How do you tell the difference?

[Nimos]

If you as an art lover feel that Leonardo DaVinci os the greatest artist , ever ... and your friend down the street who is also an art lover feels that the sculptor Michelangelo is the greatest artist, ever, how do you determine that you are right and they are wrong?

That analogy is not working, because both artists can/did exists, so it's a subjective opinion about which of them you like the most. When we talk about Gods we have a source telling us the rules, which are objective.

One source, say that only one God exists, whereas another source say that multiple Gods exists, for example. It's not subjective whether you think it should be differently. One of these sources has to be wrong or all of them could be wrong, but both can't be correct as they are contradict each other.

Of course you can tell the difference. The same as you can tell the difference between DaVinci's Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's David. And of course you can choose which one of them you think is the greatest. It's your choice, and you will make that choice based on your criteria. How else could it be?

Why are you trying to impose an objective criteria on a subjective choice?

Because it is an objective criteria, if I asked you which religions God(s) you preferred, that would be subjective. You can read the sources and decide which of them you think is most appealing.

But we are talking about the claims the sources are making about the reality of these Gods, and how one would distinguish the real one(s) (given that they contradict each other) from the wrong ones. So it is objective, the amount of Gods in these religions are fixed so to speak and for most of them, they can do whatever they like. Yet some people claim that their God is right, and therefore the others must be false. But how one would reason why they chose one God over another if they can't tell the difference, is an interesting and valid question, I think.

 

[Nimos]

How much of the Qur'an do you know? What have you read? What is your source of knowledge? What is your criterion to compare it with if comparison is your ultimate game as you have demonstrated although this thread?

It is not important, how much I know about the Quran, because its not specifically about Islam. I simply used those two religions as examples.

Islam make claims about a God, and that this is the only God. You don't need to know anymore than that. Hindus claim there are lots of gods and you don't need to know anymore about that either.

Because the contradiction between the two claims should be obvious. Yet, a Muslim might pray to Allah in hope for something. A Hindu might pray to one of their gods for something similar. Due to the contradiction, either the Muslim or the Hindu is praying in vain, meaning the god they pray to doesn't exist.

I don't know, which of these god ideas are correct. But people that do truly believe a religion, logically must believe that they got it right, or it wouldn't make sense for them to believe it. Therefore im asking, how people can distinguish the real God from the false one. So it doesn't matter how much a person knows about Islam, hinduism, christianity or whatever religion you want to throw in there, because its about the contradiction and how one can know the difference between a potential real God versus a wrong one?

 

[Nimos]

So no sufficient reason.

No, I don't claim to know whether its true or not either. I have no issue saying that its just an idea and I don't know how any of it would work. If I knew it was true and could prove it, I would do it straight away.

I would throw all my evidence and proofs on the table for people to try to rip apart, I wouldn't care, if I knew I were correct.

Same as I have absolutely nothing against people saying that this idea is stupid or doesn't make sense, because I know I can't prove it and never claimed that its true either.

 

[PureX]

That analogy is not working, because both artists can/did exists,...

Neither exist, now. They are just "stories" told in paint and stone, to us.

... so it's a subjective opinion about which of them you like the most. When we talk about Gods we have a source telling us the rules, which are objective.

There is nothing objective about God. God is a subjective ideal in the minds of men, just as 'the artist Leonardo' and 'the artist Michelangelo' are now subjective ideas in the minds of men, based on paintings, and statues, and stories, and art-historical dogma. They are very similar to the mythologized ideas of Jesus and Mohamed that various cultures and religions hold.

The analogy is quite apropos if you stop and give it a little thought.

One source, say that only one God exists, whereas another source say that multiple Gods exists, for example. It's not subjective whether you think it should be differently. One of these sources has to be wrong or all of them could be wrong, but both can't be correct as they are contradict each other.

We have no idea if any God exists, or how many, or in what way(s). So your insistence that there must only be one is completely unfounded (and therefor is, itself, a subjective ideal). You are imposing your version of "objective reality" on the totally subjective idea of "God".

But we are talking about the claims the sources are making about the reality of these Gods, ...

Those 'sources' are US! We are the subjects that created those god-ideals and make those claims. So those god-ideals are subject to US. They are our SUBJECTIVE ideals.

... and how one would distinguish the real one(s) (given that they contradict each other) from the wrong ones.

They are all "real ones". They are all our subjective human idealizations of "God". There are no right or wrong ones that we can determine except by our own choice. So of course we all think OUR idea of God is the right one, because it's the one we chose to hold onto.

There is no "objective God ideal" that any human can ever logically perceive or verify. So they are all a subjective choices, from our perspective.

 

[Polymath257]

And that can be effectively used as evidence that human brains are the result of naturalistic processes.

Processes that favour a classical intuition, which is useful to survive in a world with classical objects, despite being fundamentally wrong, but produces brains that are utterly incapable of grasping the real truths which lie beyond what is useful for survival.

When we say QM, or relativity, defy human understanding, or looks absurd, or weird, we are asserting a truth about us, even the "spiritual" us. That is us being the product of blind processes geared toward survival, and not necessarily truths. Which constitutes massive evidence in favour of ontological naturalism.

Ciao

- viole

It always seems strange to say humans can't understand QM. Given that we have courses in the subject, have qualifying exams in the subject, base technologies on the subject, explain things with the subject, and developed the subject, what does it possibly mean to say we don't understand it?

Now, QM is *very* counter-intuitive, especially at first. And, it is true that if you stick to classical physics and classical philosophy, you will have a LOT of difficulty making sense of it. But that just means our intuitions need to be refined and changed. And it means our philosophy and physics needs to be changed.

The physics is already changed. Those who work with it *do* develop an intuition about how it works. But it does mean giving up outmoded philosophical ideas.

 

[firedragon]

It is not important, how much I know about the Quran, because its not specifically about Islam.

Since you asked about the Quran, your epistemology is paramount. If not, no point in that particular subject. If its not important to you, its not important to discuss.

Islam make claims about a God, and that this is the only God. You don't need to know anymore than that. Hindus claim there are lots of gods and you don't need to know anymore about that either.

I think enough has been said about that and the same thing has been repeated for the 5th time Nimos.

Because the contradiction between the two claims should be obvious. Yet, a Muslim might pray to Allah in hope for something. A Hindu might pray to one of their gods for something similar. Due to the contradiction, either the Muslim or the Hindu is praying in vain, meaning the god they pray to doesn't exist.

I don't know, which of these god ideas are correct. But people that do truly believe a religion, logically must believe that they got it right, or it wouldn't make sense for them to believe it. Therefore im asking, how people can distinguish the real God from the false one. So it doesn't matter how much a person knows about Islam, hinduism, christianity or whatever religion you want to throw in there, because its about the contradiction and how one can know the difference between a potential real God versus a wrong one?

Repeated too many times. I think you should go back and reflect on what was said on this topic and with that information say something. Only then, anything further is valid.

 

[firedragon]

No, I don't claim to know whether its true or not either. I have no issue saying that its just an idea and I don't know how any of it would work. If I knew it was true and could prove it, I would do it straight away.

I would throw all my evidence and proofs on the table for people to try to rip apart, I wouldn't care, if I knew I were correct.

Same as I have absolutely nothing against people saying that this idea is stupid or doesn't make sense, because I know I can't prove it and never claimed that its true either.

I asked if you dont have any regard to sufficient reason.

 

[CBM]

What makes G-d, G-d?
I believe in G-d as a primary cause.
And there can only be one primary cause.
I believe in G-d as an omnipotent Being. If other entities truly have independent power (which what I understand polytheism to be - correct me if I’m wrong), than G-d is not G-d.

For me, G-d is just a word to describe the first cause of all things, an omniscient, omnipotent Being, transcendent yet immanent in a way I cannot fully understand. But when you get a taste of it, it elevates in a way that’s hard to describe.

I believe in free choice - do what you like.
I will respect you as a person but I am entitled to say that polytheism is a direct contradiction to everything I believe and hold holy.

(As an aside, I feel like I should mention that traditional Jewish interpretation of the Torah is not to take physical attributes or emotions ascribed to G-d literally.)

 

[John1.12]

If you as a believer, let's say a muslim, believe in God and this is the only God that exist. Yet you have people that believe differently, let's say a hindu, which must from the muslims point of view mean that they are wrong about their gods.

So how do you tell the difference between your own God(s) (the real ones) and the wrong ones (made up ones)?

And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?

All other 'gods ' and religions are consistently covered by the bible ,as to discount them as not from God . Maybe without the bible i really wouldn't know .

 

[sun rise]

Said in another way, you don't care about whether it's true or not? Whether its the biblical God, some hindu gods or something unknown, doesn't matter at all?

Truth is not found through books. Real truth is discovered inside through the spiritual path.

 

[Link]

Truth is not found through books. Real truth is discovered inside through the spiritual path.

Why can't it be both?

 

[Nimos]

There is nothing objective about God. God is a subjective ideal in the minds of men, just as 'the artist Leonardo' and 'the artist Michelangelo' are now subjective ideas in the minds of men, based on paintings, and statues, and stories, and art-historical dogma. They are very similar to the mythologized ideas of Jesus and Mohamed that various cultures and religions hold.

The analogy is quite apropos if you stop and give it a little thought.

What I mean when I say that it is not subjective, is that certain things from the religious texts when we look at the established religions are not based on people's subjective opinions about them. Like for instance, it's not your subjective opinion whether or not you believe that God of the bible had a sidekick called God the second. The bible is fairly clear about how many "real" Gods there is. Same when it comes to Islam, and I assume hinduism is probably also pretty clear about how many gods they have, or at least that there are more than one.

The experience a person might have relating to God(s) is subjective, which is basically what im asking about, how they know that this experience is from the God they believe in or from one of the false god(s). Because you have people on both sides, and all the gods can't be true. So if people can't tell the difference between true and false gods, what reason did they then have to choose the god they did?

So it is not the same, when talking about art, because it is not specifically stated that one artist or painting is better than the other. So it's a subjective opinion which of them you like the best. And because you chose one artist over the other, doesn't mean that the other artist is necessarily worse, because it is simply your subjective opinion.
But if you claim that your experience of God is the correct one, and the basic understanding of this God, is that he is supreme and the only one, then the other religions claim about their gods must per definition be wrong, otherwise your own religion would be. These religious claims are contradictory whether or not your opinion of whatever God(s) you believe in is subjective, does that make it more clear what I mean?

We have no idea if any God exists, or how many, or in what way(s). So your insistence that there must only be one is completely unfounded (and therefor is, itself, a subjective ideal). You are imposing your version of "objective reality" on the totally subjective idea of "God".

You are completely correct, it is very possible that no gods exist, that is a valid option. But a lot of people tend to disagree with that and do believe that at least the God(s) of the religion they follow are real. I don't impose anything on anyone, it is a fact, otherwise how would one explain that there are religions at all?

Those 'sources' are US! We are the subjects that created those god-ideals and make those claims. So those god-ideals are subject to US. They are our SUBJECTIVE ideals.

But if these claims are false or simply made up, let's say the Bible, what reason do you have to believe in the biblical God in the first place? or whatever you believe in which is the source for your religion.

Im an atheist, because I do believe that these religious text about gods, most of the stories, angels and miracles are made up. But I would be extremely surprised if a Christian or Muslim would agree with me and still refer to themselves as religious people.

They are all "real ones". They are all our subjective human idealizations of "God". There are no right or wrong ones that we can determine except by our own choice. So of course we all think OUR idea of God is the right one, because it's the one we chose to hold onto.

There is no "objective God ideal" that any human can ever logically perceive or verify. So they are all a subjective choices, from our perspective.

It might work for your particular religious view, which is fair enough. But whether or not that is how you view it, you would get in a conflict with Christians, Jews, Muslims and probably a lot of other religions as well, because that is simply not true to them, according to their scriptures.

 

[Nimos]

Since you asked about the Quran, your epistemology is paramount. If not, no point in that particular subject. If its not important to you, its not important to discuss.

I don't get how it can be so difficult to understand.

If you have two scientists, one claiming that quantum mechanics is real, the other one that it isn't, then there is a contradiction. You don't need to know everything there is to know about quantum mechanics to understand the contradiction. In fact you don't need to know anything at all. Simply to be able to read the sentence and understand it. "If you have two scientists, one claiming that quantum mechanics is real, the other one that it isn't, then there is a contradiction."

 

[Nimos]

I asked if you dont have any regard to sufficient reason.

Sorry don't know what you are asking?

 

[Nimos]

All other 'gods ' and religions are consistently covered by the bible ,as to discount them as not from God . Maybe without the bible i really wouldn't know .

Not completely sure what you mean. Most religions have creation stories for instances, so how are these covered in the bible?

 

[firedragon]

I don't get how it can be so difficult to understand.

Why did you bring up "Difficult to understand"? I thought you wanted to know about the Quran. So who said what is difficult to understand?

I asked you your epistemology. So what is this new thing about "difficult to understand'?

 

[firedragon]

Sorry don't know what you are asking?

PSR. Principle of Sufficient Reason.

 

[John1.12]

Not completely sure what you mean. Most religions have creation stories for instances, so how are these covered in the bible?

I meant I'm not on the fence or in doubt about other religions being false ,because of what the bible says about other beliefs and such .

 

[leroy]

If you as a believer, let's say a muslim, believe in God and this is the only God that exist. Yet you have people that believe differently, let's say a hindu, which must from the muslims point of view mean that they are wrong about their gods.

So how do you tell the difference between your own God(s) (the real ones) and the wrong ones (made up ones)?

And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?

My God resurrected 2,000 years ago and there is historical evidence for this event.

If an Muslim, or Hindu provides similar/equivalent evidence for a miracle from their God I would be open to listen and accept that religion as “probably true”

 

[Nimos]

Why did you bring up "Difficult to understand"? I thought you wanted to know about the Quran. So who said what is difficult to understand?

I asked you your epistemology. So what is this new thing about "difficult to understand'?

No, I specifically said that it had nothing to do with the Quran and that I only used that and the hindus as an example.