Does God Exist?

And that is your opinion.

My statements have been based on facts derived from understanding reality.

God is real would be an opinion, because there is no evidence to substantiate the extraordinary claim.

God is not real is a fact, because it is reasonable to dismiss the non-existence of that which is merely reliant upon faith, or childhood ignorance, to support its concept.

 

I admit that I do not know you.

That does not mean, however, that your reliance upon faith is necessary to you. It is not necessary for anyone, period, because people are perfectly capable of living decent, normal lives without a mythological belief system.

 

You could say the same of good and filling in gaps of knowledge is called learning.

You mean the end of this paragraph is some kind of apology for stating that atheists could be intellectually dishonest?

Quite the contrary evidence confirms faith and as I say faith is necessary for learning as you must trust your source.
Originally posted by ginalee14

Teaching and learning are the same. Those who temporarily have more give to those who temporarily have less and you learn as you teach and teach as you learn. A good teachers desire is to be no longer needed and no they are not superior absolutely depended on their students success. It is not necessary for the father to be greater than the son only that the son be like the father.
There are those who are interested more in religion than others.

Actually there is evidence of unicorns as unicorns are a legendary animal.
From wikipedia;
Unicorns are not found in Greek mythology, but rather in accounts of natural history, for Greek writers of natural history were convinced of the reality of the unicorn, which they located in India, a distant and fabulous realm for them. The earliest description is from Ctesias who, in his book Indika ("On India"), described them as wild asses, fleet of foot, having a horn a cubit and a half (27 inches) in length, and colored white, red and black.[2] Aristotle must be following Ctesias when he mentions two one-horned animals, the oryx (a kind of antelope) and the so-called "Indian ass".[3][4] Strabo says that in the Caucasus there were one-horned horses with stag-like heads.[5] Pliny the Elder mentions the oryx and an Indian ox (perhaps a rhinoceros) as one-horned beasts, as well as "a very fierce animal called the monoceros which has the head of the stag, the feet of the elephant, and the tail of the boar, while the rest of the body is like that of the horse; it makes a deep lowing noise, and has a single black horn, which projects from the middle of its forehead, two cubits in length."[6] In On the Nature of Animals (Περὶ Ζῴων Ἰδιότητος, De natura animalium), Aelian, quoting Ctesias, adds that India produces also a one-horned horse (iii. 41; iv. 52),[7][8] and says (xvi. 20)[9] that the monoceros (Greek: μονόκερως) was sometimes called cartazonos (Greek: καρτάζωνος), which may be a form of the Arabic karkadann, meaning "rhinoceros".

Obviously you are in error. You can state what you state by virtue of your ability to articulate your opinions.

To claim no evidence exists when it does is not relying on truth or intellectual honesty or any authority at all.

Says nothing of a sophisticated mythology which describes things.

To be right is adjunct to security.

Not me.

.
What others do needn't be your measure. The truth is better sought that you don't fall into holes.

 

Not if the reality of god is a definition you can agree on.

What is your view reliant on except a lack of evidence?
I am not reliant on faith except to the extent that there is something to discover. I am convinced the the axiomatic statements attributed to jesus are true due to their application in life and the resultant empirical effects of the ideas.

 

You might look at Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe; Paul Davies, The Mind of God; Robert Spitzer, New Proofs for the Existence of God; John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in and Age of Science; Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World; and James Jeans, The Universe Around Us. These are scientists and believers who don't rely on faith or childhood ignorance to support their belief but provide some reasoned arguments. So far, you havne't provided us with anything except unsupported assertions.

 

Unfortunately, some people don't give a rats ass about the survival of the species, or that it's better to be good to your neighbor. And many of them hold high office in our government and corporations. Morality needs all the reinforcement it can get, although I'd agree, not necessarily religious.

 

can anyone explain why all humans have an inborn tendency towards some kind of spirituality?

 

There are various theories, ranging from the "God Gene" claimed by Dean Hamer to the complex of influences Discussed by Dennet in Breaking the Spell. Contributions from cognitive psychologists emphasize that humans evolved as pattern seeking and agency attributing animals: i.e., they tend to see patterns in and to attribute agency to ambiguous events. Seeing patterns has survival value. If the patterns are real, it helps with the hunt, and if they aren't, usually no problem. Same thing with agency. If an ambiguous object could be either animate or inanimate, it's safer to assume the former. The skeptical hard scientist would probably be eaten before he could pass his genes on to the next generation. There is also the tendency to believe what our elders tell us, which is usually wise but sometimes foolish. also, according to anthroplogist Scott Atran, relief from "existential anxieties (e.g., death) plays a large part. But society and institutional factors also play a vital role. Belah's Religion in Human Evolution notes the importance of religion in enforcing communal norms and legitimating governments, as well as the development of religious specialists (Shamans and priests) with a vested interest in communal memes.

 

No, only strange to me because I don't feel a need or desire to attribute consciousness to all else. Being is yet to come. Which is not to say it hasn't.Your saying it is not yet to come could only be true if it had stopped coming, although you wouldn't be saying it. lol You are right in saying the mind is physical. Your deepest considerations have been loving ones.

LOL! How is good better for being called god? You can't just hand me a cheeseburger to shut me up!

I wasn't only being poetic. Innocence is freedom from knowing guilt. For guilt not to exist, we have to agree in all innocence. One becomes more innocent by freeing others from guilt. It is impossible to take on anothers guilt. So let's know everyone! Put all your 'maya' about the ''true" nature of reality to rest! :-D

What, three more syllables?! lol "everything is something but nothing in particular" As much as you may find me taking you to task, one thing you'll never find me doing is holding you to your mistakes.

No, a thing only ever works for us on the principle of identity, ( which I generally find you trying to rule out lol ) so be and become your god by all means, or create one, otherwise pause a moment, quiet, listen! Creation loves the sound of itself!

A private life, sure, but how does the self transcend the body? Firstly, it would have to want to... but why?! lol

If you spit it out I could at least try to! :-D

The 'when' then. I was being archaic. Forget it. You've already stated that the physical is the boundary. If you think it is not also what frees the self, then 'none of what I say is as familiar to you as you think.' :-D

As far as I can tell, there's nothing there until we bring it down to earth. lol To champion the love affair til it becomes the very air.

Don't let me disturb you O great dope! ( I had no idea doing the deity thing required so much concentration! ) Let me be of assistance! ( I hope he doesn't expect me to do all his creating!) I am unworthy, unworthy of creation your majesty, innovation is the most I can aspire to! The meat will inherit the earth!

 

I have something a bit more than Faith lol

I'm not sure how or why Faith is offensive to you (or anyone), especially if you are inexperienced.

People talk about a personal relationship with God so if you do not have that relationship, you do not have the experience. And if you do not have the experience, you're not going to know and understand it. You have the experience of no relationship and so that is what you know and understand. You are not alone though, you have many relatives (those who can relate).

Here's a puzzle that Humanity seems to be stuck on: Humanity believes in oneness. We aren't all the same, we aren't ever going to be all the same .. but we are one massive, gargantuan body of life (made of over 7 billion people). That collective, called Humanity, is one .. but only in the sense that we are all housed together on the one planet under the one roof (the roof is the sky of that great big University up there, and God is the CEO).

Humanity will never be one (totally unified) in Love, Peace, Understanding, Joy, Bliss, Goodness, Harmony, Health, Well-Being, Compassion, Empathy, Mercy etc., because they lack the Faith and the Will (not all people want those things or want others to have those things).

And no, we can't blame God for that but there are those people who do not hesitate to suppose the existence of God *in order to place blame*.

We aren't all on the same level. Our souls aren't all in the same place. How much do you know about souls? Do you think that no soul is ever in jeopardy and danger? Are there never any heroes? Do you think souls do not exist? Do you go for science when talking about the soul?

New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension

Which can also be said (in my words):

Experiencers make it increasingly clear that even mere knowledge in the experiencer's mind is sufficient to convert knowledge to proof and evidence.

Also from the article,

Immortal = TRUE.

Personally, I do not need science for what I know. Some people do not want there to be God or religions or supernatural or divinity, but there is .. whether people like it or not, know it or not, understand it or not. I think a lot of people are in the not camp but that is their own choosing. It does appear that "science" is waking up, taking a step in the right direction and is beginning to come into the realization of us "God" people. Good. It's about time! haha

 

jeez, Devaju. Whipping dance of the dead, chicks on meat hooks, Willie is the nastiest man on the planet? lol Willy, Willie .. however he spells his name. That pig farmer who slaughtered prostitutes or some crazy sick evil thing. NAAASTY. That's *godlessness* for ya.

And NASA is like, "quick! We've got to find an inhabitable planet soon!" lmao

 

who will believe that all knowledge must be verified by a consensus of expert
authority ? a nonsense person . one who is forbidden original self-knowing and
is saved from disillusionment as seemingly it will be such a sad thing ... again .

 

ginalee:

?

Sounds more like murder.

 

tikoo:

You and I though know knowledge to be its own verification. The 'nonsense' and 'no-nonsense' people alike make their own sort of sense. Nothing is forbidden. No better encouragement to love.

 

Yeah, but what about the gazillion of other animal species housed under the same roof? they have souls, too....only they do not ponder about whether there is a god or not...only difference.....

 

Strange because you consider consciousness a special state, (attribute.) The source of vanity is the dream of discrete measures.

That it remains to be seen makes it so. It is only yet to come if you are not here.

Again a dramatic statement owing to the attraction of guilt as if I am ever without what I am.
All expressions of love are maximal. My least concern the same as my greatest devotion, there are no idle thoughts.

No but it might lend you the energy to understand.
The way we are more secure in knowing who we speak with when we share names. Everything has a body and everybody has a name.
Don't short yourself on syllables if you want to understand the speech.
Why discriminate? The creator, the one invokes good is the only good. God is that which we invoke.

Guilt is not known, only verdicts. Let he who is blameless cast the first stone for innocence.

No, for guilt to exist it must be shared. We are real.

It is also impossible to exceed boundaries we ourselves erect. You can't free someone from something that doesn't exist how ever you can unburden yourself which makes you helpful in time.

As well as the whole defines the parts but the part does not define the whole and preeminent to your objection, not even in part, the part not being the whole.

You'll rarely find me not answering a question.

The I am I call myself is the same I am you call yourself, Friend !

In communication between us. The thought goes out yet remains with the thinker.

Every thing has a body and everybody has a name.

The self is not trapped but cannot escape the effects of thinking save to change your mind.

I'm not blind but you must have closed your eyes for a moment to your own determination;

Innovation is not the most you can aspire to, god is that which you invoke.
Guilt doesn't become you even if you claim it.

 

Knowledge being shared is illumined by peer review, peering.

 

Thou shall not murder.

 

thedope:

No, it is special only to itself. You consider it fundamental, and are thus estranged from me. lol Every 'measure' is discrete.

No, and no. I can always get it straight for you as I said, but I should now and again leave you to yourself to untwist your written thoughts, I think. :-D That being remains to be seen doesn't in any way mean it's not yet to come. I could die today and it would keep on coming without me.

LOL! It must be true, you really must have my "coyness in lieu of transparency!" :-D

You must learn to speak for yourself to be able to speak for everyone. Our tastes are as discriminating as we please. Better to ask why incriminate. The good one invokes is not even necessarily ones 'only' good let alone the only good! Consider me your speech therapist, your holiness! :-D

While that may be true for you and I, not everyone feels they don't know it. Let he who is blameless decline to throw a stone at all.

LOL What do you mean no? Guilt is a misgiving. Its not existing doesn't mean there aren't those who think it does!

You may as well have said there is no use in helping oneanother. We only ever teach by example. The thought, and consequently the feeling of guilt exists.

Another of your not so unwitting lies, considering my breaking it down for you ad infinitum. Definition is ongoing. A part, never being apart, being wholly what it is, can't help but define the whole, if only in part.

That's not transcending the body, but traversing it!

Forgive me glorious one! If I may aspire to more than my station, it was you, with your annointing balm of magnanimous benficence that has granted it! :-D

O, your heavenliness, I dare not consider what you say! How can you be what I invoke?! No, I cannot bring such a notion to bear in my humilitous head without trembling at the implications! :-D

Perhaps not your honour, but what's the good in telling me? Were you thinking I might? Have you ever told those who have?