Just Believe

[F1fan]

Why would you ask me what God knows or doesn't know? You can't be foolish enough to think I could answer such a question?

Do you think humans are capable of detecting a God with the ordinary five senses? If not, how about with any special extra sensory ability?

 

[blü 2]

How could the source of all that is not contain the knowledge of all that is?

The simple answer is that the source isn't sentient. Nor do we presently have any reason to think otherwise.

How could the purpose of all that it not be in control of all that is?

Humans and various other living things have purposes. No purpose can reasonably be inferred from the existence of the universe, or the earth, or life.

How could the sustenance of all that is not be manifesting in all that is?

Because there's no such sustenance, simply sets of phenomena that we examine in search of the way it all works.

Or look at it from this angle ─ there may be something like 2x10^21 stars in the universe with however many planets each; and the evidence we presently have points to the universe being close to 14 bn years old.

Humans, on the other hand, have been around in their modern form for maybe 200,000 years, and civilization for about 10,000 years.

So if the universe exists for reasons associated with humans, the inefficiency of the project is prodigal far far beyond reason.

And if it's not, there's plenty of room in such truly huge numbers for us humans to have evolved simply by the operations of chance.

 

[PureX]

Do you think humans are capable of detecting a God with the ordinary five senses? If not, how about with any special extra sensory ability?

We perceive of God conceptually. Keep in mind that perception IS conception. They are the same cognitive phenomenon. The nerves create a physical response in the body and send it to the brain, which then compares and contrasts these with and to others (remembered or current), to cognate them. And then to assemble those cognitive experiences into an imaginary cohesive 'whole' (cognitive reality) in the mind. God is part of that assembled cognitive whole, being derived from the sum of it's experienced parts.

 

[blü 2]

This was never my contention. My contention is that WHATEVER is external to the self, we can only experience it THROUGH THE SELF.

Thank you for clearing that up.

What exactly is the problem with experiencing things through the self? Science is self-conscious about maximizing objectivity, and you and I are conversing, and I've had my Covid shots, and so on.

Why has science come the huge distances it's traversed since, say, the latter 18th century, while reasoned enquiry into gods has found nothing? Has not even the concept of what a real god, a not-imaginary god, is?

 

[PureX]

The simple answer is that the source isn't sentient. Nor do we presently have any reason to think otherwise.

The simple truth is that we have no knowledge of the source, except that the result implies that there is one. So we are left to speculate on the existence and nature of that source. As we humans are inclined to do.

No purpose can reasonably be inferred from the existence of the universe, or the earth, or life.

Order implies purpose. Existence is the result of order. There is no escaping the inference of this order. There is only the choice to willfully ignore of it.

Because there's no such sustenance, simply sets of phenomena that we examine in search of the way it all works.

We call the sustenance of existence "energy" though we have no idea what it actually is, or it's origin.

 

[F1fan]

We perceive of God conceptually.

How does a person perceive a concept? Do we perceive the concepts of the tooth Fairy, too?

You do realize that concepts don't necessarily correspond to real things, yes?

Keep in mind that perception IS conception.

No it isn't. An infant can perceive light without having any idea what light is. They can hear sounds nd not know the concept of "sound", right?

They are the same cognitive phenomenon. The nerves create a physical response in the body and send it to the brain, which then compares and contrasts these with and to others (remembered or current), to cognate them. And then to assemble those cognitive experiences into an imaginary cohesive 'whole' (cognitive reality) in the mind. God is part of that assembled cognitive whole, being derived from the sum of it's experienced parts.

You are referring to a number of phenomenon. A cat can have an ongoing experience with humans and not fear them due to good things happening, like treats. They will have an understanding of what humans are but not have any hard, defined, abstraction of humans. they have no word for humans.

Then humans can use their capacity to create abstractions, like an attractive woman that wants to have sex with you and you masturbate to that illusion. You have a physical response to this illusion as if it is real but it's real in the sense that its being imagined. To your way of describing things this imaginary woman is real because you are perceiving it conceptually and having an experience. But the cold hard facts of it is that it's imagined, and not existing independently of your mind.

So, that said, you ignored my questions. Can humans detect an actual, independent God with the five senses, or with some extra sensory ability? What you describe above is just human imagination and fantasy.

 

[PureX]

Thank you for clearing that up.

What exactly is the problem with experiencing things through the self?

The self is not an objective phenomenon. It is the subject of subjectivism. So it cannot logically be expected to comprehend existence objectively. And therefor, it cannot gain objective evidence or knowledge of any supposed objective reality.

Science is self-conscious about maximizing objectivity, and you and I are conversing, and I've had my Covid shots, and so on.

Science knows nothing of "objective reality". Science is based entirely on experienced functionality, which is entirely SUBJECTIVE. Because we are the subject doing the experiencing, and creating the presumptions about reality that we create in response to those subjective experiences. Science is about PHYSICAL FUNCTION, not objective truth. "Scientism" is the cult of believers in science as the pursuit of objective truth.

 

[PureX]

How does a person perceive a concept?

Perception is the conceptualization of an experience.

You do realize that concepts don't necessarily correspond to real things, yes?

"Real thing" IS A CONCEPT. This "correspondence" you keep looking for and holding up as the criterion for validating truth is just functionality. Nothing more. And functionality is not the same as truth.

No it isn't. An infant can perceive light without having any idea what light is. They can hear sounds nd not know the concept of "sound", right?

It "is" what it is the moment they first experience it. And the very next experience they have, they will compare to it to determine what that "is", and so on. The beginning only begins, once. From then on it's all compare and contrast to determine what "is". This is how the human brain functions.

Can humans detect an actual, independent God with the five senses, or with some extra sensory ability? What you describe above is just human imagination and fantasy.

There us no "independent God" to detect. God, being the sustenance of all that is, is omnipresent. How could we possibly detect that which is in everything, including ourselves?

 

[Colt]

I just can't believe it.
How does a person believe in something for which they have no evidence?
How can one just believe in a god, when they have absolutely no evidence?
I don't get it.
To me, that's like one standing on the edge of a mountain, without any glider, singing, "I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I dream about it every night and day. Spread my wings and fly away."

Then jumps.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. SPLAT

Is that not idiotic?
That's not faith either. It's stupidity, imo.
The Bible does not even support such an absurd idea.
If Jesus just wanted people to have faith without evidence, he would have simply walked around; looked people in the face; smiled, and said, "Hey. I'm the Messiah. Believe it. "

However, Jesus performed great signs, and used the scriptures to teach with authority, giving people evidence - reason to believe, and exercise faith. Is that not so?
So can someone help me out here. How does a person believe in a god, without evidence? I know there are quite a number of those who call themselves Christians, who think this way. Blind faith, they call it.

The consciousness of the presence of God is inexplicable. Jesus had faith in man and asked them to have faith in the Father. He actually asked the apostles to keep his identity a secret until he returned to heaven.

 

[F1fan]

Perception is the conceptualization of an experience.

No, perception is just being aware of something. You don't have to know what it is to be aware of it. You seem to be confusing the action of the mind BEING aware as conceptualization. You can be aware of it raining without thinking the word "rain" or thinking anything about the fact it's raining.

There us no "independent God" to detect. God, being the sustenance of all that is, is omnipresent. How could we possibly detect that which is in everything, including ourselves?

OK, describe what this "sustenance" is so that we can be sure it's real and not just some abstraction humans invented for some reason. If it's real and in everything you shouldn't have any trouble explaining and describing it. Use science if necessary.

 

[Bird123]

I just can't believe it.
How does a person believe in something for which they have no evidence?
How can one just believe in a god, when they have absolutely no evidence?
I don't get it.
To me, that's like one standing on the edge of a mountain, without any glider, singing, "I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I dream about it every night and day. Spread my wings and fly away."

Then jumps.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. SPLAT

Is that not idiotic?
That's not faith either. It's stupidity, imo.
The Bible does not even support such an absurd idea.
If Jesus just wanted people to have faith without evidence, he would have simply walked around; looked people in the face; smiled, and said, "Hey. I'm the Messiah. Believe it. "

However, Jesus performed great signs, and used the scriptures to teach with authority, giving people evidence - reason to believe, and exercise faith. Is that not so?
So can someone help me out here. How does a person believe in a god, without evidence? I know there are quite a number of those who call themselves Christians, who think this way. Blind faith, they call it.

Perhaps, the real question should be: What is it about your faith that you like so well that you would choose to ignore all else beyond that box of beliefs you call faith?? Is it eternal life? Is it I am good; they are bad? Is it pay back for all those different or that might have hurt you? Does following the rules make you special , important,or favored in some way? Is it power to rule, condemn or control that you desire? Maybe you want to end diversity itself. Maybe you want to make others pay for all the hurt you have experienced in life.

I think each should be true to themselves. What is it that you really seek??? If it is Truth, Truth will never stop at mere beliefs.

Beliefs are important. Without beliefs, we would lock up just like my old computer when all the facts are not known. Beliefs merely point a direction by which one might search for truth. Beliefs are the beginning of the journey not the end.

Religions teach people to value Beliefs above all else because that is all they have. Unlike science, religion does not seek knowledge. They only seek acceptance and conformity. I have found no religion that actually understands God at all.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[danieldemol]

The research is there so whether there are Christians who are researchers as far as life coming about does not really matter, does it, because the findings of research are often published -- and so far, from the research it can be seen that chromosomal structures are very, very complicated. Yet the question arises-- how did such complex structures get to be?

Through the evolution of simpler structures.

How did the so-called Big Bang start?

I don't know, but it seems like you are insisting on a God of the gaps here. Just because I don't know what the natural causes were doesn't mean the causes were magic.

And then, of course, the big question is, how does 'life' come into the proclaimed first cells to evolve?

From life forms simpler than cells.

Do you really think science, no matter how much research there is, will find out how life as we know it came about?

If we have enough time i think it will be discovered. The beginning of all life may be a rare event, but if it was done once it can presumably be done again.

In my opinion.

 

[blü 2]

The simple truth is that we have no knowledge of the source, except that the result implies that there is one.

No. they don't. As I mentioned in my previous post, with 20 septillion suns and their planets and 14 bn years to work with, you have enormous opportunity for things to happen by chance. If you've read the late Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life (1990) you'll recall his point that if you tried to replay the tape of evolution from start to humans, you'd get a different result every time.

So we are left to speculate on the existence and nature of that source. As we humans are inclined to do.

We can agree on that. But there are different ways of going about it.

Order implies purpose.

So snowflakes are purposeful? The earth is generally spherical for reasons of esthetics or convenience? As LaPlace is said to have said, [we] have no need of that hypothesis.

Existence is the result of order. There is no escaping the inference of this order. There is only the choice to willfully ignore of it.

Back to the snowflakes.

We call the sustenance of existence "energy" though we have no idea what it actually is, or it's origin.

There's a lot we don't know, but I respectfully suggest you avoid arguments from ignorance, gods of the gaps.

The self is not an objective phenomenon. It is the subject of subjectivism. So it cannot logically be expected to comprehend existence objectively.

Self and subjectivism are indeed factors built into our existence, but we're capable of maximizing objectivity, something science does conscientiously and out loud with skeptical and reasoned enquiry, working empirically from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment, publication of conclusions and how they were reached, transparency, double-blind testing where appropriate, standards of honesty and so on.

But all that is something religions can no more do regarding their central hypothesis than Harry Potter fans can regarding theirs. They have no evidence to work with, they have no consistency in their versions of the supernatural, they have gods that never appear, never say and never do, they have no objective test of truth ─ in short, gods, on all the available examinable evidence, are psychological and cultural phenomena, not entities with objective existence.

Science knows nothing of "objective reality". Science is based entirely on experienced functionality, which is entirely SUBJECTIVE.

It has a subjective element to it. But it's false to suggest that an effective level of objectivity is impossible. That's why traffic cops use cameras rather than simply evidence of eye and memory.

"Scientism" is the cult of believers in science as the pursuit of objective truth.

No, that's not what scientism is. Look it up.

"Real thing" IS A CONCEPT. This "correspondence" you keep looking for and holding up as the criterion for validating truth is just functionality. Nothing more.

Yes, "real thing" is an abstraction, as you say.

However, the statement, "This is a potato" is capable of being true, an accurate statement about reality, translatable into all major languages, because the concept of a potato exists at various levels from casual shopping to genetic engineering, but works fine to identify an example of a class of referents all with objective existence.

Whereas "god"exists purely as a set of similar concepts, each in a different brain, and no one appears to think God is real in the sense of having objective existence, hence the lack of any meaningful definition of god appropriate to a non-imaginary being.

And functionality is not the same as truth.

My definition of truth, as I've told you before, is that truth is a quality of statements, and that a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality. (Truth is retrospective but never absolute.)

What definition of truth are you using?

 

[PureX]

No, perception is just being aware of something.

Awareness is useless, and therefor pointless without cognition. And anyway, there can be no awareness of 'nothing'. The awareness must be of something, and something requires recognition. And that is conceptual.

You don't have to know what it is to be aware of it.

You have to know it's 'something'. And 'something' is a concept.

You seem to be confusing the action of the mind BEING aware as conceptualization. You can be aware of it raining without thinking the word "rain" or thinking anything about the fact it's raining.

Conceptualization doesn't require words. It results from comparing and contrasting experiential information sets. To be aware of it raining we will have already determined that the incoming sensory information comports with a whole array of remembered past experienced sensory information. As well as the extrapolations and probabilities they generated in our minds. We will instantly compare and contrast all this past information with the current information and determine what the current information "is" and what it "means" to us. It's all part of the same cognitive process. Perception IS conception.

OK, describe what this "sustenance" is so that we can be sure it's real and not just some abstraction humans invented for some reason. If it's real and in everything you shouldn't have any trouble explaining and describing it. Use science if necessary.

Science calls it "energy", but we have no idea what energy 'is', really. Or from whence it originates. It's a mystery. But we know that from it, and from the 'rules' that govern it's expression, everything that exists comes to exist as it does.

 

[PureX]

No. they don't. As I mentioned in my previous post, with 20 septillion suns and their planets and 14 bn years to work with, you have enormous opportunity for things to happen by chance.

Chance is a part of the 'design'. But only a very small part.

If you've read the late Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life (1990) you'll recall his point that if you tried to replay the tape of evolution from start to humans, you'd get a different result every time.

How different? Steven Jay Gould has absolutely no idea. There would be a difference because chance does have some effect, and that effect will multiply through a succession of causes and effects. But nevertheless, the universe remains pretty stable, even as incredibly complex as it is. So I think it's safe to say that the effect of order FAR, FAR surpasses the effects of chance.

There's a lot we don't know, but I respectfully suggest you avoid arguments from ignorance, ...

I am not arguing. I am simply pointing out an obvious fact of the human condition. What we don't know is not a closed set. It is virtually infinite. "God" is the term we use to refer to the source, sustenance, and purpose of existence that is hidden from us within that great open set of our unknowing.

Self and subjectivism are indeed factors built into our existence, but we're capable of maximizing objectivity, something science does conscientiously and out loud with skeptical and reasoned enquiry, working empirically from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment, publication of conclusions and how they were reached, transparency, double-blind testing where appropriate, standards of honesty and so on.

There is no "objectivity", for us. That's a conceptual illusion that you've bought into. All science pursues is physical functionality. Which is very useful to us, but does not necessarily provide us with any truth.

What definition of truth are you using?

The truth is simply what is.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is an irrational part of me that hopes my spirit will outlive the body, the sun etc, but there is no evidence for spirits.

As for our sun being different to other suns it is only as different as you and I are different in spite of sharing similar chemical compositions.

Likewise the suns have similar nuclear compositions, and scientists are able to determine the truth of this using spectroscopy.

Using spectroscopy they have determined our sun is a fairly typical main sequence star composed of 74% hydrogen, 25% helium.

In my opinion.

That may well be that the sun is a fairly typical main sequence star," but--the Bible says that star differs from star in glory. And, I believe the Bible's word when it says we as part of the human race, can live forever. So with that in mind, there are two things here: one is the inherent desire of most people to keep living, and another is that the Bible says Adam & Eve were designed to live forever, but blew that chance. Now if, let's say, we were not hoping to enjoy life forever (whatever parts there are to enjoy, and there are many), we would, in essence be like chimpanzees and rabbits. I hesitate to say animals because so many insist we humans are part of the animal kingdom. I disagree, but then, who am I? Someone who keeps learning and wants to keep living, knowing, however, I may die.
Now here's a question, while it may seem irrelevant, I don't think so. I was listening to one of Gustav Mahler's Symphonies. Perhaps you've heard of Mahler. I like most of his music. Some of it, in my humble opinion, is very beautiful. But Mahler had a morbid fear of dying. Why is that, do you think? Many of us have that fear from the time we realize death is in the picture, usually we recognize that at a young age. I remember when I first feared death. I was about 6 years old. And while I believe what the Bible says, I still don't want to die.
But the question really is: do chimps and rabbits live with that fear from an early age? (I don't think so...plus they don't write music for orchestras. )

 

[YoursTrue]

Chance is a part of the 'design'. But only a very small part.
How different? Steven Jay Gould has absolutely no idea. There would be a difference because chance does have some effect, and that effect will multiply through a succession of causes and effects. But nevertheless, the universe remains pretty stable, even as incredibly complex as it is. So I think it's safe to say that the effect of order FAR, FAR surpasses the effects of chance.
I am not arguing. I am simply pointing out an obvious fact of the human condition. What we don't know is not a closed set. It is virtually infinite. "God" is the term we use to refer to the source, sustenance, and purpose of existence that is hidden from us within that great open set of our unknowing.
There is no "objectivity", for us. That's a conceptual illusion that you've bought into. All science pursues is physical functionality. Which is very useful to us, but does not necessarily provide us with any truth.
The truth is simply what is.

Now I knew Stephen Jay Gould's cousin. Not that is important, but we hung out, me and his cousin a lot. Anyway, although I believe Gould was agnostic. I am not, I have also taken the idea similar to S. J. Gould's, that if evolution happened all over again the outcome would be different. That's just based on mathematical reasoning of the odds. Gould was a smart man. And, because I was an atheist (but am no longer), I can well understand his reasoning. Plus, mathematically he is ostensibly correct. Now the fact that he declared himself to be agnostic is interesting...because he allowed for the possibility of God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Chance is a part of the 'design'. But only a very small part.
How different? Steven Jay Gould has absolutely no idea. There would be a difference because chance does have some effect, and that effect will multiply through a succession of causes and effects. But nevertheless, the universe remains pretty stable, even as incredibly complex as it is. So I think it's safe to say that the effect of order FAR, FAR surpasses the effects of chance.
I am not arguing. I am simply pointing out an obvious fact of the human condition. What we don't know is not a closed set. It is virtually infinite. "God" is the term we use to refer to the source, sustenance, and purpose of existence that is hidden from us within that great open set of our unknowing.
There is no "objectivity", for us. That's a conceptual illusion that you've bought into. All science pursues is physical functionality. Which is very useful to us, but does not necessarily provide us with any truth.
The truth is simply what is.

Obviously, and yes I do mean obviously, planets, stars, moons and the like are of a different type than humans. Plus, as the Bible says, star differs from star. Going by that, we know that they have different weather patterns, they are of varying distances from the sun, in this system. Called the solar system. Now just to finish this, they are planets, and we -- are -- humans. Planets are rather different sorts from humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

View attachment 54648 According to science, this will not happen. Forever is a long time. Here is the timeline of human evolution. See how many species have come and gone in the last 5 million years.

Evaporation of seas making Earth uninhabitable for any life will happen in about 1 billion years. In 5 billion years sun changes into a red-giant engulfing Mercury and Venus. Then it turns into a white dwarf which will have about half the sun's mass. That will last for trillions of years.. Of course, you can continue to believe whatever you want.

Allah cannot. He has not made the sun like that. See the future of the sun here: Sun - Wikipedia, Tip of the red-giant branch - Wikipedia

I figure you don't believe in the Noachian flood account in Genesis. But I do. I can't explain it all, but I do believe that the "floodgates of the heavens" were opened and rain poured down for 40 days and 40 nights. That's a long time, considering how much damage is done now on the earth in a much, much shorter time. With that in mind, the atmosphere was different before the heavens poured down the water. God can do anything He wants to sustain what He wants when He wants to. That includes the stability of the earth and the life on it. Genesis 7:11.

 

[YoursTrue]

Right, you used misleading words and definitions that you used to make a flawed and inaccurate conclusion. These kind of language tricks don't work. That creationists are motivated to use them shows the fraud in religious thinking.

I was looking at a book about insects. Fascinating things, those little things. Rather complicated as well.