I am baffled, please explain

[SonOfMan]

. I have not seen any video evidence.

There’s a lot on YouTube.

Even so, to suggest that those things make Sathiya God, is a leap in thinking. I just cant see the connection. Even moreso for Jesus being God.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Well, that’s as otiose as someone coming here and saying, “The MMR vaccine causes autism” and then when asked to offer evidence for his assertion saying, “Respectfully, I decline. I will simply say that none of us knows what really goes on with vaccines, so I don’t know what happens. But I will continue to say that the MMR causes autism.”

I, too, am compelled by evidence.

That’s why I’m asking for your evidence.

I think you have simply been duped into believing something, but can’t connect the dots when asked.

Oh boy, I think I’ll stay away from analogies this time ok? I seem to remember that we don’t have the same understanding of how they operate. I will not be baited into discussing this. Of course, it seems maybe you and I have similar personalities, so you must know that I can be baited into this kind of a side-argument, but I will, respectfully, decline your invitation. I will offer you a thought experiment. Replace “Jesus really rose from the grave” with “Muhammed is the true prophet of God” and see if your arguments are still valid. Is it a problem if they are still valid, or why not?

But, I am glad we seem to be agreeing that we do not choose our beliefs, rather we are compelled to them by the evidence we think is true.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I am not accusing anyone of knowingly telling lies.

Of course not. This accusation of “lies” is just another “resurrection” of the age-old “liar, lunatic or lord” type of non-argument. The proponents conveniently forget the fourth “L” - “LEGEND”. It is just another legend among the innumerable creation stories, of heroes born to virgins, of miracles, etc. And there is not one iota of “evidence” for any of them.

If one asks for evidence, the usual reply (cop-out) is that the evidence is scant and ambiguous on purpose - because God does not want to “force” anyone into believing his existence. Compare that to assertion that God’s existence can be known via human reason alone (even if the details are unknown) - the catechism says so. So for the apologists both sides of the bread are buttered… on one hand God is clearly knowable to human reason, on the other hand to have real evidence would remove our “free will”. As the Church Lady said: “isn’t that special?”. youtube.com/watch?v=RmwqnqL3Hbg

How wonderful is to have your cake and eat it, too. Too bad that it convinces no one.

 

[DCNBILL]

Of course not. This accusation of “lies” is just another “resurrection” of the age-old “liar, lunatic or lord” type of non-argument. The proponents conveniently forget the fourth “L” - “LEGEND”. It is just another legend among the innumerable creation stories, of heroes born to virgins, of miracles, etc. And there is not one iota of “evidence” for any of them.

If one asks for evidence, the usual reply (cop-out) is that the evidence is scant and ambiguous on purpose - because God does not want to “force” anyone into believing his existence. Compare that to assertion that God’s existence can be known via human reason alone (even if the details are unknown) - the catechism says so. So for the apologists both sides of the bread are buttered… on one hand God is clearly knowable to human reason, on the other hand to have real evidence would remove our “free will”. As the Church Lady said: “isn’t that special?”. youtube.com/watch?v=RmwqnqL3Hbg

How wonderful is to have your cake and eat it, too. Too bad that it convinces no one.

No one?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

 

[SonOfMan]

If one asks for evidence, the usual reply (cop-out) is that the evidence is scant and ambiguous on purpose - because God does not want to “force” anyone into believing his existence.

Which obviously contradicts the claim that we are able to choose our belief.

But borrowing this passage from another thread about John 10:30…

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39

People say that God/Jesus didnt wish to compel people with his works to believe, but in the passage above he seems to be trying to compel people.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . a medical doctor . . . he is a devotee of the most recent incarnation of Sathiya Say Baba. He spends 3 months of every year tending to ill children in the poorest slums of India at his own expense. . . I do not accept his religious beliefs as true because I do not have enough evidence. I have not seen any video evidence.

If you were to give likewise of yourself, having previously devoted some of the best years of your life getting to the point that you could actually make such contributions, maybe then you would understand where he is coming from. You seem not to be able to do so currently. Evidence? It is crystal clear.

 

[Peter_Plato]

When we insist that our beliefs must conform to our wills we make ourselves into the arbiters of truth.

When we insist that our beliefs must conform to observed reality or reason, we acknowledge with humility that we do not make the truth, it is greater than us, and compels our beliefs.

In my opinion. Could be wrong, like everyone else, always.

When we insist our will must conform to the truth we take responsibility for our actions.

That would mean that our endeavor is to both…

1. have our wills conform to our beliefs, and
2. have our beliefs conform to the truth.

That is the thing about being responsible agents: we are responsible to find the truth to the best of our ability and we are responsible to act on that truth by conforming our wills to the truth.

It is a journey fraught with trials and errors, but those trials and those errors are what teach and form us and bring us closer to the truth provided we make that our first priority.

We are “arbiters” of the truth, but the characteristic that best describes that position is not “I am right and everyone else wrong;” rather, it humbly acknowledges that being “right” is an awful and grave responsibility.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course not. This accusation of “lies” is just another “resurrection” of the age-old “liar, lunatic or lord” type of non-argument. The proponents conveniently forget the fourth “L” - “LEGEND”. It is just another legend among the innumerable creation stories, of heroes born to virgins, of miracles, etc. And there is not one iota of “evidence” for any of them.

I am familiar with the phrase: “liar, lunatic of lord”? Guess what… the author of this phrase forgot the fourth possibility: “legend”. In those ancient times there were all sorts of “legends”, and the people believed them.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Would you mind telling me where you get the information from? I’m going to assume that there would be literature to which you would be directed as a student of theology.

No, I don’t mind you asking at all. Theology students, especially those of us in a Master’s program must take many philosophy courses as well and courses in ethics.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

If you were to give likewise of yourself, having previously devoted some of the best years of your life getting to the point that you could actually make such contributions, maybe then you would understand where he is coming from. You seem not to be able to do so currently. Evidence? It is crystal clear.

I don’t understand. Should we believe that Sathiya Say Baba is God because my client is an intelligent and heroically loving person and he believes that? Or, do you mean that if I were an intelligent and radically good person I would believe in Sathiya Say Baba? Are you a disciple of his?

 

[PRmerger]

Oh boy, I think I’ll stay away from analogies this time ok? I seem to remember that we don’t have the same understanding of how they operate. I will not be baited into discussing this.

Then it’s quite clear to me that you haven’t thought your position through.

 

[PRmerger]

I

By the way, referring to your picture, there are natural explanations for why flowers exist and none of them include God.

Well, if you’re going to be unable to think in the abstract, Son, and think only of botany, I am going to think in the…er, concrete, as well, and object to the example you gave of a…concrete man resting his hand on his chin. That’s not an example of a person “minding”.

It’s not an example of a person at all, in fact.

You are aware it’s…a statue. It was never a man.

So if you can’t accept a picture of creation as proof of God’s existence, I can’t accept a picture of a statue of a man resting his chin on his hand as proof of the mind’s existence.

Now, can you please offer a picture of a human being’s mind?

Thanks.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Well, if you’re going to be unable to think in the abstract, Son, and think only of botany, I am going to think in the…er, concrete, as well, and object to the example you gave of a…concrete man resting his hand on his chin. That’s not an example of a person “minding”.

It’s not an example of a person at all, in fact.

You are aware it’s…a statue. It was never a man.

So if you can’t accept a picture of creation as proof of God’s existence, I can’t accept a picture of a statue of a man resting his chin on his hand as proof of the mind’s existence.

Now, can you please offer a picture of a human being’s mind?

Thanks.

I cannot offer you a photo of the human mind or even tell you where it’s located, however, while doing research for my Bioethics class, I did learn that it probably isn’t located entirely in the brain as most people think:

newscientist.com/article/dn22205-location-of-the-mind-remains-a-mystery.html#.VaCB8rU0qSo

 

[PRmerger]

I cannot offer you a photo of the human mind or even tell you where it’s located, however, while doing research for my Bioethics class, I did learn that it probably isn’t located entirely in the brain as most people think:

newscientist.com/article/dn22205-location-of-the-mind-remains-a-mystery.html#.VaCB8rU0qSo

Fascinating!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Fascinating!

I think it is, too. Although I don’t know a lot about neuroscience, I, too, believe the mind is composed of layers, and not all of those layers are located in the brain.

Certainly, in this life at least, we need at least our brain stem to remain alive, and more to think properly, but obviously cognition, etc. is not entirely dependent on the brain. Or, I probably should say, the brain alone is not responsible for cognition.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t understand. Should we believe that Sathiya Say Baba is God because my client is an intelligent and heroically loving person and he believes that? Or, do you mean that if I were an intelligent and radically good person I would believe in Sathiya Say Baba? Are you a disciple of his?

God is Love.
You can’t see charity when it is right in front of you?
Your friend is doing God’s will. Faith is revealed in action.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Which obviously contradicts the claim that we are able to choose our belief.

But borrowing this passage from another thread about John 10:30…

People say that God/Jesus didnt wish to compel people with his works to believe, but in the passage above he seems to be trying to compel people.

It doesn’t seem to me that he’s trying to compel. He’s just letting people know how to find the Father should they wish to do so.

 

[SonOfMan]

So if you can’t accept a picture of creation as proof of God’s existence, I can’t accept a picture of a statue of a man resting his chin on his hand as proof of the mind’s existence.

We can demonstrate the existence of the mind with simple tests. Can we demonstrate the existence of God through some type of test?

 

[oldcelt]

God is Love.
You can’t see charity when it is right in front of you?
Your friend is doing God’s will. Faith is revealed in action.

But, do those qualities have to come from a deity?

John

 

[Bradski]

Many of our beliefs are not due to a conscious decision, Brad. We take them for granted - like our existence and the existence of others. Most people never ask themselves these metaphysical questions! And if they do they often rely on intuition rather than logic.

Your existence is based on evidence which you have decided to accept. Unless you believe you exist without any evidence whatsoever? And I don’t care, as I have repeatedly said, the method by which you decide to accept or reject information. Thoughtful deliberation, instinct, authority, intuition…it doesn’t matter. You still make the call before you can believe.

If you know someone really well, trust them and know they are far more knowledgeable than you in a certain area (omniscient even) you could believe them when they tell you “X is true,” and, therefore, believe X without knowing that X actually is true because your knowledge of why X could be true or not is simply non-existent.

When you say you believe them, what you are saying is that you accept the information you are being given. You don’t HAVE to know if it’s true or not. In many cases you are not in the position to determine that fact yourself. Obscure aspects of physics I will accept on authority - this is something we all do. But I have no way of determining esoteric aspects of quantum theory. But In all cases I have decided to accept or reject the information I am given (or, in some cases, put it on the back burner because I am getting conflicting information which I need to investigate further).

You appear to keep shifting the grounds for believing something from “whether it is true or not” to “knowing something about it”.

Absolutely bull dust. I have repeatedly said, ad nauseum, that you need to know something about whatever is under discussion and THEN accept or reject the information as being true or not, as far as you are concerned. How you do it is (remember this bit?) IRRELEVANT. And whether it is actually true is (remember this bit as well?) IRRELEVANT.

In other words, some propositions are believed/believable not BECAUSE we know them to be true but because we trust the ability of the one relating the proposition to us.

Who gives a damn? Accept it on authority if you like. I. Don’t. Care. But once accepted, you THEREFORE believe. Once rejected you THEREFORE don’t.

Ergo, it is NOT true that “You cannot believe what you have been told until you have decided whether it is true or not.” There exist other reasons for believing what we are told aside from whether we have worked out their truth value for ourselves.

Then give me an example of what you believe to be true without having decided to accept or reject what you have been told about it. Simple question. Impossible to answer.

Could you explain how it would be possible to “accept as true” something we “have no idea if it’s true or not?” How would having “no idea” count as or be consistent with “accept as true?”

That would be, as you know full well, information that we have no way of personally determining whether it is objectively true or not. If you told me you had a cat called Harry then I would have no reasonable way of determining if that information was true. But I would have no reason to believe that you were lying (although I may be wrong) so I will ACCEPT the information and if someone asks me if I believe you have a cat called Harry, I will THEREFORE say Yes.