S
steve_b
Guest
How about if I say He is the eternal cause.It appears that you argue against yourself.
- Status
N
notself
Guest
Then God could be the singularity.How about if I say He is the eternal cause.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Hi A
You have asked the question âWhat measures have you, the faithful, taken to make sure that you are not hallucinating those âpersonal experiences of Yahwehâ?â and made the commentâ I think this is a very important question since we all hallucinate, and there is often a strong desire to have a âYahweh experienceâ.â
I have not read the entire thread nor any of the earlier thread yet I do not see an answer, so I would like to address the issue with you. However I know the answer is not what you seek. First let me give the answer Answer: I have done nothing to dismiss hallucination nor would I advise others to anything to dismiss hallucinations. Now let me explain why. For starters the question is a bad question, in that it can only be answered accurately if the assumptions used to form the question are correct and thus the problem. One assumption I think you will eventually find as false is â Can the hallucination (or lack of) be proven. A second assumption is the existence (or lack of) of God can be proven. Additionally, from reading many posts in this thread it seems the definition of the word âproveâ or âproofâ maybe inadequate as used.
Moving on from that another poster has tried to explain it appears this whole thread is really a version of Agnostic thoughts. I think that poster is correct, however you may a reason for not wanting to address that, so please share that with us.
Btw Have some questions or maybe I should say an unresolved issue which I have been asking proclaimed atheist to assist me with, so let me know if you can assist me.
You have asked the question âWhat measures have you, the faithful, taken to make sure that you are not hallucinating those âpersonal experiences of Yahwehâ?â and made the commentâ I think this is a very important question since we all hallucinate, and there is often a strong desire to have a âYahweh experienceâ.â
I have not read the entire thread nor any of the earlier thread yet I do not see an answer, so I would like to address the issue with you. However I know the answer is not what you seek. First let me give the answer Answer: I have done nothing to dismiss hallucination nor would I advise others to anything to dismiss hallucinations. Now let me explain why. For starters the question is a bad question, in that it can only be answered accurately if the assumptions used to form the question are correct and thus the problem. One assumption I think you will eventually find as false is â Can the hallucination (or lack of) be proven. A second assumption is the existence (or lack of) of God can be proven. Additionally, from reading many posts in this thread it seems the definition of the word âproveâ or âproofâ maybe inadequate as used.
Moving on from that another poster has tried to explain it appears this whole thread is really a version of Agnostic thoughts. I think that poster is correct, however you may a reason for not wanting to address that, so please share that with us.
Btw Have some questions or maybe I should say an unresolved issue which I have been asking proclaimed atheist to assist me with, so let me know if you can assist me.
S
steve_b
Guest
If that is how you gradually start accepting God then :extrahappy: But donât stop there.
O
ontologysue
Guest
Not necessarily, it sounds to me like A is just saying if time is created, which it is, then to speak of any increment of time, including âbeforeâ is nonsense outside the created universe.
Yes, thatâs true. So, now what?
S
steve_b
Guest
What is created presupposes a creator.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Actually time was created by man. Change must either be created or constant, if created it would require a creator. If constant it had to exist before the Big Bang. This is why a universal start at the Big Bang is illogical. The Bang can represent our start form the past, if a past exists. If there is no past then you need a creator.
S
steve_b
Guest
I entered this thread here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3098442&postcount=243
Take a look at the points raised.
P
phooney
Guest
@Steveb
Most of the questions you ask about my posts could be answered by reading my posts, but Iâll try one more time for you.
"Do you remember saying
âThere is, however, no reason for assuming that God had anything to do with it, when there are pre big-bang hypotheses that are at least as plausible. I say they are at least as plausible because, while they also donât have enough evidence for them to justify a belief, they are at least mathematically consistent with our observations of the universe that we are able to measure in our present day.â
youâre saying
pre big bang hypothesis donât have enough evidence to believe in them
but if they are mathematically consistent, they are more plausable, than God
This is eliminating God.the creator for something created. I gotta tell you. Iâm concerned about you."
âThink about what you just said.
God is a hypothesis, not real
Math is more plausable than God because math is accurate and observable
Good grief!!! All youâve talked about here in these posts is hypothesis, plausabilities and theories. But you know for sure God isnât realâŚâ
How does this eliminate God? All it says is that there are, in my opinion, more plausible explanations and I give the reason WHY I think they are more plausible. Many theories that are now rock solid (or as rock solid as you can get anyway) started out as mathematical conjecture, so Maths is a great start. However, being mathematically consistent with no observational evidence is not enough for me to justify believing in it, because mathematically consistent theories (like the loop vortex theory I mentioned earlier) can be wrong.
You also attempt to set up a false dichotomy by implying that if I donât believe in God then that must mean I know God doesnât exist or that I have to believe in another hypothesis. I do not, and I do not. You also beg the question and use circular reasoning again when you say the universe is created. Your logical fallacies are mounting up.
I didnât say hypotheses were not real. Consider them to be candidates for belief. They may or may not be correct, but you canât justify belief in them without evidence. Please allow me to argue my own side and if you are going to quote something I said and argue against it, please make sure that you donât cut off the quote just before your question is explained.
âIn your opening statement (highlighted above) you say you do not eliminate God absolutely, but then you say here, there is no such thing as any specific God.â
I apologise for this wording, I can see how it has confused you and resulted in you assuming completely the wrong thing. What I intended to say there is that there is no such thing as a mathematically consistent model for god, let alone a MATHEMATICALLY CONSISTENT MODEL OF any specific God. Emphasis added this time so you can hopefully understand.
âWhen is the last time you saw a self made Tapestry? The very title of his book is a contradiction of terms.â
Itâs called metaphor.
ânobody knows what caused the big bang? Carl Sagan?, belief in aliens?, yet you know God doesnât exist? sheesh!!â
Again putting words in my mouth. When you quote me here your underlining is REALLY erratic⌠Iâm not sure what you have taken exception to. I certainly havenât said that there is no God, but I still lack the belief in any God.
âName one effect that wasnât the result of causeâ
Again, this question is the result of quoting part of one of my sentences. Personally, I canât tell you anything about what happened âbeforeâ the planck time, or whether any hypothetical thing in that extreme early universe happened without a cause or not. This doesnât make any argument for you whatsoever.
Thanks for the quote regarding planck time. Please read it and note the limiting condition it puts on the âbeginningâ of the universe, which is âWithin the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them todayâ i.e. they (whoever they are) are measuring the beginning as being from the planck time to now, though clearly the singularity was âbeforeâ that, and it still makes no assumptions as to what caused the big bang, as more evidence is needed.
Most of the questions you ask about my posts could be answered by reading my posts, but Iâll try one more time for you.
"Do you remember saying
âThere is, however, no reason for assuming that God had anything to do with it, when there are pre big-bang hypotheses that are at least as plausible. I say they are at least as plausible because, while they also donât have enough evidence for them to justify a belief, they are at least mathematically consistent with our observations of the universe that we are able to measure in our present day.â
youâre saying
pre big bang hypothesis donât have enough evidence to believe in them
but if they are mathematically consistent, they are more plausable, than God
This is eliminating God.the creator for something created. I gotta tell you. Iâm concerned about you."
âThink about what you just said.
God is a hypothesis, not real
Math is more plausable than God because math is accurate and observable
Good grief!!! All youâve talked about here in these posts is hypothesis, plausabilities and theories. But you know for sure God isnât realâŚâ
How does this eliminate God? All it says is that there are, in my opinion, more plausible explanations and I give the reason WHY I think they are more plausible. Many theories that are now rock solid (or as rock solid as you can get anyway) started out as mathematical conjecture, so Maths is a great start. However, being mathematically consistent with no observational evidence is not enough for me to justify believing in it, because mathematically consistent theories (like the loop vortex theory I mentioned earlier) can be wrong.
You also attempt to set up a false dichotomy by implying that if I donât believe in God then that must mean I know God doesnât exist or that I have to believe in another hypothesis. I do not, and I do not. You also beg the question and use circular reasoning again when you say the universe is created. Your logical fallacies are mounting up.
I didnât say hypotheses were not real. Consider them to be candidates for belief. They may or may not be correct, but you canât justify belief in them without evidence. Please allow me to argue my own side and if you are going to quote something I said and argue against it, please make sure that you donât cut off the quote just before your question is explained.
âIn your opening statement (highlighted above) you say you do not eliminate God absolutely, but then you say here, there is no such thing as any specific God.â
I apologise for this wording, I can see how it has confused you and resulted in you assuming completely the wrong thing. What I intended to say there is that there is no such thing as a mathematically consistent model for god, let alone a MATHEMATICALLY CONSISTENT MODEL OF any specific God. Emphasis added this time so you can hopefully understand.
âWhen is the last time you saw a self made Tapestry? The very title of his book is a contradiction of terms.â
Itâs called metaphor.
ânobody knows what caused the big bang? Carl Sagan?, belief in aliens?, yet you know God doesnât exist? sheesh!!â
Again putting words in my mouth. When you quote me here your underlining is REALLY erratic⌠Iâm not sure what you have taken exception to. I certainly havenât said that there is no God, but I still lack the belief in any God.
âName one effect that wasnât the result of causeâ
Again, this question is the result of quoting part of one of my sentences. Personally, I canât tell you anything about what happened âbeforeâ the planck time, or whether any hypothetical thing in that extreme early universe happened without a cause or not. This doesnât make any argument for you whatsoever.
Thanks for the quote regarding planck time. Please read it and note the limiting condition it puts on the âbeginningâ of the universe, which is âWithin the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them todayâ i.e. they (whoever they are) are measuring the beginning as being from the planck time to now, though clearly the singularity was âbeforeâ that, and it still makes no assumptions as to what caused the big bang, as more evidence is needed.
P
phooney
Guest
@ontologysue
Hi there, and welcome to the thread!
"ââonly by the fruits will you know them,â "
So, by this rationale, hallucinations that result in âgoodâ fruits are true? Seems a bit of a tenuous link to reality if you ask me!
âBack to time, since there is no unified theory in physics, yet, scientists are unable to square the quantum particle world with the general theory of relativity world, because of this it is as yet unknown if or what laws governed reality before the big bang before the universe was billions of times smaller than a hydrogen atom.â
And Science loves questions and the unknown!
Hi there, and welcome to the thread!
"ââonly by the fruits will you know them,â "
So, by this rationale, hallucinations that result in âgoodâ fruits are true? Seems a bit of a tenuous link to reality if you ask me!
âBack to time, since there is no unified theory in physics, yet, scientists are unable to square the quantum particle world with the general theory of relativity world, because of this it is as yet unknown if or what laws governed reality before the big bang before the universe was billions of times smaller than a hydrogen atom.â
And Science loves questions and the unknown!
P
phooney
Guest
@Texas Roofer
âBtw Have some questions or maybe I should say an unresolved issue which I have been asking proclaimed atheist to assist me with, so let me know if you can assist me.â
Iâm sure that I, or most atheists active in this thread, would do our best to help you with any questions you have. Of course, each of us can only speak for ourselves, seeing as the only thing that Atheists neccesarily have in common is the lack of a belief in a God.
âBtw Have some questions or maybe I should say an unresolved issue which I have been asking proclaimed atheist to assist me with, so let me know if you can assist me.â
Iâm sure that I, or most atheists active in this thread, would do our best to help you with any questions you have. Of course, each of us can only speak for ourselves, seeing as the only thing that Atheists neccesarily have in common is the lack of a belief in a God.
O
ontologysue
Guest
Well, speaking for myself, I love that train of logic, but in the Varghese book Iâve been reading, he speaks of a point of view that Bertrand Russell held which states,** âwe shouldnât ask for a final cause because causes only apply to the things in the universe, not the universe itself.â**
Varghese says that that argument, ie, since there are âlawsâ there has to be a âlawgiver,â is an anthropomorphic fallacy and âobscures the radical distinction between finite and infinite being.â
Personally, I think the existence of language and consciousness, which scientists still find inexplicable, are more pursuasive indicators of an Infinite Intelligence, who, (perfect âpersonhoodâ) IS Being Itself, ie God.
O
ontologysue
Guest
The term âhallucinationâ is, by definition, not real, therefore, if you insist on that term, thereâs no discussion; a hallucination bears little or no resemblence to reality. Iâm sorry, maybe I need to re-read the thread, I thought you were discussing ârevelations,â ie, in the sense of, were the Islamic terrorists, for example, inspired by relvelations or hallucinations?
N
notself
Guest
If God was the singularity, then God no longer exists except as part of everything and everyone.
Therefore there was no separate creation of humans, no fall from grace in the Garden, no need for worship or redemption, no need for priests and popes.
If God was the singularity, then there is no soul, no after life, just recycling of matter and energy all of which is God.
P
phooney
Guest
@ontologysue
âPersonally, I think the existence of language and consciousness, which scientists still find inexplicable, are more pursuasive indicators of an Infinite Intelligence, who, (perfect âpersonhoodâ) IS Being Itself, ie God.â
This is simply an argument from ignorance, which puts God in a supposed gap in knowledge. There are plenty of neuroscientists and linguists making headway in these areas of enquiry. What are you saying is inexplicable about language? What do you think consciousness is? Again, I feel I need to put in the disclaimer about my use of the word âignoranceâ and remind you that I simply mean âunaware of the factsâ and not all the negative connotations that the word carries in common usage.
âThe term âhallucinationâ is, by definition, not real, therefore, if you insist on that term, thereâs no discussion; a hallucination bears little or no resemblence to reality. Iâm sorry, maybe I need to re-read the thread, I thought you were discussing ârevelations,â ie, in the sense of, were the Islamic terrorists, for example, inspired by relvelations or hallucinations?â
Indeed, if I recall correctly, the question was about how to distinguish between real personal private revelations and hallucinations. When you said that âby the fruits you will know themâ I took that to mean that it was the results of the revelation/hallucination experience that would indicate itâs reality. Sorry if I misunderstood that, but with that take on your rationale I pondered the question of whether a hallucination could have a positive impact. I think it could. Say you are walking along and you see a snake about to bite you so you stop and run back in the other direction. In reality the space where the snake was, was actually a cliff edge. Thus âgoodâ fruits have been borne of this, and by your rationale I took this to mean that the hallucination was reality. I called this link a bit tenuous. I am hoping I simply misunderstood what you meant.
âPersonally, I think the existence of language and consciousness, which scientists still find inexplicable, are more pursuasive indicators of an Infinite Intelligence, who, (perfect âpersonhoodâ) IS Being Itself, ie God.â
This is simply an argument from ignorance, which puts God in a supposed gap in knowledge. There are plenty of neuroscientists and linguists making headway in these areas of enquiry. What are you saying is inexplicable about language? What do you think consciousness is? Again, I feel I need to put in the disclaimer about my use of the word âignoranceâ and remind you that I simply mean âunaware of the factsâ and not all the negative connotations that the word carries in common usage.
âThe term âhallucinationâ is, by definition, not real, therefore, if you insist on that term, thereâs no discussion; a hallucination bears little or no resemblence to reality. Iâm sorry, maybe I need to re-read the thread, I thought you were discussing ârevelations,â ie, in the sense of, were the Islamic terrorists, for example, inspired by relvelations or hallucinations?â
Indeed, if I recall correctly, the question was about how to distinguish between real personal private revelations and hallucinations. When you said that âby the fruits you will know themâ I took that to mean that it was the results of the revelation/hallucination experience that would indicate itâs reality. Sorry if I misunderstood that, but with that take on your rationale I pondered the question of whether a hallucination could have a positive impact. I think it could. Say you are walking along and you see a snake about to bite you so you stop and run back in the other direction. In reality the space where the snake was, was actually a cliff edge. Thus âgoodâ fruits have been borne of this, and by your rationale I took this to mean that the hallucination was reality. I called this link a bit tenuous. I am hoping I simply misunderstood what you meant.
P
phooney
Guest
@notself
I think that perspective is called âPantheismâ
I think that perspective is called âPantheismâ
- Status