What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

[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?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
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?

The difference is that you are comparing apples and noexistant oranges.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
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.

One) Please use the term conjecture (or something similar), NOT theory. Theory has an extremely special meaning, in a scientific context - one that you haven't met so far. This will prevent avoidable confusion.

Two) If you present that as evidence, then I would counter that the evidence is much more easily explained by a large number of reasons, that do not carry the hefty baggage of trying to [then] explain a how a 'god' came about, etcetera. For example, humans are raised by parents, so are inculcated with a strong authoritarian figure from a young age. One that provides food, shelter, love, and justice. Primative man would have found it easy to accept that there was a higher authoritarian figure, replacing parents, once they became adults. This also would fit with explaining an apparently capricious world in which they lived.

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

Nope, just present some evidence that supports the existence of (a) god(s). Then, those of us with a scientific bent will present out acceptance or rejection of said evidence, with the reasons behind the acceptance/rejection.

All this, keeping in mind that science is designed so that theories are targetted to skeptics. Theories demonstrate that they fit the evidence seen better than any other theory with the power or the evidence and rationality of the reasoning.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

OK, You'll need to clarify what you mean. Perhaps there's too many pronouns or I'm just overworked, but I have no idea what you mean.

quote:Originally posted by radagast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

But to use psychology, you wouldn't be investigating the existence of god, but the effect of 'a specific experience' on the persons mental state and subsequent actions - nothing to do with the boolean nature of god's existence.

Similarly, anthropology would investigate the effect of a belief on groups of humans, not the existence, or lack thereof, of god.

quote:Originally posted by radagast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).

While you may consider it very clear, I would take it to be quite the opposite. You assume I cannot see something different [what I get from reading your post], yet I do. Since I do disagree, then how can this be taken as evidence (moreover, evidence of what).

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
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.

But from a scientific point of view, there is no way to assume the two experiences are the same. Similar, but no way to determine if they are the same.

E.g. You give two people that haven't tasted fruit a piece of fruit. One a lemon and one a lime. If they only taste the fruit, not see it, how can they communicate to the point of determining it was the same or a different fruit.

There is also the problem of determining if the experience has a myriad of other, more mundane, causes.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
One) Please use the term conjecture (or something similar), NOT theory. Theory has an extremely special meaning, in a scientific context - one that you haven't met so far. This will prevent avoidable confusion.

And, while I don't consider myself aligned with it so much (except for the part about God exists, as does a spiritual world), what about the theory of Creation? (or Creationism).

Two) If you present that as evidence, then I would counter that the evidence is much more easily explained by a large number of reasons, that do not carry the hefty baggage of trying to [then] explain a how a 'god' came about, etcetera. For example, humans are raised by parents, so are inculcated with a strong authoritarian figure from a young age. One that provides food, shelter, love, and justice. Primative man would have found it easy to accept that there was a higher authoritarian figure, replacing parents, once they became adults. This also would fit with explaining an apparently capricious world in which they lived.

And yet there's nothing to say that these same arguments can't be used in the existence "for" God -- i.e., in illustrating man's "inherent" need for authority, thus alluding to the ultimate authority, "God Himself." And neither do they explain the elaborate imagery and mythologies entailed (especially in well developed cultures, such as Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, etc.).

Nope, just present some evidence that supports the existence of (a) god(s). Then, those of us with a scientific bent will present out acceptance or rejection of said evidence, with the reasons behind the acceptance/rejection.

Those of us? Hmm ...

All this, keeping in mind that science is designed so that theories are targetted to skeptics. Theories demonstrate that they fit the evidence seen better than any other theory with the power or the evidence and rationality of the reasoning.

And how about myself? I doubt that you can find a much better skeptic than I. And you can ask Zero about that!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And, while I don't consider myself aligned with it so much (except for the part about God exists, as does a spiritual world), what about the theory of Creation? (or Creationism).

There is no such thing as a Theory of Creationism. That is one of the points you seem to miss. Calling something a theory doesn't make it so. "Theory' is the highest level an idea can achieve in science, and creationism doesn't come anywhere near meeting the criteria.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And, while I don't consider myself aligned with it so much (except for the part about God exists, as does a spiritual world), what about the theory of Creation? (or Creationism).

In respected scientific circles, Creationism is about as far from a theory as you can get. Only the creationists believe it's a theory, not the general scientific community.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32 quote:Originally posted by radagast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two) If you present that as evidence, then I would counter that the evidence is much more easily explained by a large number of reasons, that do not carry the hefty baggage of trying to [then] explain a how a 'god' came about, etcetera. For example, humans are raised by parents, so are inculcated with a strong authoritarian figure from a young age. One that provides food, shelter, love, and justice. Primative man would have found it easy to accept that there was a higher authoritarian figure, replacing parents, once they became adults. This also would fit with explaining an apparently capricious world in which they lived.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet there's nothing to say that these same arguments can't be used in the existence "for" God -- i.e., in illustrating man's "inherent" need for authority, thus alluding to the ultimate authority, "God Himself." And neither do they explain the elaborate imagery and mythologies entailed (especially in well developed cultures, such as Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, etc.).

But what you're running into is a difference between 'poor' evidence and 'good' evidence. If evidence supports conclusion 'a' much more poorly (or less reasonably [see Occam's razor]) than other conclusions, then it's considered poor evidence of conclusion 'a'.

Even assuming no difference in the quality of the evidence, Occams razor is still a factor. Existent and more mundane possible causes are more reasonable to claim, because they carry no overhead of explaining how they exist (since they are known to), compared with god, which requires many more details (where did god come from, how was he created, where does he exist, how do we know all these things).

To put it in more concrete terms, when you find the body of a person with a bullet hole in his head, you could suppose he was shot by a gun, or we could suppose that the bullet appeared in front of the person, already traveling at a high rate of speed, killing the poor guy. We have no more evidence of one supposition than the other, but it's more reasonable to pick the one that requires no added explanations.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And how about myself? I doubt that you can find a much better skeptic than I. And you can ask Zero about that!

The conjecture has to take on all skeptics, not just those that proposed it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
There is no such thing as a Theory of Creationism. That is one of the points you seem to miss. Calling something a theory doesn't make it so. "Theory' is the highest level an idea can achieve in science, and creationism doesn't come anywhere near meeting the criteria.

So far, all I've alluded to in my posts is the theory of evolution, that is until now. And as for the theory of Creationism, I'm not even sure what that entails, except that there are parts which take the Bible literally, that I don't agree with. I just threw this up to see if any theory of God was deemed acceptable, which apparently it's not.

 

[megashawn]

If a god theory could offer something beneficial, then I'm sure it would be taken serious.

If it solved any fundamental questions, again, a serious look would be taken.

But really, there has been no God hypothesis (i think that's the word your looking for here) that has shown to be even slightly usefull. In deed it seems that adding god to the mix rather complicates things.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
But what you're running into is a difference between 'poor' evidence and 'good' evidence. If evidence supports conclusion 'a' much more poorly (or less reasonably [see Occam's razor]) than other conclusions, then it's considered poor evidence of conclusion 'a'.

Not necessarily, because the thing you don't understand is that I'm not trying to refute the theory of evolution and replace it with the theory of God, but only augment the two. In which case evidence from either side would still be acceptable. Hence it would only be a matter of finding the "missing links."

Even assuming no difference in the quality of the evidence, Occams razor is still a factor. Existent and more mundane possible causes are more reasonable to claim, because they carry no overhead of explaining how they exist (since they are known to), compared with god, which requires many more details (where did god come from, how was he created, where does he exist, how do we know all these things).

And yet what does Occam's razor got to do with the world being flat? Which is precisely the point. Because this was the easiest thing for people to understand at that time. Are you not setting yourself up for the potential of repeating the same "classical mistake?" Indeed!

To put it in more concrete terms, when you find the body of a person with a bullet hole in his head, you could suppose he was shot by a gun, or we could suppose that the bullet appeared in front of the person, already traveling at a high rate of speed, killing the poor guy. We have no more evidence of one supposition than the other, but it's more reasonable to pick the one that requires no added explanations.

Except that we all know that a bullet is typically fired from a gun or, how about if it was thrown into a nearby campfire or something?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
If a god theory could offer something beneficial, then I'm sure it would be taken serious.

If it solved any fundamental questions, again, a serious look would be taken.

But really, there has been no God hypothesis (i think that's the word your looking for here) that has shown to be even slightly usefull. In deed it seems that adding god to the mix rather complicates things.

Well I can think of one useful thing right off hand. It might give science and religion a chance to agree with each other for once, and maybe they could do something useful together, like clean up the environment -- i.e., by means of a grass roots organization or something.

If you're interested and would like to read more, please check out my Center of Existence thread.

 

[megashawn]

heh, uhm, running out of straws?

Why in the world would religion and science need to unite to clean up the enviroment?

There are groups around here cleaning up that are multi-cultured. See, the trick, is to do this. If you believe in something unexplainable to the average joe, and for some reason feel benefited, by all means do it. Don't try to make something that isn't going to work happen.

I see what your saying, and in your eyes, I'd imagine you could view science as a tool for exploring gods creation.

Science just leaves it open for anyone, saying it is a tool for exploring everything.

I mean, its not like you go to school to become a physicist and get kicked out because you believe in god.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
heh, uhm, running out of straws?

Why in the world would religion and science need to unite to clean up the enviroment?

Well you obviously didn't bother to read the thread.

 

[Zantra]

I think the theme of this, and what I believe is that with regard to religion, People who believe in it are not willing to accept any alternative or even consider it for the most part. For example:

If the 2nd messiah came, or God appeared and started smiting people, I'll admit as an athiest I'd be dumbfounded. But after a short pause I'd say "well, time to rewrite science- and acceptance would sink in. In the face of an undeniable observation like oceans parting or Jesus strolling down the boulevard, I'd have no choice to to accept the reality of it.

Now take a religious person. Say we discovered the true origins of the universe, and ultimately realized it was natural phenomenon. Or say a new technology was developed allowing us to prove that the bible was a work of fiction created by a mortal man. Perhaps we could even one day time travel back to 33 BC and see if Christ really existed. Either way, it was proven beyond any escapable shadow of a doubt that religion was a hoax, and that there was no God. I can envision mass hysteria, mass suicides, and total denial. Religious people could not accept, as whole, the end of religion. They believe, against any form of evidence, that God does exist. If an alien race were to come down and say "hey, we seeded you millenia ago, and we're more advanced than you are, but we're not omnipotent" Religion would call them frauds.

You say to me prove that god doesn't exist and I say to you, prove to me that infinity never ends(in the physical sense, not mathmatical- been there, done that:P)

 

[heusdens]

Zantra:

Your whole point about the proof/disproof of God is in fact pointless, cause you would assume we have to wait for facts digging up, that would never occur.

The whole point about the proof/disproof of God, is that that issue resides within the mind itself, and nowhere else.

God is and never has been a "real" entity of and to the world.
God has only existed in mindly form, in the minds of people.

The philosophical and materialistic untrained mind, are likely to fall for the "easy" way religion explains things and deals with "proof". It is entirely mind based, and does not bother at any moment to take reality itself, in an objective way, into account.

The proof for any idea is however not in the mind itself, but outside of that. Just that religion will never accept that.

Any outlook in a philosophical way has to start with *some* assumption about reality. Either reality exists in a material way in primary instance, and in consciouss form only secondary, or (like theism claims) the other way around.

These are two different outlooks on reality, which oppose each other.

So what you really have to do is struggle with that philosophical question, and establish for yourself the right perception of reality.

Reading some books on that particular issue might help.

What do you think. Can your mind (continue) to exists without a body and brain? And if yours can't why would that situation be any different to any consciouss being?

Is matter objective? Or does it appear and reappear just as the mind wishes it?

If you know the right answers to such question, you already have some profound outlook on reality.

 

[Iacchus32]

Well you guys make the hill pretty steep (very little for me to hold onto), and yet I'm not prepared to go rock climbing today. I will, however, let you know once I've conquered the first plateau, and from there we can examine what has progressed so far.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by heusdens
Zantra:

Your whole point about the proof/disproof of God is in fact pointless, cause you would assume we have to wait for facts digging up, that would never occur.

The whole point about the proof/disproof of God, is that that issue resides within the mind itself, and nowhere else.

God is and never has been a "real" entity of and to the world.
God has only existed in mindly form, in the minds of people.

The philosophical and materialistic untrained mind, are likely to fall for the "easy" way religion explains things and deals with "proof". It is entirely mind based, and does not bother at any moment to take reality itself, in an objective way, into account.

The proof for any idea is however not in the mind itself, but outside of that. Just that religion will never accept that.

Any outlook in a philosophical way has to start with *some* assumption about reality. Either reality exists in a material way in primary instance, and in consciouss form only secondary, or (like theism claims) the other way around.

These are two different outlooks on reality, which oppose each other.

So what you really have to do is struggle with that philosophical question, and establish for yourself the right perception of reality.

Reading some books on that particular issue might help.

What do you think. Can your mind (continue) to exists without a body and brain? And if yours can't why would that situation be any different to any consciouss being?

Is matter objective? Or does it appear and reappear just as the mind wishes it?

If you know the right answers to such question, you already have some profound outlook on reality.

That is a very good way of looking at it. Just want to point out that my post points out the assumption that it can't be proven physically by my last line. I can no more "prove" that God exists without physical proof than someone could find the non-existent end of infinity.

For myself, I undersand your point about perception of reality, but for me, I require physical proof of something above something that as you said, exists only in the minds of those who created it.

Not quite sure I follow you on the objectivity of matter. Are you hinting that matter is only a reflection of what our minds percieve it to be? If so, I'm not sure I agree. If one person sees an object and describes it, then it could be considered possibly subjective. If multiple persons see something and agree on a description, it stands to reason that the object is as we initially percieve it. Unless you're inferring mass delusion of the way things are percived. Give me more detail one this point, not sure I'm following you correctly.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So far, all I've alluded to in my posts is the theory of evolution, that is until now. And as for the theory of Creationism, I'm not even sure what that entails, except that there are parts which take the Bible literally, that I don't agree with. I just threw this up to see if any theory of God was deemed acceptable, which apparently it's not.

There are obviously no 'theories of God'...and for you to suggest it shows your intentional lack of understanding of a rather simple word like 'theory'.