Only if you want to share, would you tell us what evidence was introduced to you that was convincing enough for you to believe? or you could P/M me if you prefer.
Yes, personal experience is evidence. It’s just not evidence that I can reproduce or evaluate so it has no value to me. I also have noticed that those I have talked to rarely have put their experience through scrutiny. Personally, I have had many personal experiences which at the time appeared to be supernatural in origin but upon further evaluation were not.
You misinterpret my formal sounding sentence structure: I had not been upset; only making a request, to insure that I would see any of your comments, which you wished for me to see. Just as with these words, the way they "sound," is mostly a function of the reader. IOW, one could hear this text in an almost scolding tone, but that wouldn't mean it was my state of mind, while writing it. One could, also, read these words with a happily chirping, or lilting voice (give it a try): "...I had not been upse-eeet; only making a request, to insure I would see any of your comments, which you wished for me to see." But thanks, for the calming sentiments-- they are usually appreciated (except, perhaps, at times when I really am frustrated).
I don't mind sharing. When I was about fifteen sitting in my physical science class (a class that wasn't strick) I overheard a person talking to others about a thing called speaking in tongues manifestation and it being evidence that God was in the person speaking. I had never heard of this before and being the inquisitive person I was I interrupted the conversation to ask questions about it. I was invited to a meeting where I could see it for myself what he was talking about and ask more questions since he was new to it himself. So I went. What I heard and saw that day was enough for me to explore it some more. Not long afterwards I started speaking in tongues myself. I'm fully aware of what is said about it - speaking in tongues - most of which is not true. But it's the one thing in my life that I can't deny. Understanding how it works and doing it myself, is enough to keep me faithful to God. It's said to edify the spirit within the person and I certainly see that in my life. That's the short version of my first steps on this journey with God.
I think I just accidentally quoted my own post instead of yours. I work from home while chatting it up with you guys.
In case I'm unknowingly conversing with a sage of the Esoteric, I shouldn't miss my chance to ask: a simulation of what?
If you listen to the song “The Stage” by Avenged Sevenfold you can hear someone in the background say “you know this is just a simulation don’t you?” That entire record is so good and I would listen to it so much when it first came out, I awoke from a dream one night and in the dream I saw the universe from outside and realized that all the stars just look like a bucket of sand. Then I realized what a poorly designed simulation it was because it’s like here is this enormous universe but there is only life here on this single insignificant dot and everything else is just empty? Like seriously? I mean they could’ve put some other life forms out there to trick us into thinking there is nothing special going on here but no. As far as you can see or travel I any direction it’s just us, The final song, “Exist” is epic and features the voice of Neil DeGrasse Tyson. There. Way more than you ever wanted to know about Avenged Sevenfold
Cool dream image. The part about us being alone in the universe, though-- was that somehow sensed in the dream, or was that your own, then waking mind, applying your already held belief? I think Tyson is on the wrong scientific team, when it comes to this question. There are other scientists who feel that it would be a far more remarkable, and unlikely, thing, if it were to turn out that we were the only advanced intelligent life, in all the cosmos, rather than that there were many other-- I've heard used, the term "an abundance"-- of examples of intelligent species, having evolved, on other worlds.
You're intelligence does not allow you to se the simple truth. Our brain controls every aspect of our life. That depends on your definition of a "God". An omni-everything being I certainly discount. That superior beings may exist in the Universe is, to me, fairly obvious. That they take the form of mankind or another form is debateable. We have a multitude of life forms on earth that have evolved under earths conditions. Some lifeforms that live in conditions fatal to man. Of the billions of planets in the Universe life of somekind is almost certain to have developed. Whether it has intelligence as we know it is again another matter. SETI is assuming that life may exist that compares to ours or can recognise out outreach to them. There are hundreds of religions in this world most of which started from worshipping 'natural' things. The Aztec list of gods is endless. In the Hindu religion we have many gods. Similarly with other religions. The Egyptians turned cave drawings (Therianthropes) into gods. Man has invented many gods with widely different and opposing practices. These things are the invention of mans mind. Your 'god' is a 'god' to you alone. He may be real to your mind but not to mine. Religion started with the need of evolving man to understand the world around and ascribe it to someone/thing. With respect to your eloquent posts, the simple truth is that 'God' the one and only supernatural Omnibeing comes from the mind of man.
When the discussion is about the Abrahamic god then people can be pretty staunch atheists. As you broaden that out to a more pantheistic view like Spinoza or Einstein advocated then even atheists can soften their position.
Perhaps you did not see, I do understand the bolded line, above, and posted the same idea, near the top of page 30: That is, roughly, what applies, in considering one, an "atheist." So what have I missed? It is you who is overlooking my entire argument: you cannot know that God does not exist; you can only know that there is no evidence for It. My long post, gave examples, showing that those two things, are not the same. No evidence, means that there is no evidence; it does not mean that God does not exist. IOW, the rational, scientific view, is agnosticism: meaning, that we can't know, or that we have no knowledge, with which to make a judgement on the question. But atheists have made a judgement. It is not a logical one, though. An absence of evidence, does not disprove God's existence. That was what was meant to be shown, with the examples of life at the bottom of the ocean, and of possible intelligent life, elsewhere in the cosmos, of which we have no real proof-- so scientists will not say that we know E.T.s exists, but nor will most jump to the unwarranted assumption, that these don't exist (though some may be of that opinion). An atheist goes beyond saying that there is no proof; he takes this to prove God's nonexistence, which it absolutely does not do. If you are in a tiny, bare room, and can find no sign of "Bob," I would not fault your concluding that Bob is not in that room. But the entire cosmos, is not a tiny room. It is an acknowledged fact, that a great percentage of the animal species on our own planet, we have yet to identify: have yet to find any proof of their existence; still, almost countless number more than we currently know, are assumed to exist. So by what rational argument, could you prove that God is not right here, on the Earth? But, to say that one is sure there is no "God," would also mean that you had reasonably "checked" our entire galaxy, as a small start on checking out entire universe; which, according to the prevailing view of science, is only one universe, among many different dimensional universes. So even though there are animal species that we cannot certify don't exist in, say, the Amazon rainforest, you feel it is reasonable to certify as a fact, that some thing-- which we might not even have any instruments, to detect-- is nowhere to be found, anywhere in the multiverse? Thank you for the compliment, but I think the strength of this argument, rather than its eloquence, is its logical reasoning. Your statement above is not a fact, but only an assumption: your opinion, and no more. To believe in a Divine Being, is an act of Faith; To be unsure God's existence, is an attitude of reason; To believe that God could be nothing but Man's creation, is the epitome of Hubris.
To believe in a divine being is an act of credulity. To be unsure of God’s existence is to show understanding To believe that god could be nothing but man’s creation indicates that you have read parts or all of the Bible.
This makes more sense. Change... "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." TO “So ETs created man in their own image, in the image of ETs they created him; male and female they created them.”
Still have that blind spot, for unfounded assumptions, I see. Do I need point it out? It is rather ironic, if you think about it. Your argument is that because the Bible seems unbelievable to you, it is presumably reasonable, to discount the possibility of any higher consciousness, inhabiting the universe. First of all, that would not be true, even if the Bible was truly the Word of God. But if one is considering all possibilities, I don't know how he overlooks the one in which God is real, but is misrepresented as the Bible's author-- and perhaps in many other ways, as well. The ironic part, though, is that you feel sure that the Judeo-Christian God is a sham, and yet their image of God is the only template you are using, to determine that there must be no GOD. Yet, you understand that there are other models for God. And did it not also occur to you, that were none of the Godheads of any of Man's religions' accurate, it would not follow, that there could not still be a God-- It would only be one, Who is not accurately represented, perhaps not accurately understood, in human religions? So your confidence is built on no surer foundation, than that of those who you, here, deem to be, the credulous.
What would you expect of me as an atheist? You can call me an agnostic if you want. I think agnosticism is crap (maybe not for someone else). If god provided evidence, atheists would be as prone to change as would Christians or Buddhists or anyone, wouldn't they? You will notice that I don't attempt to dissuade others from believing there is a god, regardless of my own best understanding. Where I draw the line is more in the range of claims of gods doing stuff that conflicts with all evidence we have. Also, our constitution is interpreted as meaning that religious belief is not a justification for law. For example, same sex marriage was not argued on the basis of religion. Beyond that, the major religious beliefs in the US have strong statements in favor of my own views as a left winger.
And what would you expect me to reply? I do not tell anyone that they should not follow their faith. But what my posts have shown, is that Atheism is a faith, that there is no God. Because such an idea cannot be proven true. But if you choose to reject even the possibility of any Divine Power-- animating, or simply dwelling within the universe (or even observing, from outside of it, if we are covering all bases)-- whom am I to tell you that you're wrong? I will only do that, if you try to tell me that it is a fact, that the universe is absent any God.
I think one has to view atheism in terms of how it impacts decision making. This issue is not something that enters decision making for me. I do believe that God is not a good theory for various reasons:
I got about 5 minutes in, through the speaker's explaining his way through the title of his lecture, and going through other, preliminary caveats. I stopped when he got to the part about a problem with the "theory of God," being that what God is, varies between people: this seems like his talk is not going to be very much focused on merely having a personal belief in a Higher Power. If he does go into that, could you summarize, as it also seems that it is going to be a fairly lengthy talk (for a post in one of these threads)? The general disposition of this speaker, towards the question, adds to my sense of it seeming unlikely, I will find it applicable, because I'm expecting him to use a logic-based benefit analysis, of believing in God. In practice, though, this strikes me as rather ridiculous: who decides on whether or not to believe in God, by such a method? If one feels personally touched by God, believes that It, in some way, communicates and interacts with him, that person is not then going to make up a "Pros & Cons" list, to decide whether or not they want to continue their relationship with God, or cut Him loose. And if there is no sense of the existence of the Divine, to a person, then it's hard to imagine a serious case for the benefit of just going through the motions of being a believer, anyway.
