Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Who created diseases and disasters, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, famines, tsunamis, tornadoes, typhoons, forest fires, etc. Are humans responsible for these too?
-
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!
How Much Do You Doubt God's Existence?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
We are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions.
If God is responsible for humanity and could foresee everything that humans will ever do, then everything that humans will ever do is a foreseeable consequence of God's actions.
If you disagree, please tell me which specific part of this you disagree with.
Heyo
Veteran Member
I wasn't trying to. I'm just saying that, the lower you set your standards, the more gods you get.
It supports my contention that they both don't know what they are talking about. Even if a god existed, it would be irrelevant as nobody can show or agree upon its nature, i.e. the existence of a featureless god is philosophically useless as no further true statement can be derived from it.
And therefore no demands for superiority or privileges - which is what I'm most concerned with.
Yes, It is a conscious interpretation of physical stimulus.
In this case, imagination equal conscious interpretation. We get physically stimulated and through the conscious process we feel pain/emotions.
Funny thing is we can be cause to feel these things like pain or emotions without direct physical stimulus as well.
For example you can feel the pain from a movie or fear, happiness, etc...
Pain and pleasure aren't "real". They are an interpretation of reality created subconsciously and presented to your consciousness.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I disagree. Hindus have the same set of high standards as the Abrahamic religions for their Gods and Goddesses. I would say better, since the Hindu Gods and Goddesses can live together.
PureX
Veteran Member
But you are assuming that YOUR standard for evidence determines what's a "lower" standard. So in fact you ARE presuming to judge other people's criteria for and use of evidence.
How superior of you. When in fact it appears that it's you that doesn't understand the difference between an individual's concept of reality, and the mystery that reality actually is to us.
Why do we have to agree on it's nature?
I think you think that if you can't find the answer to a question, the question is "useless". But philosophy is in complete disagreement with this. Asking questions that we cannot answer is exactly what philosophy is about, and is for.
Same goes for science. No truth can be derived from it, either. All we get are more questions, and more possibilities. Science and philosophy are quite similar in this way.
Then why are you always proclaiming scientism and atheism to be superior to any and all other alternatives?
PureX
Veteran Member
"Interpretations" of reality are as much a part of reality as anything can ever be. Because without them, there is no reality for us. PERCEPTION IS CONCEPTION. Neither exists without the other.
Heyo
Veteran Member
High standards? "Ma book says so, that settles it." is the Christian standard for evidence. (And I don't know, but I guess it is the same in Hinduism.)I disagree. Hindus have the same set of high standards as the Abrahamic religions for their Gods and Goddesses. I would say better, since the Hindu Gods and Goddesses can live together.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Do I? You may be mistaking me for somebody else.
Of course. What you see on your computer screen is also an interpretation of digital data stored on your computer device.
It's only "HIS" standard beyond the level where there's an objective standard.
If someone has set their evidentuary bar so low that conflicting claims can both clear it, then it's objectively too low.
The question of how far above that line we ought to set our bar will probably involve subjective judgment, but setting one's bar below that line is objectively incorrect.
Why is it on an atheist to explain what your idea of God can do? It's your idea of God, you should be coming up with explanations for it can do and can't do. If your God can't make itself known to objective thinkers then it's suspicious if you also claim it can create the universe. That gives us doubt that your beliefs and claims are true.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
There is no simple answer to that..
..for example, do we not at least share in the responsibility for undesirable climate-change?
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
Of course .. but that does not relinquish our OWN responsibilities.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
They are real enough for my liking .. I take them seriously, as I'm sure we all do.
If not, then why do I see atheists taking about the abhorrence of torture?
I didn't say it did.
When someone is murdered, the murderer is guilty of the crime and God - if he were to exist - would be guilty as an accomplice.
Because atheists aren't a hive mind with only one opinion, maybe?
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
Evaluate .. ponder on .. try to comprehend .. try to live them .. try to gain in wisdom.
..but not downright reject, or criticize without full knowledge.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
It was @Hawkins who first suggested "should come forward" .. if you can't or won't explain, then perhaps he can.