Is GOD real?

[sojourner]

Actually, I do. It's absurd, ridiculous and utterly pointless for rational people.

If that's what you think, then you don't know enough about religion to have a dog in this fight. Best you should stick to Thomas the Tank Engine.

 

[sojourner]

Then, by definition, every conceivable religion has to be correct

That's what I said at the outset, Skeezix, 'member?

 

[Nakosis]

Specifically when it comes to your religious beliefs, yes.

Rationality being reasoning based on verifiable evidence?

irrational reasoning based on feelings or emotion...

Some parts of my life I will not be able to be rational with, but I still need to deal with them. The irrational parts of other people's life, not necessarily my business. That doesn't prevent us from working out rational solutions for the areas of life we can be rational about.

Is God real? Is there an objective reality? I don't know, I suspect I'll die not knowing. So with regard to the non-rational parts of my life, I might as well believe as I want.

 

[Cephus]

Rationality being reasoning based on verifiable evidence?

Now you're getting it!

irrational reasoning based on feelings or emotion...

To the exclusion of rationality, yes.

Some parts of my life I will not be able to be rational with, but I still need to deal with them. The irrational parts of other people's life, not necessarily my business. That doesn't prevent us from working out rational solutions for the areas of life we can be rational about.

While you're right, you need to deal with them, I entirely disagree that there's ever any part of life that we cannot be rational about. Maybe you can give an example so I know what you mean?

Is God real? Is there an objective reality? I don't know, I suspect I'll die not knowing. So with regard to the non-rational parts of my life, I might as well believe as I want.

Which is really absurd, belief is not subject to the will, you can't simply choose what to believe, you have to be convinced that it is actually so.

 

[Thief]

Specifically when it comes to your religious beliefs, yes.

That might be a little bit tooooooo shallow.

To answer that and another post.....
Any prophet that spoke well OF God.... will stand well BEFORE God.

So choose your prophet as you see fit.
Choose well, watch your step.

As long as you are breathing you are at risk.
Do not drop your guard.

Rational enough for you?

 

[Cephus]

That might be a little bit tooooooo shallow.

No, actually, it's not.

To answer that and another post.....
Any prophet that spoke well OF God.... will stand well BEFORE God.

That assumes that God exists at all, which is an unsupported assertion. It's no more valid than saying "Any prophet that spoke well OF Mickey Mouse... will stand well BEFORE Mickey Mouse."

So choose your prophet as you see fit.

None. That was easy.

Rational enough for you?

Not rational at all.

 

[Nakosis]

While you're right, you need to deal with them, I entirely disagree that there's ever any part of life that we cannot be rational about. Maybe you can give an example so I know what you mean?

I just don't have the time or resources to factually check every aspect of my life as it presents itself in its appearancey.

Without going into details, people give me complex systems that are no longer working and others who have tried, have failed to fix. So I'm given the system with no documentation, sometimes not even knowing the purpose of the system. What I do is I imagine how I think the system should work. I try to get it to work the way I think it should. Through trial and error I can usually get the system running again.

I can't rationally explain how I do this. However I am successful enough that that's how I make a living. People ask me to explain my methods, but all I can say is I'm lucky. Yet we don't believe in luck do we.

Which is really absurd, belief is not subject to the will, you can't simply choose what to believe, you have to be convinced that it is actually so.

Have you ever heard the term to suspend disbelief?

Psychological critic Norman Holland points to a neuroscientific explanation. When we hear or watch any narrative, our brains go wholly into perceiving mode. They turn off our systems for acting or planning to act. With them go our systems for assessing reality. We believe. We have, in Coleridge's second, more accurate phrase, “poetic faith.” That’s why humans have such trouble recognizing lies. We first believe, then have to make a conscious effort to disbelieve.
Only when we stop perceiving to think about what we have seen or heard, only then do we assess its truth-value. Watching a movie or reading a story, if we are really “into” the fiction, “transported,” in the psychologists' term, we are, as Immanuel Kant pointed out long ago, “disinterested.” We respond aesthetically, without purpose. We just enjoy. We don’t judge the truth of what we’re perceiving, even though, if we stop being transported and think about it, we know quite well it’s a fiction

Suspension of disbelief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cephus]

I just don't have the time or resources to factually check every aspect of my life as it presents itself in its appearancey.

Without going into details, people give me complex systems that are no longer working and others who have tried, have failed to fix. So I'm given the system with no documentation, sometimes not even knowing the purpose of the system. What I do is I imagine how I think the system should work. I try to get it to work the way I think it should. Through trial and error I can usually get the system running again.

I can't rationally explain how I do this. However I am successful enough that that's how I make a living. People ask me to explain my methods, but all I can say is I'm lucky. Yet we don't believe in luck do we.

No and neither do you. Those systems only work in a certain number of ways and you're fixing them based on past experience and knowledge. You're not magically waving a wand over them and they're fixing themselves. You're not being handed a nuclear reactor that you've never seen before and being told to fix it. You have things that you have an understanding of, that only work so many ways and you're applying your knowledge to them. That's rational.

Have you ever heard the term to suspend disbelief?

Psychological critic Norman Holland points to a neuroscientific explanation. When we hear or watch any narrative, our brains go wholly into perceiving mode. They turn off our systems for acting or planning to act. With them go our systems for assessing reality. We believe. We have, in Coleridge's second, more accurate phrase, “poetic faith.” That’s why humans have such trouble recognizing lies. We first believe, then have to make a conscious effort to disbelieve.
Only when we stop perceiving to think about what we have seen or heard, only then do we assess its truth-value. Watching a movie or reading a story, if we are really “into” the fiction, “transported,” in the psychologists' term, we are, as Immanuel Kant pointed out long ago, “disinterested.” We respond aesthetically, without purpose. We just enjoy. We don’t judge the truth of what we’re perceiving, even though, if we stop being transported and think about it, we know quite well it’s a fiction

Suspension of disbelief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a difference between suspension of disbelief and having belief. If you go to the movies to see the new Star Wars film, you can suspend your disbelief in order to enjoy the show, you do not suddenly start believing that Jedi and the Force and all the rest actually exist. Holland is simply wrong. If he was right, there could be no movie critics because they'd be unable to rationally assess the quality of the movie.

 

[Thief]

No, actually, it's not.



That assumes that God exists at all, which is an unsupported assertion. It's no more valid than saying "Any prophet that spoke well OF Mickey Mouse... will stand well BEFORE Mickey Mouse."



None. That was easy.



Not rational at all.

I say it's not rational making denial of Something Greater.
You would have to....assume....you are top of the line life form.

 

[Cephus]

I say it's not rational making denial of Something Greater.
You would have to....assume....you are top of the line life form.

Nope, we are what we are. Making something up because you wish it was there is entirely irrational.

 

[Thief]

Nope, we are what we are. Making something up because you wish it was there is entirely irrational.

Go back to the basic cause and effect scheme of things.
Look in the mirror...take your time....
and then call yourself an accident.

I suppose that sounds right to you?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

THAT was the whole point I was making. "Correct" in the sense it was meant, is a meaningless exercise when it comes to religion.

So you've been strenuously arguing this whole time in favor of a meaningless definition of correctness (as it pertains to religions)?

Why then were you inviting religious extremists to go find another religion? Or was that also intended to be meaningless?

Of course it's meaningless!!! Religions are always correct when they do what they're designed to do and incorrect when they don't.

Perhaps yet another meaningless assertion? If not ...

First, you'll need to demonstrate that religions are designed (as in planned-in-advance-with-a-specific-purpose-in-mind.)

Second, you'll need to explain exactly what (once they've been designed) religions are designed to do.

And that can happen simultaneously for different people or groups of people, because what works for one doesn't work for another. It's meaningless. Too bad you didn't get that in the beginning. I suppose I could have connected all the little dots for you?

No need for you to connect the dots. The outline was already very clear well in advance. Once connected, the dots spell out: "Sojourner was obliged to backpedal by any means necessary from an untenable argument."

If you're interested in clarifying your admittedly meaningless argument, why not explain why you were advising the "thugs and jihadists" to abandon their religion?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

My assertion is that all religions are proper and appropriate in the particular situation where they accurately reflect the spiritual culture and outlook of their adherents.

Having apparently abandoned his lengthy defense of "correct" religions, sojourner has now moved the goalposts by redefining his argument away from that admittedly meaningless term and setting up shop under the seemingly less troublesome awning of "proper and appropriate."

You see, "correct" the way it was used originally (and to which I responded originally) isn't cogent to a measurement of any religion.

So it was fallacious to argue (over and over and over again) that a religion is correct "inasmuch as it accurately reflects the spiritual cultural outlook of its adherents?"

"My claim was that the religions are correct, in that they accurately reflect the spiritual culture and outlook of their adherents, and, as such, contain truth."

"... as long as the religion accurately reflects the spiritual culture and outlook of those adherents, it's correct!

"Correct" in a totally meaningless way, of course. As you conceded when you offered to connect the dots:

Of course it's meaningless!!! Religions are always correct when they do what they're designed to do and incorrect when they don't. And that can happen simultaneously for different people or groups of people, because what works for one doesn't work for another. It's meaningless

Great. It's meaningless to insist that a religion must accurately reflect its adherent's spiritual and cultural outlook?

However, you've left a loose end dangling:

"You still have no clue as to what constitutes "correct" in this context. Has it ever occurred to you that religions can be bothat the same time?"

So a religion's "accurate reflection of its adherents spiritual and cultural outlook" can be both correct and incorrect at the same time? If this same contradictory (and admittedly meaningless) definition of "correct" can be applied to "proper and appropriate" (which you've done), doesn't it follow that all religions are also simultaneously "improper and inappropriate?"

Q. - And what does this say about your notion of "accuracy?"

Seems like you're busily constructing another argument that you'll later be obliged to concede is meaningless. Let's just acknowledge in advance that the fresh corner you're painting yourself into has a similar escape hatch, OK?

The implication was "which religion has all its facts straight?"

Actually, the implication is: Which adherents have their truth claims straight? Because the one unchanged element of your redefined argument is that religions are only the reflection of their adherent's spiritual and cultural outlook. As such, isn't it meaningless to examine the reflection?

That's not a cogent question to ask of religion. A cogent question would be, "which religion does what religions are supposed to do?"

The alleged cogency of that question appears to rely on your ability to demonstrate that religions were planned in advance with a specific purpose in mind.

...

Allow me to make another prediction: You will eventually be obliged to move the goalposts (again) by saying that (despite your use of the word "designed") you've actually been arguing the entire time that religions have evolved organically via trial and error ... and that their only function is to reflect the spiritual and cultural outlook(s) of their respective adherents.

At which point, you'll be arguing that religion is little more than organized narcissism. Which (if nothing else) it almost certainly is.

...

Q. - Narcissism is:

A. Correct.
B. Proper.
C. Appropriate.
D. None of the above.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Unfortunately, you've just made the word "correct" utterly useless. *ANYTHING* can be "correct" for someone. You can say "1+1=500" is "correct" for someone. Besides, that isn't what the word means. It is defined as: "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth." That's not how you're using it.

Sojourner's been insisting that "correct" means "accurately reflects the spiritual and cultural outlook of its adherents."

Sojourner cannot accept the definition of "correct" that you've supplied, because the heart of Sojourner's argument is that religions are nothing more than a mirror of the people who practice them. We all know that humans are not "free from error" and that their spiritual outlooks are seldom (if ever) "in accordance with fact or truth."

It would follow that religions are not correct, because what they're reflecting isn't correct.

 

[Nakosis]

No and neither do you. Those systems only work in a certain number of ways and you're fixing them based on past experience and knowledge. You're not magically waving a wand over them and they're fixing themselves. You're not being handed a nuclear reactor that you've never seen before and being told to fix it. You have things that you have an understanding of, that only work so many ways and you're applying your knowledge to them. That's rational.

It is rational for me perhaps. It is not rational for you to accept such a claim as I have no evidence for you to validate the claim.

I have only the testimony which is based on my anecdotal experience.

There are other anecdotal experience I have gain as a disciple of a Guru from India and through personal meditation which remain consistent experiences and I have the testimony of many others who claim to have the same experiences. The only possible way, to my thinking, for you to accept anything I say about this as rational is if you had gone through the same training and had the same experience.

The truth of my experiences, I don't know. I am left to accept the meaning of these experiences as explained by others or make up my own.

There's a difference between suspension of disbelief and having belief. If you go to the movies to see the new Star Wars film, you can suspend your disbelief in order to enjoy the show, you do not suddenly start believing that Jedi and the Force and all the rest actually exist. Holland is simply wrong. If he was right, there could be no movie critics because they'd be unable to rationally assess the quality of the movie.

Since I'm not looking for an objective truth, it's not difficult for me to entertain the possibility of any particular God. I could understand if one is firmly set on the existence of an objective truth then they probably couldn't allow themselves the luxury.

However the point being that this is something we can do for the sake of the story.

In my case I had become overly critical in my analysis of everything that I came to accept the limited amount of certainty that could be placed in anything.

You rely on your senses for certainty. As I've learn to shutdown and control my senses my certainty in them is no longer so overwhelming. You trust something I no longer trust as much. As you question certainty in God, I question certainty in an objective truth. Not on a whim but on my knowledge of the fickleness of the senses.

So I accept the possibility of an objective truth as I accept the possibility of the Christian God, which means with a sizable amount of doubt. It also means I don't fully reject either.

So I suppose you are correct. Because of my experiences, I neither can fully believe in anything nor fully reject it.

This is me, my personal view of existence. However I've found Hinduism seem to understand this position best.

 

[Conceivia]

I believe there are multiple gods, but one "true god". They are all living entities, of a type explained in my theory Highlife Theory. I'd give a link, but that website is down at the moment. Anyway, our god is basically the essence of what we are. If we are in essence "love" than our god is the "the one true god". If our essence is selfishness or hate (which are one and the same), than our essence is the devil.

There is actual solid proof of the existence of God. For one thing, God described nuclear war in very clear detail 2000 years ago. The purpose of that, is to force some people into action to make World Peace happen. It may not work on everyone, but it does work on me. If God did not do that, I would not be working on World Peace right now.

Anyway, as to your question. God is the creator of all religions... Actually, man created them, but God influences them. All religions.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

There is actual solid proof of the existence of God.

Well. It's about time someone stepped up with some actual, solid proof. Whatcha got?

For one thing, God described nuclear war in very clear detail 2000 years ago.

Umm. Where?

The purpose of that, is to force some people into action to make World Peace happen.

Wouldn't "World Peace" involve most (if not all) people?

It may not work on everyone, but it does work on me. If God did not do that, I would not be working on World Peace right now.

You're saying that you couldn't (or wouldn't) work towards world peace if God hadn't provided a very clear, detailed account of nuclear war 2000 years ago?

 

[Cephus]

Go back to the basic cause and effect scheme of things.
Look in the mirror...take your time....
and then call yourself an accident.

I suppose that sounds right to you?

I have no problem being the result of random chance. I accept reality as it is. My personal feelings don't enter into it. You've got a superiority complex, you want to be special. You're not.

 

[Cephus]

Sojourner's been insisting that "correct" means "accurately reflects the spiritual and cultural outlook of its adherents."

Which is a totally asinine definition, as I pointed out because *EVERYONE* has a particular spiritual and cultural outlook, which means that it isn't possible for anyone to be "incorrect". Religious or not, everyone has a position and logically, everyone's position on their own position must be, by his definition, "correct". It just makes the word utterly useless.

Sojourner cannot accept the definition of "correct" that you've supplied, because the heart of Sojourner's argument is that religions are nothing more than a mirror of the people who practice them. We all know that humans are not "free from error" and that their spiritual outlooks are seldom (if ever) "in accordance with fact or truth."

It would follow that religions are not correct, because what they're reflecting isn't correct.

Religions are only correct if the claims that they make are demonstrably so. I'm aware of no religion where that is actually so. I've seen no end to theists playing semantical games, making up new definitions and twisting and torturing the English language (I'm sure they do it in other languages too) because it's the best they can do. If that's all they can do, how utterly pathetic are their beliefs anyhow?

 

[Cephus]

It is rational for me perhaps. It is not rational for you to accept such a claim as I have no evidence for you to validate the claim.

That's not how rationality works. It doesn't change from person to person. It isn't "hey, it makes sense to me!" To be rational, you must conform to the laws of logic, you must employ critical thinking and skepticism. What you're really doing is engaging in word games. You don't want to be seen as irrational so you're just changing the definition of the word and laying claim to it.

I have only the testimony which is based on my anecdotal experience.

None of which makes it rational. You had an experience, you defined the experience the way you wanted it defined. You did not test your premises, nor your conclusions, to see if they were the most reasonable explanation for whatever happened to you.

The truth of my experiences, I don't know. I am left to accept the meaning of these experiences as explained by others or make up my own.

Or simply leave it at "I don't know" and stop trying to attach further significance to it.

Since I'm not looking for an objective truth, it's not difficult for me to entertain the possibility of any particular God. I could understand if one is firmly set on the existence of an objective truth then they probably couldn't allow themselves the luxury.

But that's the problem, you should be. Everyone should be. Reality matters.

You rely on your senses for certainty. As I've learn to shutdown and control my senses my certainty in them is no longer so overwhelming. You trust something I no longer trust as much. As you question certainty in God, I question certainty in an objective truth. Not on a whim but on my knowledge of the fickleness of the senses.

No, you accept what you experience as an initial starting place, then you go on to test your experiences and evaluate them rationally. If someone who was color blind simply accepted their senses, they'd come to the conclusion that there was no color in the world and they would be incorrect. It is only through further evaluation that we can come closer to the truth.

So I accept the possibility of an objective truth as I accept the possibility of the Christian God, which means with a sizable amount of doubt. It also means I don't fully reject either.

So I suppose you are correct. Because of my experiences, I neither can fully believe in anything nor fully reject it.

This is me, my personal view of existence. However I've found Hinduism seem to understand this position best.

But your personal view really doesn't matter to anyone but you. There is a larger objective reality out there, what actually exists beyond our beliefs and desires and dreams, it's what continues to exist once we stop applying our beliefs to it. That's what really makes a difference because it's the reality in which we all actually live. Can the Christian God exist? Sure. Is it likely? No. Can the Hindu gods exist? Sure. Is it likely? No. How any of it makes you feel is entirely irrelevant to whether it's actually so. People need to be more concerned with what actually is and less with what they wish was. It doesn't actually get them anywhere.