Can it not exist?

[SkepticThinker]

Who's logic? Spiritual way of life to me is much more logic than the mundane "blind" way of life. You may disagree and that is totally normal too.

You said this earlier:

"And no spiritual practice is not based on human logic, you have to put it aside."

Are you trying to say you're tapping into some other logic, not available to humans, well, except for ... yourself? Can you make sense of this for us?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Evidence that their ideas are ridiculous? I get it as a feeling and you can have it as a feeling, but do you claim evidence?

Evidence the ideas are ridiculous you mean? How about the fact that they are being stated (confidently) with ZERO supporting information? ZERO. ABSOLUTE ZERO. That does it for me. Maybe not for you. Maybe you absolutely LOVE that fluffy CRAP. Wouldn't surprise me, honestly. Not from the garbage I've witnessed you post time and time again.

That is how easy it is easy. Just note what a poster makes a non-scientific claim of is/are.

I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to say here... not worth it anyway.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So how about your own "belief" in logic and reason, who says your view is the only true and that spiritual belief is just silly because YOU don't believe it.

Sorry mate but your logic is so illogical a cow can reason better than you.

Uh, you're the one trying to say that human logic doesn't apply to "spiritual" matters (whatever those are).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

@A Vestigial Mote
I wonder what instrument he/she uses to measure ridiculous?

My brain. If you don't have one, I would recommend looking into getting one. They're great.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

EVIDENCE OF WHAT, GENIUS? That the ideas are ridiculous you mean? How about the fact that they are being stated with ZERO supporting information? ZERO. ABSOLUTE ZERO. That does it for me. Maybe not for you. Maybe you absolutely LOVE that fluffy CRAP. Wouldn't surprise me, honestly. Not from the garbage I've witnessed you post time and time again.

I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to say here... not worth it anyway.

You are using emotions. That is okay. We all do it.

 

[We Never Know]

Pointing back 1000 years takes us to well before the rise of science. But I would agree that there are certainly many things that we don't know about because our technology isn't advanced enough yet to detect them.

The difference is that people claim that it is impossible *even in theory* to detect a God. That is very different than simply not having the technology at the present time. It is saying that no matter what else we learn and what technology we develop, there is literally no way to detect this God or show that such a thing actually exists.

As a contrast, I can imagine that a multi-dimensional race of beings learned how to make universes for their pleasure and ours is one of the many. If there is a way to *test* that hypothesis (say, we establish communication and transfer technology), then it becomes within the realm of potential knowledge. If there is literally no way to test it other than to believe ahead of time, then it is simply a rather arbitrary opinion with nothing to support it.

I see God-belief as being in the second category.

"people claim that it is impossible *even in theory* to detect a God."

In my opinion they speak of what they don't know. Its no different when people claim a god doesn't exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My brain. If you don't have one, I would recommend looking into getting one. They're great.

So how do you calibrate it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

On that note, I think that I'll watch TV.

I'll press the TV remote, and the TV will turn on (and I have faith that it will because it has).

Many don't know how a TV works (inside), but I do. They have faith that it works, and, when they buy a new TV, they have faith that it will work too.

How many travel on airplanes? How many know how planes work?

I think that there are many things that we take for granted (things that work, but we don't know why....we have faith that they and their replacements will work).

Perhaps most things in life are like that?

You have faith that the TV remote will turn on the TV? I don't. I have a reasonable expectation based on past experiences that the remote will likely turn on the TV, IF, the batteries aren't dead, and IF it's the right remote for the TV I'm watching and IF my toddler hasn't destroyed it yet.

You know what kind of irks me? When I take the time to write a big long post that explains my position in great detail to a poster I'm conversing with, and then that poster comes along and responds to a single sentence from that post with something I've already addressed in that very post, as if I never made the post in the first place. I mean seriously, I just took the time to give my definition of faith and how I don't think the examples you gave are examples of faith and you've come back with this? Come on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's possible for the irrational to use logic, as well.

Not if they're being irrational.

 

[F1fan]

And some don't. You have to recognize that or you're in danger of fighting a straw man.

The danger is only from those select theists who don't claim their gods exist. This is why I address the claims on the table, and aware of the variety of claims.

You know what also doesn't exist outside of human imagination? Numbers and laws. But we don't argue with mathematicians and lawyers.

Actually numbers and laws are conceptual. Numbers represent real phenomenon and those are determined by mathematicians. But laws are debated all the time.

But neither are relevant analogies to ideas like gods.

I'm a fan of Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria and I respect every theist or spiritualist who is able to stay on his side of the fence. @Conscious thoughts mostly is.

I have no problem with theists believing what they want. I have a bit of a problem with how they can influence children and law. If theists decide to debate in public forums then critics owe them nothing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Isn't it a tiny bit strange that some few people reject any tiny bit of a thought there could be a God who actually created that big bang? And some very few people make fun of those people who are believers in a God?

I don't see a problem with being an atheist, only some few who hold a very call it arrogant attitude toward God believers. When them selvs only have a theory that may or may not being wrong?

Technically you can't of course turn that question upside down and ask God believers, isn't there a chance God does not exist? The answer to that for me is, the chance is there of course.

Atheism has nothing to do with Big Bang cosmology. It has only to do with God(s).

For someone to claim that some God(s) created the big bang, they'd have to provide evidence for that. You'd have to provide evidence that a God even exists in the first place and THEN provide evidence that said God created the big bang. When you can do that, people can take those ideas seriously. Until then, there is no reason to insert any God(s) into it.
What's arrogant about that?

 

[F1fan]

Yes.
It is a belief. There is a reason we have a concept like methodological naturalism.
Here is a short version of the history of philosophy and how it failed.
You have to be absolutely certain of something, otherwise it is not true. That was the standard in philosophy. Along comes a human by the name of Rene Descarte and he tested that. What could he be absolutely certain off?

It's been decades since I read philosophy. At some point I realized much of it is just the minds of men with spare time on their hands to explore the experiences of men with time on their hands. I had time on my hands at the time as well, but at some point I had to get to work, and manage my life in more practical ways. These philosophies have little to no practical use for the average Joes, including us. Much of it is like intellectual theater.

Back to my example, so you acknowledge that the red Gala apple is on the dining room table, and that is exists outside your imagination. You then go on to say it is belief? Is this correct?

If so, you acknowledge the apple exists, and that you exist as an observer, but somehow have to judge that the apple exists, and is necessary because you may not exist? If so what is making the judgment that the apple exists? What?

Well, he asked if he could be cheated by an evil demon and then answer was that he had no way of knowing that. The modern version is a Boltzmann Brain, if you want science.

I had to look it up and it's not very good science. It's too absurd to be relevant.

We humans have to make decisions in our limited time, and do we have any room to stop at every decision and ponder if we are being influenced by evil demons? Taking your kids to school in the morning and you're 30 minutes late because you changed directions to convince yourself you are an independent actors and not under the influence of demons. When does this kind of thinking really aid the human? Maybe if you beat your wife and kids or have an alcohol problem. But doing work and raking leaves? Not so much.

So that is how you get this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
But you already knew all this, because you know the history of knowledge and fact and how that connects to modern science?

Does science work? Yes it does.

 

[F1fan]

You have faith that the TV remote will turn on the TV? I don't. I have a reasonable expectation based on past experiences that the remote will likely turn on the TV, IF, the batteries aren't dead, and IF it's the right remote for the TV I'm watching and IF my toddler destroyed it yet.

I think this example is a bad one for theists since they are using faith for their religious justification, and are arguing that faith is reliable. But most all of us who have used remotes for our TVs have had a time when the batteries are dead. Our faith in the remote failed, right? So how does this help the theist? At best they have to concede that they can have faith in their God and it is reliable most of the time, but then at some point their God fails them. It's unreliable. But unlike the remote, the God can't be fixed.

It's a poor challenge by theists.

You know what kind of irks me? When I take the time to write a big long post that explains my position in great detail to a poster I'm conversing with, and then that poster comes along and responds to a single sentence from that post with something I've already addressed in that very post, as if I never made the post in the first place. I mean seriously, I just took the time to give my definition of faith and how I don't think the examples you gave are examples of faith and you've come back with this? Come on.

A lot of that going around.

 

[F1fan]

Like noticing the lack of evidence for gods, ....

Out of your own mouth!

And that is a wise approach to not decide any sort of god exists.

And what we also notice is that ordinary mortals like yourself, who claim no social abilities, assert their version of God exists despite a lack of evidence.

How does that happen and is arguable, and defendable?

 

[DNB]

Like noticing the lack of evidence for gods, ....


And that is a wise approach to not decide any sort of god exists.

And what we also notice is that ordinary mortals like yourself, who claim no social abilities, assert their version of God exists despite a lack of evidence.

How does that happen and is arguable, and defendable?

Define 'lack of evcidence'. This OP is labelled 'can it exist' if some don't see it. Are you part of those 'some'?

 

[We Never Know]

If it is invisible to your eyes or your other senses, why is it impossible that it does exist without you being able to detect it?
For something to exist, you must see it?

Can it be that other people can see and understand something you can't see or understand?

I look at it like this... At one time we didn't know atoms, DNA, RNA, quarks, dinosaurs, evolution, brain waves, etc etc existed and they were here on earth right under our nose's.
We have advanced in many ways but in my opinion its minuscule compared to everything else we have yet to discover and learn.

 

[F1fan]

Define 'lack of evcidence'.

Are you admitting you don't understand the phrase "lack of evidence"? Are you seriously confused about what these words mean, and what the phrase means?

This OP is labelled 'can it exist' if some don't see it. Are you part of those 'some'?

Whatever label might be slapped on the OP what I am part of is a group of people who don't accept popular beliefs from my society without due consideration and scrutiny.

You seem part of the group that will adopt a popular social belief without scrutiny. This can be dangerous.

 

[We Never Know]

Are you admitting you don't understand the phrase "lack of evidence"? Are you seriously confused about what these words mean, and what the phrase means?


Whatever label might be slapped on the OP what I am part of is a group of people who don't accept popular beliefs from my society without due consideration and scrutiny.

You seem part of the group that will adopt a popular social belief without scrutiny. This can be dangerous.

What evidence would you expect for a god, anything supernatural, not natural and beyond the scope of science, if any exist?
If you don't know what's the evidence would be, how can it be "lack of evidence"?

 

[F1fan]

What evidence would you expect for a god, anything supernatural, not natural and beyond the scope of science, if any exist?

Well it better be extraordinary. But it never is.

I would expect ordinary mortals who are tempted to believe in gods to be aware of all this.

The thing is these ordinary mortal believers never conclude a god exists via evidence and facts. They adopt their society's popular religious belief without thinking.

If you don't know what's the evidence would be, how can it be "lack of evidence"?

Theists make claims as if they accept the rules of logic, and accept that they are ordinary mortals. It's their problem if they cannot follow through.

Since they are ordinary mortals and make claims, they volunteer into the rules of logic. They never assert they have special abilities to sense gods. They open themselves up to the same scrutiny any claim has. That their claims include an Almighty God is irrelevant. The content of the claim carries no weight.

 

[We Never Know]

Well it better be extraordinary. But it never is.

I would expect ordinary mortals who are tempted to believe in gods to be aware of all this.

The thing is these ordinary mortal believers never conclude a god exists via evidence and facts. They adopt their society's popular religious belief without thinking.


Theists make claims as if they accept the rules of logic, and accept that they are ordinary mortals. It's their problem if they cannot follow through.

Since they are ordinary mortals and make claims, they volunteer into the rules of logic. They never assert they have special abilities to sense gods. They open themselves up to the same scrutiny any claim has. That their claims include an Almighty God is irrelevant. The content of the claim carries no weight.

In my opinion anyone demanding or asking or wanting evidence for a god is illogical.

Why? Its like this...
1. Does a god exist? We don't know.
2. What is a god? If we don't know what a god is, how can we find it or evidence of it.
3. If a god is supernatural or spiritual then its out of the realm of science.. we are back to how can you find it or evidence of it.
4. What evidence would be expected for a god if it exists? If its unknown... we are back to, how can you find it or evidence of it.
5. If the evidence for a god is out of the science realm, unknown, etc..what evidence should we be looking for?

That's why I think is illogical to ask for evidence for a god.