What do you mean when you say God "exists"?

dlamberth said:

Kind of like the Resurrection of Jesus?

Click to expand...

Kind of like any fantastical claim that is indistinguishable from imagination / hallucination.

DogmaHunter said:

Kind of like any fantastical claim that is indistinguishable from imagination / hallucination.

Click to expand...

Kind of like the modern-day TV for a person 500 years ago?

DogmaHunter said:

Plenty of them will see this god very very differently then you do. So to claim that you are looking at the same thing, seems wrong right of the bat.

Click to expand...

If they experience the Imminence of God, they experience the Imminence of God. Even if they do it differently, it's still what they do.

devolved said:

Kind of like the modern-day TV for a person 500 years ago?

Click to expand...

TV's are physical objects that can be shown to other people.
So, no.

dlamberth said:

If they experience the Imminence of God, they experience the Imminence of God. Even if they do it differently, it's still what they do.

Click to expand...

In other words: "I'm right, even when I'm wrong"

DogmaHunter said:

TV's are physical objects that can be shown to other people.
So, no.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the point. For you that technology is understandable, so you view it as a "given". If someone shown you a TV 500 years ago, it would be a rather unbelievable story if they went on and told it for everyone else. It could be chalked up to a hallucination.

devolved said:

I don't think you understand the point. For you that technology is understandable, so you view it as a "given". If someone shown you a TV 500 years ago, it would be a rather unbelievable story if they went on and told it for everyone else. It could be chalked up to a hallucination.

Click to expand...

It could be explained to them.
All it would require is some education and at no point in that process would it require "faith" on the part of the medieval person.

Also, you're moving the goalposts.
This has nothing to do anymore with the original point.

Which was that plenty of people consider things to be "absolute realities", and that their mere beliefs about that, doesn't make it so.

As you agree to because you are not a scientologist.

Belief in X, doesn't make X real.

DogmaHunter said:

It could be explained to them.
All it would require is some education and at no point in that process would it require "faith" on the part of the medieval person.

Click to expand...

Well, not if it wasn't a consistently recurring phenomenon. All they would have is a description.

DogmaHunter said:

Also, you're moving the goalposts.
This has nothing to do anymore with the original point. Which was that plenty of people consider things to be "absolute realities", and that their mere beliefs about that, doesn't make it so.As you agree to because you are not a scientologist. Belief in X, doesn't make X real.

Click to expand...

No, but similarly your rejection of their beliefs don't make them "not real". So, unbelief in X doesn't make X non-existent.

Tinker Grey said:

Seeing stuff that other people don't see is delusion.

Click to expand...

Hello Sir,
Well, perhaps the dwarf, lost in the wilderness below the crest of the hill, is not be able to view past the peak and see a lush and populated valley located on the other side. Conversely, however, a taller giant who has made larger strides along the rise may indeed see past the obscured horizon and perspective of his vertically challenged friend. Better yet, if he is a compassionate person, he would joyfully publish the news to his diminutive and lost friend proclaiming that hope and refreshment lies just beyond the slope and, descending to him, help him over to the other side.

Physical sight as well as insight are gifts not all but most thankfully have. Yet we know for certain that some are gifted and see better and further than others. So I don't think we should conclude a diversity of perspective and insights necessarily predicates the aspect of delusion. History is full of examples of men and women who were subject to ridicule, and even thought by many to be delusional. However, in hindsight, many of these individuals are now respected as giants among the family of man. Time has been chosen as the arbiter that will eventually prove the fruitfulness of ones foresight and I would confidently infer that time rests in God's hands.

DogmaHunter said:

In other words: "I'm right, even when I'm wrong"

Click to expand...

Ask a Hindu where God is, they will point towards the Heart. In other words, Immanence of God.

John 1720 said:

Hello Sir,
Well, perhaps the dwarf, lost in the wilderness below the crest of the hill, is not be able to view past the peak and see a lush and populated valley located on the other side. Conversely, however, a taller giant who has made larger strides along the rise may indeed see past the obscured horizon and perspective of his vertically challenged friend. Better yet, if he is a compassionate person, he would joyfully publish the news to his diminutive and lost friend proclaiming that hope and refreshment lies just beyond the slope and, descending to him, help him over to the other side.

Physical sight as well as insight are gifts not all but most thankfully have. Yet we know for certain that some are gifted and see better and further than others. So I don't think we should conclude a diversity of perspective and insights necessarily predicates the aspect of delusion. History is full of examples of men and women who were subject to ridicule, and even thought by many to be delusional. However, in hindsight, many of these individuals are now respected as giants among the family of man. Time has been chosen as the arbiter that will eventually prove the fruitfulness of ones foresight and I would confidently infer that time rests in God's hands.

Click to expand...

The giant can show the dwarf the valley. The dwarf could scale the crest and find the valley.

Ain't nobody showing 'immanence'.

Tinker Grey said:

The giant can show the dwarf the valley. The dwarf could scale the crest and find the valley.

Ain't nobody showing 'immanence'.

Click to expand...

Yes, sir but for the frustrations of our dwarf's short strides during the climb, diminished further by his lack of resolve and will power, he indeed may also get bogged down in his despair. Somewhat akin to a party hopelessly lost in a wilderness of snow, people can simply give up and succumb to their hypothermia when a warm cabin may just be beyond their visible horizon. So sometimes we simply need to go a bit further in the fight against hopelessness and despair.
Like Churchill stated, 'Never, never give up!' but sometimes the hope displayed by others around us is key element to our perseverance that encourages one not to surrender to despair.

John 1720 said:

Yes, sir but for the frustrations of our dwarf's short strides during the climb, diminished further by his lack of resolve and will power, he indeed may also get bogged down in his despair. Somewhat akin to a party hopelessly lost in a wilderness of snow people can simply give up and succumbed to hypothermia when a warm cabin may just be beyond their horizon. Sometimes we simply need to go a bit further in the fight against hopelessness and despair.
Like Churchill stated, 'Never, never give up!' but sometimes the hope displayed by others around us is key element to our perseverance that encourages not to surrender to despair.

Click to expand...

Who's surrendered to despair? Not I.

Tinker Grey said:

Who's surrendered to despair? Not I.

Click to expand...

Methinks thou dost protest too much sir - this was purely if the shoe fits. One can judge for themselves whether they despair for a hope or not.

devolved said:

No, but similarly your rejection of their beliefs don't make them "not real". So, unbelief in X doesn't make X non-existent.

Click to expand...

Now, you're shifting the burden of proof.

It's upto the one making the positive claim (in this case, the one saying "x is an absolute reality") to support it with evidence.

I get to reject those claims as true-isms, which aren't supported by any evidence.
And no, that does not mean that I accept as true-isms, the opposite of those claims.

You are all over the place. You seem to be doing your very best to run away from your initial claim and especially my objection to it.

John 1720 said:

Methinks thou dost protest too much sir

Click to expand...

No protest at all. I was addressing your implications.

DogmaHunter said:

Now, you're shifting the burden of proof.

It's upto the one making the positive claim (in this case, the one saying "x is an absolute reality") to support it with evidence.

I get to reject those claims as true-isms, which aren't supported by any evidence.
And no, that does not mean that I accept as true-isms, the opposite of those claims.

You are all over the place. You seem to be doing your very best to run away from your initial claim and especially my objection to it.

Click to expand...

I accept his claim because I know for certain that my reality is much different than your reality. And no amount of rejection on your part will change that "truth".

DogmaHunter said:

Now, you're shifting the burden of proof.

Click to expand...

Burden of proof is a nonsensical concept in this context, because God is an initial and necessary assumption in Christian framework.

Apologetics, as the name should convey, isn't about proof. It's about defending assumptions that we find necessary to structure coherent framework of reality.

For example I can assume that the murder is wrong based on certain logic of my conceptual framework. I can't prove that the murder is wrong to someone who hold a vastly different sets of assumptions, but I can defend my assumptions using certain rationalizations driven by certain demonstrable concepts.

So, I could say that experience is better than non-exprience, and since murder is a forceful and undesired termination of experience, it means that it'll be in the very least viewed as wrong by the victim. So, then if can put ourselves in the shoes of the victim (via categorical imperative test), then if everyone was trying to murder everyone, then we see that murder is not desirable, hence it's wrong.

Yet, one could argue that it doesn't prove that murder is wrong. It just proves that it's undesirable, and there are many contextual and collective desires that can override one set over the other. We can collectively agree that murdering one set of people is ok, while other is not, and we've done so plenty in our history. So, in a setting of competing desires, one person will not see why desire alone is a rational approach to murder, especially since they may really want to terminate someone's life.

So, there isn't anything I can do in order to prove that it would be wrong for you to murder me, if you start with lack of belief that murdering me is wrong and a strong desire to do so.

So, the very reason we have contractual legal system is precisely that we can't really prove to each other certain necessary moral concepts, so we standardize these as contractually-agreed upon assumptions. We collectively and provisionally agree certain necessary concepts. And we perpetuate these assumptions through education and legal enforcement.

So, we basically say... no we can't prove that murder is wrong. All we can prove is some utilitarian approach to abstaining from murder in some contractual societal setting. So, we can collectively prefer to have that setting more than other settings, and so we canonize certain assumptions into a legal contractual structure, even if we don't have philosophical or a scientific proof that these are wrong. These become real and wrong because we grant these provisional validity in certain setting that we prefer to maintain. And such assumed concepts can be shown necessary for both structuring and maintenance of these settings.

Again... These become real and wrong because we grant these provisional validity in certain setting.

Concept of God is similar. I can appeal and communicate why concept of God would provide certain provisional direction when it comes to structuring one's moral map of reality. So, if we begin with assumption that God exists, then such view of reality would be different than the one in which God wouldn't exist. And certain behavior "as though God exists" could be proven more "productive" for our species.

Hence, I don't have to prove that belief in God is a true belief in your utilitarian context that looks to rationally and skeptically seek to interpret evidence via a possible explanation as to why it's not so. All I need to do as Apologist is to show you that that believe in God is more adequate than it is not in context of certain societies that agree to believe that concept or historically held it as true. And surprise! You are living in one.

DogmaHunter said:

It's upto the one making the positive claim (in this case, the one saying "x is an absolute reality") to support it with evidence.

I get to reject those claims as true-isms, which aren't supported by any evidence.
And no, that does not mean that I accept as true-isms, the opposite of those claims.

You are all over the place. You seem to be doing your very best to run away from your initial claim and especially my objection to it.

Click to expand...

You can reject anything you want, but your rejection of something doesn't constitute the standard for logic and reason, neither your approval of something doesn't constitute the standard of logic and reason. And in order to accept and reject proofs, you need to appeal to some standards. But you can't assume that we share belief in these standards.

What you are essentially doing in either case is measuring claims against your assumptions.

I can continually reject any and every proof that 2+3=5 on basis that you are axiomatically projecting concepts on reality:

Is Math True?

So I can't prove anything to you apart from sets of parameters that you recognize as true using the framework that structures that logic. But as such I would be assuming that your framework is true, and I can't make that assumption until we agree on some agreed-upon rules that both of us would play by.

But, if I refuse to agree that 1 + 1 = 2 because you can't consistently prove that as a demonstrable reality, then math isn't possible.

To help you understand. God, just like 1 is a nominal assumption. God created what we experience as reality, is likewise a nominal assumption like 1 + 1 = 2. And so on, and so on. Christians then use that framework to "qualify reality and behavior". And such framework structures "cohesive semantics" for certain civilized being.

Your demand for proving concept of God as true is just as absurd as proving that math is true.

dlamberth said:

I know for certain that my reality is much different than your reality

Click to expand...

That makes no sense.
Reality is reality. You can have different beliefs about reality, but then at least one of you is going to be incorrect. Because you both live in the same reality.

And no amount of rejection on your part will change that "truth".

Click to expand...

Calling things "truth", does not make them truth.