Would you buy it?

[Meow Mix]

Haha thanks for being frank here. There are quite a few folks on here who think that being spiritual and wise means saying a lot of nothing. The more words you can use to communicate nothing, the more spiritual you are.

I agree, it drives me absolutely crazy. Have you read Martin Gardner's articles on the vagueness of Krishnumarti or however his name is spelled? Those were a riot. They can be found in his book "Are Universes Thicker Than Blackberries?"

 

[strikeviperMKII]

If you're saying theism is justified through some kind of sensory perception that's all you had to say, rather than paragraphs of nebulous mysticism.

Anyway, if you can't smell then you don't have a lot of room to talk about the qualia of smells, but you can certainly confirm that odors exist in double blinded experiments with people who do claim to have this sense (smelling) that you're unfamiliar with and therefore easily establish its efficacy.

It is very easy to say this being someone who can smell (at least I assume you can). Not so easy when you are on the other side. I have to take their word for it that they are smelling, because I have no idea what smelling actually is. You do, because you can smell, but I don't, because I can't. All I have is your word.
Pretty much like God, eh?
Unlike God, however, the reason I can't smell is a physical defect. The reason people can't see God is because they don't. They have the ability to, but they chose not to use it. And until such time that you do use it, and actually see God, all you have is my word that God exists. Who, what, when, where, why and how are all irrelevant questions until you make that choice.

Still not a good analogy for theism, where no such justification has occurred.[/quote]

 

[Willamena]

I haven't seen the explanation, and everyone I press to give the explanation beats around the bush. It's an old trend by now.

Have you tried searching past threads?

 

[Meow Mix]

It is very easy to say this being someone who can smell (at least I assume you can). Not so easy when you are on the other side. I have to take their word for it that they are smelling, because I have no idea what smelling actually is. You do, because you can smell, but I don't, because I can't. All I have is your word.
Pretty much like God, eh?
Unlike God, however, the reason I can't smell is a physical defect. The reason people can't see God is because they don't. They have the ability to, but they chose not to use it. And until such time that you do use it, and actually see God, all you have is my word that God exists. Who, what, when, where, why and how are all irrelevant questions until you make that choice.

Again, you missed the point when I mentioned pre-emptively that you could indeed verify that smelling is efficacious through experiment even if you can't smell yourself.

Not so with theism.

So the analogy is entirely misplaced, and doesn't in any way demonstrate how theism might be justified.

 

[Meow Mix]

Have you tried searching past threads?

Yeah, I've started many myself. Still no justifications for theism. Still just a bunch of beating around the bush when people are asked simply and directly.

 

[Willamena]

Yeah, I've started many myself. Still no justifications for theism. Still just a bunch of beating around the bush when people are asked simply and directly.

Oh well.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Again, you missed the point when I mentioned pre-emptively that you could indeed verify that smelling is efficacious through experiment even if you can't smell yourself.

Not so with theism.

So the analogy is entirely misplaced, and doesn't in any way demonstrate how theism might be justified.

Did you miss the part when I said I wasn't trying to explain that? I am trying to explain why believing in some mythical box(God/gods) with strange properties is not the same as religion. Did you not read that?

 

[Meow Mix]

Oh well.

You seemed familiar with some if I interpreted your context correctly -- happen to recall the gyst of any?

 

[Meow Mix]

Did you miss the part when I said I wasn't trying to explain that? I am trying to explain why believing in some mythical box(God/gods) with strange properties is not the same as religion. Did you not read that?

Let's start over. Why do you say there is a difference between belief in the box and religion?

I can think of many religions, all of which make ontological claims without forthcoming justification. I don't see how it's different from the box. Some of your explanations are so nebulous that I can't derive any meaning from them so maybe try different wording or something? I'm not trying to be dense. It just seems so straightforward and I don't see why we're going in circles.

For something to be rational to believe it must be justified. How is theism justified?

 

[Wotan]

"The reason people can't see God is because they don't. They have the ability to, but they chose not to use it. And until such time that you do use it, and actually see God, all you have is my word that God exists. Who, what, when, where, why and how are all irrelevant questions until you make that choice."

And you know this how?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

You see it as a strawman because you think God is a end. God is a means. God is the action, not the direct object or the subject.

Another cognitively empty point.

Do you have anything coherent to say?

-Q

 

[Willamena]

You seemed familiar with some if I interpreted your context correctly -- happen to recall the gyst of any?

Would it help? Or would it rub up against a paradigm that interprets it as nonsense and dismisses it as meaningless?

Gyst: "god" is not an ontological claim, it is a symbol that underlines the uncertainty that axiomatic existence engenders. Dissolving the arbitrary barriers we have established between ourselves and reality --such as between subject and object, mind and body --lends itself to understanding the religious symbolism that represents god/reality/the world/creation/whatever people want to call it. We've constructed "boxes" of understanding that keep us apart from the world. Religion is about reconnecting with the world.

This isn't a justification, it's a description. The justification for reality is up to each of us.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Another cognitively empty point.

Do you have anything coherent to say?

-Q

Another blind reply.

Open your eyes already.

 

[Thief]

Your beliefs are not proof anything but your ability to believe in things.



No it is proof of motion and NOTHING ELSE.

The god part is the belief that you have and in NO WAY proof of anything.

-Q

This is the worst of shallow retorts I've seen in a long time.

 

[Meow Mix]

Would it help? Or would it rub up against a paradigm that interprets it as nonsense and dismisses it as meaningless?

Gyst: "god" is not an ontological claim, it is a symbol that underlines the uncertainty that axiomatic existence engenders. Dissolving the arbitrary barriers we have established between ourselves and reality --such as between subject and object, mind and body --lends itself to understanding the religious symbolism that represents god/reality/the world/creation/whatever people want to call it. We've constructed "boxes" of understanding that keep us apart from the world. Religion is about reconnecting with the world.

This isn't a justification, it's a description. The justification for reality is up to each of us.

You're right, it isn't really a justification -- but I thought you said there were valid justifications that I could find and that you could give the gyst for?

It isn't that I'm stuck in a box or a paradigm by requesting justification and then dismissing things which aren't in fact justifications: people don't get to make up whatever they think is a justification, as I've pointed out before. Coin flipping isn't a justifier; nor is believing without evidence, nor are any fallacies. What justification "is" is universal, but you seem to be insinuating that we each have our own realities where we personally define for ourselves what justification is.

That is incorrect. Justification is the same for me as it is for anyone; and justifiers are either valid or not (in which case they aren't justifiers at all).

So.....................

Is there any justification for theism? Why can't anyone answer this question without doing proverbial loops in the air?

 

[Wotan]

"Is there any justification for theism? Why can't anyone answer this question without doing proverbial loops in the air?"

The only I have ever seen and the only for which I have ANY respect runs something like this:

'I believe in my conception of god because doing so makes sense to me. I derive satisfaction and some moral guidance from doing so. It also comforts me to think my loved ones are not truly gone and we all will be reunited in the future.
I make no claim my god is or should be real to you or that you are morally deficient for failing to believe.'

​

Now that position makes sense to me. I don't believe the 1st letter of it but I can understand why someone would believe it. And as long as they don't insist others believe it also - we're good.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Another blind reply.

Open your eyes already.

Oooo oooo oooo does this mean you have some proof i can see?

-Q

 

[The Neo Nerd]

This is the worst of shallow retorts I've seen in a long time.

Hey don't grumpy with me princess.

All i did was point out where you are attaching meaning where there is none.

It's not my fault your argument is STUPID.

-Q

 

[Willamena]

You're right, it isn't really a justification -- but I thought you said there were valid justifications that I could find and that you could give the gyst for?

There are, and no, I'm not willing to put that kind of time in when other threads and authors say it far better than I could. As I said, it's a bit more involved than can be explained in one post.

What justification "is" is universal, but you seem to be insinuating that we each have our own realities where we personally define for ourselves what justification is.

We each have our understanding, our unique construct of the world, that interprets reality for us. That interprets "is" for us. Justification is. Universal is. I'm a huge fan of the Only One reality.

That is incorrect. Justification is the same for me as it is for anyone; and justifiers are either valid or not (in which case they aren't justifiers at all).

If you say so. (Literally.)

So.....................

Is there any justification for theism? Why can't anyone answer this question without doing proverbial loops in the air?

Attempts to begin a justification, on this thread, have been dismissed as nonsensical. So, from what I see for the theists, what's the point? What's in it for them?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Oooo oooo oooo does this mean you have some proof i can see?

-Q

Proof of what?