I agree with what you said. However, much of this approach is still considered soft science that is not entirely consistent with the philosophy of science, except in terms of approach.

A good example of this is the psychology of Carl Jung. His thesis of the archetypes of the collective unconscious, is supported by a blend of historical symbolism, dreams and a career of case studies compiled in a scientific manner. However, not all scientists agree with this thesis, because it is not as easy to verify, like observing a new bird or collecting the rain water.

It would take a certain amount of opened mind effort; accept certain premises, to get the observational mind right, so the evidence appears more reliable. A hostile research team, that does not like religion, would not take the extra subjective; theoretical steps, to make any religious claims easy, when this effort is not straight forward, and the results will never be called hard science.

I don't really know what sort of an entity an omnipresent consciousness would be — SophistiCat

Let me give a hint, it may be, attributed with, wait for it, yep, omnipresence(snorts, laughs). The thing about omnipresent consciousness you should know is, that an omnipresent being, is naturally indivisible, given that you can’t be everywhere, whilst divided. Now, since this entity is everywhere, undivided, where could another entity, possibly be located. That there, would be a division of being, within an indivisible consciousness. An absurdity of the highest order, of the absurd.

an omnipresent being, is naturally indivisible — ShowOfForce

Why? Your only stated reason is that it just can't be. Something that is present in some, but not all places can be divisible, presumably. Why not something that is present everywhere?

Now, since this entity is everywhere, undivided, where could another entity, possibly be located. That there, would be a division of being, within an indivisible consciousness. — ShowOfForce

Non sequitur. What does divisibility have to do with sharing space with something else?

One way to address this is with physics. If you were to travel at the speed of light the universe would appear contracted to a point-instant, due to special relativity. This point-instant universe allows you to be everywhere in the inertial universe at the same time; omnipresent. God can be omnipresent if he in a speed of light reference.

Jesus said his kingdom is not of this realm. In tradition God is not inertial, but is spirit or in a reference at the speed of light. Spirit is closer to energy, than it is to matter. There is a consistency between tradition and what we know of relativity; God is at the speed of light.

At the speed of light, space-time breaks down into separate space and separate time. This allows one to move in space without time and move in time without space. The reason this becomes so at the speed of light is because a point-instant universe requires no time or no space to be anywhere or everywhere, since everything to overlap in space and time ay a point.

If you move in time without the restrictions of space, you can know the history of the universe, omniscience. If you can move in space without the restrictions of time you are omnipresent. These are consistent with God traditions and relativity.

Speed of movement doesn’t redefine movement. A movement moves, from here to there. As long as you’re moving you are always here, never there. A presence in actual motion cannot be simultaneously omnipresent.

And is there an infinite regression on what started the movement in the first place.

The one topic that is sure to generate an ocean of ink is that of God.

The inevitable argument between theists and atheists then ensues full whack. There are always those who deem themselves above the debate and apply terms of agnosticism or personal God in as much as they like to say things like 'I believe in my own definition of a God' which seems little different from a belief that one is a God oneself. Then there are those who make assertions like 'I know there must be something' but I don't believe in anything other than my own moral principal of 'do onto others'.

There is a lot of refinement and hyper refinement of what God is or is not and then there is a lot of hyper refinement in what one actually believes in.

The God question is as old as God. If there is such a thing I doubt if it is particularly perturbed by what us plebs believe or don't believe.

What is most interesting is how the God thing can hijack the passions so readily and so easily.

Opinions on God are like assholes in that everyone has one. To hold an opinion on God is indeed a celebration of the fact that if there is a Go- like intelligence it must be somewhat like our own (probably more open minded than most and certainly a better sense of humor)

This is a philosophy forum and we must bow to the masters in respect of established wisdom. The philosopher who has undoubtedly (IMOP) come the closest to an appropriate answer to the question of God is Spinoza.

I have yet to encounter a God concept that makes more sense to believers and non-believers alike.

M

The God question is as old as God. If there is such a thing I doubt if it is particularly perturbed by what us plebs believe or don't believe.

What is most interesting is how the God thing can hijack the passions so readily and so easily. — Marcus de Brun

Agree - Camus' absurdism. Why do we push the rock up the hill.

In any meaningful way - as in how it effects your actions. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

However, it is important for thinking people to not hold this belief as a fool in conflict with fact or reason.

God does or does not exist is not a matter of fact

Theist's need a reasoned argument for the existence of a necessary being, to keep from being fools. Atheists need a reasoned argument for the non - existence of God - to keep from being fools.
Both have them.

Agnostics don't need anything - to believe nothing or both. By far the weakest position.

In the end history ends with God, or a big black hole -

Can any fellow member help me figure out how to quote a post? I would appreciate it v much! I cant find a "quote" tab/button. How do yous do it?

What kind of evidence would you consider? What kind of evidence would you expect of a 'supernatural cause of existence'? — Wayfarer

OK, figured out how to quote.....
So, wayfarer, evidence I would accept would be based on the scientific method. But it appears that we both agree that since we are talking of a supernatural thing, unlikely any evidence would be possible. Some evidence would be say, if one prays and asks for favors to the divine being or jesus, the favor would be provided every time. But since I know this s bunk and praying is useless, we know in advance evidence will never be provided. Thats just one example. t does get silly, of course.

Again, you sad there is a god, but you have no evidence. Hate to repeat, but thats where we are at.
If you say there s a god, the burden of proof is on you, not me to prove that one does not exist. It s like prooving that the tooth fairy does not exist. get it?

So, wayfarer, evidence I would accept would be based on the scientific method. But it appears that we both agree that since we are talking of a supernatural thing, unlikely any evidence would be possible. — Life101

Right!

the burden of proof is on you — Life101

You seem to have made your decision, so there's nothing to discuss.

So, wayfarer, evidence I would accept would be based on the scientific method — Life101

What method would you use to prove the scientific method is valid?

Life 101 -

The scientific method is useful to identify matters of fact, or very very highly probable to be fact. But you can, and you already do believe things to be true and act accordingly by both reason and faith.

Here is an example.

You do not know as a matter of fact, that your spouse is not going to shoot you when you walk in the door.

You can by reason believe it is not very likely, you haven't done anything worth getting shot over, you are getting along fine, no reason not to open the door.

But actually opening the door is an act of faith.

Somehow God brought about the cosmos. We don't know how, and we almost certainly will never get an explanation — Bitter Crank

Genisis is quite clear on this, it was spoken into being. Though the cosmos wasn't mentioned there.

I don’t know how to quote officially — Starthrower

Select the part you wish to quote, then hover your mouse over it and right click, it will give the quote option then.

I for one can't make sense of beings before time creating time and so on. — dog

Where was such a claim made? Though one could think of it as humans becoming aware of the passing of time, and starting concepts as past and future. Before humans had a word for time, there were no conversations about time, so in a way it didn't exist from the perspective that things only exist among humans if they can talk about them.

For me, the beginning is Mind. The Mind that we observe everywhere in the universe in all of its forms. — Rich

That would be the individual perspective. However, for groups of humans trieng to survive it was the logos, since a group of one had no chance at survival.

One has to tell why the act of creation out of noting is logically possible and the process of noting to something is logically impossible. — bahman

Where was this claim made? The big bang theory doesn't make such claim, nor does the bible.

There cannot be any beginning if there is still a before. — bahman

Nonsense, we can talk about the beginning of the industrial era, of course there was something before the beginning of the industrial era.

The only concept of God that I agree could exist is a kind of "sentient" universe. However, even if that is true, then it does not explain how the universe came to be — SnowyChainsaw

That's one solution. Another solution is to read the 'in the beginning' in genisis, not as 'in the beginning of the universe' but rather as 'in the beginning of humans becoming concious'.

If god were everywhere there could be no one else in a distinct location, because it would void gods omnipresence. — ShowOfForce

If the higgs boson can be everywhere, then why can't god?

Beware of a scientist who believes there is a god. I didnt take a gallup poll but most probably do not believe. Unless you include charatans like deepok chopra a scientist. Some would say Einstein was a believer, which is not true. Etc etc.

true scientists believe n the scientific method. And reasoning by observation or inference/experimentation. — Life101

Of course Einstein was a believer, he was a believer in the scientific method at least. Any descent scientist with additional believes knows that in order to practice science, he/she has to put his/her additional believes on the coat rack when entering the lab.

Some evidence would be say, if one prays and asks for favors to the divine being or jesus, the favor would be provided every time. But since I know this s bunk and praying is useless, we know in advance evidence will never be provided. Thats just one example. t does get silly, of course. — Life101

The benefit of praying is that it orients ones mind on what's important, if ones mind is more orientated at what goals are important, it's more likely one will succeed in achieving those goals.

You seem to have made your decision, so there's nothing to discuss. — Wayfarer

Not so fast- I am not done, and dont claim for me certain " decisions". But looks like youve made up your mind not to add anything else to this tread since you have "nothing to discuss".

What method would you use to prove the scientific method is valid? — Rank Amateur

I thought you had nothing to discuss??

I do not have to defend the scientific method. But you still have to prove your belief in a god. It is not up to me to show you how to do that. And dont use the common tactic of "reversing the burden of proof" on one who questions that belief.

What method would you use to prove the scientific method is valid? — Rank Amateur

It's interesting that you mention the scientific method. Scientists accept the best explanations of observable phenomena. At some time in the past, a god or gods were the best explanation of observable phenomena, but then better explanations came along. For some sentimental reason that I find very hard to understand, theists cling to these long defunct hypotheses.

To answer the OP's original question, god did make sense, but he was superseded a long time ago.

To answer the OP's original question, god did make sense, but he was superseded a long time ago. — Txastopher

Thank goodness we can finally put that question to rest.

opening the door is an act of faith. — Rank Amateur

No it's not, to the extent that one even considers what will happen in your example, it is a strong inductive inference.

No it's not, to the extent that one even considers what will happen in your example, it is a strong inductive inference. — Txastopher

I would hope it is a strong cogent argument with a high truth value that your spouse won't shoot you, but it is all argument until you open the door, and that is an act of faith.

I would hope it is a strong cogent argument with a high truth value that your spouse won't shoot you, but it is all argument until you open the door, and that is an act of faith. — Rank Amateur

You needn't restate your position. It was clear the first time. It's still incorrect though.

To suppose that something will happen based on inductive, deductive or abuctive reasoning is not faith. Clearly, we can't expect complete certainty in most cases, so high probability suffices.

Faith is trusting that something is or will be the case without requiring any of the conditions of reason to be satisfied. Faith would be jumping into an active volcano and expecting not to get hurt.

Besides which, on your account, any action one might undertake is an act of faith. This is so general as to be entirely useless.