imb,
It seems to me that there is some confusion in your mind about how this issue should be addressed/probed.
One way is to demonstrate hard evidence (in the backyard) but that is not possible, at least on the net. So, it would be a waste of time to focus on that.
The second way is to use personal experiences/cogitations to probe this philosophically, as we do for other philosophical premises. That is within our capacity, so let us focus on that.
That is true. Some subjectivity will be always there but as ones will climb the steps, its ratio is bound to increase and comes closer to pure objectivity.
Secondly, it is not the case that i cannot or hesitating to tell you how i derived my conclusions from my experiences, but the problem with that is, there is no way that you can check the validity of those experiences. So, either you would have to accept that in toto or reject completely. Yes, you can question my conclusions. If that is your intention, i will take this discussion to slightly different route. But, if that is not what you want, let us forget about hard physical evidences of the God and use philosophy only.
Yes, and the reason is very simple.
If there is nothing without physical reach, there is no possibility of the god either. If there is no arthmatics, there cannot be any algebra either. It is as simple as that. Secondly, it is an easier thing to discuss and conclude than god.
Though, no theist would ask you that. But, this is the very course that i gone through personally, that is why i am using that. Mostly people start learning from books but i consulted books after learning. I did not have the luxury of guidance and have no option but to rely on trial and error method. That perhaps took more time, but on the other hand, it also provided me some subtle insights, that most bookish theists do not have.
I will certianly take you beyond in our heads. There are some ways which it can be done philosophically, without needing the compulsion of in the backyard.
You are getting it slightly wrong here. Actually, it is far more complicated issue than how you presented.
[b]Objective truth does not entail easy availability too.
Secondly, there are many layers of reality, thus objectivty depends on which level of reality/subjectivity one belongs. At some point, objectivity and relativity tend to lose their meaning and the real issue becomes which layer of reality the observer belongs and subjectivity becomes the ultimate objectivity.[/b]
Let me explain.
Say that there is a person. What is his reality to you? Obviously a walking, talking and thinking and normal person with some memories and emotions. But, if you put that person in a scientific machine, machine will you that person has some percentages of carbon, oxygen, iron etc. Then, some more advanced machine would tell you that person is nothing but made of many electrons and protons. After that, perhaps some CERN scientist will tell you that all you know till now is not the objective reality, and this person is nothing but merely the clump of enumerable Higgs-Boson.
So, the question is what should be considered as an objective reality? If you go by scientific deduction, you will certainly get smaller and smaller constituents, but in that case, what will happen to collectivity of that person that is represented by his experinces, memories, thoughts, emotions, feelings etc?
There is certainly some true objective reality. That is precisely what Godness is. True objectivity manifests only when one becomes able to comprehend and correspond all levels of reality’; Omnipresence and Omniscience. But. let us not get into that for now.
Keep the judement pending. Let us see what happens.
Yes.
Even i cannot demonstrate that the God exists but certainly able to demonstrate that there is something that is beyond physical means. Then, we will talk about the God and i will put my theory forth.
imb, all these arguments are assumptions. There is no physical evidence to support this. Medical science says that emotions are nothing but merely the result of some chemicals. So, does that mean that WTP is a chemical substance like any hormone?
Remember, i am not saying that WTP or likewise things do not exist. They certainly are but i just want to draw your attention towards the fact that there is scope in philosophy for such premises. And, the premise of God is also entitled to that.
Yes, that is the point on which i want to draw your intention. And, it is good that you did not hesitate to accept what seems to be obvious and logical. Many intellectuals do not do that. They keep discussing metaphysical premises like WTP or Kant’s Sehema but as soon as the issue of God comes, they tend to make such faces that they just have tasted something very bitter and that is not going down to their throat.
We have covered that.
That is true because they have faith. I also have faith but my reasons of having faith are slightly different. Their faith is borrowed but mine is earned. But, i am not saying that they are doing something wrong. My purpose is also the same; immorality and salvation.
I very well understand that. That is not my concern either. I am using that to make our discussion easy, smooth and understandable to both of us. Because, from my experience, i am well aware that starting from the god would not serve any purpose for discussion.
That is an easier part. But, in that case, why are you interested in finding physical proof of the god and not focus merely on the issue whether it serves any purpose or not? And, why you are not comfortable with merely in the head and want everything in the backyard?
Nevertheless, i do not have issue either way. It is up to you to decide whether you are interested in merely how one ought to live or whether something exist beyond physical means or not.
But, please make sure as both discussions will take different route.
You are not getting what i was trying to say. What do you think of Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Mandella or MLK? Were they philosophers? Did they address every issue? And, on that grond, should we consider them fools?
Every historical figure addresses his timeline, his context and his surroundings, not the future. There was no need for Jesus to express his views about homosexuality and capitalism. He addressed the intrusions of Judaism and that was his only purpose.
Forget about what Jesus said about the God. Consider him merely a social worker/preacher with noble intention like those social figures. I am asking this to atheists to respect him as a human, at least.
What kind of historical evidence? Why do you think that the existence of all these all persons, which happened to be there some centuries back that of Jesus, are not in doubt but Jesus’s is? Give me reasons.
And, also remember that none of these is/was as famous and influential than Jesus. No one other is as followed and discussed as him. You cannot find any other person in the history of the western world, on whom so many people trusted blindly. Yet, he is the only one whose existence is in doubt! Thus, your argument of all over the philosophical map does not hold water.
Even Aristotle was buried under his books without being noticed. It was Muslim scholars, who dig him out of his grave and introduced the world by his work after some centuries, but nobody questions his existence!
Why only Jesus? Even other religious figures like Moses, Buddha, Mahavira, Muhammad etc are spared! What special evidence these people have that Jesus not! But, the question mark is only behind Jesus! Why?
Whether he said onjective truth or not, can be certainly challenged. Unlike typical theists, I do not mind that.
I tried to have an idea of those links. There is nothing in those that can be said reasonable. All that is nothing but a foolish and biased atheistic attempt to establish that there was no Jesus whatsoever. They are trying to uproot the whole tree instead of merely forbidding others from having its fruits.
imb, if you start looking only for loop holes in the history of such a person, who existed more than 2000 years back, you will find many. That is not a big deal. There are many controversies about the life of Buddha and Mahavira too but nobody ever denies their existence. Yes, some say that they were not such as presented by their followers. That argument may be right or wrong.
Secondly, does it seem possible to you that merely some writers can create such mass illusion and kept it going for more than 2000 years?
I am very well understsanding what you are trying to say. That phase of my life has been passed as far as some subjects are concerned. There was a time when i came across to the same question, but with further effort and experiences over the time, i became able to understand the realation of observation/perception with the reality.
As i said above, there are two ways to settle this issue.
One is that i explain you my process and you question my derived cogitations. But, in that case, you have to assume that i am telling the truth.
The second way is to try to establish whether something exist beyond physical means or not. In this case, mere discussion is enough. If that can be established, then we can think how that can be related to the god. No physical evidence is required.
I am open either way. It is up to you to choose. We can also take both metnods side by side too.
But, did you ever think that 1into 1 can be 1 too! How are you sure that they will add everytime, whenever they interact, and in the way you are assuming? Means, why they cannnot multiply or devide each other? Why 1 and 1are supposed to be 2 everytime and not 1, 0 or 11? In the case, objectivity will lose its meaning and subjectivity becomes the only reality.
We have covered that.
That depends upon what this I/ME is in actual terms. If it is nothing but mere brainwashing and ever changeable too, there is no objectivity in this universe whatsoever. But, if something in this I/ME is constant/eternal, there will be an ultimate objectivity for sure.
with love,
sanjay