LG, No, the entire knowledge base of the entire freaking worlds population. How bout we use that. Still no evidence there is there, by your answer above, you appear to be claiming you can point me to it, so do so please now. Can anyone provide such evidence for or against ? If you answer no, then you agree to the above point. No because what you are using to frame the claim is not evidence of god, it's a story. So I ask you what is the normaltive way to frame the claim for god ? What evidence are we looking for and what evidence do you expect me to find ? You know that there is none, so you are arguing the same claim that any other believer in mythical beings is arguing from, we can't prove it does not exist and that my friend is all you got. At least we haven't proven god does not exist yet, you have that going for you. I am not bothering to respond to the other parts because it's the same old re-direction. Me-There is no evidence for god. You-You aren't looking in the right place Me-Where do I look You-How do you know where to look unless you open you mind to the possibility Me-Why should I You-That's the problem, you need to believe in the possibility. Me-I do believe in the possibility, but I see no evidence for it actually existing You-Thats because you don't want to believe OMFG lol.
fine so now I guess you to explain why you exclusively reject those parts of the world's population that hold that god is evidenced through certain norms ... aside from the fact that it stands in direct opposition to your philosophy about where the conclusion lies. once again regardless of the topic in question, its an exercise in futility unless one also introduces the relationship between normative issues and the claim it evidences .... and it becomes an even more particularly futile if one insists on black banning the very personalities capable of representing it. I mean, imagine a discussion on the evidence for electrons if one was determined at theonset that all physicists are egg heads and full of shit. Hardly There are clear statements about how one has to be in order to know. A good brief intro tot the topic BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me. Probably the first evidence would be seeing one's self (as opposed to the coverings of body and mind that we usually attach identity to) On the contrary, there are tons available within scriptural commentaries ... which are probably not on the hot list of many atheists Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! well perhaps you could enlighten us as to what amazing things you expect not being interested in investigating a claim can hope to uncover Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ude one thing I do know and I am posative that I know this and it is the Fact that thee is no GOD the sooner the mentally ill relize this the better off the world will be. I have said it beofre and I will say it again GOD Religion Faith in mythical things is a Illness and should be treated as such. Why is it that the wino on the corner is blasted with yyou are crazy when he says he knows GOD and talks to GOD. But someone with money is looked at like wow what a believer you must be. GOD allong with Religion was created as a menas of TAX collection VIA the churches that were pushing there own agenda. And it is all so a comfort to the dying the old and the sick as well as the families of people how die and or are killed. It is all a big money making shame.
LG, Which is not an answer. Because their belief is not evidence. God is not evidenced through certain norms, there is no evidence of the supernatural is there now. If it's not supernatural there should be evidence. Again the difference is that one can back up the claims the other can't. Nice words. So how does one gain evidence of god from that. Interesting, ok so how does that provide evidence of god ? There is not enough information there. Why should they be. That is not evidence at all, just stories and words. Well since I believe that it is far more likely that a bunch of ignorant earlier humans made up stories to try and make sense of their world why should I go looking for that which not only has no evidence to support but actual evidence to falsify. Especially when all the actual evidence points to a direction of us being here that contradicts the texts. I can understand someone taking a position of believing in god, because of all the wonderousness of the universe. But I don't understand someone taking the position of it's this god, and I know the only way. That is when the evidence suggests otherwise. So in that case, what god or who's god are you believing in, is it in anyway shape or form the same one in the texts ? if so whose text is right ?
All you have to do is look around you and I am sure once the Vail of religious psychosis is lifted from you then you too will see.
So if I am understanding you correctly, your position is that the existence of God and God's relevance to religion yet need to be established as factual, and that the criterion to establish this is physical proofs as we are used to them in traditional Western science? IOW, is your position that the relevance of God and religion need to be established without any reference to God and religion?
and if there is evidence, there should be normative descriptions that frame them too Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! take away the norms that back up the claim and you certainly can't if you're going to evidence something, you've got too be prepared to have the tools for the job Much like a particular piece of (functional) equipment might be required to accurately evidence something scientific, evidence of god is acquired through the tool of the self (or more specifically, the desires that actuate the self ... which in turn grants us our impression, real or imagined, or who we are and our relationship with others/the universe, etc) Sit back and label any norm that backs any claim as mere stories and you have the perfect means to stand outside of the whole thing in a state of ignorance. and there you have it. Your pre-existing values will not permit you to move any further. I know what you mean. Medicine is much the same. Someone wants to operate, another wants to give a needle, another a pill, another a massage. Clearly all these bozos are contradicting themselves since they cannot come up with a simple straight story. (or alternatively, my lack of insight into the unifying element of medical practice, namely the improvement of health of the individual, makes me see contradictions where there are none). On a side note, discussions of contradictions is usually a subject reserved to professionals in the relevant discipline. Lay persons don't have the theoretical framework to really begin any sort of in depth analysis. (You even admitted to seeing no need to investigate scriptural commentaries, so go figure) Its the nature of god's omnipotency that he is perceived in different ways. There's the analogy of the sun. Some can see the sun as some generalized wonder bereft of any specific location (like pre dawn when there is a general glow in the sky) - aka a general wonder of the universe. Some see the sun glowing in a specific location in relation to themselves (ask a 100 million people at midday where the sun is and they will say directly above my head) - aka god is the only way And some investigate the sun as it is located in space in a singular state of power and potency and can reconcile the previous two viewpoints due to familiarity with its individual nature versus the various potencies it emits (such as light for instance) see above
are you two argueing about the same thing? i kinda lost track..but it looks like you both are argueing there is no god..
Nope. Presuming a basic sincerity not in evidence, anyway. You could be, I suppose. My position is that assuming the actual existence of any god (much less a particular one presented as deeply involved with the particular religion example) destroys any hope of discussing most aspects of the interaction of deity and religion. If you want to talk about the conflicts between religion and theistic belief, or the influence of deity on religion, or the influence of religion on concepts of deity, and so forth, you are prevented before beginning. So? If you don't want to participate in a discussion in which the norms are reason, evidence, and so forth, feel free to not participate. In this case: reason, a reliance on the physically verifiable and logically coherent whenever available, and a rejection of the physically contradicted and the logically incoherent. He's assuming you are actually talking about the norms of evidence and argument among post-Enlightenment intellectuals when you refer to "normative issues". He doesn't realize, as I do, that you are deflecting the discussion into a fog of incoherent verbiage, to avoid dealing with the original issues or the thread topic.
Feel free to explain why expecting normative descriptions to frame a claim of evidence is not reasonable. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If we were discussing an issue pertinent to the discipline of empiricism, perhaps (although start moving into the advanced aspects of contemporary physics and even this empirical norm becomes jaded) well yeah, post enlightenment seems the accurate word for it - 19th century physics seems to be the position you won't budge from :shrug:
It is reasonable, and as you imply elsewhere in objecting to them, the expectation has been met. You just don't like them, without being able to argue against them in relevance to the thread or discussion. Pre-replied:
No deflections please. Please explain why expecting normative descriptions to frame a claim of evidence is not reasonable. (If you like you can use copy/paste, since you're convinced you've already addressed the issue) All you've done is relegated the topic of discussion to your pre-existing values. It doesn't take a PhD to figure who's camp a discussion of religion divorced from god props.
But as I have posted several times now, I think and claim that it is reasonable. They are not "mine". They are the normative descriptions intrinsic to the original thread and the discussion. You are invited to participate in that discussion - even by criticizing its normative stuff, with actual argument etc.
Sure it is. (So was 19th century physics, hence its ability to progress over time, and reject the unreasonable, the incoherent, and the factually contradicted.) You just don't like it.
I think we missed the part where you established that measuring all things by the standards of physics (or even your particular infatuation with the 19th century version of it) is reasonable.
