Experiencing God

[Cephus]

I believe I have shown enough evidence for God and Jesus so I wonder why you think you are so rational when you ignore evidence.

I disagree. It really doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove and the only proof is objective and you have not provided any objective evidence at all. It doesn't matter what you feel, it doesn't matter what faith you have, it doesn't matter what arguments you concoct, until you can do a lot better than you've done, no rational person is going to take you seriously, and it isn't that they're biased against your "evidence", it's that your "evidence" is not remotely up to snuff.

I believe he was speaking of when he died that he didn't see Jesus. I believe he didn't see Him because he didn't seek Him. As for the reason good luck because I am going to keep this from you.

Or that Jesus doesn't exist. Ever think of that one?

I believe the Rapture is propphecy so how would one see evidence of something that hasn't happened yet. However there is plenty of evidence that prophecies come true and one that Jesus made has come true.

And the people in the Heaven's Gate cult believed that an alien spaceship was hiding in a comet's tail to take their souls away to heaven. Doesn't make it so. Just because you are personally convinced that what you believe is true, doesn't make it so. Your personal beliefs are not an arbiter of reality. That's why we look at things objectively, we step back and remove the human element, the emotions, the feelings, the beliefs and the faith, and only look at the evidence on the basis of the evidence. You have not done that. You have shown that you are incapable of doing that. That makes you inherently irrational.

I believe you should know better from my previous posts.

Known what you believe? Sure. Respect any of it? Why should I?

 

[bud123]

there is no credible or rational explanation for the universe being in existence today. Scientists cant measure or explain what happened before the big bang which is the most popular theory of how the universe came to be with much evidence. Other theories talk about inflations and cycles of big bangs which led to our universes existence but scientist don't know how the first one of these came to be for this cycle to continue. Now if you think about it , if time and everything we rationally understand like maths, gravity, laws of physics where created in this big bang then what was before the big bang is technically irrational and superior?. The evidence of Jesus is when people love their neighbour. The evidence of Jesus is when he heals your relative of cancer on his deathbed. The evidence of Jesus is that even when loved ones die and suffer he still has them at his right side and is taking care of them.
food for thought.

 

[viole]

there is no credible or rational explanation for the universe being in existence today. Scientists cant measure or explain what happened before the big bang which is the most popular theory of how the universe came to be with much evidence. Other theories talk about inflations and cycles of big bangs which led to our universes existence but scientist don't know how the first one of these came to be for this cycle to continue. Now if you think about it , if time and everything we rationally understand like maths, gravity, laws of physics where created in this big bang then what was before the big bang is technically irrational and superior?. The evidence of Jesus is when people love their neighbour. The evidence of Jesus is when he heals your relative of cancer on his deathbed. The evidence of Jesus is that even when loved ones die and suffer he still has them at his right side and is taking care of them.
food for thought.

If Jesus has so much evidence, why do you venture into cosmology and Big Bangs to show that there is a God?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sojourner]

I disagree. It really doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove and the only proof is objective and you have not provided any objective evidence at all. It doesn't matter what you feel, it doesn't matter what faith you have, it doesn't matter what arguments you concoct, until you can do a lot better than you've done, no rational person is going to take you seriously, and it isn't that they're biased against your "evidence", it's that your "evidence" is not remotely up to snuff.

Actually, it matters a great deal what one believes. Religion doesn't seek to provide evidence, it seeks to make meaning of the world and of our place in it.

 

[sojourner]

The evidence of Jesus is when people love their neighbour.

You should have stopped right there, and, IMO, you should have substituted the word "evidence" with the word "manifestation."

 

[sojourner]

If Jesus has so much evidence, why do you venture into cosmology and Big Bangs to show that there is a God?

Ciao

- viole

I don't think it's correct to use either cosmology or scientific theories to "prove" God. However, I do think that, for many, it is correct to use God to make meaning of cosmology and scientific theories, so long as that meaning doesn't supplant the ontological arguments.

 

[viole]

I don't think it's correct to use either cosmology or scientific theories to "prove" God. However, I do think that, for many, it is correct to use God to make meaning of cosmology and scientific theories, so long as that meaning doesn't supplant the ontological arguments.

The ontological argument? Do you think it is sound?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sojourner]

The ontological argument? Do you think it is sound?

Ciao

- viole

If you mean the ontological argument that the fundamentalists usually use to explain God's existence, then no. I think it's eminently unsound.

 

[viole]

If you mean the ontological argument that the fundamentalists usually use to explain God's existence, then no. I think it's eminently unsound.

Well, then lay down yours here for me.

Ciao

- viole

 

[sojourner]

Well, then lay down yours here for me.

Ciao

- viole

"My" what? Ontological argument for God?

 

[viole]

"My" what? Ontological argument for God?

Yes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[sojourner]

Yes.

Ciao

- viole

I'm not sure a pure ontological argument can be made, because I don't think that God "exists" -- at least not in the way most people may think. I call existence, itself "God." God doesn't exist, God is existence. God doesn't have life; God is life. God doesn't love, God is love. I don't believe in God, purely as portrayed in the bible, that is, as an existent, all-powerful being. God isn't a being; God is Being, itself. Whatever is, whatever lives, whatever exists, is God, for me. That means that all is one. We are made of the same stuff as the stars. That's scientific fact. We belong to the universe, and we belong to each other. Life is ours because we live. We are interconnected with each other and with the world around us. And the totality of that Being is what I choose to call "God."

 

[Cephus]

Actually, it matters a great deal what one believes. Religion doesn't seek to provide evidence, it seeks to make meaning of the world and of our place in it.

It seeks to invent meaning which may or may not exist. It exists to provide emotional comfort, not a means to examine reality rationally. Now if the religious would just acknowledge that reality, there wouldn't be any problems. Just be honest and say "I know that the things I believe are nonsense, but they make me feel good". Instead, you get people who really believe this nonsense and pretend that it's actually real. That's where the problems come from.

 

[sojourner]

It seeks to invent meaning which may or may not exist.

Meaning does exist, if it means something to someone.

It exists to provide emotional comfort, not a means to examine reality rationally.

Meaning is part of the human being's reality. And that meaning doesn't always provide comfort. Meaning is subjective, not objective, and, therefore, doesn't function objectively, although it can function rationally.

Now if the religious would just acknowledge that reality, there wouldn't be any problems.

So, "problems" are a result of meaning?

Just be honest and say "I know that the things I believe are nonsense, but they make me feel good".

They're not "nonsense." Meaning is never "nonsense." And, again, they don't always promote good feelings.

Instead, you get people who really believe this nonsense and pretend that it's actually real.

I don't "pretend" anything. Nor do I "get people" to believe anything -- especially nonsense.

That's where the problems come from.

The problem here is that you have something made up in your head about meaning-making that isn't necessarily true, and you're pretending that it's real in all cases.

Is there no meaning in your life? Does nothing "mean" anything to you? No music? No people? No artwork? No family? No home? No belongings? Nothing has any meaning for you? If you, you'd be either the first person in history for which that's true, or you're dead.

 

[Cephus]

Meaning does exist, if it means something to someone.

That doesn't mean that it's objectively true. Meaning is invented subjectively.

Meaning is part of the human being's reality. And that meaning doesn't always provide comfort. Meaning is subjective, not objective, and, therefore, doesn't function objectively, although it can function rationally.

Nope. Reality is reality. If your subjective interpretation of reality does not match with objective reality, that interpretation is wrong. It doesn't matter how personally attached you are to that interpretation, it is still wrong. You can't just subjectively decide that gravity doesn't exist. You're just wrong. You also can't subjectively decide that God exists if God doesn't objectively exist. Otherwise, you're just wrong.

So, "problems" are a result of meaning?

The irrational application of meaning, yes.

They're not "nonsense." Meaning is never "nonsense." And, again, they don't always promote good feelings.

Meaning may not be nonsense to the individual, it may be nonsense in the context of larger reality. Just because you gain some personal meaning from a belief doesn't mean anyone else will. If everyone is just sitting around saying "this is what it means to me", then there's no point in having a conversation at all, any more than people ought to sit around arguing their personal taste in ice cream flavors.

 

[sojourner]

That doesn't mean that it's objectively true. Meaning is invented subjectively.

It doesn't matter. Meaning is meaning, and it is real for the one who makes it. All human interior experiences are subjective but, nonetheless true for the individual having the experience.

If your subjective interpretation of reality does not match with objective reality, that interpretation is wrong.

I'm not talking about "interpretation." I'm talking about meaning. The two are different processes.

You can't just subjectively decide that gravity doesn't exist. You're just wrong.

But you can either make meaning of gravity, or not. And the meaning that it has for you isn't "wrong" or "right." It just is.

You also can't subjectively decide that God exists if God doesn't objectively exist.

That's not "meaning," though. It's "deciding."

it may be nonsense in the context of larger reality. Just because you gain some personal meaning from a belief doesn't mean anyone else will.

But that doesn't make it "nonsense." It makes it "personal." We expect that meaning will be different for every individual -- in fact, we count on it.

If everyone is just sitting around saying "this is what it means to me", then there's no point in having a conversation at all, any more than people ought to sit around arguing their personal taste in ice cream flavors.

Au contraire! There's every point in having the conversation, because the meaning reveals who we truly are to others. And it's making those connections that make us a human family.

 

[Cephus]

It doesn't matter. Meaning is meaning, and it is real for the one who makes it. All human interior experiences are subjective but, nonetheless true for the individual having the experience.

No, they may be important, they may be valuable, that doesn't make them true. People have all kinds of experiences that are demonstrably false. Claiming that something happened that didn't actually happen doesn't mean that it actually happened.

 

[sojourner]

That doesn't mean that it's objectively true. Meaning is invented subjectively.



Nope. Reality is reality. If your subjective interpretation of reality does not match with objective reality, that interpretation is wrong. It doesn't matter how personally attached you are to that interpretation, it is still wrong. You can't just subjectively decide that gravity doesn't exist. You're just wrong. You also can't subjectively decide that God exists if God doesn't objectively exist. Otherwise, you're just wrong.



The irrational application of meaning, yes.



Meaning may not be nonsense to the individual, it may be nonsense in the context of larger reality. Just because you gain some personal meaning from a belief doesn't mean anyone else will. If everyone is just sitting around saying "this is what it means to me", then there's no point in having a conversation at all, any more than people ought to sit around arguing their personal taste in ice cream flavors.

As an addendum to my last post, I do see what you're getting at, and, as far as that goes, I agree that meaning cannot -- and should not -- be substituted for objective reality. IOW, the meaning that we make of the world through religion cannot become some ontological argument for the reality of the religious avatars and myths we employ in making meaning. Our "beliefs" are not "reality." But the meaning we derive from reality is real on a subjective level -- but real nonetheless. And it is through having the conversation that our meaning may create meaning for others.

 

[sojourner]

No, they may be important, they may be valuable, that doesn't make them true.

Sure it does? What would preclude some meaning from being real???

People have all kinds of experiences that are demonstrably false.

No. Not experiences of meaning (which is what we're talking about). Meaning isn't like a hallucinated experience. Meaning is a subjective function that arises out of a sense of self.

Claiming that something happened that didn't actually happen doesn't mean that it actually happened.

That's not what meaning does, though.

 

[Cephus]

As an addendum to my last post, I do see what you're getting at, and, as far as that goes, I agree that meaning cannot -- and should not -- be substituted for objective reality. IOW, the meaning that we make of the world through religion cannot become some ontological argument for the reality of the religious avatars and myths we employ in making meaning. Our "beliefs" are not "reality." But the meaning we derive from reality is real on a subjective level -- but real nonetheless. And it is through having the conversation that our meaning may create meaning for others.

But you and I both know that a huge number of theists do exactly what you're saying they shouldn't. The more religious one is, the more likely they are to confuse what they believe with what is actually true in objective reality. That's what I'm arguing against.