You say that there is a god...

[Aupmanyav]

Not sure I got an answer. Is that a (a)Yes, (b)No, (c)I'm not sure what I was talking about, (d)Okay evidence isn't always pinned down to science., (e)I forgot what we were talking about and keep thinking about Hinduism.. Which?

We were talking about evidence (Pramana) in Hinduism. I follow Advaita (non-duality, all things in the universe being composed of just one entity without any exception) but without considering Brahman as God or Supreme Spirit.
Evidence points to there being just one thing at the time of 'inflation', and that was 'physical energy'.
I do not take anything as granted without checking for evidence (that includes science theories as well as scriptures).

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

We were talking about evidence (Pramana) in Hinduism. I follow Advaita (non-duality, all things in the universe being composed of just one entity without any exception) but without considering Brahman as God or Supreme Spirit.

"While the number of pramanas varies widely from system to system, many ancient and medieval Indian texts identify six pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths: Three central pramanas which are almost universally accepted, which are perception (Sanskrit pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and "word", meaning the testimony of past or present reliable experts (Śabda); and more contentious ones, which are comparison and analogy (upamāna), postulation, derivation from circumstances (arthāpatti), and non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi). Each of these are further categorized in terms of conditionality, completeness, confidence and possibility of error, by each school of Indian philosophies."

Pramana - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In my personal philosophy, I do not accept Arthapatti* and Śabda ('word', scriptures, the testimony of past or present reliable experts) without questioning.
* Arthapatti: knowledge arrived at through presumption or postulation.

I don't know how many people are even aware of this interpretation of physics. Or how much of the Trimurti anyone in the west explores/researches. I like it, but I'm an odd one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't know how many people are even aware of this interpretation of physics. Or how much of the Trimurti anyone in the west explores/researches. I like it, but I'm an odd one.

Yeah, what I believe can only be accepted by the odd ones and not the hoi polloi. Thanks for appreciating it.

I tried searching for the unfindable one. But then I found it,, and almost disappeared in a puff of logic. That really stung! Never again.

Check again. The undefinable one may not be like what you are searching for. That is why you can't get hold of it.

 

[nPeace]

That's quite all right - philosophy seeks to discover "truth" through argument and logic.
Science seeks to discover "truth" through empiricism and experimentation.*

Depending on what you're looking for the "truth" of, you need the right tool for the job.

*(perhaps ironically, what is "truth" itself is a philosophical, not scientific, question)

Are you sure? Because I really don't find this to be true.
For example, people do experiences every day, and they are not scientists... but they find the truth that way.
Scientists cannot use experimentation in many areas... moreso having to do with past events, and they use philosophy to solve that problem.
I think people are trying to hard in this day and age, to promote Scientism - a religion of itself. Maybe not deliberately, but caught up in the spirit - the air, of this world.
I'm glad the Christian (true Christian) has been warned, and take the warning seriously, since they know who controls this world.

(Colossians 2:8) Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

 

[nPeace]

OK. I referred you to the thread, which to the best of my ability to discern, does not contain the answer the other poster was seeking. He didn't see one, and neither did I. What I did see is hundreds of words from you that never contain that answer or a link to it, yet you claim that the words are in there somewhere. You're basically saying that you have answered the question but don't feel like supporting the claim. That's fine, but you should expect the claim to be rejected, especially when it would be so easy for you to do that if such an answer existed in the thread.

Do you recall during the J6 hearings, there was a strange meeting in the White House in which Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani were asking White House counsel Pat Cipollone and White House lawyer Eric Herschmann to act based in evidence they claimed to have but hadn't produced. The attorneys demanded to see the evidence first, but kept getting excuses. Turns out, there was none, and this is why a critical thinker and empiricist needs to see the evidence, not just claims that it's out there somewhere.

This is the kind of thing I mean. Look at how much you wrote, yet never provided the material or a link to it. And I assume that you never will. Notice that I don't ask you for it. I only mentioned what resulted from not producing it - rejection of the claim.

This is why I recommended taking the tack I did when somebody ignores a question repeatedly. Just answer for them allowing them to falsify your answer if it is incorrect, and then move on. You didn't do that. All you've done is to claim that you did give the requested answer, which has no persuasive power and was rejected. That's as fair as one can be. You have the power to prove your point if you are correct. If not, your only options are to not answer at all, agree that you never did answer him, or vamping as you're doing here. Since you have chosen to not produce evidence in support of your claim, this discussion has come to a resolution. Your insufficiently evidenced claim was rejected.

If you claim that someone robbed you, and pointed out the person, but cannot produce one shred of evidence of what the person robbed you of, that person does not need to pay you any mind. Case dismissed... Regardless of what you have in your mind.

 

[nPeace]

We were talking about evidence (Pramana) in Hinduism. I follow Advaita (non-duality, all things in the universe being composed of just one entity without any exception) but without considering Brahman as God or Supreme Spirit.
Evidence points to there being just one thing at the time of 'inflation', and that was 'physical energy'.
I do not take anything as granted without checking for evidence (that includes science theories as well as scriptures).

How does that help me understand the answer to my question?

 

[lukethethird]

Are you sure? Because I really don't find this to be true.
For example, people do experiences every day, and they are not scientists... but they find the truth that way.
Scientists cannot use experimentation in many areas... moreso having to do with past events, and they use philosophy to solve that problem.
I think people are trying to hard in this day and age, to promote Scientism - a religion of itself. Maybe not deliberately, but caught up in the spirit - the air, of this world.
I'm glad the Christian (true Christian) has been warned, and take the warning seriously, since they know who controls this world.

(Colossians 2:8) Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

Trying to undermine science in order to support your view doesn't work here. I'm not a scientist but I simply look to the sciences to see what discoveries they have made regarding a lot of things. I also read news items and check out weather forecasts, no need to get all airy fairy about the truth because truths sometimes turn out to be false, therefore I see no virtue in holding firmly to my beliefs because my beliefs can be wrong. Medieval mindsets get us nowhere.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are you sure? Because I really don't find this to be true.
For example, people do experiences every day, and they are not scientists... but they find the truth that way.

"People do experiences"?

Did you mean to say "experiments"? If so, what's the problem? You don't need to be a scientist to use the scientific method.

Scientists cannot use experimentation in many areas... moreso having to do with past events, and they use philosophy to solve that problem.

Scientists can use experimentation having to do with present events, and in so doing, rely on a philosophical axoim: The notion that the laws of physics were the same in the past as they are in the present.

I can study a set of footprints in the dirt in the present, and give an approximate answer regarding when they were made in the past, as well as the species, size, and speed of whatever made them.

Knowing in the present that the half-life of, let's say Carbon-14, is 5,7,30 years, and assuming that rate has remained constant (why would it not?), means that radiocarbon dating is a pretty reliable means of determining the age of something organic... as far back as 60,000 years.

Different methods must be used for older things, but the principles remain the same. The world, far from being ruled by the whims of a vain and capricious deity, is organized according to a series of rules and principles, as knowable as mathematics, and as regular as clockwork.

I think people are trying to hard in this day and age, to promote Scientism - a religion of itself. Maybe not deliberately, but caught up in the spirit - the air, of this world.

Scientism is really more of a philosophy than a religion... but the fact that I've seen the term "religion" used in a dismissive or derogatory way -- often by religious people -- never ceases to amuse me.
But I digress.

I'm glad the Christian (true Christian) has been warned, and take the warning seriously, since they know who controls this world.

Ah, but only the True Christian... a very important distinction, is it not?

(Colossians 2:8) Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

But the world is where we currently live, and those who know little to nothing about this world have their credibility regarding the next one to be more or less shot:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?" -- St. Augustine

 

[dybmh]

What do you say to somebody like me who HAS shared in that experience and dismisses the believer's interpretation of it because of what he learned then?

Don't project your experience onto others.

I once would have told you that I knew God (the Holy Spirit) directly and immediately...I came to understand what I had actually been experiencing and misunderstanding was a product of my own mind

Don't project your misunderstanding onto others. If you have a history of misunderstanding yourself and your own experiences, then that needs to be considered before making assumptions about other people and their experiences.

 

[dybmh]

Trying to undermine science in order to support your view doesn't work here. I'm not a scientist but I simply look to the sciences to see what discoveries they have made regarding a lot of things. I also read news items and check out weather forecasts, no need to get all airy fairy about the truth because truths sometimes turn out to be false, therefore I see no virtue in holding firmly to my beliefs because my beliefs can be wrong. Medieval mindsets get us nowhere.

Oh. Your beliefs could be wrong?

Your God is all in your head. No place for a God or Heaven has been observed out there so scientific researchers in the behavioral studies have turned their attention to beliefs, it turns out that you as a believer are an interesting study.

So what's with this immature certainty? All you're saying above is it cannot be observed right now. I have a birthmark you cannot observe right now. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The physical universe could be a bubble. You're living in that bubble. The shell around the bubble is black. You can't observe through it. Everything in science is like that. It's just describing what's happening in this bubble of a physical universe.

If you don't care what's beyond the bubble, that's a statement of your own values. If you choose disbelieve that anything could ever be outside the bubble, that's also a statement of your values. And also a lack of creativity.

But claiming It doesn't exist because people can't observe it? That's the epitome of primitive thinking.

 

[lukethethird]

Oh. Your beliefs could be wrong?



So what's with this immature certainty? All you're saying above is it cannot be observed right now. I have a birthmark you cannot observe right now. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The physical universe could be a bubble. You're living in that bubble. The shell around the bubble is black. You can't observe through it. Everything in science is like that. It's just describing what's happening in this bubble of a physical universe.

If you don't care what's beyond the bubble, that's a statement of your own values. If you choose disbelieve that anything could ever be outside the bubble, that's also a statement of your values. And also a lack of creativity.

But claiming It doesn't exist because people can't observe it? That's the epitome of primitive thinking.

It's because all claims so far of God and Heaven are ambiguous and incoherent. What am I to believe exactly? People read The Bible and want to play a role in the big story by pretending that what they read is all real. Sorry, not interested in playing the role.

 

[nPeace]

"People do experiences"?

Did you mean to say "experiments"? If so, what's the problem? You don't need to be a scientist to use the scientific method.

Yes, I meant experiments, and yes, you don't need to be a scientist to use the scientific method.

Scientists can use experimentation having to do with present events, and in so doing, rely on a philosophical axoim: The notion that the laws of physics were the same in the past as they are in the present.

I can study a set of footprints in the dirt in the present, and give an approximate answer regarding when they were made in the past, as well as the species, size, and speed of whatever made them.

Knowing in the present that the half-life of, let's say Carbon-14, is 5,7,30 years, and assuming that rate has remained constant (why would it not?), means that radiocarbon dating is a pretty reliable means of determining the age of something organic... as far back as 60,000 years.

Different methods must be used for older things, but the principles remain the same. The world, far from being ruled by the whims of a vain and capricious deity, is organized according to a series of rules and principles, as knowable as mathematics, and as regular as clockwork.

So long as we agree that those question that cannot be answered scientifically, are answered philosophically... in science.

Scientism is really more of a philosophy than a religion... but the fact that I've seen the term "religion" used in a dismissive or derogatory way -- often by religious people -- never ceases to amuse me.
But I digress.

What do you understand religion to be?

Ah, but only the True Christian... a very important distinction, is it not?

It is. Yes.

But the world is where we currently live, and those who know little to nothing about this world have their credibility regarding the next one to be more or less shot:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?" -- St. Augustine

Everything has a place in this vast universe. We just need to recognize where each fits.

 

[nPeace]

Don't project your experience onto others.



Don't project your misunderstanding onto others. If you have a history of misunderstanding yourself and your own experiences, then that needs to be considered before making assumptions about other people and their experiences.

Winner

 

[Orbit]

Don't project your experience onto others.



Don't project your misunderstanding onto others. If you have a history of misunderstanding yourself and your own experiences, then that needs to be considered before making assumptions about other people and their experiences.

It's pretty arrogant of you to tell someone that their experience of their own experience is wrong.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

What do you say to somebody like me who HAS shared in that experience and dismisses the believer's interpretation of it because of what he learned then? I once would have told you that I knew God (the Holy Spirit) directly and immediately. I became a Christian (formerly self-identifying as atheist) in the service. It was a feeling that was most intense during the church services in that, my first church. It was a feeling of warmth, connectedness, and belonging, and my charismatic pastor was able to whip his congregation into a euphoric state singing, standing, clapping, shouting out amens.

It was only after discharge and my return to my home state, when I tested about a half dozen other congregations, and found them all to be dead that I came to understand what I had actually been experiencing and misunderstanding was a product of my own mind and not what I had thought. If it had been the Holy Spirit before, and if the religion were true, it would have followed me. Today, I understand all claims of experiencing gods in that light - people misunderstanding spiritual experiences and an attributing a loving, conscious agency to them.

I still have that experience - fairly regularly - but I don't interpret it in terms of gods anymore.

Assuming that they aren't just saying what they think they are expected to say and actually sense something they are calling a god, my answer is the one I just gave. They are misinterpreting spiritual experiences. I proposed to my future wife early in my Christian walk while sitting on the barracks step when suddenly, crepuscular rays shone down through the clouds, and almost as suddenly, I understood this to be a message from God. I was predisposed to think that way.

The marriage was terrible and ended in divorce not long after our return home from the military after I had time to understand what had happened and realized that I was in a bad marriage with a frigid, eccentric woman incapable of love or affection. That's what faith also has people doing. Happy ending: I remarried, but this time based in evidence. This time, I knew her. I had lived with her and has sexual relations BEFORE marrying, and made a decision based in evidence that time. That was 33 years ago, and we are still happily married and love one another.

Do you mean the impact of such belief or impact due to gods themselves? Probably.

Yes, the belief has impact in many lives, sometimes for the better. We have at least three RF posters who owe their sobriety to AA and a god belief. It makes many trust in faith, read Bibles, pray, go to churches, and give them money. You can judge for yourself whether that is good for them or not. It also makes some homophobes, atheophobes, misogynists, and anti-intellectual. And you just read how such a belief impacted my life.

You've asked several times. You probably realize that if you don't get an answer after two tries, you won't. So what to do? Keep asking? Drop it? I've chosen to just answer for them. I tell them what I believe is the correct answer and offer them a chance to correct me if they want to, which would be the answer I was seeking. Either way, the matter has come to a resolution. It's hard to believe that if one's offered answer was way off, that it wouldn't be corrected, or that if it isn't corrected, it wasn't on target.

Let's try it. Instead of a fourth or sixth round of "where is your science for a god," change that to, "You have no science. If you did, I'd probably already know it and be a theist myself, and in case I didn't, you'd have posted it already." Now, you've come to a resolution.

Why call that god given the baggage that word carries? As you undoubtedly know, Einstein used the word poetically ("God does not play dice") and it's still causing confusion.

That's the god of Abraham, who has billions of adherents across a few religions including the world's two largest.

He didn't ask you that. He asked why those who say they know gods exist think they know that and why they should be believed.

Same answer. He asked you if you say that you know gods exist, why you think you do so that he can decide whether you have a good argument to justify your claim.

Same thing. He's not asking you what you think you know, but why you think it's knowledge rather than a comforting, unfalsifiable claim.

You didn't ask me, but that is my definition of an atheist - a person with no god belief.

I call such a person an atheist. That's because I don't care how many people reject god claims, but rather, because I care about what fraction of the total hold them, and more specifically, what fraction believe in the Christian god (and vote accordingly) as we watch these religious self-identification surveys evolve. That interest will disappear once these religions have shrunken sufficiently that they only affect their adherents and volunteers and are pockets of theism in a secular humanist landscape with no more cultural hegemony that the Muslims and Druids, who to my knowledge have never influenced a Supreme Court decision or the outcome of a presidential election in the States, enjoy in Western democracies.

Should a small child be called an atheist? I don't care either way. It doesn't matter if you call him an atheist or not. And of course, dogs and rocks also don't hold god beliefs, but nobody cares or wants to define them in terms of god beliefs. Nevertheless, if we want to limit atheism to mean only those who have heard and rejected god claims, we can define it as the set of people who answer "No" to the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods?"

Winner frubal.

 

[dybmh]

It's because all claims so far of God and Heaven are ambiguous and incoherent. What am I to believe exactly? People read The Bible and want to play a role in the big story by pretending that what they read is all real. Sorry, not interested in playing the role.

"all claims" assumes you have heard it all. My claims about God are not incoherent. The problem is it takes a long time to explain them.

 

[lukethethird]

"all claims" assumes you have heard it all. My claims about God are not incoherent. The problem is it takes a long time to explain them.

Believe me, I have heard them all. By any coincidence, does your God have the same morals as you?

 

[dybmh]

It's pretty arrogant of you to tell someone that their experience of their own experience is wrong.

HE said it. not me. Please read the quote I replied to:

I once would have told you that I knew God (the Holy Spirit) directly and immediately...I came to understand what I had actually been experiencing and misunderstanding was a product of my own mind

 

[dybmh]

Believe me, I have heard them all.

LOL. Wow. OK. Please tell the how an absolutely infinite God created a universe of material multiplicty.

By any coincidence, does your God have the same morals as you?

Better than me.

 

[dybmh]

@Sgt. Pepper,

I see you thumbed up @Orbit's post accusing me of being arrogant. Did you read the quote from @It Aint Necessarily So where he, himself, said he misunderstood his own experience? I didn't say it. HE said it. See below:

I once would have told you that I knew God (the Holy Spirit) directly and immediately...I came to understand what I had actually been experiencing and misunderstanding was a product of my own mind