Because, how do you know there isn't any evidence? — Agustino

?
How do you know there isn't any evidence that unicorns exist? Do you live your life based on all the claims that have no evidence? Why do you change your behavior based on just one claim that has no evidence, and not all the others, which have the same amount of evidence - none?

You change your behavior based on the IF of God's existence, but not the IF that unicorns exist?

There is no evidence of God's existence — Harry Hindu

Is that a fact, or your opinion?

How do you know there isn't any evidence that unicorns exist? — Harry Hindu

I have not found evidence that unicorns exist, but there might be horses with horns somewhere in the Universe, how am I supposed to know there aren't? :s However, whether there are or not, isn't very relevant to my life. Whether there is a God, on the other hand, is a lot more relevant.

Did you read, for example, Genesis? Before they sinned, Adam and Eve did have bodies. So the body in its natural state is holy, it is meant to be a temple for the spirit, and together the two form the person. — Agustino

So then death is really the end then?

So then death is really the end then? — Harry Hindu

Yes, until the bodily resurrection of the dead.

Are people who never heard of God and hell delusional? Once they hear of God and hell, but see no evidence for it and reject it makes them delusional?

Yes, until the bodily resurrection of the dead. — Agustino

In other words, you made up a story, for which the only evidence is an ancient book written by people with no access to the knowledge we have today, and is filled with slavery and murdering people who's only "crime" was believing in a different God. Is The Lord of the Rings evidence that elves exist?

If God uses the clear-cut evidence of my thoughts and actions to judge me, then where is the clear-cut evidence of God's existence? To design me with ignorance and then show no evidence of God's existence and then judge me based on that when God doesn't need to rely on faith that I'm a believer, is hypocritical.

Are people who never heard of God and hell delusional? — Harry Hindu

There are two different issues at play here. Short analogy before I answer:

Plato talked about a "true falsehood". A true falsehood is something that is believed in your heart, and thus makes you ACT falsely. A regular falsehood though, is something that is just words - that isn't believed in the heart. So if you study yourself, you will probably see this distinction - there are things you believe in your heart, and they reflect on how you act, and then there are things that you believe just in words.

That distinction is important here. Because "God" and "hell" (as words) are referring to experiences. They are not self-referential - you don't find the meaning of those words by reading a dictionary entry. And it is their propositional content that is important, not the words themselves. So someone can absolutely never have heard of "God" or "hell" and yet still know what God and hell are. I'm sure there are even atheists who have this knowledge.

So the answer to your question is no - not necessarily.

Once they hear of God and hell, but see no evidence for it and reject it make them delusional? — Harry Hindu

If they just hear the words? Words must be understood first. That requires understanding their referrents within experience, not just being able to cite dictionary definitions. So if they just hear the words, don't understand and find no evidence, then they are not delusional. But if they do find evidence, which they reject, then they are indeed delusional.

In other words, you made up a story, for which the only evidence is an ancient book written by people with no access to the knowledge we have today, and is filled with slavery and murdering people who's only "crime" was believing in a different God. — Harry Hindu

Have you read the Bible from cover to cover? I can suggest to you a series of videos that explains it quite well. The Bible is formed of different literary genres, so it's by no means meant to be taken literarily. And the Bible is just one source of revelation - Apostolic Tradition is another, and personal revelations are yet another. So when trying to find the truth, you're looking for evidence being affirmed by all sources of revelation, and, where possible, also by reason. If there is a conflict between reason and revelation that must be resolved.

To design me with ignorance and then show no evidence of God's existence and then judge me based on that when God doesn't need to rely on faith that I'm a believer, is hypocritical. — Harry Hindu

Sure.

Plato talked about a "true falsehood". A true falsehood is something that is believed in your heart, and thus makes you ACT falsely. A regular falsehood though, is something that is just words - that isn't believed in the heart. So if you study yourself, you will probably see this distinction - there are things you believe in your heart, and they reflect on how you act, and then there are things that you believe just in words. — Agustino

To give an example of this.

A true falsehood is if you believe that your brother had sex with your wife (for example) and you rush and kill him, even though he hasn't actually done it.

A regular falsehood is when you're delusional because of high fever and want to commit suicide, and I tell you that this pill is a euthanasia pill, while in truth it's just an anti-anxiety medication. I have told you a lie, and you will act according to the lie, but it is not a true falsehood because you don't misinterpret the correct nature of reality - which you would do if you were to commit suicide.

You have no clue what "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" means, so don't try to talk in languages that you don't understand. Go back to the experience of meditation. — Agustino

I'll take this personal attack and your failure to answer the question as an admission that your earlier points were silly.

I'll take this personal attack and your failure to answer the question as an admission that your earlier points were silly. — Benkei

Then tell me - what does "God doesn't exist" mean?

And it's not a failure to answer a question. It's wisdom. You don't go around answering stupid questions. If I asked you "are you still beating your wife?" would you answer it?

And it's not a failure to answer a question. It's wisdom. You don't go around answering stupid questions. If I asked you "are you still beating your wife?" would you answer it? — Agustino

So that's why, actually struggling and trying to understand so that you can ask good questions is important. If you just come with a destructive attitude, you cannot make any progress in understanding the other. Not any question that you can ask is a good question and merits answering.

So that's why, actually struggling and trying to understand so that you can ask good questions is important. If you just come with a destructive attitude, you cannot make any progress in understanding the other. Not any question that you can ask is a good question and merits answering. — Agustino

The only conclusion to be taken from the above is that you did assume the existence of God, otherwise the question wasn't silly. In which case you were begging the question. QED.

The only conclusion to be taken from the above is that you did assume the existence of God, otherwise the question wasn't silly. In which case you were begging the question. QED. — Benkei

Oh so, you're not actually getting closer to God, since he doesn't exist but you're just calling it that? — Benkei

The only conclusion to be taken from your statement above is that you did assume the non-existence of God, otherwise your question is stupid. In which case, you were begging the question. QED.

When you stop playing childish games like that, please get back to me, otherwise, it's really a waste of time for both of us, and doesn't get us anywhere.

And so this conversation ends with a lame insult like most. — Hanover

I'm sorry, I meant to make an illustration by analogy, not to insult.

The shared core argument you're making is the same flawed argument that gets dragged out in Philosophy 101 classes — Hanover

The argument is an argument from probability, it is not an argument from necessity. These are two different types of arguments applied to different types of subject matter, just like inductive and deductive are two different types of logic, used for different purposes. That the argument is a different type from what you are used to, does not make it a flawed argument.

When I was in high school I may have considered the principles of algebra and trigonometry as flawed because I was having difficulty understanding them. The lack of a concrete referent troubled me, so I could not proceed to the level of abstraction required because I was unwilling to accept the articles on faith alone, I needed to understand through concrete reference. The teacher did not provide concrete reference, because the time for concrete reference was grade school and I was supposed to be far beyond that. I now recognize that my unwillingness to accept these principles on faith did not make those principles faulty, but it did make me a bad mathematician.

Faith is one of the methods which we employ in our approach to the unknown. When we apprehend someone as authoritative we may be inclined to accept on faith what is given to us by that authority. Another method of approach is probability. When the solution to the problem at hand cannot be known, we judge the likelihood of success in various solutions, and proceed on probability.

Plato demonstrated that virtue is associated with how we approach the unknown. Courage for instance is an approach to the danger within the unknown, which involves a judgement of risk, in today's term, "probability". To judge all forays into the unknown as risky, leaves one without courage, cowardice. And inversely, to judge all such forays as without risk leaves one as rash. The capacity to judge such probabilities (risk) correctly is courage, and courage is a virtue. So Aristotle described virtue as the mean between the extremes.

If an individual is unwilling to accept the articles of faith, this person still requires an approach to the unknown, in order to maintain one's status as virtuous. That approach is the approach of probability, likelihood. When you reject the approach of probability, as you did when you said these arguments of probability are flawed, this makes you a bad philosopher, just like my rejection of the articles of faith made me a bad mathematician.

After you named it "the body and blood of Christ" we can run every conceivable test on it and establish that it's still stale bread and bad wine. So my statement actually corresponds to reality and isn't something "unseen" as it is a claim about the world as-is. — Benkei

After you run all your test, you still have the issue of what qualifies as "stale bread" and "bad wine", your definitions. This is necessary in order to make your judgement as to whether the test results are according to the definitions. That these terms ought to be defined in the way that you define them is something "unseen".

The only conclusion to be taken from the above is that you did assume the existence of God, otherwise the question wasn't silly. In which case you were begging the question. QED. — Benkei

And by the way, I don't assume the existence of God in such a discussion, I assume the POSSIBILITY for the existence of God. If God's existence is impossible, a priori, then you could adopt your attitude, but you haven't shown that to be the case.

So if you want to have a discussion, you must assume the possibility of God's existence too. Otherwise, no discussion can be had.

After you run all your test, you still have the issue of what qualifies as "stale bread" and "bad wine", your definitions. This is necessary in order to make your judgement as to whether the test results are according to the definitions. That these terms ought to be defined in the way that you define them is something "unseen". — Metaphysician Undercover

Open a dictionary, try using language on an everyday basis. No faith involved. Although admittedly your language use is getting increasingly idiosyncratic.

A true falsehood is if you believe that your brother had sex with your wife (for example) and you rush and kill him, even though he hasn't actually done it.

A regular falsehood is when you're delusional because of high fever and want to commit suicide, and I tell you that this pill is a euthanasia pill, while in truth it's just an anti-anxiety medication. I have told you a lie, and you will act according to the lie, but it is not a true falsehood because you don't misinterpret the correct nature of reality - which you would do if you were to commit suicide. — Agustino

I wouldn't believe the my brother had sex with my wife without evidence. Your words are evidence, but not proof. When someone claims something, I need more evidence.

I wouldn't believe the my brother had sex with my wife without evidence. Your words are evidence, but not proof. When someone claims something, I need more evidence. — Harry Hindu

I cannot give you evidence, as I said evidence is found in your own experiences. God isn't something or someone that can be shown in a photograph, the way I'd show you a gazelle, or a black swan. And even then, you could say that the photograph doesn't correspond to something that exists in reality, but was altered with Photoshop, etc. So some faith is inescapable to live in the world. Whatsoever knowledge is transmitted to you requires some faith to be accepted.

When someone claims something, I need more evidence. — Harry Hindu

My claims are with regards to the cumulation of my experiences, which includes time spent studying Christianity, the Bible, Buddhism, mysticism, philosophy, and other such subjects. So I am trying to convey you my experiences through words. I cannot make you, through those words, to have the same experiences. You have to do the work yourself, as it were.

I have not found evidence that unicorns exist, but there might be horses with horns somewhere in the Universe, how am I supposed to know there aren't? :s However, whether there are or not, isn't very relevant to my life. Whether there is a God, on the other hand, is a lot more relevant. — Agustino

Fair enough. I admit that that was a bad example. I can admit that I'm wrong. You have yet to do that - a symptom of being delusional.

Let's use another example. How do you know that your god is the right god? There have been so many devised by human beings. There may be evidence that a god other than any devised by humans exists, so why don't you change your behavior based on that? Isn't it because you were raised in a family that believes in that particular kind of god?

I cannot give you evidence, as I said evidence is found in your own experiences. God isn't something or someone that can be shown in a photograph, the way I'd show you a gazelle, or a black swan. And even then, you could say that the photograph doesn't correspond to something that exists in reality, but was altered with Photoshop, etc. So some faith is inescapable to live in the world. Whatsoever knowledge is transmitted to you requires some faith to be accepted. — Agustino

No, it requires logic and reason - by integrating all knowledge into a consistent whole. God doesn't use faith and neither do we when determining someone's guilt or innocence. Faith is accepting a premise unquestioningly - a symptom of a delusion.

My claims are with regards to the cumulation of my experiences, which includes time spent studying Christianity, the Bible, Buddhism, mysticism, philosophy, and other such subjects. So I am trying to convey you my experiences through words. I cannot make you, through those words, to have the same experiences. You have to do the work yourself, as it were. — Agustino

Exactly, you have already accepted the premise unquestioningly and made it your life's work to study this particular god.

If all you have to go on is other people's words, then how is it that you don't believe in other gods, or everything anyone says, for that matter? What of their experiences of different things than what you experience? How do you explain why we experience things differently?

And by the way, I don't assume the existence of God in such a discussion, I assume the POSSIBILITY for the existence of God. If God's existence is impossible, a priori, then you could adopt your attitude, but you haven't shown that to be the case.

So if you want to have a discussion, you must assume the possibility of God's existence too. Otherwise, no discussion can be had. — Agustino

So now you're moving the goal posts because at no point did you assume the possibility by, for instance, saying: "meditation could move one closer to God, were he to exist". Instead you put it out there as a fact. Also, you and I both know you don't assume the possibility since you have faith in his existence.

As far as I'm concerned there is no data or observations available to rationally assume the possibility as it is as likely as the existence of unicorns. So if you want me to entertain the possibility, get me data or observable facts. Until then any discussion about God, his properties or my relation to him is indeed moot.

I can admit that I'm wrong. You have yet to do that - a symptom of being delusional. — Harry Hindu

Sure, I've done that many times.

How do you know that your god is the right god? — Harry Hindu

God is a referent to something or someone that can be experienced. So I know that my God is the right God because I experienced Him. This isn't to say that the Christian God is the real God, and the Muslim God is the false God, etc. No. The word "God" in all religions refers to the same underlying reality, approached through different manners and understood to different extents. Catholicism for example freely admits that salvation is possible for Muslims, for Buddhists, and even for atheists. I had a post about it in this thread earlier. And Eastern Orthodoxy admits the same.

So take the attitude that us Eastern Orthodox have with regards to conversion. We say come and see for yourself - try it out. "Taste and see that the Lord is good". Without that experience, you cannot know.

Isn't it because you were raised in a family that believes in that particular kind of god? — Harry Hindu

No, my family are mostly atheists. It's true that the prevailing faith in my country is Christianity, and that did play a significant role as to why I became a Christian, and not a Buddhist, or something else. Keep in mind that religion is also a communal activity - that's one of the reasons for being a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist and not an independent seeker. I think it's best for people to delve deeper in the religion of their country, wherever they happened to be born. It is their tradition, and they are most equipped to understand it and progress most fully in it, rather than switch.

No, it requires logic and reason - by integrating all knowledge into a consistent whole. — Harry Hindu

So what about the Christian God is inconsistent with our knowledge?

Exactly, you have already accepted the premise unquestioningly and made it your life's work to study this particular god. — Harry Hindu

I haven't studied just one religion.

God is a referent to something or someone that can be experienced. So I know that my God is the right God because I experienced Him. This isn't to say that the Christian God is the real God, and the Muslim God is the false God, etc. No. The word "God" in all religions refers to the same underlying reality, approached through different manners and understood to different extents. Catholicism for example freely admits that salvation is possible for Muslims, for Buddhists, and even for atheists. I had a post about it in this thread earlier. And Eastern Orthodoxy admits the same.

So take the attitude that us Eastern Orthodox have with regards to conversion. We say come and see for yourself - try it out. "Taste and see that the Lord is good". Without that experience, you cannot know. — Agustino

LOL. Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by seeing things the way I see them. You've just proved my point.

So now you're moving the goal posts because at no point did you assume the possibility by, for instance, saying: "meditation could move one closer to God, were he to exist". Instead you put it out there as a fact. — Benkei

By doing that I tried to show to you that I'm referring to different things by God than you are. You refuse to accept my usage of "God", because you want to stick to whatever understanding you have of God. And this is deeper than the question of whether God exists, because that question requires that we use the same definition. So far, we're not even using the same definition (and more importantly, the same understanding) of the term.

Also, you and I both know you don't assume the possibility since you have faith in his existence. — Benkei

That is true, just like you have faith in his nonexistence. But - for the purposes of this discussion I did assume the possibility of his existence. And we both must assume that for a conversation to be possible.

Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by seeing things the way I see them. — Harry Hindu

I didn't make the underlined comment.

You've just proved my point. — Harry Hindu

The point that I was deluded? Or what point?

So what about the Christian God is inconsistent with our knowledge? — Agustino

Let's start with our moral codes. People call the Christian God loving, yet the Bible shows otherwise. If hell exists, that also shows that it isn't loving.

Keep in mind that religion is also a communal activity - that's one of the reasons for being a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist and not an independent seeker. I think it's best for people to delve deeper in the religion of their country, wherever they happened to be born. It is their tradition, and they are most equipped to understand it and progress most fully in it, rather than switch. — Agustino

In other words, Christianity is a mass delusion perpetuated by the culture. By surrounding yourself with people with like-minds reinforces those beliefs, but it doesn't prove them.

Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by seeing things the way I see them. — Harry Hindu

I didn't make the underlined comment. — Agustino

You did say to "come and see for yourself". I don't understand the distinction you are making between seeing and experiencing.

I'll re-prhase, but that doesn't take away from my point:

Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by experiencing things the way I experience them. If that's not a symptom of a grandiose delusion, I don't know what is.