Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Human witnessing by far is the most efficient and most employed way for humans to approach a truth, especially a truth with a historical distance from us.
No other gods and no humans ever realized this. Only the Bible God knows what it is. His personal witnesses were called to this purpose. The whole Israel was called to this purpose.
=======
Humans get to know the world since their childhood from books written by other humans. They gain knowledge through books written by others. This is a process of human witnessing. Even today humans rely heavily (like more than 90%) on human witnessing to approach the reality, not evidence. The creation of TVs and videos only make human witnessing more powerful. Humans choose to believe the media of which the reporters act as human witnesses to report what our daily world is and for other humans to choose to believe.
History is never evidenced. This is the nature of what history is. The more distant the history is, the more impossible for humans to dig up the evidence. History again by nature is a product of human witnessing. Humans in majority in their life time almost never examine evidence of history. Instead, they choose to believe or disbelieve what was written by the historians (they are human witnesses of history).
To ask evidence of history (especially the distant ones) makes not much difference to asking a male to give birth to a child. It is because in nature male humans don't give birth to children. And in nature, history is not evidenced.
At last but not least, even science exists in the form of human witnessing. Is the earth really revolving around the Sun. Humans in majority don't actually acquire evidence about it. They rely on what is written and said by the scientists (they are the human witnesses in this case). By the way, you need an extremely good telescope and other precision equipment for "earth running around the sun" to be evidenced to you.
So it is a joke, it is a delusion in reality to think that humans are actually relying on evidence to approach to the truth of this reality. In contrary, humans need faith all the times.
=======
In order for a god to have human followers, he needs to leave humans with an infallible reference for humans to get to know him. If he failed to do so. It only means that 1) he never cares about humans, follow him or not, or 2) he doesn't exist.
For this infallible reference to be persistent along the whole path of human history, he needs to assign an earthly authority to make sure that his infallible reference will be kept persistent. Otherwise, there's never a version can be claimed to be genuine.
Again, gods failed to do so either don't care or don't exist. By far, only the Christian God successfully maintained such an earthly authority as a keeper of His infallible Holy Bible. Although this authority shifted in history from the Jews to the Catholics then the Protestants, they are keeping the same version of OT and with the Catholics and Protestants sharing the same NT.
You are making a fallacious argument by equating faith with belief. We all have belief and make major decisions based upon it. Though we all have the ability of having faith, we don't all use faith in our major decisions. For example, I wouldn't use faith in buying a car, by paying my hard earned money without evidence that the car is reliable. I would research the car and gather as much evidence as possible to make a rational decision. Why would I not follow this same process and base my eternal life on faith?
One can have a belief in something based upon faith or evidence, but not both because faith is the antonym of evidence. For example I might have a belief in the Kennedy conspiracy based upon my perception of the evidence. This does not require faith since I would come to such a conclusion because my evidence is objective and conclusive, as far as I am concerned. Why would I make such a claim based solely on faith, with no evidence to convince myself or others?
Faith is not a path to truth or there wouldn't be so many religions that are based on and that require faith. But you are right, there is no absolute regarding faith, but there is an absolute based on science. For example, steam is a gas, an absolute. It is NOT a solid or a liquid. Either the conspiracies happened or they did not. Some beliefs are based on fallacious evidence and some are not. However
Well, I'll accept at least a part of your argument. That said, Godel's theorem of incompleteness always applies:
Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250).
Human witnessing by far is the most efficient and most employed way for humans to approach a truth, especially a truth with a historical distance from us.
No other gods and no humans ever realized this. Only the Bible God knows what it is. His personal witnesses were called to this purpose. The whole Israel was called to this purpose.
=======
Humans get to know the world since their childhood from books written by other humans. They gain knowledge through books written by others. This is a process of human witnessing. Even today humans rely heavily (like more than 90%) on human witnessing to approach the reality, not evidence. The creation of TVs and videos only make human witnessing more powerful. Humans choose to believe the media of which the reporters act as human witnesses to report what our daily world is and for other humans to choose to believe.
History is never evidenced. This is the nature of what history is. The more distant the history is, the more impossible for humans to dig up the evidence. History again by nature is a product of human witnessing. Humans in majority in their life time almost never examine evidence of history. Instead, they choose to believe or disbelieve what was written by the historians (they are human witnesses of history).
To ask evidence of history (especially the distant ones) makes not much difference to asking a male to give birth to a child. It is because in nature male humans don't give birth to children. And in nature, history is not evidenced.
At last but not least, even science exists in the form of human witnessing. Is the earth really revolving around the Sun. Humans in majority don't actually acquire evidence about it. They rely on what is written and said by the scientists (they are the human witnesses in this case). By the way, you need an extremely good telescope and other precision equipment for "earth running around the sun" to be evidenced to you.
So it is a joke, it is a delusion in reality to think that humans are actually relying on evidence to approach to the truth of this reality. In contrary, humans need faith all the times.
=======
I don't see how you can come to such a conclusion. History is evidenced continually through fossils, carbon and radiographic dating, corroborative writings, etc., none of which exists for the Bible Jesus and many other events in the Bible, i.e. the Great Flood. As a matter of fact, many of these techniques disprove the Great Flood, and other events and characters in the Bible. For example, historical record-keeping disproves that the character Jesus could not have been born in 0 or 1 AD, since Herod wasn't king at that time.
Stellar aberration proves the Earth revolves around the Sun, and is observable by anyone with the time. No faith required. Even if one depends upon the witness of another, faith is not involved because one must have evidence that the person providing witness is credible, considering previous witnessing, credentials, motivation, and corroborating witnesses. This is NOT faith, but reasonable expectations based on evidence.
You're saying that because someone thinks up of something then it has therefore become part of reality.
You're wrong.
Its simply a n idea. .. a thought. ..
ANYTHING is "God", that ANYONE perceives to be "God".
That is how the perception of "God" works. The "say so" of anyone is acceptable and sufficient.
If that perception exists to ANYONE...then "God" exists...as per that perception. Even if no one else had/has the same perception.
That includes the perception of "Nature" as, "God", "Higher Power", "Creator", "Great Spirit"...or ANYTHING such as that, ANYONE perceives it to be.
No one gets to determine what someone else is "allowed" to perceive as "God".
"Beauty" and "Existence" can be compared...and conflated...from the standpoint that "beauty" does "exist" as part of our "reality".
Ya see...ideas and thoughts are just as "real", and just as much "part of reality", as anything else is. I wouldn't have thought anyone didn't have a "common sense" understanding of that.
ANYTHING is "God", that ANYONE perceives to be "God".
That is how the perception of "God" works. The "say so" of anyone is acceptable and sufficient.
If that perception exists to ANYONE...then "God" exists...as per that perception. Even if no one else had/has the same perception.
That includes the perception of "Nature" as, "God", "Higher Power", "Creator", "Great Spirit"...or ANYTHING such as that, ANYONE perceives it to be.
No one gets to determine what someone else is "allowed" to perceive as "God".
"Beauty" and "Existence" can be compared...and conflated...from the standpoint that "beauty" does "exist" as part of our "reality".
Ya see...ideas and thoughts are just as "real", and just as much "part of reality", as anything else is. I wouldn't have thought anyone didn't have a "common sense" understanding of that.
No!!!
Im sorry but you're wrong! !!
There is no way that something is a god because someone says/believes it.
If a schizophrenic says a potato is talking to them it doesn't make it so!
Any kindergardner can understand that.
No!!!
Im sorry but you're wrong! !!
There is no way that something is a god because someone says/believes it.
If a schizophrenic says a potato is talking to them it doesn't make it so!
Any kindergardner can understand that.
Ideas are not tangent reality.
Com'on man!...what's with the strawman about a schizo and a talking potato?
You gotta do better than that...really.
You need to get hip to how "God" works: God doesn't have to be some thing, or person, or action--it can be, but it doesn't have to be.
God doesn't have to be something tangible, or even in any way discernible beyond a conceptualization.
"God" is whatever anyone might perceive "God" to be...NOT what someone might think God MUST be, to be God.
Since "God" need be nothing more than the perception by someone that something or someone is "God" to them...the evidence of the perception of God, IS the evidence for God.
So...if ANYONE says they have a perception of God (and 98% of all the people that have lived DO)...and they actually DO have that perception, thus their perception exists...then God exists.
Even if God is just the concept of God in the conscious thought of the masses...if that conscious thought of God does, in fact, exist...then God does, in fact, exist.
Prove that anyone, anytime, EVER considered something/anything or someone to be "God"...and THAT is all the "hard evidence" that would be needed to prove the existence of God.
"God" is a conceptualization, a perception...like labeling someone a "king" or a "champion", for whatever reason you care to perceive them as that.
You've never heard anyone call some athlete, entertainer, musician, or other, a "God"...or some woman a "Goddess"?!
"God" is a title...regardless of what some DEMAND a "God" be to be "God". That title can be assigned to anyone or anything one cares to perceive as such.
Thus...all that has to be "proved" is that the perception/conceptualization of "God" has occurred in anyone at any time, to "prove" that "God" exists.
Like something/someone being "Your Love", or "Your Hero"...you can assign someone/something as "Your God".
You just don't like it because then you have to admit there is, in fact, evidence for "God"...and "God" ABSOLUTELY EXISTS (like love or hate or hero's exist).
On what authority do you or anyone else tell another what they can or cannot perceive as "God"?!
Oh, and...you keep right on saying there is no such thing as ideas. Ideas are not real...they don't exist. You go with that. If you want to roll with that...it's cool with me. I think differently...but that's me.
OK. I'll call my glass of wine "God". That doesn't mean I'm willing to bow down and pray to it, expecting it to revive me after death to go to a special place where I can worship it forever.
Totally valid if you are a member of the Cult of Dionysus. (a demi-god, born of Semele, a human, and fathered and birthed by Zeus)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alacran
When you get into labeling energy and matter(The two things that really make up everything) as "God".
Then what's the point.
Call it nature.
Nature is just part of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
ANYTHING is "God", that ANYONE perceives to be "God".
That is how the perception of "God" works. The "say so" of anyone is acceptable and sufficient.
If that perception exists to ANYONE...then "God" exists...as per that perception. Even if no one else had/has the same perception.
That includes the perception of "Nature" as, "God", "Higher Power", "Creator", "Great Spirit"...or ANYTHING such as that, ANYONE perceives it to be.
No one gets to determine what someone else is "allowed" to perceive as "God".
"Beauty" and "Existence" can be compared...and conflated...from the standpoint that "beauty" does "exist" as part of our "reality".
Ya see...ideas and thoughts are just as "real", and just as much "part of reality", as anything else is. I wouldn't have thought anyone didn't have a "common sense" understanding of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alacran
No!!!
Im sorry but you're wrong! !!
There is no way that something is a god because someone says/believes it.
What makes you an authority to say that GldnRule is wrong? Because you believe in the Christian god? So just because you and a bunch of other people say so, makes it so?
It is so for you and is your truth, but it is not mine. Nor is it the same god of many other people.
We each have our own perceptions of god and our own way towards god.
Definition of God [god]
noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception. (my conception being Nature and the other aspect is Love)
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
(life, truth, mind, is Nature; love, soul, spirit and principle is the love side)
John C Lilly MD has written many books and it is hard for some people to understand what he speaks of because of socio-programming. In his book Simulations of God, he has 23 perceptions of god. Everything to the 'god' of religion to god as sex, money, compassion, drugs, war.....
His point of it all is that god IS, what we make god to be. If one lives for money and make oodles of it and hoard it, then their god is money. Sex is of the same creative and love energy that the Christian god is said to possess. Compassion, is love.
In his chapter of the 'god out there' (meaning the religious god) he says, "When one projects God as if outside himself, and believes this projection to be true, it is true. One of the inner reasons for making this projection may be that one is not ready to take the responsibility of being God, being in God, being in the Universe, being derived from it and from Him".
That is quite a convenient concept since this god comes with an opponent that also has control over 'us' and makes us do bad things and tempts us....'not my fault that I got drunk and beat you up'.
Sure must be nice to blame someone else for the wrongs, and sure does suck to give someone else credit for anything good that one has made for themselves.
Not taking personal responsibility is the easy way out.
Not only that, but they don't exist. They're not real.
The way you feel about other gods is the way atheists and people whp believe in other gods feel about yours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
