[cue spooky music] but... if there was, would "love" be objective or subjective?but there isn't.
(For the record, to me it's a silly question. so... I myself.)
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
[cue spooky music] but... if there was, would "love" be objective or subjective?but there isn't.
Nature is an expression of the model working. It's not been tested, because it can't be tested. Nature exists by virtue of our belief in a particular understanding: once we see the model working, this supports our idea, and we become more certain in our belief.
Earlier you said that a God that is a superfluous piece of the model is not a god concept you believe anyone would invest in. Is nature superfluous to the model?
[cue spooky music] but... if there was, would "love" be objective or subjective?
(For the record, to me it's a silly question. so... I myself.)
Nature. #1I can't even start trying to figure out how to answer that question without knowing what you mean by "nature".
I think I described more than just what my body went through, I think I was describing the experience of the roller coaster ride, or at least that was what I was trying to describe.You are describing what your body went through.
Problem is no person has described that about an experience with God.A person can say that they stood up, went down the isle, got on their knees, prayed..., etc... Describe what you felt inside during a roller coaster ride or describe what you feel inside about anything and that is how you describe an experience with God. If that isn't enough for you, then I don't think that anything can be done about that.
I have described the color blue.Describe how you feel when you are in love.
If there were only one person in the whole universe, would it matter that his feelings were subjective for them to give certainty that whatever is felt about exists?ha ha...
i think it would still be subjective.
If there were only one person in the whole universe, would it matter that his feelings were subjective for them to give certainty that whatever is felt about exists?
Is there a difference?
If I were to feel the precense of a god I think I would be quite convienced that that god actually existed.
I would call that an experience with a god.
It sounds to me like you are repeting 9-10ths_Penguin's argument from post #4 (he just put it better )
9P/10, would you please suggest a definition of "null hypothesis"?Depends on the specifics of the claim. If the claim is of the form "God did 'X'," where 'X' is some event we know did happen, then the null hypothesis would be "God did not do 'X'."
Now you've jumped from one foot to the other. You've based a feeling that god doesn't love you on pain.yes i think so.
and i'll tell you why i think so.
if i am the only person in the universe who feels god loves me, then why am i in pain (as in physical pain)?
The question in the OP was not about any specific god that everyone can experience objectively. It was about what conviences people that their god(s) exist.because feelings are subjective.
if the question is about a god everyone can experience objectively then basing that conviction on ones feelings is not a good indicator of his existence.
which is why i say as the only person in the universe i could understand god's love subjectivelyNow you've jumped from one foot to the other. You've based a feeling that god doesn't love you on pain.
By the way, the OP asks:What makes religious people convienced that god(s) exist?I assume you recognize that not all religious people are convinced.
The question in the OP was not about any specific god that everyone can experience objectively. It was about what conviences people that their god(s) exist.
By the way, I get that if a person feels that something is a certain way then that is probably enough to convience that person that way. At least unless somone else can prove otherwise.
Perhaps I'm using the term 'convinced' incorrectly or, at least, differently. I equate being convinced with certitude, and it is beyond me how anyone can be certain about such a thing.
They can and do, but what does that have to do with my observation that "not all religious people are convinced"?unless you take ones feelings into consideration...feelings are very powerful but they can also cloud ones vision.
They can and do, but what does that have to do with my observation that "not all religious people are convinced"?