Reality vs Non-Reality

Jan 16, 2012
863
22
✟8,675.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Well I don't know if anyone here can help you.

If you actually want proof that God exists than you will have to search for God on your own. But it depends on what you want. Are you actually open to the possibility that God might exist, or do you just want to have an argument with somebody?

You aren't going to find an argument on a message forum that you can't poke holes in with "logic."

IME finding God isn't about "logic" but intuition. It requires a certain amount of vulnerability and sacrifice. You aren't going to find evidence for God's existence on a message forum.

If that is something you are uncomfortable with then I don't know what to tell you ;)
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Well I don't know if anyone here can help you.

If you actually want proof that God exists than you will have to search for God on your own. But it depends on what you want. Are you actually open to the possibility that God might exist, or do you just want to have an argument with somebody?

You aren't going to find an argument on a message forum that you can't poke holes in with "logic."

IME finding God isn't about "logic" but intuition. It requires a certain amount of vulnerability and sacrifice. You aren't going to find evidence for God's existence on a message forum.

If that is something you are uncomfortable with then I don't know what to tell you ;)

Totally open to it.

I was just looking for ways people tell the difference between what is real and not real (without special pleading).
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution

If new information, "evidence", "proof", etc, still being subjective (but trying to be as objective as possible), comes out that led your reality-based logic and reality-based reason to lead to another god, or no god necessary, would you adopt that new belief/point-of-view?
 
Upvote 0

elman

elman
Dec 19, 2003
28,949
451
83
Texas
✟39,197.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
If new information, "evidence", "proof", etc, still being subjective (but trying to be as objective as possible), comes out that led your reality-based logic and reality-based reason to lead to another god, or no god necessary, would you adopt that new belief/point-of-view?
I won't know that until it happens.
 
Upvote 0
D

day time

Guest
Totally open to it.

I was just looking for ways people tell the difference between what is real and not real (without special pleading).
I really like this thread, and think an example to tear into would be nice, so what is real, not real, the special pleading, can all be pointed out perhaps. Hopefully it's not tl/dr, and is relevant. I'll give the subjective aspect as well as just the "facts":

When I first started really exploring Christianity, I had a default position of believing in a "God" that was the unprovable "kind". In other words, you had to believe "God" was there, as en entity with will, but there was no way to communicate, interact, or even prove the existence of such a God outside of your own imagination and feelings. However, I didn't want to go to hell, and all of that ... so I joined an organization to both serve society at large, "Golden Rule" type of stuff, and also to learn about Christianity as well. Again, my default position was of the "outside of reality" God, so to speak. Irrational.

To make a long story very short, I was in Hawaii with my wife at the time, and I was in a prayer meeting. Everyone in this meeting had a friend whom they were praying for, to heal his cancer. I didn't know the man, had never heard of him outside of those people ... and those people were likewise all strangers to me prior to joining the organization. But they were praying for him to be healed, all speaking in tongues, this and that.

Once again lol ... my default position was that I didn't believe in anything of that kind. Healing. Tongues. Etc. I had no reason to. I believed it was man's job to help man, and that God was again, "outside" not doing anything. I accepted that God didn't heal the amputees, and was sending everyone to "hell". I was also extremely uncomfortable, and even angry at the people there ... because it seemed to me they were completely deluded and had no respect for others in the room who might not want to jump up and down and babble word salad. In fact, the whole time they were doing these things, I just sat there feeling as though I were in a psych ward.

One of these people, stopped during the prayer, and looked at me and said, "God wants you to ask him something, he's daring you." At that moment, I began to feel extremely hot .... and warm, and a voice in my mind began to say to me, "Go ahead, ask me. Ask me something." I fought that for a couple of minutes, but the heat wouldn't stop, and for some reason, I started to cry heavily ... from being overwhelmed. It would not stop, nor go away, and the voice just kept saying this. It wasn't confrontational, rather it was like a casual dare.

Everyone could see what was happening to me, and oddly enough, they left me alone ... crying, and no doubt turning beet red. I knew the voice wasn't audible, it was internal. I finally gave in, and started talking to it.

"Okay, if this is God, part the ocean outside." From where we were, we were sitting high up enough to see the ocean. The voice said something along the lines of, "I'm not going to do that, ask something else ..." and almost gave a sort of laugh.

At that, I assumed that I was simply talking to myself, and that the conversation was utterly ridiculous and I was merely allowing myself to be manipulated for some reason from the people around me ... persuaded to believe in something that wasn't really happening. But the sensations wouldn't go away, and the voice asked again ... so I said, "I need money. I am almost broke, and we'll need money once we're done here." Again the laugh, and "don't worry about that".

At that, I was even more assured I was perhaps just letting myself be persuaded to see something that wasn't there. But still, the feeling wouldn't go away, nor the voice. So I thought for a moment, "if I wanted to do something for someone else, perhaps ..." and I asked the voice: "okay, heal that man of his cancer."

At that, the voice was gone, and I had a "vision" ... all in my mind, and it was clear as any sort of dream or day dream might be. I saw in my head, a room, with a man lying in a bed, and the comforter on the bed had pastel colors, blues and pinks. There was a dresser to the left of the bed, and the room also had a long sliding glass door type of window/door, with a long pink curtain going down to the ground, with the setting sun behind it, illuminating it softly and warmly. The room was very bare, basic, except for those few elements, which were clearly defined.

I was there, also, kneeling by the bed, and praying over this man.

I *assumed* this man was the guy with cancer that everyone was praying for.

I told *many* people what I saw, what had happened. I couldn't describe my feelings very well, or why I was crying ... but the vision, seemed clear. I told several people the details, and explained in detail what happened from moment one to seeing the man in the room. One of the reasons I was asking and telling these people about what had happened, was because I wanted to know if they had experienced anything like it ... since they did all these other things. No one said they had, nor would anyone "confirm" for me whether or not I was imagining things or if it was "a vision from God". This surprised me, since so many people claimed to be authorities on this and that ... yet couldn't tell me something simple about whether or not I was deluding myself or not. What was interesting to me, is that I didn't understand why I would even experience anything like that ... given I believed the OPPOSITE about those things happening, and I am not the kind of person who easily caved into peer pressure. I was very much a "against the system" type of person.

For the next three months, I did nothing about the vision, but I consistently kept having certain this one scripture reference come up. A reference I didn't even know, but had to look up. I kept seeing "Hebrews 11:1" in my mind, similar to how I saw that "vision". It is a scripture dealing with "faith", and what it's claiming "Faith" is. At that time, I also knew nothing of the bible. In fact, I had to take one from a library in order to have one to read. So that scripture was unbeknownst to my conscious memory.

Eventually, all the feelings faded that came with that "Vision", and no one around me brought it up or mentioned it. I actually got to the point of where I had almost forgotten about it, and finally decided I had just allowed myself to be influenced somehow by that meeting, and played along with an idea of talking to myself and it was nothing more than that. My time in Hawaii was coming to a close, and shortly before it was time to leave ... I remembered the "Vision", and wondered if I should actually try to see if there was any validity to it. Would I regret not searching it out and seeing for myself ? I decided to see what it would take to meet this man, if he was even still alive, and where he lived. It turned out, he lived in Michigan ... and I was in Hawaii. So not only was it not a simple drive away, but I couldn't even afford to fly there. We were supposed to go to Germany after Hawaii, and our tickets were paid in that respect ... but we had almost nothing left over.

With about two days to spare, a letter in the bottom of a pile of our mail was found that had a check in it to us ... a check that would actually cover the costs for us to get a layover in Michigan so that if I wanted to ... I could perhaps see this man. So I did what I thought was rather ballsy lol ... I got the number to this man's house, called talked to his wife, told her a little about how I knew some of their friends there in Hawaii, and although she didn't know me, I would really like to come visit her husband and pray. She said he wasn't doing very well, but that she didn't mind friends of her friends coming to pay their respects and pray over him ....

I was rather shocked that she would let me, and I didn't mention the "dream" or vision that I recall .. I kept it simple. In other words, I had no expectations of anything other than trying to see if the vision was legitimately seeing this man.

To make a longer story shorter .... we got the layover scheduled, along with a car rental. Our plane coming in was late, and I feared we wouldn't be able to make it there before nightfall. In my vision, one aspect was the location of the setting sun. If we made it there at night, that would destroy that part of the vision and render the whole thing moot.

After driving several hours to their house, we arrived and I nervously went up, with my wife, to ring the doorbell and introduce ourselves. The wife was very pleasant and nice, and after a bit of small talk, she showed me where her husbands rooms was, and left me to myself. Upon opening the door, I saw my "vision" fulfilled in every possible detail ... the dresser, the bed, the comforter, the sliding glass door, the pink curtain, the setting sun illuminating it, everything in the room, her husband asleep in the bed. I felt a sort of otherwordly shock come over me ... as though I just became "one of those people" that was going to have a story about something supernatural. I realized that I hadn't actually expected my vision to come true, and that when it did .... I was amazed. Even though I had gone through the motions of getting myself there, I hadn't actually expected it to come true lol. When it did .... it felt as though I was seeing something I never imagined was possible. What I had assumed was only in imagination and TV and story and "theory" ... I was there experiencing *something*. The fulfillment of a moment in time I had forseen months earlier, down to the placement of the setting sun, even taking into account our plane being delayed by hours.

I simply knelt down by the bed, and said a simple prayer. "God please heal this man of his cancer."

And I left, in utter awe. I felt I had "proof".

That man died months later. And also, I would eventually put the idea that it was "proof" into perspective.

So having said all of that: when I told believers that account, it was "proof of God !!!". When I told atheists that account, it was "a series of coincidence" or "an elaborate attempt to recreate for you your vision, unbeknownst to you, by your friends". When I those who don't believe in gods, but believe in the supernatural or other aspects of the paranormal hear it, they tell me it's psychic ability, or precognitive on some level. And I've also heard demons, frontal lobe epilepsy, auto suggestion, I was baptized in the Holy Spirit, I was merely deluded and even my own facts are being misrepresented, etc and so forth.

But I prefer to let the experience speak for itself ... removing all the aspects surrounding it and all that background, a lot of it can easily be explained away to coincidence and imagination. However the one aspect that sticks out to me as being hard to explain without some kind of "theory" ... is the vision itself. Even the voice ... could be explained away. But the vision itself involved a moment in time, with specifics in every detail ... which would come to pass months later, based on a decision at the last moment, and seemingly outside circumstances that were not under my control (the flight delay for example). Having not know those people whatsoever, further distances the "vision" from being influenced by others. Even if I had seen a photograph of his room, unbeknownst to me somehow in passing, and it was coming up somehow in my mind .... the moment in time was unique. The placement of the sun. And the fact I told many people the details would give room to think it was an elaborate attempt to "do something nice for me" and make his room to be something so that it would fit .... but that's fairly elaborate for a woman to do with her dying husband, all for me, a stranger, and all at the last moment. So having told others the vision and putting it to paper so to speak, was showing that I didn't change my "account" to fit the room ... the room fit the vision which I described in detail.

That aspect is hard for me to explain away in an Occam's Razor format. However I don't mind that perspective, or leaving it at "I don't know". I don't know, is a fine answer.

But that Deus Ex Machina I pointed out earlier lol .... and perhaps this is the special pleading ..... if you take into account a lot of the background, setting, surrounding events, it fits a certain type of profile that takes shape in it's pattern. Does it prove God ? Tongues ? The Bible ? Being non denomational ? Does it say this or that about "God" ? Voices ? No .......... BUT ............ if you let things speak for themselves, and compare all aspects to various theories, perhaps a certain theory will begin to be closer to the pattern it formed. If you have "faith" that the pattern might apply, then you do. If not, then you don't. The Occam's Razor explanation explains away almost all of it rather simply. But compare it to "patterns" and theories that already exist, and it might align itself with one of them more closely. It doesn't PROVE that pattern or theory, but it gives evidence that either goes towards it or not, rather than having nothing whatsoever.

Now, if that experience stood alone ... it might be one thing. But you have enough of them, in a variety of settings and backgrounds ... the bare bones might say one thing, but the totality of it all might compare to even more patterns and theories ... or perhaps one in particular, and then it's easier to see why someone might side with one theory or idea over another. However, still ... confusing "faith" and "maybe" with "I know because _______" ... are different things. When people with opposing views and experience simply examine things "from the ground up" ... perhaps a more unified and all encompassing idea will emerge that *might* explain, without the need to treat certain assumptions or conclusions as *fact*.

Thoughts ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: food4thought
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
That would be consistent. It is not a problem however until it occurs and I doubt it will.

Hey, totally reasonable :)

(Well, except the "doubt it will" part; no way of knowing or not knowing.)
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Call "reality" whatever you want.

You are suggesting that we may not be able to detect with our feeble and human senses or conceive some unreal non-existing existence... well, you're just playing word games.
how so?

There is either light (doesn't matter if we can perceive it or not) or no light. Not "kinda" light.
:) All of your reasoning about God all precluded one thing. That YOU could or Should be able to detect Him.

There are things either in my house, outside my house or both; no other way around that.
But are you able, or do you have the wherewithal to detect all of those things? if you can not. are you saying those thing do not exist? Because in you opening statement anything you were not able to label as being apart of Your reality you chose to dismiss.

What are the other options?
Admitting you are not the universal standard of "reality" nor have a complete understanding of God.

Did Pluto disappear for you, when it lost it's planet status?
The reason Pluto's planetary status came under scrutiny was because it was regarded as a foundational scientific "truth." up until the point it was disregarded for the latest in vogue "scientific truth."

that being the case i was asking that you answer for the discrepancy or blatant hypocrisy that allows one such as yourself to exercise out and out faith in science but demands absolutely undeniable and verifiable truth about God.

Question: what will you say to God when He asks you that question on the day of your judgment?

I can attempt to detect global warming, by sticking my finger outside and comparing the last few years.
:) You are aware that the planet has been warming since the last Ice age aren't you?

Where is this god-finger-detection method?
Ask, Seek Knock as in Luke 11.

Come one now. I expected better...
:)I am "limited" to the nature of the questions you present. If you truly wish for better quality answer then ask a better question.

You seem to be saying a lot of stuff.
of which you have no answer for, or so it would seem.

Previously defined.
then by all means cut and paste the definition outlining the parameters of your query.

Equal parts Flat Earth and Germ Theory.

Who cares?

Shouldn't matter, when determining how you know what is real and not real.
So you are not a believer in research? But wait :scratch: aren't you seeking "proof?" that is confusing because here in your last effort you have shunned the information gathering process...:mmh:

How is it possible that you ask for "proof," but at the first opportunity you get you try and destroy a process that would yield the answers you previously sought.

Unless! you are simply wanting to go through the motions of an argument that you previously thought to be unsolvable, but now see how easily your best enigma was overturned making you look unprepared and may I also say alittle foolish.:blush1:

Again, I am seriously limited by the nature and quality of questions you post here. If you want better, then next time spend alittle time working out some of your trolling techniques before you bring them here. Otherwise know my efforts will mirror your own. Also take to heart that, differing the topic to foolishly antiquated mockery or attacking me personally will not change any of the points I have made, Nor will it change the fact that you have repeatedly Failed to intelligibly responded to any of the points I made..
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
how so?

:) All of your reasoning about God all precluded one thing. That YOU could or Should be able to detect Him.

But are you able, or do you have the wherewithal to detect all of those things? if you can not. are you saying those thing do not exist? Because in you opening statement anything you were not able to label as being apart of Your reality you chose to dismiss.

Admitting you are not the universal standard of "reality" nor have a complete understanding of God.

I'm not going to argue against special pleading.

The reason Pluto's planetary status came under scrutiny was because it was regarded as a foundational scientific "truth." up until the point it was disregarded for the latest in vogue "scientific truth."

Pluto was recategorized as a dwarf planet, because of new IAU classifications. It didn't clear the neighbourhood around its orbit.

I see nothing relevant in your ramblings.

that being the case i was asking that you answer for the discrepancy or blatant hypocrisy that allows one such as yourself to exercise out and out faith in science but demands absolutely undeniable and verifiable truth about God.

No God is even close to being falsifiable.

That's the difference.

Question: what will you say to God when He asks you that question on the day of your judgment?

If that situation happened, I would ask your god, "Why did you go to such measures to hide yourself?"

Ask, Seek Knock as in Luke 11.

Knocked, asked, begged, cried.

No answer.

:)I am "limited" to the nature of the questions you present. If you truly wish for better quality answer then ask a better question.

Learn to better detect quality questions.

Maybe your radar is on the fritz.

then by all means cut and paste the definition outlining the parameters of your query.

Already did and already told you that.

Your equipment must be acting up, again.

So you are not a believer in research? But wait :scratch: aren't you seeking "proof?" that is confusing because here in your last effort you have shunned the information gathering process...:mmh:

How is it possible that you ask for "proof," but at the first opportunity you get you try and destroy a process that would yield the answers you previously sought.

Unless! you are simply wanting to go through the motions of an argument that you previously thought to be unsolvable, but now see how easily your best enigma was overturned making you look unprepared and may I also say alittle foolish.:blush1:

You embarrass yourself when you try to act clever and cute. Those icons are the most effeminate and least effective to use to make a real point.

It's like watching a 4 year-old making an "I'm upset and you will understand me" face.

Hand to your god, I blushed a little.

I'll try to illustrate how silly it looked...

"Oh goody-gumdrops, I so pwned you! I am right and you are wrong!" :happyblush:


You asked if it was based in truth or in myth and I said it doesn't matter. That should not impact your answers.

Again, I am seriously limited by the nature and quality of questions you post here. If you want better, then next time spend alittle time working out some of your trolling techniques before you bring them here. Otherwise know my efforts will mirror your own. Also take to heart that, differing the topic to foolishly antiquated mockery or attacking me personally will not change any of the points I have made, Nor will it change the fact that you have repeatedly Failed to intelligibly responded to any of the points I made..

You made coherent no points, so I'm safe.


I asked you one two-part question and all you can do is dance around it or complain.

Life must go by real slow for you, with all these questions in it.

When you respond with "Yes, I'd like a Pepsi", you must find yourself in a pickle when asked "What size drink?"


Wendy's must hate you.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
I posted this question, but it received no response, so I'm hoping it can be answered here...

Prelude:
If we are stating that a god "exists", it must either:

a) Exist completely inside our reality.
b) Exist completely outside of our reality.
c) Exist in both inside and outside our reality.

If something is posited as "existing", one must first be able to tell the difference between what is real and not-real, within the confines of our ability to do so, before making such truth claims.

(Otherwise, anything and everything could exist. If any one thing is possible, then everything must be accepted equally as possible.)

In science, unless something is disproven, it is held to be possible. We can disprove things by deductive logic. Basically, true statements cannot have false consequences.

However, it's more complicated than that. In any search for "what exists" we have to take some statements as true without being able to "prove" them to be true. The essential statements to even start on a search for what exists are:

1. I exist.
2. I am sane.

The second is necessary in order that we trust our senses, since our senses are ultimately what we use as "evidence" for things existing. So, it comes down to what we see, hear, taste, smell, touch, or feel emotionally.

Many people have noted that, theoretically, these can be fooled. One example is the "10 second universe" where God creates the universe 10 seconds ago but creates all our memories, too. We can't disprove this. Another example is the movie The Matrix. There, our senses are manipulated by an extraterrestrial species. In effect, the "normal" people in the movie were insane.

A difficulty is that oftentimes different people's senses give different information. For instance, ask 10 people what Brussels sprouts taste like and you are likely to get 4-5 different answers (at least, this is what happens to me each year when I ask the graduate students this as part of the class "Philosophy of Science"). What is the "real" taste of Brussels sprouts? There isn't one.

Some people have had experience of deity. But not everyone. So, it's like the taste of Brussels sprouts. Without the same evidence for everyone, we can't make a definitive call.

If we were in science, basically we are waiting for the final data to come in.

Your example of leprechauns is one that I call a "shared belief". Nearly everyone shares the belief that leprechauns don't exist. But when you examine the claims of what leprechauns are and what they can do, you find that we cannot disprove them. Now, if you had asked about unicorns ...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
I'm not going to argue against special pleading.
It's not special pleading but rather alternative hypotheses. Your hypothesis is that you don't experience God because God doesn't exist. However, there are alternative explanations to your lack of experience:
1. You lack the material brain module to detect God's communication. God must communicate with us through our material brains. We have brain modules for detecting cheating, sound waves, visible electromagnetic waves, etc. Now imagine a hominid ancestor that is born with a variation that enable him/her to detect communication from God. That confers a survival advantage. The variation spreads thru the population but has not yet had time to become fixed. Instead, 90% of people have such a module and 10% don't. You belong to the 10%.
2. You have received communication, but you dismiss it as something else. Perhaps that "bad bit of beef for dinner" that Ebeneezer Scrooge tried.
3. You received communication but chose to simply ignore it.

No God is even close to being falsifiable.
Theists have falsified thousands of versions of god over the millenia. So the empirical evidence falsifies your statement. Thor was/is obviously falsifiable. So was the Greek pantheon -- no palaces on Mt. Olympus for one thing.

Now, that Yahweh is not falsifiable by science is a problem of science. It is science's fault that it can't falsify Yahweh. It's a limitation of science called Methodological Naturalism and comes directly from how we do experiments.

What we have today for the major religions of the world are those versions of deity that have withstood falsification. It's not that "God" is not falsifiable, but rather that Yahweh has not been falsified. You can look at this 2 ways:
1. The ancient Hebrews stumbled on the truth and the correct version.
2. As humans made up versions of deity, just by accident the ancient Hebrews made up a version that is not falsifiable.

Knocked, asked, begged, cried.

No answer.
Maybe, maybe not. See above.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
If new information, "evidence", "proof", etc, still being subjective (but trying to be as objective as possible), comes out that led your reality-based logic and reality-based reason to lead to another god, or no god necessary, would you adopt that new belief/point-of-view?

Yes. Right now in science there is a theory calle "ekpyrotic". It is a theory about the origin of our universe. It hypothesizes that there is a 5 dimensional 'brane in which float (at least) two 4 dimensional 'branes (our type physical universe). Occasionally thru quantum mechanical fluctuations, one 4 D 'brane gives off a daughter 4 D 'brane which floats thru the 5 D 'brane until it collides with the other 4 D'brane. This collision destroys both original 4 D 'branes but in the process gives rise to a new 4 D 'brane (universe) in a process that looks like a Big Bang. What ekpyrotic does is account for the creation of the universe. Instead of an eternal God, there is an eternal 5 D 'brane. Ekpyrotic has not been tested. It depends on String Theory, and String Theory has already suffered several falsifications. BUT, if somehow ekpyrotic got overwhelming data, then IMO theism would be toast.

Now, would you give up your atheism and become theist? What evidence would cause you to do that? Either personal experience (what you mistakenly call "subjective") or intersubjective personal experience.
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
In science, unless something is disproven, it is held to be possible. We can disprove things by deductive logic. Basically, true statements cannot have false consequences.

However, it's more complicated than that. In any search for "what exists" we have to take some statements as true without being able to "prove" them to be true. The essential statements to even start on a search for what exists are:

1. I exist.
2. I am sane.

The second is necessary in order that we trust our senses, since our senses are ultimately what we use as "evidence" for things existing. So, it comes down to what we see, hear, taste, smell, touch, or feel emotionally.

Many people have noted that, theoretically, these can be fooled. One example is the "10 second universe" where God creates the universe 10 seconds ago but creates all our memories, too. We can't disprove this. Another example is the movie The Matrix. There, our senses are manipulated by an extraterrestrial species. In effect, the "normal" people in the movie were insane.

A difficulty is that oftentimes different people's senses give different information. For instance, ask 10 people what Brussels sprouts taste like and you are likely to get 4-5 different answers (at least, this is what happens to me each year when I ask the graduate students this as part of the class "Philosophy of Science"). What is the "real" taste of Brussels sprouts? There isn't one.

Some people have had experience of deity. But not everyone. So, it's like the taste of Brussels sprouts. Without the same evidence for everyone, we can't make a definitive call.

If we were in science, basically we are waiting for the final data to come in.

Your example of leprechauns is one that I call a "shared belief". Nearly everyone shares the belief that leprechauns don't exist. But when you examine the claims of what leprechauns are and what they can do, you find that we cannot disprove them. Now, if you had asked about unicorns ...

If we are to accept your 2 premises as a necessary, I am using my known senses to taste a brussel sprout. Opinions on those senses may vary.

I can not taste a deity, unless you want to talk about unknown senses in what we have established as "real".

Then this conversation gets as silly as your analogies.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
In science, hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures.

Also, for a hypothesis to be put forward, the scientific method requires that one can test it.
Neither of those is true. Many hypotheses are put forward that are not testable. Think about all the versions of multiverse. NONE of them are testable. Bells' Quantum Splitting is not testable. Neither is Einstein's tachyons. Hawking's No Boundary is not testable. The list goes on.

How do I test for any version of a leprechaun, unicorn or a god?
Unicorn is quite testable, has been tested, and has been shown to be false. In this case, we use the principle of searching the entire search space. It is the same as you testing the hypothesis "there is a futon in lucaspa's living room." Simply look all thru my living room and not find a futon.

Unicorns as stated were horse sized beasts that were white, had a single horn on the forehead, and lived in Europe. Well, we have looked all thru Europe to the point that it is impossible to have missed a horse-sized beast. No unicorns. Therefore unicorns are falsified.

Now, I already noted that many versions of deity have been falsified. Let's take Thor. Another way to falsify an entity is to show that it doesn't do any of the things it is hypothesized to do. This was how aether and phlogiston was falsified, for example. The only task Thor had was to make thunder with his hammer. Well, it has been shown that thunder has another cause. With nothing to do, Thor is falsified.

This supports not accepting the conjecture that a Christian God is real, based on continual experiences.
Congratulations! you have hit upon the valid reason for being an atheist! What you ignored, of course, is that it is also the valid reason for being Christian! :( What day time is telling you is a series of personal experiences that led him to conclude that the only viable hypothesis to explain those experiences was God. Now, if your personal experience is consistently a lack of experience of God, then your conclusion is likely to be that the viable hypothesis is that God does not exist. What happens is that you and day time have different personal experience -- different data.

Basically, what day time and other theists with personal experience of deity have done is what every scientist does: they have tested the data until they have thrown out all the alterantive hypotheses they can think of. They one that is left is God.

However, because your personal experiences differ under approximately the same conditions, and their are alternative hypotheses to explain your experiences, neither of you can "know" if you are correct. You have different beliefs.

This ended with a cosmic shrug.
You should not have been so quick to dismiss day time's statement:
"But again ... if you don't go look for the okapi, you won't find it. But it is still there, as others have attested to."

This is well-known in science: if you don't look, you won't find. Experiments are invariably conducted to test a hypothesis; to look for data. If you don't go looking for the data, of course you won't find it.

Now, when other scientists have reported data, we don't shrug and pretend it didn't happen. If we are skeptical, we go looking for the same data. Something like that is happening now with CERN's report of neutrinos traveling faster than light. Lots of people are skeptical. We don't give a "cosmic shrug" and pretend CERN didn't see what they saw; other groups are going to try to see the same thing.

What you have in terms of deity is millions of people over the millenia reporting personal experience of deity. Those experiences are remarkably consistent. They constitute what day time calls "attesting to the okapi". You can't honestly just give a "cosmic shrug".

You can say "Look, I just don't have the same experience" or you can go looking for that experience. But shrug as in dismissal? Nope.
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
It's not special pleading but rather alternative hypotheses. Your hypothesis is that you don't experience God because God doesn't exist. However, there are alternative explanations to your lack of experience:
1. You lack the material brain module to detect God's communication. God must communicate with us through our material brains. We have brain modules for detecting cheating, sound waves, visible electromagnetic waves, etc. Now imagine a hominid ancestor that is born with a variation that enable him/her to detect communication from God. That confers a survival advantage. The variation spreads thru the population but has not yet had time to become fixed. Instead, 90% of people have such a module and 10% don't. You belong to the 10%.
2. You have received communication, but you dismiss it as something else. Perhaps that "bad bit of beef for dinner" that Ebeneezer Scrooge tried.
3. You received communication but chose to simply ignore it.

My "hypothesis" holds equal weight with yours.

I'm not going to asses all the alternatives of what we would never know exist.

Theists have falsified thousands of versions of god over the millenia. So the empirical evidence falsifies your statement. Thor was/is obviously falsifiable. So was the Greek pantheon -- no palaces on Mt. Olympus for one thing.

How is Thor falsifiable?

Now, that Yahweh is not falsifiable by science is a problem of science. It is science's fault that it can't falsify Yahweh. It's a limitation of science called Methodological Naturalism and comes directly from how we do experiments.

If something wants to step outside of being falsifiable, then it rightly can do so. But if it wants to enter into the realm of existing, that is its problem.

Unless you want to make some special pleading.

What we have today for the major religions of the world are those versions of deity that have withstood falsification. It's not that "God" is not falsifiable, but rather that Yahweh has not been falsified. You can look at this 2 ways:
1. The ancient Hebrews stumbled on the truth and the correct version.
2. As humans made up versions of deity, just by accident the ancient Hebrews made up a version that is not falsifiable.

Already addressed the issue of un-falsifiable claims.

I'll even grant you that it may not even be falsifiable right now, but possibly later. But then again, aren't a lot of things?

One should have no more weight than the next.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
If we are to accept your 2 premises as a necessary, I am using my known senses to taste a brussel sprout. Opinions on those senses may vary.
It's not a difference of opinion on the senses. Everyone agrees on a sense of taste. What the disagreement is about is the particular data: taste of Brussels sprouts.

I can not taste a deity, unless you want to talk about unknown senses in what we have established as "real".
An atheist -- David Hume -- established that all evidence is our senses. Those include, according to Hume, what we feel emotionally and what we think. No one since has shown Hume to be wrong.

No, you cannot taste a deity, but people do report feeling a deity and communicating with one. Millions of people over the millenia. If you say that "feelings" are not real, please consider that they are real enough that they play a part in many scientific papers. For instance, this paper -- 2. N Honkamp, A Amendola, S Hurwitz, CL Saltzman, Retrospective review of eighteen patients who underwent transtibial amputation for intractable pain. J. Bone Joint Surg. 83-A 1479-1483, Oct. 2001. They are dealing with the "feeling" of pain, and in particular "phantom limb pain". In traumatic amputations, the patient feels pain from the missing limb. For these 18 patients who underwent voluntary amputation of an injured foot because they were suffering intractable pain in the foot, there was no phantom limb pain following amputation. Their "feelings" are real enough for those surgeons to suggest cutting off a foot in particular cases! You should also look up "SF 36" on the internet. The SF 36 is being used in nearly all medical studies dealing with outcome these days.

So we are dealing with "real" senses when it comes to deity. It is just that those senses do not give the same data for everyone. Back to the analogy. We get different people having different "tastes" of Brussels sprouts. For you, Brussels sprouts may taste sweet. For me, the taste is indescribable but so bad that I always involuntarily vomit. The sense of taste is giving different information to different people.

In terms of deity, many millions of people report feelings of deity. You apparently don't. It's not that the senses are not real, it's just that the senses give different information to different people.
 
Upvote 0

Harry3142

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2006
3,749
259
Ohio
✟20,229.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Non Sequitor-

My definition of reality is that everything exists which God chose to bring into existence. What science is doing if nothing more than figuring out how God did it.

One clue to his existence is that so many people of different religions worship him. According to those who would have us disbelieve in God we are to see ourselves as the endproduct of billions of years of evolution. The 'survival of the fittest' scenario that they use states that homo sapiens was the culmination of other animals evolving to the point where one branch of those animals, presumably the strongest, became our direct ancestors. So our physical and psychological makeup is to be seen as the evolution of that of other animals to whom our specie is connected.

If this is so, then where did the God concept come from? Do you see any other specie of animal who appears to worship a divinity? If we are all to see ourselves as merely the highest specie of animal in the evolutionary tree, where does our desire to worship God fit in? Was it a virus whuch one of our ancestors caught, and then passed down to us?

The facts are that we are hardwired to worship. Even those who have proclaimed themselves to be atheists in the past promptly started worshipping either Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam, or any one of a number of other dictators as a replacement for God. Or they have substituted the worship of the creation for the worship of its creator. Some have claimed that the sun is the source of all life, just as Akhnaton did over 3,000 years ago. They also preach that we are to be seen as nothing more than the result to this point of chemical processes which started 15 billion years ago. And their belief in these substitutes is not purely intellectual, as would be supposed if it were based purely on scentific knowledge. Instead, they can become quite upset if their belief system is challenged. That's a dead giveaway that it has become part of their God concept.

Since the God concept as part of our nature has been found to be the case, and since it is not to be found in any other specie of animal, then obviously we have had something implanted in our brains that does not conform to straightline evolutionary advancement. And the God concept is there in order for us to comprehend that there is a God, an Intelligent Designer, who has done all that we see around us, including our own creation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Neither of those is true. Many hypotheses are put forward that are not testable. Think about all the versions of multiverse. NONE of them are testable. Bells' Quantum Splitting is not testable. Neither is Einstein's tachyons. Hawking's No Boundary is not testable. The list goes on.

Those would be hypothesis put forward in/by the scientific community.

The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose".

For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

Unicorn is quite testable, has been tested, and has been shown to be false. In this case, we use the principle of searching the entire search space. It is the same as you testing the hypothesis "there is a futon in lucaspa's living room." Simply look all thru my living room and not find a futon.

Unicorns as stated were horse sized beasts that were white, had a single horn on the forehead, and lived in Europe. Well, we have looked all thru Europe to the point that it is impossible to have missed a horse-sized beast. No unicorns. Therefore unicorns are falsified.

You just accepted that definition as the definition.

I'm sorry you didn't find the unicorns that migrated out of our known reality.

Now, I already noted that many versions of deity have been falsified. Let's take Thor. Another way to falsify an entity is to show that it doesn't do any of the things it is hypothesized to do. This was how aether and phlogiston was falsified, for example. The only task Thor had was to make thunder with his hammer. Well, it has been shown that thunder has another cause. With nothing to do, Thor is falsified.

You are assuming you know all there is to know about Thor and have been told lies about his true abilities, nature and activities.

Man was and has lead you astray. Forgive them, for they did not know.

Congratulations! you have hit upon the valid reason for being an atheist! What you ignored, of course, is that it is also the valid reason for being Christian! :( What day time is telling you is a series of personal experiences that led him to conclude that the only viable hypothesis to explain those experiences was God. Now, if your personal experience is consistently a lack of experience of God, then your conclusion is likely to be that the viable hypothesis is that God does not exist. What happens is that you and day time have different personal experience -- different data.

Basically, what day time and other theists with personal experience of deity have done is what every scientist does: they have tested the data until they have thrown out all the alterantive hypotheses they can think of. They one that is left is God.

However, because your personal experiences differ under approximately the same conditions, and their are alternative hypotheses to explain your experiences, neither of you can "know" if you are correct. You have different beliefs.

You should not have been so quick to dismiss day time's statement:
"But again ... if you don't go look for the okapi, you won't find it. But it is still there, as others have attested to."

This is well-known in science: if you don't look, you won't find. Experiments are invariably conducted to test a hypothesis; to look for data. If you don't go looking for the data, of course you won't find it.

Now, when other scientists have reported data, we don't shrug and pretend it didn't happen. If we are skeptical, we go looking for the same data. Something like that is happening now with CERN's report of neutrinos traveling faster than light. Lots of people are skeptical. We don't give a "cosmic shrug" and pretend CERN didn't see what they saw; other groups are going to try to see the same thing.

What you have in terms of deity is millions of people over the millenia reporting personal experience of deity. Those experiences are remarkably consistent. They constitute what day time calls "attesting to the okapi". You can't honestly just give a "cosmic shrug".

You had me at, "they have tested the data until they have thrown out all the alterantive hypotheses they can think of. They one that is left is God."

They can't test what they don't know to test or how to test. Arriving at this conclusion can only arrive as "something else that I do not know of"... at best.

You can say "Look, I just don't have the same experience" or you can go looking for that experience. But shrug as in dismissal? Nope.

You are assuming that I will never reach some experience, because I fail to look for it.

But you are asserting that there is an experience to be had and that it could even be found.

How you can honestly make these claims, I do not know.
 
Upvote 0