Evidence of God: Is it Under Our Noses?

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If you don't consider the possibility, if only for the sake of discussion, then there's nothing to be discussed.

Sure there is, I mean you wanted to know “at what point does a fact become knowable?”, and this can make for some good discussion. In fact, if you read my first post over you should find my answer.

I will tell you that it is altogether possible for me to have great respect and admiration for a person, as well as for their right to hold their own personal views. But pertaining to any particular view someone may hold, it is their right to hold them, not the view itself that I am compelled to respect. In short, if you believe in something you cannot prove and yet continually talk to people about it, you need to develop a thick skin.

The unicorns to me represent a belief in something you know can never be proven to anyone else, and yet the purpose of this thread seems to be to determine how a person can feel justified in believing in such things anyway, then looking around after making ‘the association’ to see the footprints in the soil.

Perhaps the next time I should speak of a great and magical Leprechaun instead.
Would that be less offensive, or must I bow before the notion of G-O-D and show special reverence to those three letters?

 

[Iacchus32]

What is Faith?

Originally posted by Opinion
Eliminating the hordes of knowledge built up on this subject (which seems endless)... the only way to find out the real answer is to, now, perform the necessary steps to acquiring faith. God's word points to Christ (Bible scholars know this); therefore, through Him the answers are reveal, by faith. Just as if you went to college to get the knowledge you desire, by faith, you can go to Christ for the faith you desire and the answers you long for.

Except how do you know that Christ has actually revealed Himself to you? Is it something that you actually know or, something that you've accepted the "possiblity" of? In other words, how do you "affirm" what you know?

Originally posted by FZ+
Actually, yes, do take his word for it. That's what faith means, remember?

This is one of the big misnomers about faith I believe ... What, only a hunch? Hmm ... That to know by faith is to ultimately accept something that you can't understand for yourself. Which is to say, you still don't know. However, faith, in the truest sense, is nothing but the process -- "through reason" (the two key words here) -- of understanding what you "do" know. In other words, faith is "born" of the understanding.

So how is it possible to derive from this that faith means being guillible or, having to depend upon someone else's say-so? ... In other words "blind faith?"

Could it be because no two people are alike and, that what one person knows may not be the same as what another knows? Which isn't to say that either one is "lacking" in what they know, just that you, not fully understanding "the truth" of their situation, may not be able to fully ascertain what it means. In which case you have to take it upon "faith" that what they're saying is true, and that they are not misrepresenting themselves. At which point faith can become a very dangerous word.

This is why it's so important to be "dilligent" in your own understanding (or faith), especially when required to make allowances for another "person's faith." So, unless you truly know who you're dealing with or, have little or no choice, don't accept things blindly.

Having said all of that, faith is the "process of knowing" and discovering the truth, which is none other than one's own understanding.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Sure there is, I mean you wanted to know “at what point does a fact become knowable?”, and this can make for some good discussion. In fact, if you read my first post over you should find my answer.

I know who my mother and father are. Seems like a good place to start for me.

I will tell you that it is altogether possible for me to have great respect and admiration for a person, as well as for their right to hold their own personal views. But pertaining to any particular view someone may hold, it is their right to hold them, not the view itself that I am compelled to respect. In short, if you believe in something you cannot prove and yet continually talk to people about it, you need to develop a thick skin.

You don't by any chance mean foreskin do you?

The unicorns to me represent a belief in something you know can never be proven to anyone else, and yet the purpose of this thread seems to be to determine how a person can feel justified in believing in such things anyway, then looking around after making ‘the association’ to see the footprints in the soil.

If you have the abiltiy to reason, then you have the ability to ascertain whether something is true or not, whether visible to the naked eye or not.

Perhaps the next time I should speak of a great and magical Leprechaun instead.
Would that be less offensive, or must I bow before the notion of G-O-D and show special reverence to those three letters?

Actually, after giving it some consideration, there's a very likely possibility that these creatures do exist, that is if there's any "spiritual significance" as to what they mean. Thus when we pass on, and enter the "mythic realm," it's very likely that we might encounter such things. In fact I remember the time I saw the winged horse Pegasus, albeit it was in "lucid dream."

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
What is real for you, is only real for you. It makes no difference whether you are talking about invisible pink unicorns or God. I have no reason to believe in either of them and they are therefore on equal standing in my mind until such time as I have reason to believe otherwise. I’m sorry if it insults you to have your God and the unicorns put on the same shelf as I have done but ultimately, and to borrow your own phrase “that’s your problem”.

I am not insulted. I was placing not only God and pink unicorns on the same shelf but you, as a believer in pink unicorns and I ,as a believer in God in the same category, partially to see how you liked it for a change and partially because to some that's where we belong.

I think this statement is patently false. To affect a change in people’s thinking is exactly what is being attempted.

Yes I am trying to get people to think about it. I am not trying to change their mind or convince them of anything because I have found that to be all but impossible (including me).

But I’m not calling you a fool, I’m simply saying I don’t share your interpretation of reality.

I know this. I am not talking about you specifically but other objective materialist nonbelievers or anti-theist, the generic or collective you. It isn't right to include you personally in this group accept when you are intentionally being rough. I sometimes reply in kind. I think we respect one another enough and know each others thinking well enough that we can safely do this without fear of offense or hurt feelings. This is not true of everyone needless to say.

Bull$hit, its all about the ego. You said it yourself that; “…while at the same time seeking affirmatiom of our beliefs, to find others that have had similar experiences so that we affirm what we've seen or found and not that we are really as crazy or dellusional as we are afraid or may think we are.”

I think we are not agreeing on what "ego" means. Ego to me is a part of me that thinks that I am the greatest smartest and most lucid being I know, as in egotistical not self as in egocentric. I am more than my ego though of course my ego doesn't thinks so. I am trying to learn to control it but its hard when I'm so wonderful already.

Don’t be so thin-skinned.

Normally I'm not but I do get worn down and away. Others here have grown calloses just as I have.

The “seeking affirmation…” I quoted you on above is truly an indication of insecurity in your own beliefs. Yet while having these insecurities many would attempt to convince others they knew the truth.

One one hand I am secure and comfortable in my convictions; but, it is always nice to find others share our thinking. We are not then so alone. On the other hand there are times when part of me wonders if I am wrong. I think we all, including atheist, have periods of doubt. If others believe what we do and share their experiences with us, we are not along and it gives more support to our beleifs and more reality to our experiences. I think that this is common to all mankind.

If we don't have some self doubt about ourselves and or thinking, I think that there is something very wrong and it is a symptom of denial. We are clinging too desperately to our beliefs and too fragile to let an doubt creep in or it all, sanity and reality, may come crashing down around us.

If we luck out and find a really good resturant or movie don't we all want to share it with friends and family. Is this ego? Is this trying to change the thinking and beliefs of all of mankind? Is this imposing or inflicting ones beliefs onto others?

Give me a break, BH. I don't mind taking off the gloves while sparing but hitting below the belt just to see my reaction is going a bit far. Try to keep the attacks to the topic and not personal (even if you feel your losing the discussion).

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I know who my mother and father are. Seems like a good place to start for me.

They say it’s a wise child who knows its own father. Mothers are the one who suckle you, but the father could actually be some other man across town (or next door).

You don't by any chance mean foreskin do you?

If given the opportunity, would you rather be a ‘complete’ man, or one lacking something nature saw fit to provide him with? In this god-business we wouldn’t want to become overly ‘sensitive’, haha.

If you have the abiltiy to reason, then you have the ability to ascertain whether something is true or not, whether visible to the naked eye or not.

I don’t agree, for pertinent information unavailable to an individual prevents a proper evaluation (brainwashing technique).

Actually, after giving it some consideration, there's a very likely possibility that these creatures do exist,..

Absolutely, and you will never find me saying such things do not exist. At least, not until I have finished scouring the universe and looked under every black hole. What I’m more interested in knowing is what would be in it for me there were (hey, I’m just as self centered as the next person, after all).

…that is if there's any "spiritual significance" as to what they mean.

For me, I’d settle for knowing whether there is any significance to “spiritual significance”.

Thus when we pass on, and enter the "mythic realm," it's very likely that we might encounter such things. In fact I remember the time I saw the winged horse Pegasus, albeit it was in "lucid dream."

If I can find pencil and paper I will write you from Valhalla and let you know what I discover.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
They say it’s a wise child who knows its own father. Mothers are the one who suckle you, but the father could actually be some other man across town (or next door).

We're all just brothers and sisters in the eyes of the Lord anyway, right?

If given the opportunity, would you rather be a ‘complete’ man, or one lacking something nature saw fit to provide him with? In this god-business we wouldn’t want to become overly ‘sensitive’, haha.

But why does the darn thing look so much like the head of a serpent, you know, the very thing which beguiled us in the Garden of Eden? And doesn't the serpent shed its skin too? Hmm ... Perhaps this was God's way of reminding us of something?

By the way, do you wear glasses, drive a car, ever have your appendix taken out? Ever have a dentist drill your teeth and put in a filling?

I don’t agree, for pertinent information unavailable to an individual prevents a proper evaluation (brainwashing technique).

While I suppose you can brainwash people into believing E=MC2 as well. How do we -- which, by the way is most of the lay people -- know that it's not a bunch of propaganda?

Absolutely, and you will never find me saying such things do not exist. At least, not until I have finished scouring the universe and looked under every black hole. What I’m more interested in knowing is what would be in it for me there were (hey, I’m just as self centered as the next person, after all).

Well then happy trails! ...

For me, I’d settle for knowing whether there is any significance to “spiritual significance”.

Well it begins with "spiritual" and ends with "significance," therefore it must be.

If I can find pencil and paper I will write you from Valhalla and let you know what I discover.

Got anything to do with the movie, "Fatal Attractions?"

 

[Royce]

Never thought of that before. Maybe the serpent was a metphor for Adam's penis or phallic symbol in general. It has certainly begiled many a woman through out the ages.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
We're all just brothers and sisters in the eyes of the Lord anyway, right?

In the eyes of the Leprechaun we may all be one.

But why does the darn thing look so much like the head of a serpent, you know, the very thing which beguiled us in the Garden of Eden?

That’s a good one, though I’m reminded a soldier wearing a helmet…
Ten-HUT !

And doesn't the serpent shed its skin too?

Yes but I think he would be quite annoyed if you tried to cut it off for him.

Hmm ... Perhaps this was God's way of reminding us of something?

It may be man’s way of reminding him of something.

By the way, do you wear glasses, drive a car, ever have your appendix taken out? Ever have a dentist drill your teeth and put in a filling?

Why?

While I suppose you can brainwash people into believing E=MC2 as well. How do we -- which, by the way is most of the lay people -- know that it's not a bunch of propaganda?

Well it could actually be, but if you are using that equation as metaphor for scientific teaching in general then I’d say that propaganda or not, it is accepted and welcomed because it can be shown to produce things beneficial to us.

Got anything to do with the movie, "Fatal Attractions?"

I’ve not seen that movie yet, is it something new or am I still way behind on my movie-going?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
In the eyes of the Leprechaun we may all be one.

What a fine fresh scent it has! ... And I like it too!

Yes but I think he would be quite annoyed if you tried to cut it off for him.

Probably not if he was actually molting.

It may be man’s way of reminding him of something.

Actually, according to Eastern Traditions, the serpent is a sign of Eternity, due to its shedding of its skin, in which case maybe this is the kind of covenant God made with Abraham? Also, God had him change his name from Abrams to Abraham, while here it was "Ham" got a good peak at the family jewels in the story of Noah, and was cursed as a result. Perhaps maybe it represents something similar to the story of Adam?

Why?

Most "unnatural!"

Well it could actually be, but if you are using that equation as metaphor for scientific teaching in general then I’d say that propaganda or not, it is accepted and welcomed because it can be shown to produce things beneficial to us.

And yet it would seem we still have people preaching "abstract" ideas here.

I’ve not seen that movie yet, is it something new or am I still way behind on my movie-going?

Don't know much about it either except that it was released in 1987. This was all I could come up with when I did a search for Valhalla on the Internet. Hmm ...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Person A has an extrordinary ex-
perience that person B has never
had.

Person A reports the experience to
B.

B finds it impossible to believe.

Person A is miffed.

Person A accuses B of being closed
minded.

Is B actually closed minded or
merely inexperienced?

Or is person A simply closed minded to the idea that his "extra-ordinary" experience has a natural explenation that makes it ordinary.

If A is not opening his mind for that possibility, then who is to be said closed minded?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Or is person A simply closed minded to the idea that his "extra-ordinary" experience has a natural explenation that makes it ordinary.

If A is not opening his mind for that possibility, then who is to be said closed minded?

Of course what if A's claim didn't involve the supernatural, but B didn't have the means by which to accept it? Does that make it any less true on A's part if B can't ascertain it?

Or, what if B comes up with the foregone conclusion that A is close minded because B has already determined that the supernatural doesn't exist?

 

[heusdens]

You rather define closed mindset if one doesn't accept the super natural. But there is no closed mindedness involved in not accepting super natural, just a lot of factual knowledge and reason.

We should drop our factual knowledge and reason, in order to accept supernatural?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
You rather define closed mindset if one doesn't accept the super natural. But there is no closed mindedness involved in not accepting super natural, just a lot of factual knowledge and reason.

No, not at all. I just call people close-minded who turn around and accuse me of being close-minded because they "can't" accept it.

We should drop our factual knowledge and reason, in order to accept supernatural?

I don't see why we can't use the same faculty of reason to ascertain it. In fact I don't see how it can work any other way, that is if you're not "grounded" in what you know. I think the key here, as menitoned above, is that we don't accept things blindly.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This is one of the big misnomers about faith I believe ... What, only a hunch? Hmm ... That to know by faith is to ultimately accept something that you can't understand for yourself. Which is to say, you still don't know. However, faith, in the truest sense, is nothing but the process -- "through reason" (the two key words here) -- of understanding what you "do" know. In other words, faith is "born" of the understanding.

Having said that, if one person is capable of ascertaining whether God exists or not -- "through reason" -- although more on a "personal level," I don't see why others couldn't ascertain it as well. Whereas prior to the advancement of science, logic and reason were tools that were not readily available to the general populace, and people had to rely more on someone else's say so on things like the Bible. And yet now, ever since the Age of Enlightenment, people are far more capable of understanding things for themselves, and through the power of "cognitive reasoning," may very well be prepared to ascertain whether God exists or not.

 

[BoulderHead]

Royce, did you edit your post to include a bunch of new material that wasn’t originally there? I thought I had read the original but recalled it being much shorter than what it is now.

Originally posted by Royce
…It isn't right to include you personally in this group accept when you are intentionally being rough. I sometimes reply in kind.

Consider me your friendly neighborhood barbarian.
What if I told you that my roughness was related in some manner to my ingestion of medication? Think of this in regards to the mind/body relationship. Why is the ‘spirit’ or ‘conscience’ or ‘immaterial’ affected by physicality? I tend to view this as yet another example of the material being primary to the immaterial. How do you view it?

I think we are not agreeing on what "ego" means. Ego to me is a part of me that thinks that I am the greatest smartest and most lucid being I know, as in egotistical not self as in egocentric. I am more than my ego though of course my ego doesn't thinks so. I am trying to learn to control it but its hard when I'm so wonderful already.

I hold a much broader view of ego;
n. pl. e•gos
1) The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
2) In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality.

One one hand I am secure and comfortable in my convictions; but, it is always nice to find others share our thinking. We are not then so alone.

To me, however, this shows insecurity.

On the other hand there are times when part of me wonders if I am wrong. I think we all, including atheist, have periods of doubt. If others believe what we do and share their experiences with us, we are not along and it gives more support to our beleifs and more reality to our experiences. I think that this is common to all mankind.

Yes, I understand and share these feelings, I just believe they are the result of our insecurity.

If we don't have some self doubt about ourselves and or thinking, I think that there is something very wrong and it is a symptom of denial. We are clinging too desperately to our beliefs and too fragile to let an doubt creep in or it all, sanity and reality, may come crashing down around us.

Yes, but can’t you see that this is precisely why statements like “I know god/s exist” is disagreeable to me?

If we luck out and find a really good resturant or movie don't we all want to share it with friends and family. Is this ego?

With my definition, yes. It is akin to saying: “look what I found…come with me and confirm that what I have found is good..."

Give me a break, BH. I don't mind taking off the gloves while sparing but hitting below the belt just to see my reaction is going a bit far.

It isn’t to see your reaction, it is to drive home a point until I think it is understood.

…Try to keep the attacks to the topic and not personal...

Alright then; the topic was about evidence of God. You have admitted that;

Neither I nor anyone else can prove to anyone that God is;nor, can we show you God. We can only point the way. If you or anyone else refuse to look or to see that's your problem not ours nor does it prove that we are stupid or delusional.

The first part ought to be the end of the story; no proof, no belief. The second part, well, what can I say?

... (even if you feel your losing the discussion).

Haha, cute.