Square Pegs, Round Holes

[Maximilian]

Have you tried? My Hindu friend was very insisting that Ganesh exists, despite all the evidence I showed him of Jesus and such. That was at the time I believed that stuff.

So, deluded. Right? Like about 1 billion of people. Just in India.

Right?

Ciao

- viole

If and only if they refuse to accept concrete evidence for Ganesh's non-existence. Otherwise they're simply uninformed, misled or misinformed.

 

[Maximilian]

How did you work out that lying is evil?

Great question!


Say we acknowledge for the sake of argument that a malicious Creator/Designer exists. Seeing as this being is evil, that signifies he does not carry out his moral responsibilities. But then exactly where do those come from? Just how can this evil god receive obligations to execute which he is violating? Who prohibits him to do the immoral things that he does?

Without hesitation, we discover that such an evil being simply cannot be supreme: there needs to be a being that is even higher than this evil god which is the source of the moral duties which he prefers to shirk, a being that is unqualified goodness Himself. Hence, if god is evil well then there must necessarily exist a maximally splendid, incomparable God that is all powerful, all good as well as all loving; One who is actually the very paradigm of good.


Which means that we don’t shower Him with affection for performing His duty. Really He is to be adored for His moral identity as He is fundamentally loving, just, kind, truthful and so on. It is simply because God is that way that all these traits count as virtues to start with.

In effect, God Almighty is good the very same way rain is wet, diamond gemstones are hard, photons tear across space at luminous speeds or cerulean suns blaze. Therefore if we envision God’s goodness in terms of His possessing definite virtues as opposed to fulfilling selected duties, we get an infinitely more exalted and correct notion of God.

Accordingly, anything and everything standing in opposition to his character must be evil. This is meaningful because "Jehovah hates . . . a lying tongue" which means perforce that lying is evil. (Proverbs 6:16, 17)

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Fascinatingly, while researching the genetic makeup of over a thousand individuals of diverse ages as well as backgrounds scientists have confirmed that we have all inherited a variety of biological predispositions for spirituality. Put simply, we're hardwired for God: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

With that being said, individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) are born with neurological deficits such that absolutely no volume of evidence can help these comprehend that which comes so naturally to Neurotypical (NT) individuals, compassion and spirituality.

It's akin to a person born blind attempting to enjoy the majesty of an exquisite painting or one whose never heard sounds their entire life trying to be moved by a sublime aria.


Source: https://www.researchgate.ne...

Accordingly, NTs who love God show these compassion and let them be. After all, it's not their fault.

Actually, you have it backwards. People with slight tendencies toward autism (mild Asperger's syndrome, perhaps?) typically look at the world with more brutal honesty than people who are non-autistic, and also often have higher IQs. If anything, people on the autism spectrum are better at filtering their emotions out of their analysis of evidence, which probably explains why a higher proportion of atheists are on the spectrum.

 

[Shantanu]

Great question!


Say we acknowledge for the sake of argument that a malicious Creator/Designer exists. Seeing as this being is evil, that signifies he does not carry out his moral responsibilities. But then exactly where do those come from? Just how can this evil god receive obligations to execute which he is violating? Who prohibits him to do the immoral things that he does?

Without hesitation, we discover that such an evil being simply cannot be supreme: there needs to be a being that is even higher than this evil god which is the source of the moral duties which he prefers to shirk, a being that is unqualified goodness Himself. Hence, if god is evil well then there must necessarily exist a maximally splendid, incomparable God that is all powerful, all good as well as all loving; One who is actually the very paradigm of good.


Which means that we don’t shower Him with affection for performing His duty. Really He is to be adored for His moral identity as He is fundamentally loving, just, kind, truthful and so on. It is simply because God is that way that all these traits count as virtues to start with.

In effect, God Almighty is good the very same way rain is wet, diamond gemstones are hard, photons tear across space at luminous speeds or cerulean suns blaze. Therefore if we envision God’s goodness in terms of His possessing definite virtues as opposed to fulfilling selected duties, we get an infinitely more exalted and correct notion of God.

Accordingly, anything and everything standing in opposition to his character must be evil. This is meaningful because "Jehovah hates . . . a lying tongue" which means perforce that lying is evil. (Proverbs 6:16, 17)

I practice truth seeking through truth accommodation which is why I am faultless. but I have lied to save myself when being persecuted: am I therefore evil? If so since God protected me, God too is evil.

 

[JJ50]

Actually, you have it backwards. People with slight tendencies toward autism (mild Asperger's syndrome, perhaps?) typically look at the world with more brutal honesty than people who are non-autistic, and also often have higher IQs. If anything, people on the autism spectrum are better at filtering their emotions out of their analysis of evidence, which probably explains why a higher proportion of atheists are on the spectrum.

My eldest grandson (17), and in all probability my husband, have Asperger's syndrome, they have extremely high IQs. I believe Bill Gates is reputed to have the condition.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course, concrete evidence for Jehovah God's existence as the Almighty Creator of all reality.

No concrete, nor objective verifiable evidence exists for the Almighty Creator you call Jehovah.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am infallible because I got to know what God wants of me.

Conflict!?!?! You know you are a fallible human yet . . .

The problem is many many conflicting claims are asserted 'knowing what God wants.' How do you know over the multitude of other alternative conflicting beliefs assert.

 

[shunyadragon]

God lives with us to guide us in our lives if we follow dharma, so of course some people are hardwired for God and cannot let go.

There is no objective verifiable evidence to support this anecdotal and subjective claim.

All I see here is a 'Your God versus My God' argument based on a highly questionable subjective research that resolves nothing concerning the existence nor non-existence of God.

 

[Maximilian]

No concrete, nor objective verifiable evidence exists for the Almighty Creator you call Jehovah.

Prove it.

 

[shunyadragon]

I practice truth seeking through truth accommodation which is why I am faultless. but I have lied to save myself when being persecuted: am I therefore evil? If so since God protected me, God too is evil.

Truth seeking through truth accommodation,' is so circular it will bite you in the butt.

 

[shunyadragon]

Prove it.

Fallacy big time. There is no proof for the existence nor non-existence of a 'Source' some call
God(s) by many different names or no-names.

Logically it is up to the one make the positive claim to justify their argument.

Where's the concrete?!?!?!?

 

[Maximilian]

Logically it is up to the one make the positive claim to justify their argument.

Then prove your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then prove your claim.

The inability of any Christian to come up with reliable evidence for their God could be said to the "proof". What he made was a general observation. It does not require proof. It might have been stated better, but you conceivably could disprove it. Though not with the failed prophecies of the Bible that you keep referring to. You need something a lot stronger than that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then prove your claim.

You are the one making the claim.

Of course, concrete evidence for Jehovah God's existence as the Almighty Creator of all reality.

From: Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Holder of the burden

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.

Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".

Shifting the burden of proof

One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true."

Where's the concrete?!?!

My contention is that there is no proof either way. Nothing to prove.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are the one making the claim.

From: Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Holder of the burden

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.

Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".

Shifting the burden of proof

One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true."

Where's the concrete?!?!

My contention is that there is proof either way. Nothing to prove.

Did you mean to say "no proof either way"?

 

[shunyadragon]

Did you mean to say "no proof either way"?

My contention is that there is no proof either way. Nothing to prove.

Thank you

 

[Subduction Zone]

My contention is that there is no proof either way. Nothing to prove.

Thank you

I agree and you are welcome.

I will state that certain "gods" are refutable, but not the concept of "god" in general.

 

[Shantanu]

There is no objective verifiable evidence to support this anecdotal and subjective claim.

All I see here is a 'Your God versus My God' argument based on a highly questionable subjective research that resolves nothing concerning the existence nor non-existence of God.

I just state the facts about my personal discoveries: I do not follow anything other than what I have personally experienced. God lives within me and I have communicated with Him objectively using a digital clock where sightings of '7' (2.41, 3.04, 6.10,9.07, 12.13, etc) were messages from Him for me to act in some way to protect myself from the evil that had visited me. He being truth therefore had to be accommodated. By accommodating truth I found a way of living my life that generated my Blog of Knowledge for World Conservation. It discusses every aspect of life and is my Bible. It narrates how I was persecuted for my beliefs by the UK State and how I survived that persecution. I attribute that to God's protection. I do not go around prescribing religions in order to convert people to my culture. I think that is absolutely wrong.They should read my Blog and make up their own minds.

This is because God told me that He never prescribed any religion to any human being through the history of mankind. Faith in God is wrong. There is no such thing as sanatan dharma that Hindus talk about. Life is all about survival to appreciate Nature and create a name for oneself by doing good acts. I believe by taking apart the British Justice System I have fulfilled that mission that God wanted me to. I know He wanted me to do so by following the truth path of truth accommodation, that is to discover what the next steps should be by only doing that which is necessary to protect oneself from evil.

Yes it is an anecdotal narrative. What do I care. I have Blogged about it for anyone who cares to find out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just state the facts about my personal discoveries: I do not follow anything other than what I have personally experienced. God lives within me and I have communicated with Him objectively using a digital clock where sightings of '7' (2.41, 3.04, 6.10,9.07, 12.13, etc) were messages from Him for me to act in some way to protect myself from the evil that had visited me. He being truth therefore had to be accommodated. By accommodating truth I found a way of living my life that generated my Blog of Knowledge for World Conservation. It discusses every aspect of life and is my Bible. It narrates how I was persecuted for my beliefs by the UK State and how I survived that persecution. I attribute that to God's protection. I do not go around prescribing religions in order to convert people to my culture. I think that is absolutely wrong.They should read my Blog and make up their own minds.

This is because God told me that He never prescribed any religion to any human being through the history of mankind. Faith in God is wrong. There is no such thing as sanatan dharma that Hindus talk about. Life is all about survival to appreciate Nature and create a name for oneself by doing good acts. I believe by taking apart the British Justice System I have fulfilled that mission that God wanted me to. I know He wanted me to do so by following the truth path of truth accommodation, that is to discover what the next steps should be by only doing that which is necessary to protect oneself from evil.

Yes it is an anecdotal narrative. What do I care. I have Blogged about it for anyone who cares to find out.

That would not be objective evidence since objective evidence exists independent of observer. Only you observed and interpreted that evidence. It is highly subjective.

 

[Shantanu]

That would not be objective evidence since objective evidence exists independent of observer. Only you observed and interpreted that evidence. It is highly subjective.

What is stopping you from practicing the satya-advaitic process in order to confirm or reject the narrative?