You say that there is a god...

[ppp]

Your theories/claims only survive if everyone who has tried to disprove it has failed.

And the claims must have falsifiability criteria.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The Hebrews understood God to mean ‘Lord’ or ‘God’?

Why would I be concerned with what the Hebrews understood?

But I digress. The Hebrews understood el, not god, to mean ‘mighty one’ according to what you posted.

 

[nPeace]

Why would I be concerned with what the Hebrews understood?

But I digress. The Hebrews understood el, not god, to mean ‘mighty one’ according to what you posted.

Not dragging this on, but I just want to mention that whether we say 'el', 'Dios', 'Alláh'... they all mean the same thing.
If we all spoke the same language we would use the same expression.
I'm sure you know this though. Just saying.

Did you know though, that mighty men were refered to as gods, simply due to their 'extraordinary' strengths and abilities?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not dragging this on, but I just want to mention that whether we say 'el', 'Dios', 'Alláh'... they all mean the same thing.
If we all spoke the same language we would use the same expression.
I'm sure you know this though. Just saying.

For the Abrahamic God, I’m certain you would, but the God of Abraham is one of many gods.

Did you know though, that mighty men were refered to as gods, simply due to their 'extraordinary' strengths and abilities?

Sure, but I’m not sure how this is relevant to what we’re discussing.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Correct. Though not so much about authority, as a demonstration of capability.

No. Like you said, we are talking about epistemology. How does one know, and by corrolary, how does one reliably demonstrate (to ones self snd to others) that what one has is knowledge. That a question that transcends a particular stance; materialist or otherwise.


I am making no assertion about the "nature" of what a god must be. I could have replaced the word "god" with any other noun, material or not, and it would not have changed anything.


i guess. But again, I am more focused on demonstraion of ability. Is 'authority' jargon for that?


What? You seem to be saying that whether I accept or reject a proposition is a function of what I desire to be true. Am I reading this correctly?

That is part of what I said, yes.

That I am assuming -I may be doing so incorrectly, of course- that you believe in the scientific standard (procedures/ practices, limits, methods, interpretations, etc.), academically agreed upon for the production of knowledge.

And, I am saying that if this be the case, science is the epistemological authority that you recognise.

Then, I am saying that you either trust that the science that reaches you is carried out to those same standards (those you believe are required for knowledge to be reliable) or you distrust it as science and instead do your own scientific research on the topic in question. I don’t think that you do the latter most of the time, because few of us have the space and resources to do so.

You disagree?

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Twilight Hue]

You're asking where Genesis 1 came from? Or are you asking how God knew what do to create everything? Or are you asking how God did it?

I'm not asking where it came from. It's all definitely originates from the various stories people tell and tell again, which later got written down in its redacted form.

It's the completely missing evidences and things that can be pointed to today that would support those stories other than what other people just say and write about it from legend , myth , and lore.

 

[dybmh]

I'm not asking where it came from. It's all definitely originates from the various stories people tell and tell again, which later got written down in its redacted form.

It's the completely missing evidences and things that can be pointed to today that would support those stories other than what other people just say and write about it from legend , myth , and lore.

So you're asking why are the details missing? Or are you asking for the missing details?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

Spiritual development depends on both the social and subjective. When subjective openness gets closed off, you get hyper focus on the social. And spirituality becomes framed within social persuasion, control, and force.

Materialists in this situation will insist on engaging through rational argumentation on this topic, but it’s not productive due to it’s inherent anti-subjectivity. What is required is drama, in both positive and negative forms. For many, the drama must become a tragedy before they will relent and cease resisting the subjective.

The wise person recognizes this pattern and uses an appropriate fear to spur quick intervention.

 

[ppp]

What? You seem to be saying that whether I accept or reject a proposition is a function of what I desire to be true. Am I reading this correctly?

That is part of what I said, yes.

Well, then you are wrong. There are propositions that I accept as true, but dont like.. And propositions that I reject as true, but do like. This is trivially obvious. Which is why I asked to make sure that I was not misunderstanding you.

That I am assuming -I may be doing so incorrectly, of course- that you believe in the scientific standard (procedures/ practices, limits, methods, interpretations, etc.), academically agreed upon for the production of knowledge.

I believe that the scientific method is our most reliable method for determining facts about the shared reality with which we are presented. I would caution you from reading more into that than what I said.

And, I am saying that if this be the case, science is the epistemological authority that you recognise.

Again, I do not know what you mean by authority. I am leery of your usage of the word as lacks definition and I suspect it bears hidden assumptions. Please provide a definition. Not an example.

I would point out that I accept that you know when you are in pain, yet pain is neither objective, no quantifiable.

Then, I am saying that you either trust that the science that reaches you is carried out to those same standards (those you believe are required for knowledge to be reliable) or you distrust it as science and instead do your own scientific research on the topic in question. I don’t think that you do the latter most of the time, because few of us have the space and resources to do so.

I trust that the scientific process we have in place is generally reliable and useful. My levels of trust and (separately) comprehension is going to vary by discipline. and topic.

 

[ppp]

Spiritual development depends on both the social and subjective.

Before I can consider anything you have to say about something "spiritual" I would need to know what you mean by spiritual, and evidence that it exists.

 

[Audie]

I believe you can believe me because I tell the truth. Of course you would have to see my history on here to know that.

What you choose to think is true.

Do you think you are infallible ?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Before I can consider anything you have to say about something "spiritual" I would need to know what you mean by spiritual, and evidence that it exists.

Only because you are captured by the aspect of self that believes this is needed first. There is another aspect of self, though.

 

[Audie]

Only because you are captured by the aspect of self that believes this is needed first. There is another aspect of self, though.

Ah. The grim spectre of obscurantism

 

[ppp]

Only because you are captured by the aspect of self that believes this is needed first. There is another aspect of self, though.

Oh no. Not that. Dearie, me.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Ah. The grim spectre of obscurantism

Thanks for continuing to track and read my posts. It gives me hope for you.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

I see you have seemed to take an agnostic view on this matter. I don't. Whether God exists or not is merely an opinion. I would contend that just by living each and every person experiences a small fraction and unique part of God. I do not separate the self-evident reality from the divine and thus have come to the conclusion that all beings are in some way a manifestation of God. This is an opinion, and I have no way of actually proving this subjective experience towards other people, whether they are skeptics or a believer of a different faith. I stand by this conviction though as it has intrinsically shaped my own understanding of something nobody fully comprehends, including myself. I may not know much, but I know enough to know that something greater than me is currently happening.

 

[ppp]

Ah. The grim spectre of obscurantism

The oil from the liver of a footless reptile will scare that spectre right off for you.

 

[ppp]

I don't. Whether God exists or not is merely an opinion.

No. The truth or falsity of any given god's existence is a matter of fact. To hold a "Yes" or "No" position on that proposition is to hold an opinion. But what actually matters is whether that opinion is justified by demonstrable reason and evidence. Or not.. If not, then there is no reason to take that opinion seriously.

 

[dybmh]

Doesn't mean you werent making Jello with Fruit cocktail eiether. I dont care. Until you can demonstrate something that is positive and definitive and relevant, you are wasting my time.

It's not that difficult to demonstrate understanding of something supra-rational. It happens anytime a person empathizes with another being. Or when they are affected deeply by a piece of art or music. Or when they acknowledge the value and power that comes from strong family and community bonds. It can also be demonstrated in solitude and perseverance against apparently insurrmountable odds.

Someone who can do these things, and most people can and do repeatedly each and evey day, is capable of knowing there is a god. And I think you should be convinced of this, because these people are able to understand and perceive beyond the surface of material objects and events. And that's where evidence of God/a god/ the gods are going to be found. Lacking that understanding and perception means, the person won't be capable of knowing if there is a god.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

No. The truth or falsity of any given god's existence is a matter of fact. To hold a "Yes" or "No" position on that proposition is to hold an opinion. But what actually matters is whether that opinion is justified by demonstrable reason and evidence. Or not.. If not, then there is no reason to take that opinion seriously.

I have heard many atheists argue that if Yahweh exists they wouldn't consider it a God. And neither would I. Whether a being exists or not is factual, but whether or not you consider that being a God is in fact, an opinion. I don't believe Yahweh is either a being that exists nor do I consider Yahweh God if He did, but, there's more layers to what is considered God more than its mere existence. Does reality exist? I would contend that it does. But is God reality? I would say yes, but that's a subjective opinion.