Rehash god/proof debate

[F1fan]

The only one i have to prove my self to is Allah.

That surely keeping your mind busy playing both roles.

What others believe about my faith and belief is up to them. I already have answer to believe in Allah

And your personal belief is completely irrelevant to anyone else. Your belief isn't going to persuade Christians to dump jesus. Your belief isn't compelling enough to convince objective thinkers you're correct. You're not enough of a celebrity to attract followers.

So now that we all know you believe in Allah you won't mention it again?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's how God exists by a profound belief that impacts their lives

No. It's the belief that does that. Not the subject of the belief.

I'm not denying beliefs can have impact. They obviously do. Demonstrably so. All the time.
And we have precedents that this is true, regardless of the beliefs being true or false.

What other proof could their be for anything outside their personal experiences?

Huh? I don't understand the question.

Why so?

Why not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God is just a label. I can claim Zenophone exists but can't provide evidence unless the other has some idea of what he wants evidence for.

Regardless.

It's a thing that is claimed. No evidence is given to rationally justify accepting the claim. Instead, it can only be "believed". On faith or whatever.

That's the analogy.
It's a bit pointless trying to argue the analogy, especially in ways it wasn't even intended.

The analogy is claiming X exists while failing to provide sufficient evidence to rationally justify accepting the claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why?

Because that's how rationality works.

It is a personal belief, does not harm anyone

I heavily disagree, but you know that.

In any case, considering the actual claim (of entities existing in objective reality), it is rather strange, to say the least, to say that it is a "personal belief" and that "faith" is required or whatever.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That surely keeping your mind busy playing both roles.


And your personal belief is completely irrelevant to anyone else. Your belief isn't going to persuade Christians to dump jesus. Your belief isn't compelling enough to convince objective thinkers you're correct. You're not enough of a celebrity to attract followers.

So now that we all know you believe in Allah you won't mention it again?

I have no reason to attack others, there might be question that arise, I can ask, but not like critique no.

Why would I not speak about or mention Allah in a religious forum? But I do not have to force my belief on other believers or atheists for that matter.

As a sufi I do not know it all, so there are still unanswered question i have.

 

[viole]

Why would the nature of profound experience depend on how other christians think?

Standard of proof isn't from others.

I am just observing that claims of God having changed lives profoundly, are issued by believers in mutually exclusive Gods. Gods that cannot be true at the same time. Therefore, at least one of the claimer is simply deluded, which renders such subjective claims useless as evidence of any God doing such things, in general.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is why I find it useful when someone starts talking about God to ask "what do you mean by 'God'?"

The same applies to objective reality as independent of the mind, as that is unknowable. That is how you get this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am just observing that claims of God having changed lives profoundly, are issued by believers in mutually exclusive Gods. Gods that cannot be true at the same time. Therefore, at least one of the claimer is simply deluded, which renders such subjective claims useless as evidence of any God doing such things, in general.

Ciao

- viole

Okay, I don't know that the world is metaphysically natural. Now prove it or you could be deluded, because it could be unknown unknown and you claim it is known, thus you could be deluded. At least it is possible if you can't prove metaphysical naturalism as nobody have done it before.

 

[viole]

Okay, I don't know that the world is metaphysically natural. Now prove it or you could be deluded, because it could be unknown unknown and you claim it is known, thus you could be deluded. At least it is possible if you can't prove metaphysical naturalism as nobody have done it before.

Of course I could be deluded. However, I would never use subjective experiences to prove that the world is ontologically naturalistic. Or that my life has changed dramatically because the world is naturalistic. So, I am not sure what your point is, since my critique is directed at claims of existence based on subjective experiences, or lives changed, etc.

My point is that once you do that (use subjective experiences, responses to prayers, etc), you have absolute logical guarantee that all ,except at most one class of believers in the same God, are deluding themselves.

But this is valid in general. If 50% of people believe in God X, and 50% believe in God Y, and X and Y cannot be true at the same time, than, at least 50% of people are simply deluding themselves. Necessarily. Ergo, belief in a type of God, based on such type of "evidence", is rationally untenable.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course I could be deluded. However, I would never use subjective experiences to prove that the world is ontologically naturalistic. Or that my life has changed dramatically because the world is naturalistic. So, I am not sure what your point is, since my critique is directed at claims of existence based on subjective experiences, or lives changed, etc.

My point is that once you do that (use subjective experiences, responses to prayers, etc), you have absolute logical guarantee that all ,except at most one class of believers in the same God, are deluding themselves.

But this is valid in general. If 50% of people believe in God X, and 50% believe in God Y, and X and Y cannot be true at the same time, than, at least 50% of people are simply deluding themselves. Necessarily. Ergo, belief in a type of God, based on such type of "evidence", is rationally untenable.

Ciao

- viole

So you don't have evidence or proof of metaphysical naturism?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Something CT made me think....

What proof do nonbelievers (to whom this question is appropriate) want for god?

Why wouldn't proof be how it chances a person's life and not something explained objectively?

If something changed your life profoundly, would you use logic to verify your experiences, or?

There was a change in your life and you attributed it to god. That doesn't mean that god was actually involved. I could just as easily claim that there was a change in my life and I attribute it to magical pixies. Just because I THINK it was because of magical pixies doesn't mean it actually WAS magical pixies.

 

[viole]

So you don't have evidence or proof of metaphysical naturism?

Usually naturism can only be physical. No idea what metaphysical naturism is. Some sort of spiritual nudity?

But if you mean metaphysical natuRALism, then I have no proof, since it is a philosophical position. But I can defend it using logic, and the principle of parsimony.

Ciao

- viole

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Mountains of dinosaur bones (buried in strata) could have been made with a blink of God's eyes (like Jeannie). After all, he made the incredibly huge and complex universe. But why the deception? Why make us think that dinosaurs were around millions of years ago? Well, for one thing, God wants freedom of choice (believe or not in God, and do evil or good). If it was obvious to anyone that God made fake dinosaur bones, then there would be no argument about belief. On the other hand, if dinosaurs really did roam the earth, then evolution is likely correct.

My argument is not that a deity couldn't have been a grand deceiver. In fact, I mentioned that apart from superhuman aliens, that is pretty much all that we would be left with if evolution were falsified - a naturalistic or supernaturalistic intelligent designer that wanted man to believe that life on earth evolved as Darwin suggested it did, and went to great trouble to perpetuate the ruse. The existing evidence doesn't disappear. It just needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying finding.

But such a deceptive god is descriptive of mischievous gods like Loki, not the god of the Christian Bible.

So the knowledge/understanding I gained in spiritual practice is about my own being and what I have to change. It is an on going prosess that will take a long time to solve. The more I digg, the more I find that must change.

I asked you to describe what you call spiritual knowledge that you have received, because I suspect that it is not different from what anybody leading a mindful, self-examined life learns. The question is already basically rhetorical, like the question of what is somebody's evidence for God. Eventually, one realizes that he will never get a good or useful answer, and must decide for himself what that implies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Usually naturism can only be physical. No idea what metaphysical naturism is. Some sort of spiritual nudity?

Ciao

- viole

So how come it reads Viole Metaphysical Naturalist?

 

[viole]

So how come it reads Viole Metaphysical Naturalist?

You asked about naturism, not naturalism. The former is a lifestyle where you go around naked. The latter is a philosophical position.

Not the same things

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You asked about naturism, not naturalism. The former is a lifestyle where you go around naked. The latter is a philosophical position.

Not the same things

Ciao

- viole

Okay, and now I ask about the latter.

 

[sun rise]

Catching up:

If a person was interested in spirituality as you understand it,would it be possible to give evidence to those with genuine interest?

From an experiential viewpoint, yes, including meeting someone who showed that he knew my thoughts (most disconcerting) by reacting instantly to something I was thinking multiple times, knowing that a friend in India had died just at the time she actually died, knowing that someone not in the body was in the room a couple of days before my father-in-law who was with us died, and so forth.

Can you provide a proper source for one of these events?

You are asking about what are called "veridical" NDEs

I suggest Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality as a starting point. There are also papers such as https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799169/m2/1/high_res_d/vol11-no4-223.pdf but from a careful review I would call it an unproven hypothesis but one with some evidence.

Before I can answer your question I need a clear definition of the real God you speak of so that when I find a real suspect I can determine whether it's God or not.

One approach is panpsychism, the idea that the universe itself is conscious. There's a lot of reference on the internet to this including this from Scientific American. I would call that, God manifest and thus the "suspect" is everything that exists.

 

[rrobs]

Plenty of people's lives have been profoundly changed by fictitious stories, conspiracy theories, and blatant lies.

Does that mean that unicorns are real, and the Elders of Zion really are plotting world domination?

Who claims their life was changed by a unicorn? I never met anyone like that. I suppose out of 7 billion people a few folks might claim their life was changed by a unicorn, but it wouldn't be close to the billions of Christians whose life was profoundly changed by Jesus Christ.

I understand that the number of people believing one way or the other is not conclusive, but it can't be discounted either. It does have some weight to it.

 

[Kooky]

Who claims their life was changed by a unicorn?

You don't believe that faith (or if you will, superstition) in fairies and other supernatural creatues had an effect on how people acted? Did they not inspire daily little house rituals that were common long into the arrival of Christianity as the official state religion of many areas in Europe?

I never met anyone like that.

And yet, antisemitic beliefs (and by extension, WW2, and the creation of Israel) had a profound effect on the world we live in today.

I suppose out of 7 billion people a few folks might claim their life was changed by a unicorn, but it wouldn't be close to the billions of Christians whose life was profoundly changed by Jesus Christ.

I understand that the number of people believing one way or the other is not conclusive, but it can't be discounted either. It does have some weight to it.

Of course it can be discounted if we choose to do so.


What we are debating here is religious people's desire for their beliefs to be vindicated.
Which means, of course, that this debate is very likely going to be fundamentally fruitless and deeply unproductive, as people will circle around their deeply-held beliefs and fight over elements of their core identities

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who claims their life was changed by a unicorn? I never met anyone like that. I suppose out of 7 billion people a few folks might claim their life was changed by a unicorn, but it wouldn't be close to the billions of Christians whose life was profoundly changed by Jesus Christ.

I understand that the number of people believing one way or the other is not conclusive, but it can't be discounted either. It does have some weight to it.

Yeah, beliefs can help you cope, but that is not limited to Christianity.