Resha Caner
Expert Fool
I was speaking to a particular argument, and the expectation some might have for that argument. I was not making any general comments about belief, hope, or God.
Upvote
0
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.
So...out of the possible options for a cause that I listed, the reason for believing the cause to be a living being is..."hope".
I am saying we can not from our perspective tell the difference because the idea of God gives us no particular clue what to look for or not look for in a universe either with a God present or absent.
I'm not sure who "we" is. If you were referring to yourself, then there's no reason for me to disagree. You don't know what to look for. Shrug. OK. Maybe I've done a poor job of communicating with you.
I still feel the same way. When you meet God, you'll know it - whether you had a preceding idea or not. I guess it just probably won't be me who does the introductions for you.
I'm not sure who "we" is. If you were referring to yourself, then there's no reason for me to disagree. You don't know what to look for. Shrug. OK. Maybe I've done a poor job of communicating with you.
I still feel the same way. When you meet God, you'll know it - whether you had a preceding idea or not. I guess it just probably won't be me who does the introductions for you.
How would one discern such a meeting from that which was only imagined?
I mean all of us. If you know what to look for present it.
I've tried. Even more so, I'm not disagreeing with you. Shall I repeat my parable The Dog Ate My Homework?
Solipsism fail.This is the problem of The Matrix. It can be asked of anything - How do you know you're not a butterfly dreaming you're a man?
You did not address my question.I perceive reality to be a certain way. I perceive imagining to be a certain way. When I perceive God, it fits with reality and not imagining.
I wanted to pose my other thread another way.
In church, often the pastor says that God is "in this place".
So, is God distinct from the things in the room?
If you removed the pews, would God still be there?
If you removed the carpet, the windows, the walls, the crosses, the musical instruments, would God still be there?
If you removed the pastor, would God still be there?
If you removed 80% of the congregation, would God still be there?
If you removed the whole congregation, would God still be there?
You are now left with a barren plot of land: no building, no people, no pastor. Is God still there?
Okay, so keep removing stuff...
If you remove the grass and dirt from the plot, is God still there?
If you remove the Earth, is God still there?
If you remove the Solar System, is God still there?
If you remove the Universe, is God still there?
You are now left with Nothing. Eternal nothingness. A pure vacuum. No universe. No matter.
Is God still there?
My main questions:
1) How is God distinguishable from Nothingness?
2) Is God distinct? Or is God dependent?
By what method do you discern between reality and the imagined? Or do you not make an effort to see past your perceptions?
But it is an empty explanation, it tells us little to nothing about either the universe and what to expect from it and even leaves us an ill defined concept from which we can not even say what would be different about the universe or our expectations of it if God does or doesn't exist.
God doesn't work as an explanation and the universe in which it does exist has all the same expected qualities as the universe without.
As I said, nothing new. I reiterated my position and you yours. I think I've addressed your objection and you say I haven't.
What interests me about this discussion is that you seem to speak of God as if you have a definitive idea while at the same time denying there is anything definitive about it.
So, it seems to me the problem you present is a problem we have with a multitude of things. I can say how the universe would be different without God. It's just that you won't accept it because I can't demonstrate it.
Well, I expect a scientist would say the universe would be very different if there were no leptons ... might even be able to model what would happen. But it's also impossible to demonstrate our current universe without any leptons.
Or, you continue to speak of God as if he's my circus pony that I keep in a shed, and that I can trot him out whenever I like.
When I point out that you just can't treat persons in such a manner, you seem to object to me referring to God as a person. You say the analogy doesn't work, but it's not an analogy. God is a person (actually 3 persons, but we're not even close to ready for that).
So, can you tell me exactly what it is about God you object to?
I've been asked if He can physically interact with material objects? Yes. So he can do things in this world? Yes. Can he speak so humans hear him? Yes.
Will he do this on my command as a demonstration for you? No.
You say that leaves you with nothing to look for. OK. If you still feel you don't know what to look for, I'll not disagree. God will have to take the initiative to come to you. There's nothing I can do about that.
So is it the fact that you have to wait on God that frustrates you, or is there something about what I've said that is not a "rational concept" (I believe that's the phrase you've been using)?
If it's the latter, you're going to have to help me out - be more specific regarding your objection to what I've said.
A student places his finished paper on a table outside and goes inside to get a drink. When he comes back, the paper is gone. How can he discern what happened? Short of extraordinary efforts like pumping the dog's stomach, checking the security cameras he happened to install, etc., he can't.
He doesn't know.
It could be:
1) The dog ate it
2) The wind blew it away
3) He imagined he wrote the paper, but never did
4) The Russians stole it in an attempt to destablize the Ukraine
5) ...
He doesn't know, and no "idea" of how it might have happened is going to help him because there is no evidence to distinguish #1 from #2, #3, etc.
So, yeah, the logical thing to do is go with the statistics - with the most likely explanation. But what changes the whole picture - completely changes it - is when his friend walks in and explains that he thought it was a stack of scratch paper, and he used it as kindling to start the grill for their steaks that night.
The idea (what to look for) follows the experience (meeting the person).
First you must establish that the paper exists before trying to decide what happened to it.
The people who are frustrated here are believers in their attempts to rationalize their very specific contentions about what are invisible and indefinite beings.
I shall wait with bated breath.
You can address my objection at any time by giving me a variable that will be expected to be different in a universe with a God verses one without a God.
The "universe without leptons" would be theoretical, and we could approach it as an idea because we have a good idea of what leptons are and how they operate. The cosmology though, only comes into effect here because it excludes God as a rational idea from the entire universe.
God makes no predictions that are possible to test, so it's use as an explanation or description is null.
Not in my case. You'll not see me start a thread entitled "What is God?" followed my a wall of text expounding all my speculations. I didn't start this thread, but was answering leftright's question. And that I will do. I'm here to talk with people who are interested in my answer. If all they want is a debate or to promote their own agenda or to mock, I'm not interested.
Similarly, you didn't have to join this discussion. That was your choice.
Variant said:God is not distinct nor distinguishable from not God.
That is the epistemic problem of theism.
Will you? Is there any sense in which you're waiting for that, because you come across as someone who is unchangeably decided. It wasn't you, but there was another who made a statement to the effect, "Maybe there is a god, but it's not the god of the Bible because that has been proven false beyond any doubt." Really? If that's the attitude, I'm not the conversation that person is looking for.
Certainly - though I doubt you'll accept it. In fact, I've mentioned it before, but I guess I was too subtle. Some people won't act until they have that personal experience with God. Examples would be Jonah, Thomas, Paul, and me. So, Thomas' mission to India wouldn't have happened in a world without God, because Thomas wouldn't have acted.
Ah, but this is why I brought up the example. I didn't say one leption. I said all leptons. That is the better analogy to what you're asking. If you're willing to accept the theoretical impact as an answer, then we have a host of examples. It's called theology.
If not, you're asking me for a specific incident.
This is why I continue to push these parables about the traits of persons. You're going to have to provide me an example of something you would consider an acceptable testable example for persons, because I'm not seeing it.
And to be clear, we're not talking about statistics. It's not good enough to say you would survey 100 people and 95% prefer chocolate ice cream over anchovy ice cream and so we can measure the real world impact on the anchovy ice cream business. Nor is post ex facto acceptable - asking for your friend's vacation schedule so we have a certain confidence he will appear in Hawaii at a certain time. Finally, you need to consider accessibility. I've used Obama as an example, but Putin or Kim Jong Un would be even better. You'll need to explain how we prove that an inaccessible (and/or uncooperative) authority is the instigator and the not the front man for the actions attached to their name - that Putin actually ordered Russian troops into the Crimea and not some other functionary - that Kim Jong Un actually made the decision to execute his uncle, and it wouldn't have happened if he had objected.
I need an example where you predict a specific person will do a specific thing and then you verify the specific person did that specific thing, because it seems to me that is what you're asking for.
If not, then let's clarify what you are asking for.
I am not saying not to use your senses.See past our perceptions? You'll have to explain to me how you do this. So there is a way for me to detect external objects without using any of my senses?
By what method do you determine the accuracy of your perceptions? Or do you not make an effort to see past your perceptions?
Yes, but you are indeed suffering from the frustration I outlined. You would like to speak authoritatively on God and you don't even have the basic foundations of an idea, let alone a good authority on the nature of what you speak.
So, a world without a God would not have any religious prophets or people who feel certain enough to proselytize?
I counter with Zoroaster, Buddha, Mohamed, Krishna, ect.
Why did their messages succeed?
Yes, but we do have leptons so it's a pretty bad example.
Things only persons can do? What would we expect on a world that was inhabited by intelligent persons? Writing is one pretty convincing thing to show a positive evidence for persons.
Were you expecting that to be hard?
If God exists and wishes to demonstrate it's existence I certainly am willing to entertain it.
We're close to straining the parable beyond reasonable limits, but I anticipated this. Recall that the student has no proof the paper ever existed.
So if we tweak the story a bit where the student knows his friend's propensities and accuses him of using the paper for kindling (rather than the friend confessing), we indeed have a debate over existence.
I also anticipated the issue of probabilities that was mentioned earlier. Given the presence of the dog and that it's a windy day, the friend can easily argue that using the paper as kindling is the least likely answer. The wind is a more "natural" explanation than a need to invoke a person to make the paper disappear.
I imagine my methods are similar to those of everyone else. Yes, of course we can be fooled. But asking, "Is this real?" is a question of infinite regress as I already noted.
Someone trying to explain themselves is necessarily feeling authoritative?
Maybe about my personal experiences, because I don't see how anyone else could be authoritative. But, no, I'm quite satisfied with my relationship to God, and that doesn't involve any need to be authoritative with others.
I don't see why you feel this need to extend your "I don't know" answer to a claim about all humanity for all time and their relationship to God. If anything is a grab for authority, that is.
No. You still miss my point. Those are examples of people who would not act unless they had a personal experience - unless they actually, physically, audibly, heard God.
Some have the faith to act without that, and I expected you would dismiss such actions as acting on nothing. The examples I gave, then, are people who acted on something physical. Of course you can also dismiss those as psychological - as no different than some mania of "hearing voices". But that's just armchair quarterbacking - no better than a wild guess.
Did I ever claim God didn't speak to them? Though I think you're in error to put Buddha in that list. I don't think he ever claimed God spoke to him.
The "success" of their message is not my point.
Do we? We have this "base" understanding you speak of regarding what a lepton "is"?
As I recall, electrons were originally posited as particles with a (classical) radius, etc. Then came wave-particle duality ... and now we're at what? A mathematical probability distribution? So electrons are a distribution of numbers?
A lepton is an elementary, spin-1⁄2 particle that does not undergo strong interactions, but is subject to the Pauli exclusion principle.[1] The best known of all leptons is the electron, which governs nearly all of chemistry as it is found in atoms and is directly tied to all chemical properties. Two main classes of leptons exist: charged leptons (also known as the electron-like leptons), and neutral leptons (better known as neutrinos). Charged leptons can combine with other particles to form various composite particles such as atoms and positronium, while neutrinos rarely interact with anything, and are consequently rarely observed.
But again, tell me what a person "is". You're still not doing that.
God can write / has written. Shrug. Now what? Aren't you going to ask me for extant evidence? Or is it that easy? We're done now?
Then that is where I'll leave it.
You're still missing the point. Your analogy makes no sense. Lets walk through and look at why:
You have made many assertions about it's nature, without being able to answer the basic epidemiological problem.
I can catalog them for you if you so desire.
Now you are correct that they suffer from it from my perspective, but I am not sure how I could speak from anything other than my own perspective.
Assertion. So now you have insight into the physical experiences people have and how they "hear" God?
Here, as I just stated you simply dismiss explanations that don't agree with your mindset and accept those that do agree with it. This is an argument via confirmation bias on your part.
Notice here that you are the Gnostic and I am the agnostic, so my position doesn't require that I know these peoples psychology, just that there are multiple possible explanations for the event.
You can not claim to be a christian and also adhere to truths that contradict the basic message you adhere to.
Considerable direct evidence? Proper predictions of experimentation. Information about how it acts and how it doesn't act.
I made no claim that we had a complete idea of leptons, there are plenty of things we don't know about them at any given time.
That's a bigger question than our discussion. I am giving you what I don't get from theist for God, something that will tell you if there are people present or that there were.
So give me a writing that we could attribute to God and not something else.
Good, then we agree that you don't have the power to differentiate God from not god to me.
If you wish. I think I understand you. It's just that I don't see why the issue you raise is unique to the question of God.
I agree, and I've never asked you to use any perspective but your own. All I've asked is, "Do you understand my perspective?" The reply tends to be of the form, "Yes, I understand why your perspective is faulty." If I thought my perspective was faulty, I would change it, so what I hear you saying is I lack the intellectual capacity, am deceived, or something else along those lines.
Shrug. OK.
I don't see why you need to make this sound extraordinary. I hear sounds. I assume other people hear sounds in a manner similar to mine. So, when someone says, "Person X talked to me," it's a rather common assumption what their experience was.
I have acted based on what trusted people suggested to me. I assume other people act based on what trusted people suggest to them. So, when someones says, "I did this because Person X suggested it," again, it's a rather common assumption.
What I'm saying, then, is that in certain cases, the action would not have happened if the person had not audibly heard God.
No. What I don't accept is some random person claiming they can analyze my psychology over the Internet.
Again, I don't see the need to throw out this label. I thought we covered this. I'm an engineer and (I assume) you're not. In that case, I have training you don't. Does that mean I have some secret, inaccessible knowledge you don't? Not really. You could get the same training as me, you just haven't.
You could have the same experiences as me. You just haven't.
Who said I was adhering to the claims of Islam? That wasn't the question. Mohamed claimed God spoke to him. Maybe he did. I have nothing to judge that claim on.
Where my discernment comes is in comparing the claims of the Bible to the claims of the Koran. The claims differ. I accept the claims of the Bible and reject the claims of the Koran. You may disagree with the Bible, but that doesn't make it a unique epistemic problem. People make choices like that all the time.
You can observe the effect, yes. Likewise, we can observe the effect on someone who believes in God. But that's not what you're asking me.
Nor have I made a claim of complete knowledge of God. Just as you said regarding your knowledge of leptons, there are some things you know and somethings you don't know. For the things you know, you can demonstrate effects. I can do the same.
No, this is our discussion. You gave me something for "people". Now give me something for "a person". You suggested writing. Prove to me that the writing you produce was written by a specific person.
Yep. That's a tough problem, just as it is for giving an incontrovertible piece of writing for any person. Who wrote the Iliad? Or Hamlet? We know someone wrote those things, but who?
I agreed to that a long time ago. You seem to want more, though.
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?