-
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!
Scientific evidence / arguments for God
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
- Status
Why did you say that I'm essentially not a True Believer? One what basis?
Oh dude, don't kill yourself. I can never do this on a cell phone, let alone when auto-correct takes off and makes the words some bizarre thing.
Yes, yes, and yes.
Thank you. This reflects my views perfectly in every point. As you say "Mystics know its there but cant express it to us satisfactorily in words", I think that is just the point. It cannot be described satisfactorily, as it isn't anything you assent to mentally with rational understanding. You may be able at best get some sort of 2 dimensional model of it and say it makes some sense. But it isn't anything you "believe in", and expect that to impart a true knowledge of it.
I can sit and read Sri Aurobindo and say that I can see what he is saying, but until I actually enter within that place he was speaking from himself, it is just some line drawings on a canvas. The actual experience of that is like having another brain put on top of your regular brain (I'm describing my own experience of that). The highest and most complex models of science and reason pale in comparison to the reality of it.
This is not to say they are unimportant, as they are. But they are not substitutes for that direct knowledge. The rest, the models, trying to describe the nature of reality is just fingers pointing at the moon. It's no longer a question of if it exists or not, but rather how to talk about it. And no one can gain that knowledge by reading about it or others teaching it to them.
Alright, I apologize for the wait (you dont know how frustrating it is trying to read/type on a cell phone while in a moving truck). Anyways..
Firstly, please don't assume that my only knowledge of "god" is the Abrahamic god, or any particular god. I have been deeply interested in theology, religion and spirituality for a very long time.
I think until we can clearly define what "god" is, there is no point in asking for evidence for, or debating god's existence. The majority of people, and pretty much every dictionary I could find, would agree that "god" is defined as:
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe"
"a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity"
It seems that everyone that is replying to me here seems to have a different definition than the ones above, and none of them seem too clear.
"It is about the experience of Being itself, it's about the sort of ineffable responses to existence, it's about what is inside me that draws me into the sunset and it into myself"
This is a vague definition and it is not the standard usage of the word "god". Why don't you call it something else since the word "god" is already taken and means something else? If we are all just making up definitions of what god means to us, this is pointless.
Firstly, please don't assume that my only knowledge of "god" is the Abrahamic god, or any particular god. I have been deeply interested in theology, religion and spirituality for a very long time.
I think until we can clearly define what "god" is, there is no point in asking for evidence for, or debating god's existence. The majority of people, and pretty much every dictionary I could find, would agree that "god" is defined as:
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe"
"a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity"
It seems that everyone that is replying to me here seems to have a different definition than the ones above, and none of them seem too clear.
"It is about the experience of Being itself, it's about the sort of ineffable responses to existence, it's about what is inside me that draws me into the sunset and it into myself"
This is a vague definition and it is not the standard usage of the word "god". Why don't you call it something else since the word "god" is already taken and means something else? If we are all just making up definitions of what god means to us, this is pointless.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Theism is the belief that God is personal and has an interest in us. Deism is an impersonal God that don't give a rip.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
That might be true for Erigna (whoever that is) or thought to be. Officially by philisophic definition God is the greatest concievable being. Biblically he is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal, perfectly moral dissembodied mind. That equals anything but nothing.
Gui10
Active Member
''Officially by philosophic definition''???
Who are you to say ''officially''? I know many things that are better than god, i.e chocolate ice cream.
"Official" implies better?
Gui10
Active Member
"Official" implies better?
he said ''god is the greatest conceivable being'', I say there are better.
I hate to say this... but that deep interest, is God.
Unfortunately, no one can be told what the matrix is. You have to see it. Take the red pill....
Oh yes, the Dictionary as God's Word equation. I laugh at this.
Ever look at art? Is there clear definitions? Of course not. Why? Because it is expressing something beyond words. Wrap you mind around that, then take one step closer to understanding talking about the Absolute.
I hate to say this... but that deep interest, is God.
Unfortunately, no one can be told what the matrix is. You have to see it. Take the red pill....
Oh yes, the Dictionary as God's Word equation. I laugh at this.
Ever look at art? Is there clear definitions? Of course not. Why? Because it is expressing something beyond words. Wrap you mind around that, then take one step closer to understanding talking about the Absolute.
Nice technique, make the definition of the word "god" so vague that nobody can form an argument against it. I don't think changing the definitions of words is an intellectually honest way to go about debating though.
I agree that there are things/feelings that are ineffable. I don't call them "god" because that's not what the word god means.
as Dawkins said "Pantheism is just sexed up atheism". I think that applies here.
Last edited:
There is no argument against it, actually. I can easily argue that you make the definition so simple its easy to shoot it down. Big deal. That's called the Strawman argument in the list of logic fallacies.
God is an expression of the inexpressible. How can you shoot that down? So what if children put a beard on it with a book in its hand, looking down at you from its heavenly kingdom? You're arguing against children. How is that intellectual?
I don't think dumbing them down is. That's doing battle with soldiers stuffed with straw.
That's not what the word God means to children. Is that all you can do is battle with children?
You think wrongly. First, I'm not a pantheist. Secondly, Dawkins' understanding of religion is like a five year old pushing around other children on the playground. He's not even a real player in the debate, IMO.
I don't make the definition, I use the standard one, you use your own.
That is not what the word "god" means.
Are you kidding me?
The word "god" does not mean anything to children unless someone teaches it to them. There are no children involved in this debate. You're being nonsensical at this point.
I wasn't calling you a pantheist. I was saying that your beliefs, like pantheism, are just sexed up atheism.
No I don't. It's already been pointed out to you by Ouroboros from someone of the 11th century that the use I am referring to has be expressed long before me. I could provide many such references. How's about this, "God beyond God". How does that fit into your neat little bag of definitions? That's from Meister Eckhart, a Christian mystic from the 14th century. I'm far from alone in understanding God beyond your Sunday School picture Bible definitions.
Keep repeating this. You might believe it. They call that brainwashing, BTW.
Not at all. You're arguing against a literalist understanding of God, the Sunday School deity in illustrated books with big giraffes and whatnot climbing aboard Noah's Ark. Talk about picking an easy battle.
Well, how they interpret God is very much what children do with pretty much everything at their stage of development. Remember the clouds in the sky as happy people smiling on them? That's how children think - mythologically - that forces outside themselves control the world and it's up to them to talk to them to curry their favors. This is a developmental stage that is natural and normal to children. When it comes to God, culturally, socially, many are still stuck at the level of thinking. They may otherwise be rational, but when it comes to God, they think like a child with the happy clouds in the sky looking down on them.
Now, this is a discussion to be had when you are ready to admit you don't understand what the hell you're talking about. I'm hoping we can move to this sort of discussion.
Am I? Try me and see. Let's talk about Piaget's stages of development, and Gebser's research into cultural expressions of deity forms from archaic, to magic, to mythic, to rational, to transrational, etc. Let me know if you'd like more than the sort of prattle that Dawkin's has to offer.
You don't even have a clue what those belief of mine are. Do you? How can you judge them?
Last edited:
No, not at all. I have my own insights from direct experience. I also draw off many others of great insights. There are many ways to talk about this.
Is this in the majority? No. To be blunt, it isn't. The majority are still thinking literally about these things - as is evidence by yourself, I'll add. One thing I admire about atheists is they are brave enough to challenge the norm. But the downside is all too often they simply flip the coin upside down and argue tails instead of heads, rather than simply changing out the currency altogether.
Point is, though the views I hold are not in the majority, they are hardly unique or unheard of. Again, my favorite quote these days from Meister Eckhart, "Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language". I speak the language he does, regardless of the religious context in which that is expressed. And even if you don't want to take on the mystical understandings, certainly there is plenty to look at in philosophy from real thinkers as opposed to the prattle of the neo-atheists, like Dawkins and pals.
Your views seem very vague. You claim to have a more mature understanding of something than others, but you also seem to claim it is unknowable. This is a contradiction. If it's unknowable then it's all speculation and you can't claim to understand it better than anyone else, or at all.
You seem to be saying that "god" is a word for things you can't understand. If "god" is ignorance, then yes, I believe that "god" exists.
You seem to be saying that "god" is a word for things you can't understand. If "god" is ignorance, then yes, I believe that "god" exists.
I don't believe I have said one cannot have a knowledge of God. One certainly can. What I have said is that God is beyond definition, and as such is beyond comprehension. However, there is another word that I would use to describe the sort of knowledge one may have of God, and that word is apprehension.
To explain the differences, I'm going to quote something I just found online for you talking about Apprehension and Comprehension:
The words apprehension and comprehension refer to two different mental processes of grasping or taking hold of experience. Apprehension is the ability to understand something by relying on tangible or concrete experience. A simple example is when you touch the fire it will burn your finger. This experience can lead you apprehending that you should not touch fire. Whereas comprehension does not require concrete experience to understand, it is the ability to understand through reliance on conceptual interpretation and symbolic representation . Comprehension means the complete process of understanding, to perceive, interpret and process knowledge. In the examination point of view a comprehension means an exercise characterized by questions based on a short paragraph or text. A comprehension is to test the aptitude of the student.
[Bolded text his].
You see, when I say someone cannot know God through science, through finding evidence, this is completely inline with what is says about comprehension that it relies on conceptual interpretation and symbolic representation. God is beyond being comprehended, but not beyond being apprehended, which relies on direct experience. You gain knowledge about God through direct experience of God, but not anything that you can then turn around and define except in the vaguest of terms - as you like to point out. You stick your hand in the fire and knowledge is imparted to it, you then attempt to talk about it and describe it. But to someone who has never touched flame, nor has experienced that sort of pain will not be able to comprehend it by hearing descriptions. They can only apprehend it themselves by experience.
So, it's not speculation. It's direct experimentation by the researcher. It's not conceptual knowledge, it's experiential knowledge. The conceptual bits is metaphysics, but that's another discussion later once you get this point.
That's right. If it's unknowable...
Do you know why I keep quoting that quote from Meister Eckhart that says, "Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language."? It's because theologians are theoreticians speculating about God. And all the arguments ensue about whose reasoning is more sound. This also describes the atheist arguments as well, which are no different than theological quarreling against the existence of God, equally based on nothing but mental conceptual interpretations and speculations. No difference.
BUT, then there are the mystics. They all speak the same language. Why? Because they have direct experience from which they are speaking through. They are not speculating about something beyond their experience. They are speaking from an apprehension itself. The difference is for theologians and atheists, it is speculating. For the mystic, it is attempting to describe their experience.
Are you hearing the difference yet?
God is a word for that which is beyond comprehension, beyond our abilities to use symbols and words to define. God is a word sign of the Absolute. But then even "God" is not the Absolute. Another quote from Meister Eckhart to express this, and to tie everything else I just talked about together here:
I pray God to make me free of God, for [His] unconditional Being is above God and all distinctions."
It's about a direct apprehension, beyond speculations. See? It's not vague to me. He is speaking from the same experience, even if he wraps the experience in different word signs.
Last edited:
I want to add this quote I just came across to the above I just posted to underscore the difference in knowing between apprehension and comprehension. Again, comprehension relies on conceptualization and as such is incapable of understanding God. This is from the Hindu text Vasistha's Yoga, dated between the 11th - 14th century.
"Consciousness minus conceptualization is the eternal Brahman."
Ponder that.
"Consciousness minus conceptualization is the eternal Brahman."
Ponder that.
- Status