What gives you the idea that a deity is real?

[leov]

Science does not have to prove your assertions wrong...you are required to provide evidence thatyour assertions are true. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

Science is a methodology, not a being, so science cannot know anything. People can know.......Methodologies cannot know.

But be that as it may, the only way you can say that science knows 5% of knowledge is if you yourself know 100% of the knowledge. Otherwise, you have no way to know what percentage anybody knows.....so you have made another assertion you cannot possibly support.

And, you are now making claims that pollution, noise, and sugar prevent the pineal gland god detector from working. These are additional unsupported claims.....

You are of course free to believe anything you want. You can believe the tooth fairy is real if you wish. But believing something does not make it true.

Nobody has to prove anything. Faith is matter of our consciousness. Think, what happens if I am wrong and you are correct, we both will be at the same state, what happens if you wrong? Who knows?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Belief in God tends to be verified with a subset of the sense of touch. This subset is associated with feelings and body sensations, such as a gut feeling or an intuition. It uses the same number of senses as physics, which is one.

Touch?

In summary, just a some people need glasses or contact lenses to see better, there are also aids that can be used to help one feel God; bible. Also, if one sense is lacking, nature has a way to strengthen the other senses. The scientist may not feel properly, so they will have enhanced sight. While the religious may not see as well in terms of nature, but has enhanced feelings and internal touch verification. Both are parts of possible human experience within 5-D sensory reality.

Are religious texts really valid? What about other texts, just as valid? Books, which are man made, need to be help up against knowledge, IMO. Nature, I can agree with.
Interesting post, thanks.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Nobody has to prove anything. Faith is matter of our consciousness. Think, what happens if I am wrong and you are correct, we both will be at the same state, what happens if you wrong? Who knows?

Understandable, then then we have people who are trying to put religious belief into laws. That's messed up.

 

[Sand Dancer]

How does that get you to a god?

Per Wikipedia, the third eye refers to the gate that leads to inner realms and spaces of higher consciousness. In New Age spirituality, the third eye often symbolizes a state of enlightenment or the evocation of mental images having deeply personal spiritual or psychological significance. The third eye is often associated with religious visions, clairvoyance, the ability to observe chakras and auras,[3] precognition, and out-of-body experiences. People who are claimed to have the capacity to utilize their third eyes are sometimes known as seers.

 

[Milton Platt]

Per Wikipedia, the third eye refers to the gate that leads to inner realms and spaces of higher consciousness. In New Age spirituality, the third eye often symbolizes a state of enlightenment or the evocation of mental images having deeply personal spiritual or psychological significance. The third eye is often associated with religious visions, clairvoyance, the ability to observe chakras and auras,[3] precognition, and out-of-body experiences. People who are claimed to have the capacity to utilize their third eyes are sometimes known as seers.

I know all of that.......do you have any evidence to support the assertions???

 

[Milton Platt]

I mentioned that I called God Multiverse. God is one but billions of people's reactions. Particular religions are because God (by whatever name) is innate part of humanity.

So is god to you the universe, or is it all of humanity? we already have a name for those, why use the word god?

Still waiting for evidence for your assertions.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I know all of that.......do you have any evidence to support the assertions???

Nope.

 

[Milton Platt]

Nope.

Oh, sorry, just realized you are not the person I was conversing with

 

[columbus]

Also, what is your reasoning, from that experience of suddenly having ideas to that you know are true, to saying that some particular organs are sensing energies from a deity? Is that one of those ideas that suddenly came into your head, that you know are true? Also, how do you know the difference between an idea that comes into your head that’s true, and one that isn’t?

This illustrates why I consider myself a non-theist.
One thing I know about humans, as a group, is that they commonly believe things that aren't true. We are just very limited beings, with limited powers of perception and weak mental processes and a range of instinctive behaviors. So, we commonly believe things that are just plain wrong, especially if the belief serves the purpose of making us feel special and important.

Religions commonly reinforce that tendency in people. Reinforcing the egotistical, even hubristic, belief that the believers are smarter and more knowledgeable and generally better than those people who don't find the believer's assertions about the unknown(like the Creator or the afterlife) particularly credible. That's why the world is full of religionists, people who are confident that they understand reality and the human situation better than most people. But when asked for evidence of this superiority all they've got is their own feelings and opinions, often the opinion that this or that prophet is God's Official Spokesman.
I believe in God. What I don't find compelling is humans claiming to speak for God. So, while I believe in God, I see no reason to think God has any of the anthropomorphic qualities most religionists ascribe to God, like caring about anything.
And I think that the best way to learn about God isn't listening to the voices in our heads. It's learning about the Creator by studying creation, that is Science.

Scientists know more about God than any prophet ever did, prophets know more about humans though.
Tom

 

[Sand Dancer]

Oh, sorry, just realized you are not the person I was conversing with

Sorry I interrupted.

 

[BilliardsBall]

They'd be spectacularly wrong, not only because "matter" isn't even a well defined term, let alone a conserved quantity. The conservation of energy is due to the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics, it isn't about some eternal "stuff".



What's evidence got to do with it? Quite apart from the scientific illiteracy of it, it's a logical non-starter. Say there was conservation of something called "matter and energy" in the observable universe, why would that imply a creator?

This is of the order of "cats don't like water - therefore god!" - can you cite evidence demonstrating that this is wrong?

Not at all. We understand that matter/energy is conserved and cannot be destroyed or created. So what is your theory on how everything got here?

 

[ratiocinator]

Not at all.

What's not at all what?

We understand that matter/energy is conserved and cannot be destroyed or created.

As I said (and you ignored) this is nonsense. "Matter" isn't a well defined term at all and energy is a quantity or attribute of things or systems of things, that is conserved because the laws of physics don't (as far as we know) change over time.

Neither is some sort of eternal "stuff". See: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

All of which is by the by because even if there were some sort of stuff that couldn't (according to what we currently know) be created or destroyed, that wouldn't logically even suggest a god (or gods). It's just a non-sequitur.

So what is your theory on how everything got here?

I don't have one. An unknown does not make your favourite, unsupported myth, any more believable.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What's not at all what?



As I said (and you ignored) this is nonsense. "Matter" isn't a well defined term at all and energy is a quantity or attribute of things or systems of things, that is conserved because the laws of physics don't (as far as we know) change over time.

Neither is some sort of eternal "stuff". See: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

All of which is by the by because even if there were some sort of stuff that couldn't (according to what we currently know) be created or destroyed, that wouldn't logically even suggest a god (or gods). It's just a non-sequitur.



I don't have one. An unknown does not make your favourite, unsupported myth, any more believable.

Each thing you know has a cause. Countless laws govern the sciences, countless elements of causation.

Now you are asking me to believe that everything as a whole has no cause? Is the cause a natural process? If so, there is a problem of infinite regression.

 

[ratiocinator]

Each thing you know has a cause.

No. There are events, such as the decay of a specific radioactive nucleus (rather than another one) that don't appear to have a cause.

Now you are asking me to believe that everything as a whole has no cause?

I'm not asking you to believe anything - it's you who claimed "physical proof of a creator", remember? I have no idea whether it's sensible to talk of a cause for everything. It's quite easy to come up with ideas based on current science that might suggest otherwise, but that really isn't the point.

Is the cause a natural process? If so, there is a problem of infinite regression.

If (for the sake of argument) we follow the logic of everything that we know of having a cause, then either there was no first cause and the past is infinite, or there were one or more things that didn't have a cause.

That's it. There is no need for us to postulate anything supernatural, let alone a god or gods, just something(s) we don't know about yet.

So even ignoring all the problems with your assumptions, we are nowhere near "physical proof of a creator".

 

[nPeace]

Let/s change it a bit. Some creature took a dump on your porch. That you can be very sure of. You have a suspicion that it was your neighbor's dog. It is best not to fly off the handle and accuse him without more evidence and confirmation.

A suspicion is not evidence SZ.
You are holding back, not because you have evidence, but because you simply don't know, and would be foolish to just point fingers, because you... don't like your neighbor.

Now as to evolution, the evidence would be akin having video of the dog doing its business from several different angles with just a few frames missing here and there. And you also have audio of your neighbor cheering his dog on. What you are not sure about is exactly how much time it took. You can narrow the time down to a a three to five minute window but no better.

I don't get the connection, but you just made up something to fit what you like, it appears.
There is no video - period.

I wish you wouldn't try to change what really is a perfect example...

The reason for using the terms, likely, could have, might have, probably, etc., is simply that they don't know.
We know the house was built - no question (no ifs, buts, or maybes) - without video - without observing it being built. Simple.
How do we know?
That's what we observe.
If later, we find out that houses build themselves, then we can say differently. We never want to resort to wishful thinking, and assume that likely it did.

You said correctly, evidence is not proof. It needs to be examined in order to determine if it verifies, anything. ...and yes, sometimes we need lots and lots of it - some of which we don't find, as in the case of evolution.

Sadly, they then resort to just-so-stories.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A suspicion is not evidence SZ.
You are holding back, not because you have evidence, but because you simply don't know, and would be foolish to just point fingers, because you... don't like your neighbor.

I never said it was or implied it was. Is this a case of poor reading comprehension on your part?

I don't get the connection, but you just made up something to fit what you like, it appears.
There is no video - period.

Are you serious? You don't understand the concept of an analogy?

I wish you wouldn't try to change what really is a perfect example...

Your example was fatally flawed. I tried to make it better.

The reason for using the terms, likely, could have, might have, probably, etc., is simply that they don't know.
We know the house was built - no question (no ifs, buts, or maybes) - without video - without observing it being built. Simple.
How do we know?
That's what we observe.
If later, we find out that houses build themselves, then we can say differently. We never want to resort to wishful thinking, and assume that likely it did.

You said correctly, evidence is not proof. It needs to be examined in order to determine if it verifies, anything. ...and yes, sometimes we need lots and lots of it - some of which we don't find, as in the case of evolution.

Sadly, they then resort to just-so-stories.

You cannot honestly make that claim. There is almost endless evidence for evolution and none for your mythical beliefs.

Instead of spouting obvious falsehoods perhaps you should learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[nPeace]

How? And how come they don't even agree with each other? Cue no true Scotsman fallacy...

How do we know the truth?
It was handed down by those who received it from... do I need to say... John 1:14, 17; 7:16, 17; 8:31, 32

Who don't agree? People who read the Bible?
Scientists don't agree. Politicians don't agree. Why should people who read the Bible, or mention God, or Christ agree?
I can tell you that those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, - which is what I said - agrees.
John 8:31, 32 “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
John 13:35 . . .By this all will know that you are my disciples - if you have love among yourselves.

Does everyone who read the Bible follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Then how could they agree?
Imaging working in a company where many don't follow the companies policies. Some actually work against them.
Does that mean the company does not do what it says it does? No.
It's not reasonable to think that everyone who says they are Christian, must be.
If you research Christian, I think you will find that anyone is a Christian, simply by saying the words, 'I believe in Jesus Christ."
Is that what a Christian really is?
Why even Donald Trump is a Christian.

You didn't base an argument on what you saw and knew - unless you regularly watch universes being created. Accusing people of wishful thinking for following reasoning and evidence is somewhat ironic.

What reasoning and evidence tells you the human brain and intelligence evolved?

Here is what we know.
It takes a designer to design.
I don't have to sit and watch anything being constructed, in order to know, it required a builder - even if some processes are ongoing after construction.
The reason we breathe in oxygen, and release carbon dioxide, is why?
I never seen anything build itself. Have you?

Wishful thinking, is what again?

The irony increases. I've read the bible and it's an incoherent, often self-contradictory, mess.

We must not be reading the same thing.
Either that, or we are not seeing the same thing.
I suppose that happens even when two people listen to one person, and both come away hearing different things.
What do you suppose is the problem there?
I say one isn't listening, and by listening, I don't mean they can't hear the words.

I'm sure lots of people in the past have known lots of things that are true but "The Truth" about how and why everything exists - no. I don't think anybody ever has or probably ever will. I see no merit at all in the incoherent myths of the bible.

Notice.
"
I'm sure lots of people in the past have known lots of things that are true but...
"The Truth"
about how and why everything exists - no. I don't think anybody ever has or probably ever will
"

So basically, yes, people in the past have known lots of things that are true, but you don't think anyone knows the truth, or never will... probably.
So you are just skeptical - you doubt... don't believe. Why, may I ask. What are your reasons?

I notice you didn't actually address any of the points I made - ho hum.

I addressed what I understood.
If you think I missed something important, then perhaps you might need to reword it a bit. Sorry.

The part I did understand, which I did not respond to, was because I never said anything such as you were suggesting, nor do I believe anything of the sort - namely.

It is also an argument from personal incredulity or ignorance (a fallacy): you don't personally see how the world could have come about without a designer, so it couldn't.

Yes. I agree it is ignorant. I also think it is ignorant to believe that anyone says that.
So I might have overlooked the later part, as I didn't see how it applied to what I had said.

Let me address it now...

Then, it's not actually an explanation for the existence of the world, it's a childish just-so story that actually leaves you with more to explain than you started with. If the world is complex, amazing, and in need of a designer, so too would anything that created and designed it. We would then have to arbitrarily decide that the designer was magically free from the need of any explanation to avoid an infinite regress.

I don't normally use the "complexity argument" either, however, let me ask you...
Must there have been a beginning?
If there is a beginning, would the beginning have had a beginning?
If the beginning is able to plan, must the beginning also be intelligent?
Do you believe the universe is intelligent, and had no beginning?
Why would the beginning need an explanation? Who can possibly explain it? Does it seem reasonable to argue that there was is beginning, unless someone can explain it?

 

[ratiocinator]

How do we know the truth?
It was handed down by those who received it from... do I need to say... John 1:14, 17; 7:16, 17; 8:31, 32

What has an old book of incoherent, often self-contradictory, myths got to do with the truth?

Who don't agree? People who read the Bible?

I've read the bible - it's a book of incoherent, often self-contradictory, myths, with no clear message, let alone anything remotely credible when compared to real evidence in the real world.

I can tell you that those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, - which is what I said - agrees.
John 8:31, 32 “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
John 13:35 . . .By this all will know that you are my disciples - if you have love among yourselves.

Does everyone who read the Bible follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Then how could they agree?
Imaging working in a company where many don't follow the companies policies. Some actually work against them.
Does that mean the company does not do what it says it does? No.
It's not reasonable to think that everyone who says they are Christian, must be.
If you research Christian, I think you will find that anyone is a Christian, simply by saying the words, 'I believe in Jesus Christ."
Is that what a Christian really is?
Why even Donald Trump is a Christian.

There's the no true Scotsman fallacy, just as predicted.

What reasoning and evidence tells you the human brain and intelligence evolved?

It's not a secret.
Click Me!
Human Evolution Evidence
Evolution 101
Evidence of common descent

Here is what we know.
It takes a designer to design.
I don't have to sit and watch anything being constructed, in order to know, it required a builder - even if some processes are ongoing after construction.
The reason we breathe in oxygen, and release carbon dioxide, is why?
I never seen anything build itself. Have you?

Except we now know that it doesn't take a designer to "design" - natural selection is a kind of design process and we know how and why it works. You are putting your simplistic intuition above solid evidence. Much of modern science, including that which allows the device you are reading this on, is highly counter-intuitive. The deep irony is that you then throw away any questioning you have when it comes to your favourite superstition.

What do you suppose is the problem there?
I say one isn't listening, and by listening, I don't mean they can't hear the words.

I quite agree. I read the bible to see what it said, not to confirm what I already "knew".

So you are just skeptical - you doubt... don't believe. Why, may I ask. What are your reasons?

Well, even if you are right and your god (out of all the thousands) exists, you still don't know "The Truth" about how and why everything exists - because there is still no explanation of why your god just happens to exist, rather than another god(s), or no gods at all. That's why all this looking for an "explanation" of things like life, complexity, and "design" - and ending up postulating a god to "explain" it all is so silly - it really doesn't explain anything.

Must there have been a beginning?
If there is a beginning, would the beginning have had a beginning?
If the beginning is able to plan, must the beginning also be intelligent?
Do you believe the universe is intelligent, and had no beginning?
Why would the beginning need an explanation? Who can possibly explain it? Does it seem reasonable to argue that there was is beginning, unless someone can explain it?

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. The universe may of may not have had a beginning, I see no reason to suspect intelligence was involved, and postulating one doesn't really explain anything because if the question of why the universe exists is valid, then the question of why an intelligent creator of the universe exist is just as valid.

 

[nPeace]

What has an old book of incoherent, often self-contradictory, myths got to do with the truth?

That's your opinion of the Bible.
Other people see it differently, and they have confirmed it contains the truth.
They have found that some people dismiss this fact, simply by denial.

I've read the bible - it's a book of incoherent, often self-contradictory, myths, with no clear message, let alone anything remotely credible when compared to real evidence in the real world.

We went through that in the last post. Why do you repeat what are just statements.
Thanks for sharing your opinion... I guess.

There's the no true Scotsman fallacy, just as predicted.

Whatever is that supposed to mean?
You asked a question. You got an answer, with a correction to your mistaken view.
Is that your best response?

It's not a secret.
Click Me!
Human Evolution Evidence
Evolution 101
Evidence of common descent

What?
You call ideas and opinions, reasoning and evidence?
I have evidence. I have reasoning. I have more than ideas and opinions. Why do you dismiss these in favor of ideas and opinions?

Except we now know that it doesn't take a designer to "design" - natural selection is a kind of design process and we know how and why it works. You are putting your simplistic intuition above solid evidence. Much of modern science, including that which allows the device you are reading this on, is highly counter-intuitive. The deep irony is that you then throw away any questioning you have when it comes to your favourite superstition.

You know?
You know something that you have no idea it works, or how it works. Oh dear.

All they have done is try to replace what we do know, with an idea that they hope can give another explanation.
An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing
The amusing thing about that, is that they never learn from their past mistakes how their ideas almost always turn out to be mush.
Perhaps we need another Pasteur to jab them in the ribs.
The sad thing about it, is that they are filling the young minds, with their unsupported ideas and algorithms.

I quite agree. I read the bible to see what it said, not to confirm what I already "knew".

Good.
Although if the Bible confirms anything, then it must really be worthwhile to make a closer investigation. It might help us more than you think.

Well, even if you are right and your god (out of all the thousands) exists, you still don't know "The Truth" about how and why everything exists - because there is still no explanation of why your god just happens to exist, rather than another god(s), or no gods at all. That's why all this looking for an "explanation" of things like life, complexity, and "design" - and ending up postulating a god to "explain" it all is so silly - it really doesn't explain anything.

Who told you the thousands of gods exist? Where would you get the notion that they need to exist, just because there is one true and living?
Perhaps that's what is confusing so many people. They think that because people came up with their own idea of their god, that automatically, that means there is no God. Do you find that reasonable? I don't.
To me, that would be like saying, "There is so much fake money around, there must be no real money."

Now that I mentioned unreasonable...
How is this a reasonable argument?
Quote "
you still don't know "The Truth" about how and why everything exists - because there is still no explanation of why your god just happens to exist, rather than another god(s), or no gods at all. That's why all this looking for an "explanation" of things like life, complexity, and "design" - and ending up postulating a god to "explain" it all is so silly - it really doesn't explain anything.
" End quote

Why, in the name of common sense, would anyone think that a puny two footed creature with half the brain of a monkey such limited knowledge, that some can't seem to tell their head from their butt, think that anyone can know why there is a beginning at all. My...
How silly is that?
What does knowing why anything exist, have to do with truth?

Scientists are the ones wasting billions of dollars, that can be use to replace all the pesticides being used on crops, and killing humanity, with something that naturally controls pests (the best they come up with... GMOs). Rather than spend billions of dollars, with the false claim that they will know everything, why not solve all of mankind's problems... starting with...

So, no, it's the scientists that are searching for answers to "how and why everything exists". Not Christians. We know the truth. There is a beginning of everything... period. We don't want to know why. Common sense tells us, there must be. The Bible - God's word - tells us what the beginning is. We confirm the truthfulness of the Bible, by means of investigating the evidence.
We know the truth.
Please don't miss that point. Christians are not searching for anything. That's you.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. The universe may of may not have had a beginning, I see no reason to suspect intelligence was involved, and postulating one doesn't really explain anything because if the question of why the universe exists is valid, then the question of why an intelligent creator of the universe exist is just as valid.

I'll leave you to your skepticism and unanswerable question of why there is a beginning.

Look at it this way. All the ideas one come up with, will never answer the question.
Suppose they say, the multiverses exist in a loop, or whatever, that still doesn't answer the question.
It's an unnecessary one - a waste of energy.... pointless.

Which is why I asked you the questions, which, may I remind you, you never answered.
If you agree, there must be a beginning to everything...
If the beginning is able to plan, must the beginning also be intelligent?
Do you believe the universe is intelligent, and had no beginning?

You see, either way, you have to answer, that either there is intelligence, or there isn't.
If there isn't, then your faith is greater than any Christian, imo.

 

[ratiocinator]

Other people see it differently, and they have confirmed it contains the truth.

Confirmed how?

Whatever is that supposed to mean?
You asked a question. You got an answer, with a correction to your mistaken view.
Is that your best response?

It's what many people who claims to follow the bible and that it contains "the truth" say. Basically, all the others that claim it contains a different "truth" have got it wrong. The number of totally different interpretations of what it says, it solid evidence that it contains no coherent message at all.

What?
You call ideas and opinions, reasoning and evidence?

So you didn't bother to look at the evidence then?

I have evidence. I have reasoning. I have more than ideas and opinions.

Where is it? I haven't seen a hint of any evidence or reasoning in your posts yet...

Who told you the thousands of gods exist?

Nobody - and I didn't say that they did. Humanity has invented and believed in thousands of gods, and what I said was, if your god happens (amongst all the candidates) to exist, then....

...just because there is one true and living?

You have yet to provide even a hint of a reason to think there is one that is "true and living".

They think that because people came up with their own idea of their god, that automatically, that means there is no God. Do you find that reasonable? I don't.

No - but what it does tell us is that there is no clear message from any god to humanity.

Why, in the name of common sense, would anyone think that a puny two footed creature with half the brain of a monkey such limited knowledge, that some can't seem to tell their head from their butt, think that anyone can know why there is a beginning at all. My...
How silly is that?
What does knowing why anything exist, have to do with truth?

Well you seem to want to ask the question about the universe, in order to try to get people to believe in your favourite deity, and it's you who keeps banging on about "the truth" - suddenly, as soon as it's a bit inconvenient to your narrative, we "puny" humans can't possibly know....

We know the truth.

There you go again - ah but wait!

There is a beginning of everything... period. We don't want to know why.

So as soon as you get to what you want to believe, suddenly, you stop asking questions or thinking about it.

The Bible - God's word - tells us what the beginning is. We confirm the truthfulness of the Bible, by means of investigating the evidence.

What evidence and what investigations?

We know the truth.
Please don't miss that point. Christians are not searching for anything.

Yes, from what you've said, thinking too much would probably be a bit of a problem for your variety of Christian.

You see, either way, you have to answer, that either there is intelligence, or there isn't.
If there isn't, then your faith is greater than any Christian, imo.

I see no evidence or any other reason to think that there is intelligence and it wouldn't be an answer to anything fundamental if there were.

You seem to be very interested in asking lots of questions until you get to what you want to believe and then just switching off your brain....