Evidence for God... (page 19)

still thinking

It isn't a new realm if you just add 'super' to it....tec

Isn't it? What is supernatural then? If not another realm?

super + natural = God or spirtual experience.

tec

I think you missed what that comment referred to, Still.

IO, I can define some properties of the spiritual (property is a physical word though, so probably even that is wrong)... though I am probably mistaken in at least some. But you are correct... I have not been there, so cannot 'see' it. I can only get a sense of it.

- consciousness, awareness, emotion, will, thoughts, connection to and in all... God. A form of energy. The ability to remain 'you' with or without the flesh. What makes you, 'you'... underneath your physical being.

As I said, I think it is unlikely to conceive of something outside the physical or known natural, without having a sense or example of that something to begin with. I could be wrong, and if someone can show me proof otherwise (or very strong evidence), then I will discard this idea. It does not hurt my faith, the most I would have to lose is well... my supposed wisdom, lol. So while my pride might smart, I am not afraid of it.

I just figure that if I had not known Christ, upon whom my faith rests, that this could lead me to reason to a deistic pov : Belief in the Spirit exists, because the spiritual exists and we can sense that. I know that I do sense this, and so do many others. (like buddhists) So I hypothesis that this was the same for the ancient people, and that is how 'gods, goddesses, creators, spirits' were born.

Peace,

tammy

NewChapter

I could be wrong, and if someone can show me proof otherwise (or very strong evidence),

Invisible friends---all around the world---over an expanse of time---independent. Does that not even make you wonder about your position on this?

NC

tec

That statement didn't... so perhaps if you clarify, lol?

InterestedOne

tec - Thank you for providing some properties of the claimed spiritual realm. I will think about them.

NewChapter

That statement didn't... so perhaps if you clarify, lol?

Was this meant for me? We went into a great deal of detail about imaginary friends, and the fact that children everywhere, independent of each other, create them. In other words, something about our brains enables this common theme even though the details may be very different. To use your argument, this would be proof that invisible friends exist. But they don't. So why does this argument work for the creation of gods, but not the creation of invisible friends?

Your argument for gods: People everywhere, and independently of each other, thought up gods. They could not base this on the natural world, and so they could not have come up with such ideas themselves. There must be gods.

My argument for invisible friends: Children everywhere, and indpendently of each other, thought up invisible friends. They could not base this on the natural world, so they could not have come up with such ideas themselvs. There must be invisible friends.

tec

Ah. No, that is not really my argument. From my OP:

Humanity has shown a need or desire to seek out the spiritual. Every single culture that we know of, even those that develop in isolation, has had a belief in god/goddess/creator/spirit(s). From as far back as we can trace the beginning, this has been shown to be true.

Explanations have been offered that mankind assigned to a 'god' what mankind could not explain. But I cannot see this as being possible. How can a purely natural species conceive of the spiritual/the supernatural?

Conceiving of something beyond the physical/known natural world...such as the spiritual (which may include god/goddess/creator/spirits) is evidence for there being a spiritual realm/state/whatever.

Conceiving of imaginary friends is different. We don't outlearn the need for them... we outgrow the need for them. Humanity has not outgrown the need for the spiritual... because it is a part of us. We are spiritual creatures, as well as physical ones. We may get what we think the spiritual is wrong. (its properties, so to speak) But we still concieve of, feel, and seek it.

Peace,

tammy

tec

You're welcome, IO. My brain is also trying to work on conceiving something new and unknown, but it feels like trying to imagine for real... the unimaginable, lol.

Peace,

tammy

NewChapter

We don't outlearn the need for them... we outgrow the need for them. Humanity has not outgrown the need for the spiritual... because it is a part of us.

Would it surprise you to know that I feel I have both outlearned and outgrown the need for the spiritual? Once I understood and accepted there was an alternative, it was easy. Humanity, throughout history, did not realize there was an alternative. Now accumulated knowledge has shown us that there is indeed another way to view things---and it appears that every year, more and more are leaving behind the spiritual.

I view it as a collective coming of age. There is nothing left of a spiritual---at all--for those that outlearn and outgrow it. And I miss it as much as I would miss a imaginary friend, although I'm sure if I had one, it would be very important to me and I would panic at the fear of its loss---but once gone, it's gone.

NC

Twitch

The question remains, if you remove the person and their feelings from the equation, where is the evidence for god?

Evidence for God...

Share this