Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
Correct.So, you think an intelligent Creator exists, based on reality-based logic and reality-based reason, but can not say you know one does exist?
Correct.
I won't know that until it happens.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.
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":Totally open to it.
I was just looking for ways people tell the difference between what is real and not real (without special pleading).
But if you are currently going off reality based reason and logic now, why wouldn't you then?
That would be consistent. It is not a problem however until it occurs and I doubt it will.
how so?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.
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.
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.There are things either in my house, outside my house or both; no other way around that.
Admitting you are not the universal standard of "reality" nor have a complete understanding of God.What are the other options?
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."Did Pluto disappear for you, when it lost it's planet status?
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?
Ask, Seek Knock as in Luke 11.Where is this god-finger-detection method?
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.
of which you have no answer for, or so it would seem.You seem to be saying a lot of stuff.
then by all means cut and paste the definition outlining the parameters of your query.Previously defined.
So you are not a believer in research? But waitEqual parts Flat Earth and Germ Theory.
Who cares?
Shouldn't matter, when determining how you know what is real and not real.aren't you seeking "proof?" that is confusing because here in your last effort you have shunned the information gathering process...
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.
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..
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.
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?
Ask, Seek Knock as in Luke 11.
I am "limited" to the nature of the questions you present. If you truly wish for better quality answer then ask a better question.
then by all means cut and paste the definition outlining the parameters of your query.
So you are not a believer in research? But waitaren't you seeking "proof?" that is confusing because here in your last effort you have shunned the information gathering process...
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.
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..
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.)
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:I'm not going to argue against special pleading.
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.No God is even close to being falsifiable.
Maybe, maybe not. See above.Knocked, asked, begged, cried.
No answer.
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?
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 ...
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.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.
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.How do I test for any version of a leprechaun, unicorn or a god?
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!This supports not accepting the conjecture that a Christian God is real, based on continual experiences.
You should not have been so quick to dismiss day time's statement:This ended with a cosmic shrug.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.I can not taste a deity, unless you want to talk about unknown senses in what we have established as "real".
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.
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.
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 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?