God is known by intelligent thinking on logic and facts

[Partinobodycula]

Do I at all have to prove to you that I exist and prove to myself that you exist, when we are exchanging thoughts in this thread: we are in contact, or you are not certain,

An exchange of thoughts and ideas is not adequate evidence of your existence. My mind is perfectly capable of creating both sides of this exchange. There is nothing here to absolutely prove that you exist. In fact, to claim that I can know that you exist goes against the very basis of your argument, specifically, that I can’t be absolutely certain of anything. Thus if you wish to apply your argument consistently, you must admit that it is impossible for me to be absolutely certain of your existence. It is logical therefore, according to your argument, that you may not exist, other than in my mind.

Let me ask you, when you make love with a woman, are you going to challenge her to prove to you that you exist or that she exists?

A unique choice of personal experiences to choose as evidence for the fact that personal interaction with others, proves their existence, which of course it doesn’t. I could just as easily be dreaming such an interaction, and there is really no way for me to be certain that I’m not. Physical interaction is no more capable of proving the existence of others than intellectual interaction is. Oh, and just to clarify. I am fifty seven years old, and I have been celibate my entire life. So your scenario didn’t really strike a chord with me, but I got the gist of it.

She will tell you, you must be one nut case owing to your stupid profession of solipsism.

She very well might, and I could completely understand her doing so. I have no problem with anyone calling me any manner of things. That’s one of the benefits of solipsism. I don’t mind the inequities of life. Life is an amazingly wonderful thing. Not in spite of the struggles, but in a very real sense, it is amazing because of the struggles. Men do not find satisfaction in climbing mountains because it is easy, they find satisfaction, because it is hard.

Tell me, what is the advantage to your life and acts with taking up such an inane idea by which you glibly proclaim yourself to be a solipsist,

The advantage is, that I treasure life. I can be absolutely certain of nothing, except that I am alive. But because I am, I can love, and wonder, and cry, and persevere, and fill my life and soul with all manner of astonishing things. Some men live in hope of what will come. I live in appreciation of what is. You want God to give you heaven. I think that He already has. I want to climb the mountain. I want to overcome. I want to be alive. And the wonderful thing is, I am.

So, in the instances of physical contacts between humans and between humans and physical material things, the proof of certainty of existence is the actual physical interaction: prove to yourself that you are holding a sledge hammer by hitting your head with it, prove that the bullies exist by daring them to punch you in your eyes.

Physical contact proves nothing as far as my existence is concerned. Just as with intellectual interaction, my mind is perfectly capable of producing all manner of physical sensations, including pain. Perhaps life would be more pleasant without physical and emotional hardships, but I can’t help but wonder if it’s the struggles that make life worth living. The greatest accomplishments of men, are measured by that which they have overcome. To truly be alive, to know joy, and happiness, and fulfillment, it may be necessary to know sorrow also. Life is not easy, but it is precious.

YES, it is possible and actual to prove to you that I exist … if I am not existing except on faith, or belief, or fiction, then you are acting insanely to be replying to my messages here.

Insanity would be in not replying at all. As I have said, life is precious, it would be such a shame to waste it. From where it comes I do not know, and I do not care. It is all that I have. I will reply, and I will interact, and I will suffer, and I will embrace. Because without these things, what am I?

So, your categorical statement:
The problem is, that you will never be able to prove to me that you exist. It’s impossible.
is busted, unless you really cannot and thus do not think intelligently for not grounding yourself on logic and facts.

I am perfectly at peace with my logic and facts, and I have even come to be at peace with the fact that I cannot give them to you. Men believe what they choose to believe. The closest that men can come to proving to me their existence, is in doing those things which my heart beseeches them not to do.

 

[KingCoil]

You say:

I am perfectly at peace with my logic and facts, and I have even come to be at peace with the fact that I cannot give them to you. Men believe what they choose to believe. The closest that men can come to proving to me their existence, is in doing those things which my heart beseeches them not to do.

You are talking about your being perfectly at peace with your logic and facts, namely, to be brief and precise, that you are absolutely certain that you exist and everything else you know only on faith, belief, or fiction.

You are stuck with absolute certainty, that is a certainty that is of no importance to humans, because any kind of certainty according to which we live is not absolute certainty but personal certainty.

If we don’t take that personal certainty seriously, then we kill ourselves or we incur death, by acting on the ‘conviction’ you cannot be sure of anything outside yourself, wherefore you can just not take seriously the existence of things outside yourself, like an airplane that is into a crash landing heading toward you.

I am talking about personal certainty: you are personally certain you exist because your consciousness enables you to verify your own existence by for example pinching very hard your nose, and you are personally certain of my existence as you and I verify our respective and mutually interactive existence by our exchange of messages in this forum.

Now, before I forget, you are certain only of your existence, with what you are stuck with, ‘absolute certainty’.

Because you profess yourself to be a solipsist.

I have to use the descriptive word silly to see in you a very silly un-thinking human, not using your brain according to logic and facts.

You say you are ‘absolutely’ certain only of your own existence, everything else you know on faith, or belief, or fiction.

Okay, let us talk logic.

Solipsism is one of the everything that is not yourself, so your solipsism or your being a solipsist is also not anything of any absolute certainty from your part.

Wherefore you cannot say with complete consistency and coherency that you know yourself to exist with absolute certainty, when the scenario according to which you are absolutely certain, that scenario not being your own existence, there can be no absolute certainty at all with your own existence.

You see the silliness of your kind of un-thinking?

Here is what I am telling you all the time, we humans are certain of our existence on personal certainty, and also on the existence of another human or other humans also on personally certainty, i.e., we can and do personally interact with other humans, that interaction is the ground of our mutual personal certainty of each other’s existence.

And we are personally certain of the existence of everything else outside our each one’s personal existence on the ground of our interaction with everything, by which interaction we continue to stay alive by reaping the benefit of our interaction with everything else in the universe, or kill ourselves by not taking care to avoid the disaster that can destroy our life, when we do not take these physical things seriously, like as I said earlier, an airplane on a crash course falling from the sky and heading toward you.

So many words and I cannot get to your brain that you calling yourself a solipsist is a very silly attitude, it is no intelligent thinking at all grounded on logic and facts.

Let us try this exercise.

You hold a loaded magnum pistol pointing it at your head, is that gun you point at your head something that you are certain to be existing on absolute certainty, or on personal certainty?

You being silly and stubborn will insist that you are at peace ( as in rest in peace ) with your absolute certainty only that you exist, but the gun you know to exist only on faith, belief, or fiction.

• The text that you have entered is too long (6543 characters). Please shorten it to 6000 characters long. – from Admin or robot? ]*

Okay, read the rest of this message in the next post.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

• Continuation ]*

What do you mean by you knowing the gun to exist only on faith, belief, or fiction, that you are not personally, as a human being with intelligence and physically linked to the material world that is outside your bodily existence but still interactive with your bodily existence, do you mean that you can take the chance of pulling the trigger because you are not ‘absolutely’ certain that the gun exists?

So, you commit suicide to prove to yourself that there is no absolute certainty of the gun existing; but the police will tell everyone that you are an absolute nut case for taking your silly philosophy of solipsism as to live and act according to its utter silliness, and thus you have succeeded to prove the opposite, but futilely because you are now dead, no longer existing, that your solipsism is not true, it is a silly idea altogether, except for your stubborn un-thinking head.

Here, before I forget, you are not aware of the distinction between the realm of thinking in your brain, and the realm of objective reality of things existing outside your foolishly un-thinking brain, and existing even without you around existing at all as to be aware of them.

You know the paradox of Zeno, he is one guy who feels so smart with himself about Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles will not ever in a race overtake the tortoise, if he just gives the tortoise even just one foot ahead of the starting line.

And he reasons this way, because Achilles will never cover the infinitely divisible by ½ the distance between itself and the tortoise.

That is very convincing to you all because you do not distinguish between the realm of un-thinking in your brain, and forget or neglect stubbornly, refuse, to take into account the objective realm of things and events in actual reality.

So, you keep imagining yourself so smart with your absolute certainty of being a solipsist, but never taking the care to consult the actual reality of the world of objective things and events.

That is what intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts is all about, first: consult the objective realm of actual realities and events, and infer from them to the personal certainty that if you shoot yourself in the head, you will kill yourself no matter that being a solipsist you have no absolute certainty of the existence of the gun and that it is loaded and that it is a well-crafted bullet projecting piece of machinery.

Okay, tell me, do you know the distinction between the realm of thinking in your brain and the realm of objectively existing things and events?

Answer that question.

KingCoil

 

[Partinobodycula]

KingCoil, as I have said, I am quite at peace with my logic and facts, and I am even at peace with the fact, that I cannot give these things to you. As much as I may want to, and as hard as I may try, I cannot be sure of giving you anything, and so the question is, should I continue to try? To be honest, I don’t always come up with the same answer to this question. There are times that I lack the conviction, or the will, or the heart, to continue advocating for that which others see only as foolishness. And so for the most part, I keep to myself, I keep quiet. But every once in awhile I make an attempt, I try, not because others might gain from the effort, although I hope perchance that they do, but that I might gain from it. And in a way, to a solipsist, that’s the point, that even in failure, there is something to be gained in trying. The whole purpose in life is that I am better for having lived, I am better for having tried. And so in spite of the futility of the effort, I will try again.

I say that I am a solipsist, and you think that I am indifferent to life. That it means nothing to me. But the truth is, that it means everything to me. I treasure every last little nuance and subtlety of it, from the pain and the sorrow, to the joy and the love. These are the things that define me. And no matter their origin, I am blessed for having had them. All of them. If I have any redeeming qualities, it is because life has nurtured them in me. If there is a purpose to the suffering, a meaning to the pain, it is that I am better for having borne them, kinder than I was, more patient than I was, more forgiving than I was. Some think life is to be endured, I think it is to be embraced. If I regret anything, it is not that I have suffered, it is that others have suffered, and some because of me.

I say that I am a solipsist, and you think that I believe that there is no God, or perhaps even that I am God. But if I am God, then there is dreadful little glory in being so, for without the world, what am I, other than alone? And how could I be God, if I do not know what I am, or where I came from? No, if I wish to find God, I will have to look somewhere else. A solipsist doesn’t know that he is God, a solipsist simply knows that he isn’t. But the sad part is, that if there is indeed a God, then I can never know Him either, other than by faith, other than by the part of Him that lives in me, and the part of Him that lives in others. When men look for God, they find what they want to find. They look for God outside themselves, because there is so little of Him within themselves.

I say that I am a solipsist, and you think that I am a fool. That I do not reason. That I do not discern. But I am a solipsist, not because I do not do these things, but because I do. I accept what I do not know, and what I cannot know. I know that I am, and that I love, and hope, and forgive, and mourn. These are the things I know. They are not born of me, they are born of life. From where that comes, I cannot say.

Okay, tell me, do you know the distinction between the realm of thinking in your brain and the realm of objectively existing things and events?

I had actually taken the time to write out an answer to this question, but it turned out to be much more involved than you may have realized, and so I decided to forgo it. Suffice it to say that I understand the distinction. But I also understand that it will make no difference to this discussion. You will no doubt choose to disagree, and I will no doubt be content to let you. I understand your argument, I simply disagree with it. I wonder however, if you understand mine.

Unfortunately, this is something that I lack the intelligence, eloquence, and persistence to change. And so I fear that we must kindly agree to disagree.

 

[KingCoil]

…]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Okay, tell me, do you know the distinction between the realm of thinking in your brain and the realm of objectively existing things and events?

It makes a very essential difference to realize that you are talking fiction instead realities based on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

You see, mankind since the dawn of consciousness and intelligence has observed the fact of the existence of everything and every event in existence in nature to which mankind was exposed.

From his intelligent thinking on logic and the facts of the existence of things and the vicissitudes of the events in nature, mankind came to the conclusion on logic that there exists the creator and operator of everything, the universe, which science tells us today that yes the universe has a beginning.

Your solipsism is all pure fiction, not different from the arguments of atheists against the existence of God: they go into concepts and words all in a realm of fiction, but never talk about the reality that the universe has a beginning, and they claim to be scientific – yet they prefer to dwell in a fiction scenario when it comes to God, bringing in so many words and concepts, but never taking the concern to find out whether their ideas have any connection with the objective actual real existence of things and events in the realm of reality.

Read this long-winded useless fictional argument of Victor Stenger about how the universe is eternal, it is not founded on any facts of science but is a continuous inane fictional manipulation of words and concepts, without one connection with the reality established by science that the universe has a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

He does not know that he is into a realm of concepts and words that is purely fictional, that is why he cannot connect and dares not connect his fiction with the realm of objective facts of the existence of things and events in the universe, which universe science tells has a beginning some 13,8 billion years ago.

Here is the one line from his article in huffingtonpost.com, On the other hand, modern cosmology suggests that the universe was not created, that it is eternal in time.
That is a fraudulent statement, modern cosmology says that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

That extremely thin-gruel line sums up his vacuous thesis about an eternal universe, even though he purports in the title of his article to deal with the universe coming from nothing, but he shifted to prove in fiction terms that the universe is eternal.

Hey, Stenger, don’t bother to write so many words, just prove to scientists who know that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, that they are wrong, scientifically wrong, instead of spinning and spinning and spinning silly concepts and words toward nothing in reality but all fiction in your mind, because you are into pure fiction like the stories of Harry Potter.

[Title] Did the Universe Come From Nothing?

…]

On the other hand, modern cosmology suggests that the universe was not created, that it is eternal in time.

…]

huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/did-the-universe-come-fro_b_739909.html

No, Partinobodycula, this is not just a matter of freedom of thought, that we just disagree.

There is a realm of concepts in our mind and there is the realm of objective facts and events in actual reality independent of the realm in our mind of concepts and words.

From the realm of concepts and words in our mind we work by intelligent thinking on logic and facts, and then we proceed to the actual objective realm of things and events outside our realm of concepts and words, and if we are not into pure fiction, then we search for the object which we have concluded to exist in the actual objective realm of existence outside our mind, like for example, that God exists as the creator and operator of the universe which science tells us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

So, we have gone into the universe and have located God, namely, He is everywhere outside and inside the universe because He is of a substance unique only to Himself, that is the why He is everywhere, as if you imagine a material thing that is larger than the whole universe and envelops it totally, and also so subtle that it is in every particle in the universe, and it is in control of all the forces, fields, laws of the universe which it, i.e. God Himself, also is the creator of and master and enforcer of.

So, we don’t see God with our eyes, but with our reason thinking intelligently on logic and facts.

But your solipsism is pure fiction even though you can spin concepts and words in your brain but never can practice it in actual objective reality, unless you want to test it by shooting yourself in the head with a magnum pistol.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Partinobodycula:

The way I see you: you declare yourself to be a solipsist, meaning you cannot know with certainty, yes absolute certainty that is your obsession, that anything at all exists outside yourself; of course you will concur with me that is only insofar as your are concerned, and all because you are only yes absolutely certain that you exist, everything else not you even the material components that make up your brain, meaning the sub-atomic particles, etc., and your heart, and the blood coursing in your veins and arteries, you have no absolute certainty of their existence even though they are in you.

Do you see how silly is your solipsism?

Now, what is the axe which you are grinding and you justify yourself with grinding this axe because you want to prove to yourself that you cannot be sure of God’s existence – yes, because your are a solipsist wherefore you cannot be certain yes absolutely certain that anything at all exists outside of yourself, of which only you have absolute certainty.

So, you are an atheist hiding behind your wall of having embraced the silly attitude of solipsism, that is not a philosophy but a silly attitude.

However, I see you to be also very stubborn, you have not done what Valekhai did, he ran away even though he proclaimed earlier that this thread would be stale-mated by him because he would prove to me that God does not exist.

You have hung to this thread with spinning concepts and words to no purpose except to maintain some tenancy here, instead of running away in retreat.

You see, the axe you are grinding is that for you alone of course: since you are only absolutely (silly) certain of your own existence and nothing else not yourself (silly of course) – so you cannot know God to exist because, again, you are a solipsist, you are only yes absolutely certain of your own existence, and nothing else outside of yourself.

You might as well insist that you cannot know God to exist the way humans know God to exist, because you are a robot programmed by your inventor to not know God to exist from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

How? In your case your inventor has put the program attitude of solipsism in your cpu chip.

With Valekhai, the axe he is grinding continuously instead of doing all the time and in every issue, intelligent thinking grounding himself or his brain err mind on logic and facts, that axe is his distinction that the creator of the universe is not the God of the Abrahamic faiths: because the creator of the universe is not the God described by atheists hard-core atheists like Dawkins and his ilk, that the God of the Old Testament described by Dawkins is:

The God of the OT is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

See, * old.richarddawkins.net/articles/641920-the-god-of-the-old-testament*

Valekhai is not accustomed to do intelligent thinking on logic and facts, so also neither you, but I give you the credit for sticking around instead of running away, even though you now engage in spinning concepts and words in the realm of your mind which concepts and words are nothing but making up factions, just to trust that you can hoodwink readers who presume that since you spin so many words there must be some substance you know about in the realm of the objective actual world of existence outside of your mind, that is not accessible to them because they are not as deep in their thinking as you are – silly.

That is just a lot of intellectual dishonesty from you, hiding behind spinning concepts and words in your fictional world that is all in your mind only, and nothing you can and should locate, i.e. search for, in the objective actual existence of things and events outside your mind which you have kept confined in fictions.

Okay, tell me, what exactly is your point in embracing your silly attitude of identifying yourself as a solipsist, if you cannot be see yourself that you are actually into grinding the axe of solipsism in order to prove to yourself: why in effect there is no God because you cannot be absolutely certain of anything that is not yourself – silly.

In the case of Valekhai, he is obsessed with his distinction that the creator of the universe is not the sadistic genocidal infanticidal God of the Jewish Old Testament – therefore he is justified to call himself an atheist, atheist to the God of the Old Testament, though he concurs that there is a creator of the universe.

How do Christians reconcile the bloodthirsty God of the Old Testament with the God of “Our Father Who art in heaven," etc.?

Simple, the God of the Jews in the Old Testament had a very bad press and that is due to the Jews believing in frightening their enemies that their God is totally without any mercy toward their enemies, and of course He is the creator Who in the beginning made heaven and earth, and afterwards made a covenant with them Jews, sealed by their foreskin.

You and Valekhai are simply infantile in the way you employ your brain err mind, but I must give you the credit for not running away from this thread, unlike Valekhai.

KingCoil

 

[Partinobodycula]

So, we don’t see God with our eyes, but with our reason thinking intelligently on logic and facts.

The thing to keep in mind is, that every person on the planet, with few exceptions, base their beliefs on logic and facts. You and I are no different, we are the same as everyone else. Our brains are specifically designed to take in information, evaluate it, process it, and integrate it into our worldview. And Most of this is done without our even being consciously aware of our doing it. In a very real sense, our facts are derived from our beliefs, rather than the other way around. Our minds subconsciously filter incoming information in such a way as to reinforce our preconceptions. To validate our facts, and affirm our logic. We are inherently biased, without our even being aware of it. If you think that you are somehow unique, that you alone are singularly gifted to discern what is right and true, then you are sadly mistaken. For every man does the same. We are arrogant, ignorant, fools.

People are capable of reaching all manner of seemingly irrational conclusions, using the exact same process by which you reach yours. Outside of a very narrow spectrum, facts are relative to the perspective of the individual. What you believe to be facts and logic, I may well believe to be irrational nonsense. Each of us in our own way build a world that we are at peace with. We rationalize, or ignore, the suffering, the injustice, and the indifference of the world, for if we didn’t, the world would be an unendurable place. Wisdom, empathy, and self awareness come at a price…the unignorable suffering of others. The mind rationalizes that which it could not otherwise endure. We believe, because we cannot bear not to. We judge, because we do not have the wisdom to forgive.

Do you see how silly is your solipsism?

To you it’s silly, to me it is simply honest. It is an admission of my own ignorance. I don’t know where the world came from. I don’t know where I came from. But I know that I am, and I know that I live, and love, and cherish. And for these things I am grateful, however it is that they came to be. I am humble, I am blessed, and yes, I am perhaps, silly. People will judge me in the manner they so choose, and I cannot please them all. To be honest, I may not be able to please any of them, but it is not their judgment or ridicule that concerns me, it is the testimony of my life, and my heart, that concerns me. If I am to be judged, let me be judged by these.

So, you are an atheist hiding behind your wall of having embraced the silly attitude of solipsism,

Whether I am an atheist or not, I will leave to others to decide. Many men claim to know God, and perhaps they do, who am I to say. All I can say is what I believe, and I do that as honestly as I can. What others choose to call me, is not my concern.

You might as well insist that you cannot know God to exist the way humans know God to exist,

You are right, I cannot know God in the manner that many others claim to, but there are many things in this world that people claim to be true, and I cannot know them either. To single out one claim above the others as being true, is to proclaim a wisdom that I do not have. People are so sure of so many things, and I am sure of so little. Perhaps they are simply wiser than I. But as I say, I know love, and compassion, and mercy, and forgiveness, and if God is any of these things, then perhaps I do know Him. I know that I have the precious gift of life, and I am thankful to that which gave it to me. If that be God, then I shall honor Him by the manner with which I live it.

 

[oldcelt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
So, we don’t see God with our eyes, but with our reason thinking intelligently on logic and facts.

Agreed, both gifts we received through God’s creation.

 

[Tzimisce]

There’s no logic to the belief in God.
There’s no logic to the belief in Magic.
There’s no logic to the belief in Prophecy.
There’s no logic to the belief in Angels.

This is the realm of faith.

No one can rationalize something that’s irrational.

Pride leads to the belief that one can.

No one can prove religion. So why try?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No one can prove religion. So why try?

No one can prove atheism, so why try?

 

[tonyrey]

There’s no logic to the belief in God.
There’s no logic to the belief in Magic.
There’s no logic to the belief in Prophecy.
There’s no logic to the belief in Angels.
This is the realm of faith.

There is no logic to the belief in paganism.
There is no logic to the belief that science will explain everything.
There is no logic to the belief that rational beings have been produced by irrational processes.
There is no logic to the belief that we are mindless robots.

This is the realm of faith!

No one can rationalize something that’s irrational.

Pride leads to the belief that one can.

No one can prove religion. So why try?

No one can rationalize irrational faith in paganism.

Pride leads to the belief that one can.

No one can prove paganism. So why try?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

KingCoil;

Time and again my exchange of thoughts with atheists on the existence of God gets nowhere: because atheists stubbornly refuse to think intelligently on logic and facts.

Good morning King Coil: Could you describe of you would, the logic and facts on faith?
I haven’t been able to get a good understanding of what the logic and facts are from this post.

Atheists who want to appear clever define themselves as just simply lacking in any belief in the existence of a deity.

That means that you cannot blame them for not coming to know God because they lack some kind of faculty to come to the knowledge of God’s existence.

Does someone need to blamed for not believing? Conversely, do we need to be blamed for believing? My sense is that what someone believes or doesn’t believe is largely a matter of culture, upbringing and life experience. It don’t believe it’s a matter of accountability as much as it is an outcome based on conditions. I am pretty certain that I wouldn’t be Catholic for instance if I hadn’t been raised Catholic or perhaps exposed to Catholicism in some way that had a profound impact on my thinking. If that never happened, would it be my fault that it didn’t?

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Tzimisce]

There is no logic to the belief in paganism.
There is no logic to the belief that science will explain everything.
There is no logic to the belief that rational beings have been produced by irrational processes.
There is no logic to the belief that we are mindless robots.

This is the realm of faith!

No one can rationalize irrational faith in paganism.

Pride leads to the belief that one can.

No one can prove paganism. So why try?

What does my religion have to do with this discussion?

You’re going to dismiss my argument simply because I’m not a Catholic?

The eating of the bread and wine at a ritual is a pagan practice.
The ritual cleansing of sin in water is a pagan practice.
The belief in a God that dies and becomes reborn is a pagan practices.
Practices that were done long before the Christians came around.

I didn’t attack your religion, why are you attacking mine?

 

[Tzimisce]

No one can prove atheism, so why try?

Why do you just assume I’m defending Atheism? No one can prove that God exists.

Yes: no one can prove that he doesn’t exist either. You’re right.

And it’s completely pointless to argue with someone who does try to prove Atheism.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

There is no logic to the belief in paganism.
There is no logic to the belief that science will explain everything.
There is no logic to the belief that rational beings have been produced by irrational processes.

There is no logic to the belief that we are mindless robots.

This is the realm of faith!

No one can rationalize irrational faith in paganism.

Pride leads to the belief that one can.

No one can prove paganism. So why try?

Good Evening Tonrey: It’s only my opinion of course, but I think it’s a well considered opinion that religious people of all stripes (Pagans, Christians, Jews and the like), atheists and material reductionists are all near of kin. Each seems to believe that they have the truth whilst the others simply have a belief system. I think we simply all have belief systems, replete with dogmas and theologies. This includes atheists - they are exactly the same. My conclusion is that each of us has what we feel to be sound logic to support our positions, but I have never been able to see anything conclusive from any camp. I think it’s all a matter of what ideas resonate with us, and this is largely influenced by culture and life experience. Often it has nothing to do with logic. Resurrections, Assumptions, raisings of the dead and the like are not things that I think match well with the realities of practical experience and observation, yet you and I believe in it. The question is why. Again, I think it’s culture, upbringing, experience and disposition. When I say disposition, I think this may have something to do with a need to believe, which may have a psychological aspect to it. The same applies to those who disagree with us and have other beliefs. Again, it’s important to remember that I consider atheism to be a belief system as well. It hides behind the guise of scientific inquiry, but that camp truly has no ally in science. Whatever the case, I do believe that all parties have enough trouble defending their positions to any conclusive degree, and there is little enterprise in casting dispersions at the beliefs of the others, while our own positions are less tenable than we might like to admit.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[oldcelt]

Good Evening Tonrey: It’s only my opinion of course, but I think it’s a well considered opinion that religious people of all stripes (Pagans, Christians, Jews and the like), atheists and material reductionists are all near of kin. Each seems to believe that they have the truth whilst the others simply have a belief system. I think we simply all have belief systems, replete with dogmas and theologies. This includes atheists - they are exactly the same. My conclusion is that each of us has what we feel to be sound logic to support our positions, but I have never been able to see anything conclusive from any camp. I think it’s all a matter of what ideas resonate with us, and this is largely influenced by culture and life experience. Often it has nothing to do with logic. Resurrections, Assumptions, raisings of the dead and the like are not things that I think match well with the realities of practical experience and observation, yet you and I believe in it. The question is why. Again, I think it’s culture, upbringing, experience and disposition. When I say disposition, I think this may have something to do with a need to believe, which may have a psychological aspect to it. The same applies to those who disagree with us and have other beliefs. Again, it’s important to remember that I consider atheism to be a belief system as well. It hides behind the guise of scientific inquiry, but that camp truly has no ally in science. Whatever the case, I do believe that all parties have enough trouble defending their positions to any conclusive degree, and there is little enterprise in casting dispersions at the beliefs of the others, while our own positions are less tenable than we might like to admit.

Thanks,
Gary

Good post Gary. I think that other than the radical non-believers, everyone is searching . In a good many cases we are not that far apart and we shouldn’t use those small differences as a reason to squabble.There are numerous possible reasons for the creation, but I could not state any of them with absolute certainty.

John

 

[Partinobodycula]

Good Evening Tonrey: It’s only my opinion of course, but I think it’s a well considered opinion that religious people of all stripes (Pagans, Christians, Jews and the like), atheists and material reductionists are all near of kin. Each seems to believe that they have the truth whilst the others simply have a belief system. I think we simply all have belief systems, replete with dogmas and theologies. This includes atheists - they are exactly the same. My conclusion is that each of us has what we feel to be sound logic to support our positions, but I have never been able to see anything conclusive from any camp. I think it’s all a matter of what ideas resonate with us, and this is largely influenced by culture and life experience. Often it has nothing to do with logic. Resurrections, Assumptions, raisings of the dead and the like are not things that I think match well with the realities of practical experience and observation, yet you and I believe in it. The question is why. Again, I think it’s culture, upbringing, experience and disposition. When I say disposition, I think this may have something to do with a need to believe, which may have a psychological aspect to it. The same applies to those who disagree with us and have other beliefs. Again, it’s important to remember that I consider atheism to be a belief system as well. It hides behind the guise of scientific inquiry, but that camp truly has no ally in science. Whatever the case, I do believe that all parties have enough trouble defending their positions to any conclusive degree, and there is little enterprise in casting dispersions at the beliefs of the others, while our own positions are less tenable than we might like to admit.

Thanks,
Gary

Gary, I would just like to echo the sentiments of oldcelt, and commend you for an excellent post. Well said sir.

 

[tonyrey]

Good Evening Tonrey: It’s only my opinion of course, but I think it’s a well considered opinion that religious people of all stripes (Pagans, Christians, Jews and the like), atheists and material reductionists are all near of kin. Each seems to believe that they have the truth whilst the others simply have a belief system. I think we simply all have belief systems, replete with dogmas and theologies. This includes atheists - they are exactly the same. My conclusion is that each of us has what we feel to be sound logic to support our positions, but I have never been able to see anything conclusive from any camp. I think it’s all a matter of what ideas resonate with us, and this is largely influenced by culture and life experience. Often it has nothing to do with logic. Resurrections, Assumptions, raisings of the dead and the like are not things that I think match well with the realities of practical experience and observation, yet you and I believe in it. The question is why. Again, I think it’s culture, upbringing, experience and disposition. When I say disposition, I think this may have something to do with a need to believe, which may have a psychological aspect to it. The same applies to those who disagree with us and have other beliefs. Again, it’s important to remember that I consider atheism to be a belief system as well. It hides behind the guise of scientific inquiry, but that camp truly has no ally in science. Whatever the case, I do believe that all parties have enough trouble defending their positions to any conclusive degree, and there is little enterprise in casting dispersions at the beliefs of the others, while our own positions are less tenable than we might like to admit.

Thanks,
Gary

There is only one problem with your opinion, Gary, but it’s insurmountable. Your own position - that all beliefs have exactly the same degree of credibility - cannot be defended to any conclusive degree!

Do you believe materialism, for example, - or deism - is as equally cogent as theism?

 

[tonyrey]

Good post Gary. I think that other than the radical non-believers, everyone is searching . In a good many cases we are not that far apart and we shouldn’t use those small differences as a reason to squabble.There are numerous possible reasons for the creation, but I could not state any of them with absolute certainty.

John

There is a big difference between absolute and relative certainty. Are you absolutely certain deism is closer to the truth than theism?

 

[jimmy]

The OP took a long time to say nothing. All he said was ‘it is based on logic and facts’, but never explained or developed that. He repeated that over and over.

I think the whole discussion of whether God exists is distorted because it treats the question as if I am irrelevant. It attempts to put it into scientific terms, which means I am not a part of the equation. I must be an objective observer. But the only way the question makes any sense is if I consider it subjectively as part of the system. As long as I consider the existence of everything else apart from myself I can easily explain it away, but as soon as I have to explain myself and the fact that I am even asking the question it becomes a little more complicated. So the question of ‘does God exist’ is more related to my own existence than it is to the existence of the world around me. The question doesn’t even make sense if I am not in the equation. Why would I even ask it?