What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

[Adam]

What would it take? Brainwashing.

Seriously, so many other things are far more likely. If someone popped up and demonstrated remarkable powers, the far more likely option is a technologically-advanced alien or such. Even more likely is hallucination. I can't think of anything that would do it, really, short of brainwashing.

 

[Iacchus32]

And yet the idea of God has been conveyed throughout the millennia, and quite possibly "meant" to be understood.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the idea of God has been conveyed throughout the millennia, and quite possibly "meant" to be understood.

Rot and piffle. The idea of gods has been around for millennia. The word "god" refers not to a single being but to a class or type of being. It's like people, dogs, fish, et cetera. "Baal" is to "god" as "Adam" is to "person". However, the christian churches came up with a rather clever policy of referring to their own god, named "Yahweh" or some such, as simply "God", changing the meaning of the word to imply that there is only one such being.

As for human belief in the supernatural in general, what has persisted for millennia is not any particular belief in one thing, but ignorance. For the majority of our history we have been ignorant of why lightning occurs, for example, and thus made up silly fairy tales of spirits and gods and such to explain it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Virtually unknown to all the science fantatics is the huge area of human potential out of which “enlightenment” has risen. The materialists are geniuses on everything physical, but ask them to explain the 3000 year history of the enlightenment phenomenon and all you get is a big . . . “huh?” And will they investigate and understand before spouting radical materialist philosophy? Well, I have yet to see it.

So here we all are, philosophizing without a crucial piece of human potential included in the discussion . . . and for no other reason than people are already determined to believe what they want to believe, and perfectly willing to ignore or disregard relevant additional information to do so.

And yes, what radagast fails to realize is that this is a philosophy forum, and is somewhat open ended in terms of what you can discuss. Neither does he wish to realize that it's these very same people who I am addressing in these posts. So rather than focus on me -- if, he wants to start a campaign, I would suggest he begin focusing on them as well. Or, maybe there's a particular reason why he wishes to single me out?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Adam
Rot and piffle. The idea of gods has been around for millennia. The word "god" refers not to a single being but to a class or type of being. It's like people, dogs, fish, et cetera. "Baal" is to "god" as "Adam" is to "person". However, the christian churches came up with a rather clever policy of referring to their own god, named "Yahweh" or some such, as simply "God", changing the meaning of the word to imply that there is only one such being.

There are just as many Gods as there are people on this planet. And yet, only one sun in the sky? -- which, for all intents and purposes represents God. Think about it, this is where the idea of monotheism came from, the early Egyptians, and is no doubt (I could be mistaken here) tied to their sun-god "Ra."

As for human belief in the supernatural in general, what has persisted for millennia is not any particular belief in one thing, but ignorance. For the majority of our history we have been ignorant of why lightning occurs, for example, and thus made up silly fairy tales of spirits and gods and such to explain it.

Ignorance? And yet the last thing you would want to do is get struck by lightning now wouldn't it? That would be pure ignorance indeed. Whereas if you were close to the "root of the matter," such as the ancients no doubt were, you might come about with a different perspective.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
There are just as many Gods as there are people on this planet. And yet, only one sun in the sky? -- which, for all intents and purposes represents God. Think about it, this is where the idea of monotheism came from, the early Egyptians, and is no doubt (I could be mistaken here) tied to their sun-god "Ra."

The oldest known religious icon is about 25,000 years old, European, a small ivory carving of a pregnant-looking female. That may have been part of a pantheon or may have been from a monotheistic culture; it's uncertain.

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Ignorance? And yet the last thing you would want to do is get struck by lightning now wouldn't it? That would be pure ignorance indeed. Whereas if you were close to the "root of the matter," such as the ancients no doubt were, you might come about with a different perspective.

It would be unlucky to be struck by lightning, but such an event would have nothing at all to do with knowledge or igorance. Someone who knows what lightning is may be struck. Again, ages ago belief that such things were caused by beings was based on ignorance.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yes, what radagast fails to realize is that this is a philosophy forum, and is somewhat open ended in terms of what you can discuss. Neither does he wish to realize that it's these very same people who I am addressing in these posts. So rather than focus on me -- if, he wants to start a campaign, I would suggest he begin focusing on them as well. Or, maybe there's a particular reason why he wishes to single me out?

Ummm...we prefer our philosophy to be coherent? And you have been dipping into the shrooms again, haven't you?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Adam
It would be unlucky to be struck by lightning, but such an event would have nothing at all to do with knowledge or igorance. Someone who knows what lightning is may be struck. Again, ages ago belief that such things were caused by beings was based on ignorance.

And yet I'm not going to stand out in the middle of a field during the middle of a thunder storm and wait for it to happen. That "would" be dumb. Also, the lives of the gods were "synchronized" through such events, as storms, wars, faminines and what not. So if in fact there were a "godly connection" to be made, this is how it would mostly likely come about. While something similar is suggested by what I posted in the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=54055 ...

Originally posted by Iaccus32
And yet as I understand, the angels in heaven, as intermediaries between heaven and earth, are already endowed with this capacity ... as "mini gods" so to speak.

As a matter-of-fact, if understood correctly, it would begin to explain the nature gods and godessess in general, like throughout ancient Greece and what not. Whereby the gods or godesses we choose -- or, do they choose us? -- depends upon the "afiliations" we establish in ourselves.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...we prefer our philosophy to be coherent? And you have been dipping into the shrooms again, haven't you?

You're right, it's important to have a sense of humor about it now isn't it?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
You're right, it's important to have a sense of humor about it now isn't it?

What the heck, it breaks the monotony, if nothing else!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by radagast
Les,
I realize you cannot read all the posts on the site, so I understand that you may have gotten a skewed view, especially from this thread. . . .

If you wish to judge me, please read more than one or two of my posts.

Glenn, my sincere apologies . . . I actually read more of other people's posts, and focused more on the one of yours I quoted because it was addressing empirical issues. After going back and carefully reading your posts, I see I was careless in chosing your last post to represent the materialist position.

That last paragraph of mine definitely was NOT directed at you, but rather was a frustration I have accumulated from debating with materialists here (I think had over 500 posts at the old site, and most of them were long posts too). Yet I would add I don't believe what I said was an ad hominem argument because it is an accurate description of what has gone on.

Just to be clear, I think science is awesome, and does a wonderful job revealing the nature of the physical world. I also do not think science will ever prove or disprove whether or not there is a God, or soul or anything spiritual. They are two distinct realms, each with its own avenues for knowing.

 

[radagast]

Hi Les,
I wasn't offended by your post. I've made the same type of error, I guess we all have.

Our views on science seem to be quite similar.

I shouldn't have used the ad-hominem phrase. I took your general statements personally. I guess I was getting a little frustrated and fatigued at Iacchus's 'debating' tactics. I consider ceasing all debate with a person, my action of last resort. As such, I go to some extremes to give them the benefit of the doubt. I guess I took much too long to pull that plug. I shouldn't have taken it out on you. My apologies.

 

[Royce]

Les, my friend, I am surprised to read that even you are losing patients with the objective materialist's arguements. You the epitome of logical reasoning. I am crushed. My idol has feet of clay. Mr Spock is somewhere sadly shaking his head! Oh well, it proves that you too are only human. I had thought that it was only me with my shortcomings who was losing patients.

radagast, Glenn, is a friend of open mind and logical reasoning too.
I find it amusing that we three, as well as others, all setting on or on opposite sides of the fence, feel the same frustration.

There must be some way that we can keep from mixing up science and meta-physics while we discuss both and yet find a common ground for both. I know you and I as well as M.Gaspar and Iacchus32 as well as other do not see any real conflict between science and religion or better meta-physics. The conflict come from mixing apples and organge and both 'sides' including myself are guilty of that.

My point, other than chatting with friends, to continue the metaphor, is that, while yes, it is apples and oranges, both are fruit. Even if we keep them in separate baskets they both reside in the same fruit stand along with still other friuits. This universe, as well as we humans, is truly a fruit salad containg and ample supply of nuts also just to make it even better.

 

[Zero]

The problem as I see it is that the 'fruit' off religion is at best illusion, and at worst it is poison.

 

[Iacchus32]

Rational Thought

In order to believe, it has to be plausible. And it doesn't make a bit of difference whether it's science, religion or whatever. And if I can't bring any plausibility to my case, then I have no business stating anything on this forum.

By the way, how can you possibly get anybody to believe in anything, without speaking about it first?

And yet if you can't speak about it, because science can't/won't conceive of it, then there's not much point in thinking about it now is there? What? An idea is not considered rational unless science says it is rational? Hmm ... this seems to be the problem right here. And indeed this is how it feels!

Therefore if I can't think about it, using the exact same process science uses to conduct its analysis -- "through rational thought" -- then what's the point in attempting to know anything?

Seems like a great way to discourage people from practicing religion, especially when the only way you can truly understand it, is by thinking about it "rationally."

Of course science seems to have its own idea about religious thinking, that it is anything but rational and yet, what if it were possible? Hmm ... we might even be able to present a case now wouldn't we?

 

[Zero]

When all else fails, pull out the 'science suppresses religion' card? All we're asking for is evidence, and since you don't have any, why can't you admit it?

 

[Royce]

Iacchus32, I have tried both rational and natural approches in threade here and the religion forum. Didn't work and got little response.
I was told long age to never discuss religion or politicts as it led to nothing but arguments, rising tempers and frustration. Seems my Dad was right again.
I am constantly amazed at how successful people can be at ignoring the obvious and seeing what only they choose to see. This of course includes us.
Surely there is a common ground where both science and meta-physics can be discussed rationally and logically without conflict or rising tempers and frustration.
This is what I get for being a bit of an idealist I guess.

Zero. one man,s poison is another man,s necter. Intentionally or not you have just admitted that you are seeing illusions. There may be hope for you yet. It is said that seeing is believing.

 

[Zero]

Whatever, Royce...go back to listening to the voices in your head, ok?

There is no such thing as meta-anything. Either it is real, or it isn't. Show me the evidence, and I'll accept anything as provisionally true. Without any evidence, don't expect me to take an idea seriously.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Whatever, Royce...go back to listening to the voices in your head, ok?

There is no such thing as meta-anything. Either it is real, or it isn't. Show me the evidence, and I'll accept anything as provisionally true. Without any evidence, don't expect me to take an idea seriously.

And yet until we invented the microscope, there's no way we could have foretold such a "meta-thing" as people being created by "two germs" getting together.

So maybe it's just a matter of developing a better way to look at it?

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet I'm not going to stand out in the middle of a field during the middle of a thunder storm and wait for it to happen. That "would" be dumb. Also, the lives of the gods were "synchronized" through such events, as storms, wars, faminines and what not. So if in fact there were a "godly connection" to be made, this is how it would mostly likely come about. While something similar is suggested by what I posted in the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=54055 ...

Simple experience would have told Igorant Ug the Caveman that going outside during an electrical storm would increase his chances of being struck by lightning, even if he thought it came from the big bad Storm God. People tens of millennia back weren't stupid, just ignorant. Thus for thousands of years before anything was known about electrons and valences and such, people used tghe noble metals as coins.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Adam
Simple experience would have told Igorant Ug the Caveman that going outside during an electrical storm would increase his chances of being struck by lightning, even if he thought it came from the big bad Storm God. People tens of millennia back weren't stupid, just ignorant. Thus for thousands of years before anything was known about electrons and valences and such, people used tghe noble metals as coins.

Even so, just because a person believes in a power greater than onself, does not make a person ignorant, unless you can prove otherwise. Can you prove that God doesn't exist? And what if I were to suggest there was a means by which to prove it to yourself?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet until we invented the microscope, there's no way we could have foretold such a "meta-thing" as people being created by "two germs" getting together.

So maybe it's just a matter of developing a better way to look at it?

Until you determine that "better way", we are justified as disregarding what you have to say on teh subject(from a rational standpoint)

It is like ESP: as soon as someone can show a laboratory effect that matches teh claims, I will be behind it 100%. Until then, I am fully justified in my lack of belief.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Until you determine that "better way", we are justified as disregarding what you have to say on teh subject(from a rational standpoint)

It is like ESP: as soon as someone can show a laboratory effect that matches teh claims, I will be behind it 100%. Until then, I am fully justified in my lack of belief.

Ignorance is no excuse for the law. Isn't that what they say? ...

Actually I'm not sure how much it really matters anyway, just so long as we learn the lessons of life and try to remain reasonable as human beings. I don't think the guy upstairs -- "if He exists" -- expects any more than that.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
The problem as I see it is that the 'fruit' off religion is at best illusion, and at worst it is poison.

How do you know religion has anything to do with what individuals such as Jesus or the Buddha were all about? You just blindly accept that religion represents them. Have you taken time to research those individuals and, more significantly, the nature of the experience they were having?

It's like people forming their opinions about homosexuality by listening to the Moral Majority. What do you think of such an eduction?

Man, what I wouldn't give to hear an opinion from someone who has taken the time to study, really freakin' study, the whole situation. Instead we are subjected to educations designed to support one's preferences, agendas, and inclinations.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
How do you know religion has anything to do with what individuals such as Jesus or the Buddha were all about? You just blindly accept that religion represents them. Have you taken time to research those individuals and, more significantly, the nature of the experience they were having?

It's like people forming their opinions about homosexuality by listening to the Moral Majority. What do you think of such an eduction?

Man, what I wouldn't give to hear an opinion from someone who has taken the time to study, really freakin' study, the whole situation. Instead we are subjected to educations designed to support one's preferences, agendas, and inclinations.

Odd. Only opinions that agree with you are well-supported, huh?
Try again bub, your own bias is showing.

First, prove conclusively that Buddha or Jesus existed. Then, PROVE that the reported experiences are historically accurate, and not hyped-up myth created after the fact. Then, you are still stuck with the burden of proving that their experiences really happened.
I've done plenty of research, most of which points to probable historical existence, but no confirmation proving anything supernatural in nature.

 

[Iacchus32]

How do you know that God exists? Through cause and effect. It's just like anything else, it's all a matter of understanding how it works.

Now why should it be more difficult than that?


From the thread, The search for truth ...

Truth is just "awareness" that comes about through consciousness. Even scientific discoveries don't become truths, unless someone has been made "aware" of them.

The truth is of "the moment" ... and now I ask is that we all meditate.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How do you know that God exists? Through cause and effect. It's just like anything else, it's all a matter of understanding how it works.

Now why should it be more difficult than that?

What has cause to do with the issue of God?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
What has cause to do with the issue of God?

I think what you mean is what "doesn't" it have to do with the issue of God?

Which is all I'm saying, that if you can't understand God from the standpoint of cause and effect, then you "can't" understand God. It would be impossible.

Granted it might require you to look at how it affects you "interiorly," but it still boils down to cause and effect.

 

[Zero]

What do you mean SPECIFICALLY by cause and effect?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think what you mean is what "doesn't" it have to do with the issue of God?

Which is all I'm saying, that if you can't understand God from the standpoint of cause and effect, then you "can't" understand God. It would be impossible.

Granted it might require you to look at how it affects you "interiorly," but it still boils down to cause and effect.

God has nothing to do with "cause" and "effect" cause God is just a concept of the mind.

But to explain causality, it is obvious that it means that all events exists as causes and effects simultaniously, only not in the same causal relationship. This means that there is no 'primal' cause, because it would also be a 'primal effect' which also has a cause.
That therefore means that there is no begin of causality.

And thus, no need for God either, to give the 'first push'.

Got it?