Why is there something instead of nothing?

[Colter]

I did not say that God was imaginary. I simply asked you to give me a reliable method to distinguish between what you call God and something you may be merely imagining, and you couldn't.

What mental gymnastics within "Randism" are you referring to? Please be specific.

True Scotsman said:

"So if this spirit reality is indistinguishable from something that is imaginary, how is it not imaginary? Seriously. I can imagine a spirit reality and give it any identity I choose but it..."

on another thread directed at me:

"The concept of gods can be understood and discussed but what I want to know is by what reliable method can what someone is calling "God" be distinguished from something that is merely imaginary. ..."

*Specifically you pigeon hole opponents in these faith discussions into one of Rands rigid philosophical categories (theories) and from there pronounce everyone's thinking as specious based on that false premise.

*Your demand for a reliable method is "science speak", it's a cop out, and why do I say that? because there is no reliable scientific method to predict repeatedly who you would love. You know that is true but repeatedly revert back to the safety of the math path hiding place as a straw man. The relationship between the faith child and their Heavenly Father is just such a super mathematical, super material, transcendent reality. If you want that relationship then you will need to do the work yourself, there is no shortcut.

 

[bhsmte]

True Scotsman said:

"So if this spirit reality is indistinguishable from something that is imaginary, how is it not imaginary? Seriously. I can imagine a spirit reality and give it any identity I choose but it..."

on another thread directed at me:

"The concept of gods can be understood and discussed but what I want to know is by what reliable method can what someone is calling "God" be distinguished from something that is merely imaginary. ..."

*Specifically you pigeon hole opponents in these faith discussions into one of Rands rigid philosophical categories (theories) and from there pronounce everyone's thinking as specious based on that false premise.

*Your demand for a reliable method is "science speak", it's a cop out, and why do I say that? because there is no reliable scientific method to predict repeatedly who you would love. You know that is true but repeatedly revert back to the safety of the math path hiding place as a straw man. The relationship between the faith child and their Heavenly Father is just such a super mathematical, super material, transcendent reality. If you want that relationship then you will need to do the work yourself, there is no shortcut.

Love is an emotion and many psychologists believe, is tied to biological drives and cultural influences. Predicting who you would love, has actually been worked on by some psychologists based on one's childhood, but far too many subjective variables come into play.

IMO, believing in a God is also a need some people have that is based on; personal psychology, biology and cultural influences. Emotion plays a crucial role as well, as God provides an immense emotional support for some people.

Bottom line, if believing in a God makes you a better person and better able to cope with life, you should hold onto it, but also understand, not everyone is like you.

 

[True Scotsman]

True Scotsman said:

"So if this spirit reality is indistinguishable from something that is imaginary, how is it not imaginary? Seriously. I can imagine a spirit reality and give it any identity I choose but it..."

on another thread directed at me:

"The concept of gods can be understood and discussed but what I want to know is by what reliable method can what someone is calling "God" be distinguished from something that is merely imaginary. ..."

*Specifically you pigeon hole opponents in these faith discussions into one of Rands rigid philosophical categories (theories) and from there pronounce everyone's thinking as specious based on that false premise.

*Your demand for a reliable method is "science speak", it's a cop out, and why do I say that? because there is no reliable scientific method to predict repeatedly who you would love. You know that is true but repeatedly revert back to the safety of the math path hiding place as a straw man. The relationship between the faith child and their Heavenly Father is just such a super mathematical, super material, transcendent reality. If you want that relationship then you will need to do the work yourself, there is no shortcut.

If the pigeon hole fits............

You have not shown that any of the premises that I talked about are false. You can't do it. They are irrefutable.

My questions to you have absolutely nothing to do with Ayn Rand. Aristotle is the father of logic. You are on a philosophy forum and you don't want to be constrained by logic? Too bad.

Asking for evidence is a "cop out". That's fantastic.

 

[Colter]

If the pigeon hole fits............

You have not shown that any of the premises that I talked about are false. You can't do it. They are irrefutable.

My questions to you have absolutely nothing to do with Ayn Rand. Aristotle is the father of logic. You are on a philosophy forum and you don't want to be constrained by logic? Too bad.

Asking for evidence is a "cop out". That's fantastic.

You are asking for evidence of consciousness of relation to spiritual reality, ( I've compared that to love, or goodness or values). If you were truly intellectually honest, a person in search of truth, then you would concede that such a scientific approach is an inappropriate tool. That is why I say you are hiding in intellectualism which you are free to do, that is the gift of mind that comes from the mind that created you.

 

[True Scotsman]

You are asking for evidence of consciousness of relation to spiritual reality, ( I've compared that to love, or goodness or values). If you were truly intellectually honest, a person in search of truth, then you would concede that such a scientific approach is an inappropriate tool. That is why I say you are hiding in intellectualism which you are free to do, that is the gift of mind that comes from the mind that created you.

Aristotle defined objectivity as "volitional adherence to reality by a process of logic". I demand objectivity or adherence to reality and you have the gall to call me intellectually dishonest?! Love, goodness, happiness and all other values are objective Colter. They are not unknowable by the scientific approach. These things are perceptually self evident. Our emotions are written on our faces and actions Colter.

I will not concede that the scientific method of reason applied to observation is an inappropriate tool for knowledge about anything that exists. The only thing it is inappropriate for is to discover things which don't exist such as Gods, fairies, gremlins and elves. You accuse me of using logic as a hiding place. That is exactly what faith is Colter.

Everything that you accuse me of you are doing right out in the open for everyone to see. Do you even know what a straw man is? How can I misrepresent your argument when you haven't presented one.

You claimed in our first interaction that Atheists really believe but they just deny it. Are you willing to retract this false premise? I can prove there are no gods Colter. I don't need faith to hide behind and I am perfectly willing to present my proof.

 

[Colter]

Aristotle defined objectivity as "volitional adherence to reality by a process of logic". I demand objectivity or adherence to reality and you have the gall to call me intellectually dishonest?! Love, goodness, happiness and all other values are objective Colter. They are not unknowable by the scientific approach. These things are perceptually self evident. Our emotions are written on our faces and actions Colter.

I will not concede that the scientific method of reason applied to observation is an inappropriate tool for knowledge about anything that exists. The only thing it is inappropriate for is to discover things which don't exist such as Gods, fairies, gremlins and elves. You accuse me of using logic as a hiding place. That is exactly what faith is Colter.

Everything that you accuse me of you are doing right out in the open for everyone to see. Do you even know what a straw man is? How can I misrepresent your argument when you haven't presented one.

You claimed in our first interaction that Atheists really believe but they just deny it. Are you willing to retract this false premise? I can prove there are no gods Colter. I don't need faith to hide behind and I am perfectly willing to present my proof.

The arrogance of a finite mind making absolute pronouncements concerning the limitations of possibility of reality within the universe can only garner pity. You are the victim of your own self imposed limitations.

God is perceptibly self evident for those born of the spirit. So called science has left its own discipline when it presumes to make assertions about the realm of the spirit.


If I recall correctly what I said was Atheism is just another kind of faith, or that Atheist have a concept of God within but that that various religious representations of God don't compare. You cant disprove God, all that you can do is reassert denial.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The arrogance of a finite mind making absolute pronouncements concerning the limitations of possibility of reality within the universe can only garner pity. You are the victim of your own self imposed limitations.

God is perceptibly self evident for those born of the spirit. So called science has left its own discipline when it presumes to make assertions about the realm of the spirit.

How is that claim in bold not arrogant?

You are basically saying: "you, lowly atheist, are limited, but I am not, therefore I may make whatever pronouncements I like".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

God is perceptibly self evident for those born of the spirit.

Special pleading, anyone?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Special pleading, anyone?

Pretty much.

Logic and evidence provide a level playing field for both discussion partners. That's not to say that both partners have equally strong arguments, but at least the rules apply to both partners equally.

This is evidently what Colter does not want. He wants the advantage, not by having superior logic or evidence, by claiming to be above any rules of logic or evidence, because that allows him to declare victory without actually proving anything. He can claim that God exists, and no one else is permitted to object.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[True Scotsman]

"God is perceptibly self evident for those born of the spirit. So called science has left its own discipline when it presumes to make assertions about the realm of the spirit."

Prove it.

 

[Colter]

How is that claim in bold not arrogant?

You are basically saying: "you, lowly atheist, are limited, but I am not, therefore I may make whatever pronouncements I like".


eudaimonia,

Mark

Its not arrogant because I know the presence of the spirit but make no claim of an absolute knowledge of or comprehension of the I AM. I trust and humbly follow. I don't deny or contradict the laws of physics or override science in its field.

I don't think Atheist are low, only too smart for your own good. And spare me the lecture, many of the atheist that I have encountered look down on religionist with snide contempt! Bill Maher actually made a movie about it.

 

[Colter]

"God is perceptibly self evident for those born of the spirit. So called science has left its own discipline when it presumes to make assertions about the realm of the spirit."

Prove it.

It can't be proven or disproven.

 

[Colter]

Special pleading, anyone?

Logic is the opiate of the Atheist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The arrogance of a finite mind making absolute pronouncements concerning the limitations of possibility of reality within the universe can only garner pity. You are the victim of your own self imposed limitations.

God is perceptibly self evident for those born of the spirit. So called science has left its own discipline when it presumes to make assertions about the realm of the spirit.


If I recall correctly what I said was Atheism is just another kind of faith, or that Atheist have a concept of God within but that that various religious representations of God don't compare. You cant disprove God, all that you can do is reassert denial.

Science doesn't say anything about the paranormal beyond the fact that it cannot be proven or disproven. Do not mistake secular for atheist. In addition, that hasn't stopped people from trying to scientifically PROVE the existence of souls, etc.

Science doesn't address the paranormal because it can't address it, science can only work with observable, testable topics, of which the supernatural is not.

God certainly isn't self evident to me.

 

[Colter]

Science doesn't say anything about the paranormal beyond the fact that it cannot be proven or disproven. Do not mistake secular for atheist. In addition, that hasn't stopped people from trying to scientifically PROVE the existence of souls, etc.

Science doesn't address the paranormal because it can't address it, science can only work with observable, testable topics, of which the supernatural is not.

God certainly isn't self evident to me.

I agree with you.

 

[True Scotsman]

It can't be proven or disproven.

Then it is not knowledge. It is nothing, cognitively.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I agree with you.

Despite the fact your previous post claimed god is self evident to everyone?

 

[Colter]

Despite the fact your previous post claimed god is self evident to everyone?

I checked to see if I wasn't clear, but I said "God is perceptibly self evident for those born of the spirit."

We can recall the conversation that Jesus had with Nicodemus:

“Verily, verily, I say to you, Nicodemus, except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Then replied Nicodemus: “But how can a man be born again when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born.”

 

[Colter]

Then it is not knowledge. It is nothing, cognitively.

For you that's true.

 

[bhsmte]

I checked to see if I wasn't clear, but I said "God is perceptibly self evident for those born of the spirit."

We can recall the conversation that Jesus had with Nicodemus:

“Verily, verily, I say to you, Nicodemus, except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Then replied Nicodemus: “But how can a man be born again when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born.”

IMO, God is perceptible in those who have a psychological makeup to need to perceive him.