Ahhh, but whom does he serve, if not the pulsating, hideous, amorphous Azathoth, center of the universe, god of tumult and delerium?
Okinrus, That’s only a problem for those who have that perspective. If life is viewed as a series of experiences then doubt is just another experience, neither good nor bad. But for many, doubt encourages innovation and investigation. For those who want answers but do not want to do the work to find the answers then doubt will be a plague. But inventing an answer (e.g. there is a God) to remove the doubt is self delusion. Life presents an enormous number of unanswered and unanswerable questions. But inventing a God whose primary attribute is having the answers to all questions, does nothing more than make believers feel comfortable, and that they do not have to bother with finding real answers. That doesn’t follow at all. That conclusion is based on conditioning. For many of us who have discarded such conditioning or have never been conditioned, then what we find is that we do not then suddenly start being evil. All that occurs is that rational morality kicks in, although there is some doubt as to whether it was ever absent. There is perhaps some fear when it is realized that we are on our own and have to solve our own problems, but there is also an immense cathartic sense of relief and release when all the guilt based dogma of theistic religion is removed. The same reason why drug addicts feel withdrawal symptoms. There is always likely to be pain when any artificial support mechanism is removed or where there is fear of it being removed. Is it any surprise why so many billions of people follow a religion? They are addicted in the same way that millions of people still smoke. The issue with religion is that too many people cannot yet see it as a fatal addiction.
Well, isn't human imgination real? So why would a product of this imagination be less real? It's more a question of what reality is, and that is a purely philosophical one, that never will be answered unanimously.
Bebelina, Very much so. I agree, a flying green elephant is a real imaginative fantasy, no question about it. Note that the product of imagination is an imaginary object. I agree to some degree but there is a massively significant difference between observable and detectable objects and objects that exist only in human imagination. But there is also the question of credibility and possibility. I can easily imagine the details of a house I might design and build one day. It doesn’t exist now of course, but I know all the images can be translated into real objects. Here the imaginative concept could become a possibility and has the credibility of being real at some time. The same cannot be said for things like gods and souls. While we can imagine/create the details in our minds of these things there is nothing in known reality where we can observe or detect such things. We have nothing that allows us to say that such things are possible, and without any precedent for similar objects we have no basis to give them credibility as potentially real objects. They are purely imaginary objects created as a result of human imagination.
We are building a house. Peter 2:1-10. However it is not out of mud like the egyptians: Exodus 1:14 "making life bitter for them with hard work in mortar and brick and all kinds of field work-- the cruel fate of slaves." Jesus is the cornerstone, the stone that mortally wounded Satan just as David mortally wounded Galiath with one stone.
the true question to be asking the true question to be asking is not "Is God real?" is it "Did God make us or did we make God?" There is some elemetary proof that the mere act of believing can have actual physical effects on the world that we percieve. Faith healing, snake handling, miracles, etc. Many of these are challenged by science today as not provable. This is, in fact the case, but there is a large amount of proof that observing something changes it. Take the photon. Is it a particle or a wave? The mere observation of this thing changes it. Just our perception of what it is causes it to be what it is. Thus, a correlation can be made that a mass perception of God as real could cause God to be real. In this case, God did not make man, but Man made God. This fits the idea that god is a fantasy of the human mind. But, God is as much a figment of the imagination as a photon. We enforce our perception on the universe at large by believing in God. The reason that we cannot scientifically prove the existence of God is that we do not percieve there being a scientific means of doing so.
There is some evidence just not conclusive. Can you explain the stigmata? Or fatima? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14294b.htm http://www.padrepio.com/pp-stig.html
Okinrus, Apparently unexplainable events do not represent evidence for a god. You are still using imagination to propose that a god is the cause. Until you can show that such events are caused by a god and nothing else, then I am free to use my imagainaition to propose other causes.
Anything can be used as evidence, even the bible. The real question is do we have enough evidence to believe in God? The stigmata of Padre Pio is real because a doctor examined it. So either he somehow injured himself or that he can somehow influence his flesh pschologically. This still cannot explain why his flesh would heal. http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=311
All the options? So if I take your meaning correctly, the only remaining possibility is that God exists and is directly responsible? :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The nature of most people's ideas of gods makes it impossible to conclusively prove that they don't exist. If a "supreme being" can't be found, it can be explained away by pointing out that any being with the power to create worlds and life forms, etc. would also have the power to remain invisible to those life forms.
Cris, just because something is not viewable or can be measured with instruments, doesn't mean that it can't exist, that it isn't real. Wether it's a part of reality for you is if you acknowledge it's existence or not. If you want to call it real, it is real for you, and just because someone else sees it differently doesn't change your original perception of it. It may change after hearing someone elses input, but that is just a matter of wether you accept that input as part of your reality. We all have the right to experience this world in whatever manner we please. If the physical world is your only reality, then that's ok, groovy for you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I prefer to expand my reality all the time, instead of narrowing it down. :m:
I believe this is the best answer, but you could make up an infinite possible reasons such as aliens causing the wounds.
Okay Well, I have to admit, Okinrus, you're quite dedicated to your ideas. If you'd just put a little more effort into thinking, you could break free of your religious fetters. Believe me, though ... I well understand how comfortable it is to simply maintain. Change and progress can be difficult friends to get along with, so I won't give you any crap for not trying. And no, that's not fair. But what do you want me to say? It's hard for me to remain sympathetic to a conscience that finds apathy its best option. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bebelina, That’s correct. But unless you can measure, detect, or observe it then you cannot determine whether it is a product of human imagination or not. All you know for sure is that you have imagined it, whether it eventually maps to a reality is another issue. Personal perceptions of reality have no value unless they map onto true reality. Imagining something is real and believing it is real without knowing it is real reduces life to a lottery where the odds are stacked against you in the ratio of around infinity to 1 since there are an infinite number of things that can be imagined and only a small finite set that map to reality. And as I said above such a position is essentially without value. But it should since that should make you question whether your perception is valid or not. To maintain your personal belief as true regardless of what others say or what evidence is available is simple arrogance. You seem to be ignoring the possibility that many people only believe based on rational objectivity. It is possible to take a stance where a conclusion is not reached or where belief is suspended until an objective rational conclusion can be reached. How that objectivity is determined cannot be decided solely on personal perceptions of reality but on an independent absolute standard. Developing that absolute standard is a real challenge that we may never fully achieve but it should require the cooperation of everyone or at least most of the members of our species. At the present time this is known as science. If everyone simply follows their own personal perceptions and calls that reality then that is a clear recipe for chaos, disaster and probably the ultimate extinction of the human race. Perhaps, but not if those experiences are allowed to lead to irrational perceptions that in turn result in harm to others. I’m interested in everything, and as yet no one has been able to show that there is anything other than the physical. Imagining there is something more doesn’t make it real. But unless you know that your perceived reality maps to actual reality you simply run the significant risk of living in a world of delusion. But perhaps you can be happy with that. But I would prefer to know the truth.
Personal perception of reality is the only reality we can ever know. Imagination is reality. We have identified the phenomena, we have given it a name, it is. If you want to know if gods are imaginary objects or not, is actually a different quest than finding out wether they are real or not. Imaginary objects are a reality since imagination is a reality, to put it simply. And even if gods would be more than imaginary object, they are still real as such too. If personal perception has no value for your peception of reality, well, then that's just your perception of reality. Rational objectivity exists only in our imagination. We can never be anything but subjective, even regarding objectivity. There will never be an independent absolute standard as such, just subjective perceptions of what that standard includes. When perceptions collide we do harm eachother, in that you are right, that's why the world is in chaos, and maybe that's because chaos is a natural state of reality, it's its order. Or in other words, we perceive the world as chaos because we don't understands its order. All we can do is nurture different delusions of its presentation to our perception. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Okinrus, you keep falling into the trap that many do. You argue with the assumption that God exists. Until you prove that, do not assume it, and do not base any reasoning upon it. You'll probably come back and say that I assume he doesn't exist. This is true. Simply for the following reasons: Nothing I see in the universe needs God. When I park my car, leave it and come back, I assume it has been as I left it. I don't automatically assume that some fairies broke in while I was gone, drove my car about then brought it back and parked it just where it was, reset the odometer and refilled the fuel tank. That's pretty much how Christians view the world though. Why on earth have this elaborate view which isn't necessary or indeed even logical?
Well it all started with a dream consisting of a car crash .... See it's just like driving a car. Follow the rules, go strait, fill it up with gas once and while, and your meet your destination. Otherwise the car and you will crash.
You so missed the point I was trying to make. Christians assume that the universe needs God to make sense, that things can't be how they are without God. Atheists know the universe is fine and makes sense without God.
