Again, this is testimonial evidence.

How can knowledge of the world and of god come through consciousness only?

So would you say that something is a guess if it has evidential support, even if it's not certain?

Terrapin Station
8.6k
↪Frank Apisa


So would you say that something is a guess if it has evidential support, even if it's not certain? — Terrapin Station

If you have opinions to share...share them.

You are not Socrates...not by a long shot...and I am tired of the questions.

Share your opinions...or tell me what I have said with which you are in disagreement.

After a few exchanges of that sort...I may allow a few more question.

If you have opinions to share...share them. — Frank Apisa

At the moment I'm only interested in exploring your views as I have been attempting to do. If you don't want to respond to the questions I'm asking, then okay, there's not much we can do about that.

Terrapin Station
8.6k

If you have opinions to share...share them. — Frank Apisa


At the moment I'm only interested in exploring your views as I have been attempting to do. If you don't want to respond to the questions I'm asking, then okay, there's not much we can do about that. — Terrapin Station

Sounds like a plan.

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that prevents reasoned discussion and blocks the kind of understanding I am talking about. — EnPassant

No, this is:

Convincing to who? :brow:
— S

To anyone who is capable of understanding the arguments. — EnPassant

Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God. — EnPassant

Is the kind of "understanding" you're talking about some sort of attempt at conversion? I hate the "you must understand to believe" rubbish. And I hate vague religious-sounding talk with little or no clear meaning. The way I see it, it's your responsibility to be clear, not my responsibility to keep asking what the heck you're talking about.

And I hate vague religious-sounding talk with little or no clear meaning. The way I see it, it's your responsibility to be clear, not my responsibility to keep asking what the heck you're talking about. — S

The intellect cannot discern spiritual truth. Truth must come to us from God. The world is filled with human patterns. These patterns are not ultimately real, they are ephemeral. The true pattern of the world is spiritual. Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.

Intellectual debates are an attempt to translate spiritual truth into the atheist's terms because that seems to be the only way atheists will see things.

EnPassant
96

And I hate vague religious-sounding talk with little or no clear meaning. The way I see it, it's your responsibility to be clear, not my responsibility to keep asking what the heck you're talking about. — S


The intellect cannot discern spiritual truth. Truth must come to us from God. The world is filled with human patterns. These patterns are not ultimately real, they are ephemeral. The true pattern of the world is spiritual. Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment. — EnPassant

This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit."

This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit." — Frank Apisa

This is what I call meaningless rhetoric designed to avoid proper discussion.

EnPassant
97

This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit." — Frank Apisa


This is what I call meaningless rhetoric designed to avoid proper discussion. — EnPassant

More bullshit!

People are willing to have a meaningful discussion with you, EnPassant, but you are averse to it...which is probably why you refer to it as "proper" discussion.

There may be gods involved in the REALITY of existence...but there is no way to know if there are or not...and allowing people like you to propose that their blind guesses have to be true makes no sense.

There is nothing wrong with you blindly guessing there is a GOD...just as there is nothing wrong with others blindly guessing there are no gods. But in the end...all we have are BLIND GUESSES.

People are willing to have a meaningful discussion with you, EnPassant, but you are averse to it — Frank Apisa

Not at all. What do you want to discuss within the context of the thread?

Because theists ask for evidence against gods, when clearly there is none. And on and on it goes, because it's impossible to prove or disprove that something that doesn't exist either exists or doesn't. — whollyrolling

:up:

Therefore, that it doesn't exist seems the obvious conclusion, or does it? — whollyrolling

No, it doesn't. Not if the "obvious" conclusion is intended to be the "logical" conclusion. For logic mandates that our conclusions should be justified, and justification requires evidence. There is no evidence - none at all - and therefore logic dictates that we must stop short of a conclusion. So, not only is there no "obvious" conclusion, but there can be no (logically-justified) conclusion at all.

French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that evidence for God is clear to the people who are willing to believe, not because it is mutually exclusive, but because your perspective is changed when you are absorbed into tradition and belief. Whereas the evidence is also vague enough for the people who do not believe, will not understand. — SethRy

Interesting. Considered and thoughtful. :up: :smile:

(1) Human beings and other animals are conscious and self-aware.
(2) Human beings and other conscious animals are made of matter.
(3) Matter collected and organized itself somehow in order to become conscious.
(4) Either matter collected and organized itself into conscious beings purely by accident or by design.
(5) It seems highly unlikely to me that inanimate matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance.
(6) Thus, it is highly likely that matter was guided by some conscious being to form into conscious animals.
(7) I call this guiding consciousness "God". — Noah Te Stroete

Isn't this the standard argument for Intelligent Design? :chin:

This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit." — Frank Apisa

And yet, in the context of debate, this looks a lot like an ad hominem, a personal attack. Such approaches have a long and wholly unsuccessful history within debating circles. When applied to humans, they are counter-productive, in terms of the debate. No point.

And abductive reasoning is a very weak form of reasoning that can't be used to arrive at truths. — Christoffer

The trouble with truth is that, if you are too demanding about the quality (?) of the truth you seek, you will find nothing. Many issues do not contain Truth in the sense we might prefer, so we have to find ways of discovering and using approximations, unsatisfactory though that may be.

Pattern-chaser
974

This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit." — Frank Apisa


And yet, in the context of debate, this looks a lot like an ad hominem, a personal attack. Such approaches have a long and wholly unsuccessful history within debating circles. When applied to humans, they are counter-productive, in terms of the debate. No point. — Pattern-chaser

My point was a counter to what EnPassant wrote:

"Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment."

It was meant to be a snarky, sarcastic counter-point to what I consider nonsense.

Apologies!

EnPassant
98

People are willing to have a meaningful discussion with you, EnPassant, but you are averse to it — Frank Apisa


Not at all. What do you want to discuss within the context of the thread? — EnPassant

Okay...your comment:

Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.

What is that supposed to be?

Is that revelation of a truth you obtained from on-high?

Is it a blind guess...pretending to be something more?

And since it is dependent entirely on a blind guess that there is a "god"...why should it be given any more consideration than one would any other blind guess?

Admittedly, all questions. But...I will respond to whatever you offer in response.

No, it doesn't. Not if the "obvious" conclusion is intended to be the "logical" conclusion. For logic mandates that our conclusions should be justified, and justification requires evidence. There is no evidence - none at all - and therefore logic dictates that we must stop short of a conclusion. So, not only is there no "obvious" conclusion, but there can be no (logically-justified) conclusion at all. — Pattern-chaser

Logic doesn't have anything to do with empirical evidence, it only has to do with formal implication/inference. That's even the case with so-called informal logic. It's just that there we're dealing with logic in natural language rather than a strictly formal language.

I intentionally left an inconclusive ending to my comment to illustrate the going-around-in-circles of the god argument.

If you have ever taken LSD, you will never be certain of your perceptions again. In the words of the Greek rationalists, your senses can be great liars. On the other hand, you might think you can see God's hand. But if you perceive the exitence of God, can you trust your own perceptions?

I will tell you God exists, but I will ask what does it matter?

Before the discovery of gold, gold existed, though it was not evident.
Now by the same characteristics, I say God exists - because it is possible.

But of course, it is not evident - and as the word would imply, that means there is no evidence to showcase. One is just left with the notion of God, unsure what to do with it.
God being nonevident - is like trying to point out water, fully submerged in it.
I cannot point out the water from within just as I cannot look at my own eyes; but I may be aware.

Even so, what does it matter?

Shamshir
18
I will tell you God exists, but I will ask what does it matter?

Before the discovery of gold, gold existed, though it was not evident.
Now by the same characteristics, I say God exists - because it is possible.

But of course, it is not evident - and as the word would imply, that means there is no evidence to showcase. One is just left with the notion of God, unsure what to do with it.
God being nonevident - is like trying to point out water, fully submerged in it.
I cannot point out the water from within just as I cannot look at my own eyes; but I may be aware.

Even so, what does it matter? — Shamshir

Shamshir...what would it matter if you took the more logical step of saying, "I have no idea if any gos exist or not?"

I would be in self-denial; outside of that everything would go on without a care.

I guess you've never done acid.

I guess you're a septic - and like most septics, wrong.

It's Also Irrational for Theists to Insist That There Is Only One God

Intelligent self-design. As for the question, "Who created these monad intelligences?" it can be answered by throwing back, "Who created your God?" It is a dishonest question if it can't be applied to both assertions.

Theists take advantage of the complicated designs to throw in some "must mean" that is an aggressive non-sequitur. Anti-theists give supernatural powers to randomness and are motivated only by some bad experience with religion.

"Who created your God?" — TheSageOfMainStreet

The first cause is timeless; beyond causality, needs no creating. The tenses past, present and future do not apply; the first cause just IS.

Objectivity Is the Costume Egotists Dress Up In

Theorists aren't disembodied angels incapable of distorting their preachings because of self-serving attributes of personality. It is significant that philosophers trying to protect themselves from criticism don't allow the contrary "Ad Angelum" fallacy to be discussed. Besides, "fallacy" itself is intentionally misused. It is legitimate to introduce such accusations as evidence; its only restriction is as absolute proof.

For example, post hoc, propter hoc is usually, and acceptably, a good way of finding out the cause of an event. Last night, I had something go wrong with my eyes for awhile. What did I do before that which was a change? I took Melatonin for the first time in months. That's all I need to know; but someone who has been intentionally misled by his professors into confusion would become paranoiac about going blind.