EnPassant
119

Ummm...you seem to be talking about a particular God here.

I'd like to know more about it.

Could you put a bit of "flesh", so to speak, on it. — Frank Apisa


Ok, you asked, but as I say I don't want to get into a God debate. Consider this as food for thought.

I someone says 'I am', superficially, that is the personality or ego speaking: I am a great fellow, I am a celebrity, I am such a cool guy etc.

But if we can truly say 'I am' in the most meaningful sense of the word, that 'I am' is God because if we say this truly it is being itself speaking. And God is being. — EnPassant

That might be true if by 'knowing' you mean abstractly knowing. But God is not an abstraction. You don't seem to be talking about God here, you seem to be talking about abstract knowledge of God. — EnPassant

Merkwurdichliebe
477
↪Frank Apisa


In the atheist sense, knowing God exists is as ridiculous as knowing your ethical principles exist. Even if you attempted to prove you held to certain ethical principles, you would need to be eternally tested by every possible moral choice, and you would never prove anything. — Merkwurdichliebe

— EnPassant

This is a simple question. It's the answer that's difficult.

Does every effect have a cause, or is it possible for causeless effects to happen? — Pattern-chaser

If you restrict the definition of God to 'creator of the universe' then there is actually plenty of evidence for such a proposition: — Devans99

If it's possible that gods are "involved in the reality of existence" then it's possible that the gods inform some people and not others of their existence. Perhaps they speak to those who are open enough to listen. If that were the case, the people to whom the gods speak would know directly, through acquaintance, the existence of the gods. They would not be "blindly guessing", but rather expressing their direct experiential knowledge, when they speak of the existence of the gods.

Of course the problem is that, in the context of philosophical argumentation, one is expected to produce inter-subjectively convincing arguments to support one's assertions.This is impossible to do regarding god or gods (and no doubt many other things) if your interlocutor has not had the kind of experiences involving god or the gods that you have.

That is why sensible people who have faith in god or gods don't bother with such paltry arguments and the time-wasting talking-past-the-other that this thread so amply exemplifies. — Janus

— Wayfarer

EnPassant
104

We are talking about whether gods exist or not. — Frank Apisa


No. We are talking about the kinds of arguments for/against God's existence. Those kinds of arguments depend on what is considered to be 'rational'. The question for debate is about why atheists and theists cannot agree on which rationale to use.

We are not discussing what an orange tastes like...or what it feels like to bang some movie star. — Frank Apisa


We are talking about what is acceptable as a rationale. What is acceptable is in terms of knowledge. That there is a non rational kind of knowledge is an important point because it shows that things can be known by consciousness alone. People who demand elementary proofs dismiss knowledge that is gained purely by consciousness, yet I have shown that this kind of knowledge exists. — EnPassant

Devans99
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa
God made a single large 'explosion' - the Big Bang - he did not individually go and make each star and planet.

You do not know the number of stars in the universe...you do not know how many years old the universe is...so it is all bullshit. — Frank Apisa


Number of stars in observable universe:

https://www.space.com/26078-how-many-stars-are-there.html
— Devans99

Age of universe:

https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

Daniel Cox
104
↪Frank Apisa
Hi Frank, we know people can be idolized or godded. — Daniel Cox

Pattern-chaser
980

I also am someone unwilling to pretend I can calculate probability for things I cannot. — Frank Apisa


How wise, and how unusual! Most will say, without thinking, (for example) that the probability of the world our senses show us NOT being Objective Reality is 'vanishingly small' or even non-existent. The truth is that, in matters such as this (and there are more of them than you might think), we don't even have a starting point for calculating an actual statistical probability for this. It's refreshing to see at least one other person aware of this. :smile: — Pattern-chaser

Devans99
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa


Its just basic math:

number of stars in universe / number of years universe is old = number of stars God must search a year
2*10^23 / 1.4*10^10 = 1.4*10^13

So God must search 1.4*10^13 stars a year in order to find us. That is plain not possible.
an hour ago
Reply
Options — Devans99

Devans99
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa
The being just initiated the Big Bang rather than hand creating the universe.

The universe has only been around for 14 billion years - you cannot search 2*10^23 star systems in 14 billion years - no where near enough time - so there is no way God could have found us. — Devans99

What do you see as wrong or inappropriate about simply acknowledging that we do not know if gods exist or not? — Frank Apisa


I have already acknowledged that it is not possible to prove it in intellectual terms. — EnPassant

But is there a kind of knowledge that can be gained in a non intellectual way? — EnPassant

Of course there is. The intellect will not tell you what an orange tastes like. You can only know directly, by eating the orange. Likewise with carnal knowledge. Intellect won't enlighten you. These kinds of knowledge about the world can only be known directly. — EnPassant

If the intellect is concerned only with abstract knowledge then it is confined to a subset of all possible knowledge.

Devans99
1.6k

You are suggesting a God who could create the planet Earth, the other planets in the Solar System, the Sun, the 200+ billion stars in our galaxy...and the 300+ billions of other galaxies we know of...

...and it cannot do something as simple as contact us???? — Frank Apisa


I'm saying I cannot think how. For starters, how would God ever find us amongst the 2*10^23 stars in the observable universe?

If you can think how, please tell... — Devans99

Devans99
1.6k

..why would the GOD continue to make it so difficult to KNOW its existence to people who are relatively sophisticated, relatively knowledgeable, less superstitious now? — Frank Apisa


God has no way of communicating his existence to us - the universe is billions of light years in size - how could we expect God to possibly communicate to us? — Devans99

Can you think of a way that God could communicate to us (assuming non-omnipresence)? — Devans

- Messages in the sky look different from different angles, would be destroyed in the BB in any case
- Messages encoded in the standard model might upset a delicate balance

God is aware that life exists in the universe but not aware of our presence on earth in any specific sense IMO.

EnPassant
102

One cannot arrive at any of these four things (to follow) using logic, reason, science or math:

1) There is at least one GOD.
2) There are no gods.
3) It is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are no gods.
4) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa


That is exactly what I'm saying. It is not possible. So we need to reason it out using a broader definition of 'reason'. The rationale of science is primitive so we need a looser language more appropriate to the task. — EnPassant

Wayfarer
7.2k

why would the GOD continue to make it so difficult to KNOW its existence to people who are relatively sophisticated, relatively knowledgeable, less superstitious now? — Frank Apisa — Wayfarer

Wayfarer
7.2k

I would phrase it that most of the time we don't think things through for ourselves but rather reference some authority, typically some slice of the group consensus. — Jake


I went through a strong rejection phase against any form of organised religion and what I saw as 'consensus reality'. But my views have softened, because I have begun to appreciate the vast diversity and depth of the Christian tradition. It encompasses all kinds of perspectives, some dogmatic and brutal, others refined and nuanced.

Second, and I'm certainly not claiming any attainments, I have had epiphanies of sorts at various times of my life. Of course the implications of these are extremely hard to communicate, and I find that when I try to do so, I'm often completely misunderstood. But I make the point because I think such episodes have opened up perspectives about these questions which cast them in a new light.

A somewhat tongue-in-cheek illustration: imagine if you were from a world where there was no sound. Everything was communicated visually. You mount an interstellar mission and land on earth, and happen to fetch up in a concert theatre, where an orchestra is playing. What in heaven are these people doing? you would wonder. What are those things they're holding, what purpose do they serve? If you were an anthropologist, you could even come up with an ornate theory about the visual meaning of their actions - look how well synchronised their movements are! But of course without understanding the nature of sound, you would have no idea.

So, interpreting the 'nature of religious experience' is analogous to this. Often when you read of such things, what you're encountering is a second-hand account of an epiphany. But the person who has that epiphany might see something or understand something quite outside ordinary experience - another dimension of experience altogether. 'What "dimension"?', you might demand. But without an inkling of that experiential dimension, you can only conjecture. 'Oh well, she's making it up', is quite an understandable reaction.

You could argue that a great deal of what is put under the umbrella term of 'religion' are the records of just such 'encounters with the numinous'. But then when they're encoded in symbolic form, they become like a two-dimensional depiction of a three-dimensional object. So something becomes lost. And now, with the incredibly rapid transformation of culture and society - we are living through the greatest rate of change that the planet has ever seen - the original intent or meaning of these symbolic forms is now almost entirely lost. So maybe what you're engaged in, is a kind of 'reimagining' of what the original intuition was before it became encoded in the cultural tropes of what we now see as 'religion' (as I myself have devoted a lot of time to.)

To which end, have a read of John Hick's 'who or what is God?'

There are numerous extensive and intensive methods of observing reality and describing its contents and its laws, yet no god or grand cause has ever been demonstrated. — whollyrolling


What you're not seeing here, is that the 'extensive and intensive methods' you're referring to, are those of modern science, which was defined in such a way as to specifically exclude any ideas of first, final or formal causes. The whole point of modern scientific method is to proceed wholly in terms of what can be empirically observed, quantified and explained in line with current physico-mathematical hypotheses. So while it may be true that Devans99 exhibits confirmation bias in his arguments, this is no less the case for yourself, who is essentially arguing from the general perspective of positivism. — Wayfarer

EnPassant
101

.I am speaking what I suppose to be the truth.

I mean you no disrespect. But I will speak what I see to be the truth. — Frank Apisa


Ok, we are on the same page now. The question of theism/atheism is not for want of 'evidence' if we adhere to the simplest definition of evidence: everything that is there. The universe and everything in it. — EnPassant

What is this evidence for? Theists and atheists differ in this respect because 'evidence for' is subjective. What to do?

The only way forward is to form arguments about what the evidence seems to suggest. Theists argue for the Fine Tuning Argument. Atheists counter this with the multiverse etc.

Theists argue for design in the natural world. Atheists try to explain the appearence of design as an illusion and try to replace it with elaborate arguments concerning random mutations etc.

Which arguments are most coherent and have most explanatory power? That is the only level the debate can proceed on. — EnPassant

Devans99
1.6k

What I am, Devans...is a person willing to acknowledge I do not know the things I do not know — Frank Apisa


I wonder though that the 'I do not know attitude' is the only valid attitude to take? If everyone had that attitude then we would not progress so fast I think. Not saying there is anything wrong with that attitude, it is valuable to have neutrally positioned people in on the discussion. But I feel we also need people to champion certain ideas else we will not make much progress - ideas are the live blood of progress. — Devans99

So in summary, I am sticking to my guns about a first cause, a start of time etc... and I have a good justification for doing so.

Janus
7k

NOTHING trivial about it. In this case, legal battles will be fought both in the UK and the US. If you are going to consider the fact that something has happened to be trivial in determining whether or not it CAN happen...you are missing the point. — Frank Apisa


I have no idea why you would say I am missing the point. It is trivially true that whatever happens can happen. For me the point is that if whatever happens that is sanctioned by governments and judicial authorities is defined as what is legal, and yet what happens in one instance might not be the same as what happens in another identical instance, whether it is determined by negotiation between the same countries in both instances or between different countries altogether, then it would seem that what is legal is not something fixed by principles of justice at all, but something determined by power and influence. If you feel satisfied with that and supportive of it, then that is your business. personally I find it quite repugnant. — Janus

I do not do "believing"...but if you are asking if it is my opinion that the US government would accept that...under certain circumstances, I do, indeed. — Frank Apisa


What is the difference between believing that something is so, and being of the opinion that something is so? — Janus

The laws of the UK will determine that. And I expect the US to accept the decision of the UK courts. — Frank Apisa


Well, that is trivial too. What other options but acceptance do you think the US would have? Trade sanctions? Declaring war? — Janus

Of course all these matters are power plays, not examples of some fine principle of justice at work. We may not be able to do much about what goes on at the highest levels of international power relations, but we don't have to like it!

Devans99
1.6k

Why should it be blind guess? — EnPassant


Frank is a committed agnostic I think. He denies the validity of empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause. He also denies we can use probability to induce the existence of God.

I think maybe Frank with his reluctance to trust empirical and theoretical evidence is borderline solipsist... — Devans99

EnPassant
99
EnPassant: Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.

Is it a blind guess...pretending to be something more? — Frank Apisa


It is my understanding of the world. It is far from a blind guess.

And since it is dependent entirely on a blind guess that there is a "god"...why should it be given any more consideration than one would any other blind guess? — Frank Apisa


Why should it be blind guess? Do you think all theists are stupid or guessing things out of thin air? Don't you think people put a lot of thought into philosophy and religion? Philosophers don't proceed according to blind guesses, they think and if they believe in God it is because their thinking has convinced them. From a philosophical point of view belief is a conviction with a lot of thought behind it, not a blind guess.

And yet, in the context of debate, this looks a lot like an ad hominem, a personal attack. Such approaches have a long and wholly unsuccessful history within debating circles. When applied to humans, they are counter-productive, in terms of the debate. No point. — Pattern-chaser


Thank you. — EnPassant

Devans99
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa
I'm not sure what are you implying? — Devans99

Devans99
1.6k
↪Terrapin Station
Everything is moving apart from everything else so everything must have once been one. We have evidence of this from the redshifts of galaxies and the CMB radiation.

Even the leading multiple universe theory (eternal inflation) posits afirst movement. — Devans99

Shamshir
18
I will tell you God exists, but I will ask what does it matter?

Before the discovery of gold, gold existed, though it was not evident.
Now by the same characteristics, I say God exists - because it is possible.

But of course, it is not evident - and as the word would imply, that means there is no evidence to showcase. One is just left with the notion of God, unsure what to do with it.
God being nonevident - is like trying to point out water, fully submerged in it.
I cannot point out the water from within just as I cannot look at my own eyes; but I may be aware.

Even so, what does it matter? — Shamshir

Txastopher
168

Listen, T...because Kant says something does not mean it is so. — Txastopher


It doesn't matter who said it. What matters are his arguments. — Txastopher

Terrapin Station
8.6k

Everything is put in motion by something else. — Devans99


There's no way to know whether that's the case or not. — Terrapin Station

Terrapin Station
8.6k
↪Frank Apisa


There are proofs in the sense of:

(1) If P, then there is a first cause.
(2) P
(c) Therefore, there is a first cause.

Which goes to show us just how much value proofs are. — Terrapin Station

What I'm claiming is:

- there are many proofs that a first cause exists — Devans99

EnPassant
98

People are willing to have a meaningful discussion with you, EnPassant, but you are averse to it — Frank Apisa


Not at all. What do you want to discuss within the context of the thread? — EnPassant

Pattern-chaser
974

This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit." — Frank Apisa


And yet, in the context of debate, this looks a lot like an ad hominem, a personal attack. Such approaches have a long and wholly unsuccessful history within debating circles. When applied to humans, they are counter-productive, in terms of the debate. No point. — Pattern-chaser

EnPassant
97

This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit." — Frank Apisa


This is what I call meaningless rhetoric designed to avoid proper discussion. — EnPassant

EnPassant
96

And I hate vague religious-sounding talk with little or no clear meaning. The way I see it, it's your responsibility to be clear, not my responsibility to keep asking what the heck you're talking about. — S


The intellect cannot discern spiritual truth. Truth must come to us from God. The world is filled with human patterns. These patterns are not ultimately real, they are ephemeral. The true pattern of the world is spiritual. Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment. — EnPassant

Txastopher
167

You made a claim to me earlier. I challenged you to show where that claim is written or promulgated. — Frank Apisa


Oh, because some German philosopher said so.

Listen, T...because Kant says something does not mean it is so.

In any case, if YOU think one enjoys rights only if first able to identify a "corresponding duty"...defend that proposition...or identify it as a preference...NOT A DUTY. — Txastopher

Janus
7k
↪Frank Apisa
It's trivially obvious that if Assange is indicted by the US, then he can be indicted by the U S. The question is as to whether that indictment is just and in accordance with international law and general international agreements, or whether it is being, despite those laws and agreements, facilitated by US croneys. — Janus

Do you think that if there were a Russian or Chinese investigation or an investigation by any country you care to name, that US citizens who had never been in the country in question could be indicted by that country? — Janus

Do you believe the US government would accept that?