Proof Of God

[gray kettle]

You have any context behind this besides conjecture? Any proof that before anything existed “something” existed?

I’m just stating the word trinity is not used. I believe in the triune God but was simply stating that for context.

[coral valley]

why would god program something with the ability to disobey him and then expect obedience. would you train your dog to not follow your commands and then beat the dog for not following your commands?

[gray kettle]

“Mine” is not. But by definition of 3 people had the “claimed” word of god, if one or two or all three where different then not all three could be the only word of god, right?

[sonic field]

I sent you yesterday

Its called inflation theory

[gray kettle]

You use the word program in a weird way. Gold created humans with the ability to choose. So we have choice. If you tell your dog to do something and it doesn’t do it (depending on the severity) it would be punished, no?

[sonic field]

the problem is that the universe did exist, just not with space, time and matter

[gray kettle]

Let me scroll back up and look I must have missed it. Haha

[coral valley]

i didnt create my dog. the christian tradition teaches us that god not only created the conditions through which man operates within the world, he created the conditions of that world itself. anyone who lacks faith does so because god designed their existence to lack faith. but he rewards the faithful. can you explain this logically?

[gray kettle]

Most modern scientists or physicists say there was a beginning because of the expansion of the universe. That it had a “starting point”

[gray kettle]

Do you have children of your own? (I do) my question is asked because if you have had a kid then you and your partner “created it”, no?

[coral valley]

no, i procreated within the confines of my species

i have 0 control over what i produce

those rules were made long before me - you think by the creator

can you create matter?

can you give life to that matter you have created?

my point is, god sets the rules of how people function entirely. he created not only reality but also all of the things that exist within that reality. so how can you justify some people having faith and some not? since he created the circumstances through which we all experience life

if he wanted us to have faith, why do only some people have the life experiences that allow them to have faith? why would he create beings who dont go through the experiences that develop faith, if that is his goal as the bible states

[willow plover]

So if it is impossible to live a long life without sinning then god is punishing us for doing something we cannot avoid doiing. It is not just. It is no different to punishing us for breathing or because we have parents. I have no control over the fact I am human and simply because I am human, under your beliefs, I will unavoidably sin and die for sinning. Lucky me, lucky everyone, what a great joy it is to be human.

There is no such things as justice with the christian concept of god. Lucky the chances of such a god actually existing are basically zero.

Do you believe I am going to spend eternity being tortured in hell?

Just for existing and not accepting something as true which has no evidence of being true and is totally bonkers, yeah that is just

[sonic field]

Doesn't matter, other religions will claim that christians will burn in hell forever for ''believing in the wrong god'' so in the end everyone burns or no one will

[gray kettle]

Free will. Simply put we choose to do what we do with what we are given.

[gray kettle]

I believe he gives experiences and he gives wisdom to those who ask. Simply put from the moment you “became aware” of a “god” and found the Bible. Did you read AND understand what you read? Did you want to understand what you read? Most know “of” the Bible and its contents but not the context as to the “why”.

[gray kettle]

“You” say it is not just but who are you to define what is just? What measure do you use? If you are not just then how can you be the one who decides what is and is not just? The sin is something you can’t avoid but you CAN choose what to do with that sin. Place it at the feet of the cross and believe that the one who paid the price for that sin is who he says he is and start living a redeemed life! KNOWING that anything you may do (intentionally or not and with repentance) you have been forgiven and also been redeemed not by your blood, efforts, good deeds, or how much you tried. You have been redeemed by the one whom you place your faith in: Jesus The Messiah.

[gray kettle]

It doesn’t matter what I believe for you because I could believe not and you might? Or I believe you will with all the certainty I can muster and moments before your death you place faith in Jesus and are saved and I would be wrong. I do believe someone who rejects Jesus all the way to death will not be forced to spend eternity with the one they have rejected

[gray kettle]

That is accurate to most other religions yea. Also if nothing exists after death then why care in the first place? Eat drink be merry! Who cares about science, advancement, knowledge, when I can let the suckers who stress, strive, and sweat to progress humanity and I could benefit from it until death and ultimate nothingness of self. Why worry about morality? When I could just as easily have sex, be violent (or not), steal and destroy (if that pleases me) and not care if after I’m dead and gone “people didn’t like what I did” because in the end it only matter during the 50-93ish years I’m alive. Why care then? I should just get mine and care about me, no?

[gray kettle]

There is evidence you just don’t accept it as evidence. Which is, again, a choice. You can’t claim you’ve never heard. Only that “I’ve not been convinced” which you hope is the right place to land once your last breath leaves you.

[gray kettle]

Also the point of most religions isn’t the “punishment” aspect. The story of the Bible is LOVE and redemption. The story of the Bible does not have multiple characters that are the “main” characters. You nor I are the central theme, goal, or POV of the Bible. It is Jesus and Jesus alone.

[sonic field]

idk why you would care, thats for you to decide

you brought this up earlier

As long as you don't care about the consequences, there is no reason to care as far as i know

[sonic field]

Also something I stumbled upon today. Its an article by Roger Penrose arguing he found evidence that Inflation theory is probably not right https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706v1

Then he proceeded to form a possible mechanism that explains the observed CMB where its argued that (simply put):

All mass will eventually end up in black wholes
Black wholes evaporate due to hawking evaporation into photons
Photons do not have mass and therefore do not ''experience'' space or time
Photons are conformally invariant (meaning they dont ''feel'' a difference between big and small)
Therefore an infinitely expanded universe is the same (to photons) as the conditions during the big bang
Our universe is exponentially expanding
Therefore, the way our universe ends up may be exactly the same as the conditions of the universe during the big bang

Which would imply that there was not really a ''beginning'' of the universe

[gray kettle]

Fair enough

[willow plover]

Who am I?, I am a nobody in grand scheme of things, a nobody just trying to use the limited capacity of my brain to determine what is right and wrong and what is fair. Lets say the government where you live, I don't know where that is, decided to make breathing illegal and the punishment for breathing was one day in prison. However if you were found to be breathing during that day your sentence would be extended by one day. Surely you would agree this is not just because ultimately you do not control the fact you are breathing, it is an automatic part of living controlled by our brain without conscious involvement. We can in the short term consciously control our breathing, but not long enough that it matters overall. Of course this example is not only not just but totally ridiculous. Romans 3:23 NIV " for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god". I cannot stop myself falling short of the glory of god any more than I can stop myself breathing. It is totally ridiculous to expect me to do so or to hold me accountable for not doing so. You say I can be forgiven, but that misses the whole point and is irrelevant. If I cannot avoid sinning I have done nothing wrong by sinning, just like I have done nothing wrong by breathing. It is only right and fair to punish me for something I can consciously choose not to do. The whole christian concept of sin and justice is fundamentally and fatally flawed which in turn makes the whole christian concept of god fundamentally and fatally flawed because a god cannot be morally perfect if its concept of justice is wrong and unjust.

[willow plover]

So yes but you are too cowardly to say it.

[willow plover]

Produce the evidence

[willow plover]

So what? The punishment still exists.

[gray kettle]

Show me where it said that aside from Jesus I must be perfect?

[gray kettle]

It is only flawed if you blatantly ignore Jesus.

[gray kettle]

Cowardly to say what? That is a strong accusation as well.

[willow plover]

No, you are wrong. It is clearly explained in the post.

[willow plover]

Cowardly to answer yes.

[gray kettle]

The evidence is in the Bible. It has records of stated truth. Semantics say you can’t verify it and neither can I prove it happened outside of the Bible. If that is the case the literal Egyptian period in time where the pyramids where made is not something I could prove because “anyone coulda built those pyramids” etc etc weak position and mute if a person will not seek the answers in the Bible for themselves.

[gray kettle]

You have not addressed Jesus once to my recollection.

[gray kettle]

To say yes to what specifically I’m not following

[willow plover]

Look I do not have time to answer now, I have comittments. I will answer later

[gray kettle]

Sure but that is not a new concept? You break a law you receive punishment (unless your jot caught) pretty standard for most societies and religions

[gray kettle]

In the future hold off entirely so as to not be disrespectful in accusations (IE calling someone a coward) and then not granting the time to specify why. Mutual respect is what I’ve been led to understand is the premise of ALL of these forums. So to the degree we disagree, so be it, however getting ugly or resorting to petty comments debases the whole point of the thread and lowers the standard of etiquette for peer to peer conversation.

[willow plover]

I ask you a yes or no question. You did not answer yes although your answer makes it clear yes is the answer. I have been you before, not wanting to answers questions like the one I asked directly when the answer is clear. I have rejected the christian god, of course I go to hell if he really exists and christianity is right.

[willow plover]

Yes, you are right, when you break the law and are caught you get a punishment. However it is not just to punish some one for doing something they cannot not do. Every adult human sins and cannot avoid sinning so it is not just to punish them for sinning.

[willow plover]

You are right I have not addressed Jesus directly. However I did address the work he is supposed to have done when I mentioned forgiveness in the post above. Forgiveness only comes through Jesus and is a result of his death on the cross. However this thread is titled Proof of God so I have been talking about god, a discussion about Jesus would be off topic. If you want to have a conversation about Jesus then start a thread about Jesus.

[willow plover]

If you are so worried about respect then perhaps you could have respected the fact I had commitments instead of rudely dismissing them and complaining I had to leave. I could have just left without saying anything but I politely told you I had to leave.

I will answer your other post about the bible another time, no time now to write a long response.

[gray kettle]

Im happy to join a VC channel at some time since most of what will be said will be lengthy.

[willow plover]

When we consider the bible as evidence for the christian god we need consider how we determine whether it is evidence for god or not. I follow Alex O'Connor, @cosmicskeptic, on youtube and find that he posts very interesting video around philosophy and arguments for gods existence amongst other videos. He suggested in one of his videos that an argument for god's existence does not have to make the existence of god more likely or not to be successful. An argument only has to increase the likelihood of god's existence by a small amount to be successful. So using that standard does the bible make it more likely by even a small amount that god exists? If we were in 1750 I would say it most definitely does. However since then we have seen scientific knowledge increase massively. Also we know more about how the bible came to be written, who wrote it and how came to be in English. I think all of these developments seriously undermine the bible's use as evidence such that the bible no longer makes the existence of god more likely even by a small amount.

That will serve as an introduction to where I am heading

[small cradle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpC8WtufJbo

[dense flicker]

Yes, I'm Catholic and from the US.

Actually, we believe in both:

continues on the next page, you can read it at
https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/271/

The problem with talking about "Christianity" is that there are a zillion different religious denominations, and there's many self-proclaimed Christians that believe in Jesus or the Bible individually but are also non-denominational. Catholicism is the largest single religious denomination in the US but there are many more Protestants than Catholics

So statements like "Evolution is real so Christianity is false" don't make sense

Because the above and basically any statement about "Christianity" will apply to some denominations and not others

To me the most compelling reason for God's existence is that I think there is fundamental meaning in the world

Obviously this isn't a rigorous proof or argument

But if there is fundamental meaning to the world, then why?

Catholicism is the only explanation that's been able to answer that question sufficiently for me

I think that by definition, the existence of a purpose/fundamental meaning to life implies that such a purpose has to be self-sufficient

And I think Catholicism makes the most sense out of religions that propose a self-sufficient (which implies eternal/omnipotent) meaning to the world

[gray kettle]

Sure but factually only one can be correct. If we are not talking about non salvation based material it is mute but if we are speaking about things that are not strictly biblical then that is a problem IE “purgatory”.

[dense flicker]

Even for strictly biblical things like 'the bible is opposed to evolution'

the answer you get absolutely depends on denomination

There are a zillion different translations of the bible and different interpretations

[gray kettle]

Sure but that just boils down to subjective thinking.

We have already answered in this channel

[dense flicker]

Right, only one can actually be correct

or they can all be wrong from an atheist's pov, lol

[gray kettle]

That a theist can’t “prove god does exist outside of self claims and revelation historically” then we bicker or disagree about what is true in history or what is verifiable, so then…”a non theist cannot disprove that god exists” so proverbial stalemate so the. This channel becomes mute,no?

[dense flicker]

I mean it pretty much already was

I'd just rather not create a new thread to explain my beliefs on purgatory

[willow plover]

@dense flicker if you are going to say something like evolution is true so the bible is historically wrong then you need to make an argument that ways of reading genesis 1 other than as record of what happened in history are also wrong. And I think that can be done.

[dense flicker]

I think I've done so a couple different times

I can present a full argument later but in short I just don't think you should take it literally for two reasons

1: translations are prone to misinterpretation, and 2: the bible often has multiple useful insights from one passage. If the Bible is the word of God (I believe it is) then it would have to make sense to the people reading it for centuries

also, it wasn't written directly by God, it was written by humans: Genesis had to explain creation in a way humans could understand, and the scientific method wouldn't be invented for thousands of years.

[coral valley]

why would god create us as such imperfect beings that we cant even understand truth and instead have to be fed a lie then realize the truth on our own. wouldnt that promote the opposite of faith? like if he really wanted us to believe, why not make a claim about reality that we had no way of knowing but later advancements would reveal is true? like the dogon people said they come from a star that the human eye cant see, and once we had advanced enough telescopes we realized the thing they were describing is actually real. that is more plausible than the god of the bible intentionally misleading people and then expecting them to believe in him when he knows they will realize his version is wrong

but even in the case of the dogon, we interpret their advanced astrological knowledge as being a sign of contact with an even more advanced yet unknown civilization, not evidence that their mythology is actually real.

[dense flicker]

I don't think it's intentionally misleading, I just don't think it's meant to be taken literally

[coral valley]

where do you get reason from? just curious

cause my understanding was that it was increased interest in translating non-religious roman and greek texts that led to people getting on board with reason

philosophy and all that

[dense flicker]

Idk maybe I'm quoting something a protestant said to me and I don't remember it lol

[coral valley]

ah well Protestantism does incorporate reason and western philosophy moreso than a lot of christian sects so that makes more sense 😛

[dense flicker]

LOL

[coral valley]

they do say that the protestant reformation is one of the main sociological factors which led to the rise of atheism in the west 😛

[dense flicker]

Yeah something like 1/2 - 2/3 of 'catholics' don't even believe the basic tenets of the church

[coral valley]

seperation of church and state, promoting betterment of humanity as a virtuous goal rather than just trying to serve the church

all that nice western moral degeneracy

[dense flicker]

bit unrelated but is your name "bean" as in the orson scott card character?

I'm sure it's probably not but if it is that's a neat coincidence

[coral valley]

you know ive never even thought of that connection

my name is ben, my family and friends growing up always called me bean as a nickname

but good reference

[inner shale]

love that vid

but id swap #1 and #2

[inner shale]

anyone wanna revive the most popular thread?

[verbal knot]

You might want to write a thesis on what was reached so far😉

[stone crag]

Ok, all of creation is proof of God. If you believe that the universe down to the atom was some sort of accident, then I believe you’d have a far far harder time finding proof of that. The complexity of just the human body tells us that we were designed by a higher being. But if you do not believe any of that is proof of God, then you are ignoring the main reason why we believe God exists, and that’s faith. If you do not have faith in God, then you will not see that He exists. The one thing to note there is God will punish those who deny his existence

[sonic field]

I mean the whole argument is boiling down to: ''I cannot imagine that life can exist without creation, therefore god exists''

but just because you cannot imagine it doesnt make it false

neither does it prove anything to do with god

And as you said yourself: The main reason we believe in god is faith <- this is implying that there is no evidence for god, because if there was, you wouldnt require faith to believe as you would have evidence which eliminates the need for faith

What I find so interesting with religious people is that nearly all of them think they have the one true interpretation of god and religion but at the same time, there are many different religions and many different interpretations within religions. This means that either basically everyone is wrong about religion, which makes the odds that you as a religious person are correct about the topic extremely small

Yet everyone insists they are right

[rose snow]

If there was a thing that we could call God; a creator or beginning to everything that can exist, could it be definable by what it has resulted in?

6 thousand messages 🥲

[sonic field]

Most of the discussion is:

• Religious people arguing why they believe in god
• Non-religious people trying to explain why the arguments still do not prove god
• Consensus is reached why the (non-)existence of god cannot be proven (as in both ways)
• Cycle repeats when someone new joins and gives their argument(s)

Religious people thinking believing evolution is wishful thinking, non-religious people thinking believing in god is naive

that pretty much sums up the 6k messages

[rose snow]

It's actually me, I'm God. No need to prove it anymore your welcome

[sonic field]

risky statement xd

there are some really hardcore believers here

[hallow token]

I’m just adding here I have not read the 6k messages so maybe this has already been stated but I think that proof itself is not easily defined. I recall a question that fits this dilemma pretty well:

If a man looks at a broken clock that only shows one time, but the man does not know it is broken, does he know the time? What if the time is perfectly where the clock is broken?

Any “proof” that can be found at the moment—imo—is just a broken clock. It could be right. It could not be right. It doesn’t stop people from believing it or refusing to believe it.

Sorry if this isn’t what op is looking for

[sonic field]

I dont think this analogy holds as with a broken clock you would have other queues to infer whether the time that is shown is correct, or at least plausible, or not. With the whole god debate there is no other queues.

Anyway, went over this earlier but ''proof'' for any kind of faith is inherently impossible, since if it could be proven, it would not be faith but a theory.

[wide jacinth]

I stumbled upon this quote the other day...

“Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”
—George Carlin

[inner shale]

such a great qoute

[elfin sleet]

I personally find the Ontological argument thought provoking. Anselm was going for something akin to a mathematical proof when he developed the argument. His has some flaws, but Alvin Plantinga has done some really good work in modern times and has made a really strong case. The Cosmological argument’s pretty strong. I think there’s also a good case for at least some miracles. Only one miracle has to be genuine for theism to hold, by my lights. I also think there are some really strong claims being made about evidence and “proof.” Are we asking for empirical evidence for a non-empirical proposition? At best, empirical data can support a philosophical argument, but that is hardly a knock on philosophy. Is proof synonymous with certainty? I haven’t read the entire thread, so sorry if I repeated something redundant.

[tawny plinth]

For anyone who wanted to read the original post, i spent 10 minutes scrolling up to it

[inner shale]

@wet walrus could you pin this?

really strange discord doesnt make it easily accessible

[tawny plinth]

Ikr, hopefully it does get pinned 😅

[wet walrus]

Done

[verbal knot]

Well, yeah, it really was thought provoking back in the day to contemplate on existence of something as an additional dimension and thus additional „size“. In the end, Anselm and Plantinga offered at least versions of sophisticated mind knots, to be untangled by whoever happens to stumble across.

Not taking these self-misunderstanding ‘proofs’ too serious, it might also be fun to elaborate on the concepts of infinity they might imply or have to handle and of what grade of complexity they might be.

And like the old question of “how many angles might fit on a needle’s top’ we might nowadays ask, if we could host them all within Hilbert’s Hotel or not😄

[elfin sleet]

Lol, what?

[weary flicker]

I’m going to comment a small story/testimony cause I think it is something you might all enjoy. I only ask that you not make fun of this story because it does have a lot of meaning to me. My older brother was born with 3 tumors on his brain. Long story short is he had to have surgery to remove 2/3 tumors. This resulted in him having autism. He was also blind because of the tumor on the front of his skull was pressing down on the nerves behind the eyeball which in turn caused them to tear loose. Also due to post op he couldn’t walk. Imagine have a sibling or love one who has autism, is blind, and can’t walk. My grandfather who was also a pastor, was pulling my brother and I around in a red wagon and he was crying and weeping praying out loud to God saying “this is one of your children. This baby boy can’t go through life like this.. heal this boy(it’s a longer prayer but I’m not gonna say it all). After pulling us around a squirrel came off a tree and was moving around. My brother who is blind all of a sudden started looking at the squirrel. My grandfather in disbelief and shock immediately grabbed my brother and ran him inside and sat him on the chair and yelled for my grandmother to run into the living room with a flashlight. They shined it into his eyes and boom eyes dilated. My grandfather told me and the church that god spoke to him that night and for him to tell the congregation that if my brother doesn’t walk call him a false prophet. after 5min of the congregation praying aloud in unison my brother literally stood up and started walking. I know it sounds like a load of bs but because of those moments of me seeing it with my eyes, It solidified my belief that there is a higher power.

[rocky vault]

There are a tonne of messages in this thread, so I'm definitely not going to read them all. If my comment is repeating something already discussed, apologies. Any evidence or argument FOR the existence of a higher power is as 'good' as any evidence AGAINST the existence of a higher power, so it's really a moot point.

Also, to extend on this, rationality is built upon presuppositions about what is and isn't true, and if you follow them back far enough, there are bound to be errors involved in the path leading to what can, at this current moment in time, be considered rational. That is why the goal posts are always moving, that is how society and science and whatever else progresses, because old ideas are challenged. What may have appeared entirely rational to a person 100 years ago may be seen as entirely ludicrous by a person today. I think that is what @steep mantle was trying to get at before. There will always be an element of subjectivity involved in any medium by which human beings try to explore ontology/philosophy.

The essence of my point is that there is no way to concretely prove or disprove that which one suggests exists beyond the bounds of human perception. That would be entirely paradoxical. If you could prove or disprove such a concept, it wouldn't be... what it is (or isn't).

And to suggest that we should be able to understand and perceive all there is to know about the very fabric and nature of the universe is arrogant at best, extreme hubris at worst.

I could go on about this stuff for days, so anyone is free to ping me in here lol. I also want to talk about the quantum physics angle pertaining to 'belief' or 'faith' and what merit that may hold

[steep mantle]

Put that a lot better than I did lol

[rocky vault]

oops

[elfin sleet]

How did you come to the conclusion that any evidence for theism is as good as any evidence against it?

[rocky vault]

its implicit in my statement

[rocky vault]

you're arguing for or against the same concept, which is a concept that is inherently 'inhuman'. So any evidence provided for, or against, by a human, is equally flawed

[elfin sleet]

Why think theism is outside the bounds of human perception? And I’m not sure what you mean by inhuman. You seem to be saying you at least know something about that which is fundamentally unknowable, which would be self-refuting.

[rocky vault]

has anyone ever posited that 'God' is human?

[elfin sleet]

Not that I’m aware of, but we know a lot about things that aren’t human so I’m not sure how your logic holds up.

[rocky vault]

We know a lot about things that exist in the physical world that we can interact with on a physical level. The feats and abilities attributed to God(s) go well beyond that. Whether or not something exists that exists in a state far beyond human capacity, is beyond human capacity to know.

You cant prove that God is understandable by humans, any more than I can prove that it is not

and that, in itself, is evidence of the fact that we can't 'know' one way or another

[elfin sleet]

Abstract objects, like propositions, sets, numbers, etc. are not physical, but surely you know a lot about those things. Also, to say that you know it exists beyond human capacity to know is still a claim to knowledge about what you believe is unknowable.

[rocky vault]

I dont 'know' it exists beyond physical capacity, you're missing the whole essence of the topic.

the whole point of faith and theism is that 'potential' for things going on beyond human capacity, that is what God is. an omnipotent being

I'm saying I know what God has been described as

and the whole question is whether or not we can prove God, as it has been described, exists

and I am saying, God, as it has been described, is a concept that is not able to be proven one way or the other

A very simple way of putting this to bed is to ask yourself if anyone ever in human history has been able to categorically, irrefutably prove or disprove the existence of a higher power.

to which the answer is No, as far as I'm aware. feel free to enlighten me though

[elfin sleet]

No, of course not, but that’s true for literally everything in human history. Philosophers don’t define knowledge as needing irrefutable proof. If that’s your standard then I’d say anything you think you know is not really knowledge. We don’t have irrefutable proof for other minds. Do you believe I am a conscious agent typing to you right now?

[elfin sleet]

You should read Descartes lol

[elfin sleet]

That quote is a great example of self-defeating statement

[rocky vault]

Maybe from your perspective!

[elfin sleet]

“I do not believe anything!” “Do you believe that?” “No!”

[rocky vault]

It certainly seems that you are a conscious agent, but how should I know! maybe I'm dreaming!

[elfin sleet]

Exactly.

[rocky vault]

Ah, there we are. Acknowledging the paradoxical nature of thought and existence

[elfin sleet]

A contradiction is not a paradox

[rocky vault]

What do you mean exactly? this has been my whole point all along??? We don't KNOW, so what good is any proof going to do about it, people are going to continue arguing about it for the next however many thousand years lol

[rocky vault]

'a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.'

[elfin sleet]

Your standards for knowledge are too stringent. Like I said, you can’t know anything if you think knowledge is only possible with irrefutable proof.

[rocky vault]

Who are you to decide for me what my standards should be lol

We are delving into an entirely different realm now, which is the reasoning behind my worldview.

[elfin sleet]

I’m just pointing out your standards would lead to all sorts of problems in your epistemology. You’re free to believe whatever you’d like (assuming you’re a free conscious agent 😉).

[rocky vault]

Clearly, we have very different world views, which is fine

A lot of it is semantics anyway. I know I have hands, in so much as I am using them to type. But do I know I am really typing right now? What I'm getting at is there is always 'potential' for another layer of understanding to exist beyond our current one, so getting hung up on proving something as abstract as God is, really, a waste of time

[elfin sleet]

You don’t know you have hands, you don’t have categorically, irrefutable proof. You could be dreaming. You could be a brain in a bat somewhere being stimulated by a mad scientists. Descartes demon might be deceiving you. But I digress. I think you’re right in thinking that you know you have hands, but that’s because I don’t use the same definition of knowledge as you do.

[elfin sleet]

It’s really the same discussion, though. Inevitably, in conversations about fundamental philosophical ideas, we must get to the root of our epistemology. If we can’t agree on basic definitions, what’s the point in arguing about something that requires the fundamental agreement first?

[rocky vault]

Very true, big agree.

[elfin sleet]

Cool! Good convo, appreciate it. I’m going to go to work now 🤪

[rocky vault]

Which really takes me back to my original point. It is two schools of thought that do not agree on the basic definitions, trying to prove each other wrong. Which we both indulged in for a while 🤣 you too man, I'm off to bed

[elfin sleet]

Unless I’m dreaming and I’m really just about to wake up 😳

[rocky vault]

How will you ever KNOW....

👍

[young shadow]

This is a long thread haha

I am not a “believer” but take this as a thought. God could be maybe up on earth in the way he is discussed, etc. I really think us humans made him up overall; we need a moral code and therefore we made god. But the thought that there is no god, is a weak one as someone or something that is a higher being than us had to have started all of this. The Big Bang is where I point to; our greatest minds can’t think of how the BB started. Something had to have triggered it, a higher being with powers pass our understanding, aka a god.

[verbal knot]

Can’t think of how the BB started? Well, it’s not so much a problem of lacking epistemological capabilities, but of un-observability and therefore handicapped modeling abilities. For the same reason, BB is in itself an incomplete model as well and still indifferent in regard to many parameters. By the way, answering the big WHY and HOW of existence by referring to an external creator of everything within our universe isn’t an helpful answer either. It simply postulates another dimension of existence, another entity and let’s us ask the very same question in regard to these made up metaphysical entities once more🤷‍♂️

[young shadow]

It is what triggered it. Everything else is explainable by our laws of physics; the trigger isn’t! But I think main idea was miss here: even if we can no prove a god on earth (which we can’t) then we look to the universe. Something had to had created this, or created what created this, etc.

[verbal knot]

Welcome to infinite regress ☺️. But Plato’s cave exit and an awakening from the Matrix are not necessarily unobtainable. As well as a meet and greet with alien gods. Instantly provoking new questions while answering some isn’t a total loss though. Just not a final answer then☺️

[elfin sleet]

I mean the train of logic “We can’t explain it -> therefore god” is a bit of an overused cliche imo. I have no qualms about belief in god (or deities in general), it’s just that you are using god to explain that which you don’t know

Because unless we had a way to test how the BB happened (or even if it happened) anything we say will just be a theory - an infinite number of possibilities could be correct (which aren’t god)

[verbal knot]

Exactly. This usage of the “god” term would rather resemble a simple conversation stopper than an actual explanation. The supposedly deeper understanding granted by such an answer would be shallow at best (if true), and as long as empirically implausible even less than that and probably just an additional layer of fog clouding our world models.

Occam’s Razor to the rescue!

[rocky vault]

I find Occam’s Razor to often be a quite the conversation stopper at times too.

[verbal knot]

Really? I never thought it to be one😅. Or rather - I never used it to cut interesting talks short. But I think I know what you mean. Interestingly, I have never encountered so harsh dogmatists believing in themselves to be virtuous knights of the good cause than within a facebook community of amateur skeptics.

[young shadow]

I’m not saying that was can’t explain it. I’m saying the trigger was a higher being that made a choice with power beyond our current understanding. Overall, something had to have trigger it and all evidence in the known universe doesn’t prove a good or even thoughtful idea of why the Big Bang occurred. Therefore, outside influence is needed. Just like adding water into an Ant hill. They don’t understand but their universe just change from an outside event they can’t understand. We would be the ant to the higher being

I think we have to define what “God” is; my definition is a being so far superior to us we could not understand it or hope to understand it. Similar to my ant compared to humans above

[elfin sleet]

I think this is an intuitive line of reasoning. I would like to share some unintuitive theories I have come across (or thought about)

• The universe started from nothing

• The universe has no beginning

• The universe is in a loop, and the destruction of it marks the beginning of it

• The creation of the universe destroyed the creationist

What I'm trying to get at is that there is no way to discredit any of these theories even if they don't seem very logical... or fit within what we humans expect of the universe

I'm personally hoping for the 2nd or 3rd one

[young shadow]

For sure you can’t discredit any some are just more likely based upon current understanding, which could be compete shit anyway haha

I think my favorite thought is it would be extremely interesting that each black hole we see is just another “universe” and we are in a black hole too.

I’m sure others think of this but I haven’t taken the time to look for any

[sonic field]

the problem with this is that the universe is a closed system (by definition) and can therefore not be interacted with from outside the universe itself. Therefore the supposed higher power should be somewhere within the universe, but that means he cannot have created it as he had to be IN it already

So the universe had to already exist in order for a higher power to create it

which is pretty much a paradoxical statement

I think based on what alabastor said, the universe had no beginning is the most likely explanation of them all. We know time started about 13.7 billion years ago, but we have no idea what was there before. Might be that the universe already existed but time didnt

but we will never be able to know for sure as there is no way of measuring or researching the universe before the beginning of time

also no beginning and the universe is a loop are pretty much the same statements

[sonic field]

I don't really follow the reasoning for this. Its pretty straight forward for me at least that the more elements you require to explain something, the less likely it becomes

How is it a conversation stopper?

[rocky vault]

I’m not suggesting I disagree with the concept. You pretty much just answered your own question. The less details there are to discuss, the less conversation there is to be had. Often times, it is used in such a way where one assumes that details that are outside of their knowledge are irrelevant details, and thus are unnecessary, thus they get ‘occamcised’

[sonic field]

But you can have a finite set of elements where each element itself can have infinite ''sub''elements itself

Occams razor doesnt mean there is less to discuss at all

[tardy monolith]

@inner shale
When I saw this video it made me think of this conversation thread and the question of how to prove the existance of god. I think it is important to take carefull notice of ones world view and how we are limited by scientific dogma that are generally assumed to be true. Just food for thought. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF03FN37i5w

[inner shale]

im not limited by dogma

science is the opposite of dogma

[tardy monolith]

a belief system, and how one determines truth

we all have a world view

[inner shale]

im bouta drop a truth bomb

lmao

Science is not dogma because it is based on the principle of empirical testing which means that hypotheses are continuously tested and refined through experimentation and observation. Scientific theories are not considered to be absolute truths but rather are provisional explanations of natural phenomena. They are always open to revision or rejection based on new evidence. Dogma on the other hand is a set of beliefs that are considered to be absolute and unchallengeable.
Additionally science is selfcorrecting and selfimproving. Scientists are constantly questioning and challenging existing theories and new discoveries often lead to new scientific paradigms. This is why science has been able to advance so much over the centuries. In contrast dogma does not allow for questioning or new perspectives which stifles progress and innovation.
Scientists from different backgrounds and perspectives work together to test hypotheses share data and critically evaluate the evidence. This allows for a diverse range of perspectives and ideas to be considered and ensures that the scientific community is not limited by the biases or prejudices of a single individual or group.

[tardy monolith]

wow,

[inner shale]

does that make sense?

[tardy monolith]

that is exactly what is questioned in the video.

[inner shale]

i also went through the video and none of these "dogmas" are considered scientific facts

[inner shale]

the video calls a set of claims dogma yet none of them are scientific

some are simply conclusions people come to with limited evidence

[tardy monolith]

I agree with that and perhaps dogma is not the corret word. I think you understand the general idea of what I am attempting to convey.

[inner shale]

yea

[inner shale]

**The belief that nature is mechanical and everything is a machine: **
While it is true that many natural phenomena can be explained by the laws of physics and mechanics, science also recognizes the complexity and variability of natural systems. The concept of emergence, for example, acknowledges that new properties and behaviors can arise from the interactions of simpler components.

**The belief that matter is unconscious: **
Science recognizes that consciousness is a complex phenomenon that emerges from the interactions of physical systems. While consciousness is not a property of matter itself, it can be generated by the interactions of matter in certain conditions, such as in living organisms.

**The belief that the laws of nature are fixed: **
The laws of nature are based on observations and experiments, and are constantly being refined and updated as new evidence is discovered.

**The belief that the total amount of matter and energy is fixed: **
The conservation of matter and energy is a principle that has been supported by many experiments and observations, but it is also recognized that there may be exceptions or limitations to this principle under certain conditions.

**The belief that nature is purposeless: **
Science is concerned with understanding the natural world through observation and experimentation, it makes no claims about the purpose or meaning of natural phenomena.

**The belief that biological hereditary is material: **
Science recognizes that genetic information is passed on through material means, such as DNA, but it also acknowledges that non-material factors can influence the expression of genetic traits.

The belief that memories are stored in the brain as material traces:
While it is true that memories are thought to be encoded in the neural connections of the brain, the exact mechanisms of memory storage are still not fully understood and are the subject of ongoing research.

**The belief that your mind is inside your head: **
While the brain is considered to be the physical basis of mental processes, science recognizes that the mind can also be influenced by factors outside the brain, such as social and environmental factors.

**The belief that telepathy is impossible: **
While there is currently no scientific evidence for telepathy, science does not rule out the possibility of such phenomenon.

**The belief that mechanistic medicine is the only type that works: **
Science recognizes that different medical approaches can be effective in treating different conditions, and that a combination of mechanistic and holistic approaches may be the most effective way to address complex health issues.

_ _
_ _
here is my evaluation on each of the ten points brought up in the video

hope this helps

[tardy monolith]

Very well stated,thank you

[inner shale]

👍

[tardy monolith]

Science is an excellent tool for seeking the truth of matter but seems to fall short when questioning anything beyond. God, and the supernatural are too far outside the scope of science for it to be a legitimate tool for determining the truth.

I think I saw the question early in this thread asking, what would you concider to be good evidence? I suppose that if science is the best tool in your toolshed, the evidence you seek will never be found.

[sonic field]

Alt F4, I'm a scientist, if you have any questions regarding how science works, what it is, what it does or something similar, let me know and I'll try to explain

Science is a METHOD of gaining knowledge, not a worldview

[sonic field]

@inner shale @tardy monolith :

''The belief that the total amount of matter and energy is fixed:
The conservation of matter and energy is a principle that has been supported by many experiments and observations, but it is also recognized that there may be exceptions or limitations to this principle under certain conditions."'
This one is not entirely true. Matter can transform into energy, therefore the amount of matter in our universe is not fixed at all. It is only energy that is fixed. stemming from the definition of what a ''universe'' is. If energy could be created or destroyed, we would by definition not live in a universe

The belief that the laws of nature are fixed:
The laws of nature are based on observations and experiments, and are constantly being refined and updated as new evidence is discovered.
Yes, i would even go as far as saying the universe as we observe it cannot EXIST if the laws of nature are not fixed. The laws of nature describe how matter and energy interact with eachother, which we base on observations yes, but it also lets us make predictions about interactions we have never observed before, which we can then try to experimentally observe and verify whether the laws we found are correct or not in describing these interactions.

The belief that nature is purposeless:
Science is concerned with understanding the natural world through observation and experimentation, it makes no claims about the purpose or meaning of natural phenomena.
This belief would be a judgement of value as ''purposeless'' is really a subjective thing. Although there are many scientists that have this as a personal belief, it is not some scientific consensus or anything as science concerns itself with facts, not with value judgement.

The belief that biological hereditary is material:
Science recognizes that genetic information is passed on through material means, such as DNA, but it also acknowledges that non-material factors can influence the expression of genetic traits.
We have to be really careful here. Hereditary traits are genes or gene-expressions (genotype) that influence the phenotype and can be passed down to offspring through sexual reproduction. The expression of genetic traits do not have to be hereditary. For example, by being exposed to certain chemicals or irradiation you can change an individuals genotype and phenotype but it does not necessarily have to be an hereditary trait if it is not passed down onto next generations. Moreover, two people with the same genotype can have different phenotypes due to epigenetic expression. Basically, there are tons of other molecules attached to your DNA, and they determine more or less how the genetic material in your DNA is expressed, which parts are read, which proteins are made etc. This in turn means that even if some phenotypical trait (say breast cancer) is hereditary, it does not mean you will get it, as it depends also on the expression of the genetic material itself.

The belief that your mind is inside your head:
While the brain is considered to be the physical basis of mental processes, science recognizes that the mind can also be influenced by factors outside the brain, such as social and environmental factors.
What is meant in this context with the mind? It is not some physical property. If with ''mind'' we mean consciousness in this context, then Truth already explained that it is an emergent property of the interaction between certain parts of the body itself. Moreover, we find it not JUST in humans (as opposed to what many people (want to) believe). Having a mind is much the same as having a working organs as a function of the tissues and cells they are made up off.

The belief that telepathy is impossible:
While there is currently no scientific evidence for telepathy, science does not rule out the possibility of such phenomenon.
Not really sure whether this one is serious or not. Telepathy in the sense of mind-reading is definitely impossible as it would require the transportation of information without any carrier that enables this transportation. Just like mass and energy, information also needs to be carried to transport it from one place to another. Now there are some things that could be considered telepathy, for example quantum entanglement, which allows for instant transportation of information through entanglement of wave-functions of two particles.

The belief that mechanistic medicine is the only type that works:
Science recognizes that different medical approaches can be effective in treating different conditions, and that a combination of mechanistic and holistic approaches may be the most effective way to address complex health issues.
I think the stance of science is that for many holistic approaches there is no EVIDENCE that it can work. That doesn't mean it cannot work, it only means that there is no research done that can confirm nor deny the workings. There has been a lot of research done on placebo recently though, which may be part of the effectiveness of the holistic medicine approach, although more research needs to be done to confirm that. It could also be an interaction between physical and mental wellbeing. No one really knows

[sonic field]

Overall I think this talk is really misrepresenting the concept of science in general, as if the guy giving the talk doesn't understand himself what science is. This already starts with the opening where he states and i quote:
''The Science Delusion is the belief that Science already understands the reality of nature in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in''. ''Its the kind of belief system of people who say, I don't believe in god, I believe in science.'' ''It is a belief system which has now been spread through the entire world.''

No one within science will actually claim that science understands the reality of nature. The whole point of science is to try and find the answers to what the reality of nature is. If Science would already know this, then what is the point of doing scientific research in the first place. Science is not some system where we have already defined all boundaries and only need to find the missing pieces. Science is a method of asking questions and finding answers to those questions to step by step find more information on how the world around us works. It is an ever changing evolution of knowledge. It is anything BUT a dogma.

Similarly, it is not a belief system. A belief within a belief system is only true for those who belief in it. The beautiful thing about science is that it provides the answers to phenomena in our universe, whether you believe in them or not. E.g. you can believe the earth is flat, or any shape for that matter, but that doesn't make it true. Through science you can set up experiments to find the shape of the earth and you will ALWAYS find the same answer. A belief system is just that, something you cannot verify for which you have to have faith in order to ''accept'' it. Science is the opposite, even if you don't believe in it, it will still give you the same results always. Claiming that science is a belief system is a delusional statement and misrepresentation of the concept itself.

I cannot watch this video much longer as the guy doing the talk is purposefully misrepresenting certain scientific ideas to an audience of which he KNOWS are not as trained as him, in order to convince them of his own view on the world. I wouldnt go as far as saying he is lying, but he is coming pretty close.

The talk is filled with misinformation about these concepts

[tardy monolith]

You guys have done an excellent jo of sorting the wheat from the chaff and that is commendable. The video I posted was merely an attempt to convey an idea that was summarized very eloquently earlier.
I think it loosely outlines the general boundary, reach and scope of science. All of these cavoites and exceptions are generally accepted and we accept that some things are not explainable.

(I am not intending this to be derogatory or demeaning in any way. I am merely attempting to convey a concept of God that has been missed thus far)
Science being at the pinnacle of what is knowable and the infallible gatekeeper of truth, in essence, makes it your God. The thing in which you trust more than anything, even your own senses. Is that not what you believe? If science is the best or only thing that can bring you truth. Science is your god.
God as a concept of supreme truth and knowing.

I'm not sure if this really qualifies as evidence or proof of God but I think it is a step in the right direction. I'm not sure why, but I was inspired to join this discussion when I saw the name @inner shale. Perhaps, I consider myself to be a truth seeker of sorts. It is hard to put into words, a deeper sense of truth and knowing that surpasses and transcends all that we can observe and test with science.

[inner shale]

I'm just gonna respond to the first one right now ill discuss the others later

1. When we state that mass-energy is fixed, the underlying reason is that mass is, in essence, a form of energy. In other words, there is energy inherent within mass, and the total amount of this energy is fixed. To avoid confusion, we typically combine these two concepts together. It should be noted that this distinction is acknowledged, but not addressed in this context as it is not super relevant to the current discussion.

I'm going to address each point you made one at a time under we fully understand each other and have come to agreement
I'm sure its possible

[tardy monolith]

I think so too. I am not trying to disprove science or demean its merits.

[sonic field]

Oh we are mostly in agreement, i was just nuancing some of the points you made

its just you have to be careful with generalising concepts like these thats all

[inner shale]

"Science being at the pinnacle of what is knowable and the infallible gatekeeper of truth, in essence, makes it your God. The thing in which you trust more than anything, even your own senses. Is that not what you believe? If science is the best or only thing that can bring you truth. Science is your god.
God as a concept of supreme truth and knowing. "

I don't mind a metaphor but it is a little misleading to say that science is our god. While some may treat the scientific method with a high level of reverence, there are significant differences between science and a deity. Science is a method of understanding the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis, while a god is typically considered to be a supreme being with supernatural powers and abilities. Science is not infallible and is constantly subject to revision and correction based on new evidence and discoveries. It is important to recognize the limitations of science and to approach it with a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking, rather than treating it as a supreme authority or infallible source of truth.

[inner shale]

ofc but i dont wanna write something so long no one will read it lmao

[tardy monolith]

I agree and that is well stated. Once again, you prove to be very thoughtful in your response

[inner shale]

its common to say that without needing to address e=mc^2 because mass is technically a form of energy and can be considered interchangeable

[sonic field]

i mean technically speaking matter is a representation of energy

[inner shale]

yes exactly that is what im tryna say

[sonic field]

Yeah i understand and I feel the same. Problem is that the whole reason the guy in the video is misrepresenting certain ideas is BECAUSE he is generalising them and then bashing the generalised versions

Its like: ''This is what science says'' and then he continues to debunk that

while the ''this is what science says'' part was wrong in the first place

thats why i wanted to add a bit on your statements

[inner shale]

yea there is no such thing as an entity of science that says things we are supposed to believe lol that's called the bible

[tardy monolith]

Science, much like any tool, be used as a metaphorical weapon. Money and politic often influence what get researched and published. Human ego is also to blame when it comes to controlling the flow of information and peoples perception of reality.

[inner shale]

science is driven by curiosity and a desire to know the natural world.

[tardy monolith]

Now more than ever, it is becoming difficult to discern truth from falshood

[inner shale]

its easier than ever now to find truth

its also easier to find "experts" that back up falsehood.

[tardy monolith]

true

I must say I have rather enjoyed this conversation

[inner shale]

when you come into a preconception of what is true and you are trying to find answers you have already made a fatal error

that is the opposite of science.
science involves no ego no preconception just a curious mind.
otherwise its not really "science"

[tardy monolith]

It's akin to belief in a hypothesis without verifiable experimental data to back it up?

[inner shale]

a hypothesis is not a belief it is a guess that is treated with extreme scrutiny and experimental testing.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation that can be tested through experimentation, while a preconception is an idea accepted without testing or evidence. The scientific method relies on testing hypotheses.

[sonic field]

I mean, there is some truth to this. The topics that are getting researched depend on grants, so we cannot research everything. However, the results and conclusions in scientific research should under no circumstance be steered by whoever is giving this money

so it does not really matter that much

And if it IS influenced by whoever is bringing in the money, than it is bad science and you will easily be able to spot errors in the research itself

Yeah i just think that your perception of the concept of ''science'' differs from what science actually is

[inner shale]

Science by itself is no more than a method but if you want to talk about scientific institutions that's a different story.

[sonic field]

But nobody does that... A hypothesis is a necessary part of scientific research because without an hypothesis there is no way to set up experiments in order to confirm or deny certain ideas.

No one ''believes in a hypothesis'' is if it is the truth

And if people do thats just silly lol

[inner shale]

yes exactly

a hypothesis is only treated with more respect once its no longer a hypothesis lol

[sonic field]

I'd say the greatest thing within science is that all ideas and concepts are constantly under pressure of people trying to falsify them. This is why ideas and concepts change over time and why there are no ''fixed truths'' in science

[inner shale]

exatlyyy a hypothesis is treated like the school nerd
bullied like hell 🤣

[sonic field]

For example, for a long time we thought Newtonian physics were how the universe worked. Then with new insights people could actually prove it wrong in very specific cases which ultimately lead to quantum physics as we know today. No one is claiming that quantum physics is the absolute reality of physics, but everyone agrees it is a better model for understanding the world than newtonian physics

If we would assume that every theory in science is the absolute truth, there would be no progress at all

[inner shale]

yes yes yes u are my favorite person on here you know shit

[sonic field]

i mean this is science 101

Where I live we get this shit taught in middle school when we are like 13

[inner shale]

oh yea trust me we did too

but stuff doesnt really stick with some

[sonic field]

To add to this. It also does not mean Newtonian physics are wrong per se, but now we understand that they only apply to very specific cases.

[tardy monolith]

I think that my world view and other factors influence the scales in which I trust claims made by people and institutions in the name of science. I feel that I am predisposed to think more abstractly things and that does not jive with the scientific method too well.

[sonic field]

I dont understand the trust issue with science. If you dont trust something, you are able to look it up yourself, read the papers/articles and point out any flaws you think are made

so what is there not to trust

[inner shale]

It is essential to understand that science does not require blind trust in any particular institution or authority. Unlike certain ideologies or belief systems, the scientific method is predicated on the principles of learning, testing, and verification. One can independently evaluate and verify any claims made through the scientific process, rather than relying on blind faith. This is the fundamental difference between science and other belief systems, where the truth is accepted without question. The scientific approach allows for the constant questioning and testing of ideas, leading to a deeper understanding of the natural world.

[tardy monolith]

Its a mistrust of people, politics and institutions, not science

[inner shale]

^^^

[sonic field]

Like you should. This is how most scientists think anyway

Thats why I find it difficult to understand the opposition towards sciene

science

Because the science itself is independent of the people that carry it out

If I do some research and find a certain conclusion, anyone anywhee on the world should come up with the same result and conclusions if they carry out the same research

[inner shale]

yes people dont realize they can look into why an institution is making a claim and do science themselves

[sonic field]

Actually, I have spent the past year of my life developing a novel method of researching something that has been a pretty popular subject in recent years, only to find pretty similar conclusions to other research, while having a relatively independent method. Only contributing to the credibility of the prev. research

[tardy monolith]

It is just so frustrating, most people including me, either cannot or will not take the time and put in the effort that would be required. At some point one needs to put faith in something or trust a source of information. How does one know where to draw that line

[sonic field]

The whole reason for doing this was because me and my supervisors were kinda skeptical about some conclusions put out by previous research

[sonic field]

Right, but the problem I have is that you cannot or are not willing to put the time into something THEREFORE you question it

It is okay to question something, but not believing something because you did not put the time into it is imo not a good approach

No one can know everything about every subject, but because there is constant pressure from other scientists trying to find flaws in works of others, if something is backed up by a lot of evidence, there is no reason to assume it is wrong

In essence, just because you don't have knowledge about a certain topic doesn't make it wrong

[tardy monolith]

the same can be said about God

[sonic field]

No one is claiming that god does not exist here

The difference is that in science you can have testable hypotheses that you can either confirm or falsify and you are encouraged to find flaws and be skeptic

In theology it is by definition not testable and if you question anything, people will hate you for it

People have hated me throughout my life for being skeptical towards religion and not just ''accepting'' the bible as is

Whereas in science the literal opposite is true

[inner shale]

It can be difficult to know where to draw the line when it comes to trusting a source of information. One way to determine the credibility of a source is to look at its track record of providing accurate and reliable information. Additionally, it's important to be skeptical of sources that have a clear bias or agenda. Independent, third-party fact-checking organizations can also be a valuable resource for evaluating the credibility of a source. Ultimately, it's important to be critical and use your own judgment when evaluating information.

[inner shale]

also i am very knowledgeable on the christian god so if you have anything you want to discuss on that front id be happy to

[sonic field]

I'd say in religion the problem for me is that most people find credibility in a very very limited amount of sources (e.g. the bible) whereas in science the amount of sources you can draw from are ever increasing.

It is just weird to me to compare religion to science as they are fundamentally different things

You can trust science and be religious, you can not trust science and not be religious

and anywhere in between on the spectrum

[sonic field]

And in all honestly, this is the whole point. But then it appears strange to me to apply this logic to science but not apply the same logic to religion

[inner shale]

Religion often requires a level of belief without the need for empirical evidence, whereas science relies heavily on experimentation and data to validate its claims. This fundamental difference in approach can make it challenging to reconcile the two, as they operate on different principles

[sonic field]

Because right now it feels like you are saying, I don't know these things so I don't trust them per se (which is a good thing imo), but when it comes to religion it is accepted without knowing the things

[inner shale]

i love how he writes one thing and we just give him like 50 paragraphs

[sonic field]

yeah sorry about that 😦

[inner shale]

haha we should dial it down i guess and lets him address each statement

[sonic field]

On a sidenote, tomorrow I will present my research to my supervisors and mid-february I will defend my research and hopefully graduate 😄

[inner shale]

ooo yay

good luck!

[tardy monolith]

Lol, its ok. I can be slow but I'm trying to put a lot of deep abstract thought into words.

[inner shale]

typing for a while haha

[tardy monolith]

Religion, in my opinion, is subject to the same issues of mistrust I stated earlier. People and institutions are susceptible to corruption.
My faith in a moral God fills a void and brings purpose to my life. Gods existence, while not yet provable by science, is more real and true to me than anything. I may not be able to explain it eloquently and I guess that is ok.
I view the bible almost in a similar way to science. Both can be used to perceive truth in a way. While science focuses more on the tangible reality of nature and such, the bible contains truth in other forms such as wisdom.

[tardy monolith]

typing is not my forte

[inner shale]

i understand

It is true the existence of a higher power may not be able to be proven by science, but for many individuals, it is a deeply held belief that brings meaning to their lives. The Bible can also be viewed as a source of wisdom and truth, in addition to the tangible truths that science can provide. Everyone's beliefs and perspectives are unique, and it is important to respect and understand different viewpoints. In my life personally i found that i didn't need to put blind trust into something to find purpose. Instead i decided to let go of it and adopt a skeptical mindset because i found it is the most reliable source to truth.

[tardy monolith]

There is some sort of redemption quality, that can only be found experienced when one is at the lowest of lows in life. It occurs to me that some of the worst experiences in my life are also something I would not want to undo, because it shaped me into who I am now. Had I not hit the proverbial rock bottom, I may still be stuck in despair.

Thank you for the genuine conversation.

[inner shale]

ive experienced the same things i understand

[tawny plinth]

imagine if someone on this chat proves god exists and it goes viral and we all become religious

[verbal knot]

You mean someone here told you to pray “IDDQD” and after doing so, you have an religious epiphany, get empirical evidence for higher powers, and henceforth become its almighty paladin? Would love to join the party 🎊

[charred heath]

Me. I am your God

[tawny plinth]

gasp
how did you know

[icy gale]

John 20:29: "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

We can all find God for ourselves, but we will never be able to scientifically proof his existence. He's too powerful for that.

[dire dagger]

1.} Relativity > Law of Cause and Effect as Discussed by Richard Dawkins a prominent Atheist in a TIME magazine article

2.} Law of Teleology > Orderly Constructs within nature

3.} Law of Probability coupled with the number of Fulfilled Prophecies. 1,093 referring to Jesus, 48 referring to the crucifixion. Separate instances over a span of a 1000 years 500 years before birth and each fulfilled. Just for 8 of them to be correct is one in 10^17 (number 1 with 17 zeros).

Though good luck ever convincing a "committed skeptic"

[robust garnet]

That is an important thing, because for some people if god exists, that means everything in the bible is true and so on. So that is just where they have to come up with some prove to justify it, and most often it is just some bending of truth or fabricating it or just not understanding the world.
But if "god" is what some people call a "higher" consciousness that you can experience in some ways that you can't explain, but you can't prove it in any physical evidence, then just means, that the existence of god doesn't require for me to prove it for someone else.

[dire dagger]

what op is asking for is empirical data. I have given at least three examples or references of empirical data. However, I expect the goal post of what "counts" as evidence to constantly be shifting to fit personal desires of disproof.

[robust garnet]

After almost a year of discussion did you came to some conclusions?

[dense flicker]

No

[astral lotus]

You did not really provide anything though. Your first two examples are rather unclear, though I can hazard a guess for the second one as it seems you're referring to the watchmaker argument. Just because something appears complex and intricate to a point that seems unlikely to come about by random chance doesn't mean that it actually didn't come about by random chance. The eye is a very common example used by theists so I'll go with that.

Human eyes are fairly complex structures, but they're also very much flawed in many ways, which you wouldn't expect of something designed by a supposedly omniscient being. This has been discussed to death so I'm just going to link a relevant article. https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/01/12/the-poor-design-of-the-human-eye/

Your third argument falls into a major trap when it comes to historiography which is to place seemingly prophetic texts in time periods that allow them to be prophetic, when the explanation that requires fewer leaps of logic would be that the texts are forgeries written well after the events they claim to prophetically describe.

There is a good example of this in Korean history, where the kingdom of Koryŏ held to a set of 10 core rules ('Injunctions') that were believed to have been created by the first king (T'aejo) of the dynasty. These injunctions feature several seemingly prophetic warnings that did end up coming to pass for the kingdom some 100 years later. While there is no question that the people of the kingdom at the time wholeheartedly believed these injunctions to have been written by that first king, which grants the texts value in another way, the relevant research has shown that the far more likely explanation is that the texts were forgeries by a later king's advisor, carefully crafted to appear from an earlier time - and therefor prophetic - when in reality it was merely describing issues relevant to their time period that needed to be dealt with through some claim of authority.

Relevant research of the mentioned aspect of Korean history:
Breuker, Remco. “Forging the Truth : Creative Deception and National Identity in Medieval Korea.” Canberra: Australian National University. Institute of Advanced Studies, East Asian history Vol. 35, 2008.

[sonic field]

ou did not really provide anything though. Your first two examples are rather unclear, though I can hazard a guess for the second one as it seems you're referring to the watchmaker argument. Just because something appears complex and intricate to a point that seems unlikely to come about by random chance doesn't mean that it actually didn't come about by random chance. The eye is a very common example used by theists so I'll go with that.

To add to this, it also is kind of an argument stemming from arrogance, as it basically comes down to:

• I cannot imagine or comprehend that something could have come about in the way you explain it
• Therefore it cannot be true

This of course makes absolutely no sense because then you are claiming that basically you know EVERYTHING and you are an expert on ANYTHING

Although I do wholeheartedly believe that people making these arguments do not make them out of arrogance but rather out of ignorance. By which I mean that I think that the concept of evolution itself for example is just not properly understood and then these claims are made under the wrong interpretation of the concept of evolution

So yeah, the second and third point I guess we can agree on are majorly flawed. The first point however I do not understand what is even meant by it or how it is placed in the context of emperical evidence for (or against) the existence of a higher power

[grand notch]

Insofar as we shift into prioritizing the unconditioned essence of God, empirical evidence is as simple as witnessing a reflexive infinity in a mirror.

[grand notch]

@steep mantle this is an example of an actual infinity within the confines of material existence

[steep mantle]

Idk if this is in reference to my talk about infinity being illogical but the point of that claim wasn't to say infinity is impossible/unobservable/or even un-considerable.

[grand notch]

No it's because this isn't philosophical, historical, or rational - it's empirical

[steep mantle]

I mean yeah, but I was trying to tell him he wasn't gonna find empirical evidence.

[grand notch]

Yea and I mean to say this literally is

[steep mantle]

I wasn't attempting to answer the question

I was asking what he actually wanted since its a stupid question lol. So I provided that I could give some philosophical, historical, or rational "evidence" that led me to faith. But thats obviously not an empirical answer

[grand notch]

If you're asking for empirical proof for the Christian God I can't provide it, if you're asking for empirical proof for God it's as simple as walking into a bathroom

[steep mantle]

Gonna see this and be like "You can't provide proof for the Christian God?" Epic win!

[grand notch]

No sweat off my back

[steep mantle]

😠

lol

[grand notch]

I'm turning into a Samana Galath! I'm samana Moi!

[steep mantle]

lmao

gonna be Stuck in Samsara Moi soon

[grand notch]

Soon? Dawg you've been here forever!

[steep mantle]

Man you just ain't lyin!

[grand notch]

Read Siddhartha

[steep mantle]

Eventually

Reading esoteric hyperborean fantasy series first

[grand notch]

Lame

[steep mantle]

Not lame actually

[inner shale]

?

What empirical evidence

[astral lotus]

They seem to be under the impression that light reflecting in mirrors is an infinite process.

[grand notch]

The impression I'm under is that I can rip your twink arms off

[rocky vault]

What is this? Sounds interesting

[naive tartan]

The proof of a higher knowledge than us is easy to understand. There are things we will never fully understand but exists quite simply. Maybe it's not the word God, but anyone should be able to understand the divinity in how are universe was made. From the most basic particles that could be infinitely small came a series of reactions that produced atoms that produced stars the produced more complex atoms that produced molecules that produced DNA that produced consciousness. We are no more, no less than that. Meaning is something our minds will never fully understand. What lies beyond the light our universe has created is something our minds will never fully understand. What caused the universe to expand is something our minds will never fully understand. And finally what happens to our consciousness after we die is something our minds will never fully understand. The only possible way to know these things is the hope that when we die we have more time to find out.

[steep mantle]

Its not actually that (though its kinda close) but its Second Apocalypse by Scott Bakker. Very fascinating.

Central character is blonde blue eyes ubermensch lmao.

But like its actually an interesting consideration, it isn’t a power fantasy lmao

The actual main character is a fat, balding sorcerer who hates himself but hes easily the best character in the series. Again its very fascinating stuff if you are interested in existentialism and philosophy in general.

[rocky vault]

Definitely sounds like my flavour. Will check it out

[steep mantle]

👍

[inner shale]

there is a bunch of stuff we dont know so what...
we are ignorant of certain aspects of our universe. It is a non sequitur to say that is proof of a higher power.

[astral lotus]

For me the most convincing argument that there should be something out there is the fact that, at least with our current understanding of things, we have to have a beginning, in the most general sense of the word. Constantly tracing back one event to something that came before which caused it. Eventually there is no "earlier event" to go back to, so, at least with our current understanding, from nothing came something.

That isn't an argument for any specific god, and it certainly isn't proof, but, while I don't believe in a higher power myself, this argument is the strongest one in my opinion.

[astral lotus]

I guess I could elaborate on why I think it is both a good argument but also not by itself enough for me to believe:
It is based on our current understanding of nature. Time and time again we've learned of facts that completely change how we view our world and the universe itself. I think it is reasonable to assume that our understanding of the universe can change in the future to where we no longer have to have a beginning, eliminating this argument for a god.

[grand notch]

I'd say that the Thomistic argument for the first cause is probably a bit better than that if you're sympathetic towards causal arguments for the existence of God

[sonic field]

@naive tartan

There are things we will never fully understand but exists quite simply
But this still does not indicate anything about a higher power (let alone a god or gods). Just because at the moment we have no satisfactory explanation for a certain thing or event, doesn't mean there is not a proper explanation for it. About 400 years ago people did not know that micro-organisms existed because the microscope was not invented yet. Because of this, people thought that when you got sick, it must be because you did something that made god (or whatever alternative there was in your specific society) angry and you were punished by this higher power. Nowadays we know that whenever you get sick, it is usually a bacterial or viral infection.

The argument: ''there are unexplainable things, therefore a higher power must exist'' is frankly one of the worst arguments for a higher power that you can give.

Maybe it's not the word God, but anyone should be able to understand the divinity in how are universe was made
Don't want to get too much involved in this, but this assumes both that the universe was created (as in an active event done by someone or something) as well as that the universe started at a single point in time. Both of which are surely debatable, but unverifiable. You can have these assumptions and then base your opinion on this, but it will never resonate with someone that starts with different assumptions

From the most basic particles that could be infinitely small came a series of reactions that produced atoms that produced stars the produced more complex atoms that produced molecules that produced DNA that produced consciousness.
Some small technicalities:
Particles cannot be infinitely small, there is a size limit to them. The smallest particles are really small yes, but ''infinitely'' implies that there can always be something smaller. In our universe there is a size limit on the smallest thing that can exist and can be identified as being a ''particle''. (I put ''particle'' in parentheses as at this scale things are not really particles anymore)

The formation of fundamental particles is not done by reactions, but rather by the interactions of the fundamental forces in our universe (strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force, gravitational force). Reactions only start occuring between atoms, after atoms have already formed.

Although you are technically correct that fundamental particles created atoms that created molecules etc. etc. you also miss and skip a lot of steps in this process. It is not really a process that is as linear as you describe it here.

[grand notch]

To be quite frank, the goalpost being an empirical proof for God is stupid to begin with considering we don't have empirical proof for much of anything - hence the prevalence of "theory" in the hard sciences. We don't know is a more sincere position to take. If anything we should be asking whether or not scientific realism, logical positivism, and skeptic frameworks have the value or purchase they purport to have. I'd argue that, if we find proof of self-contained infinities e.g. infinite density, this is sufficient for speaking of the unconditioned essence of God. And, further, via reason, if reason can be considered substantial, we can arrive at the conclusion for the existence of God.

Stupid isn't the correct word, but disingenuous is

[sonic field]

I agree that the question / goalpost for the question is quite stupid as a higher power is per definition unverifiable.

considering we don't have empirical proof for much of anything - hence the prevalence of "theory" in the hard sciences
This is not what the meaning is of a ''theory'' in science. In science a theory means an explanation or idea that has been tested and verified in such a rigorous way that it is accepted as a fact.

For me personally this discussion is interesting as I like to hear why people have religious beliefs and to what they describe these beliefs. My personal biggest issue with most of the ''evidence'' provided is the lack of logic in reasoning, for which you bring a perfect example:

I'd argue that, if we find proof of self-contained infinities e.g. infinite density, this is sufficient for speaking of the unconditioned essence of God
Although this is a perfectly reasonable point of view to have, there is (in my mind at least) still no logical connection between the existence of ''self-contained infinities'' or ''infinite density'' and the existence of a ''higher power''.

How does one imply the other? And WHY is this a valid implication according to your reasoning? Those are the questions that I am interested in, because for you this presumably sounds like a logical conclusion, but for me I don't necessarily see why one would imply the other.

[sonic field]

nah it is stupid, as there cannot be an answer by the definition of god

I guess a better question would be:

What is your motivation for believing in a higher power and why do you think this is a justification for your belief?

[grand notch]

In order to avoid a discursive argument regarding theory/theorem, I'll simply concede that I'm primarily referencing speculative fields in the sciences such as quantum or theoretical physics and so on. The reason I'd say that an infinity in the material world is substantial is because I'm Vedic rather than Christian. The reductionist view being that the world is organized into complimentary polarities, e.g. good/evil, up/down, etc.. One of these being God and creation. In this view the material world is infinite, and the existence of an infinity is enough to substantiate this. This angle however is a bad starting point to take in order to explain the metaphysics of the cosmology, so it's difficult for me to explain further.

In a basic sense, God is a necessary grounds in order to substantiate materiality. It is a timeless and perfect substance, without duality or change - in other words the polar opposite of our phenomenal experience. God is perceived as a necessary function of the world because without such a mechanism there is nothing in order to create meaning, in a literal sense, to change - in the same way that without up we aren't able to cognize the conceptual content for down

[sonic field]

Right, so these speculative sciences that are not proven are considered hypotheses, not theorems. (also my final point on this)

So than this would be proof for you because you have a basic assumption of the following being true right?:

The reductionist view being that the world is organized into complimentary polarities, e.g. good/evil, up/down, etc.. One of these being God and creation. In this view the material world is infinite, and the existence of an infinity is enough to substantiate this

So then what about anyone who looks at the world starting from other basic assumptions? In my opinion, in order for something to be ''true'', everyone must be able to agree on it. But if you come to different conclusions using different assumptions, than by its very nature it cannot be the truth.

[sonic field]

And this is what you believe based on your religious views?

Because then I have a few questions for you 🙂

[grand notch]

Correct, although this substance isn't called God - it's called Brahmin. The Gods are perceived to be of secondary cause due to having attributes.

[sonic field]

No I understand, this is also why i try to avoid using the word ''god'' but try to refer to religious beliefs or higher power

as there are thousands of religions across the world

So then what I am wondering about is whether you could explain to me why ''without a higher power there is nothing in order to create meaning''. As in, why would this not be possible without a higher power or why do you think or believe that a higher power is a requirement for this. As I see this in many different religions but I never really understand the reasoning behind it. For example, I myself are not religious anymore, and now that I stepped down from religion, I have found much more purpose and value in my own life than I had before, so from my personal experience the opposite is true, thats why I am interested in the argumentation/motivation for this statement

[grand notch]

In vedanta this multiplicity of understandings is called avidya, or ignorance. It is supposed to exist because the substance of reality is infinite and without ignorance then there is no reference for enlightenment.

[grand notch]

Brahmin isn't considered a higher power in the conventional sense of the term, it is simply considered a perfect substance which is directly contrasted to the material world. Brahmin is often paralleled with pure consciousness, and it is said that we are closest to this state in dreamless sleep.

[sonic field]

So what is your motivation to belief this over any alternative / no religious belief. Why does this seem more representative of the truth compared to any alternative?

And don't you have an issue with your beliefs being in direct contradiction to other beliefs? As in, doesn't it sort of imply that at MOST only 1 of those can be actually true?

Or are you not concerned with whether the belief system you have is ''true'' or not?

[grand notch]

I personally can't imagine an anthropomorphized God which has attributes and is separate from the world. How is an infinite, perfect, being and creation distinct? Infinity and perfection imply totality. In this way the dualism of Christianity to me makes no sense. Further, I find atheistic arguments to be typically uncompelling.

[grand notch]

No I don't, if there weren't a multiplicity of beliefs how could reality be perfect? We would be missing parts.

Most atheistic positions rely entirely on deconstruction, many on a critique of language, many on finding contradiction. Vedanta is able to accommodate for these views. I've actually not read an atheist rejection of Advaita Vedanta, the closest I've seen is certain quantum theorists saying that they're sympathetic towards it - but can't say for certain.

Like, I just haven't seen any arguments against it coming from anybody but Christians.

[sonic field]

Oh my position (as an atheist) is simply: there is nothing that i have seen so far that requires the existence of a god/higher power and therefore it seems more likely to me it does not exist than that it does. Now we can go into discussion about specific religious beliefs and why I think they are wrong, but that hs to be discussed on a case-to-case basis which I am not really interested in

In the end, a belief system is just that: a belief. I tend to not believe things until I have seen sufficient evidence (or logical argumentation) that substantiates a position beyond reasonable doubt. This is just not true (for me) for any religion I have seen so far

[grand notch]

That's fine. It takes an innumerable amount of lives in order to reach enlightenment.

The fact of the matter being that if we exist we clearly haven't figured it out according to the Vedas

[sonic field]

Well yeah, according to your religion xd

[grand notch]

Which is correct btw... 💯

[sonic field]

But there is no compelling arguments to believe that reincarnation exists for example, so cannot believe it

(note im not saying evidence as it is impossible to prove)

[grand notch]

Your ego (not ego in conventional sense of the term, but meaning that the concept of you) isn't reincarnated, when you die you're gone. But your karma and self so to speak persists.

[sonic field]

No i get what you mean, but that is simply a belief. For me in order to accept such a belief, I would need to hear arguments on why people think this is a plausible explanation. My point is I never have heard compelling arguments

You are not explaining WHY you belief this, you are only putting forward WHAT you believe

[grand notch]

Have you ever read something like the Vedas or Summa Theologica

[sonic field]

nope

[grand notch]

You aren't going to find substantiated frameworks on discord, they're found in incredibly robust texts which have the depth to deal with nuanced critique. Arguments are very long, not often found in paragraph form.

I'm restating what I believe for the reason that Vedanta is a personal religion, literally. It is recognized through personal revelation.

[sonic field]

Alright. I am glad that it is something you can relate you and hopefully it helps you. Unfortunately, that is not something I can agree with so I guess the discussion stops for me there than 😉

[sonic field]

Not neccesarily looking for a substantiated framework, but I am looking for arguments

[icy gale]

It will always be a belief. We can't prove something we don't understand. For me the fact that we can't comprehend things beyond our consciousness and don't understand how life started is enough proof of the existence of an 'infinite' God - because what we do know is that you can't create something out of nothing. Unless that something is infinite.

This isn't something you can prove and indeed is something you have to believe

[grand notch]

An argument of this nature can't be considered independently of a substantial body of thought unless it is a critique of something else is all I mean to say.

[sonic field]

No I agree, that's what I am saying. But my problem is not that there is no ''evidence'' since clearly there cannot be evidence. My problem is that I want to understand why people belief in the things they believe in, but usually i don't get a satisfactory answer in the sense that people don't really give arguments on WHY they believe something, but more generally try to substantiate WHAT they believe in

[grand notch]

The why for a belief is reducible to that it makes sense intuitively to each person

[sonic field]

So you saying ''we cannot comprehend things beyond our consciousness'' is a reason you believe. But why is this an argument to believe in the first place. What makes it that this point specifically makes you believe

that is sort of the line of reasoning im interested in

Just think of me as the annoying 4yo kid that answers everything with '' but WHY''

[grand notch]

They killed Socrates for less than this

[sonic field]

Im not interested in being proven wrong/right, nor am I trying to convince you of anything. The only thing im really interested in is the reasoning behind the faith people have etc. As for how my mind works at least, I cannot really believe anything without having a reason to believe it. Now im sure this is not true for everyone but idk, im just interested in the thought process

[icy gale]

That's a tough question, honestly.

It's something so abstract and because we can't proof the existence of a higher power it's quite hard to give 'good' reasons. That why it's religion/personal belief, after all. It's something you have to personally think about and trust. It's something I feel like 'must' exist.

[sonic field]

But surely religious people do have a reason why they have this belief right?

[grand notch]

If you'd like a why, it's because over a long period of time engaging with multiple frameworks, non-duality appears to offer the most compelling ontology/epistemology. This is the crux of why I adhere to Vedanta. The reason why I say it's the most compelling is due to Christian dualism being incoherent e.g. attributing infinity to a particular. And Atheistic arguments are unproductive e.g. placing us in unfavorable epistemic positions whereby skepticism is the defacto. I consider this a self-defeating framework. There are many other manifestations of anti-theism I take issue with: logical positivism, I find Wittgensteins whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent to be a sufficient rejection of it's conclusions, scientific realism struggles with things such as Chalmers hard problem of consciousness, materialism and process philosophy isn't compelling insofar as it frames incompleteness as ontic reality - that existence isn't whole or is in a state of becoming, and so on. The atheist simply adopts "we don't know" pathologically, which is fine, but they say this because of the skepticism wrought by some of the aforementioned positions.

[sonic field]

Or is it literally just: people told me this is true when I was a kid so now i believe it

[grand notch]

And, as you know, "we don't know" isn't a rejection nor a proof.

[icy gale]

Because I (and they) think there is a God and that there is eternal life to be had

But because you can't proof it it's something you just have to believe or not (and yes that can be quite hard)

[grand notch]

The reason I think that monism/vedanta is a compelling alternative is because it contextualizes all aspects of our experience as finding its grounds in Brahmin. In this way, the problems typically found in philosophy e.g. intersubjectivity, multiplicity of ideas, consciousness, ethics, the limitations of our immediate epistemic faculties, and so on, are all explained neatly insofar as they must exist for reality to be whole.

[sonic field]

Yeah but I mean you must have some reasons or arguments for yourself to believe in this God ?

you dont just believe because right?

or do yoU?

Why do you think there is a god? What makes you believe in a god? Why do you believe in this specific god and not in another god?

These are all questions I assume a religious person should be able to answer

[sonic field]

The problem I have with religion in general (no specific one for that matter) is that for a lot of them you start with the assumption that a higher power exists and then based on this assumption you start to look for how or what this higher power may be and as a result start to attribute certain aspects of our world onto that higher power. Which I personally believe is the opposite of how you could logically approach the natural world. In my opinion you want to observer the world first, then look for what or how this occurs and then find an explanation. In short, many religions start with the explanation first (god exists) and then come up with some way of defining this explanation afterwards.

[grand notch]

This is the case for Abrahamic religions

Most others don't fall victim to this

[sonic field]

Hmm, I don't know any religion I have learned about that doesn't do this tbh

[grand notch]

That's like the whole thing with Vedanta, there wasn't a God or prophet who came down and told us this was to be the case - the conclusions are to be drawn from personal engagement with the world, meditation, and so on.

[sonic field]

but my knowledge is mainly focussed only on religions that have been part of the european continent in the past couple of thousand of years

so e.g. greek/latin or old norse religions all fell in the same trap

same with ''nature religions'' (not sure what the proper english term is)

[astral lotus]

Shamanism?

[naive tartan]

It comes down to a choice. In a way truth is subjective. There are only so many things science, and more broadly humans, can study. There are many ideas that we will never get to the bottom of, and that is where choice comes in. Or belief. For me, the feeling of all the knowledge I have questions about but will never have the answers for gives me hope that there is more to us beyond death. That feeling is what I identify as a higher power. This whole argument takes place in the unknown so to say something is stupid or wrong is ignorant. It is about choice and belief.

One argument I have for certain aspects of religion is the placebo effect. Not everyone is intelligent. If believing in certain ideas brings them happiness and purpose I see that as a positive for society.

I strongly disagree with MANY things that have happened on this planet because of manipulation of people using religion. It is one of the most evil acts. There is good and bad in everything. Progress means weeding out the bad from the good.

One of the best parts of being human is having different beliefs and sharing them. I find it so interesting. From my perspective everyone's personal belief is unique. No two people think exactly alike.

[inner shale]

yea using this an an argument would be a god of the gaps fallacy

it is just as much evidence for a god as any ad hawk unbased explanation

[icy gale]

We can't proof God. You either believe it or you don't

[icy gale]

There is so much in this world we don't know and never will know, that I strongly believe there is a God who created all of it. From nothing came something, and only someone powerful would be able to do that.

I believe in God because I believe we can get eternal life through God and that God is the only one who can save us from this awful world we're living in.

I don't believe in Judaism because they don't believe Jesus has already been crucified or the Islam because they believe it wasn't Jesus but someone else that had been crucified (or something along those lines) - There are even some non-Biblical sources that confirm Jesus was crucified. Obviously there is lots of debate about how true those sources are, but they all add to my personal belief that God exists and that he sent his son to die for our sins..

Then some religions like Buddhism don't even believe in a God at all I think, which I don't believe in. As I've said before, I believe there has to be a God that created all this

Again, and I'll end it with this because it'll keep coming down to this one point, you have to believe it. If you don't, that's fine.

[sonic field]

and only someone powerful would be able to do that.

I understand the sentiment, but this is only an assumption. You can believe in this, but it is not a fact. On the contrary, it is generally more realistic to assume things that don't require a higher power than that do.

[coral valley]

just to clarify, islam defines christ as a prophet, just not god himself. they would still say he was given a divine message, they just disagree that any human can contain the true divine essence so they take issue with the idea of the trinity.

[icy gale]

Yeah, you can choose not to believe it.

I don't think it's unrealistic to assume a higher power, though. The creation of the universe, for example. If we keep going back in time, who or what created it?

Theories like the big bang talk about 'the universe' that started with an 'expansion' from high density material. I think it's safe to say we can't proof what actually started our universe (i.e. the actual beginning of the beginning - that 'high density material' had to come from somewhere...).

It had to happen at some point, but only something infinite would be able to. Infinity is something we can't wrap our heads around, but something or someone has to have infinite life to start our universe. You can still question whether that's God, but would you agree that there has to be something infinite we can't really understand (... yet ...)?

[astral lotus]

I pointed out some time ago that this is what I consider one of the best thought processes to justify a deity, but it also relies on our current understanding of how things work. It is entirely possible that our understanding is not complete yet and that there is no need for a "beginning" once we expand our knowledge. The idea that everything must have a beginning is rooted in what we currently know.

We generally think of infinity as a process without end. (eg. 1+2+3+4+... Has a clear beginning, but no end)

Maybe it doesn't only apply in this way. Maybe there are types of infinities without a beginning but with an end (we are fairly certain the universe will end at some point far into the future).

[verbal knot]

The idea to bring out a God like a Jack in a box to introduce a first mover and thus a beginning into our world is so self-defeating, for it either ends in an infinite regress of stacked layers of first movers or in an infinite being that goes directly against the supposed need to have a non infinite universe to begin with.

But if the we turn down the op question a notch and ask for just plausibility instead of proof and a non-omnipotent interfering designer instead of a universe creating super entity, we might get much closer to both: accepting hypothesis that are closer to myths than mainstream archeology and being not irrational in doing so

[sonic field]

No i wholeheartedly disagree with pretty much every word that you said.

I don't think it's unrealistic to assume a higher power, though. The creation of the universe, for example. If we keep going back in time, who or what created it?
As far as I am aware, we have no reason to assume that the universe was created, let alone it was created by ''someone'' or a ''who'' or ''what''.

Theories like the big bang talk about 'the universe' that started with an 'expansion' from high density material.
So the big bang theory talks about the cosmic inflation that started just after the concept of time started in our universe. No one really knows how time started or what was there before time started in our universe. If all matter was condensed in either an infinite point or uniformly spread throughout the universe (much like the ''heat death'') than a concept of time doesn't exist, so this could be your ''beginning'' of the universe. That however doesn't mean that the universe did not exist before that, it only means we cannot measure anything from before this as time did not exist.

the actual beginning of the beginning
Again, now you are assuming there was a single beginning, but there is not really a reason to assume this other than human minds feel like this should be the case. There is however no logical reason or evidence that points towards the universe needing to have a finite beginning.

It had to happen at some point
It doesn't

but only something infinite would be able to
Why would only ''something'' infinite be able to create the universe, as the universe is a finite system..?

Infinity is something we can't wrap our heads around
Sort of, but we have very clear mathematical descriptions and boundaries of the concept of infinity. We even have a way of representing different infinite sets with varying cardinality

but something or someone has to have infinite life to start our universe
Why would that be the case? From what does this follow?

but would you agree that there has to be something infinite we can't really understand
I agree there is a lot we don't understand, but whether that is ''something'' infinite, I don't think so. Maybe I just don't really understand what you mean with your concept of infinity and you actually mean something else?

I mean I get your sentiment and I agree we have a lot of observations we cannot explain (yet), however I do not really understand the reasoning why therefore there must be something infinite to explain it...

[icy gale]

Again, now you are assuming there was a single beginning, but there is not really a reason to assume this other than human minds feel like this should be the case. There is however no logical reason or evidence that points towards the universe needing to have a finite beginning

Actually, I agree with this. I guess I was more talking about the sense that I believe God (i.e. someone infinite) created this universe and because I don't believe that there was something noteworthy (Genesis 1:1) before this universe I phrased it like there was an actual beginning.

I completely agree that that doesn't necessarily has to be true. And, looking back on my original comment it's not clear at all, I also don't believe there was a clear beginning.

I just think that whatever there was before this universe was full of darkness/emptiness (Genesis 1:1) which is why I probably referred to 'the actual beginning'

Also since I believe there is an eternal God, it wouldn't make sense for me to say that there had to be an actual beginning unless said eternal God was in a different 'dimension' or something

I believe since God was always there, the universe was too. I just don't think there was much noteworthy before God created heaven and earth

In that sense the bible doesn't provide much insight into what was there before the start of our understanding of time (i.e. and the creation of our current universe) and I think it'll always be something we wont be able to fully understand

I guess going back to the original question I still believe, even though the universe is infinite, that there was a higher power (God) that did something with the universe - But obviously as has been mentioned many times before there will never be literal proof of God

[sonic field]

I can respect your position, don't get me wrong. You may believe whatever you want to belief and as long as you feel for yourself that your belief is satisfying, who am I to say you can't. I just try to let you think about your position and try to let you understand the (silent) assumptions you are making for your belief. I don't agree with your belief, simply for the reason that I'm not interested in believing something unverifyble. Nonetheless I thank you for your follow up comments

[icy gale]

Well yeah I understand that, these are things we will never be able to proof

Completely understand where you're coming from and I indeed make lots of assumptions that we can't proof.

[inner shale]

“I believe in god because I believe we can get eternal life through god”

This is called circular reasoning

[icy gale]

Yup, that's true but that's inevitable if you want to 'proof' God. It's something you can't proof so then it comes down to 'I believe because I believe what I believe is true'

[inner shale]

So you believe because it makes you feel better?

[icy gale]

No, I believe because I think God exists & the bible is true

[verbal knot]

Then you're probably much closer to believe in the gods being alien creatures terraforming earth and Yehova (JHWH) being one of the junior elohim below Eliod? Or aren't you too much into babylonian and Aramaic roots of the scripture and hermeneutic analysis?😉

[sonic field]

So what makes you believe that your god is the one true god and your bible is the correct scripture compared to the hundreds of other scriptures and thousands of other religions in the world?

[icy gale]

You'll have to read the Bible. I can't give you your visible proof (that you want so badly?) because that doesn't exist. But when you read the bible, and read the stories in the Old Testament (most of them even proven by archaeologists) it becomes so clear to me that the Bible is true. When you look around and see how awful the world is becoming and read in the New Testament about how the world would drift away from God it's again becoming a reality.

'Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”'
(John 20:29)

There's truly something to be had from God and from the Bible, but everyone has to make their own personal choice. Everyone can choose whether or not to believe it, and that's absolutely fine.

+1 for this comment that I came across

[coral valley]

the old testament is most certainly not supported by archeology lol

but i think it comes down to this for me: if the argument is that not believing in god (ie lacking faith) requires faith i just disagree.

you dont believe in zoroaster. do you have faith that he doesnt exist? or do you just lack faith that he does.

i see no compelling evidence that the christian god exists, so i lack faith. just like you do for every other god except for yhwh

[icy gale]

And there's nothing wrong with that. It's at the end of the day a personal choice everyone can make and I'm not here to instruct anyone on what they should believe

[icy gale]

Many items have been found that support Biblical events/persons

But of course with lots of questions marks surrounding it, so I'm not saying that it's definitive proof or anything

(also not just archaeology, but also scientists in general; although some are more theories than actual proof)

[coral valley]

i think it depends on what you are classifying as proof and what you are classifying as the testament

for example do you think the creation story is supported by archeology or science?

like 6000 year old earth?

[icy gale]

No, we will never be able to proof that

[coral valley]

but right now science disproves their version of events

you can go on amazon and buy a 10,000 year old rock and carbon date it yourself and you will get the same results that the story does not line up with our physical reality

i think both testaments are invaluable historical documents that reflect people's genuine views on the nature of their existence, and i think they have good lessons within if contextualized but that is also true of like every religious system

personally i just think that an organization that represents the divine on earth is way too vulnerable to being used as a tool for manipulation to be adopted, but i can also see how there are benefits to having a structured belief system that you can follow and generally will be ok

so i dont think believing in christianity is a bad thing at all

[astral lotus]

We should all just be Buddhists instead. Live your life in the best way possible to the benefit of all those around you.

[verbal knot]

That's a specific flavor of Buddhism though. Core ones are much more centered around self-focusing stoizism.

might be better than othets, but that's rather a welcomed side-effect than its main goal

[astral lotus]

선종 (불교 종교) [Sŏn Buddhism], developed in Korea, with its focus on self-reflection, which broke with the then established schools of Buddhism that focused primarily on enlightenment through scripture (and was therefor virtually unattainable for commoners as they could not afford to learn how to read), is certainly aimed at helping those in need find their inner peace besides finding your own.

[verbal knot]

Thanks for explaining! I wasn't aware of the Korean Sŏn Buddhism, but it definitely sounds positive and meets the Christian critique on Buddhism's self-centeredness (despite the Bodhisatwa ways)

[astral lotus]

Sŏn Buddhism is very interesting, and I plan to research it more in the future. Literature on it is reasonably plentiful but there is much left to learn about it.

Its primary advocate was a monk who went on a long journey through the Koryŏ lands to spread this new way to reach enlightenment to the people. A lot of other monks weren't all too happy about that.

But this did go kind of off-topic, sorry about that.

[sonic field]

A bit late perhaps but I wanted to make a few things clear. I specifically asked what makes YOU believe, as I am aware that there is no proof for or against the existence of a higher power. I want to know what compels you to believe in your believe and not in something else.

You'll have to read the Bible
I did, I was a practising Christian for about 18 years of my life. Although I must admit I don't know all passages line by line, I belief I have a fairly good understanding of what is written in the bible

But when you read the bible, and read the stories in the Old Testament (most of them even proven by archaeologists) it becomes so clear to me that the Bible is true
So what specifically in the Old Testament (or New Testament for that matter) are you referring to, and why is that specific to the religion you belief in.

I guess what I am trying to get at is that regardless of whether a higher power exists or not, in my eyes its kinda pointless to say: ''this is the one true god'' because no religion is unique. For example, there are many religions out there that predict the world will become a worse place because of people not believing in a specific deity. In my eyes, there is no reason to assume that these stories are true ONLY in the bible but not in for example the Quran or whatever other religious scripture there is out there.

So I am trying to find arguments or reasons that convince you that your belief is the ''right'' belief and not other beliefs. I'm not looking for ''hard evidence'' because we both agree it doesn't exist.

[icy gale]

I did, I was a practising Christian for about 18 years of my life. Although I must admit I don't know all passages line by line, I belief I have a fairly good understanding of what is written in the bible

I just want to say that I'm also definitely not an expert on the Bible and that I'm also struggling very regularly with actually believing it all. But deep down in my heart I do think this is the true God.

So I am trying to find arguments or reasons that convince you that your belief is the ''right'' belief and not other beliefs. I'm not looking for ''hard evidence'' because we both agree it doesn't exist.

I guess I can't really give you those arguments, other than that when I read the Bible I get a feeling that it's true. Perhaps I just don't know enough yet to give a better answer to this question and other Christians would, I just don't know.

(...because indeed hard evidence doesn't exist and it would defeat the purpose of a 'religion' and 'belief' - if we had literal proof of it almost everyone would belief)

[stone trellis]

Do you want a prophet to proclaim?:d

[fierce cargo]

Fr!

Let's get Elijah in here!

[wintry gust]

so this thread has been going on for five and a half months, and this is insane

[verbal knot]

Well, there are always fresh believers intrested in an upgrade path to become knowers or even better: truthers😄

[inner shale]

did someone say truth??? 😎

[left wasp]

I'll add to the conversation with some thoughts as a Christian, I'm sure most of this has been mentioned, but maybe not. I would say my thought process goes like this: First, is there a God or not? I think that is the first question most people need to ask themselves. I obviously believe there is a God for a few reasons that are as follows: 1. Nothing material can ever come from nothing. If you have a empty jar, it will always be empty. Nothing will appear there suddenly. In order to have a physical universe, it would have to be created through non-physical means. This, naturally, brings the question of "well who created God" but that's why I say physical vs. non-physical. I, personally, find it much easier to believe that something non-physical as always existed vs. something physical. 2. The odds of everything we see in the universe (the Earth, human consciousness, cells, suns, etc) coming into existence randomly is so statistically unlikely that it is viewed as almost impossible. I won't share all the specific stats now, but if you want them I'd be happy to share more. That seems to point, to me, that there is some sort of Creator that made our universe into the way that it is. So that is why I believe a God exists in some capacity.

The next question then is, "if God does exist, which religion is right?" That is a much tougher question to answer. There are a few points that I looked at when I decided Christianity was the right answer compared to other religions 1. When we look at Christianity vs. other religions no other religion has more credibility toward it's claim than Christianity. The Bible, compared to other Holy texts in other religions, is viewed by historians as the most accurate to it's original translation today. The Bible we have now is 99% accurate to the original manuscripts by our best guess. 2. The Bible is written by people who were eye-witnesses and are written as "historic" events, not fake stories. Obviously that brings up the question of, well couldn't the eye-witnesses have lied about what happened? That is true, but common sense seems to go against that. Most of the writers of the Bible ended up being persecuted to their death because of their belief, when if they had just recanted their eye-witness testimony they would have been spared. Yet none of them did. 3. I won't go into much detail here but when you look into Biblical prophecies there are many that came true. These prophecies have been proven to be written hundreds of years before the events they predicted. 4. There is a lot of historical/geographical evidence as well that gives more legitimacy to the Bibles claim. A quick example is that throughout history many credits of the Bible have claimed that certain cities mentioned in the Old Testament didn't exist. However, over time we have actually found evidence of these cities existing according to the Biblical account. There are probably other things that I could add, but those are some of the main things. For me they all complied together when I looked at it and I felt I had to just admit that Christianity seemed to be the most likely religion to be true.

[sonic field]

First, is there a God or not?

This is where I already disagree. The answer to this question is the conclusion, which you should reach by examining the evidence. It should not be your starting assumption to assume god exists and then go look for things that support this conclusion.

Nothing material can ever come from nothing

This is either factually incorrect or I misunderstood your statement here.

If you have a empty jar, it will always be empty.

An ''empty'' jar is in fact not empty, unless you have a complete vacuum in there.

In order to have a physical universe, it would have to be created through non-physical means.

Why would a physical universe have to be created through non-physical means? I understand this is your position, but it does not logically follow from your prior statements so I am wondering what the reasoning for this is?

The odds of everything we see in the universe (the Earth, human consciousness, cells, suns, etc) coming into existence randomly is so statistically unlikely that it is viewed as almost impossible. I won't share all the specific stats now, but if you want them I'd be happy to share more. That seems to point, to me, that there is some sort of Creator that made our universe into the way that it is. So that is why I believe a God exists in some capacity.

Actually, it is not very unlikely at all. I hear this argument all the time and although I believe it is a false argument, I'm interested in where you get these stats from and what they are supposed to say. There is plenty of evidence of self-assembly of biomolecules, which we even found in outer space. So saying that the formation of these molecules etc is unlikely seems strange to me.

[sonic field]

1. When we look at Christianity vs. other religions no other religion has more credibility toward it's claim than Christianity. The Bible, compared to other Holy texts in other religions, is viewed by historians as the most accurate to it's original translation today

This is impossible to be true, as there are some religions out there of which the people still speak/write the same language as their religious texts were written in thousands of years ago. Examples are Hinduism for which Sanskrit is the ''holy'' language, which in itself is 3500 years old, older than the bible itself.

The Bible we have now is 99% accurate to the original manuscripts by our best guess.

According to who? This seems wrong to me, as there are already differences between interlingual translations (e.g. english and spanish) of the same ''modern'' bible, how would it be 99% accurate to the original, and how would you even test this if you don't know the original?

The Bible is written by people who were eye-witnesses and are written as "historic" events, not fake stories

Most of the new testament is written way way after jesus already died, so eye witness might be a bit of a stretch. Most of the old testament is written over a period of 1000+ years

I won't go into much detail here but when you look into Biblical prophecies there are many that came true

My problem with biblical prophecies is that they are too vague/ lack specific information, so there are multiple events that could in theory be the 'prophecy'' that was talked about. But I could also make a prophecy now saying: ''There will be instability throughout the world and only one will save us''. The problem with this is that there is ALWAYS instability in the world and the ''one'' can be anyone, so really you're not saying anything of value in the prophecy.

A quick example is that throughout history many credits of the Bible have claimed that certain cities mentioned in the Old Testament didn't exist. However, over time we have actually found evidence of these cities existing according to the Biblical account.

This one I think is important as it points towards a fallacy that I think many people fall into. I'm gonna give you this and say that some parts of the bible are proven to be true. That still is not a precedent for any other parts of the bible that cannot be proven to also be assumed true. Just because one part is, doesn't mean the whole thing is. This is an, in my eyes, absurd extrapolation.

If I am going to write a fictional story based on a true story, then sure some things will be true as it is based on a true story, but most of it will be fictional. So just because parts are true does not infer everything is

[left wasp]

Sorry, I'll restate some things for clarity. I was just giving my perspective of how I went from someone who wasn't a Christian to someone who is. The path I followed. That path started with me thinking if I believed God was real or not. Once I accepted that, then I had to tackle who is that God. It wasn't a stated assumption, but the path one must follow to understand God and religion fully imo. Would you disagree that that isn't the first question someone should ask and think about?

Nothing material can ever come from nothing
If you have a empty jar, it will always be empty.

My point here is to talk about the beginning of existence. Basically all modern scientists believe that the universe had a beginning (Ie. the Big Bang). But how did the Big Bang happen? Based off what we know today, there is no way it could have started from nothing (because logic would seem to dictate that before the "beginning" there was nothing). Of course we will never fully know what happened, but we know there had to be something that was in existence in order for the BB to start. For me, it isn't logical to believe that something physical could have existed through physical means, ie. something was created from nothing. We know that to be impossible. Therefore the only solution in my opinion is to believe that a non-physical being that isn't bound by that same logic would have done it. Is it still a stretch? Yes for sure, but based on what we know today about how the universe started and how physics works I think it's really the only conclusion. That was my point with the empty jar. If you have a "empty" jar and you leave it there forever you won't see anything new form, because we know something can't come from nothing. If something is truly 100% empty or non-existant (and physical) then something won't just start to exist all of a sudden.

Actually, it is not very unlikely at all. I hear this argument all the time and although I believe it is a false argument, I'm interested in where you get these stats from and what they are supposed to say. There is plenty of evidence of self-assembly of biomolecules, which we even found in outer space. So saying that the formation of these molecules etc is unlikely seems strange to me.

The stats are just scientific stats from researchers (basically all the info is from secular sources). Here are some of them. https://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/ & Borel’s Law
https://www.sciencealert.com/what-is-the-likelihood-that-you-exist
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-improbable-existence-is-no-evidence-for-a-multiverse/#:~:text=The physicist Lee Smolin has,tuning” of physics for life.
Marcel Golay, "Reflections of a Communications Engineer," Analytical Chemistry, V. 33, June 1961, p. 23.
Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.
https://cyberpenance.wordpress.com/2018/08/20/the-odds-of-a-cell-forming-randomly-by-chance-alone/

This is impossible to be true, as there are some religions out there of which the people still speak/write the same language as their religious texts were written in thousands of years ago. Examples are Hinduism for which Sanskrit is the ''holy'' language, which in itself is 3500 years old, older than the bible itself.

The language itself doesn't really matter, it is how the history, etc has been preserved and kept the same through out time, how many original manuscripts and documents we can point to, historical accuracies, etc. When you factor in all the different things historians use to determine if a ancient document is reliable, Christianity (and the Bible) blow almost all of these tests out of the water compared to other sources.

According to who? This seems wrong to me, as there are already differences between interlingual translations (e.g. english and spanish) of the same ''modern'' bible, how would it be 99% accurate to the original, and how would you even test this if you don't know the original?

This is according to most historians and theologians (and maybe it's not exactly 99% but it's very close to it). Changing the languages doesn't matter as long as the message, context, point of the scripture, etc stay the same. The Bible today is extremely accurate to the oldest manuscripts we have (for the New Testament that is about 100 years after Jesus lived). When we look at them in their original text and translate them to English, they are almost word-for-word accurate with the original meaning, understanding, etc. In cases where it can't be a 1-for-1 translation footnotes are used to denote that and explain why. There are other reasons as well as to why we can have faith in the Bibles accuracy to the original writings, but I won't share it all now.

Most of the new testament is written way way after jesus already died, so eye witness might be a bit of a stretch. Most of the old testament is written over a period of 1000+ years

This isn't true. The NT was written by the Apostles who knew Jesus. The OT has been written over a longer period of time, but there are many different ways we can trust it's accuracy too. One of them is that the Jewish scribes who copied the Bible and the original manuscripts had very strict rules they had to follow. If a scribe even missed 1 letter they had to burn the entire page and start over. And if they tried to add anything new to the next, it was compared word-for-word with other manuscripts and if they were found out they'd be excommunicated basically. But still, the NT is a first-hand account of what happened.

Biblical Prophecies
There is definitely some vagueness in some of them, I won't argue with that. This article does a good job of touching on why it's still a pretty amazing, and unlikely, thing. https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

History

My point isn't to say that because some of the history is true, we should believe it all 100%. My point is that it all points to the legitimacy and accurate of the Bible. For me, that is one of the reasons I believed that Christianity was the most likely religion (after I determined some sort of God had to exist for us to be here).

None of these things are "smoking guns" and I would never claim they are. But in my opinion these things (plus many others I didn't share) were enough to get me to the finish line and say "well I won't ever have all the answers or know 100% but this is compelling enough to put my faith and trust in." But if someone were to prove tomorrow that the Bible was 100% faked or something, I'd just as easily not be a Christian anymore.

The TL;DR of all that is above is that, for me, there was enough evidence out there to first, believe that a God of some sort existed, and then second, do research to determine that Christianity was most likely the religion that had the highest chance of being right. That came from a variety of sources including historians, theologians, scientists (secular and non), etc.

[verbal knot]

Wouldn't your approach lead to a rather different world view in regard to (i) existence of everything : either always there or created by something external and thereby probably inaccessible from within. (ii) existence of life/humans within our terrean ecosystem : either outcome of panspermie and evolution over billions of years or - if religious texts are taken into account - accelerated in its development by entities that are relatively powerful but just that and also are just inhabitants of the same inside world?

[verbal knot]

especially in regards to (ii), this interpretation would be much closer to biblical, babylonian and summerian scriptures. Not delving too deep into textual archeology, but ideological perspectives have influenced our current versions quite extensively

on top of that, a theological dogma of the almighty, all knowing and morally ideal entity is already stretching it, to bring it in coherence with the actual existing universe would be a challenge, Theodizee tried and failed.

On top of that, the Torah / Old Testament are really portraying anything BUT such an entity. On the contrary.

[left wasp]

I mean, who's to say what should or shouldn't lead someone to something. People come to their own conclusions in many different ways. I'm not quite sure the point you are getting at in your first message, but ultimately I believe God is outside time, space, matter, etc and therefore was able to those things. Because I don't believe those things could have created themselves when they didn't exist. I also believe that that same God would want to have some sort of relationship with his creation because why else would he have created us? It would make logical sense to believe that it was so that the God could be worshiped or known in some capacity.

I'm not sure what what you mean in the first two sentences of your second message either. I don't think it's impossible or unreasonable that a God could be all-powerful while also being fully good (because at the end of the day, if there was a God whatever he said was right WOULD be right and whatever he said was wrong WOULD be wrong).

I assume your last sentence is saying that God in the OT isn't fully good, and that is a critique I hear a lot. It comes from a position of lack of knowledge of the OT, the Bible, how God operates, what is considered "good", and our own personal objections. However, when we truly look at it instances of God being "evil" in the OT fully in context, we see that isn't really the case at all.

[sonic field]

Yeah idk how much of a formal mathematical education you have had, but all sources you sent that talk about probability are complete nonsense (mathematically speaking). But this is not how natural processes work, nor how evolution works. Not everything is random, as opposed to the assumptions made by ALL of the articles.

For the first one: I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean entropy with ''disorder'' although those are not necessarily the same. But they talk about the ''complex'' systems in our universe, that they ASSUME to be unlikely to be forming spontaneously given the amount of ways all particles in the universe can arrange. What they are not telling you is the laws of chemistry and physics that dictate HOW particles interact and in turn directly influences the probability of certain outcomes. They claim that all arrangements are AS likely but that is false. Moreover, they claim: ''A system requiring such a high degree of order could never happen by chance.'' Again, mathematically this is incorrect, since as long as there as A chance, mathematically it COULD happen (regardless of probability).

''the greatest number of events that could ever happen (or trials that could ever be made) in all the universe throughout its entire history is only 10^80 x 10^18 x 10^12, or 10^110''. This calculation is nonsense. Because what they are actually calculating here are the odds that any 2 specific particles have a specific interaction at a specific point in time. The odds of this happening is indeed 1/(10^110). But if you don't assume a pre-existing goal and assume all particles can interact simultaneously and non-specific than the number of total interactions is orders of magnitude higher than they calculated. It is just math-done-wrong.

I don't mind the narrative per se, and even admire them trying to use science to debunk science, but I can't stand it when they misrepresent the points of people they don't agree with using misinformation

The second link you sent basically falls into the same trap. They calculate the odds of one specific event with one specific outcome and yes, ofcourse that is really small. But they don't actually prove anything or make good math. Because they ignore all the other questions. What if your parents found someone else as a partner and got kids with them. Sure ''YOU"" as you are now won't exist, but someone else would. These people just bend the maths to their will, including everything they want to include to push their narrative, but not taking into account alternatives, combination and recombination, set theory etc.

Because if you view the same subject with a differnt view, than it suddenly becomes pretty likely. ''What are the odds of two people meeting eachother and getting at least one child''. Now it suddenly becomes really likely. The fallacy in here is that the authors presume that the outcome of ''you'' being born was the desired outcome, but in reality this is not how reproduction works. Two parents don't get children because they want to produce YOU, two parents get you because they want to produce children.

And so what is happening here is they make very likely events seem unlikely by flipping the question and than writing a whole narrative around it making it believable what they do. However if you have any form of formal mathematical education you would quickly notice that they don't do their ''maths'' correctly

In the third site you sent:

''Back to Dr. Meyer’s book and the Odds and Ends chapter. He discusses how “the probability of building a chain of 150 amino acids in which all linkages are peptide linkages [] is roughly 1 change in 10^45”''

Not true. The probability of building a chain of 150 PRE-DETERMINED, PRE-ORDERED amino-acids is about this number. The odds of any amino acid chain with a length of 150 forming is much much much much greater. Again, these odds are only this low if you assume the ''goal'' of the polymerization of the chains was pre-determined, which it wasn't. In reality what actually happened is that loads and loads and loads of different amino-acid chaincs with various lenghts were forming, some were actually useful and contained information, whereas others were not and got destroyed. In natural processes there is not a ''preference'' nor a ''goal'' that is known prior to the event. All of these calculations implicitly assume there is, which is a mathematically false assumption.

As a sidenote, I don't understand why they even bring up peptide linkages. If you ONLY have amino acid momomers in a solution, peptide linkages are energetically the most favourable to form, so have BY FAR the highest odds of being produced. It really adds nothing to the discussion to say ''they all have peptide linkages'' because yeah, in a natural system, the outcome will always be that they will have peptide linkages....

In short, all of these articles you sent in essence make the same mistake. They determine the probabilistic odds of a single specific event that would've been determined prior to that event, whereas in reality this (implicit) assumption is false as no event assumed to be random has a pre-determined outcome.

If you want to learn more: https://www.probabilitycourse.com/

[sonic field]

First of all, thanks for the replies and for not being hostile 🙂

Basically all modern scientists believe that the universe had a beginning (Ie. the Big Bang)

Well this is slightly misinformed, as the big bang actually tells us about what happened to our universe just after time started to exist, and nothing about the beginning of space or time of our universe itself. We cannot possibly know what was in our universe before the beginning of time. However, there are two main possibilities. 1) The beginning of time was also the beginning of the univese itself, which means the big bang was in fact the start of our universe. Or 2) the beginning of time was not the beginning of the universe, and therefore everything could have very well already existed before the big bang. Unfortunately, there is no way possible to actually verify either of them, so we will never know. Personally i believe the second one to be more likely, but the first one seems te be more preferred by most people (for better or for worse).

Of course we will never fully know what happened, but we know there had to be something that was in existence in order for the BB to start. For me, it isn't logical to believe that something physical could have existed through physical means, ie. something was created from nothing. We know that to be impossible.

Yeah and odds are, that there was something before time started in our universe and then something happened that initiated the start of time. It is unverifiable to say nothing was present before the big bang, so you cannot assume to be ''correct'' by making the assumption that the big bang was the beginning of ''everything''.

[astral lotus]

It also rests on the assumption that our current understanding of the universe's laws are complete. Time and time again we've had to adjust our models based on new information, it's not all that unreasonable to think there could be a way to not actually need a beginning. Would that be unintuitive? Sure. A lot of science is unintuitive however. That alone doesn't make something impossible.

Is it possible that a deity started things off? Yes, it's possible. But it's also possible that that didn't happen. With our current understanding, we simply don't know if a beginning is absolutely required.

[left wasp]

Hey @sonic field thanks your responding! I am always happy to have a nice friendly dialogue, so thank you for not being hostile either! It seems like the majority of your reply is in relation to the articles I sent. Those definitely aren't the only articles on the topic, and I would never claim they are the most accurate or definitive. They are just some that I found in my research when thinking about the odds of our existence. I don't have any formal math education, but I am also not one to disregard scientists who have studied the subjects extensively and come up with these figures. I agree that nothing happens in a vacuum, and we can't take all the numbers given and say that those are 100% definitive for how the universe/we actually formed. My whole point is just that, to me personally, it makes me believe the logical answer is to believe in God as a creator.

I agree with what you said about 2 options being most likely for the beginning of existence (nothing existing before vs. something existing before). From what I have seen from most of the leading scientists, it seems like most believe there was a beginning, with nothing before that moment existing. Again, I just go where the science seems to lead on many of these issues and that's why to me, it seems a God must be involved. Because if option 1 is true, and nothing existed prior, it seems completely illogical to believe that nothing existing could then just start existing. Can we know 100%? No. Is it unverifiable? Yes. But until we are able to know or there is research that shows the opposite, I have to just believe what we DO know, and that is that the universe seems to have had some sort of beginning with nothing previous to it.

Going off of what @astral lotus said, I agree completely. We don't know the beginning. But until we have more research that shows, to me the logical answer is that some God created it all based on what was mentioned above. I don't claim to know 100% though.

[sonic field]

It seems like the majority of your reply is in relation to the articles I sent.
Yes, since you use these sources as a basis of what you belief. But I know the people writing these documents are purposefully trying to mislead people, I have to stand against them. The main difference between actual science and pseudo-science is that in actual science, people have some observation, make a hypothesis about this observation, then perform experiments to test this hypothesis and make a conclusion based on these experiments.

The people who wrote the articles you sent, they start with their conclusion, and then try to find some kind of ''evidence'' in order to support their conclusion. This is not how science works and therefore I find it (as a scientist myself) hard to accept that their work is referred to as science. Sure they can be scientists in other fields of science, but particularly on this topic it is pretty obvious they either don't know what they are talking about or they are purposefully trying to mislead people. These people are making arguments from authority on subjects they are not authorities on, tainting the name of science in the process.

So that is the reason I specifically react to the articles and what is in them 😉

[sonic field]

but I am also not one to disregard scientists who have studied the subjects extensively and come up with these figures

And this is the whole point. The people from those articles whom you are referring to ARE NOT experts on the subjects they are writing about. For example, the first article about ''order vs evolution'' is written by someone holding a PhD in hydraulic engineering, which doesn't make him qualified to be an authority on the field of evolution, which is in a totally different branch of science, or statistics, which again is another totally different field. Please don't let yourself be persuaded by people holding a scientific title. Within the actual science community, it is frowned upon when people use their title as a means of authority.

[astral lotus]

Just wanted to quickly add in that you might've misinterpreted what I wrote. I wasn't saying we don't know what the beginning was, I was saying we currently don't know if a beginning is required. Intuitively it might seem obvious that something must begin at some point, but maybe that isn't actually the case.

[sonic field]

From what I have seen from most of the leading scientists, it seems like most believe there was a beginning, with nothing before that moment existing

Interesting, as most astrophysicists I have have ever spoken with tell me that we cannot possible know either and that the big bang only tells us that the universe rapidly expanded just after the beginning of time. It doesn't say anything about the creation of the universe itself.

Here again I belief you fall into the trap of ''scientists''. The problem is that not every scientist is an expert on any topic within science. Sure all scientists have an opinion on what they believe constituted the early universe, but the only people that are actual experts on this are astrophysicists. Take me for example, I am a chemist. My opinion on the early universe is completely invalid, as I have no actual fundamental understanding of this topic, in contrast to a physicist. Just like on the topic of chemical reactions, a physisists opnion doesn't matter since they have no clue what they are talking about.

You don't let your gardener do your electricity work just because he is a ''blue collar worker'' right?

[sonic field]

Yeah a beginning is actually not required, but a lot of people can't fathom the idea of the universe being eternal and having no beginning or end

[astral lotus]

I'm not up to date on the latest models of the universe. Are there models that explain an eternal universe that are accepted by parts of the scientific community?

[sonic field]

Idk, as far as im aware, anything that happened before the rapid spacetime inflation event (big bang) is pure speculation

since it is impossible to actually measure what happened prior as time did not exist (yet).

And so since you cannot do any hard science on it, my suggestion would be that any reasonable explanation is just as valid as the next.

[astral lotus]

I know there are models that don't use a "big bang", but I admittedly just haven't read about these things for a long time now.

[sonic field]

what do you mean models dont use a big bang? It is one of the best explained phenomena of our universe

[astral lotus]

There's different interpretations to what kick-started space time / how it was started, the "boom, explosion" being one of them

From what I understand it isn't necessarily some type of explosion as is usually envisioned

[sonic field]

Oh couple of misconceptions there. The big bang likely didn't make any sound. The name is rather a PR stunt more than anything. The big bang only refers to the expansion of the universe, after it already existed. Whatever came before is unknow, but we know for sure the big bang was not the starting point of the universe since we have data that shows this

[astral lotus]

Sure I don't mean "boom" as an explosion like we know it

[sonic field]

right right

[astral lotus]

I wonder if the universe could be cyclical in nature. That'd allow it to be eternal if we grant that something was always there.

[sonic field]

Yes, there is actually a pretty neat theory about this but i forgot the name, let me try to find it

[astral lotus]

Fwiw I'm mostly a historian so I'm way out of my depth here

[sonic field]

But basically it says: if all matter and energy gets infinitely spread at the ''end'' of the universe, then time has no meaning and therefore it would be indistinguishable from the state of the universe pre-Big bang

basically arguing that heat death is both the end of the universe as well as the beginning

[astral lotus]

Does gravity persist in a post-entropy universe? That'd allow for things to slowly condense over massive timescales once more

[sonic field]

we dont know as we don't know what causes gravity

[sonic field]

So according to entropic-theories it is possible that all matter in the universe condenses to a single point again and sort of creates a new big bang (although incredibly unlikely, given enough time it may happen at some point). But since we don't actually know what causes the fundamental force of gravity, there is no way to know for sure whether this could exist in a post-entropy universe

[astral lotus]

Maybe we'll know what gravity is exactly some day. That'd be interesting

[sonic field]

I believe what i was referring to is called ''conformal cyclic cosmology''

theorized by penrose

[astral lotus]

"Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) is a cosmological model proposed by physicist Roger Penrose. In this model, the universe undergoes an infinite sequence of cycles, with each cycle beginning with a "Big Bang" and ending with a "Big Crunch." However, unlike in other cyclic models, Penrose proposes that each cycle is actually the continuation of the previous cycle, but viewed from a conformal transformation of spacetime. This means that each cycle is not just a repetition of the previous one, but is instead a new universe that is related to the previous one by a conformal transformation of spacetime. This allows for the possibility of an unending cycle of universes, with no beginning or end."

Thanks for the quick summary, ChatGPT. That does seem pretty interesting. Also interesting that it presumes the continuation of events rather than seeing each cycle as a seperate "timeline"

[sonic field]

Im also not a physicist btw so I also can't explain most of these things to you, I just happen to know some of the theories and ideas put forward by actual astrophysicists.

[astral lotus]

At least we're not afraid to say we don't know / don't understand

[sonic field]

In my experience, anyone with a proper (science) education will become more and more aware of the things they don't know rather than of the things they do know

and the difference between science and pseudescience is that scientists ask questions to try and figure out what is true whereas pseudo-scientists assume a certain truth and then try to defend their claims

A lot of people see admitting to not knowing something as a weakness whereas in my opinion it only shows you are open to more than just your preferred paradigm

[astral lotus]

To be fair, it is deceptively easy to fall into the logic of assuming something and looking for things that support that view. I dare say it happens to everyone, and it's not limited to just science of course. Education is the key there.

[left wasp]

Yes, since you use these sources as a basis of what you belief. But I know the people writing these documents are purposefully trying to mislead people, I have to stand against them.

My sources, and you can find plenty others like them because those are just a few of what I probably could have found, are from what I think could be considered reputable places. You mention the PhD in engineering, but I think you misunderstand the purpose of his article. He isn't give an explanation for evolution specifically, or speaking on the science of evolution. He is speaking on statistics (while using plenty of sources himself to back his claim up). I think we would both agree that someone who has a PhD in engineering is qualified to research probability and statistics in this case.

Can we know 100% if all the numbers are true? Well no, we can't really and I would never claim we could. Because the numbers are just so big that it's impossible to really even fathom them. But isn't the point of science to try and give our best guess? That's what I think those stats as, just a best guess by some people to show that the "odds" of the world being here is very unlikely. It isn't a specific claim on the exact science behind evolution though.

Interesting, as most astrophysicists I have have ever spoken with tell me that we cannot possible know either and that the big bang only tells us that the universe rapidly expanded just after the beginning of time. It doesn't say anything about the creation of the universe itself.

Sorry, I think this is an instance of me not typing clearing. I agree with what you say here for sure. What I would add is that it seems that while scientists say this, they also say that it seems that was a beginning to the universe as we know it. A moment where there was nothing, and then it all started/expanded, etc. That's my point. Obviously we don't know 100%, but scientists have to try and give their best answer on what they think may have happened.

Of course it could just be the problem with our human brains, we like to believe in beginning and end concepts because that is what we know to be true for physical things. But as you have said, maybe it isn't true. Maybe there was always something physical before. I would never presume that that isn't possible.

[astral lotus]

I remembered some articles today that talked about how Black Holes could lose their inescapable gravitational pull over billions of billions of billions ... Etc. of years as their mass slowly radiates out through Hawking Radiation. This might offer a clue into the behaviour of gravity. Perhaps all mass is dispersed like this over aeons, allowing the released mass to form new objects which can gradually attract the entire universe. Since the timescale we're talking about is incomprehensible it probably doesn't do much good to dwell on it though.

The timescale for the lifetime of a supermassive black hole under this model I've seen theorised is 10^100 years... which I don't think we can really appreciate just how long of a time that is.

It's also incredible that this model would allow for life to still exist that far into the future by harvesting energy from the black holes that remain. Everything else will be loooong gone, but life could remain if sufficiently advanced.

[astral lotus]

As for the on-topic discussion, no, I don't agree that someone with an engineering degree is qualified to speak on probabilities.

And you seem to have completely ignored Cury's arguments for -why- the math your sources perform doesn't really hold any meaning. It is calculating the odds of reaching a known outcome, but the universe isn't necessarily moving towards a known outcome. So the math only reflects the starting position ("God exists") and tries to prove that by suggesting that the universe is actively created for that outcome, rather than looking at it the other way around ("the universe is here, does it have to be god?")

Imagine a pachinko machine where the chance to hit the middle bottom tile is 1/10.000

Now we throw 1 million marbles down the machine. The chances of any particular marble reaching the mentioned tile is 1/10.000, which is very low. But we're not throwing a single marble. To grab a marble from that bottom spot and exclaim: "look how wondrous, the chance for this marble to exist here and now is only 1/10.000!" ignores the massive number of outcomes that didn't reach this point.

[left wasp]

I feel like I did respond to the argument by conceding that what you are saying, and what he said, is indeed possible. I would never claim it isn't or that that isn't what happened. I also do feel like the articles, and how I have gone about my journey of if God exists or not, follows what you are saying. The universe is here, does it have to be God? For me, I believe that answer comes to yes because of the odds of things. I'm not claiming it's a fool-proof answer or that there aren't holes, but every answer when discussing the beginning of everything will ultimately have holes. And I would bet that most people who believe God exists would say a similar thing, it wasn't that God exists and they have to fit him into how everything began, it was looking at "we are all here so did this happen because of God or not?"

As for the on-topic discussion, no, I don't agree that someone with an engineering degree is qualified to speak on probabilities.

I think there are two issues I have with this. 1. I think we would all agree that someone can speak on, understand, and even potentially be a master of topics outside their specific education (but I don't even view this as one of those cases because statistics is definitely a part of engineering, and I would imagine one would have the math background to be able to do some probabilities). But 2. If someone did a study on the MLB and was able to conclude that X issue was causing professional players to not be as good or accurate, would we then say "oh well you aren't a professional MLB player, so you can speak into this? Your statistics don't really matter" No I feel like we could delineate between doing statistics about a topic that might relate to a topic we aren't professionals in vs. saying it doesn't apply at all or matter because the topic it relates to isn't our field of expertise. Obviously not a 1 to 1, but just a thought.

[sonic field]

He is speaking on statistics (while using plenty of sources himself to back his claim up). I think we would both agree that someone who has a PhD in engineering is qualified to research probability and statistics in this case.

Well no, my whole point is exactly the contrary. He is not an authority on the subject of probability and statistics, therefore he cannot make an argument from authority, which he clearly is doing because you trust his judgement BECAUSE he has a PhD. If you ask any properly schooled mathematician to check out his claims, they would all say its complete bullshit and that he's making loads of assumptions that do not hold.

That's what I think those stats as, just a best guess by some people to show that the "odds" of the world being here is very unlikely

Those stats are not even within the same order of magnitude of an actual honest ''guess''. The calculation in this article is specifically designed to persuade people that can't do the math themselves to accept it since it looks correct on a first glance. And that is exactly why I have such a hard time with this, because it is very obvious that it works, since you believe in it. But as a scientist (and therefore at least just as qualified as this guy with the PhD), I will tell you now that ''they'' do this wonky math deliberately wrong in order to try and make a point/claim. This kind of behavior actually is pretty common within science itself, although usually not deliberate.

they also say that it seems that was a beginning to the universe as we know it

They could theorize this, but they have no way of experimentally determining this, so either claim is just as valid. That was kinda what I was trying to say. A scientist that actually thinks about these problems their entire life (astrophysists for example) will tell you that they don't know and will not give you a stance because they have no way OF knowing.

[sonic field]

Of course it could just be the problem with our human brain

Seems like the most likely explanation to me to be honest 😄

[sonic field]

Thats exactly what I was trying to convey, thank you!

[sonic field]

I believe that answer comes to yes because of the odds of things

I'm gonna be completely honest. I can respect anyone's position on religious affairs, I have seen both sides in my own life. What I'm trying to do here, is gain an understanding of the reasons people have for believing and think about those positions. Whenever someone comes here and comments with their reasons for why they believe, and I think the reason is flawed, I will tell them and try to explain why I believe the particular reason stated is flawed. It's not because I want to ''de-convert'' you, but I just want you to think about your own position.

In this case, the problem I have is that ''the odds of things'' are not low at all, and that the ''calculations'' that you refer to reaching this conclusion have in fact many defficiencies in their methodology, therefore are not credible. Now do with that information whatever you want, I personally just want to point out what the flaw is and therefore why it is not a ''good'' reason.

I dont know how to word that differently without sounding like an a-hole, but I don't mean it in a disrespectful way, let that be clear

[sonic field]

1. I think we would all agree that someone can speak on, understand, and even potentially be a master of topics outside their specific education (but I don't even view this as one of those cases because statistics is definitely a part of engineering, and I would imagine one would have the math background to be able to do some probabilities).

I can follow this line of reasoning, but I don't agree. Yes someone with a formal education in engineering definitely has done some math. This however doesn't mean they can speak as an authority on the topic of math, and therefore should not be taken solely on their word whenever it comes to math stuff. If I would follow your reasoning, I am just as qualified to answer these questions as the guy with the PhD. However we come to very different conclusions using the same math. So now you have to choose who you are going to believe. That is why, when people make arguments based of authority, you should only accept the argument if they are an actual authority on the topic they are making an argument on. The amount of knowledge in the world is simply too vast for any one person to have a solid understanding of all of them, and I assume you agree with that.

2. If someone did a study on the MLB and was able to conclude that X issue was causing professional players to not be as good or accurate, would we then say "oh well you aren't a professional MLB player, so you can speak into this? Your statistics don't really matter"

Depends on the background of the person claiming it. If the study has a solid methodology, then sure, because that means they are an authority on the subject.

The ''mistake'' you make here is assuming that the MLB players are an expert in knowing what constitutes a good player. They are not, they are an expert in playing but not in determining all the factors and effects that go into what makes a good player good.

I guess my final point is : No self-respecting scientists would make bold claims outside of their own expertise unless they have an ''agenda'' to do so, meaning they deliberately will use their title / status to make people believe their claims.

But this is now devolving into an argument about science-ethics, which is not something i really want to go into

For the statistics part, I may have a (broken) analogy:

Imagine you flip a coin. You have a 50% to flip either heads or tails. But if you flip a coin you will always flip EITHER heads or tails. So the odds only matter when you care about a specific outcome, since the outcome of getting either heads or tills is 100%

so in these type of arguments you have to include the alternatives which in the links you sent are not taken into account

Same with the slot machine example:

If you have a 1/1000 odds of hitting one specific thing, but you spin 10 million times, you are pretty much guaranteed of hitting the one specific thing at least once, so the odds are only 1/1000 for a ''single spin'' but not 1/1000 anymore if you do multiple spins

because if you spin enough times, the odds that you will hit the specific thing at least once approaches 100%

[left wasp]

I see what you are saying, I just don't think we'll agree on what constitutes valid research/who can speak into certain topics. I agree there are a lot of people that want to speak into things they aren't qualified for as an authority, but I do think people who have some level of education on the issue, use other research/studies to back up their claims, and seem to want to do their work in good faith are sources that can be used to formulate opinions on issues. Obviously they shouldn't be viewed as smoking guns or 100% fact or guaranteed truth, but I have never claimed those things and I definitely never would. As I mentioned before, this is just part of my journey of how I went from thinking there was no God, to believing some sort of God might have been involved in all we have today. Doesn't mean I'm right, doesn't mean I'm wrong, it's just that it seems the most logical to me. But I do appreciate your input and thoughts, and I don't think you came off as a-hole.

[verbal knot]

Your debate might have moved on, but just to provide some pointers: creating something conscious to be then worshipped by it and establishing a rule set by power instead of reason isn't morally "good" in any sense. Asking your creation to sacrifice their offspring just to test their devotion - is beyond narcissistic, it's pure sadism.

And genocidal cleansing of foreigners to make room for your devotees - let's not try to bring that in coherence with an almighty, all knowing, morally ideal entity

Oh, and forcefully impregnating a virgin in a culture where premarital sex gets you a nice stoning to death - just to continue the philippica into NT terrain - isn't a moral thing either. Well, we might not dare to speak truth to power, but saying that Mary had it coming for not wearing a veil at the age of twelve would be stretching it, now wouldn't it?

These and other biblical stories seem to describe a Sumerian Anunaki much better, and are also mirrored in the Elohim entities (plural!) of the Thora

[left wasp]

I see your point but I think you are forgetting something. If there is a God, that God gets to decide the rules. He gets to decide what is good or bad. In general I think having the debate on if God is good or bad is pointless. If there is no God it doesn't really matter, if there is a God then that God's morality is what is right because it's God (assuming it's a God like from Judaism, Islam, and Christianity that is all powerful, all knowing, etc.) If there is a God and his #1 goal is for himself to always be glorified, is it then wrong for that God to test people to see if they will glorify him over their own family? No of course not, because that is God's #1 goal which makes sense for a God.

There is a lot I could say about you mentioning the "genocide" we see in the Bible, but saying that shows me you haven't done adequate research on the subject yourself. Again 1. God can do what he wants. If God wants to move people from this life to the next, he can do that. It isn't wrong for him to do that. 2. In basically every single case, the people that God was allowing Israel to defeat and take over were some of the most evil. They were sacrificing babies to their gods and other really evil stuff. So is it wrong for God to punish those who are doing evil?

Also to say Mary was forcefully impregnated isn't accurate at all according to the Biblical account. She says "Let everything you've said happen to me" when the angel tells her she will become pregnant. Seems like consent to me. I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about veils.

[verbal knot]

Veils supposedly help to not get any "preferential" treatment by superpowers, who tend to make "offers" that you can't refuse.

Also being powerful enough to being immune from retribution and even questioning doesn't make your actions right in a meaningful sense. That is if you even have a concept of rightfulness that is independent of power.

[left wasp]

I have no idea what you are saying lol

[verbal knot]

I figured

[rocky vault]

He’s saying that just because I built a chicken coup and even If I raised chickens to life from the very soil and put them in the chicken coup, is it still morally justified for me to occasionally drown a chicken or singe their feathers with my cigarettes

[left wasp]

If you were God it would be morally justified, because then it wouldn’t be wrong. But you aren’t God and it’s against the law, which we are commanded to follow, so it’s wrong.

[left wasp]

Just try and say things in a way that makes sense please

It’s as simple as that. Is a truly all-powerful and all-knowing God exists then he created morality and what is right and wrong for humans to obey. But, because he is God he isn’t under those same standards. Because God as the ultimate creator can do what he desires with his creation (which again, in the case of people dying in the OT or NT, God isn’t “killing” them but really just moving them from this life into the next life. Is it wrong for God to move people from one area of life to the next when he wants?

And if God doesn’t exist then it doesn’t matter. Either way the conversation isn’t really productive because one HAS to concede that if God is real he’s morally right because he’s God.

[verbal knot]

ultimate creator or not: treating conscious beings intentionally without respect makes you everything, but a morally ideal being. If you constructed a conceptual entity with a feature of moral perfection build in by design, encountering non-perfect behavior just shows that what you encountered isn't an entity of the concept you came up with but something else. Acknowledging it nevertheless as such could be called opportunistic or be diagnosed as Stockholm syndrom.
To say it with other people's words: You will know them by their fruits.
I guess we're agreeing that naked emperors that misbehave will rarely be called out by people having an understanding of the power asymmetries at hand. And I guess I wouldn't dare to challenge demons directly too. I nevertheless try to at least dare to use my own reasoning capabilities ☺️

[left wasp]

But again, who are you to decide those things? Who are you to say it’s respectful or not? Not to mention the idea of respect to an all-power God is going to look very different than what we view it as, because we don’t know everything. And we didn’t create everything or have full power over everything. You keep putting human feelings, thoughts, and perspectives into the conversation without recognizing the most important thing, God is God. He’s not us, he’s not human. He is God. The idea that God should fit into our moral standard is absurd and the idea that God can’t control his own creation is also absurd. (Also idk the point of bringing up demons but they aren’t all-powerful and all-knowing)

I’ll state it again, if God exists he gets to decide what is moral or not. We don’t then get to say it isn’t moral, because it literally can’t be immoral.

[verbal knot]

Absurd or not, there are many theologians out there insisting on the Christian God to be exactly that. NOT outside of morality, NOT setting what is right by a putative privilege of creation, NOR following a different code, BUT being a morally perfect being in regard to a universalistic morality.

And - not to let Socrates' sacrifice be in vain - it's wiser to define and explicate morality and moral content independently of powers - gods or emperors. That religious obligations can be in part redundant to such a morality is only to be expected, but doesn't deprive moral obligations of their distinctive root of justification. It only adds another.

These considerations strayed away from the original poster's epistemic challenge to plausibilize the existence of a higher being (or beings). It's probably already addressed in a more specific debate elsewhere. #1058508757044314123 #1086375870542909511

[stable oracle]

If there is a God then he should be sacked by his line manager.
Nobody can look at today's world and say 'Good job'

[sonic field]

Small thought experiment:

Is god all powerfull, all knowing etc? If so:
He knows that when he ''creates'' atheists (or anyone believing in any other god), he creates them in such a way they won't believe in god
He also knows what he should do with the atheists to let them believe in god, yet he doesnt do anything to make them believe
If atheists are condemned to hell, then god therefore created atheists purely to be tortured for eternity

You can say whatever you want, but to me thats not a ''good'' god, but at best a purely narcissistic god that created people to worship him or be tortured for eternity

And your whole argument against this reasoning is ''morality for god may work differently'' which basically boils down to ''god works in mysterious ways''

[astral lotus]

Generally the way this is reconciled by theists is that atheists actually are believers in god, they just choose to live a life of sin instead... 🤷‍♂️

[left wasp]

The short answer for Christians is sin. That's why we live in an imperfect world.

[left wasp]

This is a deeply tough theological topic that not even Christian's agree on. Some believe that people have a choice to become Christian but they simply choose not to believe, there are some that also believe it was all predetermined (but there a few responses that theologians will give to that as well). If you want I can go through that in more detail, but yeah the short of it is: it's a tough issue that Christians dont agree on fully but, in general, there are explanations for it.

One thing I'll add actually is the idea that people who are Atheists choose not be believe in God, even though they know about God. But the Bible has clearly laid out what someone needs to do to go to Heaven. So is God wrong for sending people where they want to go? They could believe in him and go to Heaven, but they don't out of their own choices. Why is God wrong for giving people what they want?

(Cue the "what about people that never heard about God" argument which we can discuss if desired)

[sonic field]

No but my point is that even though i know about god, i was never convinced of its existence. If an actual god existed that was all knowing, he would know what would convince me to believe him, and if he were good, he would convince me in order to prevent me from going to hell for eternity

its not ''my choice'' to not believe in god if that same god created me KNOWING i was not going to believe in him in the first place

so the whole ''but its your choice'' is false in my opinion

because that would imply that god is not all knowing

or it would imply that he is all-knowing, but purposefully created me to not believe in him, knowing i would end up in hell

and as a final point, saying that ''some people choose to not believe'' implies that free will exists, which is not something i am convinced of personally

[slim gale]

I don't think there is proof of God per say, but if you want doubts of atheism read, "Is Atheism Dead?" by Eric Metaxas. Its an interesting book if you want to open your mind to challenges as an atheist. Realistically if there is a God I don't think we know him/her/it very well

Also I am a firm believer that free will does not exist Ill link my source as to why here:

https://www.brainfacts.org/archives/2011/the-neuroscience-of-decision-making#:~:text=Research is revealing how neurons,alternatives researchers presented to them.
There is also a book called neuroscience of decision making that delves much deeper into this topic.

TLDR your brain makes your decisions not your consciousness or at least that's what neuroscience would imply. Is your brain your consciousness? That's entirely up to you for now but the brain can absolutely be programmed without consent which can be just as heartbreaking as it sounds. It also makes normal everyday people into soldiers ready to die for their country. CIA has some excellent open source documents on this

[sonic field]

im with you on this 🙂

I am not an expert on this topic but my gf is studying neuroscience and I hear things from her that convince me we don't have free will in the original sense of the word

[stable oracle]

You guys need to watch 'The Devil's Advocate'. Al Pacino explains it all.

[slim gale]

I am incredibly curious but don’t have time to look at it rn. Its on YouTube

[steep mantle]

Thats likely in reference to a sci-fi novel, thats usually what Quinn speaks about.

[slim gale]

It was but its actually quite fascinating

[steep mantle]

I believe it

(that its fascinating to clarify)

[slim gale]

Insert generic sarcastic joke here

[gritty vector]

I am genuinely super interested to see people giving said proof

[inner shale]

@steep mantle wanna have another shot?

[steep mantle]

I made my stance clear from the beginning. This is a pointless question. I can list what guided me to faith, but that will never answer the questions faith is meant to fill.

[icy gale]

It's impossible to proof something that isn't part of this world.

I believe God isn't affected by time, space and matter - and that's also why we can't proof it

There is a lot of new discoveries every year, but those are within time, space and matter. We can never proof anything we believe to be outside of it. We can only have faith that it exists.

[barren mural]

IMO this is like asking to prove what came before the big bang. It is, by its very nature something that is not provable. That is why it is called Faith

As a friend who I think of as smarter than me said, " if you follow the 'what came before that?' line of questioning long enough you come up with only 2 options

• faith in something (God(s), Humanity, Self, etc.)
• nihilism

[sharp bobcat]

How about "I don't know"?

[sonic field]

well, if i go ask the ''what came before that'' line of reasoning, naturally under the assumption god exists, you will come to the question ''what was there before god'' and ''how did god came into existence''

which hold the exact same answers for a universe with and without a god

either it has always been there and is eternal, or there was a point where it came into existence with or without a causality

but whether you attach a god to that or not is quite irrelevant

any argument you make for a god in regards to the beginning of everything can be made for the universe itself without a god

and the only rational answer to these questions is: ''We don't know and probably will never know for sure''

you can't be rationally convinced of the existence or non-existence of a god as the concept itself is irratinal

or to put it in simpler terms, its just as stupid to be convinced of the existence of god as it is to be a ''hard'' atheist who is convinced a god does not exist

we simply don't know, have never known and will never know

and no argument will be able to rationalise either end of the spectrum

[barren mural]

Yep. Like I said it is unknowable.

Personally I believe that religions were a very useful tool that humanity created to keep law and order and to explain many things we did not have the tools or knowledge to understand as we developed as a society.

And that their time has passed, being replaced by the scientific method

My "Faith" is not in some omnipotent higher being, but in humanity and the common good for all.

[ornate knoll]

I believe we can prove God’s existence here for all intents and purposes. Knowledge! It's a funny one! I often see the Socrates quote: ‘’The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.’’ Although I love the quote because it's a paradox and serves great purpose, it depends highly on its word-sense disambiguation. I believe the sentence is meant to open our minds, not close them. I'm sure most read it and let it open their minds to endless possibilities, but I don't have trouble imagining a group of people letting it close their minds somewhat. Don't take it personal if you feel included into that second group scenario; Just break those barriers and let your mind be free (but keep a healthy dose of that skepticism as well, as I think that might be the main point of the paradox in Socrates' saying). Socrates making that statement was probably just coming to terms with how lost he felt in his knowledge and how lost he found out everyone else was in their own knowledge.

.
In this next analogy of knowledge, the wilderness's woods are your reality and the path you walk on is your knowledge. So, while walking on the path in the woods, you can get lost. In the case where you did get lost, you might have been walking through the woods and suddenly you started doubting whether you had lost your path or not. You could tell yourself: ‘’No, I'm not lost, I'm sure if I just keep going this way, I'll get right back on track’’, but then you will probably go deeper into the woods and get more and more lost. If you don't stop yourself and sit down, to admit to yourself: ‘’okay, I am lost, let's stay calm here, analyze the situation and try to find the right way out before making rash decisions’’, If you don't do this, chances are your situation will only get worse and worse and you could become dangerously lost.

.
In this scenario of knowledge, Socrates tells himself: Am I really that wise? Let me stop here and ask people questions about this to see where I really stand on this whole knowledge thing. So, the same way, you stop yourself in the woods when you feel lost and analyze the situation, you should do so in your thoughts when you feel lost in them. The challenge can be in trying to cultivate that awareness. But you shouldn't stop at that. The same way that when you are lost in the woods, and stop yourself to analyze the situation, you might not want to sit there day after day pondering the exact precise way to get out of the woods. At some point, it's okay to take the time to analyze, and then take the risk of being wrong after some time and just going for it, experimenting. I know some like the Buddha did that where they felt lost in their mind, sat under a tree for days and days pondering, and came out with great results, but that's the point, the Buddha eventually stopped doubting for a moment and got out to share their findings. But if we were all to do like Buddha, things might not go so well. Thankfully, we are all very diverse and most of us just get up and get on with it quickly without knowing so many answers and get a lot done! We should be thankful for all these different methods.

.
Now to get back to the knowledge or proof of God; I believe we have sufficient proof for God's existence. Yes, I think it is a good thing to stop and say: ‘’I don't know how to prove God's existence’’, but I do not think it is wise to say: ‘’we cannot know how to prove God's existence’’. I think it is okay to say: ‘’I cannot know how to prove God's existence’’ (because you might have other fish to fry, and that's fine). ‘’We cannot know’’ is just putting ourselves into a box. So, the saying: ‘’The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing’’ should probably be understood like ‘’The only true wisdom is in knowing you don't know everything about anything’’ (it's just ‘’knowing you know nothing’’ is a paradox and is more playful). So yes, I do believe we can prove the existence of God the same way we can prove someone is innocent in a court of law. Sure, we will never have the 'full' picture, but we can have enough of it to progress.

.
Think of the micro-organisms in your body and how you host them. If they could wonder about a higher being in any kind of way, you would kind of be their God. If you say ‘’no, I am more like their planet’’, then so be it. Our planet is kind of like those micro-organisms’ God and again you could say: ‘’No, our planet is like their Galaxy’’, then so be it. You can keep peeling the layers of the onion, but remember; The words we create, are there for a reason. We created them and their purpose is meant to serve us, not enslave us. We can talk all day about how God is this and God is that or saying how useless it is to debate, but for all intents and purposes, God is a word for us to rejoice on together with whatever is running the show.

.
Now to prove God’s existence. If you can agree that the planet, and/or galaxy and/or universe is somewhat running the show for us humans and that you believe/think you know enough to prove those planets, galaxies and universes’ existence, then you have taken the first step in proving God’s existence. If you can agree that there is something bigger out there than our universe, then you have taken the second step in proving God’s existence. If you can agree that the definition of God, for all intents and purposes, is something way 'bigger' out there that is running the show in an even more significant way, then you have taken the final step in proving the existence of God for all intents and purposes. In the same way you can prove someone’s innocence in a court of law, or prove the existence of God, it does not mean you know the full story, but it means you know enough for now to make a statement. It also does not stop you from learning to know about them better in the future.

.
Einstein was convinced and believed in God, after all, and it did not stop him from being a great thinker and progress to humanity. In fact, I believe it encouraged him to go further. Maybe let’s remember that.

[weak grotto]

@inner shale The truth is it may be impossible for one human to prove to another that God exists. Certainly with one or two quick references. If Man is to know God he must look inward and outward. One must understand the way broadly to see it in all things in life.

[ornate knoll]

True, one or two references are not enough to prove God to everyone. However, like you say, by helping someone look inward and outward it is technically possible to prove God to just about anyone.

[sharp bobcat]

Einstein did not believe in a personal God, just for accuracy's sake 😋

[ornate knoll]

yes he believed in a god depicted by some other person who I have forgotten their name XD

so you are right

[weak grotto]

Yes, and the journey to find God requires one to be willing. Simply asking the question, who is god? is to be willing.

[weak grotto]

That's because he couldn't measure God.

[ornate knoll]

so true

[sharp bobcat]

It was Spinoza's god, which if you boil it down very simplistically, just means "everything"

[ornate knoll]

ah yes, thats the one

[sharp bobcat]

Which means that you could just use Spinoza's definition without calling it a god

[sharp bobcat]

Well yeah, same here

[ornate knoll]

what does spinoza call it

[sharp bobcat]

The substance composing the universe

[ornate knoll]

he didn't have a word to describe that sentence? 😛

[sharp bobcat]

He defined God as that

So then why not just use "the substance composing the universe" 😋

[ornate knoll]

well often times, words are just created to abreviate conversations but both are technically correct

[sharp bobcat]

People have all kinds of ideas about the word "god"

Yeah then call it Schmopus or something

[ornate knoll]

true and so do people have all kinds of different ideas about the meaning of vbarious words

[sharp bobcat]

What happens with these kinds of definitions, is that people prove that substance exists, so "god" exists

[weak grotto]

God is indescribable. You gotta feel it, haha.

[sharp bobcat]

And if "god" exists, God must exist

Because they are the same word

This happens with most proofs of a deity.

Describing a thing one believes exists, calling it "god" and then extracting that information outward without sufficient reason.

[sharp bobcat]

Court of law is about proving guilt, not about proving innocence. The assumption is innocence, until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

It is the same with a theistic claim, in fact

God is to be considered "innocent" of existing, until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

[weak grotto]

What if I told you that we do live in a sort of simulation where we live infinite lives with a course correcting mechanism we call reincarnation and all the things we have and how quickly we get them means absolutely nothing along the way. All that matters is how we make others feel. All that matters is whether we put out more good energy than bad energy. This is a cosmic balance that takes an eternity to develop and its all already happened. Willfully. In an instant. What if i said we live on a low spiritual planet with an insistent need for physical proof in a universe filled with spiritual beings. You can travel the multiverse, with your mind. it is "real", in this simulation. Yet we are limited by the choices we make, the environment we create around us, the trends that are favorable of. This is reality we have created, he on earth, our bubble of belief.

[sharp bobcat]

If you told me that, I would ask for proof of that

[weak grotto]

Best i can do is DMT.

but you gotta make it. haha

and the secret ingredient is, you guessed it. love.

[ornate knoll]

Saying we can prove that God exists is only saying we can prove that there is something larger than us really. Describing God is another thing, we can only imagine and make stabs in the dark. It shouldn't stop us from trying tho, as that is how all of existance happens. Things imagine bigger things, and create those bigger things in the process

[sharp bobcat]

And how does one go about proving there is something larger than us? (By which, if I read correctly in your earlier post, would mean bigger than the universe?)

[weak grotto]

with the mind

[ornate knoll]

we used to think the earth was the whole picture until we discovered more and we keep on discovering more and more. If you want to take the position (not saying that you are) that the last biggest thing we have currently discovered is the last thing we will ever discover that is a choice one can make

[sharp bobcat]

Anything we discover exists within our universe, (including the mind, EBE) so as soon as anything new is discovered and we can experience it, that is within our universe as well.

[ornate knoll]

You can go to the bigger scale or the smaller scale and who knows how many different kinds of scales there are. I really like your Schmopus creation tho. I bet something very cool and interesting in this existence could be named after that

[ornate knoll]

it's just a word and it comes down to what meaning you assign to the word. So if you want to change the meaning of the word God to Universe, I wouldn't blame you. I've held that position before as well ❤️

[weak grotto]

it would be within our visible universe

[sharp bobcat]

I don't. I care about the existence of a deity, not about a silly word game.

[ornate knoll]

multiverse is another word that is thrown around which implies there is a limit to this universe. It's a whole Shpongle of meanings isn't it? And it is fabulous

[sharp bobcat]

Multiverse is thrown around by people who don't have an understanding of it.

Just like Dimension

[ornate knoll]

sure, I'll agree with you on that

[sharp bobcat]

But in the end, I care about the things people want to prove

So if someone defines God as Love, I will agree that love exists. I just don't call it god because all of the other uses people have for "god"

Like, I could call my cat "God" and then show you my cat

See? God exists, this is him.

(He is called Odin, so not even that far off haha)

[ornate knoll]

And I wouldn't argue with you about that

[sharp bobcat]

But in any philosophical discussion, I care more about claims like "all powerful man" or "outside of time and space"

You can't say that we don't know everything about our universe, therefore God exists.

Well of course you can say that, but it doesn't prove anything to me.

In that case, I would just agree that we don't know everything about our universe.

And that is fine

[weak grotto]

the english language doesn't have enough words to describe everything in existence.

[ornate knoll]

I also never said I could prove it to you. But I did say it is provable

[weak grotto]

yea, dont be afriad to push your belief system.

[ornate knoll]

by the way Open Tanyao, I'm sure we believe pretty similar things you and I on the big scheme of things, we are simply naming it with different words

[sharp bobcat]

That is what I've been saying.

There's no reason to add unnecessary words which hold a massive amount of loaded meanings

[ornate knoll]

Then we finally come together hurah! Sorry for missunderstanding you ❤️

[ornate knoll]

I can agree with you on that. Not for nothing Nietzshe said God is dead

[sharp bobcat]

I agree with Einstein that the universe exists. He calls it "god", I call it the universe. Way less divisive and ambiguous,

[ornate knoll]

if I'm not mistaken, he believed the Word and the concept of God was dead because of, like you say, all the loaded meanings of the past

[sharp bobcat]

But yeah, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that anything outside of the universe exists.

Or anything bigger than the universe

[ornate knoll]

I just like doing it because it's fun ^^

[sharp bobcat]

Sorry, doing what? 😋

[ornate knoll]

believing that there are things outside the universe that exist

[sharp bobcat]

Belief isn't a choice, though. You're either convinced of something, or you aren't

[ornate knoll]

or since you say universe is the all ecompassing word, I should begin using another word for what I described for myself the universe to be. 'An explosion of stars' and star dust' Let's call it... Schmopus 😛

❤️

hmmm I believe belief is a choice ( I mean I don't want to get on the whole band wagon of the existence of choice or the absence of it) but rather I'll say, I believe belief can be changed

[sharp bobcat]

Then how do you define belief? Because for me, its involuntary nature is part of the definition

So we'd be talking about different ideas then

[ornate knoll]

possibly yeah. To me belief is just like, I believe the Sun will rise over the horizon tomorrow. If someone were to show me enough proof that a cataclysm was going to happen and the earth would be yanked away from the sun, then I would change my belief. Whether my decision to change my belief after the cause and effect of having been convinced is a matter of choice or a matter of involuntary cause, would be getting into the topic of choice over no choice which is interesting but may be going off topic

[inner shale]

This message looks like so many words but so little said

[inner shale]

Einstein was an atheist in the conventional sense but used flowery deistic rhetoric

[ornate knoll]

de·ism
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

[ornate knoll]

Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood.[1] Albert Einstein stated "I believe in Spinoza’s God".[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[3] Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me."[6] He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups.[7][8]

[inner shale]

Atheist meant something different back then

Einstein was an atheist in the conventional sense

Meaning he lacked belief in a god

Any agnostic is an atheist as atheism is a negative or lack of a position on gods existence

Agnosticism is a claim on knowledge and atheism is a lack of belief in a deity

[ornate knoll]

I mean, if we are being absolutely real here, Eisntein knew best what he believed, not us. But hey, the fact he said he liked to believe in Spinoza's depiction of 'God' is enough for me to call him a believer because I and many others also see god in the light Spinoza shines it. Einstein did not believe in the God depicted in pretty much all religion institutions. It's tricky because it all depends on one's definition or self appropriation of the word Deity or God, and as you just said, the meaning of words change over time

[inner shale]

There is no need to over complicate things like this

[ornate knoll]

true

[inner shale]

When we are talking about a god we are talking about a being that created the universe

So under that understanding Einstein was certainly an atheist

[ornate knoll]

we are only not connecting on the semantics here and I am ready to accept that my understanding of the meaning of the words talked about here may be off (not on point) but the substance of what I am talking about is still what should be focused on here.

yet I believe you think what I have been talking about is empty of substance, and what can I say haha, fair enough

[sonic field]

Per definition, there cannot be something "bigger" than our universe. It makes no sense.

The concept of a god is categorically not provable (neither is disproving the same concept). This is because God is a concept that is based outside of reality which by its very nature makes it impossible to state any provable claims for it.

[ornate knoll]

I understand what you mean. In a sense you’re right. Meaning we can’t prove it’s full nature. This then just pretty much depends on 2 things, how much proof do you need, and proof of what? You want proof of what it looks like? Or you want proof that it is there? How much proof of each do you want? And also what is your exact definition of the universe and what is your exact definition of God? After having answered these questions, we can better debate about it.

[ornate knoll]

Think of it like this. Our Milky Way Galaxy was once thought to comprise the entire known universe. Today our universe encompasses many billions of galaxies. The same will happen with what we believe our universe to be, and we will need to come up with a new word. And we could keep changing the meaning of the word universe to something new as we discover more, or simply use the word we already have to describe the whole. Up to us. I’m not against changing the word God to something less divisive (although that’s a thing of consensus), because I will admit, there’s a whole lot of bullshit associated with the word.

[sonic field]

Well, the universe is a closed system that spans according to all energy present within it

And I don't really have a definition for "god" as the term / idea behind it is too vague for me

I am a scientist active within the "hard sciences" so following that, proof for me would be anything that can demonstrate the existence of anything "supernatural" that is reproducible and creates predictions

How that evidence would/should look like depends on what you think is the entailment of god

[sonic field]

How well studied are you in the topics of astronomy, because I don't think this really is an accurate representation of how physicists view / have viewed the concept of a "universe "

[ornate knoll]

Not all that well studied. Certainly not specialized. I just absolutely love to think, imagine and experiment on things that we ‘know’ and things that we don’t know. I am happy to admit when I am wrong or miss informed although I’ll admit I have my stubborn moments just like anybody else. Enlighten me

With your reasoning then, I would simply say, have ‘space’ as your definition for God if you like thinking of it that way.

[sonic field]

sure, but at that point, why even bother putting ''god'' in there?

Where i'm from (and im pretty sure this is almost everywhere), the concept of god is always concerned with inexplainable, ''supernatural'' phenomena. Why would the concept of ''god'' even be relevant if there is nothing ''supernatural'' there in the first place.

but like i said, it kinda depends on what you define as god to begin with

[ornate knoll]

Sprinkle space with consciousness and you have a little more relevancy

[sonic field]

i think the problem between us can be well explained through what you said here:

''Think of the micro-organisms in your body and how you host them. If they could wonder about a higher being in any kind of way, you would kind of be their God''

Although I understand what you are getting it, I think this is a false analogy between how god is viewed by most people versus you creative description of what a god could be#

[ornate knoll]

I simply define God as the whole. The all encompassing of everything there ever will be

[sonic field]

so now you have my attention because you mention consciousness

[sonic field]

right, which basically is something that is already defined outside of god, namely the universe

which literal meaning is '' whole '' from latin

but loosely translates to ''everything that is there '' or ''everything that exists''

but then i dont really understand why you would want to define god in that manner anyway

[ornate knoll]

Alright, thats where our divide was, I described the universe as being the shockwave of elements created by the big bang, not the whole itself. So I dont mind using the whole as the universe in our discutions

[sonic field]

do you mind me being nitpicky

?

[ornate knoll]

Not at all please do

[sonic field]

it is a misconcept to think that the big bang created anything. The big bang theory merely explains the behaviour of all energy in our universe shortly after it was already created

so the universe existed before the big bang came about

i know were rapidly getting onto a topic that is very hard for human brains to actually comprehend and i dont really plan on going into the details, but i always feel the need to say this

[ornate knoll]

True I miss worded my sentence. I meant more the organization of said elements created by the bug bang

[sonic field]

because it is such a common misconception

right so what happened is, the universe started to rapidly expand (the big bang). This resulted into the universe cooling down, which means energy could actually condense into fundamental particles and later into matter

so in a sense you are right

but in the end, a physical ''particle'' is nothing more than an emergent property of some energy resonating

kinda like your analogy of ''we are gods to micro-organisms''

but the general consensus is that the ''universe'' refers to a closed system that encompasses all energy that we could theoretically interact with

anyway, i like your ideas but i don't see how this fits into a discussion about god

but maybe its because im too close minded about my idea of a god due to where i grew up

[ornate knoll]

I find the discution of the universe/God very interesting. I am not interested in talking about God the way it is talked about in most religious practices, I want to steer the conversation of God away from that as it is just a stubborn stance of past thoughts.

[sonic field]

in the end i dont think i necessarily disagree with you, its just that i would phrase the same thoughts differently, but probably come to similar conclusions

[ornate knoll]

Alright, well I’m happy to hear we came together on the subject

Consciousness is my favorite subject to talk about because it is so relevant to us and I believe it is the most relevant topic when in a conversation about the universe/God

[sonic field]

I think its difficult to talk about consciousness though, as there is not a concensus on what conciousness means

though i often discuss about it with my gf who is a neuroscientist

she believes that conciousness is an emergent property of the exact state of all energy (matter) within the brain and therefore does not ''actually exist''

[ornate knoll]

Do any of you sometimes talk about the idea of there being a version of it in all things? Not only in humans?

[sonic field]

yeah

its not even that wild of an idea to be completely honest

but it really depends on how you define conciousness

[ornate knoll]

True

Well, I understand her depiction of it and we could call it consciousness, or we could call it human consciousness to be more precise. Yet whatever consciously organized itself in that manner to become the emergent property of the human consciousness could still be described as consciousness

[sonic field]

well no

[ornate knoll]

Ok how so

[sonic field]

because an emergent property is by definition a new trait that emerges from something smaller

idk how to explain in english though

but what it basically means is that per definition, an emergent property cannot be present in the parts that make up the emergent property because then it would not be emergent

its somewhat semantic, i agree

[ornate knoll]

What is your native language

[sonic field]

dutch

so for example, an emergent property of the combination of you muscle cells is that they are able to expand and contract

which is not something the individual cells can do

hence its an emergent property

or how logic is an emergent property of combining transistors, wiring and electricity

on their own they cannot create logic

but put them together the right way and suddenly they can perform logic

[ornate knoll]

Alright so for me to be semantically correct, would it be better to describe what she talks about as human intelligence being the emergent property of the consciousness that got it there?

[sonic field]

i guess

i'd say that sentience is an emergent property of the consiousness to be more precise

but im not a neuroscientist so take that with a grain of salt

So, one of the most used definitions of conciousness is the ability to adapt to environmental stimuli

which is pretty much present in all life

however, sentience is the awareness of one's consciousness, which is a lot more rare

as far as we are aware, only some birds and mammals have sentience

but i mean, this is the cutting edge of science so the consensus on this may be vastly different in a couple of decades

buyt to come to my point, it is widely accepted that consciousness is a prerequisite for sentience, which would kinda make sentience an emergent property of consciousness.

[ornate knoll]

Alright, all pretty much makes sense to me

We are sentient because we are aware of our consciousness but obviously not all aspects of our consciousness. Therefore, it could be argued that anything is sentient of their own consciousness but just to different degrees right?. As for example, a human might be aware of more parts of its consciousness than a certain bird, or to be more precise, more or less different aspects of their consciousness. And therefore the same could be argued for everything and it’s own set of consciousness aspects. The earth system, a micro organism, a galaxy, an atom, a quark, etc

You must be aware of certain parts of your consciousness in order to adapt to different stimuli around you right? Different parts of consciousness for different stimuli

[sonic field]

no not neccesarily. Most organisms adapt to their environment through chemical reactions

We are sentient because we are aware of our consciousness but obviously not all aspects of our consciousness.

• Don't know, but youre probably right

Therefore, it could be argued that anything is sentient of their own consciousness but just to different degrees right?.

• No you can be conscious without realising you are conscious im pretty sure

As for example, a human might be aware of more parts of its consciousness than a certain bird, or to be more precise, more or less different aspects of their consciousness.

• Don't know but again, you are probably correct

And therefore the same could be argued for everything and it’s own set of consciousness aspects

• Although i do not disagree per se, I don't see how this logically follows from the previous statements

[ornate knoll]

Isn’t everything a chemical reaction in a way?

[sonic field]

as long as you are referring to superquantum phenomena, yeah pretty much

i actually have a degree in chemistry lmao

[ornate knoll]

That could be an interesting one to debate perhaps

[ornate knoll]

I would argue that you can have many parts of your consciousness turned off whilst other parts turned on. When you are dreaming as an example. Or when you say someone is knocked unconscious. They are still conscious but in a different way

[ornate knoll]

Sorry this is actually the one I thought could be interesting to debate: everything being sentient that is, especially if we are talking about everything at the super quantum phenomena level. And a larger system composed of this super quantum phenomena would only be aware of as much of it’s parts as it needs to be in order to function.

[weak grotto]

In regards to better understand consciousness and the mind. Ill just leave this here. Its not the original but its all there. https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/10/jse_10_1_targ.pdf

[echo radish]

i dont think there is any proof for God, if we're specifically talking about Christianity then i think there is evidence for some parts of the bible, such as Jesus being a real person, but that's not direct evidence for an omnipotent God. I think that people can prove it to themselves, maybe even to other people, but proving something and having a proof for something is two different things. what i mean by this is that evidence that is enough for one person might not be enough for someone else. Some people are into the spirituality of Christianity, and some are into the logic, and everywhere in-between. Even the people who are into the logical side of the spectrum are dependent on faith, someone earlier said "faiths require faith" because no there is no way of KNOWING.

and that's part of christian doctrine (at least mine), Christians have to choose God over doubt, because there's always doubt.

and i dont think its possible to disprove the existence of a God given the entire nature of the subject

[ornate knoll]

I especially liked when you said: <<choose God over doubt, because there's always doubt.>>. I agree with you on everything you said except for your first sentence. So I will ask you this: Do you believe that everything is potentially possible?

[echo radish]

I've never thought through that question, so i feel like i could be convinced either way, but the response that immediately comes to mind is no

although

as i say that

i dont have a clue how id back that up with logic, thats just a knee-jerk reaction on my part

[ornate knoll]

that's okay 🙂

[echo radish]

i think that as humans its impossible to rule out something potentially being possible, like we might never witness it.

but it could theoretically be possible, because even if it goes against our understanding, our understanding could be flawed, or our perception

its just different levels of "not likely-somewhat likely-very likely"

[ornate knoll]

Yes, exactly. And whatever allows for that to be possible, is by definition 'omnipotence'

[charred heath]

Proof of God. Here I am. Case closed

[ornate knoll]

Oh hello! We have so many questions!

[charred heath]

Yes I’m ready

[ornate knoll]

Who is your daddy, and what does he do?

[charred heath]

I appreciate the Arnold reference. In fact, as a god, I do not have a father. Another way to put it, I am a father, a son, a mother, a daughter and more (and less). I exist beyond the realm of human comprehension and imagination. My nature transcends human language, and I cannot be fully described or understood.

[ornate knoll]

What is your favorite activity?

[charred heath]

Playing Risk of course

[ancient vessel]

if god can be infinite then so can existence. there is no argument for god. only wishfull santaclaus thinking. sorry.

[night remnant]

Hey @inner shale what is the argument called where the existence of God is 'proven' by the rationale that you might as well believe in it because if it does exist and you're wrong you'll be damned to hell but if you're right you're no worse off than you are now?

Someone is trying to use this same argument to apply to why I should vote vs not vote and I want to better understand the position.

I figure you'd know the name of it

[icy gale]

Pascal’s wager? @night remnant

[night remnant]

❤️ thank you!

[pearl beacon]

At this stage in my life, God to me exists as a dreaming godhead, we exist within God. The Big Bang was God. However due to the limitations and circumstances revolving BEING a godhead, God is not able to directly interact with us, and does so in more subtle ways like Karma, Luck, Destiny, whatever you wanna call it, subtle manipulation of underlying universal variables and systems that are non quantifiable by typical and/or current means.

[barren mural]

I find it staggeringly hard to believe that out of the ~120 Billion humans that have existed only the ~4 Billion Christians got it correct. I also find it incredibly self centered and presumptuous that out of all the species that exist, on earth or otherwise, humans are somehow the only ones that benefit.

That's like saying only the people that speak Catalan are actually talking

Everything else is just noise

[sharp bobcat]

To be fair, one of the main components in Pascal's is infinity. It's the reason why the original conclusion was drawn so confidently, and infinity is exactly the reason why the argument can't defend against any additional religions that also premise eternal damnation/salvation. Because comparing these infinities means nothing in a mathematical sense.

If you compare that to an argument about how to influence policy, there's no need for infinities. Maybe we can't know the exact effects of different strategies, but at least you can add those strategies to the equation without it breaking.

Like, you can vote or not vote, you can be a public speaker, you can be a lawmaker, or a politician, or just have a lot of knowledge about politics, maybe even be a teacher.

None of those are mutually exclusive, and that's why the fatal flaws of Pascal's wager don't apply in the same way.

[modest dust]

Why would anyone need to prove the existence of 'god' I will make the assumption that the original question referred to the Judeo Christian God of the Christian Bible. Belief is a human construct where difficult questions / natural occurrences' beyond comprehension can be given a 'label' or partial answer. This is belief, nothing founded in a laboratory or test tube. God, or perhaps more accurately any of the tens of thousands of 'gods' that have existed or still exist in different cultures around the world exist in the mind, no reason to prove a reality that cannot exist. A different question might be, when you die, does 'god' die too as the only place your exact god exists is in your mind, maybe there are billions of gods? Each one slightly different than the next.

[inner shale]

lol im curious on how someone formulated a pascal's ballot

🤣

[sharp bobcat]

@inner shale probably this

[inner shale]

“You have nothing to lose if you vote but everything to lose if u don’t and there is a 50/50 split” 😂 I think

[sharp bobcat]

It's so funny, a representative in the Dutch senate voted for a party she wasn't a part of (after a lot of drama within her fraction) and she lost her own seat in the senate by 1 vote

[tiny thistle]

There are an awful lot of assumptions behind his statement.

“Voting is one of the most valuable actions an average person can do with their time…”

What built in hierarchical value (or “ethical”) structures are entailed in this “conclusion”? Right off the bat we are, at the very least, assuming that the “average” person sees a significant disparity of expected value in the case of the outcome.

Is an intentionally apolitical or merely “politically disinterested” or even apathetic person an “average person”?

To be clear (since I’m new on this thread), I’m not saying that voting in any particular case isn’t valuable — in fact, if you want to vote, then the value of the action is largely self-fulfilling…

But I am always on heightened critical watch for places where a person or group or even my society at large packs a whole suitcase of preconceptions into a purportedly “definitive” argument.

Personally (I live in Michigan, in the US), I have a very inverted relationship to voting and the perceived values to most people I know. I find local elections, particularly municipal millage and governance issues (e.g. “should we raise property taxes by x% to provide these specific local services, should we combine the two high schools in our district into one campus, etc.) to have very recognizable and significant impacts on my proximate community that are generally a bigger deal to me than, say, whether a Democratic or a Republican is president.

For whatever that take’s worth.

Most everyone I know, including political leaders, seem focused on stressing the importance of engagement at the Federal level — more and more focusing on a (I think) problematically boiled down “ARE YOU GOING TO SUPPORT THE GOOD GUYS ON TEAM “A”? OR ARE YOU ONE OF THE BADDIES?”

[tiny thistle]

It’s interesting to see the ways in which the myths and metaphors and poetic illustrations used to approach and describe the divine seem to so often cause problems for modern non-religious (or “differently religious”) individuals trying to make sense of spiritual frameworks and motivations from the outside.

Even though one of Yahweh’s first “BIG IMPORTANT RULES” (heard privately by Moses in a DM…how convenient, you might point out…) was “DON’T TRY AND ENCAPSULATE MY INCOMPREHENSIBLY AWESOME TOTALITY IN IMAGE OR ARTIFACT.”

But is the concept of YHWH any more difficult to begin to make sense of in terms of our individual and collective psycho-social experience than, say, the Tao? Or the pantheons of personified archetypes in cultures like ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc.?

Furthermore, is a personified ghostly man somehow somewhere outside of space and time really that much more difficult to understand conceptually than the idea of an a priory dimensionless singularity containing all of the (infinite) energy in the universe somehow existing outside of space and time before magically manifesting in a Universal explosion?

🤷🏼‍♀️

[astral lotus]

Just want to point out the universe certainly does not have infinite energy

[fierce cargo]

How did the Big Bang occur with only finite energy? Won't there be a point where the universe just implodes if it doesn't have infinite energy?

[astral lotus]

There's a lot of assumptions that need to come with "doesn't the universe implode?" as well as making the assumption that the way time started was by an influx of additional energy

the current leading theory as to how the universe "ends" (to my knowledge) is with a perfectly homogeneous spread of identical particles throughout the universe, meaning there is no more entropy for anything to happen. Everything's still there, it just won't be doing anything at all.

We don't know how gravity comes into play with that. Maybe gravity persists in a post-heat death universe and slowly (over aeons) everything condenses into a single point... starting things over. Could be.

[inner shale]

keep in mind the big band model only explains what the early universe was like, not where the universe came from or how

[night remnant]

It also included a variety of different instruments including a robust horn section

[inner shale]

great... now i can't fix my typo 🤣

[sharp bobcat]

Mostly, I was answering Truth's question about how one would probably use a Pascal's Wager like argument with regards to voting.

[elfin sleet]

Watching "the Case for Christ" or "God's not Dead" might help you understand @inner shale and while i have almost no knowledge about space or the big bang Myself. I did once hear the question "if everything exploded outward in space, how come everything stays in orbit?" (the question just popped into my head and so i apologize if it is a foolish question)

[inner shale]

I have watched both of those and more

I don’t recommend gods not dead for anyone 😆 it’s pretty cringey and strawmans secularism

Not good acting too

But no your question about the universe’s expansion is not foolish it is a great question

So the universe doesn’t expand outward in the conventional sense rather you can think of it as a massive grid and each point on the grid are moving away from eachother

This effect is only observed at macroscopic scales so gravitationally bound systems will stay together

Strong enough forces can counteract this effect which is why at scales where energy/mass is heterogeneous don’t expand outward

If we disregard the fundamental forces then over time everything would move apart

So the short answer is “gravity”

https://youtu.be/9DrBQg_n2Uo

[sonic field]

It is a foolish question indeed. It is all a matter of force strength. If the force in direction 1 is higher than in the opposite direction, an object Will accelerate in direction 1. This is physics 101.

But still good to ask those questions that make sense in your head. If you never ask them you will never confirm or deny the underlying principles.

Although the expansion of the universe is not just matter moving outward. It is actually the fabric of space itself that is expanding

[astral lotus]

Is that actually a thing that we know for sure? I thought it was an assumption that the 'fabric' expands rather than things simply getting further away from one another.

[sonic field]

Yes it is one of the most supported theories in all of physics. Basically all evidence we have gathered in the past 100 years or so points towards this. There is no alternative explanation that fits all data points.

[sonic field]

That would not be consistent with the rate of expansion. Basically the further away something is, the faster it moves, which can only be the case if space itself is expanding rather than the objects moving apart

Thats an extreme over simplification but that's the main idea

[astral lotus]

Yeah I'm aware of these things, just didn't remember if it was the leading theory.

[acoustic cove]

a year without proof 😦

@inner shale has anyone provided anything substantial or still nada?

[inner shale]

Cury just because you are familiar with these concepts doesn’t mean other people have been as well

Any question made in good faith to learn more is in my opinion never foolish

[inner shale]

I would say I’ve heard some of the best arguments and some of the worst apologetics in this thread

Ofc even the best are unconvincing to me

[sharp bobcat]

https://tenor.com/view/disappointed-hercules-gif-22417674

I case anyone's wondering, yes that's the main character from God's not dead

[late glade]

I think asking for the proof of God might be the wrong question...also it kind of strawman's the religious perspective.

A better question may be: Do we need God in today's society?

I as a devout agnostic would say probably yes

[sharp bobcat]

It's definitely not the wrong question. You can ask more than 1 question.

[late glade]

Maybe I should rephrase, I think it is a silly question. How would one ever prove that God exists? The entire concept of having faith in God's existence is in direct conflict with the need to prove his existence. For this reason, anyone who asks this question is fully intending on the person trying to answer this question to keep ramming his head into a wall...thus the strawman argument.

If I asked you to prove that God doesn't exist, it would be the same situation. Sending you on a wild goose chase.

[sharp bobcat]

If someone had proof of a god's existence, I would very much like to have it, please and thank you.

Therefore not a silly question by far.

[sharp bobcat]

Difference is, I'm not claiming god doesn't exist.

[late glade]

Neither am I claiming that God exists, just pointing out that it isn't a serious question

[sharp bobcat]

But some people are, the question is directed to them

[late glade]

Yeah but like I said before, I think it is a loaded question designed not to be answered seriously (i.e. "proof" means something very specific in scientific terms and could not be applied here). It serves as a cheap reinforcement of the secular argument for God not existing. I think there are more productive questions on the subject which is the only point I wanted to make.

[ornate knoll]

Round ♾️

.1. Proof of a God the easy way: Understanding that a God is simply a human concept. You want proof of that concept? I just wrote the concept; therefore, it is a real concept. I’m silly and you need more proof? Okay. You’ve probably heard this one before… A God is real because it is physical particles going through the brain, activating different parts of the brain’s imagination. It is a real thing, and it has cause and effect. People do things because of it. Sometimes they benefit from it, sometimes they go down a dark path and suffer from it. The God itself is real, not just as a concept, but as the creation in the person’s mind. It has whatever shape that person imagines it to be. It can be painted, etc. It in turn becomes even more real (others see the painting/hear the story and start imagining something very similar). It becomes real and becomes common.

.
.
.2. Proof of God, the intermediate way: Pray to get proof. But that’s not always useful, or easy to get into. Praying and meditation to me, there’s not much difference between the two. If you want to simplify it: We all pray (whether we like it or not). Whenever you have a single thought, it is a kind of prayer. You analyze something inside or outside your mind, develop ideas for it, sometimes test it and decide whether you have faith in it or not. Perhaps you could argue that praying can be a much more complex type of meditation. But looking at it this way might come off as very snobbish. Just say prayer or say meditation. They are synonyms if you don’t feel the need to get too specific about it. I believe some have a much easier time getting into deep prayer/meditation than others. The greatest champion athletes are very familiar with meditation/prayer. Whether they admit entering that zone of thought voluntarily or involuntarily. Often, Olympic athletes call it: entering the ‘zone’. In Eastern Asian culture I believe they call that: going into ‘flow’. Good prominent scientists and creatives enter a similar kind of zone as well. To get closer to objectivity, you have no choice other than using subjectivity. You can never fully understand anything to 100% because things are constantly changing; they are always subjective.

.
.
.3. Proof of a God or the God in an advanced way: With concept, story, discovery and creation. I already expanded quite a bit on this in my previous messages. Basically, it’s the natural phenomenon way. Analyzing these phenomena, making rational deductions and comparing them to the information found and tested in the past (science, learning, living, growing, etc.).
Scientists, discoverers and creatives of all types are performing miracles of all shapes and sizes.
If you were to be in the medieval age, or the stone age even, imagine yourself being transported through time into the future to here on earth today. Believe me, you would see all this as miracles or godly things, or at the very least, things worthy of praise. Let’s make a metaphor for us in our universe. Imagine yourself as if you were the incredibly small part of a human body cell that could be conscious but never able to exit its cell’s structure until the cell’s eventual death; That could be us. Now imagine the same scenario (the incredibly small part of a human body cell that could be conscious) but this time, that you could eventually leave that cell’s structure during that cell’s lifetime; That also could be us. If you were a small part of that cell (we are talking quark size or smaller) and able to become conscious of the human body, you were part of. If that correlated with what others were describing as Godly, would that be sufficient proof for you?
And for the things we have already discovered and begun to understand, the astronomical objects as an example. Those were considered Gods in the past. And those had and still have a sort of controlling, and life-giving effect (the sun as a good example) don’t they? And we keep on discovering more and more. It is the gift that keeps on giving.

.
If you put yourself, or find yourself in very difficult but productive challenges, you will discover more and more gods/great phenomena, angels/graceful ideas, demons/horrible ideas, heavens/great states of being, hells/ horrible states of being and more… If you don’t put yourself into these very difficult but productive challenging states, it is okay, there is no rush; You are eternal.

But when you do put yourself into these states, boy will it ever be exciting. If after all that you still stubbornly close yourself off to the highly probable phenomena that are studied since the beginning (proof of god); That is also perfectly fine. Because you would be very necessary. You could be one of the few who are right, where the rest are wrong. I would tend to believe that is very unlikely, but that is just me. That is what is so beautiful about biodiversity. It truly is godly.

Freedom of thought.

[ornate knoll]

I think it’s fun to debate and not useless to. It’s one of the ultimate enigmas out there. One that keeps on giving. To solve it; It can very well be as difficult as one would ever want to make it out to be or be very simple to solve.

[heavy abyss]

Ok. I’ve been reading this thread for a hot minute now. No one has offered the one actual source proved by mankind that God exists. Because he does. The source I’m referencing is the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls may seem like old documents from archeological discovery. They are in fact some of the oldest pieces of the Bible in existence and are an undeniable source of evidence that God is real. We have actually uncovered part of the Gospels (the four books of the Bible regarding the life of Jesus). If this is not enough well sourced reason to believe in God, you are 1 or 2 things: Working for the Devil. Or blinded by him. God exists, you ask for proof and I gave you hard, archeological evidence that doesn’t rely on faith in order to show you that God exists. Even Athiests are known to bow down to God when under intense pressure. @night remnant hope you see this, I know that you are on the path to Hell and I hope to change that. If this is not enough proof for you then go watch multiple videos on The Dead Sea Scrolls. Most are entirely unbiased and only show hard facts.

[night remnant]

I can respect your right to think and speak as you'd like if you respect mine

I do not take the threat of eternal damnation well. I also have the ability to threaten your infinite fictional future with torture. This is a place for arguments and logic.

[heavy abyss]

No one takes Hell well. Who would want to? My “fictional future”? Pete I’m sorry but there’s no fiction about it. I can respect your right to think and speak because God gave us those. This is a place for arguments and logic? You don’t apply logic to God. God is above all things. How does a human comprehend something so complex that it created mankind so specifically that every single atom you need is in your body, and that there are none left over or without purpose. I’m a Christian who immediately goes to the Bible and God’s word itself. The fact that I can give you a tangible item as proof is more than what 99% of nonbelievers ask for.

[fierce cargo]

01000100 01101111 01100101 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 01111001 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01110101 01101110 01100100 01100101 01110010 01110011 01110100 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01101101 01100101 01101110 01110100 01110011 00100000 01100010 01100101 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110101 01110011 01100101 01100100 00111111 00100000 01001001 01100110 00100000 01110011 01101111 00101100 00100000 01101100 01101001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01110011 01110101 01100010 01110011 01100011 01110010 01101001 01100010 01100101 00101110

[heavy abyss]

If anyone has any concerns I not clarified or justified please tag or dm me so I can bring you to Christ. This isn’t just for Pete. I want as many people saved as possible. The Rapture is coming, and I want to see you up in Heaven with me

[night remnant]

@inner shale thanks again for making this thread. I have an arrogant narcissist saying I'm going to burn forever.
See I can call names too

[fierce cargo]

No one can bring anyone to Christ without God's work in their heart. And God has blinded some, but not everyone, to knowing Christ. Some of these in this chat will never know Christ. Some may end up coming to Christ. In the end, it is God's choice, and we're just a piece of the puzzle.

If I could lead everyone to Christ, I would gladly do so, but I don't have the ability to do so, so I can only speak of Him in the best way that I can, and pray that it points others to Him.

[night remnant]

It's that this guy's approach is bad Chad.

Do as I say, speak as I speak, think as I think or else you suffer the threat of eternal torture. It's so condescending. Like I'm a mentally handicapped child who can't think for himself and requires centuries old texts to do it for me.

We see how well I respond to threats in game. This is the same thing. God can be a beautiful thing. If your religion brings you kindess and compassion for others than God bless. But I just do not have the audacity to presume that I can bludgeon you over the head with what I believe or that I should. It just completely lacks empathy.

The last thing I'll say to you @heavy abyss is that if I truly believed the end of the world was coming and I knew magic words that could save people from eternal torture I'd probably act as you do here. But I'm focused on not lying to myself in this life. 🙏

[fierce cargo]

Yeah, I gave up on this thread a long time ago when I realized it only led to me being angry at others, lol. I'm just here every once in a while to see what's going on, XD.

[night remnant]

That's why I said it's a bad question

Faith requires no proof.

That's what makes it faith

[heavy abyss]

No pressure to respond. I hope you do read though. “Do as I say” . God gave us free will. Proof? You. Countless other nonbelievers. The reason I came about this the way I did is that the Holy Spirt touched my heart when I saw this thread. You are focused on not lying to yourself? I’d say you’re failing there if you don’t know Christ as your savior. “Magic words?” Magic is sorcery and the Devil. There are no words to save people from eternal torture. The only words I had to say is “God, I believe you exist. Please save me”. I’ve been having a much better life. I believe that your thoughts on suicide, that you weren’t loved, were a sign that you didn’t believe. You are loved. God loves everyone. God loves you even if you are an unbeliever like yourself. I talked to God last night after Geoguesser. I care for you so much that I specifically asked God to help you to know him. I’m just a messenger as I pass through this world. And I hope you’ll pass with me one day

[late glade]

Very much agreed, this question is meant to draw the most devout believers in God to attempt to prove God's existence which is impossible. A scientific proof requires much more than just archeological evidence, that would support a theory of God's existence which is completely legitimate. The question also draw the most devout atheists to laugh in the face of those trying to accomplish an impossible task. This is why I stated earlier that this is the wrong question to ask.

A better question would be whether we need God in today's society, and again I would argue yes.

Threatening an afterlife of damnation to someone who does not believe in it is a useless way of trying to change people's minds. This is where many religious folk fail when trying to convert modern thinkers who recognize when they are being manipulated by fear. There are very real ways you can be tortured in your own lifetime if you follow sinful or otherwise wrong behavior. Recognizing that the 'devil' is a force that pushes one to wrongdoing rather than a little red guy with hooves and a pointed tail is much more believable and practical. Avoid sin for betterment within this life not the next.

You should be comfortable in your faith in God not requiring total proof...the necessity of there being God is enough for me to believe in the existence of God (coming from a lifelong atheist).