Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[PureX]

Yes, but while consciousness persists, it matters. Or do you think that we should act as if it did not?

It matters, but no more than does God, love, beauty, and justice. And keep in mind, too, that "truth" is not something we can perceive except in a limited and relative way. So I would say that honesty is really the more important pursuit. Those aspects of us that you're calling "real" are just physical. And unconscious physicality just isn't very important in any way that I can see.

God is as real as any imaginary being. Real beings are actually more real than purely imaginary ones.

You're falling back into the trap of labeling God as an "imaginary being". "God" is a complex concept that very often does not include any imaginary beings, and even when it does, is coupled with the awareness that this is just an intellectual mechanism. It's an idealized image that people find momentarily helpful.

Because it is entirely possible that what we experience now is all that we ever will experience. As unlikely as it may seem to you, it is possible that we will exist after we die in exactly the same sense that we existed before we were born. That is, not at all.

Whatever will be, will be. All I have right now of reality is what I can perceive of it.

 

[Atheologian]

There are several threads on which people have been arguing about the "evidence" or lack thereof of the existence of "God". These threads were not started with this subject in mind, so I'm starting a new thread to keep them from being sidetracked.

Keep in mind that evidence is not proof. For example, the fact that Bob could have left work unnoticed and killed his wife, and then returned to work, resulting in his fellow workers claiming that he was on the job all day is not proof that Bob killed his wife. It is evidence, however, in that it provides a reasonable possibility.

Also, let's keep this a polite and civil discussion/debate. Your posts will be ignored, otherwise.

I will begin the discussion with a few posts from these other threads:


Sure ...

1. The idea of God works for most people most of the time. Ideas that work for us on a regular basis tend to be taken as accurate.

2. The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of a "God". Existence is not random. How do we explain this? What is responsible for the order? And why? The answers to these questions are a mystery, and we have named this mystery "God".

3. Energy can express itself as consciousness (take ourselves as an example), again, forcing us to consider that a consciousness could in turn express itself as energy (in much the same way as matter and energy are interchangeable). If so, all of existence could well be the "mind of God, expressed", just as the ancients claimed.

1. Masturbation works for most people most of the time, but it's not sex.

2. It does not force "us", it forces "you", because you can't come up with a better answer. This is not "our" problem. Filling your head with mystical nonsense is your own problem.

3.This is the sort of mystical nonsense I was just referring to.

 

[themadhair]

Themadhair, do you not consider the points above on the similarity coming forth from such diverse backgrounds to weaken any concerns about conformational bias?

I’m not following you here. Doesn’t the fact that different people having similar experiences reach vastly different conclusions not scream conformational bias? I’m not denying the experiences exist, what I am questioning is the interpretation being offered for those experiences.

Permit me to offer also, given with respect for you and any Scientologists, that doubts come to mind on your Scientology example. One doubts seriously if we are writing of the same Mystical Experience because the Experience has dramatic transformational characteristics including a paradigm shift in one’s perspective of reality which most likely would become visible.

Think about what you are doing here. You are doubting the experiences of Scientologists solely because they interpreted their experiences differently than yours. It is worth noting that those experiences really did cause “dramatic transformational characteristics including a paradigm shift in one’s perspective of reality” for those Scientologists – they just reached a different conclusion than yours.

If your only reason for doubting those experiences is because of a differing conclusion, then doesn’t that lend weight to the charge of conformational bias?

The objective world exists "as far as we know".
…
Was that your point?

If you removed the “as far as we know” then yes. A rock will exist regardless of what I, you or anyone thinks or conceptualises it. I really do have to reject this equivocation being made with a “thing” and the “concept/perception of a thing”. To even attempt determining accuracy is to have presupposed this distinction.

"God" is a complex concept that very often does not include any imaginary beings, and even when it does, is coupled with the awareness that this is just an intellectual mechanism. It's an idealized image that people find momentarily helpful.

Wait a moment. Given that you opened the above paragraph with “ You're falling back into the trap of labeling God as an "imaginary being"”, why have then gone on to suggest that god solely exists within the intellect and is merely an idealised image???? Rejecting the label of “imaginary being” while essentially arguing that god is just that totally baffles me. The first time you did this I put down to a type or a rushed comment, but since you keep doing it I really have to wonder whether you realise the implication in what you are saying.

 

[Willamena]

If you removed the “as far as we know” then yes. A rock will exist regardless of what I, you or anyone thinks or conceptualises it. I really do have to reject this equivocation being made with a “thing” and the “concept/perception of a thing”. To even attempt determining accuracy is to have presupposed this distinction.

If you remove the explicit "as far as we know" then it becomes implied.

Is there no tea cup orbiting Pluto?

 

[themadhair]

If you remove the explicit "as far as we know" then it becomes implied.

Not if it is a required assumption you have to make before you can even make the statement. To discuss reality you have to presuppose it exists.

 

[Willamena]

Not if it is a required assumption you have to make before you can even make the statement. To discuss reality you have to presuppose it exists.

Reality exist because it's assumed to exist?

Edit: There are better, more philosophical, rationalizations of this position.

 

[Atheologian]

Not if it is a required assumption you have to make before you can even make the statement. To discuss reality you have to presuppose it exists.

No you don't, that's a load of crap. Right now, I'm presupposing reality doesn't exist, yet here I am discussing it. Nothing is more irritating than someone speaking in circles to make a non-point.

 

[PureX]

Wait a moment. Given that you opened the above paragraph with “ You're falling back into the trap of labeling God as an "imaginary being"”, why have then gone on to suggest that god solely exists within the intellect and is merely an idealised image???? Rejecting the label of “imaginary being” while essentially arguing that god is just that totally baffles me. The first time you did this I put down to a type or a rushed comment, but since you keep doing it I really have to wonder whether you realise the implication in what you are saying.

I have used the term 'complex' and the term 'dynamic' several times in relation to the concept of "God". It's a gross over-simplification to refer to God as an imaginary being. Some people do use the image of God as a being, or personality, but that is not all God is for most theists. And even when that image is used, it's not used as a fact, but as a functional symbol.

(I realized that this post was a little rude, and I apologize for that. I have since re-worded it.)

 

[Atheologian]

Do you understand the term 'complex'? Do you understand the term 'dynamic'? If so, then you should have no particular difficulty understanding that the concept of God is both complex and dynamic. It's a gross over-simplification to refer to God as an imaginary being. Some people do use the image of God as a being, or personality, but that is not all God is for most theists. And even when that image is used, it's not used as a fact, but as a functional symbol.

How about this then:

I beleive dogs are really onions. Don't try to figure it out, just accept that you not figuring it out is as real to you as knowing what it means is to me. You must accept that it is too complex and dynamic of an idea for you to grasp in human terms. Just know that dogs are really onions.

 

[themadhair]

Reality exist because it's assumed to exist?

I never said this nor did I imply it. So why claim that I have? You are posting here to me under the assumption there is a ‘me’ – certain assumptions are necessary before one can even have a discussion.

Right now, I'm presupposing reality doesn't exist, yet here I am discussing it.

The blue is contradicted by the red.

Do you understand the term 'complex'? Do you understand the term 'dynamic'?

They appear to be terms you are using to cover up serious holes in the theology you are trying to defend. It’s not ‘imaginary’, merely ‘complex’. It’s not contradictory or inconsistent, it’s ‘dynamic’. Real smooth there PureX.

It's a gross over-simplification to refer to God as an imaginary being.

Your previous comment implied exactly that. At the moment this is beginning to become a duck. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck then it is probably a duck. If it looks imaginary, seems imaginary, is consistent with being imaginary, is indistinguishable from the imaginary (and this a reasonable conclusion from your own words) then it is probably imaginary.

 

[Atheologian]

The blue is contradicted by the red?

presupposing reality exists is not the same thing as experiencing reality.

So, saying that I am presupposing reality does not exist, is hardly a contradiction.

 

[PureX]

How about this then:

I beleive dogs are really onions. Don't try to figure it out, just accept that you not figuring it out is as real to you as knowing what it means is to me. You must accept that it is too complex and dynamic of an idea for you to grasp in human terms. Just know that dogs are really onions.

I apologize for the rude tone of that last post. If you have a specific question, I'll be happy to try and answer it.

 

[Atheologian]

I'm just wondering why people insist on proposing lack of human knowledge as proof of God.
I'm not suggesting you were rude, though, just that the usual argument for a theist is: "You couldn't understand if you tried, so just have faith."

 

[PureX]

At the moment this is beginning to become a duck. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck then it is probably a duck. If it looks imaginary, seems imaginary, is consistent with being imaginary, is indistinguishable from the imaginary (and this a reasonable conclusion from your own words) then it is probably imaginary.

Look, I understand that as an atheist, you really want God to be an "imaginary being" and nothing more, because that's what you already believe "God" to be. But I tell you the truth when I say that the God-concept is far more complex then that, and far more functional (dynamic) then that. And as proof I offer the many millions of people who use the concept. True, people are nutty and superstitious, but you really can't expect THAT many of people to adopt a God that is nothing more than an imaginary being. God as an imaginary being just doesn't do much for anyone. And most people, just like yourself, will have dropped the idea if that's all they found in it.

Most theists understand that the idea of God as a "being" or as a "personality" is a symbolic concept or image that we apply to "God" simply to make the God-concept a little easier to call to mind, and to use. Hindus, for example, have a whole myriad of gods, each with their own name and personality and stories. But they also understand that these gods and goddesses are representations of a single godhood, or divine force, that expresses itself in different ways under different circumstances. These different ways and circumstances are captured and symbolized by all these various demigods and their traits and stories. The ocean is God expressed. The forrest is God expressed. The mountains are God expressed. But each of these expressions are unique, and so each is represented by a demigod, and it's story.

Taoism, in Japan, also tends to employ these myriad of demigods in much the same way, and taoism traditionally is not even a "God" centered religion.

My point is that we can acknowledge our superstitions AS superstitions even as we practice them.

 

[Atheologian]

I find this both interesting and entertaining, but it's still wrong.

They are in direct ratio with each other, so as infinity can never reach zero, neither can probability. "As x approaches infinity (goes on indefinitely), the probability gets closer and closer to zero." ... and it likewise goes on indefinitely. Infinity is not a number, it is a condition. And logically, the condition must apply to both sides of the ratio, or it could not be a stable (illogical) ratio.

Newton is rolling over in his grave right now.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Greetings friends. At this point in the thread there seem to be only two objections to post 526 presented as potential evidence. Although i must bow to the wisdoms already offered by Willamena and PureX perhaps more can be added.

Nonbeliever_92
One objection comes from nonbeliever_92, “Purely subjective experiences cannot be held as viable evidence for anything.” That may be the position of many, nonbeliever, but some of us have a different opinion. Experience with support from other facts as presented in 526 can be held as evidence.

Best Wishes,
A1O1

Hmmm, purely subjective evidence indeed

 

[PureX]

I'm just wondering why people insist on proposing lack of human knowledge as proof of God.
I'm not suggesting you were rude, though, just that the usual argument for a theist is: "You couldn't understand if you tried, so just have faith."

"God" is at it's best a transcendent concept. By this I mean that the God-concept can and is often used religiously to help us to transcend ourselves. When successful, it brings great and positive changes into people's lives, and this is why so many of these "believers" claim that you need to believe, too, or at least to open your mind and heart to the idea of God, before it can begin to "work" in you. And until you experience some of that positive change, you aren't really going to understand how "real" and powerful the idea and practice of their religion can be. And in fact I think this is true.

Some concepts have to be experienced, to appreciate.

 

[PureX]

Newton is rolling over in his grave right now.

Newton knew better than to apply mathematic to philosophy.

 

[Willamena]

You are posting here to me under the assumption there is a ‘me’ – certain assumptions are necessary before one can even have a discussion.

I am not making that assumption, though. I realize you there.

 

[Atheologian]

Look, I understand that as an atheist, you really want God to be an "imaginary being" and nothing more, because that's what you already believe "God" to be. But I tell you the truth when I say that the God-concept is far more complex then that, and far more functional (dynamic) then that. And as proof I offer the many millions of people who use the concept. True, people are nutty and superstitious, but you really can't expect THAT many of people to adopt a God that is nothing more than an imaginary being. God as an imaginary being just doesn't do much for anyone. And most people, just like yourself, will have dropped the idea if that's all they found in it.

Most theists understand that the idea of God as a "being" or as a "personality" is a symbolic concept or image that we apply to "God" simply to make the God-concept a little easier to call to mind, and to use. Hindus, for example, have a whole myriad of gods, each with their own name and personality and stories. But they also understand that these gods and goddesses are representations of a single godhood, or divine force, that expresses itself in different ways under different circumstances. These different ways and circumstances are captured and symbolized by all these various demigods and their traits and stories. The ocean is God expressed. The forrest is God expressed. The mountains are God expressed. But each of these expressions are unique, and so each is represented by a demigod, and it's story.

Taoism, in Japan, also tends to employ these myriad of demigods in much the same way, and taoism traditionally is not even a "God" centered religion.

My point is that we can acknowledge our superstitions AS superstitions even as we practice them.

We know as a taoist/christian, whatever that means, that you are predisposed to the notion that a god HAS to exist, but in reality it does not. Not in a spiritual sense, not in a philosophical sense, not in a literal sense. I love the sense of gentle compassion for the ignorant I detect in the tones of the apologists. We aren't the ones that beleive in magic and mysticism, souls and karmas and chis and thetans. We beleive and agknowledge what is real and substantial. By the very nature of your explanation, God is complex, God is dynamic, he exists in a philosophical sense, he expresses his self through trees and oceans, God is insubstantial. It's all nonsense. The ocean is a mass of salinated water that covers most of the Earth. The trees are photosynthetic organisms. The mountains are formations of rock caused by volcanoes, tectonic shifts and other natural events. Basically, using your logic, I could say atheism is an expression of God.