Can't we just get along?

[dimreepr]

i was giving my opinion based on the topic why can't people get along, in which i think they can't get along because they are very closed minded and believe thing to be 100% real, i was stating that i can accept people as they are because i don't necessarily believe in anything 100%.

 

 

You assert that people don’t get along, what informs this assertion? My experience is that people do generally get along it’s cultures that don’t seem to be able to do so.

 

 

[leugi]

You assert that people don't get along, what informs this assertion? My experience is that people do generally get along it's cultures that don't seem to be able to do so.

 

 

 

that's what i meant, different cultures, religions.

[jryan]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?”

 

~ Epicurus ( BC 341-270)

 

 

 

All parents must let the children learn some lessons themselves. Be glad we don't have to make dirt.

 

In other words: "When I get to heaven I want to ask God why it is he allowed famine, starvation and war... but then I fear he would just ask me the same thing."

 

 

Also, to all atheists,

.

 

 

Edit: Also, the quote is silly as an argument against God (The God of Abraham, anyway) because it presupposes the absence of an after life in it's very premise. So it is only a meaningful argument to those who already don't believe in God. It's atheistic preaching to the Choir.

 

Bonus irony: That quote is likely not by Epicurus at all and was mis-attributed to him by the early Christian scholar Lactantius. It is more likely to be a quote by Sextus Emipiricus. We have learned this error from, double irony, the huge amounts of other scholarly work done by early Christians in the dark ages.

Edited January 29, 2012 by jryan

[iNow]

And yet... The problem of evil I shared in a later post remains unaddressed.

[jryan]

And yet... The problem of evil I shared in a later post remains unaddressed.

 

 

You meant this one?

 

one very concise way of formulating such an argument is as follows:

 

• 
   
  
• If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
  
• If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
  
• If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
  
• If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
  Evil exists.
  
• If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
  
• Therefore, God doesn't exist.
  

 

 

It's the same basic argument with the same shortcoming. The argument presupposes the omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect God, but then attempts to show this to be impossible using an apparent contradiction on Earth. The problem is that IF man's soul is eternal then while you could argue that in human history on Earth Evil is winning,it is finite. Evil's punishment and Good's reward,on the other hand, is infinite, and all the time on Earth is divided by the infinite which gives us a percentage where this contradiction applies as 0.00%.

 

So, for the argument to work you have to ignore the infinite reward and punishment that is part and parcel with an omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect God that the proof opens with.

[Moontanman]

You meant this one?

 

 

 

 

It's the same basic argument with the same shortcoming. The argument presupposes the omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect God, but then attempts to show this to be impossible using an apparent contradiction on Earth. The problem is that IF man's soul is eternal then while you could argue that in human history on Earth Evil is winning,it is finite. Evil's punishment and Good's reward,on the other hand, is infinite, and all the time on Earth is divided by the infinite which gives us a percentage where this contradiction applies as 0.00%.

 

So, for the argument to work you have to ignore the infinite reward and punishment that is part and parcel with an omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect God that the proof opens with.

 

 

The idea of eternal punishment pretty much shows god is, if nothing else, totally unjust.. the rest is window dressing, if god is unjust then he is not worthy of worship even if he does exist... How can you tell what an unjust god really wants, if he lies then how can you trust him, it's all silly horse feathers....

 

Evidence would suggest that this is not true - 97% of Royal society members and 93% of National academy of sciences members answer "No" to the question "Do you believe in a personal god?" http://www.humanreli...telligence.html www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

 

 

Are you sure about that?

China and India have plenty of scientists, but (I suspect) rather fewer Christians.

 

 

I am sure that quote was meant for the US not the world, or I may have misquoted it and it meant that 95% of scientists are theist of some kind, china and india both have a large theistic population. I was out of town today and i just got back a while a go but I will look for the quote and see exactly what it said... Thinking on it I am pretty sure it wasn't 95% are christian but 95% are religious in some way... I apologize for the confusion

[jryan]

The idea of eternal punishment pretty much shows god is, if nothing else, totally unjust.. the rest is window dressing, if god is unjust then he is not worthy of worship even if he does exist... How can you tell what an unjust god really wants, if he lies then how can you trust him, it's all silly horse feathers...

 

 

To understand the justice in such a plan requires you to understand the complexities of the infinite system they govern. Since you can't comprehend the infinite you are incapable of judging the purpose -- and therefore the justice -- of such plans.

 

 

Edit: Even on the finite scale your argument doesn't work. IF There is a God and IF he is Omniscient and Omnipresent and Morally Perfect and IF His teachings are in fact the path to eternal salvation then you would have a really hard time arguing that your weren't warned well in advance.

Edited January 29, 2012 by jryan

[Moontanman]

To understand the justice in such a plan requires you to understand the complexities of the infinite system they govern. Since you can't comprehend the infinite you are incapable of judging the purpose -- and therefore the justice -- of such plans.

 

 

No, one punishment for all crimes is unjust, suggesting it isn't because of some unknown possibility is simply speculation with no supporting evidence what so ever...

[jryan]

No, one punishment for all crimes is unjust, suggesting it isn't because of some unknown possibility is simply speculation with no supporting evidence what so ever...

 

 

 

 

As I said in my edit, if it's true then you sure couldn't argue that you didn't have fair warning.

 

And you can't know that all punishments would be the same either, so you are simply speculating yourself.

Edited January 29, 2012 by jryan

[iNow]

You meant this one?

I encourage you to look at the actual argument instead of focusing your entire rebuttal merely on the VERY concise summary I chose to quote in my post.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

Edited January 29, 2012 by iNow

[immortal]

The Problem of Evil

 

1. God is not seperate from nature, he himself is manifested in different forms in the process of creation.

 

2. Therefore if God exists then this world has to exist and if this world has to exist there must be someone to experience its existence.

 

3. If there is someone to experience its existence then he cannot access to know his own true nature(divine nature) because once he knows his true nature he will escape from the forces of nature and he will never be subjected to the forces of nature again. We lose a participator in our participitory universe.

 

4. If he cannot know his true nature then he will inevitably have desires.

 

5. If he has desires then he will inevitably have some kind of evil in him.

 

Hence a morally perfect God cannot create this world and simultaneously achieve the ultimate moral perfection required to eliminate all evil in this world and therefore evil persists in this world at different scales. He knew his act of creation will also lead to the origin of evil in this world and yet he choose to perform his action or his will because he can give us the power to eliminate the evil within one's self and hence his act of creation and the existence of evil is justifiable.

 

one very concise way of formulating such an argument is as follows:

 

•If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

 

•If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

 

•If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

 

•If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

Evil exists.

 

•If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil

 

God has the power to eliminate all evil, only he can give us the moral perfection that is required to eliminate the different scales of evil with in us and hence he is omniscient.

 

or doesn't know when evil exists,

 

God knew that evil will originate and persist in this world if he created or manifested himself to produce this world, he isn't ignorant and hence he is omnipotent.

 

or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.

God has the desire to induce a desire in individuals making them to seek him and there by giving them the divine grace to achieve the ultimate moral perfection, in this way one by one in this world will eliminate all evil from within if you like it or not.

 

•Therefore, God doesn't exist.

 

This conclusion is false, moral perfection means to know one's own true nature i.e to become identical to a morally perfect God. Evil of different scales will persist in this world but God is changing people's minds many are realizing and feeling guilty for killing innocent people and they are giving up their ideologies and their arms. What is the purpose of so many self-realization centers in the world, what purpose are they serving, they serve only one purpose to achieve ultimate moral perfection. We can infer and conclude that God exists from the same observable world.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Re

"This conclusion is false, moral perfection means to know one's own true nature i.e to become identical to a morally perfect God."

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

Re.

"God has the desire to induce a desire in individuals making them to seek him"

In my case (and it seems plenty of other people too) He has failed.

[iNow]

Re.

"God has the desire to induce a desire in individuals making them to seek him"

In my case (and it seems plenty of other people too) He has failed.

And hence, by definition, is not all powerful.

[Moontanman]

As I said in my edit, if it's true then you sure couldn't argue that you didn't have fair warning.

 

And you can't know that all punishments would be the same either, so you are simply speculating yourself.

 

 

Tell me which definition of god you are using, then we can debate this... The Abrahamic God, at least for Muslims and Christians, does indeed specify one punishment for all crimes, heaven or hell. no other choice is suggested....

[immortal]

Re

"This conclusion is false, moral perfection means to know one's own true nature i.e to become identical to a morally perfect God."

see

http://en.wikipedia....ng_the_question

 

No, we need to agree on the definition of Moral perfection, the main aim of all religions is to guide humans to know the infinite, which is our true nature, that's the final ultimate goal and it is the highest level of Moral Perfection and without achieving it there will always be some kind of evil inherent in all of us.

 

Re.

"God has the desire to induce a desire in individuals making them to seek him"

In my case (and it seems plenty of other people too) He has failed.

 

You didn't understood my argument God cannot give the gift of moral perfection to everyone because if we does then everyone will know their true divine nature and everyone will escape from the forces of nature present on earth and there will be no one to experience the events happening on the earth to see his prophecies coming true. He will give you that moral perfection when he has made you prepared for it.

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

No, we need to agree on the definition of Moral perfection, the main aim of all religions is to guide humans to know the infinite, which is our true nature, that's the final ultimate goal and it is the highest level of Moral Perfection and without achieving it there will always be some kind of evil inherent in all of us.

 

 

 

You didn't understood my argument God cannot give the gift of moral perfection to everyone because if we does then everyone will know their true divine nature and everyone will escape from the forces of nature present on earth and there will be no one to experience the events happening on the earth to see his prophecies coming true. He will give you that moral perfection when he has made you prepared for it.

 

 

Immortal, until you can give some evidence for god your constant assertions of his power are lame and not worthy of a science site...

[John Cuthber]

"No, we need to agree on the definition of Moral perfection"

Whatever we need to do, we can't do it by starting off by assuming there is a God.

[PeterJ]

Immortal, until you can give some evidence for god your constant assertions of his power are lame and not worthy of a science site...

It seems to me much of what Immortal says is correct, but I'm afraid I have to agree with you on this. Maybe it is true that knowing oneself is necessary for moral perfection, or these words describe roughly what is the case, but we cannot use God as any kind of argument for this view, or as an axiom to base one on. It is a logical argument that need to be made.

 

Schopenhauer is good on this one. He explains what immortal may be getting at, the reason why ethics is so closely intertwined with self-knowledge. The central point would be that if we have the recognition that he speaks of, then ethical behaviour becomes indistuingishable from free and self-interested behaviour. For this form of religion sin, evil and suffering would not really exist, making most the the questions about them unanswerable. Interestingly, the Jesus of the Nag Hammadi Library is quoted as saying that sin, as such, does not exist. At any rate, this would be the gnostic appraoch. These things are really only a problem for a rather unsubtle form of monotheism.

 

In the Foundation of Morality, Schopenhauer asks the question: How is it that a human being can so participate in the pain and danger of another that, forgetting his own self-protection, he moves spontaneously to the other’s rescue? How is it that what we think of as the first law of nature - self-protection - is suddenly dissolved and another law asserts itself spontaneously? Schopenhauer answers: this is the breakthrough of a metaphysical truth - that you and other are one, and that separateness is a secondary effect of the way our minds experience the world in the frame of time and space. At the metaphysical level, we are all manifestations of that consciousness and energy which is the consciousness and energy of life. This is Schopenhauer:

 

 

 

"The experience that dissolves the distinction between the I and the Not I … underlies the mystery of compassion, and stands, in fact, for the reality of which compassion is the prime expression. That experience, therefore, must be the metaphysical ground of ethics and consist simply in this: that one individual should recognise in another, himself in his own true being … Which is the recognition for which the basic formula is the standard Sanskrit expression, ‘Thou art that’, tat tvam asi."

 

(John Mathews, Joseph Campbell and the Grail Myth, in At the Table of the Grail, Ed. John Mathews)

 

 

 

 

 

[immortal]

Schopenhauer is good on this one. He explains what immortal may be getting at, the reason why ethics is so closely intertwined with self-knowledge. The central point would be that if we have the recognition that he speaks of, then ethical behaviour becomes indistuingishable from free and self-interested behaviour. For this form of religion sin, evil and suffering would not really exist, making most the the questions about them unanswerable. Interestingly, the Jesus of the Nag Hammadi Library is quoted as saying that sin, as such, does not exist. At any rate, this would be the gnostic appraoch. These things are really only a problem for a rather unsubtle form of monotheism.

 

It is interesting to note that gnostics from different parts of the world, all have come to the same conclusion that sin and evil is only apparent and doesn't exist as such. The philosophy behind such thinking is that sin exists as long as you think that you're performing your own actions, once you think that I am something else which is my true nature and all my actions are done by a personal God then neither will you be proud of what you achieve and nor will you weep when you do something wrong and since you're not the root cause of your actions you're not attributed to make sins and hence sins don't exist.

 

In the Foundation of Morality, Schopenhauer asks the question: How is it that a human being can so participate in the pain and danger of another that, forgetting his own self-protection, he moves spontaneously to the other's rescue? How is it that what we think of as the first law of nature - self-protection - is suddenly dissolved and another law asserts itself spontaneously? Schopenhauer answers: this is the breakthrough of a metaphysical truth - that you and other are one, and that separateness is a secondary effect of the way our minds experience the world in the frame of time and space. At the metaphysical level, we are all manifestations of that consciousness and energy which is the consciousness and energy of life. This is Schopenhauer:

 

As long as God makes you to experience the world in the frame of time and space you will not know your true nature and hence Moral perfection cannot be achieved, the important point is even if you achieve Moral Perfection and has no evil inside you, you cannot avoid evil in this world because according to Einstein's Special theory of relativity all events are always happening, our notion of a past, present and a future time is only apparent, we don't have free will and hence whatever has to happen it has to happen, we're mere spectators however God gives you way to escape the experience of suffering by helping us to know our true nature, then you're free and you can do noble deeds with such knowledge.

 

"The experience that dissolves the distinction between the I and the Not I … underlies the mystery of compassion, and stands, in fact, for the reality of which compassion is the prime expression. That experience, therefore, must be the metaphysical ground of ethics and consist simply in this: that one individual should recognise in another, himself in his own true being … Which is the recognition for which the basic formula is the standard Sanskrit expression, 'Thou art that', tat tvam asi."

 

(John Mathews, Joseph Campbell and the Grail Myth, in At the Table of the Grail, Ed. John Mathews)

 

Yes, that "One" who has recognised in another and himself in his own true being has achieved Moral Perfection and such an individual can guide other men to achieve Moral Perfection and make us escape from this suffering, he cannot intervene and turn this earth into heaven because that will neither prevent evil on earth nor it will make us Morally Perfect.

 

 

 

"No, we need to agree on the definition of Moral perfection"

Whatever we need to do, we can't do it by starting off by assuming there is a God.

 

I do realize that I have used circular argument and hence it cannot constitute as a proof.

 

Immortal, until you can give some evidence for god your constant assertions of his power are lame and not worthy of a science site...

 

When I make an assertion like this one "God is not seperate from nature, he himself is manifested in different forms in the process of creation." it is purely a metaphysical statement. Neither I am saying that God could have produced this universe using the Big Bang nor that he created the diversity of life that we see in the biosphere using DNA, RNA and proteins, such an argument would seem ridiculous but I'm not trying to introduce God into scientific models.

 

If science didn't had any gaps in its knowledge then I would definitely not be arguing on this side and holding this view, I think what will change is the way we percieve things, my view will not going to change our scientific models or deny their credibility in any way i.e my point is that either Big Bang happened in the external world or Big Bang happened only in our percievable minds, as you can see this is a philosophical problem and Science can solve this problem if its reductionist and positivist approach can reduce all phenomena to the natural world but it has not done that yet and that's the reason I am requesting for metaphysical speculation. If you open religion and philosophy forums and endorse only your view then I am sorry, I can't get along.

 

God belongs to the metaphysical realm and therefore one can not make predictions so that we can falsify his existence and any arguments against his existence are not strong enough either. If you still insist that I have to show you a miraculous phenomena that proves that some real knowledge has been gained by a theist showing that God is real then I will not assert or make metaphysical speculation of God in this site again.

Edited January 30, 2012 by immortal

[PeterJ]

Immortal - It;'s annoying that we have to disagree about God. Still, we seem to agree about most things otherwise.

 

Surely knowing oneself is no use if we still do not know God, and to know God we would have to be God. So we are God, in some basic sense, But you seem to posit Him as being somehow separate from us, as an object would be, and this is where we part company. I could get along with using the term 'God' for the absolute, but only if we say that He is not a subject nor an object. If he is an object we can no more prove His reality than we can for a piano.

 

i.e my point is that either Big Bang happened in the external world or Big Bang happened only in our percievable minds...

Or it happened in the former only because it happened in the latter.

 

as you can see this is a philosophical problem and Science can solve this problem if its reductionist and positivist approach can reduce all phenomena to the natural world but it has not done that yet and that's the reason I am requesting for metaphysical speculation.

I don't know. If we define 'natural' as whatever is true then we could reduce everything to the natural world. Tao, Nibbana, God, etc, they are all supposed to be natural phenomena. They may not be, but this is a matter of investigation, not definition.

 

God belongs to the metaphysical realm and therefore one can not make predictions so that we can falsify his existence and any arguments against his existence are not strong enough either.

Again I'm not so sure. By my reckoning the arguments against are overwhelming. But, again, it would depend on the defintions.

 

If you still insist that I have to show you a miraculous phenomena that proves that some real knowledge has been gained by a theist showing that God is real then I will not assert or make metaphysical speculation of God in this site again.

Isn't the universe itself a good enough example? Its existence baffles western philosophers and scientist alike, so there is at least a chance it is a miraculous phenomenon. Personally I don't go in for miracles, having no belief in the supernatural, but I see no reason why you shouldn't claim this as an example.

Edited January 30, 2012 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

When I make an assertion like this one "God is not seperate from nature, he himself is manifested in different forms in the process of creation." it is purely a metaphysical statement. Neither I am saying that God could have produced this universe using the Big Bang nor that he created the diversity of life that we see in the biosphere using DNA, RNA and proteins, such an argument would seem ridiculous but I'm not trying to introduce God into scientific models.

 

As long as you don't a positive assertion that what you are saying is true and stick with it's what you believe... then... it's what you believe... I can only point out it's just a belief...

 

If science didn't had any gaps in its knowledge then I would definitely not be arguing on this side and holding this view,

 

So you are going with "God of the gaps" Are you really going to retreat down that rat hole? The idea of god of the gaps is nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

 

I think what will change is the way we percieve things, my view will not going to change our scientific models or deny their credibility in any way i.e my point is that either Big Bang happened in the external world or Big Bang happened only in our percievable minds,

 

Or there was no big bang.. the question is still open... but requiring god as the cause is simply baseless speculation..

 

as you can see this is a philosophical problem and Science can solve this problem if its reductionist and positivist approach can reduce all phenomena to the natural world but it has not done that yet and that's the reason I am requesting for metaphysical speculation. If you open religion and philosophy forums and endorse only your view then I am sorry, I can't get along.

 

Again, because science hasn't explained everything god can hide in the tiny spaces between knowledge? Knowledge, is something very specific science has proven track record of providing knowledge, our entire first world civilization is based on the knowledge science has provided. Scientific speculation can discussed but we can also provide evidence as to why the speculation is true or false.

 

Metaphysical speculation can indeed claim anything and has no way to show it is true or false, so far metaphysics has provided no knowledge to our civilization ... none what so ever... It only makes assertions that cannot be checked as to there veracity in any way, it's mental masturbation, how many angels can dance on the tip of an invisible unicorn's horn? What purpose would that information serve?

 

God belongs to the metaphysical realm and therefore one can not make predictions so that we can falsify his existence and any arguments against his existence are not strong enough either. If you still insist that I have to show you a miraculous phenomena that proves that some real knowledge has been gained by a theist showing that God is real then I will not assert or make metaphysical speculation of God in this site again.

 

You can speculate all you want but when you make a positive assertion then you have to have evidence, if you assert real knowledge then you have to back that up with real evidence, it's quite simple...

 

Isn't the universe itself a good enough example? Its existence baffles western philosophers and scientist alike, so there is at least a chance it is a miraculous phenomenon. Personally I don't go in for miracles, having no belief in the supernatural, but I see no reason why you shouldn't claim this as an example.

 

 

Intellectual honesty would be a good reason not to assert such an unfounded idea... it's a chance it's a miracle hardly constitutes anything but what you want it to be... it's a chance the universe is the flatulence of some creature that is totally unaware it's farts turn into universes...

Edited January 30, 2012 by Moontanman

[jryan]

I encourage you to look at the actual argument instead of focusing your entire rebuttal merely on the VERY concise summary I chose to quote in my post.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

 

 

I'm well aware of the argument, iNow, in both forms. You weren't breaking any new ground. I have offered my counter argument to both version that they each have the very same catastrophic logical flaw. Refute my argument or not, but don't try to claim that my response is incorrect on the grounds that your argument was incomplete. That line of argument doesn't flatter you.

 

Tell me which definition of god you are using, then we can debate this... The Abrahamic God, at least for Muslims and Christians, does indeed specify one punishment for all crimes, heaven or hell. no other choice is suggested....

 

 

No, I am not speaking of the God of Abraham specifically. I am not arguing as any particular type of theist here, but as a theist in general and the many versions of punishment in the after life. Since your view of all the variable versions of the afterlife is perfectly uniform there is no need for me to argue any one in particular.

 

And again, you can't make a compelling argument for the lack of justice in any version of punishment in the afterlife because you've had ample warning. It isn't justice if it is administered unevenly, but nobodies version of the afterlife claims that the punishment and rewards will be handed out arbitrarily.

Edited January 30, 2012 by jryan

[PeterJ]

So you are going with "God of the gaps" Are you really going to retreat down that rat hole? The idea of god of the gaps is nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

How so?

 

Or there was no big bang.. the question is still open... but requiring god as the cause is simply baseless speculation..

No. its just speculation, like the Big Bang.

 

Metaphysical speculation can indeed claim anything and has no way to show it is true or false, so far metaphysics has provided no knowledge to our civilization ... none what so ever... It only makes assertions that cannot be checked as to there veracity in any way, it's mental masturbation, how many angels can dance on the tip of an invisible unicorn's horn? What purpose would that information serve?

Ho ho. If you choose to ignore the results of metaphysics this is your problem and your choice, and no reflectioon on the results of metaphysics. At any rate, you'd have to prove your claim in metaophysics, and you say it can't be done, so you are just hand-waiving.

 

if you assert real knowledge then you have to back that up with real evidence, it's quite simple...

Okay. So you certainly would not be able to claim 'cogito'. Descartes must have missed this simple point.

 

Intellectual honesty would be a good reason not to assert such an unfounded idea... it's a chance it's a miracle hardly constitutes anything but what you want it to be... it's a chance the universe is the flatulence of some creature that is totally unaware it's farts turn into universes...

Yes. Intellectual honesty seems like a good idea. Thin on the ground though. Especially in discussions like this. The simple fact is that the failure (so far) of theoretical physics to construct a theory of origins leaves open the possibility that the universe is a miracle. This is simply a fact. I don't believe it is, but what I believe or you believe is not the relevant to anything.

Edited January 30, 2012 by PeterJ

[immortal]

Immortal - It;'s annoying that we have to disagree about God. Still, we seem to agree about most things otherwise.

 

Its because you seem to have a narrow definition of mysticism, you are only interested in the absolute and you have a bias over religions and schools of philosophy who argue that personal God exists where as I accept both the absolute as well as the personal God(s).

 

Surely knowing oneself is no use if we still do not know God,

 

No, one can know oneself without knowing God, if you're not interested in God(s) then they won't appear to you but that doesn't mean they don't exist because ones who are interested claim that he exists.

 

and to know God we would have to be God. So we are God, in some basic sense,

 

Yes we are Gods, made in the image of God.

 

Psalm 82:6 - I said, "You are gods, all of you are sons of the Most High".

 

But you seem to posit Him as being somehow separate from us, as an object would be, and this is where we part company. I could get along with using the term 'God' for the absolute, but only if we say that He is not a subject nor an object. If he is an object we can no more prove His reality than we can for a piano.

 

God is a quale, if you have access to this quale then you can experience him just as you experience sweetness, redness and other qualitative attributes. Just because some mystics or Buddhists didn't had access to that quale doesn't mean he doesn't exist. God is a person and also he is absolute.

 

 

Me:

i.e my point is that either Big Bang happened in the external world or Big Bang happened only in our percievable minds...

Or it happened in the former only because it happened in the latter.

 

No, no, you've misunderstood my argument, actually my argument is like it happened in the latter (Big Bang of science in our percievable minds) only because it happened in the former(creation of the world by God in the actual physical world i.e the thing in itself). What I mean to say is that when God said "Let there be Light and there was Light" he is talking about the noumenon or the thing in itself but we misunderstand him thinking that he is talking about the phenomena or the world of sense organs, my argument is that the actual physical world or the thing in itself is made up of only five elements that is Earth, water, fire, air and space.

 

I don't know. If we define 'natural' as whatever is true then we could reduce everything to the natural world. Tao, Nibbana, God, etc, they are all supposed to be natural phenomena. They may not be, but this is a matter of investigation, not definition.

 

Natural sciences is defined as the knowledge which is gained only through the sense organs and Tao and God are the kind of knowledge which doesn't come through the sense organs, it is either intuitive knowledge or experiential knowledge (knowledge of qualia) and hence God and Tao cannot be reduced to the natural world.

 

Isn't the universe itself a good enough example? Its existence baffles western philosophers and scientist alike, so there is at least a chance it is a miraculous phenomenon. Personally I don't go in for miracles, having no belief in the supernatural, but I see no reason why you shouldn't claim this as an example.

 

If you had really studied the standard model of particle physics, the model of quantum physics and the model of General Relativity and Special Relativity then you would appreciate the fact that how much scientific models accurately predict the events of this universe and there is no discrepancy between the predictions made by those scientific theories and the events observed in the laboratories and therefore the universe is not so much of a miracle to scientists, the problem is with the interpretation of such models and this is a philosophical problem and what can be changed is the way we interpret things or the way we percieve things, so even if I come up with an evidence of a miracle or God its not going change those scientifc models in any way, what's going to change is the way we percieve things that's all.

 

 

[iNow]

You weren't breaking any new ground.

Gosh. I guess it's a good thing I wasn't trying to break new ground. Let's remind ourselves of the context here. A member made a post. I followed up, 'FYI - that's also known as the problem of evil. Go here to read more.'

 

I have offered my counter argument to both version that they each have the very same catastrophic logical flaw. Refute my argument or not, but don't try to claim that my response is incorrect on the grounds that your argument was incomplete.

I'd rather just stick to the other countless reasons why it's more appropriate not to accept the existence of god as a valid claim. The problem of evil is just one among many of those reasons.