Is Existence the Ultimate Power Over God?

[Fliption]

Any of you trying to convince me that god does exist is doing so in vain. I have come too far. There is no turning back now.

Don't be too sure.

 

[Les Sleeth]

One thing about my atheism is that I did not just pop from a believer to a non believer over night. . . . I have experience the "Christian" side of theism. I have been saved a few times, and yes while I was in church, listening to the preacher I "felt the presence of god".

Your journey toward atheism sounds similar to my own, except I started out an atheist and then became agnostic, figuring that to be logical, I had to admit I never know for certain there was NOT a God, but at that time the evidence I had did not demonstrate there was one. I also put my "faith" in science and physical theory as the basis of existence. But then I had a crisis of faith there too because there are crucial places where physical evidence is lacking. The physicalists ask for more time saying one day they will get that evidence needed for a comprehensive physical theory of existence. I am just as sure physicalists won't get that evidence, but if they do, then I might accept that life and consciousness can evolve without the aid of "something more."

After that realization I came to the conclusion that religion is just a tool to be in touch with the 1 and only "deity" or "higher power". No matter what way you look at it, there is no wrong or right, it is all the same.

That's what people believe religion is, a tool. I am of a different opinion. Say someone believes sacrificing a goat will heal their ailing relative. They can be very sincere in the ritual, they can be devoted to the practice, they can believe with all their heart. Just the sincerity, devotion and deep belief alone can sometimes make one feel better, or want to be a better person, so we can't completely fault the person involved in the ritual.

However, whether or not sacrificing a goat heals relatives is a completely different issue. I think there are a lot of sincere people in religion, but personally I don't see all that much progress toward God realization. So my opinion is that religion might be useful for certain things, but not for God realization.

Have I ever REALLY witnessed a "miracle" (like the ones described so vividly in the religious writings)? Or could everything that I considered to be a miracle in the past possibly be confused with a coincidence?

But see, this is religious belief. Why should miracles have anything to do with God? Because some religion says so? It is not easy to trace how supernaturalism got into, for instance, Christianity. I am convinced Jesus was not some supernatural being, no miracles happened, he did not raise from the dead. Instead, I believe he was "enlightened," and since no one in that area had ever seen someone fully alive within that experience, and because his followers after his death were trying to win converts from very superstitious populations, they enhanced all the stories and rumors about Jesus.

Is there evidence Jesus was enlightened? If you study the history of the pursuit of enlightenment, it is always associated with turning one’s attention inward. Those who practice this way will say that if God exists, it is inside oneself where God is found. So what you look for are people who are trying to get away from the insanity of the world so they can practice this “inner prayer” or deep meditation.

Well, as it turns out, it wasn’t long after Jesus’ death that the great desert monastic populations sprang up. Numerous solitary monks lived in caves and cells in the vast desert wildernesses of eastern Palestine, Sinai, and particularly northern Africa. (The following interpretation of Jesus is from a historical perspective . . . I am not a Christian and am not recommending Christianity.)

A quote from a seventeenth century collection of the life and works of these monks describes their lifestyle: “[One such] place . . . [is] a vast desert . . . reached by no path, nor is the track shown by any landmarks of earth, but one journeys by the signs and courses of the stars. Water is hard to find . . . . [in such a place] those who have had their first initiation and who desire to live a remoter life, stripped of all its trappings, withdraw themselves; for the desert is vast, and the cells are sundered from one another by so wide a space that none is in sight of his neighbor, nor can any voice be heard. One by one they abide in their cells, a mighty silence is among them . . . .”

As difficult as it is to imagine, by the fourth/fifth century, thousands of monks and nuns lived in monasteries from Syria to the Nile. It seems fairly clear that the route all this took was from the desert ascetics and then into the monastery. The desert ascetics were by their own proclamations followers of Jesus, but is there evidence to conclude that Jesus began that pattern of inner prayer with his best devotees?

Yes. Scriptural evidence may point to what someone had to do to receive the inner teaching from Jesus. Besides the twelve closest disciples, Jesus also had quite a few other people following him wherever he went. It is possible that one of the conditions for receiving the inner teaching was a person had to join this full-time following.

The gospels refer on several occasions to Jesus telling people to leave behind their various involvements and follow him. In the “rich man story,” for instance, Jesus tells a rich man who is interested in winning eternal life to, “go, sell everything you have . . . and come follow me.” On the road a man said to Jesus, “I will follow you wherever you go,” and Jesus warned him, “Foxes have their holes, and birds their roosts; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head,” meaning if the man followed he must be prepared to leave behind his comforts since Jesus was perpetually on the road.

To another man Jesus said, “Follow me,” but the man replied, “Let me go and bury my father first,” to which Jesus replied, “Leave the dead to bury their dead; you must go and announce the kingdom of God.” Another potential follower said, “I will follow you, sir, but let me first say goodbye to my people at home.” Jesus replied, “No one who sets his hand to the plough and then keeps looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

In particularly revealing passages Jesus says, “If anyone comes to me and does not renounce his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, even his own life, he cannot be a disciple of mine . . . . So also none of you can be disciples of mine without parting with all his possessions.” Also, according to Luke, there may have been at least seventy full time followers who Jesus “sent . . . on ahead in pairs to every town and place he was going to visit himself.” (Luke 10:1)

So while Paul was diluting the teachings of Jesus for the masses, it seems a few people were relating to Jesus in an entirely different way. I highly recommend studying this other class of inner practitioner and the conscious experience some of them were able to achieve.

Am I able to induce the feeling of "the presence of god" by simply using my imagination to visualize, without being in church, praying, meditating, etc. ? Yes I can.

I know people can visualize, some better than others, but again -- what does this have to do with the experience of God? It doesn’t matter what one relies on that doesn’t work – ritual, chanting, “believing,” speaking in tongues, trance, visualization -- if one is employing some method which doesn’t bring the experience of God, then you can’t go on to conclude no God exists.

I think that if you really want to "prove" that god exists, let it go.

Personally, I don’t think God can be proven or disproved. If a person can learn an actual way to experience this evolved consciousness people like to call God, then they might develop a personal certainty within themselves. But how can someone who is lacking the experience be convinced without his own experience? Only a fool would believe without experience (IMHO) so I think it’s huge waste of time to try to prove to others anything about God.

My efforts here are not to prove, but to get the best evidence before the public. Everybody looks at religion, and that is too bad because I don’t think the evidence is there. Study what university religion departments call “mysticism.” That’s where you find the monks and nuns who turned inward, and that’s where some pretty impressive people and reports are found.

Any of you trying to convince me that god does exist is doing so in vain. I have come too far. There is no turning back now.

Well, I feel compelled to say that’s nonsense. You can turn back, left, right, or any other way any time you want.

You know, you don’t have to be anything! Not an atheist, or theist, or physicalist, or alchemist. . . You could be a seeker of truth, open to any and all evidence, and let that naturally shape your perspective. After debating around here extensively, I find it very rare indeed that someone isn’t arguing from something they already think is true.

They’ve DECIDED yet they don’t really have enough evidence to support it. So to maintain their argument, they only look at what bolsters their a priori beliefs, they try to “dismiss” anything that doesn’t fit, and they spend most of their time trying to “win” debates.

The could instead openly look at all aspects of existence in a sincere search for truth, no matter what that turns out to be. To be that kind of seeker takes real guts.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

No reason to think for yourself when you can simply trust scientists and their conclusions about how things work. I mean, after all, they're right, and those religious people are wrong! The religious people talk of something underneath reality, so they must be wrong because there isn't anything beyond reality right? Of course! that's what scientists say! So why should you believe religion when you can believe science? Why haven't all those stupid religious people figured this out yet? Man Sintwar, you're right, can I hang out with you?! Don't you just hate all those people who believe in something beyond reality? They totally suck! they're all mindless automotons. They're the ones who go into a battle with no chance of survival for the sake of others... what morons! They're so stupid for putting others in front of themselves. Another thing, They're all boring to be around, they're interested in corney meaningless garbage and can't stop themselves from caring about other people's beliefs. Scientists are way cooler to be around, they're always playing twister and football and stuff, and they would never try to persuade me to view reality they way they do.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

of course, you're not trying to persuade anybody to be an atheist are you? I mean, you don't really care about what other people believe right? hmm, I'm confused. You're confusing Sintwar! You probably can't see all the problems in your logic, and that's why you're so sure of yourself.

 

[Les Sleeth]

of course, you're not trying to persuade anybody to be an atheist are you? I mean, you don't really care about what other people believe right? hmm, I'm confused. You're confusing Sintwar! You probably can't see all the problems in your logic, and that's why you're so sure of yourself.

I didn't sense he was trying to convince anyone in his last post, but rather he was explaining how he came to his belief.

I have to say that if one just observes how many of the religious behave, and judges that that's all there was to Jesus or the Buddha or Mohammed or . . . then, atheism seems a reasonable position to take.

A lot of people are very upset with the actions done in the name of God. That's why I think any legitimate discussion about evidence of God has to be done apart from religious dogma and theological supposition. If we can't find some sort of evidence of people who actually have/do experience something behind/underneath physical reality, then the discussion is nothing but one uninformed, speculating side fighting the other uninformed, speculating side.

Another option is to consider the theme of this thread, which is whether God is a redundant concept. It's sort of like the reverse question of the other ongoing thread in this forum "Can Everything be Reduced to Physics." That is, do we need "something more" to account for every facet of existence. In a prior post, I argued that as of now physicalness alone cannot explain everything, and if consciousness evolved first out of the raw stuff of existence, then that would help account for the organizational quality found in biology, and the emergence of consciousness from the nervous system.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I would argue that God is not redundant, and in fact is the prime motivator of all behavior. If we lived in a universe where all things are known and understood fully without the need of God, and humans were 100% rational, then there would be no disagreements since everything is provable. There would be no need to explore the universe since it would all be completely mapped out, and most importantly there would be no need to research theories since theory itself wouldn't exist because everything is factual. If there was no such thing as possibility, the scientific method would become usless. There would be no reason to experiment if the outcome is 100% certain, no reason to continue the persuit of knowledge, no reason to communicate to each other our findings since there is nothing to find. If there is no reason to do anything at all (because in this universe a human is 100% rational), then there is no reason to live, and hence no motivation to behave in any particular way.

If I take out the constraint that humans in this universe are 100% rational, then there is motivation to live even when everything is certain. The only reason to live would be to experience each other. Even this would be ruled out if all humans in this universe are given the ability to know everything in existence, even each other. Then people wouldn't need to be 100% rational in order to have no reason to live because there would be no need to listen to music since all songs are known, no reason to see a movie since all movies are known, no reason to communicate since all people are known, no reason to taste since all tastes are known, no reason to see, smell, touch, hear, or think. In this situation, there is no motivation to do anything... even if you only would want to do something because you like doing it, you would know exactly why and how you like things, and would understand why you develop interests... nope, I can't get around that. I guess there is still motivation to behave in particular ways even in that case because of the desire to do something.

What causes desire?

hmmm... ok, forget the idea of desire for the moment. Suppose in this universe, humans don't have free will, but are (in short) chemical reactions, then there is nothing driving a human to feel a desire of anything since everything is equally known. For example, I'm studying physics because I desire to learn and understand that particular subject, but if I'm in a position where I know all physics, then there is nothing more to know, and my desire is fully satisfied.

back to this hypothetical universe... if a human is given the constratint that he/she has no free will, and lives in a universe that he/she fully knows and understands (no known god that can't be understood, or a fully understood and known god). Then there is nothing that would drive the human's desire to do anything since everything is already done.

So in short, God (or at least the idea of God) is the main motivator of all human behavior. If we didn't have a concept of perfection we wouldn't have a desire to pursue that goal.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

So I guess that's why I'm so sensetive when someone makes the claim that God is redundant. I personally believe that God (wether he/she exists or not) is the opposite of redundant. If life had no conception of a goal, how does it seemingly strive for it? Evolution keeps making more and more complex living things to what end? God? Then again, no two numbers can add up to infinity... So the whole effort that life makes in it's path towards perfection is futile, but nevertheless we exist. We exist, for what reason? To strive for perfection? To know and understand everything? seems futile...

In my opinion, that must not be the case. There are two sides to everything. There is a dark side (where everything is meaningless) and there is a light side (where everything has a reason). So that's why I choose to live as if my purpose is to experience others and have experiances with others, rather than to try to be perfect.

sorry for being such a freakin thorn in all of your sides. I know I'm a total hypocrite for saying some of the things I said above like:

"You probably can't see all the problems in your logic, and that's why you're so sure of yourself."

because this goes both ways, I'm also too sure of myself to see the flaws in my logic. I'm sorry for saying such rude things.

 

[totallyclueless]

I totally agree with you. I don't understand much on here because I'm only in 7th grade. I've been pondering this my whole life but I could never put my gut feelings into words, but you did it. It's interesting...pats for you!

 

[totallyclueless]

Yes, have you ever thought that religion and God were created to explain what is truly unexplainable? In my mind, cavemen were curious about where they came from (the first philosopers, perhaps?) and so they couldn't explain it. They had to make up something, and an all powerful figure, (God,) was the best explanation. For our knowledge, it could be the biggest myth ever! Think about it. Isn't it more comforting to think that no matter what someone loves you even if you can't see Him? Isn't it more comforting to think that when you die you will go somewhere nice and live forever, instead of rot in the ground?
Truth is, we could be a teeny part of another organism for all we know! It's so mind-boggling
But don't pay any attention to me; i basically have no idea what I'm babbling about! =) =P

 

[gonpost]

totallyclueless, you aren't all that clueless... ;)

*watches as your innocence dwindles*

I can relate to you, I'm still young, and I can remember coming up with those sorts of ideas a few years ago...the infinite possiblilities and theories.

Though around here, people like facts, from what I've observed anyway, which is probably how it should be, usually. I'm the lurking kind...hardly ever post...but I do see what goes on.


And to contribute something to this thread, when jonnytrig said "So in short, God (or at least the idea of God) is the main motivator of all human behavior.", I believe that if you replace the word God with hope, you'll see a lot.

To me, God is nearly synonymous with hope. Hope is why we live, it is why we go on. You only see people kill themselves if they don't have any hope, right? Hope was the only good thing Pandora ever let out of that box amongst all the terrible things there are in this world.

Perhaps God is only the name given to hope o so many millenia ago...

 

[Jameson]

The topic that been touched on in the last few posts is motivation and how the concept of God plays a major part in people's motivation. I think this is an interesting statement / observation. I do agree that for most of the people on Earth, their belief in some kind of supernatural being is a motivation for living, for achieving whatever "greatness" he or she aspires, and gives their life a purpose.

To pose a counterexample I have a friend who is a very devout Christian and goes to Church everyday before school. I know as well as I can know that she truly believes in God and that she is going to heaven yet she acts like her life has no purpose. She is depressed all of the time and lives in a kind of mopey state all the time. It's really saddening. My point question is, why does this person with so much purpose have no motivation for life? Is she an anomaly? Why does her God not give her life the purpose she needs to live happily and with motivation? Is believing in God right for everyone?

I guess the more general question is why do some people place their drive for motivation in untangible things? Do we all need a reason to live? Some people live for God, others seek truth, others "greatness". All of these aren't really concrete, and many times are unatainable.

I agree with many of the other posters, pick your "god" and you will find someone worshipping it and living for it.

 

[totallyclueless]

God n Science

Hmm...after some thought, I discovered this:
I believe 100% in science and 100% in "God"
But its in a different sense...

God and Science are two things that are totally and completely different, like the different dimensions..God would be 4 dimensional, beyond our minds comprehension. but God is not a person, it is just...er...duurr...a THING... See what I mean?! There's no way to prove/disprove God! Because god IS science...sort of...ya know?
MY BRAIN HURTS! I need to stop thinking about this...

The universe must have been created by something...somehow...and just because we don't understand it, or can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't possible!

 

[Jameson]

Hmm...after some thought, I discovered this:
I believe 100% in science and 100% in "God"
But its in a different sense...

God and Science are two things that are totally and completely different, like the different dimensions..God would be 4 dimensional, beyond our minds comprehension. but God is not a person, it is just...er...duurr...a THING... See what I mean?! There's no way to prove/disprove God! Because god IS science...sort of...ya know?
MY BRAIN HURTS! I need to stop thinking about this...

The universe must have been created by something...somehow...and just because we don't understand it, or can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't possible!

4th dimensional? If I'm not mistaken that would be time, but I think I get your point. To say that the universe must have been created is an exclamation of emotion, not a proof in any sense. Many people would agree with you in your statement that God cannot be proven or disproven, although I would not say this is true. I guess that makes you an agnostic theist.

What is the significance of your statements of God vs. Science? Why are these different and why is that important?

Jameson

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I was personifying life as a whole as if it has it's own mind and behavior, and interpreting that behavior as if it's predictable. I tagged on my own conception of this entity's characteristics (because I can't view it objectively), and reasoned that it's history should dictate it's future (this is a major problem for stock traders). Who could have predicted that Enron was going to fall when it was soaring skywards? So I see this as a problem... What if evolution fails? Perhaps I was thinking too positively. then again, right now I'm assuming that "it" has a goal that is wants to achieve. Did Enron have a goal? To make a lot of money, to make a specific amount of money, to help others with their own lives, or to hurt others' lives? This is a problem, actually, it's an unfalsifiable claim. I can think whatever I want about life, I have simply thought of it this way in this particular conversation.

I think that I assumed in that universe, desire is induced from external things and people only... that should probably be the constraint i was looking for. Desire could also come from within ourselves too, or why not both at the same time. When I use the word desire, I mean "the urge to take an interest in something or someone" or "the process of liking or disliking something or someone" or "the activation of aestetic perception of something or someone".

Jameson, In Michio Kaku's book Hyperspace, he mentioned that the 4th dimension was originally interpreted as what now is known as the 5th dimension until Einstien showed that time is the 4th dimension. The idea of the space outside of space-time ("Hyperspace", of which in a multiverse theory is the space that contains all the possible universes), now defined as the 5th dimension or "4th spatial dimension", was originally termed "the 4th dimension".

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"To pose a counterexample I have a friend who is a very devout Christian and goes to Church everyday before school. I know as well as I can know that she truly believes in God and that she is going to heaven yet she acts like her life has no purpose. She is depressed all of the time and lives in a kind of mopey state all the time. It's really saddening." - Jameson

perhaps your interpretation of her is an unfalsifiable claim.

 

[Jameson]

Aren't all of our interpretations unfalsifiable? That is why I said "I know as well as I can know that she truly believes in God and that she is going to heaven yet she acts like her life has no purpose." I wanted to make it clear that I cannot prove how she feels or truly know, but only observe as objectively as I can.

I think it's interesting you personify "life". I think you are claiming this world and the universe to be an entity on its own. I'm confused though on this part of your statements.

Who could have predicted that Enron was going to fall when it was soaring skywards? So I see this as a problem... What if evolution fails? Perhaps I was thinking too positively. then again, right now I'm assuming that "it" has a goal that is wants to achieve. Did Enron have a goal? To make a lot of money, to make a specific amount of money, to help others with their own lives, or to hurt others' lives? This is a problem, actually, it's an unfalsifiable claim.

I do not see why it is important to this discussion if evolution fails, and I'm kind of confused on how it could fail, but I think the greater point was your leading to your statements about unfalsifiable claims.

It seems that you carry a view that everything is unfalsifiable. Isn't God? Isn't everything in life if you look at it from the right point of view?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I don't think so. There are some things that are verifiable like the claim that we eat food, or the claim that water naturally exists in solid, liquid, and gas form on Earth, or the claim that in a right triangle, the sum of the squares of the legs are equal to the square of the hypotenuse. When I extend those statements into a realm that I can't know about, like if I say that we eat food only because it makes us happy, or if I say that water has a mind of it's own and it goes downhill because it's depressed, or if I say that the pythagoream theorem is true because God made it that way. I don't think everything is, and there may be a way to prove it but I don't know how.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hmm...after some thought, I discovered this:
I believe 100% in science and 100% in "God" But its in a different sense...

That's exactly how I see it too. Science is a discipline of the intellect, and its potential to reveal truths is strictly in the realm of the physical aspects of creation. That's why when science-only believers conclude the universe is purely physical it is a fallacy; that is, if you rely on a method that only reveals physicalness, then why should you expect to find anything else?

If science and the intellect can't discover/reveal God, then what's left? This is why I keep recommending studying people like John of the Cross, or Meister Eckhart, or Brother Lawrence, or Nanak, or Kabir, or the Greek Orthodox saints . . . these so-called "mystics" claimed that God is felt and not known through the intellect or any external means; further, he/she/it is felt inside oneself. In other words, God might be everywhere, but the only place each person finds he/she/it is inside one's own "heart."

If so, then all the "god proofs" are a waste of time, and so is any attempt to know God by obeying commandments, or worship, or holy rolling, or most of the stuff religious people do to find God. I say, look to the people who practiced inner realization, that's where you find the most impressive reports and the most blissed out practitioners.

God inside is subtle, which is why people have to actually develop their feeling ability not only to feel inwardly (we are naturally "outward" focused), but also to learn to feel what's more subtle. I've speculated that one reason so many science types are atheists is because they aren't that interested in deepening their feeling ability, and instead are more comfortable in the cold, mechanistic disciplines needed for studying physicalness.


Here's some quotes from a few of the mystics I mentioned about the inner path to God:

“Oh, then, soul . . . so anxious to know the dwelling place of your Beloved that you may go in quest of Him and be united with Him, now we are telling you that you yourself are His dwelling and His secret chamber and hiding place . . . Since you know that your desired Beloved lives hidden within your heart, strive to be really hidden with Him, and you will embrace Him within you and experience Him . . .”
John of the Cross, 1542–1591, Spain

“Farid, why wander from jungle to jungle, breaking the thorny branches in search of the Lord? In my heart and not in the jungle does my Lord reside.”
Sheikh Farid, 1173–1265, Pakistan

“[God] lies hidden in the soul, so that man neither knows nor hears it—unless good tidings reach the center of hearing—otherwise it will not be heard of. To hear it, all voices and sounds must die away and there must be pure quiet—perfect stillness.”
Meister Eckhart, 1260-1328, Germany

“Self of my Self, for Thou are but I,
Self of my Self, for I am Thou,
The two of us in one shall never die,
What do they matter—the why and how?”
Lalleswari, 14th century A.D., India

“The soul learns that there is no necessity to look for her Beloved outside her own being, and that she can find Him within herself, as on His own throne and in His tabernacle.”
Mother Cabrini, 1850–1917, Italy

“The Eternal Light indwells in the human mind, and the human mindis the emanation of that Light, and our five senses are the Light’s disciples.”
Nanak, 1469–1539, India

“So if man loves through and wants to guard his heart . . . [he] can pay heed to his heart, make progress towards the innermost, and draw nearer to God.”
Mark the Ascetic, 4th century A.D., Egypt

“This mind is not the Buddha—[intellectual] learning is not the Way.”
Nansen, 9th century A.D., China

“Student, tell me, what is God? He is the breath inside the breath.”
Kabir, 1488–1512, India

“The [practice of] the presence of God is an application of our soul to God, or a remembrance of God present . . . in the depth and center of the soul . . . the soul speaks to God heart to heart, and always in a great and profound peace that the soul enjoys in God.”
Brother Lawrence, 1611–1691, France

 

[totallyclueless]

4th dimensional? If I'm not mistaken that would be time, but I think I get your point. To say that the universe must have been created is an exclamation of emotion, not a proof in any sense. Many people would agree with you in your statement that God cannot be proven or disproven, although I would not say this is true. I guess that makes you an agnostic theist.

What is the significance of your statements of God vs. Science? Why are these different and why is that important?

Jameson

I'm trying to say this: God is the opposite of Science and human logic. He defies logic, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. If the universe is finite, what would be beyond it? That's what god is...sort of...does anyone get what I'm saying here?!

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm trying to say this: God is the opposite of Science and human logic. He defies logic, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. If the universe is finite, what would be beyond it? That's what god is...sort of...does anyone get what I'm saying here?!

I think I understand what you are saying, but I also think you are asking a question that doesn’t quite make sense.

To say God is the opposite of science is to juxtapose two different categories of things. God is something that is proposed to exist; science is a method for acquiring knowledge. In my opinion, the question is: isn’t the way we try to know God completely opposite of how we try to know through science?

I believe whether God exists or not isn’t the most important question. The only thing a seeker of truth cares about is if there is a way to know for oneself if something exists. If you recognize knowing as the issue, then the efficacy of knowing methods become paramount. That’s why I’ve been referencing those who’ve claimed one can know something through turning one’s attention inward; and then yes, how and what one knows is exactly opposite of how and what one knows through looking “outward.”

Now, which direction do you think science looks? Outward. Exclusively, totally, 100%. So if the introspectionsts are right, then just like you seem to suggest, knowing God (if he/she/it exists) would be accomplished opposite of knowing through science.

 

[totallyclueless]

sob, nobody understands me.
but, looking back at the worlds history, before we knew what stars were made of and stuff, people turned to storytellers and preachers to find out where they came from, why they were here. They used to worship things such as the Greek gods. After a while the stories became so outlandish that nobody took them seriously anymore. Science proved the stories wrong: gods didn't cause lightning, electricity did, etc...
So in the future, science will probably outrule current religions...WAY in the future...perhaps we'll NEVER know where we came from or why we are here...

I guess some things we just weren't meant to find out!

 

[koop117]

Don't know if this was said or not but:

"Santa Clause" does not exist because one can prove that he in fact, does not. No one can disprove God's existence, can they? The answer to that would be "no."

Also, if God is the omnipotent being that He is, He is not bound by the laws of space and time, He created them. Therefore, the laws of physics do not apply.

"Those" Atheists "have an answer for everything don't they! Its too bad its always the same answer!"

Enjoy

Koop

 

[tino lin]

Sintwar.

Sintwar,
I am glad you found "knowledge is power, religion is poision".

 

[Smurf]

Don't know if anyone else caught this but:

My philosophy is this: (And you can quote me on this.)
"My "proof" that god does not exist is your "lack of proof" that he does.
Afterall, why should I have to prove there is no god? You are the one that invented him."
-Me

Well you're right, you're no science guru. Otherwise you'd realize that no theory can ever be proven, only disproven. So, scientifically, the god-believers are right until you prove them wrong.

 

[Smurf]

sob, nobody understands me.
but, looking back at the worlds history, before we knew what stars were made of and stuff, people turned to storytellers and preachers to find out where they came from, why they were here. They used to worship things such as the Greek gods. After a while the stories became so outlandish that nobody took them seriously anymore. Science proved the stories wrong: gods didn't cause lightning, electricity did, etc...
So in the future, science will probably outrule current religions...WAY in the future...perhaps we'll NEVER know where we came from or why we are here...

I guess some things we just weren't meant to find out!

Nonsense, as soon as science finds one thing out.. for example what happens after death. It creates a bunch more questions they have to find answers for. So, until they find those answers religion and mythology will just move on and try to define the answers to these new questions that scientific answers created. Rinse and repeat. Knowledge is infinite.

 

[Lisa!]

yiou may think that it's a stupid question but I'm going to ask it anyway.why athiest people try to disprove God?I mean it seems quite unnecessary.
Suppose there is no God:
there are some people who want to believe this imaginary existence(for any reason they have).I don't know why other people should try to prove them wrong!don't you think that it's a kind of wast of time?
for example,why do we never try hard to disprove UFO or things like that?

 

[selfAdjoint]

yiou may think that it's a stupid question but I'm going to ask it anyway.why athiest people try to disprove God?I mean it seems quite unnecessary.
Suppose there is no God:
there are some people who want to believe this imaginary existence(for any reason they have).I don't know why other people should try to prove them wrong!don't you think that it's a kind of wast of time?
for example,why do we never try hard to disprove UFO or things like that?

Well scientists do work at disproving UFOs and ESP and ghosts, and all. See our skepticism thread. But the UFO fans are not trying to get their ideas into school textbooks, or getting laws passed in Congress to allow the government to support their meetings with public taxpayer money. They are not trying to make sure Supreme Court justices are abductees. The religious, specifically the Christians, are doing these things, and they have to be fought.

 

[Lisa!]

Well scientists do work at disproving UFOs and ESP and ghosts, and all. See our skepticism thread. But the UFO fans are not trying to get their ideas into school textbooks, or getting laws passed in Congress to allow the government to support their meetings with public taxpayer money. They are not trying to make sure Supreme Court justices are abductees. The religious, specifically the Christians, are doing these things, and they have to be fought.

I agree with you.I know most of religious leaders are misusing people's beliefs about God.I think advantages of believing in God is more than disadvantages.The problem isn't with God esp.for ordinary people.I think problem is with religion not God.and even not religion but politiciens and leadres.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The problem isn't with God . . . I think problem is with religion not God.

:!) :!) :!)

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

For me God is the only truth in this world...
Science isn't reliable enough, even with such a progress and technology, we still know very little, always there's something ne, always there's soemthing we misunderstood..