Everyone has their own evidence. It is kind of silly to say “there is no evidence”. Of course he means that Science has provided no evidence to the public, nor the horde of loud mouthed idiots. Objective evidence requires the ability to reason, which is beyond the average person (another good reason for faith based religions).
Objective evidence also requires boundaries, but being infinite, God does not have boundaries by definition.
Silhouette:
“You’re going to believe what you want to anyway” applies to everyone, no exceptions. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what you believe. I wonder how many times and in how ways it has to be said that it’s about felt relationships expressed in terms of as if and not about beliefs at all?
Some atheists, for example, don’t want to believe there is no God etc. but they are overwhelmingly compelled to due to evidence and reason - though arguably they want to be authentic and honest with themselves and others more than they wish that a God existed, so as a “net want” they “believe what they want to anyway”. So I’ll grant you your generalisation and agree with you. I think what statements such as yours are usually meant to imply though, is that “you aren’t going to change your mind anyway” - which is very wrong for some people. There are probably more who will stick to their guns and even bury their head in the sand (enough mixing metaphors though) before they change their mind - cognitive dissonance gets the better of most. In certain cases, the scientifically minded such as myself actively try and find evidence and reason to change their mind. That’s not to say I won’t challenge my quarter first - I most certainly will - but only in the honest attempt to evolve or even abandon my beliefs.
Believe me when I tell you I want you to try and change my mind.
I already have an excellent understanding of what I do believe, despite not going into it yet with you.
But enough of that for now.
Are you saying that you believe in God because it is “as if” He must exist, given that things are the way they are? Or am I completely misinterpreting what you’re saying here? I cannot stress enough that I am not trying to mock you when re-iterating your words in my own, I am absolutely withholding judgement until I have a clear picture (and even then I probably won’t judge - just take anything that you might have offered and try to incorporate it into a greater understanding).
I actually happen to agree with the Lucy quote - my own philosophy even holds the point of the quote at its foundation. In my terms I call the “unfathomable scale” continuous experience and the “codified/sketch” with “units of measure” discrete experience. I regard the former as primary and the latter as constructed within and parallel to it - and the degree to which you tend towards one over the other depends on your values and intentions.
I still find no necessary reason that God must be included into the picture, especially such that I have no right not to believe in Him. But that’s where people like you could potentially come in - I have yet to see. But so far I’m not feeling anything to convince me that subtle as-ifs necessarily amount to an overt lack of right to not believe in (a) God.
Rather, the notion of God was invented to compensate for the puzzling fact that things seem to come out of nowhere.
We may interpret “god” as “seed”.
And indeed in ancient times there wasn’t a difference between sexuality and divinity.
In the beginning was the inherent existential crisis.
IF you review the history of mankind, the concept of theism ‘progressed’ from animism, deity worship to polytheism, then to monotheism.
As a child, it is natural the psychological security is covered by the parents but for adults who do they turned to?
It was this existential crisis that compelled the early humans [adults] to seek some higher power than their own to give them that psychological security. At this point, no one was thinking of ‘things seem to come out of nowhere’ so there must be a creator.
Therefore what is fundamental is that inherent unavoidable existential crisis that is embedded deep in the pscyhe of humans.
With that permanent inherent unavoidable existential crisis as the substance, the forms that humans came up with to deal with it vary with time and human consciousness and intellectual progress.
That thinking, ‘something cannot come from nothing, therefore it must be God’ is a very recent thought relative to human history. The fundamental of it is still the inherent unavoidable existential crisis on the psychological basis.
The fact is when the inherent unavoidable existential crisis [mother of all dukkha] is dealt accordingly based on its ultimate psychological roots, there is no need for theism. This is why Buddhism [& others of the like] are non-theistic and so do have the negative baggage of theism.
Sorry, but no.
I don’t think so, especially since you’re so convinced that you do.
You’re still concretizing “God.” This is not unusual. “God does not exist but is existence itself” is so simple to understand that that it eludes “intellectuals.” Maybe it was for this reason Paul Tillich famously said it is as atheistic to affirm God’s existence as to deny it.
Where are you looking? With what are you looking?
That, Snark, is the nature of belief.
It is possible that even Jean-Luc Picard, when he uttered the phrase, “Make it so!” while standing on the Bridge of the Enterprise, realized at some level sometimes those words, that mandate, would not come to fruition.
But I do feel that faith is important when it is a reasonable and intelligent faith and not paradoxical.
How do you explain the other side of the coin?
Ah, a theist of little faith 
You’ve never come across it before, so I’ll grant you your belief. “You’re going to believe what you want to anyway”, right?
Is the sign of someone who has an excellent understanding of what they believe that they do not believe they have an excellent understanding of what they believe? Knowing that you know nothing, right?
It is of course often the case that people who don’t have an excellent understanding of what they believe think they do because they don’t understand why they don’t have an excellent understanding of what they believe. But having an excellent understanding of what one believes doesn’t necessarily mean you don’t also have an excellent understanding of what it is like to be confronted with new evidence or reason to change your beliefs, and to proceed to do so accordingly. But it sounds like you lack the faith to believe that can happen.
Ok, so I am to understand that concretising God is a common mistake. This makes me think that you conceive of God abstractly - and this fits in with your equation of God with existence.
I ask the question though: if God is the same as existence, and the neutral word “existence” says neither too much nor too little about what it signifies, and even a God believer equates the two, why have two words for the same thing when the other word “God” carries with it so much baggage and association with religious texts that “existence” doesn’t need in order to do the job that even a God believer finds it sufficiently does?
In equating God with existence without that extra baggage and association with religious text, then you are just a Deist who holds onto the idea of God without actually needing it. But if you are a theist, I would expect that instead that you are saying that “God is existence” but “plus x”. In this case we just need to find the language to explain “x”, no?
An excellent pair of questions.
I believe I have the same “looking” faculties as anyone else, atheist and theist alike. So unless there is sensory experience that you have no right not to believe is God that atheists simply haven’t seen and theists have, it must be a matter of interpretation of the same sensory experience that’s open to anyone that makes the difference. I have no reason to believe that I’m not experiencing what theists do, so I expect the difference is in “making sense” of the same sensations. So to answer your questions, I’m looking at what I assume to be the same sensations as anyone else and I’m looking at them with the same tools as anyone else.
How am I interpreting them? With logic. Is there anything to “this experience” that requires more or less in order to be what it is? If there’s more than necessary to any experience, I remove what is not necessary and check if what I’m left with is still sufficient for that experience to be that experience. If there is not enough, I keep looking. Each case requires constant revision, and so far I’ve not found anything needs God, but I will continue to look and consider that it might do. You say it’s subtle, so maybe I am being too coarse and I’m missing something. I assume, however, that someone who isn’t being as blunt as I am ought to be able to explain to me what it is that I am missing. I can see you’re trying and hope you continue to do so.
I wonder how many times and in how many ways it must be said that it’s not about beliefs, concrete or abstract? Why must everything be reducible to ideas with you guys? Just as Buddhism isn’t what you think, theism isn’t always what people think.
Do you even know what a deist is? Did I ever suggest something akin to God creating the universe and then abandoning it? You said, “I’m looking at what I assume to be the same sensations as anyone else and I’m looking at them with the same tools as anyone else,” but are you? You ignore things like “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” So maybe your assumption is wrong. If a reasonable person who is in the habit of reducing everything to ideas heard a theist say, “By love He may be gotten and holden but by thought never,” they would consider the possibility that they are missing something.
What are you missing? I can’t answer that. Whatever it is, it’s not an idea/belief.
Perhaps I was too hasty. There was a time not too long ago when I, too, thought TRUTH exists somewhere, has a definite form, a specific content, is unique, is Universal, can be intellectually grasped and, if only found, it would solve all our problems as everyone will recognize it to be THE TRUTH
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLoJYY_YmPo[/youtube]
Much like the Aether theory, it wasn’t the theory that was wrong, merely the manner in which it was understood.
From what I gathered [here and elsewhere] Snark’s belief is Panentheism, i.e.
Note the point re ‘absolute perfection’ and ‘relative perfection’ which I had been using and was condemned [purely due to ignorance] by many here.
In my case, absolute perfection is an impossibility.
The idea of God is based on beliefs and restricted to philosophical ideas, not concepts. Philosophical Ideas lack empirical elements, while concepts will include empirical elements.
News flash! Not every panentheist is a Hartshorne panentheist.
You’re still irrational and irrelevant, Prismatic.
Where did I say every every panentheist is a Hartshorne panentheist. Obviously there are forms which differ but the substance of ‘what is panentheism’ is the same for all.
Very interesting.
So my challenge is at the level of an entire paradigm shift.
It’s not about: beliefs, ideas, concretes, abstracts, thinking (belligerent atheists would love that one ), correlation as verification, overtness, truth-statements
It is about: existence, love, spirituality, subtleties, being personal yet boundless, analogies, incomplete descriptors and conditioned interpretations
I don’t actually think like that, but yes please do be patient with me. I regard truth as an expression of perceived consistency of associated experiences in line with how the brain myelinates pathways that are stimulated most often. The term is imprecisely used, and I think that can be straightened out through philosophy, but it is necessarily relative. It can be understood as a concept, but it is far from going to solve all our problems because truth isn’t the only valid value according to natural selection. I am merely interested in what it can and can’t do, with no hopes or expectations.
Weird youtube vid btw. Honestly, I like the barren precipice. I love exploring the round room and contemplating corners - certain kinds of suffering are enjoyable. They are a necessary pre-cursor to satisfaction. The Buddhist notion of eliminating suffering only really applies to what the vid calls “unbearable” suffering. There are many bearable types that are even preferable. Discarding and abandoning comforts and suffering isn’t the only path to appreciating the infinite present, I actually ended up with something pretty similar to Buddhism in some ways simply through rational thought.
The prospect of attempting an entirely new approach seems strange and difficult. Seeing the world in terms of what I listed above instead of what I also listed above that doesn’t seem philosophical - would you recommend I re-evaluate my definition of philosophy? Or does God not fit in with philosophy?
Yes, do you? You didn’t have to mention God’s subsequent indifference to his supposed creation, Deism is also the belief in God but without any of the supernatural stuff - which is what I was implying about your equation of Him with existence. Existence can be used to encapsulate all that is natural without any association with religious doctrine - and I was saying that if that was all you meant by God, then why have 2 words when one is sufficient and the other is associated with extra baggage. I was not saying you were a Deist, I even immediately followed that comment with the alternative that you were a Theist - with the belief that God is existence “plus x”. But whether or not that is logically the case, I get the impression that this type of thought is not conducive to God-belief.
Haha, I like that phrase very much.
Its not quite that simple, and I have done extensive reviewing for over 20 years.
What is certain is that Shamanism preceded all other forms. All religion is a derivative of Shamanism.
The first Shamans became, by reputation, Gods.
It works the other way around just as powerfully. The parents are like the Titans to whom the child must rebel, finding “freedom”, i.e. psychological security. In such a case “faith in God” can represent the persons own matured conscience.
It kind of depends on the family.
In any case what is always real is faith. It is faith that drives people to work for God(s). Gods themselves don’t tend to be direct influences, not in the writings about them anyway. Invariably, the person to whom God is supposed to be talking does exactly the opposite of what God commands. I think this points to the struggle for conscience that religion represents.
The struggle to become aware of ones power to choose, the struggle with the enormous implications of a free act.
Im glad you went back with the DeLorean to verify that. I couldn’t get the Fluxcapacitor to work.
I still like the phrase. But I don’t see you have done the work to really make this claim and prove it.
I agree the Torah is relatively recent to human history, but these stories do date from several thousands of years back. I any at the very least since a few thousands of years, say 3 to 4 minimum, times, this notion has held sway.
But indeed Shamanism is at least 60.000 years old.
And indeed Buddhism in its valid forms is Shamanism.
Meaning among other things that to engage the Void, one must engage first oneself, and transmute all ones energies. There is no Buddhism without Chi Kung. Or rather, all Buddhism without Chi Kung is vanity in the senses both of laziness and fallacious self-admiration.
Shamanism is covered within animism and various primitive practices.
I believe the underlying substance of all religions is the existential crisis which is within shamanism and from day one of humans.
Not sure how you view ‘shamanism’ but there is no way the Abrahamic religions can reconcile with ‘shamanism’ in general.
I think evolutionary, in general the child is programmed [DNA wise] for freedom/independence to distance itself from the parents, i.e. genetic dispersals [exist within all living things] but at the same time the impulse for security is very embedded deeply, primal and strong in the mind. So evolutionary there are two opposite forces pulling within independent wannabe adult and thus cognitive dissonance. This is one point of the inherent existential crisis which generate cognitive dissonance and the belief in God is the most effective solution for the majority.
Agree I have not gone into details on this. This is a very complex subject. Note I have given one clue re the cognitive dissonance from embedded need for security while being programmed to distance from one’ source of established security.
This is the reason why many people reinforced theism, are born again or converted to theism during their later teens. It is quite easy for those who proselytize, all they need is to ask the vulnerable insecure [e.g. college students away from their secured nest], ‘are you saved?’ and this will trigger and invoke the existential crisis subliminal and compel that person to belief in a God.
I consider myself a near-expert on Buddhism. I am very confident Buddhism per se has nothing to do with Shamanism directly.
Shamanism and Buddhism deals with the same existential crisis but Buddhism’s principles, methods and approach is unique.
I’ve been through this so many times that repetition is worse than just boring. It’s downright irritating.
God is not an idea to be accepted or refuted; God is a force to be experienced. Of course this is “foolishness to the Greeks”!
Snark, I can see you have absolutely zero interest in explaining your beliefs in a communicable way to someone who believes differently, and far more interest in declaring aghast exasperation about how wasted your precious time is like a self-alleged veteran martyr prima donna. I have been nothing but polite, patient and engaged with you and you consistently meet this with insulting disrespect. You come across as a particularly unpleasant human being and I will do you the undeserved favour of terminating our conversation since this is clearly what you want, assuming you care in the slightest either way.
Ierrellus, perhaps you have the ability to explain this experience of God where others have failed?
I’ve managed to prise out the following criteria of “dos and don’ts” when trying to experience God:
How much do you agree with them?