If you accept the possibility that hallucinations exist then how are you to say that I'm not hallucinating this?
Evidence of your God
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
Kur'gfflrn Narok turi'kin
I don't give a feck about morals and who wants to "sin" I believe that there's a higher being out there. I don't know what it is but I have a right to follow my own instincts. I also said that I don't believe in religion and I agree with you on that. It's just a way to control the masses. I also believe that people should respect others and their beliefs. If you want to be an atheist then be one don't run around belittling and ridiculing others because they believe in something else. I don't mean you specifically, I'm speaking generally.
Indeed.
I've absolutely oversimplified things with one sentence and largely agree with everything there. We must accept however that the existence of an external world that can be known is an assumption albeit the need for that assumption is somewhat negated in a closed system of rational inquiry.
Last edited:
Just after my Mum found out she was pregnant like a week after she was ill and went to the doctors and they prescribed some pills. We lived on a farm out in the middle of nowhere and was 30/40 mins from the doctors and this was years ago so no mobiles etc and I think the main line was down. Anyway when they just got home from the doctors she realized she forgot to tell the doctor she was pregnant so she sent my Dad back to town - 1hr there and back. She was sitting in the lounge feeling really sick and thinking she would just take the pills convincing herself that it probably wasn't a big deal. Then she saw the Bible and decided to reading through it to distract herself. My Mum is not relegious and neither are our whole family. Went to Church a few times and we are babtised but thats about it. My Mum would never sit and read the Bible and its weird there was even a Bible in the house. A close friend was a Priest so he must have brought it. Anyway so she picked it up and opened it and she swears it was all blank except the words 'Do not take those pills.' That was it. After a while she put the book back and waited for my Dad to get back and sure enough he came rushing back saying that the pills would have killed the baby. She told my Dad about the Bible but when she opened it again it was a normal Bible. We are still not religious and my Mum is not a liar or a drunk or nuts. Is that God? Or something else? I have no idea.
I think a religious person probably would conclude that it was indeed God guiding your mum.
But then that opens up the question of does he interfere with the world or humanity? If he does, why is he stopping your mum from taking some pills, which could potentially take one life, but sits idly by while the Holocaust happens?
Just check the Amorim thread.For me, it's the only rational thing to say!
"I believe but I have no evidence"
I'm interested in the people who, if you like, rationalise the irrational.
Absolutely. Proud, vocal atheists don't tend to realise they're equally as unwelcome as those preaching their religion to you.
Also, belittling poor benighted religious folk indicates you're unpleasant rather than somehow superior, generally.
I couldn't reach the Homer because the spoiler boxes got too small to click.
I believe in God (YHWH) and the testimony of Christ. Evidence is very hard to depict in a way that we conventionally perceive understanding because by scriptural definition (John 4:24) "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth". So much of the "evidence" is not substantiated from a solely physical standpoint. This logically feels counterintuitive because the main basis of association we have through living is by a 'natural' means (as we are most familiar with).
However, I have had different experiences that affirm the divinity of God interpersonally and those experiences have context in some biblical passages. The first is that I was saved, I recited a very particular prayer at work with someone (a stranger at the time, I won't go into details of why I decided to do the prayer for time sake) now who is an exceptionally close friend of mine.
What happened the evening of that prayer is something I will ultimately never forget. Before this sequence of events I seldom had dreams when sleeping, I could literally count on one hand how many dreams I had in around a 3-5 year period it just didn't happen. That same evening I had a vision and in the segment of what I saw there was a demon masquerading as a person, (called a familiar spirit) it assumed the form of a woman who had knocked my front door, which I opened and was staring directly at me with disgust. It stood staring with the same disgruntled look for a period of time until I closed the door and woke up.
Now the signification behind the essence and meaning of that vision is an entirely separate conversation but through discernment I learnt of being able to see things in a realm that is parallel to our own natural existence. (Hebrews 11:3) "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" reinforces the same idea that there are subsequent dimensions (for lack of better word).
So after the period of me decreeing that specific prayer, I repeatedly saw things in that existence ranging from many different criteria; continually having dreams of the future and then living out those realities similar to the concept of deja vu, have witnessed in visions people being sick in very specific areas, prompting the need to pray / intercede for them, to then 4 months later they affirming the sickness from seeing a doctor but afterwards being fully recovered.
So this was a strong form of evidence for myself being convicted by these events, I found biblical passages that related with what I was witnessing and it demonstrated the manifestation of the ruach of elohim meaning the spirit of God. By guidance I came across Tanakh passages which expresses (Joel 2:28) "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:".
Now I'm not saying anything to displace the existence of other beliefs / religions in regards to the OP's post, this is my own anecdotal experiences with saying a prayer that was purported on the basis of (Romans 10:9-10). I have tried to compress this as much as possible and will no doubt be vague in sharing the totality of everything but I hope it's enough for others to get an idea.
However, I have had different experiences that affirm the divinity of God interpersonally and those experiences have context in some biblical passages. The first is that I was saved, I recited a very particular prayer at work with someone (a stranger at the time, I won't go into details of why I decided to do the prayer for time sake) now who is an exceptionally close friend of mine.
What happened the evening of that prayer is something I will ultimately never forget. Before this sequence of events I seldom had dreams when sleeping, I could literally count on one hand how many dreams I had in around a 3-5 year period it just didn't happen. That same evening I had a vision and in the segment of what I saw there was a demon masquerading as a person, (called a familiar spirit) it assumed the form of a woman who had knocked my front door, which I opened and was staring directly at me with disgust. It stood staring with the same disgruntled look for a period of time until I closed the door and woke up.
Now the signification behind the essence and meaning of that vision is an entirely separate conversation but through discernment I learnt of being able to see things in a realm that is parallel to our own natural existence. (Hebrews 11:3) "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" reinforces the same idea that there are subsequent dimensions (for lack of better word).
So after the period of me decreeing that specific prayer, I repeatedly saw things in that existence ranging from many different criteria; continually having dreams of the future and then living out those realities similar to the concept of deja vu, have witnessed in visions people being sick in very specific areas, prompting the need to pray / intercede for them, to then 4 months later they affirming the sickness from seeing a doctor but afterwards being fully recovered.
So this was a strong form of evidence for myself being convicted by these events, I found biblical passages that related with what I was witnessing and it demonstrated the manifestation of the ruach of elohim meaning the spirit of God. By guidance I came across Tanakh passages which expresses (Joel 2:28) "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:".
Now I'm not saying anything to displace the existence of other beliefs / religions in regards to the OP's post, this is my own anecdotal experiences with saying a prayer that was purported on the basis of (Romans 10:9-10). I have tried to compress this as much as possible and will no doubt be vague in sharing the totality of everything but I hope it's enough for others to get an idea.
Science is evidence. There's some weird sh*t that goes on that we have no idea how to explain. One explanation is it's by design or program which means something must have designed it.
Another explanation is that we're shit at science.
Another explanation is that everything is just a bunch of stuff that happens and there's no actual reason for any of it at all - I like this idea most because of how much time it means a lot of people have wasted and how annoyed they'd be if they found out.
Another explanation is that we're shit at science.
Another explanation is that everything is just a bunch of stuff that happens and there's no actual reason for any of it at all - I like this idea most because of how much time it means a lot of people have wasted and how annoyed they'd be if they found out.
My favourite argument in support of a god or an afterlife is that I'm incapable of imagining nothing, the same way I can't imagine a 4-sided triangle.
I don't think it's a particularly good argument for its purpose as it walks you straight into solipsism, provides no reason for intervention, and doesn't account for the fact that I might just be shit at imagining things.
I don't think it's a particularly good argument for its purpose as it walks you straight into solipsism, provides no reason for intervention, and doesn't account for the fact that I might just be shit at imagining things.
I was really hoping that all the way down it was gonna be turtles.
Thank you for your testimony, I appreciate it. The vision you said you had in your 3rd paragraph is similar to something I've experienced numerous times myself: sleep paralysis. In my case, it's been an entity I can only describe as evil. It sits on my chest or my back (depending on how I've fallen asleep) and whispers horrible things in my ear. I feel like I am semi-awake, frozen in fear, because I don't want the entity to know that I'm aware of their presence. I can never remember what they said when I wake up, just the 'vibe', and it's very sinister. Utterly terrifying experience, but one that I attribute to a defence mechanism: my body might be inclined to get up and sleepwalk - which is inherently dangerous - so my brain terrifies it into not moving a muscle.
Personal experiences are very important to some people, but they're kind of untestable, because they're your experiences. And I'm not interested in dismissing what you've gone through. I'm interested in the praying for your friends, though. I asked another poster this: does your God intercede on your behalf, or people you pray for? If so, why doesn't he seem to answer other people's prayers? What's the criteria for him getting involved?
And you seem to be implying you're a bit of a prophet? Am I reading that right?
Well, I'd argue that there was never 'nothing'. I think time/matter/energy are eternal.
Our brains and senses are adapted to perceive the universe in a way to assist our own survival based on the limitations of our bodies, and not to unlock the boundless mysteries of the infinite universe.
Of course our science is somewhat shit.
I once saw a face on a slice of toast that looked like Jesus but Asian so I believe in Korean Jesus.
I'd disagree. I mean, here we are, in this thread, contemplating the universe. I don't know if the mysteries are boundless, as such, but I think we're always improving our understanding of what the universe is and how we came to be a part of it. We've invented devices to detect the moments just before the rapid expansion of the universe, and I think we'll know more as time goes by. I think we're doing pretty well.
I agree that our brains and senses developed in order to assist our survival, but they've also evolved to become curious about the reality outside of our own location. It's a bit like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: we've sorted out the basic stuff, now we're moving up the triangle to the immaterial stuff.
Under our current understanding of thermodynamics doesn't energy have to be eternal? Possibly matter also?
I don't really understand time but it would seem that at least the past is finite. Otherwise we'd have had to go past an infinite amount of time to get where we are and nothing has that kind of patience.
I don't believe anything that matters. I understand them based on the evidence. When the evidence changes so does my understanding.
Well, time couldn't have been created, in my opinion. A lot of theists think that God created time and the universe, but it doesn't make sense to me. In order to create something, there's a 'before that thing existed' and an 'after that thing is created'. If I build a house, for example, that house initially didn't exist, then there was a period of time when the house was being built, then an 'after' it is built.
So, was there a time when there was 'no time' then God created time? How does that logically follow, when the act of creation is dependent on time itself? There can't have been a time when there was 'no time', because that would entail a 'before time' and an 'after time is created'. For God to create time, takes time! So, it had to exist already.
If someone proved that it was acceptable (this is hypothetical -- ad absurdum -- but for a reason) to kill your neighbor (forget that it will not be proven), would you then agree?
That is, whatever people classify themselves as with respect to reason or science to pretend that reason or science is the source of moral understanding (in the most important sense) or that such can overturn what it is one is born with and raised to understand -- these are belief systems which emerge from a sense of something which is either just or unjust and that sense is innate. Now, the point I'm making is that everyone has a belief system. And morality is one of the hardest things you could ever hope to prove (it can be done in minimalist forms). Why, to be Newtonian in moral philosophy (why do objects not float upward instead of falling down), that is, do you not murder people? It is because you are born with a sense which is innate and which is later subsumed by categorical logics and understandings (belief systems). Now, these are necessary belief systems.
The point, tl;dr, is that this commitment to "if there comes a proof of this or that, then I will change my beliefs" (if we take it to the extreme and situate it where belief systems, for everyone, as it goes, must exist), it sounds insane. I understand your context which is scientific but within a society there is morality (secular or otherwise) and this is a belief system (you cannot argue that it isn't very easily: other than the system of belief is secondary with respect to the innatism of that which is considered just or unjust).
All I prove, to be even more concise, is that you do have a belief system but I understand the distinction you make with respect to evidence and science. The belief system you have is bigger than science and even evidence in many cases if we want to go into it (the actions which are not just of people). It is a moral belief system and this is necessary. Nor can any argument, surely, convince you to be immortal regardless of how well it is presented or proven.
Last edited:
"Think on this Burger Boy: My nephew is a cnut hair away from controlling all of North Jersey... and I am that cnut hair!" Corrado Soprano
That still leaves us all having passed an infinite amount of time to be at the present, which doesn't feel right. Also, we're defining time with time, after I already said I don't understand time!
It really isn't a belief system.
Science, logic (or athiesm for that matter) aren't "belief systems" as that would involve confusing epitemology with ontology.
Rational systems (like science, logic, or atheism) don’t claim to know everything with certainty. They work with degrees of confidence based on evidence. Saying "you can't prove you exist, therefore rationality is just another belief system" is also a category error. Existence is a precondition for asking questions, or making logical arguments, or claiming we can't know anything for sure. It is as absurb as asking someone to prove logic without using logic.
Whether you believe in God or not, you must surely suppose that if there is a God (if we are being hypothetical), then causality of one who would understand that which God created is not fit to understand such at all. I.e., if you believe in God, or do not but will argue it, you have to assume, minimally, that human understanding is infinitely tiny with respect to all there is to understand (and science does do this for the most part). I.e., contradictions within logic and reason are not as convincing as they seem if you really are going to make this argument one way or another (it matters not whether you believe in God or not -- that's the philosophical tradition but many of them were ignorant of their own necessary "fallibility" and that of logic and reason too). Godel, for example, said there was a God but his proof is nothing like "acceptable" to me even though it is logically and categorically more robust, within this "is there isn't there" tradition than many others (regardless of their conclusions).
I think the more useful argument/debate is whether the human being exists. This is nuanced, but you juxtapose it against the human condition(s) throughout history. I argue that indeed it does but it's a very, very, long argument. It's more useful because you can accomplish something with that kind of argument within the only realm which exists: what is and is not acceptable for people to do (and thus progress within the species).
I have been writing that thesis for three years. The idea came from a famous thesis called "have we ever been modern?" (Bruno Latour iirc). I merely change the frame and ask "have we ever been "human". It's a rich dialogue.
Last edited:
There's a Big Bang - Big Crunch model, which posits that the universe expands, slows down, contracts, and repeats this over and over again. Time being eternal is consistent with this particular theory of the universe.
See my answer above. Rationality is a closed system that both assumes that the external world is real and knowable and negates the need for such an assumption *I happen to agree it is the correct one*. As harms pointed out, my statement was a lazy one but the question posed by this thread is also a little lazy.
Yeah, but then you get to the question of who created God? And if your answer is no one, then why does the universe need one? My world view has one step less than a creator-initiated reality, so it's more logical to assume mine is the one we should go with.
And I don't agree that human understanding is infinitely tiny. Compared to who's?
I mean, I think I understand your point @neverdie: if God exists, he's too complex for us to understand?
I disagree, though. What's too complex about him? He's logically contradictory in many theistic world views. And logical contradictions are false by definition.
I disagree, though. What's too complex about him? He's logically contradictory in many theistic world views. And logical contradictions are false by definition.
Science is God. Literally. That is what i believe in.
That's the famous chinese turtle game. The world is held up by a turtle. And what holds that turtle? Turtles all the way down.
The argument I made, not actually myself trying to prove that God exists or does not, is that human understandings of causality (as you have above) are basically infantile. There is not the necessity you see in that logical move. "You have to then ask because it follows..." -- that entire structure, which is classical logic, is not really adequate.
The human being cannot even understand one single atom. You say we can, but then what is it? And before answering, I want an entire scientific history (epistemological) and also a scientific order (ontological). That is, where is the unified theory? Without that, you have not the "meaning" of the atom. Now that's a reminder to be humble -- for me, personally.
Now, there never can be a unified theory for a million different reasons but science wants one and will verge toward a kind of secular split (denominationalism) as it attempts to find it (and fails, too).
Between functionality and ontology there is a massive gap.
The universe, surely, if you are scientific, is pretty complex? Now in "good faith" if you assume God exists, you think him less complex than that?
Belief in 'a God', is recognised as an act of faith, in almost all mainstream religions.
Proof of a 'God' is not an option for human understanding, because there is none available either way, you either have faith, or you don't.
Belief systems are a different thing, some involve a 'supreme being' or a God of some kind, others don't, the 'belief' is usually formulated or based on the human ability to think about and rationalise the world around them.
Whether someone has 'a faith' or 'a belief system' or non at all, there is generally an acceptance at some level, of human frailty in any of these, perhaps proving that if there is a God/supreme being, they are not human.
Then we turn to the existence of other life forms in the universe and what part if any would such life forms have in resolving our differences in belief systems.... or indeed in having 'a Faith'?
Proof of a 'God' is not an option for human understanding, because there is none available either way, you either have faith, or you don't.
Belief systems are a different thing, some involve a 'supreme being' or a God of some kind, others don't, the 'belief' is usually formulated or based on the human ability to think about and rationalise the world around them.
Whether someone has 'a faith' or 'a belief system' or non at all, there is generally an acceptance at some level, of human frailty in any of these, perhaps proving that if there is a God/supreme being, they are not human.
Then we turn to the existence of other life forms in the universe and what part if any would such life forms have in resolving our differences in belief systems.... or indeed in having 'a Faith'?
I believe there are definitely phenomena that defy our current understanding of science but are real nonetheless, as strange as some things seem. We can explain many things with science now that were attributed to supernatural sources hundreds and thousands of years ago. I think 500 years in the future, some things that people perceive as supernatural now will be understood as science in the future. I think some relates to how emergent phenomena are field dependent. There are some phenomena that can't be produced in laboratory settings because the conditions require a complex chain of circumstances that only make them possible in the field.
Many mass-murderers have held the same conviction. That belief is the cornerstone of eugenics for example. That it's all disproven and nonsense doesn't help the millions it has murdered.
Nor do I pretend that people have not murdered people "with-belief-in-God" either. Again, it's what people do with what they have that counts, really, both ideologically and technically (you cannot divide the two).
Yours is an interesting stance (and I know you're not trying to prove God's existence, you're just putting forward ideas and thoughts). But I think you're making suppositions, namely that we're too stupid, or God is too complex (or maybe both), and I don't understand why? We know that we exist. We know we can explain things that are real. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that the reason we can't explain the thing we have no evidence of (God), is not a lack of evidence, but a lack of ability on our part.
Things don't exist by default. Baboons the size of stars don't exist until we find evidence that they do. It's not because we're intellectual amoebas, or the baboons are beyond our realm of understanding. They're not there to begin with.
That's an older hypothesis that isn't consistent with our current evidence since the expansion of the universe is accelerating not slowing down.
Alright Ricky, looking for some new stand up material?