By "intellectualism" do you mean something like "excessive reliance on understanding and reason"?
If so, what test will tell us when reliance on understanding and reason is "excessive"?
If not, what do you mean?
-
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!
How to prove God.
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
If so, what test will tell us when reliance on understanding and reason is "excessive"?
If not, what do you mean?
In Matthew 4, the Tempter says, "If you're the Son of God, do X and Y". Jesus doesn't say, "Ahm, I can't actually do X or Y." Instead he makes excuses, as though he really can.
The "Tempter" here shouldn't have such a pejorative name ─ rather some name like the "intelligent enquirer", since his questions are eminently reasonable in the light of Jesus' claim. Is Jesus the Son of God or is he selling snake oil? Let's check it out.
Any reasonable enquirer would do the same, no? Back at #47 I asked you to ask God for next year's NYT headline and let me know, because in the light of your OP it's a reasonable request.
So I'd be obliged if you ask God for the answer, and let me know. And if it turns out to be correct, I'll be impressed.
@Xavier Graham SA, what you propose in the OP seems like a lesson on how to delude oneself through confirmation bias.
I could have the same results you mention in the op if I prayed to the house elf my grandma used to leave milk and bread for, or any other supernatural being I can't physically see. If I just attribute my good fortune to the whims of a being that I already assume is real, I can't ever be checked in those assumptions because I've already convinced myself that it has actually happened.
That seems unwise to me, but maybe you could enlighten me. What am I not understanding?
I could have the same results you mention in the op if I prayed to the house elf my grandma used to leave milk and bread for, or any other supernatural being I can't physically see. If I just attribute my good fortune to the whims of a being that I already assume is real, I can't ever be checked in those assumptions because I've already convinced myself that it has actually happened.
That seems unwise to me, but maybe you could enlighten me. What am I not understanding?
an anarchist
Your local loco.
In my OP, I am not suggesting an empirical experiment, Rather, this experiment would require the suspension of intellect. It is through this mental submission, that I believe God becomes visible.
I speak from personal experiences. The skeptic would have to experience their own deeply personal experiences with God for this proposed experiment to work. As a man of faith, it is necessary for me to believe that God is capable of giving anyone this experience. Religious people teach that God wants to have a relationship with everyone, right? So I’m banking on the compassion, and legitimacy, of my God.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
Please explain how to "suspend my intellect (such as it is!)" because that sounds an awful lot like fooling yourself?
an anarchist
Your local loco.
Heyo
Veteran Member
People go through a state of suspended critical thinking every night. In our dreams we accept events that aren't possible in the waking world. Should that not be a state where your supposed god could communicate with every human (and many other animals as it is)?
Heyo
Veteran Member
This video is age-restricted and only available on YouTube.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
Damn, well there goes my joke. It's titled "Crackhead does backflip off 40 foot roof". Self explanatory I think
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
It is not unusual for the religious to attempt to achieve an "altered state" to communicate with their god, fasting, drug use and meditation spring to mind! Who knows Crack and freefall could be the way to "suspend your intellect"
an anarchist
Your local loco.
I'd say this concept is perhaps abstract. To be able to learn, without learning. Many spiritual philosophies teach that knowledge of God is natural, and primal knowledge. If one can clear their mind of any presupposed beliefs, then God will be obviously visible. It relies on the fact that knowledge of God is primal knowledge, that has been clouded by generations of conditioning.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
Which begs the question that if there is a primal knowledge of god, why through time have so many had a different primal knowledge of what god is? Your primal knowledge is completely different to that of a Hindu for example.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
Personally, I disagree. I'm a syncretistic, I believe that all of these religions stemmed from the same source, the same primal knowledge. I believe that division of religion is a manmade phenomenon, not a natural one. I believe that the truths that the ancient Hindu sages espoused align perfectly with the sages of any other religion.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
So what truths of the god of the wine press reveal that align with Christianity?
an anarchist
Your local loco.
Well, let me rephrase myself. I believe there are religions, which stem from "the One". And then there is paganism, which is distinctly different. For example, the God fo the wine press would be a pagan one (I assume). A pagan god claims that it get's it's power from itself, rather than "the One." Religions that teach about "the One" as the source of all energy in the universe, this is what I am referring to. Paganism is the belief that there in no "the One" God. Religions that preach about "the One" (from my understanding) are these: Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Platonism (?)/ Buddism was the result of Buddha extracting this teaching of "the One" out of Hinduism. In the process, he removed the Pagan elements of Hinduism, creating Buddhism. Paganism is distinctly different from what I am referring to.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
Before the advent of the religions you listed man had believed in gods for many thousands of years, how can this primal knowledge you speak of be primal if man appears to of existed without it for so long, why is this primal knowledge not available to Pagans?
an anarchist
Your local loco.
It's not that this primal knowledge was not available to Pagans. Rather, the philosophy of Paganism is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of primal knowledge (as I understand it at least). Let's say someone is a pagan sun worshiper. They believe that the sun sustains it's own existence through it's own will and volition. The primal knowledge I'm referring to teaches that the sun owes its continual existence to "the One".
Personally, as a young earther, I believe that God and spirituality has existed with man since the beginning of their existence.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
I've already done that. I got nothing. Your god failed the test.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
Ok lets look at this statement and revise it in light of your other statements.
Personally, I disagree. I'm a syncretistic, I believe that all of these religions except pagan ones stemmed from the same source, the same primal knowledge. I believe that division of religion is a manmade phenomenon, not a natural one. I believe that the truths that the ancient Hindu sages espoused align perfectly with the sages of any other religion accept that the earth is only 6 thousand years old.
Starting to look a little less syncretistic is it not?
an anarchist
Your local loco.
You're right, I do pick and choose what I allow into my syncretic belief system. Baha'ism, which itself is often called a syncretic relgion, teaches that each individual should conduct their own independent investigation of reality, rather than believing what any religion teaches, such as Baha'ism. The process of me picking and choosing what I believe is a result of my own independent investigation.