Evidence for God... (page 20)

still thinking

I am not sure what your point is about trying to imagine something new and unknown tec...all the concepts that have been pointed to point to the fact that the spirit realm has been created in the minds of men because of natural events...there is a connection.

In fact..it all leads back ironically to your evidence that we cannot conceive of an idea outside the natural world. Hallucinations are natural....imaginary friends are natural...dreams are natural....imagination is natural....the idea that you cannot come up with a new idea proves nothing execpt that we are limitied by our experiences....and you are limited by your own imagination. Others may not be so limited. I know I am not overly creative....I would probably never have come up with an alien idea if left to my own imagination.

I didn't miss what your 'super' comment referred to....I just applied you reasoning to mine.

And I think the concept you are referring to could more rightly be called....superspiritual....not super supernatural.

Adding the word super does seem to automatically give it new meaning....what is superspritual? What is greater than God? Actually, that is not so hard to imagine when we consider some gnostics believed that Jehovah or God as we know him was only the offspring of a much greater god/entitiy. And sophia his mother. The concept is far larger than your very simplistic god...mabe this god is superspiritual or super supernatural.

tec

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.

No, it would not surprise me ;)

Just because there is an alternative though, does not make the alternative correct.

(and the last part of your statement is sort of just following prophecy... <.<... though I realize that some might posit that this was just a clever 'safety'; though it would still imply that they knew that faith would lessen and be hard to find)

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

I don't know how we would know otherwise. Is that question sort of like... if a tree falls, and no one hears it, does it still make a sound?

Peace,

tammy

still thinking

(and the last part of your statement is sort of just following prophecy... <.<... though I realize that some might posit that this was just a clever 'safety'; though it would still imply that they knew that faith would lessen and be hard to find)...tec

If someone invents something themselves....it is not much of a prophesy to suggest that people will figure out it was made up. It is inevitable.

NewChapter

Regarding Santa:

Children outlearn and outgrow Santa---with the support of their parents and society. But what if the parents didn't want the child to give up Santa? The only reason the child believes in santa is because the parents and society have given them the message--so they believe. But what if the parents or society has something to gain by keeping the myth alive? Perhaps their parents felt the same, and so they still believe themselves. Maybe they just want the added control (better watch out, better not shout) or they wanted to use it to comfort (santa claus is coming to town).

So they teach you to write letters to santa. You ask for a doll, a bike, a book, and an easy oven. You get the easy oven. "See! Santa read your letter and give you the oven!" Confirmation. No mention of the doll, bike, and book. Santa limits it to one gift you see. Or what if you didn't get ANY of that, but you got socks? Well Santa knew you needed socks more than you needed the toys. it's not as fun, but it's best. OR maybe he gave away those other gifts to other children that had a lot less toys than you did. But it's never because santa didn't read the letter or respond to it.

If everytime something good happened it was attributed to santa, and if every time you had a special warm feeling it was attributed to the spirit of christmas, you would believe even as an adult. You would teach your children about him. You would feel bad for those that never heard of santa, cuz they aren't writing letters. You will look for confirmation every.

And if someone comes along and tells you there is no santa---you have been fortified with every reasoning conceivable to defend the existence of santa. You will not outlearn and outgrow santa.

NC

tec

If someone invents something themselves....it is not much of a prophesy to suggest that people will figure out it was made up. It is inevitable.

Assuming someone invented it themselves.

NC, I think your santa analogy depends upon someone having made him up to begin with, knowing he was not real. Especially since the parents are the ones 'acting' Santa. It would have to be a lie that each generation knowingly continued to perpetuate, since each generation would know that it is them and not santa placing presents under the tree. Or whatever.

Flat mentioned Occam's razor. I have to say that man sensing and seeking the spiritual because the spiritual exists is far more simple an explanation (to me) than man leaping to supernatural/spiritual explanations because of (insert all the reasons that have been posited on this thread...), even though the spiritual does not exist. Or that man (a natural creature) evolved a need for something that is unreal. I know that there is no proof either way... but if truth tends to be simple, then I have chosen what I see as the simplest explanation. Everything else seems fraught with the same mental gymnastics some of you think I am performing.

Of course, it might be the simplest explanation for me because I acknolwedge the existence of the spiritual. For someone who does not, then my position might seem more complex.

I actually find that people dont' really like things to be simple. People tend to want complex... because simple is not smart or intelligent enough to be taken seriously without complexity granting it credibility. So we take things apart (ideas included) and break them down to the "sub-atomic" level, create tools and machines to discern things physically that we could already discern spiritually... making them seem very complex... and I think when put them back together, we will realize that the simple was right all along. Sort of like taking the scenic route... which is not necessarily a bad thing as long as that route still ends up bringing you back home; and we can see a lot of beauty, and learn a lot about ourselves that some of us might not have learned on the short route.

Peace,

tammy

Twitch

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

I don't know how we would know otherwise.

Is it safe to say that the evidence for god lies solely within your perception and experience?

Thus, it could be inferred that without perception, there is little to no evidence that identifies god. Otherwise, surely there would be evidence of god in the physical world. Many things are known, understood and even considered immutable laws, but nothing that can be exclusively identified as "god"

Does this sound reasonable?

tec

I don't know. I don't know that it would matter. Got to ponder it a bit Twitch, okay?

Peace,

tammy

144001

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.

I feel the same way, NC, but with a bit of a twist. I would define "spiritual" as used above, as any and all of man's religions and writings about religion. If defined that way, I feel exactly as you have described above.

But for me, I believe that the real origin of life is beyond human comprehension, and man's nature does not allow him to accept this reality. Some must have a hope to cling to, that this life is not all there is. I have no such need for a hope. I'm going to "eat, drink, and be very friggin merry, all the friggin time!" And if that's a sin, I'm proud to tell you I'm striving to be the most prolific sinner on this planet!

still thinking

If someone invents something themselves....it is not much of a prophesy to suggest that people will figure out it was made up.

It is inevitable....still thinking

Assuming someone invented it themselves...tec.

Are you assuming they didn't? What evidence do you have? LOL

tec

You don't usually die for something you know is bogus, because you made it up yourself.

Peace,

tammy

Evidence for God...

Share this