What if God Gave Us Proof?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Leela said:
You’ve also sad before that you are “logic dislexic” and can’t tell the difference.

It is simply not true that atheism is equivalent to asserting that we cam from nothing. Most atheists subscribe to biological evolution, for example, which gives some idea of where we came from. Not knowing why a universe would bother to exist is not the same thing as saying that it exists for no reason or came from nothing.

I doubt that their works are divinely insprired, too. Such authors do not claim validity based on anything other than reason.

I think you are in the minority in thinking that your existence is itself proof that God exists. What is self-evident to you in this case is not self-evident to me or most others. You will need to actually explain why their assertions are ludicrous.

Can you say what it means to you and why you like it?

Can you be more specific about what assertions you want me to address and what you mean by “validity” (if not “divinely inspired”)?

Best,
Leela
Click to expand...
  1. the point is moot you admitted to being a theist in the post #19 from the STEM… thread. you are no longer any kind of atheist at all, as i said before, welcome home
“weak or negative atheism” is by definition, someone who simply claims not to know if there is a G-d -wikipedia and others

please refer to the thread “is the ‘i don’t know argument’ valid?” for why this position is an implication of the denial of a G-d
  1. ok, if you need the positive assertion then here “i doubt the validity of their reasoning”
  2. nor am i in the minority in my beliefs, last night fox news interviewed an administrator for the ‘american humanist society’
    and they offered the poll numbers of 92% of americans believe in G-d in that interview.
  3. this what i mean when we speak about validity
Validity
Validity Valid"ity, n. [Cf. F. validit['e], L. validitas
strength.]
[1913 Webster]
  1. The quality or state of being valid; strength; force;
    especially, power to convince; justness; soundness; as,
    the validity of an argument or proof; the validity of an
    objection.
    [1913 Webster]
 
Leela,

It is very interesting what Harris says on this mystical experience. But I think I’m having trouble to really understand what he means. Is he asking himself whether mystical experience really refers to mystical reality? Is mystical experience a kind of selfdelusion? Is it a vehicle for gaining happiness?

It’s all very complex. For instance the modern mind isn’t the same as the Medieval mind, isn’t the same as the hunter-gatherers mind. The cultures differ, the world views differ, the mentalities differ. Mystical experience has been interpreted in different ways. And of course world view always, at least from up the time the first myths were invented, came out of mans desire to make sense of it all, of being in this reality/nature, dealing with the problems this brings, of survival, good, evil, justice, fears, wisdom, strength and vitality. The shaman, the priest, quickly became keyfigures in the survival and prosperity of the group, the tribe. And looking at this, personal happiness very much seems to be the preoccupation of especially this individualistic modern man. Jezus, Boeddha, Mohamed, it wasn’t just a quest for personal happiness that drove them, they were inventers of a new kind of life, a better kind of life.

You see, Harris’ analysis is very interesting, but there is much more to it. You could say it needs an interdisciplinary research on the ascent of mankind to really grasp what is going on. There’s also for instance a very important link between mystical experience and art.

I think that mystical experience is that much part of the human organism, that if you genetically, or one way or another, would remove it from this organism, that in that case man wouldn’t be man any more. It probably would generate some kind of DATA (Star Trek), always wondering what it is to really be human.
 
I see I’m being accused of sophistry.
Subsequently I see no arguments, no reasoning why. And a few lines further it seems it has to do with ‘we came from nothing’, as if I was suggesting that.

Our existence can’t be proof ‘we came from nothing’ is false. At least, it isn’t convincing in a general way, and certainly not in a scientific way. Because both positions implicated – creator, nothing – cannot be decided in science. Science only concerns the researchable reality. And ‘creator’ and ‘nothing’ aren’t part of that.
 
Benedict_Broere said:
I see I’m being accused of sophistry.
Subsequently I see no arguments, no reasoning why. And a few lines further it seems it has to do with ‘we came from nothing’, as if I was suggesting that.

Our existence can’t be proof ‘we came from nothing’ is false. At least, it isn’t convincing in a general way, and certainly not in a scientific way. Because both positions implicated – creator, nothing – cannot be decided in science. Science only concerns the researchable reality. And ‘creator’ and ‘nothing’ aren’t part of that.
Click to expand...
im confused as to who you are referncing i think it is me but i havent replied to you have?

are you sure i wasnt talking to Leela

please qoute what youare referring to, if ive made a mistake i will apologize
 
This high pitch tone within the discussion… Why? I wonder.

For instance within the catholic church these days science is taken very seriously. See for instance:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

While scientists show a spiritual view on reality very well can be considered without jumping into absolute truths:

nl.youtube.com/watch?v=j_immL2m1tg&feature=PlayList&p=E79EF34C93B892C2&index=0&playnext=1
meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=swimme&topic=complete
 
Benedict_Broere said:
This high pitch tone within the discussion… Why? I wonder.

For instance within the catholic church these days science is taken very seriously. See for instance:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

While scientists show a spiritual view on reality very well can be considered without jumping into absolute truths:

nl.youtube.com/watch?v=j_immL2m1tg&feature=PlayList&p=E79EF34C93B892C2&index=0&playnext=1
meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=swimme&topic=complete
Click to expand...
who are you talking too?

if its me than qoute me or mention my name, im not sure what youre talking about
 
davidv said:
I believe what is being asked of all of us is try on the shoe to see if it fits.😃
Click to expand...
shoes almost never fit me, i got on some 15 size boots right now, but theyre steel toed so i got to go up a si…

oh, thats wonna them metaphor thingies 😃
 
If God, or any deity gave us proof in personae…well, it’d sure make life at first pretty neato, but then very very dull.

Just my pov.
 
Leela said:
It is simply not true that atheism is equivalent to asserting that we cam from nothing. Most atheists subscribe to biological evolution, for example, which gives some idea of where we came from. Not knowing why a universe would bother to exist is not the same thing as saying that it exists for no reason or came from nothing.
Click to expand...
If you see the universe as being able to “bother to exist” as in, to decide whether to exist or not, then I think that makes you a pantheist, not an atheist 🙂
I think you are in the minority in thinking that your existence is itself proof that God exists. What is self-evident to you in this case is not self-evident to me or most others. You will need to actually explain why their assertions are ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Actually its a very popular reason for believing in God… Something exists, therefore a superior being must have created it.
 
Nepenthe said:
If God, or any deity gave us proof in personae…well, it’d sure make life at first pretty neato, but then very very dull.

Just my pov.
Click to expand...
yeah, im a little bit of a religious fanatic, id probably fall on my face screaming in joy/terror 😃 :eek: 😃 :eek:
 
Nothing Complicated! Real Simple: Science Is Advanced, Total Proof of Creator, And God.
Look at the Stars. Learn Detailed Science to Learn the Incredible Beauty of Everything: The Universe, a Tree, You, and Atom. Don’t forget the Laws of Nature, And laws of Mathematics. And everything changing always, Except the laws of Nature. Any Mistakes, Any Accidents in Natural Law, Nature? How did everything, Including You, Me “Just Happen?” How

And Western Science was Begun Centuries ago By The Church, Looking for the Answers on everything. To solve the mysteries. Most all Great Scientists centuries ago were Catholic Clergy.

And still are. The ‘Largest" discovery of all time: Where the entire Billions of Stars, millions of Galaxies came from: Nothing, aka ‘something smaller than an atom’’: The Recently Proven Big Bang ‘theory’ (1927), by Belgian Priest famed scientist ( later friend of Albert Einstein) Fr/Dr Georges Lemaitre: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

And The Shroud of Turin has been Proven Irrefutably during the last 8 years to be The Negative of the Resurrecting Lord, Not Catholic, But World class Scientists. www.shroud.com/menu.htm

The Science and Religion Disprove each other is totally false creation of publishers. They very largelly prove each other, the more you study each, and use common sense a little
 
:confused:
Nepenthe said:
If God, or any deity gave us proof in personae…well, it’d sure make life at first pretty neato, but then very very dull.

Just my pov.
Click to expand...
Look at the Moon, Sky, Yourself sometime. I’m Proof God has Sense of Humor! My Parents were serious!

Maybe You, and Everything IS The Proof of God. Think a little. Where’de You, all Creation come from? What kind Accident? No Brainer? Or Ultimate Intelligence, With Creator Power? 🤓 :whistle: :hmmm: :ouch:

Try the deepest Science. That is The Proof. :aok: :yyeess:
 
Benedict_Broere said:
Leela,

You write: “I doubt that a personal deity exists based on the evidence I’ve seen for such a God.” You mean ‘evidence’ - with brackets ???

Concerning modern religious thinking on the universe, see: John Polkinghorne, Paul Davies, Fritjof Capra, Peter Russell, Brian Swimme, etc.
Click to expand...
You might want to add the Biggest Scientists of the last 100 years, on Nature/Universe/science Proving Creator God: Dr/Fr Georges Lemaitre (now proven “Big Bang Creation” 1927 ‘theory’); Former top Atheist Dr Steven Hawking (sic) (‘The Laws of Mathematics Prove a creator’ less than ten years ago world Press Conference); Albert Einstein, And MANY more, recently.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
shoes almost never fit me, i got on some 15 size boots right now, but theyre steel toed so i got to go up a si…

oh, thats wonna them metaphor thingies 😃
Click to expand...
Metaphooories work. The Bible has a few. :bible1: Was way folks tought back then, so we moderns would understand.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
who are you talking too?

if its me than qoute me or mention my name, im not sure what youre talking about
Click to expand...
In Suthern English: Science and True, Full Religion compliment, Prove each other. (Scuse my suthern accint)

The post was to youse, maybees.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
oh. with all other things remaining the same?

i would guess ‘heroin addict’ would be the best term, after all if we had Him with us at all times, who would deny an awesome over powering awe inspiring G-d?

you could technically, but i don’t think you could practically who would choose to be separated from that Holy Perfection,

and why would G-d want addicts to His perfection, Love given is so much sweeter than Love that is traded for. a heroin addict doesn’t really love you, he loves the heroin you provide,
sorting the difference is what i think it is all about:)
Click to expand...
Thanks, that’s a really interesting idea. Thomas seemed to turn out okay even after being shown proof, but Jesus didn’t stay with him for very long. Maybe that’s why Jesus had to ascend back to heaven, so his apostles wouldn’t be like heroin addicts, incapable of bringing the faith to the world?
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Thanks, that’s a really interesting idea. Thomas seemed to turn out okay even after being shown proof, but Jesus didn’t stay with him for very long. Maybe that’s why Jesus had to ascend back to heaven, so his apostles wouldn’t be like heroin addicts, incapable of bringing the faith to the world?
Click to expand...
its false to think that Jesus came in the overpowering Glory of G-d, one cannot see G-d and live. thats why he only let moses see his back.

God literally among us not shielded by an ark as in the old testament would be overpowering, think ‘raiders of the lost ark’
but instead of people melting imagine all reality dissolving

heroin addicts still go to work, especially if they are heroin dealers
in fact they will do almost anything for that heroin.🙂
 
Science these days speaks of a universe that is highly unlikely when explained out of mere ‘by itself’ or ‘nothing’. And one way or another the notion emerges this universe has to do with ‘life’, ‘creativity’ and ‘purpose’. But does it give proof that God exists? One might be inclined to triomphalistic jump to that conclusion. Though there are many people that have a different opinion, aren’t inclined to think ‘God’, aren’t inclined to think ‘purpose’, and so on.

You can prove iron expands when heated. And theists and atheists alike will accept the experiment. But this universe originating from ‘creator’ or ‘nothing’ cannot be decided either way. Because it is not possible to turn it into an experiment that can be researched.

One can give reasons though, and investigate for instance religion and mystical experience and its psychological and cultural context. And as I understand this speech by pope Benedict XVI he held at Regensburg, he sees this as an important task of science and philosophy and theology, of the university in general. With reference to the (originally Greek) concept of Logos, the supposed underlying order of the universe, he says:

“The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.”
 
Hi Benedict,
Benedict_Broere said:
Leela,

It is very interesting what Harris says on this mystical experience. But I think I’m having trouble to really understand what he means. Is he asking himself whether mystical experience really refers to mystical reality? Is mystical experience a kind of selfdelusion? Is it a vehicle for gaining happiness?
Click to expand...
Harris first of all acknowledges that such experiences are real as he has them himself. Many atheists dismiss such experiences and appear foolish and delusional themselves to those who have actually had such experiences.

As to whether it is a vehicle for gaining happiness, I would say that the value of such experiences does not seem to be as a drug or means of escape. the value lies in the fact that people claim that such experiences are amongthe most powerful and transformative in their lives. Through such profound experiences of selfless consciousness, they have learned to use their attention to transform their ordinary perception and become more loving people which also has the consequence of making them happier.
Benedict_Broere said:
You see, Harris’ analysis is very interesting, but there is much more to it. You could say it needs an interdisciplinary research on the ascent of mankind to really grasp what is going on. There’s also for instance a very important link between mystical experience and art.

I think that mystical experience is that much part of the human organism, that if you genetically, or one way or another, would remove it from this organism, that in that case man wouldn’t be man any more. It probably would generate some kind of DATA (Star Trek), always wondering what it is to really be human.
Click to expand...
I agree that mystical experience should be studied. It is unfortunate that such things are widely considered out of bounds to science. It is my understanding that some studies on meditation and prayer have been done, but I think they are along the lines of studying what happens to brain waves during different states of consiousness.

Best,
Leela
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top