God Proof - Take 1

[Shantanu]

When people are able to reason varies among individuals.
The age was set according to when most people are first able to reason well enough to decide about what to believe.

You may be right that being able to reason is not dependent on education level but on genetics.

 

[Trailblazer]

You may be right that being able to reason is not dependent on education level but on genetics.

I think it might be.

 

[Shantanu]

I think it might be.

I have very poor ability to reason and have been diagnosed with persistent delusional disorder for the past 20 years and I am 62 years of age and published 35 scientific papers in refereed journals but then lost my job due to misconduct with colleagues. It runs in the family so we suffer from mental health problems. I have to take anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medications for it

 

[Trailblazer]

I have very poor ability to reason and have been diagnosed with persistent delusional disorder for the past 20 years and I am 62 years of age and published 35 scientific papers in refereed journals but then lost my job due to misconduct with colleagues. It runs in the family so we suffer from mental health problems. I have to take anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medications for it

Depression and anxiety runs in my family, all the members of my nuclear family were affected. I got over my depression and anxiety for the most part by going to counseling and 12 step programs, and homeopathic treatment for about 20 years. I still have the propensity to depression and anxiety though because it is genetic. I took antidepressant drugs back in the 1980s but I was able to get off those drugs after I went for homeopathy and I never had to go back on them.

 

[Shantanu]

Depression and anxiety runs in my family, all the members of my nuclear family were affected. I got over my depression and anxiety for the most part by going to counseling and 12 step programs, and homeopathic treatment for about 20 years. I still have the propensity to depression and anxiety though because it is genetic. I took antidepressant drugs back in the 1980s but I was able to get off those drugs after I went for homeopathy and I never had to go back on them.

Wow: I am not the only sufferer then.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wow: I am not the only sufferer then.

No, not at all. I have had these conditions all of my adult life.
I had a difficult childhood but I do not remember a lot of it.
My father died suddenly of a heart attack when I was 12 years old and then things got worse when my mother started drinking heavily.
My husband had similar problems in childhood. We were never prepared to have any children of our own and did not have any..

 

[SonOfElElyon]

Has anyone noticed diseases or the diagnosis of them amplify since the 1950's?

 

[Shantanu]

No, not at all. I have had these conditions all of my adult life.
I had a difficult childhood but I do not remember a lot of it.
My father died suddenly of a heart attack when I was 12 years old and then things got worse when my mother started drinking heavily.
My husband had similar problems in childhood. We were never prepared to have any children of our own and did not have any..

That is very sad. I have no solutions to recommend: I do not know if God or truth will help.

 

[Trailblazer]

Has anyone noticed diseases or the diagnosis of them amplify since the 1950's?

The probably have since the conditions in society and the environment have worsened.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is very sad. I have no solutions to recommend: I do not know if God or truth will help.

I get by okay except I have a lot of stress in my life right now, too much to manage.
I think God is helping me now that I finally let Him into my life.
Goodnight for now and God Bless You.

 

[Shantanu]

I get by okay except I have a lot of stress in my life right now, too much to manage.
I think God is helping me now that I finally let Him into my life.
Goodnight for now and God Bless You.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I agree. Children are normally influenced by their parents just by living with them but they should not make a decision to join any religion until they are old enough to decide for themselves. Baha’is are not allowed to become Baha’is until they are 15 years old, which is considered the age of reason.

No parent should force religion on their children. I never experienced that because my parents were not religious. I was a free spirit.

Yes, that would be a good idea. That eliminates Sunday School, where they teach children that the Bible stories really happened.

Social acceptance is not important to me, nor is acceptance by my religious group. If I was not accepted I would wonder why but unless I am doing something I consider morally wrong, I would not care. I have always marched to the beat of my own drummer.

You seem to draw many conclusions from one thing I said: “My life is now in disarray because many things have fallen off to the side because of my spiritual pursuits.”

Who said anything about depression? I said my life is a mess. My life has been a mess for a long time, because of circumstances beyond my control, or do you think that all people can control life circumstances? But I handle it and I do not get depressed anymore. I might have a down day, most people do, but I do not have the symptoms of depression such as not being able to eat or sleep or get to work. I have not missed a day of work in years; I only take the vacation time I have to take.

I am not fighting myself. The only person I am fighting is a scheming narcissistic tenant who is trying to sue me for thousands and thousands of dollars, with his lies and false accusations. I am fighting a man who is pure evil. But my insurance company has taken over the case so they will take care of it. Meanwhile, I have cause for worry because I do not know the outcome and won’t know for some time.

I will probably be fighting another legal battle in court soon, because of another tenant who lied to me and owes me many thousands of dollars. This is what happens when some people try to be kind and trusting and other people who are bereft of morals try to take advantage of a person’s kindness. However, justice must be served.

I said: “Nothing in this material world matters that much; people and animals matter, but all else is vain and empty, an illusion, smoke and mirrors.” That does not mean I am depressed. The material world is vain and empty to me all the time, an illusion, because I am comparing it with spiritual life, which is the real life.

Most people who know my life circumstances tell me they could never handle it, and they would not be in them in the first place, but they have a completely different life, a career that worked out, one house to take care of, many friends and family, children and grandchildren. Not everyone is in that situation.

I do not believe that is our purpose in life, to have children and pass along our genes. It that was true, people who never had any children could not fulfill their purpose. I believe our purpose is to know and worship God and we do that by learning about God and living the life we were created for. That might include raising a family or not, but it includes social interactions, family and friends. Education is also very important, so we can learn about the world we live in.

Morality is not innate in our species. If it was thee would not be immoral people like my tenants.

We do only get one go at this physical life. There is no reason we would have to sacrifice this life for the next life, just because we believe the latter exists. We should live in this world and focus on it as long as we are here, all the while trying to prepare for the next life, if we believe in it.

Regarding the afterlife, I told my atheist friend on another forum tonight, who thinks the spiritual world should be demonstrable:

Logically speaking one cannot demonstrate anything that resides in a spiritual world while they still reside in a physical world, unless someone communicates from the spiritual world to the physical world, which is what some spirits have done, proving that the spiritual world does indeed exist.

Evidence is not makes things real. They are either real or not. Evidence is simply what people want to prove they are real. But if they are real, they will still exist even if there is no evidence at all. The same thing applies to God.

The age of consent is relative, depending on the country you live in. It ranges from the youngest of 11 years(Nigeria) to the oldest of 21 years(Bahrain). Most are between 16 - 18 years of age. This includes the USA(16-18 year's old). My personal preference is 18 years old. At this age, their cognitive mental processes, should be developed enough to discern between what is belief and what is fact. At this age they are fully responsible and accountable for any unindoctrinated decisions they make. Both legally and morally. But of course we both know that we are not talking about 15 - 18 year old's, don't we? There are certainly many moral and social positives, to help children develop, having less emotional and psychological problems in their future. But I contend, that it is unnecessary for parents to teach religious dogma to do this. All parents are the child's first society. They only need to set an example for them to follow. Not outsource parenthood to strangers with the same beliefs as theirs. As long as the consequences for disobedience is eternal damnation, religious dogma will always be a form of child abuse. It simply uses fear to maintain control. Children are genetically and physically not you, and it is sheer arrogance to want them to be like you. Guide them in life's experiences, but allow them to grow as predetermines by the nature and their genes. If you must explain the consequences of their actions, simply use real examples relating to real things that they CAN understand.

Do you really think that children growing up in communes, will not accept the majority's beliefs, customs and practices? Of course they will. That is the commune's purpose all along. If you don't have an objective factual basis to support your beliefs, why influence and manipulate the minds of those, who still believe in Santa Clause? Those that can't distinguish between what is fact and what is fantasy. Are these the only minds that you can convince? What are you frighten of? Exposure?

Not only can't you demonstrate proof of God, but you can't demonstrate proof of anything supernatural or paranormal. If you could produce just one piece of objective evidence, there would be no more atheists or skeptics. This means that you don't even have to prove that a God exists, just evidence that anything else supernatural can exist.

Since we are not aware of every action that we make all the time, then it is an illusion that we are self-aware perceptually. This is physical impossible for the brain to do. Maybe you are not influenced by the reactions of others, but neither are fanatics, psychopaths, and depressants. So, I'm not sure what your point is. I am certainly affected by what others think and do. I am not immune to my social interactions. I am the product of these interactions, and how my genes are expressed. Maybe you are truly a very special human being.

Evidence is not makes things real. They are either real or not. Evidence is simply what people want to prove they are real. But if they are real, they will still exist even if there is no evidence at all. The same thing applies to God.

Evidence of course makes things real. Without evidence Santa Clause is real. Without any objective evidence, things only exist in the mind until they can be demonstrated in reality. Never mistake belief for evidence. Beliefs are conceptual, and evidence is perceptual. Most Atheists and skeptics are perceptual believers. There is no evidence for an afterlife. And judging by the numbers of believers waiting in line to quickly find out, I think I might be right. Most people may want to believe in an afterlife, but very few want to die to find out. This sounds more like hope rather than belief. Since death is an absolute certainty in most species, it is totally irrelevant and academic what happens afterwards.



​

 

[Trailblazer]

The age of consent is relative, depending on the country you live in. It ranges from the youngest of 11 years(Nigeria) to the oldest of 21 years(Bahrain). Most are between 16 - 18 years of age. This includes the USA(16-18 year's old). My personal preference is 18 years old. At this age, their cognitive mental processes, should be developed enough to discern between what is belief and what is fact. At this age they are fully responsible and accountable for any unindoctrinated decisions they make. Both legally and morally. But of course we both know that we are not talking about 15 - 18 year old's, don't we? There are certainly many moral and social positives, to help children develop, having less emotional and psychological problems in their future. But I contend, that it is unnecessary for parents to teach religious dogma to do this. All parents are the child's first society. They only need to set an example for them to follow. Not outsource parenthood to strangers with the same beliefs as theirs. As long as the consequences for disobedience is eternal damnation, religious dogma will always be a form of child abuse. It simply uses fear to maintain control. Children are genetically and physically not you, and it is sheer arrogance to want them to be like you. Guide them in life's experiences, but allow them to grow as predetermines by the nature and their genes. If you must explain the consequences of their actions, simply use real examples relating to real things that they CAN understand.

I do not disagree with anything you said. Parents should set an example for children to follow. Since I have never been a parent, I cannot say if I would send my children to Baha’i Children’s classes and I do not even know what they teach there.

Do you really think that children growing up in communes, will not accept the majority's beliefs, customs and practices? Of course they will. That is the commune's purpose all along.

Of course they would. Children are very vulnerable, especially when they are very young.

If you don't have an objective factual basis to support your beliefs, why influence and manipulate the minds of those, who still believe in Santa Clause? Those that can't distinguish between what is fact and what is fantasy. Are these the only minds that you can convince? What are you frighten of? Exposure?

Nobody should manipulate the minds of anyone else, child or adult.

Not only can't you demonstrate proof of God, but you can't demonstrate proof of anything supernatural or paranormal. If you could produce just one piece of objective evidence, there would be no more atheists or skeptics. This means that you don't even have to prove that a God exists, just evidence that anything else supernatural can exist.

God cannot be demonstrated to exist because God is unknowable and immaterial. Only material things can be demonstrated to exist. Moreover, supernatural is not natural. There can be no objective evidence of that which is not natural, so you can do the math.

Since we are not aware of every action that we make all the time, then it is an illusion that we are self-aware perceptually. This is physical impossible for the brain to do. Maybe you are not influenced by the reactions of others, but neither are fanatics, psychopaths, and depressants. So, I'm not sure what your point is. I am certainly affected by what others think and do. I am not immune to my social interactions. I am the product of these interactions, and how my genes are expressed. Maybe you are truly a very special human being.

I do not claim that we are aware of everything about ourselves. We can only be aware of what is in the conscious mind, not what is in the unconscious mind, which means that there is a lot that we are not aware of. All we can do is strive to be more self-aware by bringing unconscious thoughts and feelings into conscious awareness.

Of course we are all affected by what others think and do to some degree, but it is a matter of degree. If we allow what others think of us to define who we are we are allowing them to define us. If we know who we are we do not need other people speaking for us telling us what we think and feel and what our motives are. Nobody can know that except the person who has those thoughts and feelings and motives. It might be okay to say something like “it sounds like maybe you are thinking x” and posing it as question, but when people say “I know you are x and that is why you do y” that is arrogant.

That kind of communication forces the recipient to correct the person doing the critique and it invariably turns into a power struggle, especially when the one doing the critique comes back and tells you that you are wrong about yourself and they know more than you do about yourself. That is why “I statements” are best if we are talking about anything personal. Questions posed to others about themselves are okay, and people are generally receptive to questions. If we are talking about what we believe or disbelieve anything is fair game, as long as people are respectful.

Evidence of course makes things real. Without evidence Santa Clause is real. Without any objective evidence, things only exist in the mind until they can be demonstrated in reality.

I guess you missed my point. Reality exists regardless of any evidence we have to prove it. If Santa Claus was real he would still be real regardless of our ability to prove he is real. Likewise, if God exists, God exists. The fact that God can never be demonstrated to exist has no bearing on whether God exists or not. Evidence is simply what people want so they can know God exists.

It is an x, y proposition, God either exists or not. What people believe or disbelieve about God does not change reality, as reality is not dependent upon beliefs. Reality simply exists.

If a murder was committed, the fact that it cannot be proven that the murder was committed, since the dead body cannot be found, does not change the reality that a murder was committed. The fact that it cannot be proven that Mr. Smith committed that murder does not mean Mr. Smith did not commit that murder. He either did or did not, x or y.

Never mistake belief for evidence. Beliefs are conceptual, and evidence is perceptual. Most Atheists and skeptics are perceptual believers. There is no evidence for an afterlife. And judging by the numbers of believers waiting in line to quickly find out, I think I might be right. Most people may want to believe in an afterlife, but very few want to die to find out. This sounds more like hope rather than belief. Since death is an absolute certainty in most species, it is totally irrelevant and academic what happens afterwards.

There is some evidence of an afterlife, but it is not perceptual since nobody can perceive the afterlife through the senses, since it is not physical. Moreover, nobody has been there and back to tell of it. So what we have for evidence is what religions teach. Near death experiences are not proof of an afterlife but they are proof that there can be consciousness outside of the body, so that indicates that there is a soul that lives on. Spirits have communicated to mediums from the spiritual world and what they describe is evidence for some of us.

Death of the body is a certainty but death of the soul is not. It is not totally irrelevant if the soul lives on in another form and if what we do in this world determines what kind of afterlife we will experience. Of course we cannot prove that so those who choose not to believe it might be in for a surprise. Conversely, if there is no afterlife then nobody will be surprised because they will no longer exist.

 

[Jos]

Actually, modern physics, and the necessary absense of free will,

So free will doesn't exist?

 

[Trailblazer]

So free will doesn't exist?

It does exist.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I do not disagree with anything you said. Parents should set an example for children to follow. Since I have never been a parent, I cannot say if I would send my children to Baha’i Children’s classes and I do not even know what they teach there.

Of course they would. Children are very vulnerable, especially when they are very young.

Nobody should manipulate the minds of anyone else, child or adult.

God cannot be demonstrated to exist because God is unknowable and immaterial. Only material things can be demonstrated to exist. Moreover, supernatural is not natural. There can be no objective evidence of that which is not natural, so you can do the math.

I do not claim that we are aware of everything about ourselves. We can only be aware of what is in the conscious mind, not what is in the unconscious mind, which means that there is a lot that we are not aware of. All we can do is strive to be more self-aware by bringing unconscious thoughts and feelings into conscious awareness.

Of course we are all affected by what others think and do to some degree, but it is a matter of degree. If we allow what others think of us to define who we are we are allowing them to define us. If we know who we are we do not need other people speaking for us telling us what we think and feel and what our motives are. Nobody can know that except the person who has those thoughts and feelings and motives. It might be okay to say something like “it sounds like maybe you are thinking x” and posing it as question, but when people say “I know you are x and that is why you do y” that is arrogant.

That kind of communication forces the recipient to correct the person doing the critique and it invariably turns into a power struggle, especially when the one doing the critique comes back and tells you that you are wrong about yourself and they know more than you do about yourself. That is why “I statements” are best if we are talking about anything personal. Questions posed to others about themselves are okay, and people are generally receptive to questions. If we are talking about what we believe or disbelieve anything is fair game, as long as people are respectful.

I guess you missed my point. Reality exists regardless of any evidence we have to prove it. If Santa Claus was real he would still be real regardless of our ability to prove he is real. Likewise, if God exists, God exists. The fact that God can never be demonstrated to exist has no bearing on whether God exists or not. Evidence is simply what people want so they can know God exists.

It is an x, y proposition, God either exists or not. What people believe or disbelieve about God does not change reality, as reality is not dependent upon beliefs. Reality simply exists.

If a murder was committed, the fact that it cannot be proven that the murder was committed, since the dead body cannot be found, does not change the reality that a murder was committed. The fact that it cannot be proven that Mr. Smith committed that murder does not mean Mr. Smith did not commit that murder. He either did or did not, x or y.

There is some evidence of an afterlife, but it is not perceptual since nobody can perceive the afterlife through the senses, since it is not physical. Moreover, nobody has been there and back to tell of it. So what we have for evidence is what religions teach. Near death experiences are not proof of an afterlife but they are proof that there can be consciousness outside of the body, so that indicates that there is a soul that lives on. Spirits have communicated to mediums from the spiritual world and what they describe is evidence for some of us.

Death of the body is a certainty but death of the soul is not. It is not totally irrelevant if the soul lives on in another form and if what we do in this world determines what kind of afterlife we will experience. Of course we cannot prove that so those who choose not to believe it might be in for a surprise. Conversely, if there is no afterlife then nobody will be surprised because they will no longer exist.

I'm glad you agree with my comments.

I do not claim that we are aware of everything about ourselves. We can only be aware of what is in the conscious mind, not what is in the unconscious mind, which means that there is a lot that we are not aware of. All we can do is strive to be more self-aware by bringing unconscious thoughts and feelings into conscious awareness.

Over 90% of all our actions and behavior are driven by our subconscious and unconscious mind. Our conscious state of awareness represents only the inevitable evolutionary outgrowth of our language ability. Our conscious mind is totally interdependent on our unconscious and subconscious mind. Consciousness is NOT mutually exclusive of our other states of awareness. Without consciousness, we could not subjectively exist. We have no control of what is in the conscious mind, anymore then we have the ability to sense that our mind physically exists. What you are referring to is a conception, not a perception. We can only chose not to action on our genetic predispositions. Animals do not try to understand the nature of their existence. Their nature is simply instinctual, based on stimulus response patterns and other natural cues. Not much different than humans. Self reflection can, and in many cases, lead to unnecessary stress, emotional conflicts, and social anxieties. What is it that you have convinced yourself that you are lacking? You are born with everything you need to survive.

As I have stated before, I'm not interested in responding to personal testimonials and antidotes. Especially when they are used to appeal to Pathos(not Logos), as a communication technique. It is you that brought up your mental state and personal experiences, in many previous posts, not me. If you don't won't others to make comments about you personally, don't provide personal information on open forum. In other words, don't make your business my business. How people react to your comments are irrelevant and out of your control. You are not being forced to respond to their comments. Most people may not KNOW what is in your head, but based on the consistency of your actions and words, can certainly develop a pretty accurate idea. I am a believer that since nothing stays constant, we simply miss out on the available opportunities for change, by making many wrong decisions. But it is never too late. If you want my input, then NOT on open forum.

I guess you missed my point. Reality exists regardless of any evidence we have to prove it. If Santa Claus was real he would still be real regardless of our ability to prove he is real. Likewise, if God exists, God exists. The fact that God can never be demonstrated to exist has no bearing on whether God exists or not. Evidence is simply what people want so they can know God exists.

Again, more self-serving logic. Reality(physical) exists because the evidence suggest that it does. We do not need to prove that it does. We only need to demonstrate with a high level of certainty that it does. We do this by demonstration, and the use of objective evidence. We don't just pull our explanation of natural phenomena, out of our backside. These laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. It is the laws of man that are prescriptive, not descriptive. There is no descriptive evidence of any kind, to justify any belief in any Deity, that is clearly man-made.

You also make a false analogy fallacy using your murder example, and the proof of God. If there is no dead body found, in the eyes of the court, there is no murder committed. But the person can still be charged and convicted of manslaughter, even in the absence of a body. This is only because of how murder is worded in the statute(elements of the crime).

There is also no evidence at all that spirits, ghosts, an afterlife, or a soul exists. The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. If you wish to believe this because you want to, then it is also none of my business.

Of course we cannot prove that so those who choose not to believe it might be in for a surprise. Conversely, if there is no afterlife then nobody will be surprised because they will no longer exist.

Finally something I can agree with.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

So free will doesn't exist?

Free will is a conceptual illusion. Our actions are already decided seconds before we even think of them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Free will is a conceptual illusion. Our actions are already decided seconds before we even think of them.

Decided by whom?
Do you mean they are predetermined by our past?
That would mean we are nothing more than programmed robots, helpless victims of circumstance.

I do not think that is the case but I also do not think our free will is totally free. I mean there are things I want to do and I know I cannot just chose to do them. It is not like I cannot do them physically, I just cannot make myself do them. It is if I am not totally free to choose.

That might have something to do with predestination, I don't know. This is a question I ponder often. I certainly do not think I have all the answers.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Decided by whom?
Do you mean they are predetermined by our past?
That would mean we are nothing more than programmed robots, helpless victims of circumstance.

I do not think that is the case but I also do not think our free will is totally free. I mean there are things I want to do and I know I cannot just chose to do them. It is not like I cannot do them physically, I just cannot make myself do them. It is if I am not totally free to choose.

That might have something to do with predestination, I don't know. This is a question I ponder often. I certainly do not think I have all the answers.

We are not programmed by a programmer, no matter how much you want to inject a WHOM to force fit into your narrative. We are biological sentient organisms, therefore we are NOT robots. This is a non-sequitur exaggeration. We are the sum total of how our genes and alleles are expressed, and our response to changes within our social and physical environment. Our genes have evolved over billions of years of trial and error. Hence why less than 0.01% of all species that have ever lived on the planet, are now extinct. Just as those that survive illnesses will pass on their genetic information to the next generation as immunity, changes in our genetic behavioral expressions will also be passed on as a behavioral predisposition. We are quite simply the product of survivors not victims.

 

[Trailblazer]

We are not programmed by a programmer, no matter how much you want to inject a WHOM to force fit into your narrative. We are biological sentient organisms, therefore we are NOT robots. This is a non-sequitur exaggeration. We are the sum total of how our genes and alleles are expressed, and our response to changes within our social and physical environment. Our genes have evolved over billions of years of trial and error. Hence why less than 0.01% of all species that have ever lived on the planet, are now extinct. Just as those that survive illnesses will pass on their genetic information to the next generation as immunity, changes in our genetic behavioral expressions will also be passed on as a behavioral predisposition. We are quite simply the product of survivors not victims.

Actually, I cannot disagree with any of that if it is supported by science, which it appears to be.

When I say we have free will, we are just looking at it from a different angle. What we end up doing may well be predetermined by factors beyond our control.

You would probably like this other forum I post on which is mostly atheists. The owner is a physicist with a scientific background. Others are into genetics, history and evolution. I had left that forum when I came here about a year ago but I recently decided to go back because I have many friends there, and I really like the forum owner. I am still posting on this forum but not as much, so if I do not respond to a post for a while that is the reason why.