Okay... if you believe in a god or gods... why?Hmm...try me maybe?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where is the proof ?
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
I believe that there is a singular root entity that is the substantial essence of everything, actualizing all physical phenomena that exists as well as all logical and mathematical structures that give physicality form. I believe evolution has granted human mind a limited cognitive ability to perceive this essential reality at a subconscious level (for most) through which we gain the ability to make creative connections and also gain our enhanced sense of meaning making and self awareness. Spiritual practices can bring this cognitive awareness to the level of conscious apprehension, though incompletely. We Hindus call this entity Brahman, but it may also be perceived as a personal entity, in which case it is called God.
I have had certain meditative experiences that indicate the above description is true. Which is the reason that I believe, along with the fact that the intuitions about ethics and reality I had gained from them had stood me in excellent stead both in my personal development and as a scientist in my professional life.
In terms of metaphysics the closest would be neutral monism.
Neutral Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Define God as something distinct from other things (and other gods!) and then hold to that definition so that when evidence is presented it can actually be used to demonstrate or not the existence of God. That is the only way to make room for proof.
When God is something beyond everything you cannot have proof...you can only have faith and a subjective interpretation of experiences that could as easily be described as being evidence of another God or some other less divine reality like a extra-Universal teenager's Universe App being left on on it's communicator and forgotten in some multi-dimensional closet.
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
Wait a minnit - is "personal deity" not the same as Ishta devta?
If I read the philosophies correctly - that can be almost anything as long as it is a medium to the infinite not the end itself -
Jumi
Well-Known Member
I think one of the problems is what's presented as evidence and another is if something should be presented in the first place. I don't think what became Christianity 1500-1600 years ago was ever intended for large groups of people to accept. What a spiritual baptism is the verification for the beliefs and the one where it all is supposed to begin. So the proof/evidence, if we could pass it to someone else would perhaps be something that formed an obstacle for them.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
\You might have wondered, why do sceptics peruse forums such as this one to inquire of believer for proof of something they don't believe in themselves ?
Because so many theists on here keep claiming that they HAVE actual verifiable evidence. I keep checking in to see if maybe one of them actually does. Sadly, I'm continually disappointed.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
As others have already stated - it's a lot of looking theists' reasons and claims up and down to discern whether there is anything of worth to them. Is there anything there that should convince me and everyone else?
It's a little of looking for hope that I am not actually surrounded by a bunch of people willing to believe fictions are reality.
It's also a bit of desire to put an end to a lot of theist output that used to be tacitly accepted as "truth", but is, in reality, nothing but unsubstantiated garbage.
I, myself, have always been an atheist. Never once believed with anything remotely nearing "sincerity." I thought about the prospect a few times, then realized how terribly inconsistent and foolish everyone around me talking about "God" sounded... and that was it. Cancel that - not going to do it.
Only I can find God within from my own investigation but to me God is so obvious that it’s blinding. I used to be a firm atheist but now I see God’s signs everywhere, in the tiniest insect, in nature, in the human body. Just so many outward proofs alone.
And consider this. Jesus all alone, opposed, tortured then crucified no wealth or power yet His Cause spreads over the entire planet winning the allegiance of billions all over the world including Kings, Queens and Emperors. The wealthy, the poor all testify to His transforming influence yet some blinded by Hid dazzling light cannot see. So be it. There are plenty of proofs but they are being deliberately ignored.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
They don't believe because there's no proof, though. Provide it and you might get some converts. At least, that's this theist's observations.
Not NEARLY as much as is necessary to make changes. So long as eternal life in heaven is the carrot for not questioning, they will condone even the worst moral travesties in life because they are moral cowards.
Like what? I'm a theist and the current scientific consensuses seem legit to me. I'm fine with it. You have atoms, then molecules, then amino acids, then proteins and lipids, then amino acids surrounded by lipids and stuff, then cells, then colonies, then multicellular organisms with specialized tissues. It's rather straight-forward.
I'm still waiting for someone to go to Home Depot, buy some mulch, and get a man out of it.
Does the presence of really stupid things in reality give a firm basis to reject an "intelligent" creator. Maybe there is a creator, just really dumb. Some creator gods aren't even "making" the universe so much as their bodies "become" the universe, either through self-sacrifice or a fight they lost or whatever. I tend to lean more this way because it doesn't require "intelligence", only "existence".
Not sure what the Third Law has to do with anything, but I've noticed creationists love to spout these laws like they matter.
And that hope is that others burn in hell for their sins while they got off scot-free for throwing some random dead guy under the bus.
He's saying YOU are wicked for looking for signs. The authors tried to shoehorn Jesus into pre-existing stories that had absolutely nothing to do with him. He didn't match many if all qualifications for a messiah (at least a specific one, because they're a dime a dozen if you count all "anointed ones", which is what the word actually means). You glean the bible hoping that some random collection of words will prove your dogmas that were pulled out of someone's behind to be true, when they're simply not. It's worse than watching theory videos about video games or movies or whatever. (I love you MatPat, LOL.) "Oh, that character wore a red shirt, so they must represent the blood of Christ, which is why they die all the time for the sins of the corrupt leaders on that science fiction show."
At least the omnimax ones, though others are unlikely as well. The most likely are just the humans or non-human entities that did something neat and were deified by the people who were impressed. You can argue they aren't real gods, then, but back then gods didn't have to be anything BUT that. Many were just culture heroes, inventing agriculture or cooking or metalworking or whatever.
Technically, we invented those laws, as they are only our observations about the area we live in the universe, not objective fact everywhere in the universe. Besides, gods are usually characterized as being entities that can override these rules, but there's no evidence it happened.
And many of the life forms on earth are so flawed they never make it past the conception stage, whether it's the sperm failing to fertilize the ovum or the seed that just didn't sprout. Jurassic Park had better success, even taking into account all the failures at Isla Sorna.
I'm pretty sure my father and a cousin of mine lack them completely.
That's because men thought of it. Nature also has evidence of teamwork that is the rising tide that floats all boats, so to speak.
And eugenicists tend to be shallow, vain, and in denial about just how superior they are. They would kill a disabled person who might have the cure for cancer somewhere in their genes but think some Barbie-looking chick who can't bend over without her spine snapping was genetically superior.
The average eugenicist won't be winning the Olympics or Ninja Warrior any time soon.
How does this prove God?
At least life as we are used to.
They are like a fisherman who sees his master "walking on water" and, ignorant of the sandbar or whatever that's underneath, just leaps out of his boat and wonders why he's sinking, which also means the idiot can't swim, which you would think is a useful if not mandatory skill for boatmen.
And I, as a theist, appreciate atheists who take up the important work theists tend to ignore for selfish reasons.
And usually they didn't even have an imaginary being tell them so. Many of these things are either not mentioned at all or are actually encouraged. It's like wanting school prayer and the right to pray in public even though it's expressly forbidden by the (admittedly hypocritical) messiah they say they worship.
List of highest-grossing films - Wikipedia
I link this if only to note that billions of people will gladly pay money for stories that aren't true.
Yes.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
oooops...!!!!
so much for experimentation to be sure.....of anything
so much for science
BUT.....I believe
In God
and science
God created
and science gives insight to how things work
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are making the assumption that science "proves" things. It does not do so. One builds models and tests them to see how closely they match reality. There is no formal law of cause and effect. Some events are uncaused.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
If theists no longer proselytize, then they will not be asked for evidence any longer. It's as easy as that. Don't suggest others should believe the stories, don't try to enact laws that are based on and/or favor your beliefs over those of others, don't insist that religious beliefs be taught in science classes, and you will never be asked again.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you are not paying attention. In the sciences concepts are tested and either accepted if they can pass tests or rejected if they don't. Your overly simplistic "law of cause and effect" is abused far too often.
I'm not one of them.
Instead, I say, All the meanings attached to 'God' that I've heard are appropriate only for an imaginary being. I have no idea what real entity, if any, the word 'God' is intended to denote. Can you define what a real God is for me, so that if I find a real candidate, I'll be able to tell that it's God?
Evidence is a joke. It's an educated line of reasoning but fallacious. One the biggest delusion ever existed in the history of humanity.
99.99% of us don't have the evidence when we know for a fact that black holes exist (it's already about science, not to mention other kinds of truth). We know for fact that black holes exist not because they are made evident to us. We know for a fact that black holes exist because our scientists are the reliable and credible source of information for us to put faith in their words (about black holes in this case).
You can verify the existence of black holes yourself simply because science as a kind of truth about a repeatable phenomenon. Not everything can repeat in this world for your verification. History is an example which is hardly subject to your verification. Did Nanjing massacre happen in WWII? The Chinese claim a casualty of 300,000 while denied by the Japanese. In your line of fallacious reasoning, then the Japanese must be right due to the lack of sufficient evidence. However, by the very nature of history (unlike science), evidence is scarcely available. The Chinese may be right, after all the witnessing/testimonies but not evidence are provided.
In a nutshell those demanding evidence in order to believe is living in a BIG delusion. Humans mostly rely on faith in a credible source, not evidence, to get to a truth/fact of any kind.
When a friend told you that he had a big meal on Christmas, that remains the only way such a fact can convey. Demanding evidence for this historical event itself is a joke. You have 3 meals a day, 1000 meals a year. So by age 31 you already had more than 30,000 meals in your life. Show us the evidence of the food contents of any single 1 of them. If you can't, nor can the 7 billion humans in this world. You can't gather any evidence of 30,000 x 7 billion meals of today's humans by assuming an average age of 30!
Evidence? What is it, other than a joke? Continue to live in dreams!
2 Thessalonians 2:11 (NIV2011)
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
99.99% of us don't have the evidence when we know for a fact that black holes exist (it's already about science, not to mention other kinds of truth). We know for fact that black holes exist not because they are made evident to us. We know for a fact that black holes exist because our scientists are the reliable and credible source of information for us to put faith in their words (about black holes in this case).
You can verify the existence of black holes yourself simply because science as a kind of truth about a repeatable phenomenon. Not everything can repeat in this world for your verification. History is an example which is hardly subject to your verification. Did Nanjing massacre happen in WWII? The Chinese claim a casualty of 300,000 while denied by the Japanese. In your line of fallacious reasoning, then the Japanese must be right due to the lack of sufficient evidence. However, by the very nature of history (unlike science), evidence is scarcely available. The Chinese may be right, after all the witnessing/testimonies but not evidence are provided.
In a nutshell those demanding evidence in order to believe is living in a BIG delusion. Humans mostly rely on faith in a credible source, not evidence, to get to a truth/fact of any kind.
When a friend told you that he had a big meal on Christmas, that remains the only way such a fact can convey. Demanding evidence for this historical event itself is a joke. You have 3 meals a day, 1000 meals a year. So by age 31 you already had more than 30,000 meals in your life. Show us the evidence of the food contents of any single 1 of them. If you can't, nor can the 7 billion humans in this world. You can't gather any evidence of 30,000 x 7 billion meals of today's humans by assuming an average age of 30!
Evidence? What is it, other than a joke? Continue to live in dreams!
2 Thessalonians 2:11 (NIV2011)
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
Last edited:
This only shows your lack of understanding of what human witnessing is.
God is portrayed by the multiple accounts of human testimonies. He told and showed who He is to His chosen eyewitnesses about His deeds and for them to write down as their testimonies and for the rest of human kind to believe with faith. That's the typical way of how a truth conveys among humans, unless God Himself chooses to show up in front of us. He won't show up but has to convey His choose using human witnessing simply because the covenants established between God and men specify that humans need faith to be saved.
Moreover, when people ask for evidence what exactly it is? The DNA of God or what. God on the other hand, has all the ability not to leave any evidence for men, such that they can be savable in terms of the covenants they are subject to.
Okay... so that's what you believe.
What meditiation experiences could possibly justify a belief in a god?
Personally, I tend to discount experience and perception gained through altered states, whether it's done chemically (e.g. with drugs), through physical stress (e.g. sweat lodges), or through concentrated effort (e.g. prolonged meditation). In general, I don't think that making one's brain less reliable is a reasonable path to a reliable conclusion.
What do you mean by "intuitions about ethics and reality?"
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Discussion.
Curiosity.
Entertainment.
None of which is relevant to the validity of theistic claims.
It can certainly irritate me and it frequently does in everyday life, sure.
Just the other day, I had an amateurisch printed text in my mailbox, that looked like it had been cut from a larger piece of paper by a 5-year old in some sweatshop, basically telling me that I'm an evil sinner who deserves eternal torment.
Quite irritating indeed.
I can imagine many things that would please me more.
Like gullible people finding out on their own that they are being gullible and then stop being gullible.
[qutoe]
Perhaps the reason atheist seek to question believer is the lack of foundation thus lack of conviction for their own belief ?[/quote]
What belief?
No matter you answer, the answer to your question is "no" though.
I (I can only speak for myself) question unsupported claims - no matter who makes them and what they are about.
So yes, i'll question the claims of theists. I'll also question the claims of sceance people, tarrot readers, homeopaths, etc. Not because of any beliefs I may or may not have.... But rather because unsupported claims, simply need to be questioned.
What alternatives? And alternatives, to what exactly?
Nonsense.
Scientific theories are based on evidence, verifiability and testability. For a hypothesis to get promoted to theory, it needs to face, and survive, the harsh scrutiny of the scientific process.
To say that a scientific theory is based on "faith" rather then evidence, is quite an accusation (and a tell that you have no clue on how science works). An accusation that you need to support. With evidence, ironically. ;-)
I don't think that idea even qualifies as a hypothesis.
Which research team where in the world, for example, is pursuing this "hypothesis" and how?
I don't need a firm basis to reject unsupported assertions.
As the Hitch once said so famously: "what can be asserted without evidence, can in turn be rejected without evidence".
It's not upto the unbeliever to come up with evidence of his unbelief of a claim.
The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. The theist claims that this "creeator" exists. The atheist rejects that claim on the basis that there is no evidence to support that claim.
Really? How exactly?
Emphasis on "exactly".
This should be good.
Why the bible?
Why not the quran or the bagavad ghita or the iliad?
Why?
Why not the word of Mohammed?
How have you determined that the bible is the way to go and not some other book (or none of them....)?
So, there is evidence but we just can't see it?
Is that what you are saying?