don't recognize it, even fundamentalist creationists believe that the first life didn't come from other life. Do you consider your god the first life? If yes, then the first life didn't come from other life. If you don't call your god alive, then you believe that that nonliving entity created the first life.

I only gave two ways how life could come to exist. And because the second one is not visible, which I think it should, if it is possible, I think the first is correct.

More rogue logic. Presumably, your two ways are supernaturalistically and naturalistically. This is a special pleading fallacy. You bring two sets of standards to the issue and offer no justification for it. You've never seen either of those options occur, but you reject one but not the other using that criterion for no apparent reason other than that you want to.

That's fine if your interest is just in science.

The critically thinking empiricist's interest is in understanding how the world works and how it affects himself and others. That knowledge is only available through empiricism/experience, and requires a method for filtering out incorrect and unfalsifiable ideas.

The question of God is not a scientific question

If a deity manifests in nature, then it is amenable to scientific investigation. When believers tell us that there is no need looking for their gods because we won't detect them, then they tell us that they are describing something irrelevant even if it does exist, since it is indistinguishable from a figment of imagination like werewolves, which are also not detectable empirically.

I see that the thread has turned to this topic somewhat in the last few pages, which I just got to.

But relying on science, in either way, is silly as the question of God is not a scientific question.

What's silly to me is believing in something that you say can't be detected empirically.

Even if one would find some sort of being that could be defined as God, science still couldn't point to whether or not that being was God, or just some sort of alien. Because the question of God is not one of science, but faith.

For me, if it takes faith to believe something, one shouldn't believe it.

 

[Balthazzar]

That was in response to, "To provide a convincing argument you must show that given your statement the opposite of your conclusion could not be true."

The process is not as subjective as many people seem to think it is. The proper way to evaluate evidence and arrive as sound conclusions about it is to apply the academic rules of inference (reason, logic) without error or fallacy, which means learning the rules and applying them flawlessly. Too many are unaware that such rules even exist or what they can do for one who can deploy them successfully, and it seems that you fit this description given your comment. You seem to think all "logics" are equivalent, when and their conclusions just as good, but there is one tested method which works, and countless rogue logics that don't.

Individually speaking, I wouldn't want someone's else's right to be imposed on my own right when our rights are contrary between us. So, opinions are likewise truths in how we relate to our experiences, individually.

 

[George-ananda]

The critically thinking empiricist's interest is in understanding how the world works and how it affects himself and others. That knowledge is only available through empiricism/experience, and requires a method for filtering out incorrect and unfalsifiable ideas.

Empirical and logical consideration of paranormal phenomena can make one logically conclude there is more to reality than can be detected with the physical senses and instruments. It is then reasonable to consider all theories as to what is going on. The physical plane may not be all there is.

 

[anotherneil]

Everyone knows it's fictional. But again, spaghetti is physical and you could expect physical beings to have scientific or physical. empirical evidence which is a category error when speaking of a metaphysical being.

Is God a physical or metaphysical being? God talks and acts like human beings, which are physical beings. God is referred to as a "he", meaning God is a male, and that means God has genitalia, which is something that physical beings like human beings have.

If you cannot understand that simple category error, your whole church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is scientifically and philosophically "wrong".

I told you that I am not religious and I don't have a church, but I have taken care of your posting of inflammatory defamation of character material.

 

[amatuerscholar]

If a deity manifests in nature, then it is amenable to scientific investigation. When believers tell us that there is no need looking for their gods because we won't detect them, then they tell us that they are describing something irrelevant even if it does exist, since it is indistinguishable from a figment of imagination like werewolves, which are also not detectable empirically.

If we were to discover some supreme being out there, labeling it God would still be a statement of faith. Why? Because God is a theological idea. It takes on theological implications. Finding a supreme being only suggests that such a being exists that has the potential to do the things God is said to have done.

What's silly to me is believing in something that you say can't be detected empirically.

What's silly to me is thinking that science can account for everything. I believe my wife loves me. I can't prove that empirically. I have to take it on faith.

For me, if it takes faith to believe something, one shouldn't believe it.

That's fine for you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Empirical and logical consideration of paranormal phenomena can make one logically conclude there is more to reality than can be detected with the physical senses and instruments.

Disagree. Just because you use the word logic doesn't mean that your logic is good.

We all have the same access to whatever it is you think you are sensing. We have the same brains made of the same materials performing the same functions albeit some perform more efficiently and each of us have different funds of acquired and accumulated knowledge.

What it comes down to for somebody like me evaluating the claims of somebody like you is that you might be correct and you might be incorrect, but the first requires that your brain can do things that mine can't, and the second only requires that you have a will to believe something without sufficient evidentiary support because you have psychological needs that I don't have that holding such a belief fulfills.

But that's fine with me. I have no objection to you holding such beliefs if they fulfill some need that the skeptic doesn't have.

That's what I tell the theists as well. If believing in gods fulfils some otherwise unmet need, you probably should do it. It would be like telling a person who needs glasses to read to not wear them because I don't need them to read.

It is then reasonable to consider all theories as to what is going on.

You don't have theories. You just have faith-based beliefs that you understand what you are calling paranormal experiences.

And I have considered what you believe, but there is no value for me in doing that anymore unless some new evidence suggests reexamining the topic.

The physical plane may not be all there is.

Agreed.

But that's where it ends for me. I can't rule it out, but I have no reason to believe that there is more.

Nor the paranormal. Nor gods. So, I treat them all the same - possible because I have no means to rule any of it out, but not interesting enough to give further thought to without new evidence.

That's true for just about every idea that is unsupported but cannot be declared impossible. That's true for Bigfoot. I can't rule it out but lacking decent supporting evidence, my days of thinking about it like it might be real are over.

What's silly to me is thinking that science can account for everything.

That's a straw man from people who engage in what I call soft thinking, which is unevidenced speculation untethered to reality. Such people don't like having their thinking poo-pooed by critically thinking empiricists, so they depict them as being overly reliant on empiricism and making claims like that one that I've never seen expressed except by believers mischaracterizing skeptic.

What we say is that empiricism is the only path to knowledge about how reality is, works, and affects us. Not all questions about reality can be answered by that method, but a question about physical reality can't be answered empirically, it can't be answered. Soft thinking doesn't produce knowledge. The best it can do is suggest ideas worth evaluating empirically (hypothesis, speculation).

I believe my wife loves me. I can't prove that empirically. I have to take it on faith.

You can't? I have ample evidence that my wife loves me.

Do you not know what love looks like and how it manifests? Anybody interested in your welfare and who would protect you and share resources with you loves you. Somebody might be able to fake that for a time, but not indefinitely.

And no faith (in the religious sense) is required to trust her. I have decades of experience with her, and though things could change in the future, there is no reason to think that they will. I am justified by past experience to believe that she is trustworthy now and tomorrow.

It's the same reasoning that tells me that my "faith" that my car will start the next time I test it, although unlike with my wife, experience tells me that the car has occasionally not been reliable in the past, and the proper belief is that it will start between 99% and 100% of the time, which means it will probably start tomorrow morning when we go out for Sunday breakfast, but maybe not. I don't call justified belief faith. People might confuse it with religious-type faith, which is unjustified belief.

 

[Sargonski]

Perspectives are us, (inc.) incorporated.

Has a nice ring to it.

The collective mind consisting of various individuals contributing to the totality of.

What I acknowledge as true is not acknowledged as being true by everyone. I have my own little pool to which I belong, in the greater experience that permeates everyone able to experience anything at all. My part in the body itself, limited to my own perspective as an individual is my contribution to that experience.

Rings like defnection and denal .. this is not about a perspective .. but evidence for a certain perspective on God. You have presented no quantifiable perspective so there is no evidence or proof of such a thing possible . and have now taken to hiding apparently ashamed of this lack of perspective .. but worry not .. There is plenty of evidence and even proof for the perspective that existence is eternal.

Have you acknowleded the Truth that existence is eternal Brother Balt ? and your small contribution to the pot

 

[Balthazzar]

Rings like defnection and denal .. this is not about a perspective .. but evidence for a certain perspective on God. You have presented no quantifiable perspective so there is no evidence or proof of such a thing possible . and have now taken to hiding apparently ashamed of this lack of perspective .. but worry not .. There is plenty of evidence and even proof for the perspective that existence is eternal.

Have you acknowleded the Truth that existence is eternal Brother Balt ? and your small contribution to the pot

I have not, aside from viewing the universe and all the energy of as being ever present and in process of continual change.

 

[George-ananda]

What it comes down to for somebody like me evaluating the claims of somebody like you is that you might be correct and you might be incorrect, but the first requires that your brain can do things that mine can't, and the second only requires that you have a will to believe something without sufficient evidentiary support because you have psychological needs that I don't have that holding such a belief fulfills.

Here you are making the unsupported assumption than only physical sensing exists. I think the evidence and logic strongly leads me to the hypothesis that psychic functioning is also real, and some people are more sensitive than others and hence detect more.

You don't have theories. You just have faith-based beliefs that you understand what you are calling paranormal experiences.

And I have considered what you believe, but there is no value for me in doing that anymore unless some new evidence suggests reexamining the topic.

None of my beliefs are based on faith but a best assessment all things considered.

Agreed.

But that's where it ends for me. I can't rule it out, but I have no reason to believe that there is more.

Nor the paranormal. Nor gods. So, I treat them all the same - possible because I have no means to rule any of it out, but not interesting enough to give further thought to without new evidence.

That's true for just about every idea that is unsupported but cannot be declared impossible. That's true for Bigfoot. I can't rule it out but lacking decent supporting evidence, my days of thinking about it like it might be real are over.

Seems odd you're done thinking when I see such a mystery universe in need of better understanding.

 

[firedragon]

Is God a physical or metaphysical being?

I guess it depends on the theology. In my theology, God is metaphysical.

God talks and acts like human beings, which are physical beings.

Where?

God is referred to as a "he", meaning God is a male

That's just misunderstanding of simple language. Even in Greek, Ho which is masculine does not mean an anthropomorphic male. Referring to a ship as "she" does not mean it's female. I can't believe in the 21st century people are still on this.

and that means God has genitalia

Utter nonsense.

 

[Sargonski]

I have not, aside from viewing the universe and all the energy of as being ever present and in process of continual change.

Why do you not acknowledge the Truth about God ? "Existence is Eternal" .. as this is the only truth that you know for sure .. viewing the universe from the perspective of matter and energy in a continual state of change.

This one and only fact that we know for sure flows from - follows from your perspective .. - energy and matter in a state of continual change.

a one (1) ringy dingy .. a two (2) ringy dingy .. my apologies if the Carol Burnett show was well before your time .. but the phone is ringing .. time to pick up and ask who is calling .. tell who ever is on the line that you have found the holy grail ... looking at the "I AM" from the perspec tive of matter and energy in a state of continual change ?

Now -- let us ask ... if your soul is not pre-existant .. then how is it you are here ? . where did the soul come from .. remembering our definition for soul .. The "I AM" that I AM .. --- seems you have lost both your God .. and your Soul Brother Balt ? .. but never mind God for now .. first you must find your soul .... where did it come from ? .. and where was it prior to entering that fleshy abode .. roughly 22 weeks into pregnancy .. and has resided there ever since ?

Help !

 

[Balthazzar]

Why do you not acknowledge the Truth about God ? "Existence is Eternal" .. as this is the only truth that you know for sure .. viewing the universe from the perspective of matter and energy in a continual state of change.

This one and only fact that we know for sure flows from - follows from your perspective .. - energy and matter in a state of continual change.

a one (1) ringy dingy .. a two (2) ringy dingy .. my apologies if the Carol Burnett show was well before your time .. but the phone is ringing .. time to pick up and ask who is calling .. tell who ever is on the line that you have found the holy grail ... looking at the "I AM" from the perspec tive of matter and energy in a state of continual change ?

Now -- let us ask ... if your soul is not pre-existant .. then how is it you are here ? . where did the soul come from .. remembering our definition for soul .. The "I AM" that I AM .. --- seems you have lost both your God .. and your Soul Brother Balt ? .. but never mind God for now .. first you must find your soul .... where did it come from ? .. and where was it prior to entering that fleshy abode .. roughly 22 weeks into pregnancy .. and has resided there ever since ?

Help !

I am my father after my mother formed me from herself. I am a living soul. I existed as my dad before I became who I am though my mothers input and ability for the making, and baking, and birthing of.


"remembering our definition for soul .. The "I AM" that I AM"

That's your definition of soul, but there are many souls from past to present that became from the one who is able to create. The dividing of a single cell organism into two parts, and then on to 8, etc. until that cell becomes what we are able to acknowledge as ourselves.

If you're speaking about the id, I understand the premise, but there is a far greater work in play than just a single self awareness and an individual's identity. At least when it comes to people like us, who are formed from that which is able, and have separated as ourselves, now able to acknowledge a self who exists within a greater substance many of us call the universe.

When it's my time for my soul to be laid to rest, I have no evidence to suggest that I'll be able to provide any evidence for you, or anyone else at that juncture and/or crossroads of my journey in God.

 

[paarsurrey]

Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

I've always thought that one could define a God into or out of existence.

G-d defined correctly, one could say, right, please?
First
2:164
Original Arabic narration/text from Muhammad's time:
وَاِلٰـہُکُمۡ اِلٰہٌ وَّاحِدٌ ۚ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ہُوَ الرَّحۡمٰنُ الرَّحِیۡمُ ﴿۱۶۴﴾٪
2:164
And your God is One God; there is no God but He, the Gracious, the Merciful. Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search
Second
3:19
شَہِدَ اللّٰہُ اَنَّہٗ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ہُوَ ۙ وَالۡمَلٰٓئِکَۃُ وَاُولُوا الۡعِلۡمِ قَآئِمًۢا بِالۡقِسۡطِ ؕ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ہُوَ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡحَکِیۡمُ ؕ﴿۱۹
"Allah bears witness that there is no God but He — and also do the angels and those possessed of knowledge — Maintainer of justice; there is no God but He, the Mighty, the Wise."

Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search

In Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Urdu.

www.alislam.org

Above, G-d is well defined, right, please?

G-d perfectly defined here, right, please?

Third
2:256
اَللّٰہُ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ھُوَ ۚ اَلۡحَیُّ الۡقَیُّوۡمُ ۬ۚ لَا تَاۡخُذُہٗ سِنَۃٌ وَّلَا نَوۡمٌ ؕ لَہٗ مَا فِی السَّمٰوٰتِ وَمَا فِی الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ مَنۡ ذَا الَّذِیۡ یَشۡفَعُ عِنۡدَہٗۤ اِلَّا بِاِذۡنِہٖ ؕ یَعۡلَمُ مَا بَیۡنَ اَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ وَمَا خَلۡفَہُمۡ ۚ وَلَا یُحِیۡطُوۡنَ بِشَیۡءٍ مِّنۡ عِلۡمِہٖۤ اِلَّا بِمَا شَآءَ ۚ وَسِعَ کُرۡسِیُّہُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالۡاَرۡضَ ۚ وَلَا یَـُٔوۡدُہٗ حِفۡظُہُمَا ۚ وَہُوَ الۡعَلِیُّ الۡعَظِیۡمُ ﴿۲۵۶
Allah — there is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that will intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth; and the care of them burdens Him not; and He is the High, the Great.

Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search

In Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Urdu.

www.alislam.org

Original Arabic narration/text from Muhammad's time together with its English translation rendered by Maulawi Sher Ali, is given above ^.

Right?

Regards

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Here you are making the unsupported assumption than only physical sensing exists.

I don't see how you got that from my words, which were, "What it comes down to for somebody like me evaluating the claims of somebody like you is that you might be correct and you might be incorrect, but the first requires that your brain can do things that mine can't, and the second only requires that you have a will to believe something without sufficient evidentiary support because you have psychological needs that I don't have that holding such a belief fulfills."

What I'm telling you is that I don't believe that you have extra senses or ways of knowing just because you make claims about paranormal experiences. There is a second explanation for that that doesn't involve the paranormal. If you want to be believed, you'd need to demonstrate that you do have abilities.

I think the evidence and logic strongly leads me to the hypothesis that psychic functioning is also real, and some people are more sensitive than others and hence detect more.

I see no evidence that that is correct. If it were, you ought to be able to demonstrate that you have such special ways of knowing. You'd need to reveal something known to you not known or knowable to somebody like me using the standard senses. Without being able to do that, there is no reason to believe that you have psychic abilities.

None of my beliefs are based on faith but a best assessment all things considered.

It would be faith on my part to believe what you believe or that you have a special way of knowing. You'd need to provide evidence best explained by your claim that you have special senses or ways of knowing.

Let me illustrate. A man visits an island where the inhabitants could count but hadn't discovered the rules of addition yet. He tells them that he has a special way of knowing about numbers. One day, there is a marriage, and two flocks are to be combined, one known to be 36 sheep and one of 42. Before the tribe can count the combined flock, the man who sees further tells them that 36+42=78, that is, that they have 78 sheep combined. The chief combines the flocks and counts the size of the combined flock, and lo and behold, there are 78. This man really does see further and can prove it by reporting what he sees, and it being correct.

Now what do you know as a result of your alleged special way of knowing that you can demonstrate is correct that wouldn't have been known by you without special powers? If something, then you might be able to convince me that you are on to something like the man who could add by revealing that knowledge. If nothing, then you shouldn't expect others who need more than just your claims to believe them.

Welcome to the world of empiricism and critical thought. By holding such standards for belief, we keep out a host of false and unfalsifiable beliefs. To be believed, you'd need to provide evidence that you are correct.

 

[anotherneil]

I guess it depends on the theology. In my theology, God is metaphysical.

Would you agree with the following statement?

A physical God's existence is - in principle - falsifiable, but a metaphysical God's existence is unfalsifiable.

Where?

I'm not sure where, other than in the religious text descriptions of God.

That's just misunderstanding of simple language. Even in Greek, Ho which is masculine does not mean an anthropomorphic male. Referring to a ship as "she" does not mean it's female. I can't believe in the 21st century people are still on this.

A ship isn't a being like people or what God is supposed to be.

So when religious texts say that God created man in His image, does it mean something anthropomorphic, or not? Is God anthropomorphic except when it comes to genitalia?

Utter nonsense.

Overall it sounds like your position is that religious texts should not be taken literally.

 

[Nakosis]

Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible


G-d perfectly defined here, right, please?

Third
2:256
اَللّٰہُ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ھُوَ ۚ اَلۡحَیُّ الۡقَیُّوۡمُ ۬ۚ لَا تَاۡخُذُہٗ سِنَۃٌ وَّلَا نَوۡمٌ ؕ لَہٗ مَا فِی السَّمٰوٰتِ وَمَا فِی الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ مَنۡ ذَا الَّذِیۡ یَشۡفَعُ عِنۡدَہٗۤ اِلَّا بِاِذۡنِہٖ ؕ یَعۡلَمُ مَا بَیۡنَ اَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ وَمَا خَلۡفَہُمۡ ۚ وَلَا یُحِیۡطُوۡنَ بِشَیۡءٍ مِّنۡ عِلۡمِہٖۤ اِلَّا بِمَا شَآءَ ۚ وَسِعَ کُرۡسِیُّہُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالۡاَرۡضَ ۚ وَلَا یَـُٔوۡدُہٗ حِفۡظُہُمَا ۚ وَہُوَ الۡعَلِیُّ الۡعَظِیۡمُ ﴿۲۵۶
Allah — there is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that will intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth; and the care of them burdens Him not; and He is the High, the Great.

Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search

In Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Urdu.

www.alislam.org

Original Arabic narration/text from Muhammad's time together with its English translation rendered by Maulawi Sher Ali, is given above ^.

Right?

Regards

Sounds to me more like praise than a description.