occams.rzr
Razerian-barbologist
So you define "god" not as a deity, but as a "living" mind?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But if the thread starter had given the same restrictions to most historical people you could still make a very good case for their existence.Let me get this straight. Your thread title indicates that you want proof for the existence of the one-god in the Bible, but then you make a list of demands that renders this impossible.
Apologies, but why did you create this thread?
Yes, I understand. And I would agree with the pantheistic form of atheism.
Proof is not subjective. It is an objective format of information that supports a conclusion. People may be wrong on its definition, but it does not change what it is.
Most of the historical people are known only through second hand accounts, like scribes and historians writing about them. So really, what we have a personal reflections and impressions that we have to support the existence of historical people, and to follow the OP, we should only stick to scientific evidence. A few historical characters have statues, their own writings, or images on coins, so we kind'a have more tangible evidence, but most of the history is through the eyes of other people and their testimonies.But if the thread starter had given the same restrictions to most historical people you could still make a very good case for their existence.
e.g. Caesar, Pythagoras, Archimedes, etc.
So you define "god" not as a deity, but as a "living" mind?
So, basically a lot of us believe in god we just define him differently: experiece; intelligence; living mind; deity?
i would think any definition of God must be all inclusive.
Exactly!True. Which puts a damper when we are asked to proove gods existence.
Exactly!
This is the reason that so many struggle with the whole God thing.
The search for god is the search for self.
The search for self ultimately leads to a more substantial knowledge or what is called Gnosis, a knowledge of experience.
Gnosis is something that is learned through experience.
When you have gnosis of something it means the knowledge that you have is a part of you, or you could say has become part of who you are.
This is a much more substantial knowledge than one could derive from a book.
That sounds like you making it complicated. God is life; so, when you learn about yourself, others, and whatever you choose to believe, you understand that in itself is god.
No, my beliefs are based on evidence.Well under that definition I have proof of God yes- but I prefer to acknowledge my beliefs as such, as faith, don't you?
Pantheism and atheism doesnt relate, though?
Atheist dont believe in deities.
Pantheism isnt deity orientedfaith(dont know why it has theist) since we believe god is everything and everything we experience.
Other than the word "god", how would that be a form of atheism?
Got me curious now.
I did not make it impossible. Unless god can only be proven through subjective reasoning. I want scientific evidence, is that too much to ask?
No, my beliefs are based on evidence.
Really? Because for thousands of years after Aristotle it was assumed that gravity was impossible, Newton himself hated the idea and resigned himself to this magical, nonlocal force only because he couldn't do otherwise, and Einstein showed it doesn't exist (general relativity). Gravitation in the "science" you don't need to show it exists doesn't hold it does exist. In quantum physics (apart from quantum mechanics, i.e., quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, particle physics, etc.) what would be explained by gravity is in fact a particle field (gravitons), while in general relativity gravity is neither a particle nor a force but spacetime curvature. What you "know" exists is simply an observation about how things fall on Earth that you have labelled gravity thanks to an education based on an outdated mechanics taught for its relative accuracy and comparative simplicity, not truth.Like gravity. I dont need science, experiment, etc to know know it exist.
We don't prove things in the sciences (apart from the computational component, but even here proofs are not actual proofs as they depend upon assumptions, such as Bell's inequality, Rosen's proof that living systems can't be computable, Penrose's proof that consciousness can't be computable, etc.). Actually, proofs of god abound- they just depend on assumptions and faith in strict logic that most people (myself including) find unconvincing. What is lacking is the standards of empirical evidence one normally finds in most sciences. When certain scientific fields stray far from this standard, such as with multiverse theories or string theories, we actually find scientists equating such theories with religion:I did not make it impossible. Unless god can only be proven through subjective reasoning. I want scientific evidence, is that too much to ask?