Does God Exist?

The term blind faith is more representative of a refusal to look. We believe in order to see as we trust the judgment of our parents to make distinctions for us until we learn what they are by putting two and two together, name to object, which how vision is constructed, seeing in order to believe.

 

To believe in and promote exclusively a socially verified knowledge ,
you will be who you are told you are . Original self-knowing shall be
so repressed as to not exist .

Original self-knowing does not disrespect an experience of conscious
non-human otherness . Humanism seems to , secular or religious .
God will necessarily be either rejected or used and abused . Same
would go for a talking crow 'cept an abused crow would quit talking .

 

Sharing thoughts only extends them.

.
Not before he put in his last word!

 

I agree that the distinction between informed faith and blind faith is critical. It's basically the distinction between an educated bet and a coin toss. And I see no meaningful difference between secular and religious faith. A bet is a bet. It's the evidentiary basis that counts.

 

Non-human otherness, you mean a person's true identity? We are in human form on this planet but we are not these bodies. The past decade (or more) has been a great "awakening" which is really just a remembering (of who we are). Life is eternal and eternity is right here and now. Eternity is, it always is and it never isn't.

Talking snakes and talking crows, bottom feeders in a frenzy .. the point is growth, evolution and ascension. And transformation (don't have to be a talking snake or talking crow for all eternity).

 

Except the point is ease of being. Imagine the intense angst of singularity.

That is if I don't speak the very stones will cry out.

 

Check out what I found the other day, then take a look and see who is listed among the corporate founders

http://singularityu.org/

 

I was banging the big drum as far a sponsorship and I will check it out.

 

I think the closest analogy to the "faith versus science" go-around over what is reasonable to believe is in the area political knowledge. It is there that people get the most worked up when their cherished ideas a re questioned, and where people most often think that those who disagree with them are fools or worse. These are the subjects prudent people are taught not talk about except in the privacy of internet forums.

There are major differences of opinion about how to acquire knowledge about political reality. Most voters get their opinions from their parents or trusted "opinion leaders", or from propaganda sources that agree with their preconceptions, like Fox News (right wing) or MSNBC (left wing). These would be analagous to most believers or disbelievers in religion. Their beliefs may give them comfort but are of little help if we're trying to understand how the political system really works.

There is also a discipline called "political science" that purports to treat political questions "scientifically". This usually means an effort to quantify by aping the methods of the natural sciences. Some political scientists are content with more "impressionistic" or "anecdotal" approaches. And this gets me to the crux of my analogy in trying to illustrate the weaknesses of similar approaches in religion.

The quantifiers tend to argue along lines similar to the atheists on this thread (at least Airy Fox): if you can't quantify it or supply gobs of hard evidence it's not worth talking about. What are the results of this approach? Lots of narrowly focused articles providing interesting information about the areas of political life, but often not those most of us are interested in--those that penetrate beneath the surface to tell us how the United Sates is really run. As the saying goes, we learn "more and more, about less and less." Why? Because if the country is really run (as I think it is) by elites operating behind the scenes, they cover their tracks, and it's hard to document what they're doing.

Scholars who address the behind the scenes realities are willing to use more impressionistic methods that rely heavily on interpretation of such evidence as can be gleaned from inside anonymous sources or reasonable inferences from the available facts. Often the results are published in opinion journals, or in scholarly outlets that recognize the merits of such methods. Sometimes they aren't even political scientists. Sociologists like C.Wright Mills introduced us to the "Power Elite" as the true rulers of America, while historians like Howard Zinn brought to light a whole dimension of political history focusing on the common people instead of elites. Both are highly controversial, and where such methods are used the results are vulnerable to inaccuracies. Yet I think such studies are essential if we are to penetrate the surface and deal with the fundamentals of reality.

So here's the analogy: It seems to me that the "brute empiricists" in the Forum, like Airy Fox, are saying it's all or nothing. Either provide scientific proof of God, using the rigorous empirical methods of science, or take your place among the mindless Fox News and MSNBC consumers who go on the basis of knee-jerk opinions. Or as Meagain seems to put it, if it's not science, it's unicorns. We're dealing with a subject that can never be proved, but I'm willing to rely on more impressionistic methods, drawing on history, philosophy, sociology and science to offer interpretations, which I submit are reasonable, if not accurate. This is done by reading a lot, comparing different sources, thinking critically, and always drawing tentative conclusions. On this basis, I'm inclined to support what Aldous Huxley called the Perennial Philosophy, that the world's religious traditions, though wrong on the particulars, share common universal truths that are valuable and worth preserving.

 

I agree with the idea of perennial philosophy or a universal curriculum that comes in many forms. Hard wired only the time we choose to take to learn it is optional. Of course that curriculum is the life we share.

 

This is true only if they are indeed making claims or trying to prove something. There are theists (like me) who simply say: "this is what I happen to believe or what I'm willing to bet on, but I could be wrong and think God can never be proved or disproved." Theists like these are analogous to "soft atheists" who simply say "I don't believe in God." And these you also don't account for in your definition of atheism. But when an atheist says"There is no God" or "there probably is no God', (s)he's made an assertion and (s)he who asserts must prove. Agnosticism, not atheism, is the default position.

 

AiryFox needs to do the work for himself instead of arrogantly demanding others to do for him. Some things you have to learn for yourself.

But I'll say it again anyway, there *is* evidence and proof of God. The least of all that can ever be said about God: God is a WORD. <--- This is irrefutable.

Like all words, God can be defined. However, the definitions and meanings (plural) of God are INFINITE and vast and endless.

Want to know God? Go ahead. Find out what God has to say. God can open a person's eyes and ears, or close them. God can give somebody the power to speak or strike a person dumb (mute). Go find out for yourself if you really want to know. Some people find God and become enraptured.

enraptured
adjective
enchanted, delighted, charmed, fascinated, absorbed, entranced, captivated, transported, enthralled, beguiled, bewitched, ravished, spellbound, enamoured

Sounds like it could be fun. But people have to be their own scientist (disciple).

[Old English discipul, from Latin discipulus pupil, from discere to learn]

 

Thanks for the YouTube cite. It's really interesting, and the distinctions among injunction, apprehension and confirmation as "levels" of scientific knowledege are important to draw. I think Kuhn's thesis that scientific knowledge is paradigm-dependent deserves more attention in this Forum.

I think you missed my point. I think that proof of God is impossilbe, but enough evidence is sufficient to support an informed bet --even though there might be enough evidence to support a bet on a different horse . That's what "substantial evidence" means in the law. What a person is willing to bet on is ultimately subjective, so any argumentation and evidence would be a matter of explaining my personal decision--not an effort to convince and/or convert anyone to my own position, which could even be wrong. I don't like belief-based religions either. Mine is ultimately will-based,--an existential exercise in intuitive risk-taking, but not a leap of blind faith. There must be substantial evidence, as I've previously defined it, and the bet can't be contrary to logic and science.

I intended the passage you quoted for your response to be about the use of other methods than "science" to draw conclusions about reality--namely history, philosophy and reasonable inferences from available evidence. That's all. When you tell me that "I don't think faith, or blind faith is the answer", that suggests to me that you don't acknowledge a middle ground between
faith /blind faith, on the one hand, and rigorous scientific proof, on the other. The middle ground would be evidence-based conclusions that are supported by reasonable but impressionistic interpretations, e.g., history and philosophy. That's what I meant when I said that for you it seems to be either "science (i.e., rigorous proof) or unicorns (i.e., blind faith)". Sorry I wasn't clearer.

 

Seek and you shall find.

 

I believe in unicorns.

I once stood directly in a rainbow and yes, I found the pot of gold.

The pot of gold exists. I could tell people about it but that would ruin the Myth and all the fun. See the purpose of the Myth?

I see this 500+ free speech forums website has an appreciation for rainbows. Let's examine rainbows:

Rainbows in culture, wiki

The pot of gold is Irish mythology but "myth" doesn't mean the pot of gold isn't real or doesn't exist. It sure is real and it sure does exist because I stood right directly inside of a rainbow and I found it. Yeah, I can prove it. I took a picture and later had a mousepad made, so now the rainbow and pot of gold sit directly under my wrist every single day. Geez, it reeks of science laboratory in my house!

A unicorn is a unique person (golden horn, golden mind). FAITH is a great source of power (for intelligent people, the sort of people who find pots of gold).

Any idea, scientifically speaking, what the Hell this flick is about?




While some people would like to believe that only weak, stupid, unintelligent people have Faith, are religious (sacred) and love God

QUITE THE VERY EXACT OPPOSITE IS THE TRUTH.

It is evil who wants to keep people from God.

God isn't a competition. The mind is not meant for battle and war. God has temples just like we do (temple of THE MIND, temples on the sides of our heads).

Everything can be known and understood.

 

You said it!

 

You have nothing against the truth in my words. :-D

My not being able to know myself absent doesn't mean my being is all.

Does god make an inveterate liar of you? :-D Even if I denied myself to death it couldn't stop you speaking for yourself. Religious hypocrisy becomes you as little as religion becomes anyone!

Until you grant love is also what we do, ( you recall that conversation? ) the life that you are shall be forgotten.

Your verdict here is that the power of mind is being denigrated. What are you not telling us?

No, but it's needless. A part defines the whole, the whole being definition itself. I can explain it any which way for you. Your lie stands there, stark, pale, as needless as my 'if only in part' This is again where you recant your lie, if you're honest. lol

Not even your god exists in a perfect vacuum. Look, the light's hitting you right in the eyes.

No, my maker, you do all the making! You alone are good. What's next?

 

This, I see, your engorgedness!

LOL! But lord, forgive me, how can I suspend judgement where you're concerned!? I am your commandment!

Faiths singular quality is love! May you strike me down if it be not so!

Who?

 

Okiefreak:

No, atheism is the default from birth. Agnosticism? Just a reluctance to take possession of words. lol