What do you think about god?

[DailyBlessings]

Apologies, DailyBlessing. I thought you were being snide; this is a fairly common response among Christians when they learn that I do not believe in God. I was clearly mistaken.

No worries.

Now, I am interested to hear you go into what you call evidence and what you think I would call constants. Do you mean the matters of fact in the world that make it intelligible and that allow us to progress?

More or less. The fact that there are constants and "laws" in place which cause the universe to act in predictable ways, indicates to me intentionality in construction. Physical properties are wonderful, but not necessitated. Why not a more random and chaotic universe in which induction does not work? Not proof, I would concede, but when is there ever real proof of anything? Barring mathematics.

That's what I gather from your citation of the scientific method. If I understand you rightly, and please correct me if I don't, I must disagree. I think you think that God has made the world intelligible to us. However, I'm going to have to change the example to show you why I disagree, because there are not counterexamples for epistemology.
Let's suppose instead you had said you believe in God because there is oxygen on earth. I would then say that we can only say that because there is oxygen on earth. There is no oxygen on the moon, but as a result, there is no one on the moon to say that he knows there is no God because there is no oxygen. We can only talk about God because we have been fortunate enough to live where there is oxygen.
Similarly, if epistemology didn't work, we couldn't not that there's no God.
It's kind of a tricky argument to follow, but I think it's credible. Please correct me if I've misunderstood you.

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow your argument. Is it that although our uniquely fortunate circumstances allow us to speculate on cosmic signifigance, this does not establish any such thing, since the alternative would leave noone around to speculate?

 

[The Nihilist]

Maybe this will make more sense. A man is in a monastery, and there is a picture of twenty men praying. The man asks a monk who the men are, and the monk says that these twenty men were shipwrecked in a storm, and by the Grace of God, managed to survive. The man replies by asking for the location of the picture of the men who were shipwrecked and died in the same storm.
I think my objection is that your premise is unfalsifiable. That is, there is no set of conditions that would allow for what you say to be false.

 

[quatona]

If I were to turn lake ponchetrain into a vat of jello in front of your eyes, you would remain skeptical, even if you could not explain it.

What do you mean - skeptical? I would acknowledge that it occured, I would find it highly unusual and confusing, and I would acknowledge that I cannot explain it (and is probably not explainable by current human knowledge).
What - beyond this - do you expect me when wanting me to acknowledge it as "miracle"? That it is an acute direct interference of a particular deity, suspending its own laws for a moment or something?
And you think that is an explanation of sorts? To me, this is just another way of saying "I have no clue", and it isn´t an explanation any more than any other wild speculation.

 

[DailyBlessings]

What do you mean - skeptical? I would acknowledge that it occured, I would find it highly unusual and confusing, and I would acknowledge that I cannot explain it (and is probably not explainable by current human knowledge).
What - beyond this - do you expect me when wanting me to acknowledge it as "miracle"? That it is an acute direct interference of a particular deity, suspending its own laws for a moment or something?
And you think that is an explanation of sorts? To me, this is just another way of saying "I have no clue", and it isn´t an explanation any more than any other wild speculation.

My point exactly. If one would not accept divine intervention as an explanation for any event, then demanding a miracle is an empty offer.

Maybe this will make more sense. A man is in a monastery, and there is a picture of twenty men praying. The man asks a monk who the men are, and the monk says that these twenty men were shipwrecked in a storm, and by the Grace of God, managed to survive. The man replies by asking for the location of the picture of the men who were shipwrecked and died in the same storm.
I think my objection is that your premise is unfalsifiable. That is, there is no set of conditions that would allow for what you say to be false.

This of course is the problem with discussing universes; we have only the one case study, so it is impossible to establish anything by experimentation or observation, except on the one we have available.

Nevertheless, I would point out that one does not need a picture of those who drowned, to make inferences about them. And we know plenty about the moon without needing to speak with locals. None of your examples really help, since they concern things that are within the universe and follow its rules, rather than the universe itself.

 

[quatona]

My point exactly. If one would not accept divine intervention as an explanation for any event, then demanding a miracle is an empty offer.

Oh, I see. Agreed completely.
Then again I tend to think that the question for miracles is just the means to show how those who talk about miracles have nothing to offer, unless one is determined to believe the occurance to be a miracle, in the first place.

 

[stone]

unless of course, g-d speaks to you, and tells you something he is going to do, and then it comes to pass.

 

[elman]

Namaste elman,

thank you for the post.

that is true. there also doesn't seem to be any reason to posit such a thing since one cannot be found. it is simply "filling in the gaps" in our current understanding which makes for poor theology, in my view.

if something is unfindable or undiscernable, there is no method by which such a thing can be demonstrated to exist. why then, posit such an existence?

metta,

~v

Can you discern enlightenment?

 

[elman]

=advaitadude;27488377][
Please don't pin me down as an atheist. My reasoning tells me that the creator of Good and bad, beauty and ugly needs to be separate from it, but its our own desire that pushes Him to one side. Often, one traits seems to create another. For e.g., there are so many who undergo hardship everyday and that's normal life for them, but if people having a white collar job undergo a day like them, then he undergoes "suffering", cause their "comfort" has defined their suffering. So, my "God" has to be above good and bad.

There is some suffering that is illusion, but some suffering is very real and it matters not about being a blue collar worker or a white collar worker.

I do sincerely wish you an eternal life, and more important peace while living.
But all that you think of as elman: your body, your memory, your family, your religion is all going into dust on death...that everyone agrees. That which is not eternal can't be eternal and that which is eternal cannot die and doesn't need or receive your hope. If Kingdom of God belongs to children and not to us, then its our concepts that have brought us to despair.

Everyone does not agree that my body, memory, family, religion all going into dust on death of the body. I believe the body returns to dust. Some people don't even agree on that. Something can be eternal in the sense it is not mortal and will not die until or unless you kill it. That could be the way in which your soul, not your body is eternal. The creator of all that exists is able to recreate this spiritual existence which is not limited in destiny as the physical body is and therefore something can be eternal in some sence and yet be subject to being killed. Who said the Kingdom of God belongs to children and not to us. Jesus simply said we need to come to the Creator in faith with the innoncene and humility of a little child.

 

[The Nihilist]

None of your examples really help, since they concern things that are within the universe and follow its rules, rather than the universe itself.

I can see your concern, but the essence of the objection is the same. I think the best way to articulate the matter is that the claim is unfalsifiable, even if the opposite case is true.
But it need not be a matter of universes. We could imagine a creature on another planet without a sound way of accessing the outside world. This creature would of course die. The end. This creature, I think, would be the most suitable opposite case. It should be noted, though, that this is probably trivial.

 

[vajradhara]

Can you discern enlightenment?

Namatse elman,

interesting non-sequiter.

can a being discern if another has attained Liberation? yes.

now, what does that have to do with positing a cause for a beginning when a beginning cannot be found?

metta,

~v