What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

[Dave]

Well?

 

[vedder]

First, god would have to interrupt all regularly scheduled tv and radio programs and proceed to broadcast the 1812 overture. Then all the volcanoes on Earth would have to erupt purple bubbles simultaneously. All religious fundamentalists would then have to grow wings on their asses and serenade the atheists, on harp, with beautiful twinkly ballads of love whilst the atheists all renounced darwin as an extra-terrestrial mole. Light would then have to slow down to 13.2 mph and i'd like to see pelicans surfing these slow waves(for effect). Then George Bush Junior would need to be caught french kissing Osama by a ressurected Jimi Hendrix. Jimi would then proceed to play the star spangled banner backwards with his elbows.

That would do it for me.

 

[Andy]

An act of god, but it would appear that vedder has beat me to that description of events.

 

[Iacchus32]

Well I think to the degree that we look for God on the outside, and not look for God on the inside, then to that degree we would have missed the point. This is why God is not known to make many cameo appearances, for indeed we might believe in God as the comedian, or God as the clown, but not God as the Creator.

 

[selfAdjoint]

All it takes is for God to suffuse me with his supernatural faith. Then I will believe and I will also be convinced because I don't believe any soulless force could do that to me.

 

[Eh]

Before answering that, I would have to see a working definition of God in the first place. It seems believers would have differing opinions on that, but it isn't a problem. Often, God is defined in terms that are purely negatives and the idea relates to nothing we've experienced, so is a non concept.

So it would be best to define it, since I can't believe/disbelieve in something without knowing what it is in the first place.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Eh
Before answering that, I would have to see a working definition of God in the first place. It seems believers would have differing opinions on that, but it isn't a problem. Often, God is defined in terms that are purely negatives and the idea relates to nothing we've experienced, so is a non concept.

So it would be best to define it, since I can't believe/disbelieve in something without knowing what it is in the first place.

How about meaning, and a sense of purpose to begin with? And how about the ground of our being?


From the thread, Think! ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is reality without the life (or soul) to animate it?

Originally posted by heusdens
What is consciousness, if we would not be consciouss?

But reality exists, independend of our consciousness.

There were no humans at the time the solar system formated.

And yet without consciousness there would be no witness, and we wouldn't be here speaking about it. And why is it that we've been given the capacity to know? It's quite an honor don't you think? Perhaps it's so we can come to know the source of All-Knowing, which is the Creator?

I don't know, does this help? Well in terms of what I believe, I know that there's a material world, there's a spirtual world, and there's a Supreme Being who created them.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by vedder
First, god would have to interrupt all regularly scheduled tv and radio programs and proceed to broadcast the 1812 overture. Then all the volcanoes on Earth would have to erupt purple bubbles simultaneously. All religious fundamentalists would then have to grow wings on their asses and serenade the atheists, on harp, with beautiful twinkly ballads of love whilst the atheists all renounced darwin as an extra-terrestrial mole. Light would then have to slow down to 13.2 mph and i'd like to see pelicans surfing these slow waves(for effect). Then George Bush Junior would need to be caught french kissing Osama by a ressurected Jimi Hendrix. Jimi would then proceed to play the star spangled banner backwards with his elbows.

That would do it for me.

Like he said

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No matter what he/she did, how would I know if it is God, or the Q?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No matter what he/she did, how would I know if it is God, or the Q?

Sounds more like Q to me!

Or Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey!

 

[tomahawk]

The greatest gift a so-called god could give the human race is freedom of thought. Religion puts restraints on all freedom of thought, it's designed to control the masses. Once the human race rids itself of those pagan beliefs, then and only then can we move on to a higher intelligence.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How about meaning, and a sense of purpose to begin with? And how about the ground of our being?

Ground of being is rather vague, since that can be interpreted as just about anything. For physicalism, the ground of being could be a unified field. Purpose and meaning are human ideals that don't really add anything to the actual concept of what God is.

From the thread, Think! ...

And yet without consciousness there would be no witness, and we wouldn't be here speaking about it. And why is it that we've been given the capacity to know? It's quite an honor don't you think? Perhaps it's so we can come to know the source of All-Knowing, which is the Creator?

I don't know, does this help? Well in terms of what I believe, I know that there's a material world, there's a spirtual world, and there's a Supreme Being who created them. [/QUOTE]

It all comes down to defining this "supreme being". Is he personal? What properties does he/she/it have?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Eh
Ground of being is rather vague, since that can be interpreted as just about anything. For physicalism, the ground of being could be a unified field. Purpose and meaning are human ideals that don't really add anything to the actual concept of what God is.

And yet without purpose and meaning we have no set of values which, I think is the main thing, above all else.

It all comes down to defining this "supreme being". Is he personal? What properties does he/she/it have?

Would you have me describe why the sky is blue? It's as you said, the answer varies greatly, depending upon the number of differing viewpoints on this planet. And yet rightfully so, because how else would you go about describing that which is all-encompassing except from your own point of view?

Why couldn't it be approached like any other theory, like the theory of evolution, in terms of its cause and effect? (and in this sense I mean "rationally"). Obviously the Universe will still be here whether we establish God as its origin or not. While I doubt very much that anything will change, except perhaps some people may be required to show a little more compassion towards others. Even so, one doesn't necessarily need to invoke God to even suggest this.

All I can say is that there is evidence, and it's all a matter of whether one wants to conduct the research for oneself or not.

 

[pace]

At first one of the main reasons that I felt I believed was because of all the stuff Jesus said which I found very in truth. But as I've read philosophy I've noticed some things i.e. that a philosopher Confusius said his Golden Rule 500 years before he did, and my believes started failing.

Empirically I've not met any particularly wise christian people compared to non-christians, although maybe more giving.

And rationally, as above, when reading philosophy I feel that does more for me here.

To be reconvinced I think both these aspects need to be confronted.

 

[Zantra]

In order to restore faith, you must find a happy medium between blind faith and logical disdain

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why couldn't it be approached like any other theory, like the theory of evolution, in terms of its cause and effect? (and in this sense I mean "rationally"). Obviously the Universe will still be here whether we establish God as its origin or not. While I doubt very much that anything will change, except perhaps some people may be required to show a little more compassion towards others. Even so, one doesn't necessarily need to invoke God to even suggest this.

All I can say is that there is evidence, and it's all a matter of whether one wants to conduct the research for oneself or not.

Well, first there has to be evidence that can be checked by others who may completely disagree with you. This is certainly the way of science.

If you wish it investigated as a scientific endeavor, clarify your evidence, develop hypotheses which make falsifiable predictions. If it is not possible to produce falsifiable predictions, then you are likely outside the domain of science.

Why don't we start here and now - state a couple of pieces of evidence, and come up one or more reason derived predictions based on that evidence. Make sure your conclusions are the simplest that fit the evidence.

I look forward to your post.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Well, first there has to be evidence that can be checked by others who may completely disagree with you. This is certainly the way of science.

If you wish it investigated as a scientific endeavor, clarify your evidence, develop hypotheses which make falsifiable predictions. If it is not possible to produce falsifiable predictions, then you are likely outside the domain of science.

Why don't we start here and now - state a couple of pieces of evidence, and come up one or more reason derived predictions based on that evidence. Make sure your conclusions are the simplest that fit the evidence.

I look forward to your post.

And yet the theory of evolution is just that, a theory isn't it? In which case all I have to offer up here, as is the case with evolution, is conjecture.

However, I have been able to amass enough proof for myself, to answer this question on a personal level which, is more in line with the title of this thread.

While I'm afraid all I can do is speak from my own experience, and do so to the best of my ability. I don't know if that's good enough to begin a debate or not?

Another thing, is that once you establish something, you tend to get a little bit lazy, as it no longer requires all this additional evidence -- as it would in a debate -- to back it up. In which case I might seem a little short-handed in some of my replies, as I'm not always dwelling on such things. Nor do I always feel like there's something there to be said.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Dave
What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

Well?

Well, I think it would be a nice start if he'd at least come over once for dinner.

I'm sure we could find a way to take it forward from there.

 

[Andy]

Going back to an earlier post, can't be bothered to quote it, but maybe god is the Q, and maybe he/it has created life on this planet just to see how much fun he can have with us by giving us all freedom of thought, maybe he is having bets with all of his Q mates to see how long it takes for us to destroy the world that we live in, maybe it just wants to laugh at all of our petty little arguements about religions that he probably started on his own just to confuse the Earth's population, maybe i have just got back from the pub after a few drinks and don't know when to stop typing.

To sum up all of that rubbish maybe Q is just having a laugh with his mates.

 

[heusdens]

What does it take one to be convinced that God (the being which is defined as the consciouss omnipotent omniscient infinite eternal being and creator of the universe) actually does not exist?

But consider this:
The being defined as above has a fundamental flaw that makes it into an inpossibility.

The argument is not that eternal infinite being can not exist, since we can conceive of the material world, that it was not created but existed always.
The argument is however that the eternal infinite material world itself (which is the highest or most broad form of being, since there is nothing outside or beyond it) can not exist in consciouss or subjective form.
To be consciousness, means to be consciousness of something. but by definition there is not something beyond or outside the eternal infinite material world itself.
To be subjective can only be defined if there is something that forms an objective basis for that.
To be selfconsciouss and selfaware can only be meaningfull if there is something that you can distinguishe between that which is you, and that what is not you. You can not reflect on yourself, if there is nothing outside you, to reflect on.

So consciousness has no meaning and can not be defined in the context of the eternal infinite existing material world, which is all being.

We are an expression, a development product, of the material world, which can exist in subjective and consciouss form, cause we can reflect on and be aware of the world, which itself exists in objective form. This objective world had to be already there, forming and constituting the reason and cause for our own existence.
We can distinguish between ourselves, and that what is outside, apart from and independend from us.

Any form of consciousness requires there to be an objective world in first (primary) instance, that causes consciousness to become existent, and which can be related to in a subjective way.

The material world in total can only be something objective, and can not have any consciousness of itself. Instead we - our human form - makes that the world exists also in subjective form. We are the way in which the universe, the material world, can reflect on itself and can be consciousss of itself.

So the existence of something in consciouss form, prior to there being a material world in objective form, is therefore an impossibility.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the theory of evolution is just that, a theory isn't it? In which case all I have to offer up here, as is the case with evolution, is conjecture.

Definitional argument flaw. You are using the common definition of theory and the scientific definition as equivalent. They, though spelled and pronounced the same, they are in fact, completely different in meaning.

Theory, in common usage is no more than conjecture. Theory in science, is something that has gone thru the conjecture and hypothesis stage, with collection of enough evidence and sets of logical, falsifiable predictions, surviving all assaults of those that disagree, that based on the evidence it is considered a theory.

You are trying to jump past that. God Iacchus, read up on this crap before throwing it out here. You obviously know virtually nothing of evolution, except for popular notions - read! study! learn! The mountains of evidence to support it are staggering. Are there points that will be overturned - yes, is the basic idea incorrect, hardly. The theory of evolution battled uphill for over a century. It's earned being a theory - you can't just jump past the hard part.

There is only one stage (for want of a better word) closer to certainty in science - that of a law. Most complex ideas cannot be a law because there is no way to become more certain. There are gas laws and the laws of gravity and ohms law - simple conditions that are obvious and so highly repeatable as to be virtually impossible to deny. Almost all other 'ideas' in science can only progress to the stage of theory.

Now if you can produce even one hundredth the evidence that supports evolution, then we will call your conjecture a theory. Otherwise please present the evidence.

However, I have been able to amass enough proof for myself, to answer this question on a personal level which, is more in line with the title of this thread.

That you have enough to convince yourself is good, there is no argument here, however your prior statement, that illicited my response, stated that it should be investigated seriously by science. As such, your personal convictions and beliefs bear no weight of evidence, thus irrelavent to your question/debate.

I repeat my request for you to provide unambiguous evidence to support your request that this subject be investigated by science.

Another thing, is that once you establish something, you tend to get a little bit lazy, as it no longer requires all this additional evidence -- as it would in a debate -- to back it up. In which case I might seem a little short-handed in some of my replies, as I'm not always dwelling on such things. Nor do I always feel like there's something there to be said.

But you haven't established anything with us. Certainly nothing that would support your request that this subject be treated scientifically.

I hate to point out the obvious, but unless I'm mistaken, you've never produced evidence to support the conjecture, in a scientific investigation, that god exists. So whatever you consider established is solely within the confines of your own skull. Until it's presented, fully, to the light of this inquiry, it remains true only to you. Until presented, this puts it squarely outside the domain science.

We await your evidence.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Definitional argument flaw. You are using the common definition of theory and the scientific definition as equivalent. They, though spelled and pronounced the same, they are in fact, completely different in meaning.

Theory, in common usage is no more than conjecture. Theory in science, is something that has gone thru the conjecture and hypothesis stage, with collection of enough evidence and sets of logical, falsifiable predictions, surviving all assaults of those that disagree, that based on the evidence it is considered a theory.

You are trying to jump past that. God Iacchus, read up on this crap before throwing it out here. You obviously know virtually nothing of evolution, except for popular notions - read! study! learn! The mountains of evidence to support it are staggering. Are there points that will be overturned - yes, is the basic idea incorrect, hardly. The theory of evolution battled uphill for over a century. It's earned being a theory - you can't just jump past the hard part.

There is only one stage (for want of a better word) closer to certainty in science - that of a law. Most complex ideas cannot be a law because there is no way to become more certain. There are gas laws and the laws of gravity and ohms law - simple conditions that are obvious and so highly repeatable as to be virtually impossible to deny. Almost all other 'ideas' in science can only progress to the stage of theory.

Now if you can produce even one hundredth the evidence that supports evolution, then we will call your conjecture a theory. Otherwise please present the evidence.

That you have enough to convince yourself is good, there is no argument here, however your prior statement, that illicited my response, stated that it should be investigated seriously by science. As such, your personal convictions and beliefs bear no weight of evidence, thus irrelavent to your question/debate.

I repeat my request for you to provide unambiguous evidence to support your request that this subject be investigated by science.

But you haven't established anything with us. Certainly nothing that would support your request that this subject be treated scientifically.

I hate to point out the obvious, but unless I'm mistaken, you've never produced evidence to support the conjecture, in a scientific investigation, that god exists. So whatever you consider established is solely within the confines of your own skull. Until it's presented, fully, to the light of this inquiry, it remains true only to you. Until presented, this puts it squarely outside the domain science.

We await your evidence.

Let me put it this way, so perhaps you can get off your high horse and find something useful to do.

How do you know that the sun shines? How do you know that the sky is blue? How do you know that a rose is beautiful?

Indeed, if you can't answer the question of God within the same context, as being "intrinsic," then chances are you'll never get it. And yes hey, it means you've at least identified this much, and that this should become your starting point. In which case you may begin to find evidence to support the "intrinsic event."

Do you believe that knowledge is intrinsic? Or, at least our ability to acknowledge it? And what's the difference between animal instinct and intrinsic knowledge? Enough to say that they aren't altogether dissimilar? Did you know that this God idea has cropped up time and time again, throughout history, and clear across the globe? Are you trying to tell me that not even this can be construed as evidence?

These are the kinds of things that I've posted time and time again throughout my 1,500 or so posts on Physics Forums (including PF 2.0), and if you don't think any of it can be construed as evidence, or even conjecture (I recommend you do your own search), then I'll tell you of a neat little place where the sun don't shine ...

P.S. One final thing. I do have an opinion and I do have a right to voice my concerns. Comprender?

 

[BoulderHead]

Iacchus32,
Does this mean that I should expect god to come over for dinner?
Or should I set out an extra plate anyway, just for the idea of God?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Iacchus32,
Does this mean that I should expect god to come over for dinner?
Or should I set out an extra plate anyway, just for the idea of God?

Speaking for myself I would say no. But hey you never know, things do have a way of happening when you least expect it.

Or, maybe a long lost friend or relative will show up at your doorstep sometime in the near future, bearing news of something similar -- which, is just too uncanny to ignore? It all depends on what it means to you I guess?

But the main thing I suppose, is that you remember Santa Claus likes milk with his cookies.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How do you know that the sun shines? How do you know that the sky is blue? How do you know that a rose is beautiful?

Indeed, if you can't answer the question of God within the same context, as being "intrinsic," then chances are you'll never get it. And yes hey, it means you've at least identified this much, and that this should become your starting point. In which case you may begin to find evidence to support the "intrinsic event."

Do you believe that knowledge is intrinsic? Or, at least our ability to acknowledge it? And what's the difference between animal instinct and intrinsic knowledge? Enough to say that they aren't altogether dissimilar? Did you know that this God idea has cropped up time and time again, throughout history, and clear across the globe? Are you trying to tell me that not even this can be construed as evidence?

These are the kinds of things that I've posted time and time again throughout my 1,500 or so posts on Physics Forums (including PF 2.0), and if you don't think any of it can be construed as evidence, or even conjecture (I recommend you do your own search), then I'll tell you of a neat little place where the sun don't shine ...

P.S. One final thing. I do have an opinion and I do have a right to voice my concerns. Comprender? [/B]

The sun shines because of gaseous interactions which perpetually keep the sun burning. The sky is blue because of atmospheric conditions whereby the sunlight bounces off the troposphere(I may be off on this). And saying a rose is beautiful is a subjective statement, we are examining the objective evidence of god.

And you're right, you do have a right to voice your opinion.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or, maybe a long lost friend or relative will show up at your doorstep sometime in the near future, bearing news of something similar -- which, is just too uncanny to ignore? It all depends on what it means to you I guess?

You mean it is possible to think an occurance has something to do with God, when in reality it just might not?

But the main thing I suppose, is that you remember Santa Claus likes milk with his cookies.

Yes, I always leave some goodies near the chimney for him, too.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
You mean it is possible to think an occurance has something to do with God, when in reality it just might not?

Yes I think it is possible, unless of course you're basing it on the notion that God doesn't exist.

 

[radagast]

Iacchus,
I've done what I can to try and see your point of view. In terms of a personal belief in god, etc., I see no problem with most you have said.

What I have had issue with is your insistence that science acknowledge your beliefs as a scientific endeavor. To do so, science would have to completely change it's methodology, and the definition of what it is.

Sure, a lot of people here will not acknowledge something if there isn't scientific evidence - so what! That should be a completely separate issue from perverting science to try and make it fit into a mold in which it wasn't designed.

You state you wish that science should address your beliefs as a scientific endeavor. Yet, when using the tools of science to do just that, in asking for evidence - you try to pass off evidence of a completely subjective nature - evidence that those who may disagree with your conclusions, cannot possibly check. You imply the mounds of objective evidence that support evolution are equivalent to your theory of god, simply because you use the word theory to describe them.

This is not science. It cannot be science without completely redefining what science is.

Science is a system that is designed to be self-correcting. Fraud and unintended, erroneous information can be and is discovered and rooted out. As an example: If we are to take completely subjective evidence as true, how do we cancel out the fraud, the erroneous results gotten because they were expected by the individuals that are part of the experiment, simple mental illness, or the same terms being used to describe completely different internal states? These are totally subjective, so it's not like I can repeat them with someone else or take them out and compare them with Boulderhead's or Zantra's.

(Our view of ) Objective reality is always filtered thru both the subjective and language. It does have some consistency and constantcy because there is a common set of referents. If the sensation I associate with seeing green is the sensation someone else has when seeing blue there is no problem, it is irrelavent, because each of us has the same type sensation, internally, to the same external referent, so the words and semiotic signs we use to designate them are consistent. With the subjective, there is no way of being certain the referents we assume are common, are in common. They could be influenced by expectations, or something completely different, yet we would call them by the same names. There are important reasons why science restricts itself to the objective. The recent thread on enlightenment is a great example. Some described almost mundane occurrences, others profound. They all used the same term.

I do believe there are things we can learn that are as far from the scientific as is possible - that is no reason for me, nor anyone else, to assume that science has a duty or should be perverted to investigate them, or that they have no value.

There are systems/patterns of behaviour/investigative methods that are used to discover these, but they are not within the scope of science.

Science may be able to tell exactly how a smile occurs, what the hormones and neurotransmitters occur with the emotion of happiness, but it cannot and is not meant to tell us how we are to find happiness. That doesn't mean finding happiness doesn't exist, only that it's outside the domain of science. The same could be said for appreciating art, for finding purpose in ones life, for finding spiritual fulfillment, or for learning to play a lute.

You say I'm on a high horse for stating what any first year college science major should know implicitly. You say you have evidence, but the only evidence you mention is explicitly excluded from scientific investigation. I have little clue as to your areas of expertise, but if someone started saying a lot a stuff that was plain nonsense about this field, how would you react.

I can no more investigate and double check your internal, subjective experiences any more than you can relieve my full bladder by going to the rest room for me.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or, maybe a long lost friend or relative will show up at your doorstep sometime in the near future, bearing news of something similar -- which, is just too uncanny to ignore? It all depends on what it means to you I guess?

<...response>

Yes I think it is possible, unless of course you're basing it on the notion that God doesn't exist.

Actually, no. This is Occams razor at work.

God brings a lot of baggage to explain, something that precognition would answer but with less baggage/ less 'elaboration of reasons', which Occams is so famous for slicing thru.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes I think it is possible, unless of course you're basing it on the notion that God doesn't exist.

Basing events on God is a self-reinforcement. Things that would be normally written off as coincidental, or happening through a complexed chain of cause and effect, are being attributed to the intervention of God. Yet 99.9 percent of those events can be logically and scientifically explained if you have a complete picture and understanding.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Iacchus,
I've done what I can to try and see your point of view. In terms of a personal belief in god, etc., I see no problem with most you have said.

What I have had issue with is your insistence that science acknowledge your beliefs as a scientific endeavor. To do so, science would have to completely change it's methodology, and the definition of what it is.

Sure, a lot of people here will not acknowledge something if there isn't scientific evidence - so what! That should be a completely separate issue from perverting science to try and make it fit into a mold in which it wasn't designed.

Except for the fact that we're all human beings and we all own a piece of the "original equipment." Otherwise, what's the point in trying to communicate anything? You don't think science can be inclusive of that?

You state you wish that science should address your beliefs as a scientific endeavor. Yet, when using the tools of science to do just that, in asking for evidence - you try to pass off evidence of a completely subjective nature - evidence that those who may disagree with your conclusions, cannot possibly check. You imply the mounds of objective evidence that support evolution are equivalent to your theory of god, simply because you use the word theory to describe them.

As I have said time and time again, I have no qualms with the theory of evolution per se', in so far as it goes ... in terms of the "natural world."

This is not science. It cannot be science without completely redefining what science is.

And yet the difference between the "objective reality" and the "subjective reality," is the difference between the beginning of life (essence) and where that life culminates and drops off (in form). Or, you can even say it's a matter of life and death, in that essence doesn't extend beyond form (outside of context), in which case anything that exists outside of form -- and hence "objective reality" -- spells death for the essence or life within. Are you saying that science should not be inclusive of this?

At the very least I think it gives some grounds for the inquiry of what I'm trying to say.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Actually, no. This is Occams razor at work.

God brings a lot of baggage to explain, something that precognition would answer but with less baggage/ less 'elaboration of reasons', which Occams is so famous for slicing thru.

And yet if you don't open up to the possibility that God exists, then you will never know. This is the only thing I was trying to say.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zantra
Basing events on God is a self-reinforcement. Things that would be normally written off as coincidental, or happening through a complexed chain of cause and effect, are being attributed to the intervention of God. Yet 99.9 percent of those events can be logically and scientifically explained if you have a complete picture and understanding.

And yet the original question was kind of misleading, perhaps on purpose?

And basically by my reply, I was trying to say which reality? A reality that includes God? Or, a reality that doesn't? I only suggested it was possible because of my own personal beliefs about God, not to reinforce mine or anyone else's.

 

[bleh]

What is god?

if you think of god as a being, something tangible then i don't think i could wrap my head around that one, but if you think god is something intangible then i do think that it has some bearing because religion only sets out to make people as good as possible and religion doesn't exist without god.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except for the fact that we're all human beings and we all own a piece of the "original equipment." Otherwise, what's the point in trying to communicate anything? You don't think science can be inclusive of that?

Tell me how one communicates the exact taste of a mango to someone who has never tasted fruit, and I be more inclined to agree with what you are saying.

As I have said time and time again, I have no qualms with the theory of evolution per se', in so far as it goes ... in terms of the "natural world."

I realize that, my point was that "the conjecture you proposed was not equivalent to the evidence level needed for a 'theory' [such as evolution]", as you had implied that it was.

And yet the difference between the "objective reality" and the "subjective reality," is the difference between the beginning of life (essence) and where that life culminates and drops off (in form). Or, you can even say it's a matter of life and death, in that essence doesn't extend beyond form (outside of context), in which case anything that exists outside of form -- and hence "objective reality" -- spells death for the essence or life within. Are you saying that science should not be inclusive of this?

Aside from the extreme nature of the 'extended analogy flaw' verging on the 'Ignoratio elenchi' and perhaps 'Reification' flaws,

NO, science has no business, whatsoever, in investigating that, in that there is no evidence which can be agreed upon. Without some common ground upon which to agree, nothing of agreement can proceed. Just as the conclusion of logical proof is unknown, where the premise is of questionable nature, so are the conclusions of science, when the very basis of the evidence can be questioned.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by bleh
...and religion doesn't exist without god.

Since both Buddhism and Taoism exist, without a god, then I would have to disagree.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by bleh
if you think of god as a being, something tangible then i don't think i could wrap my head around that one, but if you think god is something intangible then i do think that it has some bearing because religion only sets out to make people as good as possible and religion doesn't exist without god.

I believe in God as both tangible and intangible, in that if there was nothing tangible we couldn't possibly know, and yet, there are so many intangible things that we will probably never know.

 

[megashawn]

Iacchus:

Did you know that this God idea has cropped up time and time again, throughout history, and clear across the globe? Are you trying to tell me that not even this can be construed as evidence?

Yes, I agree that this God idea has popped up. The problem, is that it is rarely the same, or even close to the same God that pops up.

And the particular brand of god your pimping out is not of the oldest known.

But this is supposed to be evidence? Hardly. Really it seems to work against your cause.

See, Jo Volcano in pre-history California sees something, that, in his limited understanding of nature confuses the mess out of him. In this confusion, he decides the act most have been of a supernatural God type being.

This is quite apparent, if you look at some of these religions that have "popped up".

And yet if you don't open up to the possibility that God exists, then you will never know. This is the only thing I was trying to say.

I do not deny the possibility of a god. Frankly, I don't have any idea. To make a decision based on ignorance does not seem like a good idea to me. If there is a god, then there is no good reason I do not know it.

(I in the previous paragraph can be any of us)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Tell me how one communicates the exact taste of a mango to someone who has never tasted fruit, and I be more inclined to agree with what you are saying.

And yet, if we all had the capacity to experience the taste, then it wouldn't it be a matter of introducing the fruit?

I realize that, my point was that "the conjecture you proposed was not equivalent to the evidence level needed for a 'theory' [such as evolution]", as you had implied that it was.

Basically all I'm doing is taking the theory of evolution (not to detract from it) and extending it to include a "spiritual reality." So in that respect you can't really use evolution for the sake of comparison, unless you wish to claim only the "natural world" exists.

Aside from the extreme nature of the 'extended analogy flaw' verging on the 'Ignoratio elenchi' and perhaps 'Reification' flaws,

NO, science has no business, whatsoever, in investigating that, in that there is no evidence which can be agreed upon. Without some common ground upon which to agree, nothing of agreement can proceed. Just as the conclusion of logical proof is unknown, where the premise is of questionable nature, so are the conclusions of science, when the very basis of the evidence can be questioned.

And yet it does illustrate the fact that an "internal reality" exists and, that the purpose of the "objective reality" exists for the sake of maintaining that which is internal (life itself), that indeed the "internal reality" takes more precedence. What this tells me is that the key to the "mystery of life" is within. Therefore, if we want to better understand the human predicament -- i.e., from whence it comes and whence it goes -- then we need to look within.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Iacchus:

Yes, I agree that this God idea has popped up. The problem, is that it is rarely the same, or even close to the same God that pops up.

And the particular brand of god your pimping out is not of the oldest known.

But this is supposed to be evidence? Hardly. Really it seems to work against your cause.

See, Jo Volcano in pre-history California sees something, that, in his limited understanding of nature confuses the mess out of him. In this confusion, he decides the act most have been of a supernatural God type being.

This is quite apparent, if you look at some of these religions that have "popped up".

Pimping? ...

There are as many gods as there are people on this planet. And yet, there is only one sun in the sky. So that allows for just about any approach you could care for. And, while such a diversity of gods has existed, they tend to have a lot more things in common, with many underlying themes running throughout each.

I do not deny the possibility of a god. Frankly, I don't have any idea. To make a decision based on ignorance does not seem like a good idea to me. If there is a god, then there is no good reason I do not know it.

I can assure you, I wouldn't predicate my belief in God based upon this alone.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

-----
Originally posted by radagast
Tell me how one communicates the exact taste of a mango to someone who has never tasted fruit, and I be more inclined to agree with what you are saying.
-----

And yet, if we all had the capacity to experience the taste, then it wouldn't it be a matter of introducing the fruit?

Iacchus,
You are a true master at avoiding the exact issue raised.

I try to make a point about the inability of one person to 'see' the evidence of another's subjective experience, and you divert the issue to something irrelevant. I have been under the working assumption you don't do this intentionally (otherwise I'd drop the discussion - no need speaking with anyone that isn't an honest debater).

I cannot figure out if you are subconsciously doing this because you want to win the argument, or you just cannot stick to the subject.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

quote:From radagast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize that, my point was that "the conjecture you proposed was not equivalent to the evidence level needed for a 'theory' [such as evolution]", as you had implied that it was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Basically all I'm doing is taking the theory of evolution (not to detract from it) and extending it to include a "spiritual reality." So in that respect you can't really use evolution for the sake of comparison, unless you wish to claim only the "natural world" exists.

Evolution was only picked, because it was an existing theory in science. Any scientific theory would have done, because if it's a scientific theory, it will have a good deal of evidence to support what's hypothesized.

The point you are diverting from, is that I expect the same level and type of evidence for any theory to be accepted in a scientific setting, whether it covers the sex lives of the horn toad, or concerns the existence of a god.

So far, the only evidence you've mentioned (that I've personally seen) concerns a subjective experience, that cannot be seen or shown to a dispassionate investigator, or two that the concept to god has been around a while. The former isn't evidence that can be used by science, and the latter, using Occams razor, would have many, many simpler, more reasonable answers.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

-------from radagast
Aside from the extreme nature of the 'extended analogy flaw' verging on the 'Ignoratio elenchi' and perhaps 'Reification' flaws,

NO, science has no business, whatsoever, in investigating that, in that there is no evidence which can be agreed upon. Without some common ground upon which to agree, nothing of agreement can proceed. Just as the conclusion of logical proof is unknown, where the premise is of questionable nature, so are the conclusions of science, when the very basis of the evidence can be questioned.
-------
And yet it does illustrate the fact that an "internal reality" exists and, that the purpose of the "objective reality" exists for the sake of maintaining that which is internal (life itself), that indeed the "internal reality" takes more precedence. What this tells me is that the key to the "mystery of life" is within. Therefore, if we want to better understand the human predicament -- i.e., from whence it comes and whence it goes -- then we need to look within.

One) The existence of an internal reality is irrelavent to what we are talking of, because of the next point;

two) Internal realities, as sources of scientific evidence, are outside the domain of science. They always have and always will, because they cannot be seen, check, and compared, by a dispassionate investigator.

three) The need to look within, the idea that it should be investigated has been stated, by myself, as a noble endeavor Just Not One Science Is Suited To DO.

four) External reality having a purpose is an unfounded statement, i.e. not an agreed upon fact. Without the two of us agreeing upon it, then any debating conclusions you derive from it are unsupported, because the foundation of the debate was built upon sand.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Iacchus,
You are a true master at avoiding the exact issue raised.

I try to make a point about the inability of one person to 'see' the evidence of another's subjective experience, and you divert the issue to something irrelevant. I have been under the working assumption you don't do this intentionally (otherwise I'd drop the discussion - no need speaking with anyone that isn't an honest debater).

I cannot figure out if you are subconsciously doing this because you want to win the argument, or you just cannot stick to the subject.

Actually I wasn't sure what the heck you were trying to say here?

Originally posted by radagast
Evolution was only picked, because it was an existing theory in science. Any scientific theory would have done, because if it's a scientific theory, it will have a good deal of evidence to support what's hypothesized.

I realized that after I made the reply, but since I already had it in mind to say it, I decided to leave it as is.

The point you are diverting from, is that I expect the same level and type of evidence for any theory to be accepted in a scientific setting, whether it covers the sex lives of the horn toad, or concerns the existence of a god.

But it's not like somebody just came up with theory that God existed out of the blue. You can construe that as evidence too if you like.

So far, the only evidence you've mentioned (that I've personally seen) concerns a subjective experience, that cannot be seen or shown to a dispassionate investigator, or two that the concept to god has been around a while. The former isn't evidence that can be used by science, and the latter, using Occams razor, would have many, many simpler, more reasonable answers.

What would you have me do write a book about it and present it here for everybody's review?

Originally posted by radagast
One) The existence of an internal reality is irrelavent to what we are talking of, because of the next point;

two) Internal realities, as sources of scientific evidence, are outside the domain of science. They always have and always will, because they cannot be seen, check, and compared, by a dispassionate investigator.

Except for the fact (hence evidence) that we're speaking about the same animal here. You can apply this to your Occam's razor as well.

three) The need to look within, the idea that it should be investigated has been stated, by myself, as a noble endeavor Just Not One Science Is Suited To DO.

Just as with any endeavor, say like exploring the depths of the sea, you begin with the generalites (i.e., on the surface), and work your way in (hence down). Doesn't that at least suggest the beginnings of an approach? And why couldn't it be explored by means of psychology or anthropology and what not?

four) External reality having a purpose is an unfounded statement, i.e. not an agreed upon fact. Without the two of us agreeing upon it, then any debating conclusions you derive from it are unsupported, because the foundation of the debate was built upon sand.

And yet it's very clear that I couldn't exist without the confines (within context) of my physical body. If you stabbed me, and let the essence leak out (blood), then I would die. You cannot deny that there's a relationship between essence and form here. And hence another fact (evidence).

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32



And yet it's very clear that I couldn't exist without the confines (within context) of my physical body. If you stabbed me, and let the essence leak out (blood), then I would die. You cannot deny that there's a relationship between essence and form here. And hence another fact (evidence).

See, this is where you screw up. Blood isn't 'essence', it is BLOOD! There is a physical, biological reason why you bleed to death. So, associating blood with your make-believe ideas is just wrong.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually I wasn't sure what the heck you were trying to say here?

Then I apologize for the diverting issues statement.

I will reiterate, so as to clarify.


1) You state Science should investigate 'gods' existence.

2) Science requires that all evidence be view and verified by all investigative parties, both those that accept a conclusion from the evidence and those unconvinced.

3) The evidence you keep bringing up doesn't match point (2), in that I can no more examine your evidence of god, andmore than someone who's never tasted a fruit can 'know' the taste of a mango, from someone else's description.


If this isn't clear enough, please point out which points are not.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
See, this is where you screw up. Blood isn't 'essence', it is BLOOD! There is a physical, biological reason why you bleed to death. So, associating blood with your make-believe ideas is just wrong.

No, I say blood because it's part of the internal makeup of the body, and hence essential. And let's not forget that the blood oxygenates our body and sustains it with nutrients.

Am just trying to use this as an example of how the form gets breeched (or corrupted) and the essence gets taken out of context, and the "life-form" (essence and the form) dies.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I say blood because it's part of the internal makeup of the body, and hence essential. And let's not forget that the blood oxygenates our body and sustains it with nutrients.

Am just trying to use this as an example of how the form gets breeched (or corrupted) and the essence gets taken out of context, and the "life-form" (essence and the form) dies.

And your example is wrong. That is your problem! You try to use faulty comparisons to 'prove' things that don't exist.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Then I apologize for the diverting issues statement.

I will reiterate, so as to clarify.


1) You state Science should investigate 'gods' existence.

2) Science requires that all evidence be view and verified by all investigative parties, both those that accept a conclusion from the evidence and those unconvinced.

3) The evidence you keep bringing up doesn't match point (2), in that I can no more examine your evidence of god, andmore than someone who's never tasted a fruit can 'know' the taste of a mango, from someone else's description.


If this isn't clear enough, please point out which points are not.

And yet, which is what I was "attempting" to bring up, is what if you were to compare the experiences of those who have already shared the experience, and begin by comparing notes? And, while there may be nothing conclusive to it (although I have seen studies which were), you may discover a means by which to begin the approach.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And your example is wrong. That is your problem! You try to use faulty comparisons to 'prove' things that don't exist.

As I said in the previous post to which you first replied, that in order to understand something, you begin with the generalities (i.e., what you do know) and work your way in (typically from the outside to the inside). So what is the difference between this and what I'm trying to tell you?