Is GOD real?

[Thief]

It is not an accusation, just a reminder.

You are fond of stating that you are not dogmatic but rational, even while stating pure dogma about the existence of a creator god or of spirits.

Therefore, I just will not trust your capability of telling dogma from reason.

Define dogma..........................................

 

[LuisDantas]

Dogma is blind belief with no regard for evidence and no desire to attune itself with verifiable reality.

 

[Thief]

Dogma is blind belief with no regard for evidence and no desire to attune itself with verifiable reality.

You left out 'reason'.

There will never be a photo, fingerprint, equation or repeatable experiment.

That leaves reason....only reason.....

I view dogma as practice....which in turn has ritual or incantation.
I view many 'beliefs' as dogma when the congregation insists....
all the while no means of any kind will confirm.

I believe in God because of.....science.
Cause and effect.
The universe is the effect ....God is the Cause.

All else proceeds form that 'beginning'.

I have prayers for your rug or beads.....
I have no ritual to fill your idle hours.
I have no incantations or spells for your mastery of your world.

I am not dogmatic.

 

[sojourner]

I have no concerns whatsoever about what I've articulated regarding your deeply flawed assertions regarding the alleged "correctness" of religions.

Yet you've put in pages obsessing on it in your posts to me. Wonder what that means?

Once again, for those who apparently can't see what's right in front of them:

All religions are correct.

This was my first assertion. I then backed it up with this reasoning;

A religion is correct inasmuch as it accurately reflects the spiritual culture and outlook of its adherents.

What's to disagree with that? if a religion doesn't do that, then it's incorrect for those for whom it doesn't do that. IOW, Hinduism is incorrect for me, because it doesn't accurately reflect my spiritual culture. Hinduism is most likely correct for one who was born and reared in India, because it does accurately reflect that person's spiritual culture. But even though it's incorrect for me, it is correct for someone, yes?

No moving goalposts. No No True Scotsman fallacies. If one finds that a religion is incorrect for them (such as, if I found that Hinduism was incorrect for me), one would be better off finding a religion that is correct for them. (I'd be better off in, say , Christianity than Hinduism, because Christianity does a better job of reflecting my spiritual culture). Doesn't mean I'm not an adherent, or even a "true" adherent of Hindu, if its incorrect for me. It simply means I'd be better off if I practiced a religion that was more in line with what I believed.

I don't get what's so hard about this concept? I'm not making value judgments against anyone. but you're sure twisting things and making everything harder than it is, and doing your best to becloud the issue.

However, you've opted to denigrate some religious adherents as "thugs and jihadists" and suggested that they'd be best to find another religion.

Nope. Sapiens brought up those two groups. I merely opined that, if they're viewed as extremists, then their chosen religions might not accurately reflect their outlook, and they'd probably be a lot happier in some other religion. No denigration.

your own objections to these "thugs and jihadists" is evidence that their religion isn't reflecting their worldview and is therefore incorrect.

I don't know where you're getting this. I don't have any objections to them. But it sounds as though Sapiens does.

You need to Get. A. Grip. here.

 

[LuisDantas]

You left out 'reason'.

Yes, I did. I see no place for reason in dogma.

There will never be a photo, fingerprint, equation or repeatable experiment.

That leaves reason....only reason.....

I view dogma as practice....which in turn has ritual or incantation.
I view many 'beliefs' as dogma when the congregation insists....
all the while no means of any kind will confirm.

I believe in God because of.....science.
Cause and effect.
The universe is the effect ....God is the Cause.

All else proceeds form that 'beginning'.

I have prayers for your rug or beads.....
I have no ritual to fill your idle hours.
I have no incantations or spells for your mastery of your world.

I am not dogmatic.

See?

 

[jonathan180iq]

You left out 'reason'.

There will never be a photo, fingerprint, equation or repeatable experiment.

That leaves reason....only reason.....

I view dogma as practice....which in turn has ritual or incantation.
I view many 'beliefs' as dogma when the congregation insists....
all the while no means of any kind will confirm.

I believe in God because of.....science.
Cause and effect.
The universe is the effect ....God is the Cause.

All else proceeds form that 'beginning'.

I have prayers for your rug or beads.....
I have no ritual to fill your idle hours.
I have no incantations or spells for your mastery of your world.

I am not dogmatic.

From the Wiki:

"Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself."

Even your best "logical and rational" reasoning is little more than subjective personal preference. Those preferences and inclinations are your dogmas. If one or more aspects of your personal preferences change, then your entire life's philosophy goes along with it. does it not?

You believe in God because of "science", as you say, but something as simple as your mindset evolving to see something other than God as the Cause of the Effect of the Universe means that your outlook could be very different in just a few years time.

Your own personal reasonings are yours alone, and only apply to you. As such, they are only logical to you. They are only true to you. You can see God as the Cause of the Universe. You should not confuse that personal preference with science, however.

 

[Thief]

From the Wiki:

"Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself."

Even your best "logical and rational" reasoning is little more than subjective personal preference. Those preferences and inclinations are your dogmas. If one or more aspects of your personal preferences change, then your entire life's philosophy goes along with it. does it not?

You believe in God because of "science", as you say, but something as simple as your mindset evolving to see something other than God as the Cause of the Effect of the Universe means that your outlook could be very different in just a few years time.

Your own personal reasonings are yours alone, and only apply to you. As such, they are only logical to you. They are only true to you. You can see God as the Cause of the Universe. You should not confuse that personal preference with science, however.

So you take the basic science of cause and effect and call that dogma?!!!!!!

I am then guilty of scientific.....dogma.....

Does that make me a scientologist?......I don't think so.

 

[Sapiens]

You left out 'reason'.

There will never be a photo, fingerprint, equation or repeatable experiment.

That leaves reason....only reason.....

Reason does not support the existence of any deity, only faith supports that.

I view dogma as practice....which in turn has ritual or incantation.
I view many 'beliefs' as dogma when the congregation insists....
all the while no means of any kind will confirm.

You need to use your dictionary. Dogma has nothing to do with confirmation or lack there of.

I believe in God because of.....science.

Science does not produce belief as an end product.

Cause and effect.
The universe is the effect ....God is the Cause.

All else proceeds form that 'beginning'.

Unsupported claims.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you take the basic science of cause and effect and call that dogma?!!!!!!

I am then guilty of scientific.....dogma.....

Does that make me a scientologist?......I don't think so.

We have told you some times already that "cause and effect" is not basic science, I think.

You just have somehow convinced yourself that such a mantra makes your beliefs rational and scientific.

Basic science would be formulating hypothesis, developing falseability tests and going through them.

Sort of out of the table when you are discussing whether there is a creator god or whether there is an afterlife, unless you are far more resourceful and insightful in your experiments and hypothesis than I give you credit for. And if you are, frankly, you should not waste your time with the likes of me; there is a place in History waiting for you to reveal yourself.

 

[Thief]

We have told you some times already that "cause and effect" is not basic science, I think.

You just have somehow convinced yourself that such a mantra makes your beliefs rational and scientific.

Basic science would be formulating hypothesis, developing falseability tests and going through them.

Sort of out of the table when you are discussing whether there is a creator god or whether there is an afterlife, unless you are far more resourceful and insightful in your experiments and hypothesis than I give you credit for. And if you are, frankly, you should not waste your time with the likes of me; there is a place in History waiting for you to reveal yourself.

Without the relationship of cause and effect....NO test is valid.

I see a basic fault in your post.

 

[LuisDantas]

Without the relationship of cause and effect....NO test is valid.

According to your beliefs, I assume so.

Nevertheless, that is not science either.

I see a basic fault in your post.

I expected as much.

 

[jonathan180iq]

So you take the basic science of cause and effect and call that dogma?!!!!!!

I am then guilty of scientific.....dogma.....

Does that make me a scientologist?......I don't think so.

There is nothing scientific about causality, which you refer to as Cause and Effect. It's a philosophical concept that is not based in objective science. To call it Science is to not understand one or both of these things.

 

[Thief]

There is nothing scientific about causality, which you refer to as Cause and Effect. It's a philosophical concept that is not based in objective science. To call it Science is to not understand one or both of these things.

Oh no...and to the other guy as well....
Science requires the result of the experiment to be linked to the experiment.

Your cause and effect must be joined...at the hip....so to speak.

No result is valid otherwise.
And science becomes a crap shoot at best without the hookup.

My belief works the same way.
Substance is NOT 'self' starting.
An object will remain at rest until 'something' moves it.

That includes the singularity...in the beginning.

I say Spirit first.....for cause and reason.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Certainly, there is a relationship between experiment and result.
But Science requires more than just a tabled hypothesis, which is all you have so far.

I can only assume that you are comparing a Law of Motion with the origin of life in your middle analogy.

If that's so, you'll have to admit that the Singularity is a concept not yet fully substantiated.
How do you know it is the Beginning? How do you know that it was started? How do you know that Something started it?
Your only answer to these questions, honestly, must be faith - Faith is not science. Faith introduces bias, rendering your conclusions not scientific.

 

[Thief]

Certainly, there is a relationship between experiment and result.
But Science requires more than just a tabled hypothesis, which is all you have so far.

I can only assume that you are comparing a Law of Motion with the origin of life in your middle analogy.

If that's so, you'll have to admit that the Singularity is a concept not yet fully substantiated.
How do you know it is the Beginning? How do you know that it was started? How do you know that Something started it?
Your only answer to these questions, honestly, must be faith - Faith is not science. Faith introduces bias, rendering your conclusions not scientific.

Well....most of science wants to push the notion of a 'starting point'.
Likely because a regression of our universe in motion would bring it all to a single 'point'.

Motion is universal.
It all 'began'......with 'One Word'......universe.

and substance is not self creating or self starting.
Spirit first.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well....most of science wants to push the notion of a 'starting point'.
Likely because a regression of our universe in motion would bring it all to a single 'point'.

Motion is universal.
It all 'began'......with 'One Word'......universe.

and substance is not self creating or self starting.
Spirit first.

There is a condensation, sure. What that means is still being studied.
It would be a mistake to assume a conclusion, base our personal philosophies on that assumption, and call it science.

 

[Thief]

There is a condensation, sure. What that means is still being studied.
It would be a mistake to assume a conclusion, base our personal philosophies on that assumption, and call it science.

Let's not go the wrong way.
I do not assume the universe condensed first.

All that we see over head is expanding.
How about stick to what we can see...first.

 

[Parsimony]

and substance is not self creating or self starting.
Spirit first.

How can anything (matter, spirit or otherwise) be self-creating or self-starting? There are two possible definitions I can think of. One is that something actually creates itself, which seems to be a logical contradiction. Something cannot create if it doesn't exist to do the creating in the first place. The other would be something that simply happens spontaneously. Given the nature of quantum vacuum fluctuations, the second definition seems more plausible. However, a recent multiverse-based explanation for vacuum fluctuations I've seen may mean that they do not come into existence spontaneously either. I'd still give it a better chance than the first definition, though.

 

[Thief]

Well, substance has rules....otherwise physical reality would be completely unpredictable and science nothing but a nightmare.

Spirit however......might not have boundaries.
For now we appear to be confined in a mortal frame.
That will end.

Then what?.....life after death?.....you up for this?

 

[Nakosis]

All of those include some variation of "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions". His views are entirely his personal feelings or opinions, hence they are not rational. To be rational, it requires a position that can be demonstrated entirely separate from your opinions or feelings. His isn't. Thanks for further reinforcing my statement.

They are not entirely my personal opinion. They are the result of rational discourse with fellow human beings. Researching the lives and experiences of others. Validation of what others have found to be true along with personal research.

Since human being are feeling, emotional creatures, it is not rational to ignore this aspect of who we are. When I say objective I mean I have no personal interest in whether a God exists or not. Either way doesn't matter to me. You on the other hand seem to have a personal interest in disputing any and all concepts of God. This makes you far from objective.