The Tasteless Man (experience, atheist, faith, God, science)

[Zero Faith]

Exerpted from two posts, the claims of Paraprakrti that I disagree with:

* This reality you know is a perverted reflection.
* No particular thing here ever lasts as that thing and has no real definition itself
* God is the Energetic from which the energy emanates.
* God is the Supreme Enjoyer.
* The whole world is asleep. God is just trying to wake folks up.
* That anything exists demonstrates the existence of God.
* God is the reservoir of energy.
* Only God has the authority to say that He doesn't exist.
* God is the ultimate conclusion of all knowledge.
* Atheists' intelligence is stolen by illusion.
* If the theists' intelligence is also stolen by illusion then it is all illusion and we shall convert to nihilists.

Given that these are all positive claims, the burden of proof lies on Paraprakrti. If you could please pick any one of those claims and offer some evidence to support it, we might be able to continue this debate. I'm quite unwilling to continue a debate with someone who supports points by presenting even more unfounded premises.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Zero Faith

Exerpted from two posts, the claims of Paraprakrti that I disagree with:

* This reality you know is a perverted reflection.
* No particular thing here ever lasts as that thing and has no real definition itself
* God is the Energetic from which the energy emanates.
* God is the Supreme Enjoyer.
* The whole world is asleep. God is just trying to wake folks up.
* That anything exists demonstrates the existence of God.
* God is the reservoir of energy.
* Only God has the authority to say that He doesn't exist.
* God is the ultimate conclusion of all knowledge.
* Atheists' intelligence is stolen by illusion.
* If the theists' intelligence is also stolen by illusion then it is all illusion and we shall convert to nihilists.

Given that these are all positive claims, the burden of proof lies on Paraprakrti. If you could please pick any one of those claims and offer some evidence to support it, we might be able to continue this debate. I'm quite unwilling to continue a debate with someone who supports points by presenting even more unfounded premises.

You have no premise to speak at all, yet you continue. Your premises are paradox. I accept a premise that is eternally reconciling. How can you argue that the senses are their own justification for proof? At least what I am suggesting is conceptually perfect. But still you wish to prove perfection by use of imperfection. You are unwilling just as you are unable based on these obvious facts.

I will address a couple things...

Only God has the authority to deny His own existence. You (or anyone else) are completely helpless when it comes to rightly denying God to exist. You would have to have perfect perception, perfect senses, perfect knowledge, etc, in order to be justified in such a claim. Of course, if you had all these qualities then you would be God. You simply do not like this statement because it automatically makes God exist either way.

Atheists' intelligence are stolen by illusion. If the theists' intelligence are also stolen by illusion then it is all illusion and we shall convert to nihilists.
'I' serves the senses. This is illusion. The self is there, but you cover knowledge of the self with these fleeting interactions. This is illusion. If the the theists' intelligence is also in illusion then all is illusion and we have become nihilists. How can you argue this? I have even suggested the possibility that the theist is under illusion. So what is the difficulty?

All these other things I have already explained.

[Mr Spinkles]

Only God has the authority to deny His own existence.

By that logic, only God has the authority to say leprechauns do not exist...does that mean we should all believe in leprechauns now? And unicorns?

How can you argue that the senses are their own justification for proof?

Um, because that is how we experience the world around us. If my senses help me invent a steam engine, and that steam engine works and helps me get across oceans faster, then apparently our senses are great for enhancing our understanding of the world we experience. Could there be more in the universe that we can't detect with our senses? Possibly. But if it doesn't interact with our world in a detectable manner, it is irrelevant to us. Any claims about this theoretical undetectable world would be pure speculation.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

By that logic, only God has the authority to say leprechauns do not exist...does that mean we should all believe in leprechauns now? And unicorns?

No. There is no comparison between God and leprechauns. I have not herein addressed any specific traits of God that could compare in any way to a leprechaun, or a unicorn. I think I already addressed this two or three times in this thread or in another one in this forum. I refer to God as a concept. I have yet to refer to God's Personality. That information is way too confidential for this conversation.

Um, because that is how we experience the world around us. If my senses help me invent a steam engine, and that steam engine works and helps me get across oceans faster, then apparently our senses are great for enhancing our understanding of the world we experience. Could there be more in the universe that we can't detect with our senses? Possibly. But if it doesn't interact with our world in a detectable manner, it is irrelevant to us. Any claims about this theoretical undetectable world would be pure speculation.

Perhaps it is speculation, perhaps it isn't. There is no question of anything being truly void of speculation if the very premise by which we experience this world is flawed. The concept of God constitutes the perfect premise upon which all qualities are rationalized (something sense perception alone cannot logically do). Without this concept all things bottom line to circular reasoning. Of course, we can't physically prove this flawless premise (God) exists, but without it we are left only to deny the existence of anything. That is why I say that either God exists or nothing exists. There is no other logic if all things bottomline to an accepted premise. One side accepts the premise that sense perception is sufficient in itself. The other side accepts the premise that sense perception itself is insufficient without the concept of God to hold it up. These are the two basic standpoints beside complete nihilism. The problem with the first standpoint is that they completely ignore the fact that sense perception is proven sufficient to them only by sense perception. This is circular. Now, the concept of God reconciles this circular reasoning. Everyone (save the nihilists), simply by speaking upon any supposed premise, is essentially a theist because God constitutes the premise behind whatever premise the atheist is speaking on. The atheist can then say, "God has not been proven, therefore this is all speculation", but this only hurts them because if God does not exist then the atheist has no real premise upon which to speak at all.
In conclusion, I don't have to physically prove God to exist. God exists or else everyone is full of s**t.

[Ceridwen018]

Only God has the authority to deny His own existence.

That's impossible. Things which do not exist are incapable of action. To deny one's own existence is an action. If god does not exist, then he wouldn't have any authority for anything, let alone to declare himself nonexistent.

No. There is no comparison between God and leprechauns.

I beg to differ. Both god and leprechauns are beings supposedly capable of metaphysical activity. Also, neither of them have any evidence to back them up except for questionable documents and deranged witnesses. The only difference between them is that leprechauns are accepted as myth, whereas the idea of god still stands strong. It's only a matter of time before god joins the leprechauns in the fairy-hell, though. Even leprechauns were thought of as real at one time.

I refer to God as a concept. I have yet to refer to God's Personality. That information is way too confidential for this conversation.

First of all, to clear the air, we are speaking of leprechauns and unicorns as concepts as well--thereby placing them on equal footing with the concept of god. Secondly, you seem speak as if you are the keeper of this 'confidential information' concerning god's 'personality', which is a laughable idea at best.

There is no question of anything being truly void of speculation if the very premise by which we experience this world is flawed.

The only thing flawed about our perception of this world are our emotions. When dealing with objective events, they need to be ignored.

Without this concept all things bottom line to circular reasoning.

I don't understand why this is so. It seems to me that the concept of god is wrought with enough circular reasoning to keep Christians happy for eternity. "God is all-powerful because god says he is all-powerful" and so on.

but without it we are left only to deny the existence of anything.

Not so. I could go outside in my yard right now, and touch a tree. Through my senses of touch, sight, and even smell (we'll leave taste out of this one) I can confirm the existence of that tree. The wind through the leaves would also include my sense of hearing. I could take a picture of the tree, and the picture would develop showing the tree exactly as I had seen it. I can climb the tree, and take note of how I am 'defying' the laws of gravity. Notice that all of these perceptions were performed without god. None of the collected data has anything to do with god. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for something's existence to be confirmed without the existence of god being confirmed.

One side accepts the premise that sense perception is sufficient in itself

My side.

. The other side accepts the premise that sense perception itself is insufficient without the concept of God to hold it up.

Your side.

The problem with the first standpoint is that they completely ignore the fact that sense perception is proven sufficient to them only by sense perception. This is circular.

It is circular in theory, however through the thousands of years that humans have wandered on this earth, it has become accepted as sufficient. By only using our senses, we have evolved from cavemen to a modern day civilization. Circular reasoning is only a problem if it does not allow for growth and understanding.

Now, the concept of God reconciles this circular reasoning.

How?

God does not exist then the atheist has no real premise upon which to speak at all.

You are making the fatal assumption that a 'premise' is required.

In conclusion, I don't have to physically prove God to exist. God exists or else everyone is full of s**t.

Your logic is interesting, to say the least.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

That's impossible. Things which do not exist are incapable of action. To deny one's own existence is an action. If god does not exist, then he wouldn't have any authority for anything, let alone to declare himself nonexistent.

Then, if God doesn't exist, no one has the authority to say that God doesn't exist since it is only Himself who can rightly deny His own existence.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

I beg to differ. Both god and leprechauns are beings supposedly capable of metaphysical activity. Also, neither of them have any evidence to back them up except for questionable documents and deranged witnesses. The only difference between them is that leprechauns are accepted as myth, whereas the idea of god still stands strong. It's only a matter of time before god joins the leprechauns in the fairy-hell, though. Even leprechauns were thought of as real at one time.

Leprechauns do not constitute a universal premise. The concept of God does. There is no comparison between leprechauns and God other than that you have no direct experience of either. I cannot say, only leprechauns have the authority to say leprechauns don't exist. If I could say that then leprechauns would be God, and in that case a comparison would be suitable. Either a concept of God exists as the ultimate premise for knowledge, or there is nothing. I cannot interchangably say that either leprechauns exist or there is nothing. The concept of leprechauns does not constitute the supreme absolute truth. Therefore this is a bad analogy.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

First of all, to clear the air, we are speaking of leprechauns and unicorns as concepts as well--thereby placing them on equal footing with the concept of god. Secondly, you seem speak as if you are the keeper of this 'confidential information' concerning god's 'personality', which is a laughable idea at best.

No, they are not on equal footing with the concept of God. I have explained why they are not above.
You speak as if you assume I am the keeper of such knowledge. My only point was to address that I accept God ultimately as a person, but that such knowledge is not part of the debate and would only lead to unnecessary argument.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

The only thing flawed about our perception of this world are our emotions. When dealing with objective events, they need to be ignored.

Sense perception is flawed. I have already explained this.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

I don't understand why this is so. It seems to me that the concept of god is wrought with enough circular reasoning to keep Christians happy for eternity. "God is all-powerful because god says he is all-powerful" and so on.

I have explained why. One cannot prove the senses to be valid tools for obtaining facts because the senses can only be studied by use of the senses. This is circular.
God is not all-powerful simply because God said He was. This is the concept of "God", to be "all-powerful". It would be more appropriate to say "inconceivably powerful", lest we get into pointless debates about God creating circumstances that contradict His nature. The reason a Christian accepts the Bible is because they are convinced that these words are from or inspired by God. But it is not required to open up the Bible to find out that God is omnipotent. We understand that because that is included in the God-concept. Otherwise, if a supposed "God" is not omnipotent, then by definition he cannot be God. There is no circular reasoning here.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Not so. I could go outside in my yard right now, and touch a tree. Through my senses of touch, sight, and even smell (we'll leave taste out of this one) I can confirm the existence of that tree. The wind through the leaves would also include my sense of hearing. I could take a picture of the tree, and the picture would develop showing the tree exactly as I had seen it. I can climb the tree, and take note of how I am 'defying' the laws of gravity. Notice that all of these perceptions were performed without god. None of the collected data has anything to do with god. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for something's existence to be confirmed without the existence of god being confirmed.

You cannot verify that your senses justify truth if they are only validated by themselves. If God has nothing to do with it then all study is speculation and all endeavor is oblivious. The existence of God is the premise upon which anything is confirmed.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

It is circular in theory, however through the thousands of years that humans have wandered on this earth, it has become accepted as sufficient. By only using our senses, we have evolved from cavemen to a modern day civilization. Circular reasoning is only a problem if it does not allow for growth and understanding.

But what is the value of growth and understanding if it ultimately leads us nowhere? What we are doing is like trying to count to infinity. "Well, we've made a lot of progress. We have counted all the way to 277 googol." Great, now what? We may have all kinds of neat toys but people are still generally unhappy. There is still so much disease and we still cannot escape death. Without God we have no real purpose besides enjoying the senses.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Now, the concept of God reconciles this circular reasoning."

How?

Because God means perfection. God constitutes the perfect premise upon which the premise of sense perception is reconciled. If we divorce God from our knowledge then we are left in pure speculation.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

You are making the fatal assumption that a 'premise' is required.

How can I argue this? You go on and accept such nonsense. You speak on anything without a premise, if you feel that is reasonable. I, personally will not accept what you say without a premise. But I am sure if you are crafty enough you can get others to follow you.

[Ceridwen018]

Then, if God doesn't exist, no one has the authority to say that God doesn't exist since it is only Himself who can rightly deny His own existence.

Likewise, only leprechauns have the authority to deny their own existence? I guess we should all start believeing in leprechauns now, because last time I checked they haven't organized a press conference to deny their own existence or anything.

If god does not exist, then he is not able to deny his own existence. If god is not able to carry out such tasks, then the authority for those tasks needs to be transferred to someone who can. I say we humans are quite capable.

The concept of leprechauns does not constitute the supreme absolute truth.

Neither does god, though. You are assuming that this 'supreme absolute truth' exists, which I don't believe, and also that it comes from god, which you have no evidence for. For all you know, it could very well come from leprechauns.

My only point was to address that I accept God ultimately as a person, but that such knowledge is not part of the debate and would only lead to unnecessary argument.

Fair enough.

You cannot verify that your senses justify truth if they are only validated by themselves.

Our senses create a reality for us. A reality in which the leaves of trees are green because we see them to be green, and in which accordians are annoying because they insult the eardrums . The only way that the leaves of trees would not be green, is if they were percieved as a different color by something else. Let's say that horses percieve the color green as blue. Does this make our perception faulty? Of course not. Does our perception undermine that of the horse's? Of course not.

We survive by what we percieve. All else is irrelevant to us. The only reality which is important to us is the one we can see, touch, taste, smell, and hear. All other realities are pointless because we cannot interact with them. Indeed, other realities are simply just that anyhow--what makes our reality 'wrong' and some other one 'right'? I say that there is no such thing as a faulty reality.

But what is the value of growth and understanding if it ultimately leads us nowhere?

What is the point of growth and understanding if you're just going to die and go to heaven or hell anyway? All of that knowledge you acquired in life is useless in the afterlife.

We may have all kinds of neat toys but people are still generally unhappy.

There are just as many sad religious people as there are sad atheists...god does not change a person's happiness.

"Well, we've made a lot of progress. We have counted all the way to 277 googol." Great, now what?

Now we count to 278 googol. Why does there have to be a definitive reason for doing something? Why can't you just do it because you feel motivated? Also, are you implying that belief in god gives you a purpose for counting to 277 googol?

Without God we have no real purpose besides enjoying the senses.

What purpose does god give you? Is your purpose the goal of heaven? "Well, we've gotten to heaven...now what?"

Because God means perfection. God constitutes the perfect premise upon which the premise of sense perception is reconciled.

How do you know that god is the perfect premise? Wouldn't that suck if god's premise were faulty?

If we divorce God from our knowledge then we are left in pure speculation.

By your logic, absolutely. But you see, our speculation is uniform among our entire species, creating a definate reality. Therefore, it transcends the definition of pure 'speculation' and forms concrete reality.

You go on and accept such nonsense.

Accept the nonsense that there is no 'premise' for life on earth? No intelligently designed purpose? I will indeed...however I would watch what you are calling nonsense. I have have evidence to back up my claim, whereas you do not.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Likewise, only leprechauns have the authority to deny their own existence? I guess we should all start believeing in leprechauns now, because last time I checked they haven't organized a press conference to deny their own existence or anything.

No, this does not work with leprechauns. You cannot say only leprechauns have the authority to deny their own existence because the concept of leprechauns doesn't encompass an absolute authority. We could debate about the existence of leprechauns, but that would be pointless. The existence of God is necessary because It constitutes an eternal substantiality, something both the senses and leprechauns lack.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

If god does not exist, then he is not able to deny his own existence. If god is not able to carry out such tasks, then the authority for those tasks needs to be transferred to someone who can. I say we humans are quite capable.

If God does not exist then we should stop having any discussions because we can then not speak out of reason. If God is not able to carry out such tasks then you become God and carry them out. Otherwise, why should anyone accept another fallible man whose capabilities are quite inadequate. You say that humans are capable, but who has given you this authority?

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Neither does god, though. You are assuming that this 'supreme absolute truth' exists, which I don't believe, and also that it comes from god, which you have no evidence for. For all you know, it could very well come from leprechauns.

If you now define leprechauns with the qualities of God, then yes, leprechauns would be God. You are seriosuly confused about this. For all we know at this point in the conversation is that God can be ANYTHING. I have not addressed specifics on God being a leprechaun, a unicorn, a triceratops or a klingon, etc. There is still thus no comparison between God and any of these things. All I am addressing is what the concept known as "God" constitutes. I am not talking about how long God's hair is or what God's favorite movie is. I am not talking about God's relationships to rainbows and pots of gold. I am only talking about basic characteristics of God, i.e.: supremely powerful, knowledgable, omnipresent, eternal, etc. If we find a leprechaun who is full on all these qualities, then technically we have found God. And then "it" would very well come from a leprechaun... who would be God. Please tell me you understand now why your analogy is faulty.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Our senses create a reality for us. A reality in which the leaves of trees are green because we see them to be green, and in which accordians are annoying because they insult the eardrums . The only way that the leaves of trees would not be green, is if they were percieved as a different color by something else. Let's say that horses percieve the color green as blue. Does this make our perception faulty? Of course not. Does our perception undermine that of the horse's? Of course not.

You have given a good example of relative truth. But are you suggesting that all truth is relative? That all truth is subjective to each person?

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

We survive by what we percieve. All else is irrelevant to us. The only reality which is important to us is the one we can see, touch, taste, smell, and hear. All other realities are pointless because we cannot interact with them. Indeed, other realities are simply just that anyhow--what makes our reality 'wrong' and some other one 'right'? I say that there is no such thing as a faulty reality.

Define survival. Is it survival that we will inevitably be forced to die?
Perhaps you have yet to interact with other realities but that doesn't make them pointless. Here you seem to imply again that reality is subjective to each person. Is there no such thing as a faulty reality? Then I suppose there is no real objective.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

What is the point of growth and understanding if you're just going to die and go to heaven or hell anyway? All of that knowledge you acquired in life is useless in the afterlife.

Perhaps that growth and understanding constitutes where the soul will reside after the current body is discarded. So then it would not be useless in the afterlife. This is the afterlife to the life before. Yesterday was tomorrow for two days ago.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

There are just as many sad religious people as there are sad atheists...god does not change a person's happiness.

I suppose you are the expert on this. Since you are speaking on it I suppose you know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Now we count to 278 googol. Why does there have to be a definitive reason for doing something? Why can't you just do it because you feel motivated? Also, are you implying that belief in god gives you a purpose for counting to 277 googol?

Why do I feel motivated? Perhaps you can give me a hypothetical situation of why I am just whimsically motivated. No, a belief in God gives you a purpose to stop obliviously trying to count to infinity.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

What purpose does god give you? Is your purpose the goal of heaven? "Well, we've gotten to heaven...now what?"

Heaven is there, but that is not so much my focus. I feel ultimately my purpose is to learn about and love God. But now I am stepping into a personal understanding of God. Let us first establish understanding God on an impersonal level, then perhaps we can go from there.
I don't know exactly what you think, but heaven isn't a place where you just sit around (perhaps on a cloud) and do nothing (but maybe play a harp). The specifics on heaven are sort of aside from this discussion.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

How do you know that god is the perfect premise? Wouldn't that suck if god's premise were faulty?

If "God's" premise is faulty then, apparently, so-called "God" is not really God at all.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

By your logic, absolutely. But you see, our speculation is uniform among our entire species, creating a definate reality. Therefore, it transcends the definition of pure 'speculation' and forms concrete reality.

How did you jump to this "therefore"? Because everyone is somewhat equally flawed, we define reality? You know what... God is so merciful that He will keep you amongst your own conceptions of reality.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Accept the nonsense that there is no 'premise' for life on earth? No intelligently designed purpose? I will indeed...however I would watch what you are calling nonsense. I have have evidence to back up my claim, whereas you do not.

You have evidence to back up that no absolute premise exists? That is contradictory because evidence constitutes a premise. What I have done herein is questioned the validity of the very premise you accept, sense perception. Now you are suggesting that no premise is necessary. So which is it? Is there a premise or is there not?
Further from this, I choose not to speculate conclusions based on limited perception, no matter how great the evidence seems. I don't feel I have gained anything by doing so. Instead I accept what would be the absolute premise constituting the validity of any evidence, material or spiritual. It is very difficult for me to explain it further than this. We all have different experiences. I am just trying to show what God constitutes and how everything can be centered around God. I can't see this conversation going much further. You have what you hold true and I have what I do. If you do have anything to say or any questions on anything, I ask that you private message me.