I keep reading from the atheist how Science cannot or has not proven that God exists. Thus proving that he doesn't exist.
I say that since God doesn't want proof of his existence to be shown. Then a lack of scientific proof does not prove that he/she does not exist.
The best anyone can say is that science cannot prove that God exists for now.
An example of this is life in other solar systems. There is no proof of this but, the same people who say no proof of God means no God just simple say that we don't have proof of life in other solar systems yet.
Full Version: Lack of proof does not disprove anything
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 26 2008, 08:45 AM) 
I keep reading from the atheist how Science cannot or has not proven that God exists. Thus proving that he doesn't exist.
I say that since God doesn't want proof of his existence to be shown. Then a lack of scientific proof does not prove that he/she does not exist.
The best anyone can say is that science cannot prove that God exists for now.
An example of this is life in other solar systems. There is no proof of this but, the same people who say no proof of God means no God just simple say that we don't have proof of life in other solar systems yet.
I say that since God doesn't want proof of his existence to be shown. Then a lack of scientific proof does not prove that he/she does not exist.
The best anyone can say is that science cannot prove that God exists for now.
An example of this is life in other solar systems. There is no proof of this but, the same people who say no proof of God means no God just simple say that we don't have proof of life in other solar systems yet.
First of all you are right in that lack of proof does not equal nonexistence.
How do you know that god does not want his existence proven (you may be right) but why do you believe this to be so ?
I do feel there is good reason to believe in life on other planets more so than to believe that there is a god. Because life on this planet has been clearly demonstrated, and this leaves the possibility wide open for other life forms in this vast universe.
But fact is I don't know and neither do you.
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 26 2008, 08:45 AM)
I keep reading from the atheist how Science cannot or has not proven that God exists. Thus proving that he doesn't exist.
I say that since God doesn't want proof of his existence to be shown. Then a lack of scientific proof does not prove that he/she does not exist.
The best anyone can say is that science cannot prove that God exists for now.
An example of this is life in other solar systems. There is no proof of this but, the same people who say no proof of God means no God just simple say that we don't have proof of life in other solar systems yet.
I say that since God doesn't want proof of his existence to be shown. Then a lack of scientific proof does not prove that he/she does not exist.
The best anyone can say is that science cannot prove that God exists for now.
An example of this is life in other solar systems. There is no proof of this but, the same people who say no proof of God means no God just simple say that we don't have proof of life in other solar systems yet.
Hi Daniel, you are right of course - absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Unless there are specific claims that God is acting in the universe (in which case we can examine those things He's supposed to be doing, to determine whether God is indeed the best explanation for them), science has actually very little to say on the question of whether He exists or not. God is simply not a useful scientific construct. Science, as a discipline, is both agnostic (in that it cannot claim to know whether or not a God exists) and atheistic (in that it usually progresses under the assumption that God is not involved in the processes under study).
The actual question must either be a philosophical question (if you're trying to go down the 'rational' route), or a faith question (which sidesteps rationality, but isn't an argument, only a personal reason to believe).
However, just because something is outside the remit of science, this does not mean that it has just as much likelihood of existing as not. We still need to ask, 'what evidence is there for God's existence?' And, rationally, the decision as to whether one believes or not would be taken according to that evidence. The proposed evidence for the existence of God is a mixture of philosophical argument (such as the ontological argument), scientific argument (such as "God makes the planets move around the Sun") and appeals to faith (thou shalt believe!), with several lesser categories such as threats (you'll go to Hell if you don't believe), bribery (you'll go to Heaven if you do) and coercion (you're not allowed to join in if you don't believe).
Unless one decides to sidestep all of this with the faith clause (I can believe whatever I like and that's that), one is left with the task of weighing up the arguments and submitted evidence to decide whether it is substantial enough to permit belief in such a being. I would argue that it is not; others differ, of course.
What it comes down to, is that the existence of God is a proposition like any other. Richard Dawkins suggested (I think unoriginally?) a celestial teapot as an example. If I asserted that there was a teapot orbiting the sun, in space, that would be a proposition. Presumably you would be sceptical of that claim: there's no reason to think there is such a teapot, some reasons to think there is not (though none of them conclusive), and it's very difficult to go and check (telescopes aren't powerful enough, probes may look in the wrong place). There's also no reason to think there's not. So, what's the logical position to take on it? Clearly, an agnostic scepticism, waiting for evidence. When that evidence arrives, it must be critically assessed, and would have to be better than, say, a blurry photograph taken through a telescope, or a signed letter from someone saying it's definitely there.
Same with God. Outside of science, still subject to logical investigation.
your right it doesn't disprove anything, but it sure helps.
QUOTE (Nucular @ Jun 26 2008, 04:36 AM)
Hi Daniel, you are right of course - absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Unless there are specific claims that God is acting in the universe (in which case we can examine those things He's supposed to be doing, to determine whether God is indeed the best explanation for them), science has actually very little to say on the question of whether He exists or not. God is simply not a useful scientific construct. Science, as a discipline, is both agnostic (in that it cannot claim to know whether or not a God exists) and atheistic (in that it usually progresses under the assumption that God is not involved in the processes under study).
The actual question must either be a philosophical question (if you're trying to go down the 'rational' route), or a faith question (which sidesteps rationality, but isn't an argument, only a personal reason to believe).
However, just because something is outside the remit of science, this does not mean that it has just as much likelihood of existing as not. We still need to ask, 'what evidence is there for God's existence?' And, rationally, the decision as to whether one believes or not would be taken according to that evidence. The proposed evidence for the existence of God is a mixture of philosophical argument (such as the ontological argument), scientific argument (such as "God makes the planets move around the Sun") and appeals to faith (thou shalt believe!), with several lesser categories such as threats (you'll go to Hell if you don't believe), bribery (you'll go to Heaven if you do) and coercion (you're not allowed to join in if you don't believe).
Unless one decides to sidestep all of this with the faith clause (I can believe whatever I like and that's that), one is left with the task of weighing up the arguments and submitted evidence to decide whether it is substantial enough to permit belief in such a being. I would argue that it is not; others differ, of course.
What it comes down to, is that the existence of God is a proposition like any other. Richard Dawkins suggested (I think unoriginally?) a celestial teapot as an example. If I asserted that there was a teapot orbiting the sun, in space, that would be a proposition. Presumably you would be sceptical of that claim: there's no reason to think there is such a teapot, some reasons to think there is not (though none of them conclusive), and it's very difficult to go and check (telescopes aren't powerful enough, probes may look in the wrong place). There's also no reason to think there's not. So, what's the logical position to take on it? Clearly, an agnostic scepticism, waiting for evidence. When that evidence arrives, it must be critically assessed, and would have to be better than, say, a blurry photograph taken through a telescope, or a signed letter from someone saying it's definitely there.
Same with God. Outside of science, still subject to logical investigation.
Unless there are specific claims that God is acting in the universe (in which case we can examine those things He's supposed to be doing, to determine whether God is indeed the best explanation for them), science has actually very little to say on the question of whether He exists or not. God is simply not a useful scientific construct. Science, as a discipline, is both agnostic (in that it cannot claim to know whether or not a God exists) and atheistic (in that it usually progresses under the assumption that God is not involved in the processes under study).
The actual question must either be a philosophical question (if you're trying to go down the 'rational' route), or a faith question (which sidesteps rationality, but isn't an argument, only a personal reason to believe).
However, just because something is outside the remit of science, this does not mean that it has just as much likelihood of existing as not. We still need to ask, 'what evidence is there for God's existence?' And, rationally, the decision as to whether one believes or not would be taken according to that evidence. The proposed evidence for the existence of God is a mixture of philosophical argument (such as the ontological argument), scientific argument (such as "God makes the planets move around the Sun") and appeals to faith (thou shalt believe!), with several lesser categories such as threats (you'll go to Hell if you don't believe), bribery (you'll go to Heaven if you do) and coercion (you're not allowed to join in if you don't believe).
Unless one decides to sidestep all of this with the faith clause (I can believe whatever I like and that's that), one is left with the task of weighing up the arguments and submitted evidence to decide whether it is substantial enough to permit belief in such a being. I would argue that it is not; others differ, of course.
What it comes down to, is that the existence of God is a proposition like any other. Richard Dawkins suggested (I think unoriginally?) a celestial teapot as an example. If I asserted that there was a teapot orbiting the sun, in space, that would be a proposition. Presumably you would be sceptical of that claim: there's no reason to think there is such a teapot, some reasons to think there is not (though none of them conclusive), and it's very difficult to go and check (telescopes aren't powerful enough, probes may look in the wrong place). There's also no reason to think there's not. So, what's the logical position to take on it? Clearly, an agnostic scepticism, waiting for evidence. When that evidence arrives, it must be critically assessed, and would have to be better than, say, a blurry photograph taken through a telescope, or a signed letter from someone saying it's definitely there.
Same with God. Outside of science, still subject to logical investigation.
If as your saying and God is acting in the universe. Then wouldn't that make his acting in the universe, which he made, not be part of the universe. In otherwords not detectable.
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 26 2008, 12:40 PM)
If as your saying and God is acting in the universe. Then wouldn't that make his acting in the universe, which he made, not be part of the universe. In otherwords not detectable.
Yes, that's what I'm saying: if it is claimed that God is actually acting in the universe, in an observable way, then those claims should be able to be assessed by scientific methods (technology permitting). If, however, it is not claimed that God is acting in the universe, then science has nothing to say on the subject.
Edit: or did I misunderstand you? Are you saying that even if God acts within the universe, then this would be undetectable?
If God's actions cannot be detected, then again science cannot address the issue. If God's actions can be detected, then it can.
the reason for science being unable to find evidence of god is because he isnt an outside influence or external to anything. he wont be found as a hand coming down from the sky or a voice from the clouds. scientists seem to think that if he exists they should stumble over him one day or he should come and proove his existance to us. why? we dont need to know he exists. it doesnt matter weather we beleive in him or not. were not here to become part of a group of followers and beleive what someone has said we need to. were not here to 'save' ourselves from hell. we are here to learn. thats all there is to it. its impossible to be alive and not learn. so we all are fulfilling our reason for existance no matter what.
QUOTE (jelly metal @ Jun 26 2008, 01:22 PM)
the reason for science being unable to find evidence of god is because he isnt an outside influence or external to anything. he wont be found as a hand coming down from the sky or a voice from the clouds. scientists seem to think that if he exists they should stumble over him one day or he should come and proove his existance to us. why?
Well, I don't think 'scientists' do have a colelctive opinion or expectation as to what that would be like. Instead, if there is to be any scientific investigation of such, it has to respond to claims made by people who thought it might be God to begin with. For instance, while it would be a forlorn task to say "right, got my test-tubes a-bubblin', posh new microscope and a particle accelerator... time to find God!", what can be done is to assess claims made by others such as "this statue is weeping because the Virgin Mary is at work inside it" or "God made the world 6,000 years ago, pretty much as it is today".
The other way around might be to come across an as-yet unanswered scientific question, and to seriously consider God as an explanation for it. However, there are a lot of problems with this approach (why God?); the other one would be more productive, I think.
Wouldn't science need the proper instruments to measure specific things that would lead to proofs? For instance take the Soul, does it exist? Who knows? If indeed it does then we just don't have the technology to find something such as the Soul and measure it.
QUOTE (EtuMalku @ Jun 26 2008, 01:35 PM)
Wouldn't science need the proper instruments to measure specific things that would lead to proofs? For instance take the Soul, does it exist? Who knows? If indeed it does then we just don't have the technology to find something such as the Soul and measure it.
Yes, quite right - it's also a question of current technology, as well as an 'in principle' question.
But again, what are the claims about the soul? If it is simply an unmeasurable entity which is inside us when we're alive and floats away when we're dead, it's unlikely science will be able to do much investigation. However, if it is claimed that the soul can detach while people are alive, to allow them to astrally travel, that would be testable, under most circumstances. Or, that the soul has a weight, or that it is composed of electromagnetic energy, or that the souls of dead people can be contacted. It's the difference between constructs which seem almost to have been defined as outside the realm of science (such as a deistic God who has no hand in current events, or a God who does but hides it perfectly), and those which are (the testable claims people make for their God or their soul, etc.).
QUOTE (Nucular @ Jun 26 2008, 10:31 PM)
Well, I don't think 'scientists' do have a colelctive opinion or expectation as to what that would be like. Instead, if there is to be any scientific investigation of such, it has to respond to claims made by people who thought it might be God to begin with. For instance, while it would be a forlorn task to say "right, got my test-tubes a-bubblin', posh new microscope and a particle accelerator... time to find God!", what can be done is to assess claims made by others such as "this statue is weeping because the Virgin Mary is at work inside it" or "God made the world 6,000 years ago, pretty much as it is today".
The other way around might be to come across an as-yet unanswered scientific question, and to seriously consider God as an explanation for it. However, there are a lot of problems with this approach (why God?); the other one would be more productive, I think.
The other way around might be to come across an as-yet unanswered scientific question, and to seriously consider God as an explanation for it. However, there are a lot of problems with this approach (why God?); the other one would be more productive, I think.
if scientists were to find that a statue of mary was weeping blood or some other occurance was taking place beleivers claimed was an act of god it would be labeled a phenomena. scientists would never find it has anything to do with god. the reason is you cant touch, view or hear god. to science this means god doesnt exist. science will never conclude with god as the catalyst or cause of anything. no matter what. they cant conclude with something that doesnt exist inside their criteria. findings need to make sense. god doesnt.
also they will never find reason to fill in a blank with god. this takes away from the drive to search for answers. take the universe for example. instead of saying they dont know how or why it exists they claim it started for no reason and completley by chance. we are apart of one big fluke that just happens to work. or if not that the spark of life. its another one of those chance occurances that just happens. i dont think each and every reasearcher beleives there is nothing past our senses but science can never go near something we cant collectivley perceive.
QUOTE (jelly metal @ Jun 26 2008, 04:13 PM)
if scientists were to find that a statue of mary was weeping blood or some other occurance was taking place beleivers claimed was an act of god it would be labeled a phenomena. scientists would never find it has anything to do with god. the reason is you cant touch, view or hear god. to science this means god doesnt exist. science will never conclude with god as the catalyst or cause of anything. no matter what. they cant conclude with something that doesnt exist inside their criteria. findings need to make sense. god doesnt.
also they will never find reason to fill in a blank with god. this takes away from the drive to search for answers. take the universe for example. instead of saying they dont know how or why it exists they claim it started for no reason and completley by chance. we are apart of one big fluke that just happens to work. or if not that the spark of life. its another one of those chance occurances that just happens. i dont think each and every reasearcher beleives there is nothing past our senses but science can never go near something we cant collectivley perceive.
also they will never find reason to fill in a blank with god. this takes away from the drive to search for answers. take the universe for example. instead of saying they dont know how or why it exists they claim it started for no reason and completley by chance. we are apart of one big fluke that just happens to work. or if not that the spark of life. its another one of those chance occurances that just happens. i dont think each and every reasearcher beleives there is nothing past our senses but science can never go near something we cant collectivley perceive.
If you feel the expansion of matter, space and time is too big a stretch when we talk chance then I wonder what your thoughts are about an INTELLIGENT intity suddenly happening by chance. I can tell you that if you started writing zeroes at birth you would only just have begun scratching the surface of writing the number of chance such a thing would require. You do know thats the theory of the big bang right? the expansion of these things not that they popped into excistance by chance.
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 26 2008, 02:45 AM)
I keep reading from the atheist how Science cannot or has not proven that God exists. Thus proving that he doesn't exist.
I say that since God doesn't want proof of his existence to be shown. Then a lack of scientific proof does not prove that he/she does not exist.
The best anyone can say is that science cannot prove that God exists for now.
An example of this is life in other solar systems. There is no proof of this but, the same people who say no proof of God means no God just simple say that we don't have proof of life in other solar systems yet.
I say that since God doesn't want proof of his existence to be shown. Then a lack of scientific proof does not prove that he/she does not exist.
The best anyone can say is that science cannot prove that God exists for now.
An example of this is life in other solar systems. There is no proof of this but, the same people who say no proof of God means no God just simple say that we don't have proof of life in other solar systems yet.
Well it's not up for science to prove god exists but up to those that make the claims.
Using your logic, there's just as much evidence for my goddess the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) as there is for your god.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -Delos McKown
QUOTE (momentarylapseofreason @ Jun 26 2008, 02:22 AM)
How do you know that god does not want his existence proven (you may be right) but why do you believe this to be so ?
In Judaism, it is a basic belief that God has hidden his presence from mankind in order that we would have free will. It is said by some Rabbis that God has gone to great lengths to conceal evidence of his existence. One Rabbi said, "God created the universe so that it would appear as if he is not running it, and that it runs itself." In Judaism, observance comes before evidence does.
The spiritual reason is because if God's presence were obvious, we would be "staring at his Mercovah (his chariot)". God's concealment is at three levels, and a miracle would come from the level of his mercovah. If God's presence were obvious, we would be caught up in the spectacular feelings and sights that come from his presence. We wouldn't have true devotion to Him. In fact, we'd have a temporary devotion that lasted only for a while...
It is said in the Oral tradition that when God gave the Iraelites the Torah he did it through fire and signs of nature. Then he spoke the first commandment "Know that I am God" and the people dropped dead and God sent angels to revive them. Then he said "Have no other gods before me" and they dropped dead again. When he revived them again the people said "God, no more! Send Moshe to get the rest of the Torah". So Moshe went up the mountain and got the tablets. When he came back, he comes around the corner and sees that the people are worshipping the golden calf. So he throws the tablets, God says "Good job!" And then moshe goes to the calf and grounds it into powder and mixes it with water. Then he gives it to some people and when they drink it immediately their stomachs explode.
Then he takes out his sword and goes about killing more and more Jews. Then when he is finished God comes down and says "Watch out Moshe I'll take out the rest!" Then moshe says "God hold on! There's no need to kill the whole of the Jewish people!" So God says "Alright." And then God says quietly (without miracles or spectacular sights) "Moshe come up to the mountain and I will give you the Torah." The second time there was no fire, no thunder, no lightning, only quiet. While Moshe was up on the mountain the people were contemplating God's quiet voice, his essence.
If you know the Shota procedure, it is a procedure used by the ancient Jews to find out if a woman had committed adultery. What would happen is that they write God's name on a peice of parchment, burn it, and have the woman drink it. If she had committed adultery her stomach exploded. If she hadn't her stomach didn't explode.
Long story short, at the mountain, when God had made his presence obvious, he had created a temporary image in the minds of the Israelites. They were focused on the external attributes of God and not his essence. They were focused on externals, and they worshipped the calf because it was an external. The sin they committed was Avodah Zorah (Service of Disconnection) or in other words "Adultery". God's presence is hidden because we should not focus on his externals.
This is mirrored most directly in relationships with other people. If you meet someone who is well-endowed or gifted, and they are flashing their gifts and blessing, we focus on the external and it becomes hard for us to see the actual person. There was a woman who went to High School with my Rabbi and she had a great memory and could look at a page in a book for a few seconds, and then close the book ,and read the page back to you perfectly. She had "flashed" her gift and people focused on that. They called her "The Brain" and didn't focus on her emotional self or who she truly was.
Another example the Rabbi used is that if a man sees a woman and focuses on her physical form (lets say she has a great body) when a body that's better comes along, he'll leave the first woman for the second because he was only focusing on the external of the woman. A commitment is needed before one should tell of their gifts and blessings (it is said "There is nothing so beautiful as modesty) because if you flash the gifts and blessings first then others will only be focused on your external attributes and will get tired when the external attributes are no longer obvious. This is why God does not make his presence obvious, commitment first, and then you will see his externals, because only then does he know that you are committed.
im kind of heavily agnostic in regards to the existence of any sort of deity, personally i find the teapot/pink unicorn arguments to be kind of silly, i completly dissagree that its the same thing, the concept of a god is soooooooo much more complicated and complex than just a proposition like 'there could be a teapot orbiting the sun' i find those sort of arguments a bit ridikulous, i can see why there used but i think the idea of some sort of god/higher conciousness is completly different. the idea of a god has been with humanity for probly as long as weve been able to have any sort of complex thought,i obviously have no proof for this but im sure we can all agree that the idea has been around for a long long time, spirituality is a huge part of what it means to be human, and i think likening being open to the possiblilty of a higher power to beleiving in pink unicorns or orbiting teapots to be kind of condesending and annoying, imho its really really not the same thing.
personally i also think it has a lot to do with your idea of what god/allah/brahman/oneness etc etcc is... i mean if u claim that god makes your toast in the morning then yes this can probably be dissproved scientifically but that doesnt mean there isnt some sort of high conciousness in the universe that is so omnipresent and beyond us it could rightly be described as a god.
i dont beleive in any sort of a god described within any organised religion as i tend to think most religion is the making of man rather than any sort of god, but i am open to the possibilty that beyond our severly limited understanding of the universe there could be an entity so far advanced and beyond us that it could be a god, or that the energy that created the universe could be a concious energy, or that everysingle atom/quark/photon/planet/solar system/human/ant/tree/dog/black hole/teapot etc is just a part of some huge uncomprehendable essence that is a god.
but yea...like i say im agnostic and in reality i have no idea either way im perfectly willing to accept there is no all seeing deity and that there isnt any point in our existence and when i die thats it, but when it comes down to it no one and i really mean NOT ONE SINGLE HUMAN BEING EVER KNOWS THE TRUTH.
truth is probably just some silly human concept anyway that doesnt really exist.
i find it perfectly acceptable for a person to be a beleiver or an atheist its just when people are 100% certain that i find it weird altho more so in the case of an atheist as a theist can always fall back on pure beleif. an atheist who is 101% certain there isnt a god is just a hypocrit imo.
also richard dawkins really pisses me off, i find him the most arrogant, condesending egotistic exuse for a person , ive read in a long time, i hope there is a pink unicorn with a teapot for a head orbiting the sun that is really the creator of the universe and it laughs at him in the afterlife.
personally i also think it has a lot to do with your idea of what god/allah/brahman/oneness etc etcc is... i mean if u claim that god makes your toast in the morning then yes this can probably be dissproved scientifically but that doesnt mean there isnt some sort of high conciousness in the universe that is so omnipresent and beyond us it could rightly be described as a god.
i dont beleive in any sort of a god described within any organised religion as i tend to think most religion is the making of man rather than any sort of god, but i am open to the possibilty that beyond our severly limited understanding of the universe there could be an entity so far advanced and beyond us that it could be a god, or that the energy that created the universe could be a concious energy, or that everysingle atom/quark/photon/planet/solar system/human/ant/tree/dog/black hole/teapot etc is just a part of some huge uncomprehendable essence that is a god.
but yea...like i say im agnostic and in reality i have no idea either way im perfectly willing to accept there is no all seeing deity and that there isnt any point in our existence and when i die thats it, but when it comes down to it no one and i really mean NOT ONE SINGLE HUMAN BEING EVER KNOWS THE TRUTH.
truth is probably just some silly human concept anyway that doesnt really exist.
i find it perfectly acceptable for a person to be a beleiver or an atheist its just when people are 100% certain that i find it weird altho more so in the case of an atheist as a theist can always fall back on pure beleif. an atheist who is 101% certain there isnt a god is just a hypocrit imo.
also richard dawkins really pisses me off, i find him the most arrogant, condesending egotistic exuse for a person , ive read in a long time, i hope there is a pink unicorn with a teapot for a head orbiting the sun that is really the creator of the universe and it laughs at him in the afterlife.
QUOTE
I keep reading from the atheist how Science cannot or has not proven that God exists. Thus proving that he doesn't exist.
Whoever told you that, is, of course, wrong.
QUOTE
I say that since God doesn't want proof of his existence to be shown. Then a lack of scientific proof does not prove that he/she does not exist.
Yes.
QUOTE
An example of this is life in other solar systems. There is no proof of this but, the same people who say no proof of God means no God just simple say that we don't have proof of life in other solar systems yet.
Yes.
Of course, this isn't very helpful.
For instance, Science has not proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. IT has not disproven him, either.
Does that mean I should believe in such?
Ever heard of Russel's Teapot?
Cheers,
SQLserver
QUOTE (~Kaizen CJM~ @ Jun 26 2008, 10:01 AM)
In Judaism, it is a basic belief that God has hidden his presence from mankind in order that we would have free will. It is said by some Rabbis that God has gone to great lengths to conceal evidence of his existence. One Rabbi said, "God created the universe so that it would appear as if he is not running it, and that it runs itself." In Judaism, observance comes before evidence does.
The spiritual reason is because if God's presence were obvious, we would be "staring at his Mercovah (his chariot)". God's concealment is at three levels, and a miracle would come from the level of his mercovah. If God's presence were obvious, we would be caught up in the spectacular feelings and sights that come from his presence. We wouldn't have true devotion to Him. In fact, we'd have a temporary devotion that lasted only for a while...
It is said in the Oral tradition that when God gave the Iraelites the Torah he did it through fire and signs of nature. Then he spoke the first commandment "Know that I am God" and the people dropped dead and God sent angels to revive them. Then he said "Have no other gods before me" and they dropped dead again. When he revived them again the people said "God, no more! Send Moshe to get the rest of the Torah". So Moshe went up the mountain and got the tablets. When he came back, he comes around the corner and sees that the people are worshipping the golden calf. So he throws the tablets, God says "Good job!" And then moshe goes to the calf and grounds it into powder and mixes it with water. Then he gives it to some people and when they drink it immediately their stomachs explode.
Then he takes out his sword and goes about killing more and more Jews. Then when he is finished God comes down and says "Watch out Moshe I'll take out the rest!" Then moshe says "God hold on! There's no need to kill the whole of the Jewish people!" So God says "Alright." And then God says quietly (without miracles or spectacular sights) "Moshe come up to the mountain and I will give you the Torah." The second time there was no fire, no thunder, no lightning, only quiet. While Moshe was up on the mountain the people were contemplating God's quiet voice, his essence.
If you know the Shota procedure, it is a procedure used by the ancient Jews to find out if a woman had committed adultery. What would happen is that they write God's name on a peice of parchment, burn it, and have the woman drink it. If she had committed adultery her stomach exploded. If she hadn't her stomach didn't explode.
Long story short, at the mountain, when God had made his presence obvious, he had created a temporary image in the minds of the Israelites. They were focused on the external attributes of God and not his essence. They were focused on externals, and they worshipped the calf because it was an external. The sin they committed was Avodah Zorah (Service of Disconnection) or in other words "Adultery". God's presence is hidden because we should not focus on his externals.
This is mirrored most directly in relationships with other people. If you meet someone who is well-endowed or gifted, and they are flashing their gifts and blessing, we focus on the external and it becomes hard for us to see the actual person. There was a woman who went to High School with my Rabbi and she had a great memory and could look at a page in a book for a few seconds, and then close the book ,and read the page back to you perfectly. She had "flashed" her gift and people focused on that. They called her "The Brain" and didn't focus on her emotional self or who she truly was.
Another example the Rabbi used is that if a man sees a woman and focuses on her physical form (lets say she has a great body) when a body that's better comes along, he'll leave the first woman for the second because he was only focusing on the external of the woman. A commitment is needed before one should tell of their gifts and blessings (it is said "There is nothing so beautiful as modesty) because if you flash the gifts and blessings first then others will only be focused on your external attributes and will get tired when the external attributes are no longer obvious. This is why God does not make his presence obvious, commitment first, and then you will see his externals, because only then does he know that you are committed.
The spiritual reason is because if God's presence were obvious, we would be "staring at his Mercovah (his chariot)". God's concealment is at three levels, and a miracle would come from the level of his mercovah. If God's presence were obvious, we would be caught up in the spectacular feelings and sights that come from his presence. We wouldn't have true devotion to Him. In fact, we'd have a temporary devotion that lasted only for a while...
It is said in the Oral tradition that when God gave the Iraelites the Torah he did it through fire and signs of nature. Then he spoke the first commandment "Know that I am God" and the people dropped dead and God sent angels to revive them. Then he said "Have no other gods before me" and they dropped dead again. When he revived them again the people said "God, no more! Send Moshe to get the rest of the Torah". So Moshe went up the mountain and got the tablets. When he came back, he comes around the corner and sees that the people are worshipping the golden calf. So he throws the tablets, God says "Good job!" And then moshe goes to the calf and grounds it into powder and mixes it with water. Then he gives it to some people and when they drink it immediately their stomachs explode.
Then he takes out his sword and goes about killing more and more Jews. Then when he is finished God comes down and says "Watch out Moshe I'll take out the rest!" Then moshe says "God hold on! There's no need to kill the whole of the Jewish people!" So God says "Alright." And then God says quietly (without miracles or spectacular sights) "Moshe come up to the mountain and I will give you the Torah." The second time there was no fire, no thunder, no lightning, only quiet. While Moshe was up on the mountain the people were contemplating God's quiet voice, his essence.
If you know the Shota procedure, it is a procedure used by the ancient Jews to find out if a woman had committed adultery. What would happen is that they write God's name on a peice of parchment, burn it, and have the woman drink it. If she had committed adultery her stomach exploded. If she hadn't her stomach didn't explode.
Long story short, at the mountain, when God had made his presence obvious, he had created a temporary image in the minds of the Israelites. They were focused on the external attributes of God and not his essence. They were focused on externals, and they worshipped the calf because it was an external. The sin they committed was Avodah Zorah (Service of Disconnection) or in other words "Adultery". God's presence is hidden because we should not focus on his externals.
This is mirrored most directly in relationships with other people. If you meet someone who is well-endowed or gifted, and they are flashing their gifts and blessing, we focus on the external and it becomes hard for us to see the actual person. There was a woman who went to High School with my Rabbi and she had a great memory and could look at a page in a book for a few seconds, and then close the book ,and read the page back to you perfectly. She had "flashed" her gift and people focused on that. They called her "The Brain" and didn't focus on her emotional self or who she truly was.
Another example the Rabbi used is that if a man sees a woman and focuses on her physical form (lets say she has a great body) when a body that's better comes along, he'll leave the first woman for the second because he was only focusing on the external of the woman. A commitment is needed before one should tell of their gifts and blessings (it is said "There is nothing so beautiful as modesty) because if you flash the gifts and blessings first then others will only be focused on your external attributes and will get tired when the external attributes are no longer obvious. This is why God does not make his presence obvious, commitment first, and then you will see his externals, because only then does he know that you are committed.
Also remember that Moses was the only one to see any part of God. He saw his finger. When he went up the mountain he had brown hair. When he came back it was white.
QUOTE (sqlserver @ Jun 26 2008, 10:25 AM)
Whoever told you that, is, of course, wrong.
Yes.
Yes.
Of course, this isn't very helpful.
For instance, Science has not proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. IT has not disproven him, either.
Does that mean I should believe in such?
Ever heard of Russel's Teapot?
Cheers,
SQLserver
Yes.
Yes.
Of course, this isn't very helpful.
For instance, Science has not proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. IT has not disproven him, either.
Does that mean I should believe in such?
Ever heard of Russel's Teapot?
Cheers,
SQLserver
Russel's teapot could be detected eventually. Unless we ran over it by accident.
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 26 2008, 08:29 AM)
Also remember that Moses was the only one to see any part of God. He saw his finger. When he went up the mountain he had brown hair. When he came back it was white.
That's not in our tradition. Not the hair thing, nor the finger thing. He saw God's shadow.
QUOTE (briks hithouse @ Jun 26 2008, 04:21 PM)
im kind of heavily agnostic in regards to the existence of any sort of deity, personally i find the teapot/pink unicorn arguments to be kind of silly, i completly dissagree that its the same thing, the concept of a god is soooooooo much more complicated and complex than just a proposition like 'there could be a teapot orbiting the sun' i find those sort of arguments a bit ridikulous, i can see why there used but i think the idea of some sort of god/higher conciousness is completly different. the idea of a god has been with humanity for probly as long as weve been able to have any sort of complex thought,i obviously have no proof for this but im sure we can all agree that the idea has been around for a long long time, spirituality is a huge part of what it means to be human, and i think likening being open to the possiblilty of a higher power to beleiving in pink unicorns or orbiting teapots to be kind of condesending and annoying, imho its really really not the same thing.
Hi Briks - interesting post. Of course you know that the teapot/IPU arguments are chosen to be ridiculous... but are they qualitatively different concepts than God in any important way for this discussion? I think the two points you make there are that 1) the idea of a God is an ancient one, and that 2) spirituality is an important aspect of being human. However, I'm not sure that longevity of an idea is an important one in this respect: why should the age of an idea be a criterion for its accuracy? And although spirituality may be an important aspect of many people's lives, again this does not add to or detract from the God proposition: people's opinions and preoccupations are not a good guide to 'what's on in the universe', as it were.
QUOTE
personally i also think it has a lot to do with your idea of what god/allah/brahman/oneness etc etcc is... i mean if u claim that god makes your toast in the morning then yes this can probably be dissproved scientifically but that doesnt mean there isnt some sort of high conciousness in the universe that is so omnipresent and beyond us it could rightly be described as a god.
i dont beleive in any sort of a god described within any organised religion as i tend to think most religion is the making of man rather than any sort of god, but i am open to the possibilty that beyond our severly limited understanding of the universe there could be an entity so far advanced and beyond us that it could be a god, or that the energy that created the universe could be a concious energy, or that everysingle atom/quark/photon/planet/solar system/human/ant/tree/dog/black hole/teapot etc is just a part of some huge uncomprehendable essence that is a god.
but yea...like i say im agnostic and in reality i have no idea either way im perfectly willing to accept there is no all seeing deity and that there isnt any point in our existence and when i die thats it, but when it comes down to it no one and i really mean NOT ONE SINGLE HUMAN BEING EVER KNOWS THE TRUTH.
truth is probably just some silly human concept anyway that doesnt really exist.
i dont beleive in any sort of a god described within any organised religion as i tend to think most religion is the making of man rather than any sort of god, but i am open to the possibilty that beyond our severly limited understanding of the universe there could be an entity so far advanced and beyond us that it could be a god, or that the energy that created the universe could be a concious energy, or that everysingle atom/quark/photon/planet/solar system/human/ant/tree/dog/black hole/teapot etc is just a part of some huge uncomprehendable essence that is a god.
but yea...like i say im agnostic and in reality i have no idea either way im perfectly willing to accept there is no all seeing deity and that there isnt any point in our existence and when i die thats it, but when it comes down to it no one and i really mean NOT ONE SINGLE HUMAN BEING EVER KNOWS THE TRUTH.
truth is probably just some silly human concept anyway that doesnt really exist.
Maybe so. I find the only way to progress is to assume otherwise, though. The concept seems to work in most applications, and perhaps seeming to work is all we can hope for. How do you assess the truth of truth?
QUOTE
i find it perfectly acceptable for a person to be a beleiver or an atheist its just when people are 100% certain that i find it weird altho more so in the case of an atheist as a theist can always fall back on pure beleif. an atheist who is 101% certain there isnt a god is just a hypocrit imo.
I agree with you that 100% certainty that there is no God is probably not a logical position, although 99% or perhaps 99.9% certainty could be argued for. Many find the God proposition to be as absurd as the teapot idea. On a path of logic, if you start off without a God and look for one, you'll end up with no God as well. On a path of non-logic, you'll find what you set out to find.
QUOTE
also richard dawkins really pisses me off, i find him the most arrogant, condesending egotistic exuse for a person , ive read in a long time, i hope there is a pink unicorn with a teapot for a head orbiting the sun that is really the creator of the universe and it laughs at him in the afterlife.
Dawkins doesn't piss me off - I like his work a lot - but I hope that's true too
QUOTE (sqlserver @ Jun 26 2008, 04:25 PM)
Ever heard of Russel's Teapot?
Ah! It was Russell's teapot, of course! Thanks SQL, I knowingly misattributed it to Dawkins earlier in the thread.
QUOTE (~Kaizen CJM~ @ Jun 26 2008, 09:12 AM)
That's not in our tradition. Not the hair thing, nor the finger thing. He saw God's shadow.
its very difficult to trace the origins of such observed phenomenon especially when its being called the hand of god or shadow or finger.... in this case , so often religion goes for explainatory over kill, way more than is called for by the little to no evidence available ..these are called narratives they are stories that take great flying leaps to rationalize things we just don't know. and religions have been built around such stories are they to be taken literal i dont beleive so anymore than purple elephants or aliens etc. do they contain points?? perhaps it would depend on the interpreter and the culture they are found....in fact that is the point of a story its a vehicle to carry a point and if one is calling it literal they have missed the point.....IMO.........
I believe in everything that hasnt been disproven. Whether it be the flying spaggeti monster, God, fairies. I literally believe that all we see as well as imagine have equal existence.
QUOTE (brave_new_world @ Jun 26 2008, 05:40 PM)
I believe in everything that hasnt been disproven. Whether it be the flying spaggeti monster, God, fairies. I literally believe that all we see as well as imagine have equal existence.
It must be exhausting to live like that, can't go out in the woods without sasquatch, yeti and yowie repellants, can't go fishing without some kind of weapon to fight of the mythical flying shark that someone no doubt invented but nobody has gotten around to disproving, cant do any work in the garden unless you upset the faeries who might be there, etc.
QUOTE (brave_new_world @ Jun 26 2008, 09:40 AM)
I believe in everything that hasnt been disproven. Whether it be the flying spaggeti monster, God, fairies. I literally believe that all we see as well as imagine have equal existence.
Brave you leave no room for neutral artifacts in this posit , so your arguements will begin by drawing distinctions which they will then promptly seek to erase.......
QUOTE (Cradle of Fish @ Jun 27 2008, 12:43 AM)
It must be exhausting to live like that, can't go out in the woods without sasquatch, yeti and yowie repellants, can't go fishing without some kind of weapon to fight of the mythical flying shark that someone no doubt invented but nobody has gotten around to disproving, cant do any work in the garden unless you upset the faeries who might be there, etc.
No it isnt hard it is easy because I have magical taming powers that makes all these creatures obey my command.
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 27 2008, 12:44 AM)
Brave you leave no room for neutral artifacts in this posit , so your arguements will begin by drawing distinctions which they will then promptly seek to erase.......
No no sheri I believe neutral artifacts also exist. Everything exists in my philosophical view, this includes the non-existence of things.
QUOTE (brave_new_world @ Jun 26 2008, 09:48 AM)
No no sheri I believe neutral artifacts also exist. Everything exists in my philosophical view, this includes the non-existence of things.
then you would be packing everything into your argument up front to come up with the only the ideas that support the arguement( (whatever it happens to be ) this is called biased...or i call it the need to be "right'
why would you be using this method???? if i may inquire...
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 27 2008, 01:01 AM)
then you would be packing everything into your argument up front to come up with the only the ideas that support the arguement( (whatever it happens to be ) this is called biased...or i call it the need to be "right'
why would you be using this method???? if i may inquire...
why would you be using this method???? if i may inquire...
What method? I am simply stating that is everything exists in my view. If no one can disprove something then why should I believe that such a stated thing doesnt exist?
QUOTE (brave_new_world @ Jun 26 2008, 10:03 AM)
What method? I am simply stating that is everything exists in my view. If no one can disprove something then why should I believe that such a stated thing doesnt exist?
why would you think you 'need' to beleive/ disbeleive at all ???? I am not splititng hairs here Bravey , you have got me intrigued and engaged lol ....
also, it sounds like the everything is possible arguement when in essence everything is not possible....
QUOTE (~Kaizen CJM~ @ Jun 26 2008, 12:12 PM)
That's not in our tradition. Not the hair thing, nor the finger thing. He saw God's shadow.
That was always something I found interesting in Judaism, this God's shadow thing.Also in Judaism there is the Tree of Life / Kabbalah, the Inverse tree is the Tree of Death and the Qlipthoth (veils of negative existence) they are considered the shells, husks or shadows of creations, the Evil aspect of everything. So, what did Moses see? Gods shadow = al Satan? That would certainly have turned his hair white.
Concerning God and Creation: I believe everything we know in our Universe is a result of vibrations from the Primordial Vibration set into motion from the 'Big Bang', Cymatics clearly shows how vibrations create elaborate genetic designs out of chaotic masses.
Cymatic youtube
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 27 2008, 02:26 AM)
why would you think you 'need' to beleive/ disbeleive at all ???? I am not splititng hairs here Bravey , you have got me intrigued and engaged lol ....
also, it sounds like the everything is possible arguement when in essence everything is not possible....
also, it sounds like the everything is possible arguement when in essence everything is not possible....
Because in my view physical existence is just a more dense form of thought while thought as we know it is more subtle. Both are the same substance at different frequencies. Both are of equal existence it is only that we believe one is more real than the other. Everything is possible in that what we think exists if it didnt exist then we wouldnt be able to think of the concept which is itself a kind of existence. Also, everything is not possible because everything not being possible is also a form of existence.
QUOTE (brave_new_world @ Jun 26 2008, 10:30 AM)
Because in my view physical existence is just a more dense form of thought while thought as we know it is more subtle. Both are the same substance at different frequencies. Both are of equal existence it is only that we believe one is more real than the other. Everything is possible in that what we think exists if it didnt exist then we wouldnt be able to think of the concept which is itself a kind of existence. Also, everything is not possible because everything not being possible is also a form of existence.
meaning hot and cold are really the same thing only one is the absence of the other????? give me some more data on your world view ....
my attention span is on lock bravey you got my attention.... lol....
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 26 2008, 09:36 AM)
its very difficult to trace the origins of such observed phenomenon especially when its being called the hand of god or shadow or finger.... in this case , so often religion goes for explainatory over kill, way more than is called for by the little to no evidence available ..these are called narratives they are stories that take great flying leaps to rationalize things we just don't know. and religions have been built around such stories are they to be taken literal i dont beleive so anymore than purple elephants or aliens etc. do they contain points?? perhaps it would depend on the interpreter and the culture they are found....in fact that is the point of a story its a vehicle to carry a point and if one is calling it literal they have missed the point.....IMO.........
I understand what you believe. However, I believe that too many are tangled up in the science-only evidence paradigm. As if scientific evidence is the only evidence to be offered. I think that when religion began to lose its power, people ran as far as they could. They covered their eyes and their ears and they're not turning back unless they have a solid reason to. It's sad that religion has created this for itself. However, I (and a few others) are trying to rebuild the bridges that were burnt between people and religion. This is a new day, a new age, and a new generation. The modern religious have no intention of misusing religion like our predecessors have done.
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 27 2008, 02:40 AM)
meaning hot and cold are really the same thing only one is the absence of the other????? give me some more data on your world view ....
my attention span is on lock bravey you got my attention.... lol....
my attention span is on lock bravey you got my attention.... lol....
What I mean is this. If I imagine a unicorn with my thoughts then that unicorn is as real as a horse I see with my eyes. Why? Because both are a product of imagination. A horse is a visual image, a thought made from the senses (which are also thoughts). All reality is experienced in the brain and the brain itself is a thought translated/interpreted by the mind that cannot be measured physically by science.
Therefore what we imagine is real because all that we can sense with our five senses is thought anyways. Therefore when people say that a 'unicorn' cannot be proven beyond imagination my argument is that the five sense world is imagination for the reasons I just explained. All imagination is equally real. It is only that we like to divide parts of our imagination and call some aspects real while the other imaginary (not real, no real existence) when it is all imaginary.
All that we see is a thought in the visual cortex of the brain and the brain itself is also a thought of itself perceived by the mind. As Edgar Allen Poe said 'all that you touch and seem is but a dream within a dream'.
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 26 2008, 08:45 AM)
I keep reading from the atheist how Science cannot or has not proven that God exists. Thus proving that he doesn't exist.
I say that since God doesn't want proof of his existence to be shown. Then a lack of scientific proof does not prove that he/she does not exist.
The best anyone can say is that science cannot prove that God exists for now.
An example of this is life in other solar systems. There is no proof of this but, the same people who say no proof of God means no God just simple say that we don't have proof of life in other solar systems yet.
I say that since God doesn't want proof of his existence to be shown. Then a lack of scientific proof does not prove that he/she does not exist.
The best anyone can say is that science cannot prove that God exists for now.
An example of this is life in other solar systems. There is no proof of this but, the same people who say no proof of God means no God just simple say that we don't have proof of life in other solar systems yet.
In its most elemental form, your concept is correct. Using that same logic, however, we can say that there is no proof that Thor or the pantheon of Olympus don't exist. We can use that logic to say there is no evidence that there really isn't a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or a host of ghosts isn't surrounding us each minute of each day.
And this is the point where the "logic" falls apart. Its universal application cannot be isolated to the question of God but extends to include anything that could "possibily" exist.
It cannot, however, be compared to the probability of life in the universe. We can draw impressive calculations that determine that it is almost impossible that external life does not exist. We can analyze conditions on other planets to arrive at the conclusion that they could sustain life. We can enter space and search for alien life but heaven is beyond our grasp or imagination. And while none of that can be called absolute proof, it is light years closer than proving that a god exists.
QUOTE (brave_new_world @ Jun 26 2008, 10:48 AM)
What I mean is this. If I imagine a unicorn with my thoughts then that unicorn is as real as a horse I see with my eyes. Why? Because both are a product of imagination. A horse is a visual image, a thought made from the senses (which are also thoughts). All reality is experienced in the brain and the brain itself is a thought translated/interpreted by the mind that cannot be measured physically by science.
Therefore what we imagine is real because all that we can sense with our five senses is thought anyways. Therefore when people say that a 'unicorn' cannot be proven beyond imagination my argument is that the five sense world is imagination for the reasons I just explained. All imagination is equally real. It is only that we like to divide parts of our imagination and call some aspects real while the other imaginary (not real, no real existence) when it is all imaginary.
All that we see is a thought in the visual cortex of the brain and the brain itself is also a thought of itself perceived by the mind. As Edgar Allen Poe said 'all that you touch and seem is but a dream within a dream'.
Therefore what we imagine is real because all that we can sense with our five senses is thought anyways. Therefore when people say that a 'unicorn' cannot be proven beyond imagination my argument is that the five sense world is imagination for the reasons I just explained. All imagination is equally real. It is only that we like to divide parts of our imagination and call some aspects real while the other imaginary (not real, no real existence) when it is all imaginary.
All that we see is a thought in the visual cortex of the brain and the brain itself is also a thought of itself perceived by the mind. As Edgar Allen Poe said 'all that you touch and seem is but a dream within a dream'.
i understand , or life is an illusion can work also.....indeed our senses can't be relyed on soley .. yet your the snag is as I stated the first time it leaves no room for nuetral artifacts so you begin by drawing distinctions which then you erase...
because it leaves no room for adding or considering new data....
i get that you are working out your posit i was just tryiing to give you a helping hand..you have good mind....
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 27 2008, 03:12 AM)
i understand , or life is an illusion can work also.....indeed our senses can't be relyed on soley .. yet your the snag is as I stated the first time it leaves no room for nuetral artifacts so you begin by drawing distinctions which then you erase..
because it leaves no room for adding or considering new data....
i get that you are working out your posit i was just tryiing to give you a helping hand..you have good mind....
because it leaves no room for adding or considering new data....
i get that you are working out your posit i was just tryiing to give you a helping hand..you have good mind....
It does leave room for considering new data. Even though I have this view I am still learning new things all the time. I am always learning new manifestation of existence.
QUOTE (brave_new_world @ Jun 26 2008, 11:21 AM)
It does leave room for considering new data. Even though I have this view I am still learning new things all the time. I am always learning new manifestation of existence.
i am sorry i should of clarified i meant in the course of engaging in philosopical argumentation it limits and impedes the introducing of new data for consideration or blocks the contrast of critical evaluation that so helps refine and evaluate our posits.....
it goes without saying we always learn I do lol....
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 27 2008, 03:52 AM)
i am sorry i should of clarified i meant in the course of engaging in philosopical argumentation it limits and impedes the introducing of new data for consideration or blocks the contrast of critical evaluation that so helps refine and evaluate our posits.....
it goes without saying we always learn I do lol....
it goes without saying we always learn I do lol....
Mine is always philosophically open to new data because with my view, everything is possible.
QUOTE (brave_new_world @ Jun 26 2008, 04:46 PM)
No it isnt hard it is easy because I have magical taming powers that makes all these creatures obey my command.
Touche.
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 26 2008, 02:45 AM)
I keep reading from the atheist how Science cannot or has not proven that God exists. Thus proving that he doesn't exist.
I say that since God doesn't want proof of his existence to be shown. Then a lack of scientific proof does not prove that he/she does not exist.
The best anyone can say is that science cannot prove that God exists for now.
An example of this is life in other solar systems. There is no proof of this but, the same people who say no proof of God means no God just simple say that we don't have proof of life in other solar systems yet.
I say that since God doesn't want proof of his existence to be shown. Then a lack of scientific proof does not prove that he/she does not exist.
The best anyone can say is that science cannot prove that God exists for now.
An example of this is life in other solar systems. There is no proof of this but, the same people who say no proof of God means no God just simple say that we don't have proof of life in other solar systems yet.
Where does it say in the bible that God does not want evidence of his existence to be shown? And, why would he want it this way? This would mean that if you have two people who are identicle in every aspect exept for the fact that one is convinced that God exists, and one is not because of lack of evidence, the one who disbelieves will be killed by God for that one small simple reason as if it defines his entire being. Does that really sound reasonable to you?
Anyhow, lack of evidence does not disprove something, but if you have a lack of evidence after even searching for the evidence, it's a very good implication that something does not exist. If something such as god does not exist, the closest we can get to having "proof" or "support" for it's non-existence would be a lack of evidence. Take the tooth fairy for instance. We have no evidence of her existence, and that's the main reason no reasonably thinking person believes in her.
QUOTE (~Kaizen CJM~ @ Jun 26 2008, 12:47 PM)
I understand what you believe. However, I believe that too many are tangled up in the science-only evidence paradigm. As if scientific evidence is the only evidence to be offered. I think that when religion began to lose its power, people ran as far as they could. They covered their eyes and their ears and they're not turning back unless they have a solid reason to. It's sad that religion has created this for itself. However, I (and a few others) are trying to rebuild the bridges that were burnt between people and religion. This is a new day, a new age, and a new generation. The modern religious have no intention of misusing religion like our predecessors have done.
I am sure if you ask our predecessors if they misused it they would say no.
QUOTE (ShaunZero @ Jun 26 2008, 09:11 PM)
Where does it say in the bible that God does not want evidence of his existence to be shown? And, why would he want it this way? This would mean that if you have two people who are identicle in every aspect exept for the fact that one is convinced that God exists, and one is not because of lack of evidence, the one who disbelieves will be killed by God for that one small simple reason as if it defines his entire being. Does that really sound reasonable to you?
Anyhow, lack of evidence does not disprove something, but if you have a lack of evidence after even searching for the evidence, it's a very good implication that something does not exist. If something such as god does not exist, the closest we can get to having "proof" or "support" for it's non-existence would be a lack of evidence. Take the tooth fairy for instance. We have no evidence of her existence, and that's the main reason no reasonably thinking person believes in her.
Anyhow, lack of evidence does not disprove something, but if you have a lack of evidence after even searching for the evidence, it's a very good implication that something does not exist. If something such as god does not exist, the closest we can get to having "proof" or "support" for it's non-existence would be a lack of evidence. Take the tooth fairy for instance. We have no evidence of her existence, and that's the main reason no reasonably thinking person believes in her.
+
again if God is hiding his presence from us. So we can make our chooces on our own. We wouldn't be able to find any evidance of him no matter how hard we look. It is like the episode of the next gen. star trek. with gelom(spch). I think it was called the mouse trap. They couldn't find evidance of him there until he wanted them to know he wanted them to know he was there.
Well then lack for proof can be opened up to anything, unicorns, santa claus or the universe being created by a giant sea cucumber named fred, flying spaghetti monster anyone. No proof gets you know where becasue the possiblities of no proof are endless.
QUOTE (sewinglife/chimera @ Jun 26 2008, 11:22 PM)
Well then lack for proof can be opened up to anything, unicorns, santa claus or the universe being created by a giant sea cucumber named fred, flying spaghetti monster anyone. No proof gets you know where becasue the possiblities of no proof are endless.
who knows maybe his name is fred and he looks like a sea cucumber.
Science can't prove that God doesn't exist.
Science CAN prove the total logical fallacy of believing that God DOES exist.
;P
Science CAN prove the total logical fallacy of believing that God DOES exist.
;P
QUOTE (MadMachine @ Jun 27 2008, 04:57 PM)
Science can't prove that God doesn't exist.
Science CAN prove the total logical fallacy of believing that God DOES exist.
;P
Science CAN prove the total logical fallacy of believing that God DOES exist.
;P
What about all the various mystics from all different epoches and cultures who have experienced God or Nirvana first hand?
QUOTE (MadMachine @ Jun 27 2008, 08:57 AM)
Science CAN prove the total logical fallacy of believing that God DOES exist.
I don't agree: science isn't in the business of proving logical fallacies, science is in the business of collecting and analysing data in order to understand our world. Whilst scientific data and theories may or may not be useful in demonstrating fallacies, it's really the remit of philosophy to do that. Remember, science is a branch of philosophy, built up from epistemological and phenomenological roots; sometimes it's just not the best branch to answer particular questions. "What is this blood-like substance on this statue, and where has it likely come from?" is an example of the type of question which can be answered using scientific methods; "is belief in God a logical fallacy?" is not.
QUOTE (brave_new_world @ Jun 27 2008, 10:23 AM)
What about all the various mystics from all different epoches and cultures who have experienced God or Nirvana first hand?
The problem with knowledge by revelation or faith is that it only really works for the person to whom it has happened - proof for a mystic is not proof for me. It's only a personal thing. There are other problems with that type of evidence, being the dissimilarities in different people's experiences, and the possibility that experiences of the numinous have naturalistic explanations which don't require there being a God-like entity which to have caused them.
I'm just a big bag of disagreement today, it seems.
QUOTE (Nucular @ Jun 27 2008, 07:01 PM)
The problem with knowledge by revelation or faith is that it only really works for the person to whom it has happened - proof for a mystic is not proof for me. It's only a personal thing. There are other problems with that type of evidence, being the dissimilarities in different people's experiences, and the possibility that experiences of the numinous have naturalistic explanations which don't require there being a God-like entity which to have caused them.
I'm just a big bag of disagreement today, it seems.
I'm just a big bag of disagreement today, it seems.
If you read the book 'The perennial philosophy' by aldous hulxey he shows the mystic side of all the major religions and shows that through the writings, that even though the theology may be less similar in cases the experiences by actual mystics and saints are described as the same. That is, a oneness with all with no ego.
From Shankara to st. john of the cross. The experience may have different labels of nirvana or heaven within but the experience is the same.
There is about mystical utterances an eternal unanimity which ought to make a critic stop and think. --William James.
I dont use this as evidence for the garden of eden or reincarnaton etc but that there is a blissful experience that can be had beyond the senses, which shamans and mystics have been experience since man has had history.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.