Do you believe in God?

[Exorcet]

It doesn't matter how many times you say that, you will never refute the fact that subjectivity does not negate truth.

Likewise, subjectivity is prone to errors in perception. You may think God wants you to do this and that, and that some amazing event had to be his doing, but the truth is, that's only what you think.

"Hitler thought it was perfectly okay do do what he did." Your interpretation of Hitler's conscience is purely speculative, yet you interpret it as factual evidence to refute someone else's argument for where morality comes from? Subjective is subjective is subjective.

Except that we have documents about/by Hitler that helps us to know how he thought. But even then, you're technically right, Hitler could have put on a big act, and so could everyone else who ever lived (including Jesus and the writers of the Bible). But at best, that gives you an "I don't know". Which meant that it would certainly be possible that all those people believed what they said, which would mean that objective morality wouldn't be proven.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

I've been thinking, and I want to go back to the topic of God existing outside of our way of thinking. I may have said what I am about to in some other poorly worded way, so I apologize if I'm repeating myself.

But the argument that God exists outside of our way of thinking, isn't it just a tad bit too convenient? You could give someone reasons as to why couldn't exist, only for them to say "but God is outside of our way of thinking, outside of our way of being able to understand things." It just seems like an easy way out of not actually having to prove you are right. Again, it's the, you can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right. It also confuses me quite a bit; when people argue saying he does exist, they sure do seem to know a lot about how he works completely within our way of thinking. So it sort of seems that they're contradict themselves.

I'm quite annoyed with myself because before I got on my computer to type this I had a much more eloquent argument in my head.

 

[Sach]

Likewise, subjectivity is prone to errors in perception. You may think God wants you to do this and that, and that some amazing event had to be his doing, but the truth is, that's only what you think.

Ah, once again your subjective opinion negates what now? Additionally, you fail once again to present God in the light of actually being God. If He is the creator of all things, there is nothing that restricts us from having a subjective experience that is far beyond "thinks it is", and which is completely accurate.

This is actually logical. People need to stop and consider what the definition of "God" actually implies.

Except that we have documents about/by Hitler that helps us to know how he thought. But even then, you're technically right, Hitler could have put on a big act, and so could everyone else who ever lived (including Jesus and the writers of the Bible). But at best, that gives you an "I don't know". Which meant that it would certainly be possible that all those people believed what they said, which would mean that objective morality wouldn't be proven.

One person murdered millions of people, not a small feat. Still, immeasurably smaller than being the son of God. Not comparable in the same forum.

 

[Exorcet]

Ah, once again your subjective opinion negates what now? Additionally, you fail once again to present God in the light of actually being God. If He is the creator of all things, there is nothing that restricts us from having a subjective experience that is far beyond "thinks it is", and completely accurate.

There is something that would restrict you, it being God's non existence. If he's not actually there, your subjective experiences clearly did not lead you to the correct conclusion.

This is actually logical. People need to stop and consider what the definition of "God" actually implies.

Something that might even be possible.

One person murdered millions of people, not a small feat. Still, immeasurably smaller than being the son of God. Not comparable in the same forum.

Certainly comparable. Whatever applies to Hitler could apply to Jesus. They were both people. In the case that God exists, Jesus may have actually been right. If God does not exist, then Jesus could have been misleading everyone or simply have been convinced of something that wasn't true. Just like Hitler could have believed that killing all Jews would solve the worlds problems or not.

 

[Sach]

There is something that would restrict you, it being God's non existence. If he's not actually there, your subjective experiences clearly did not lead you to the correct conclusion.

Except that He is there, and this has been confirmed by millions upon millions of believers, and the course of much history as the result. Evidence, if you will.

Certainly comparable. Whatever applies to Hitler could apply to Jesus. They were both people. In the case that God exists, Jesus may have actually been right. If God does not exist, then Jesus could have been misleading everyone or simply have been convinced of something that wasn't true. Just like Hitler could have believed that killing all Jews would solve the worlds problems or not.

Certainly comparable... "if". However, the reality is... "not".

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Except that He is there, and this has been confirmed by millions upon millions of believers, and the course of much history as the result. Evidence, if you will.

Certainly comparable... "if". However, the reality is... "not".

That's just it. It has been "confirmed" by believers. But if there was proof for God, then there would be no believers at all. In fact the whole world would know that he exists, not believe.

Decided to start posting in colour.

 

[Exorcet]

Except that He is there, and this has been confirmed by millions upon millions of believers, and the course of much history as the result. Evidence, if you will.]

Then I suppose I'll have to join every religion since they're all right, or at least the ones with x number of believers.

If that's not the case, then you're admitting that what I quoted above is not sufficient proof of anything. The millions of believers are just as much able to come to completely incorrect conclusions as a single individual. Honestly, if numbers meant anything, Christianity wouldn't even exist. The first religion would be true as it would have had the most members. You could even make an argument for atheism following this lack of logic, as the default state of mind seems to be a lack of belief.

 

[dylansan]

It's possible to have a subjective experience which is actually 100% objectively accurate. But there is no way to know which of many subjective experiences (if any) are actually accurate without objective evidence. If two people have two different, contradictory, subjective experiences, how can it be determined which is true and which is not?

Not to mention Sach, you're making the argument that God exists because subjective experiences can be accurate, but relying on the premise that God exists to prove that. You cannot use the fact the God exists as part of your argument until you demonstate that he does with a different logical argument.

 

[niky]

Basically what I've been saying the past two dozen pages. A subjective experience only proves that said experience happens. Whatever the objective facts behind the experience are is unknown to the person experiencing it at the time.

Unless you're willing to dissect the experience or subject it to rigorous testing by a third party, then you'll never know what the cause is.

That's still not what I'm talking about. Should a moderator really come off as being a troll? Cause that's what I'm seeing here, and it's quite unfortunate.

Calm down. Read what I'm saying. I actually agree with you. I'm just having fun.

 

[Sach]

Whatever the objective facts behind the experience are is unknown to the person experiencing it at the time.

Rubbish.

 

[dylansan]

I hope you intend on clarifying that.

 

[Sach]

I hope you intend on clarifying that.

Ok? How is it not obvious?

Whatever the objective facts behind the experience are is unknown to the person experiencing it at the time.

This is utter nonsense that needs no explaining.


It's ironically a subjective interpretation of the said experience made by a person who apparently unknowingly puts himself in an position to speak for everyone regarding whatever subjective experiences they may have. Somehow he's an authority on the matter of subjectivity?

 

[dylansan]

It's not a subjective interpretation, it's logic. When we experience things, the only thing that is known is our interpretation of the experience. It's impossible for the human mind to differentiate between absolute truth and a subjective interpretation of a truth, because simply experiencing an absolute truth requires a subjective interpretation.

There is no characteristic or quality of a thought that can be used to determine if it is true or not. Anything a person deems to be a truth for any reason, including a powerful experience or anything, could just be something that "seems" to be an absolute truth, but isn't.

You still haven't explained how multiple people can "know" two different, conflicting "truths". One or both of them has to be wrong, but I'd like you to explain how you can determine which one.

 

[niky]

Rubbish.

Basically what dylansan said.

-

When you experience a lucid dream or a hallucination and see a forty foot tall banana standing in front of you holding a flaming sword, the only objective fact is that you believe you saw a forty foot tall banana holding a flaming sword.

Why is it rubbish to say this? This is why, when you experience a sensation, you have two choices. To accept it as what it seems to be, or to try to discover what it is. I've already talked about analyzing your subjective perceptions to figure out if they're true or hallucinatory. I've learned how to do this because I once went through a period where I had hallucinations every night and I needed to learn how to differentiate between the apparent and the real.

-----

A more concrete example. My daughter's pillow sparkles at night. Not twinkly glitter sparkles. It glows. I can accept that it seems to me to glow, and say that it's fairies doing it, or I can try to figure out the objective reason behind this apparent phenomenon. Which turns out, upon further experimentation, to be static charge building up between the microbeads in the filling whenever you cause the beads to rub against each other.

-----

That's science. No accepting something that apparently seems so, but trying to figure out what it actually means.

The only "rubbish" is in accepting things at face value without digging deeper. If you have extrasensory phenomena occuring or what seems to be shared transcendental experiences, it's up to you whether you accept these at face value or dig deeper.

There are people out there who are willing to examine these things without pre-judging you or being negative towards you. Yet they have to examine these things with a critical eye.

It's up to you whether you want to let them or not.

 

[Sach]

You still haven't explained how multiple people can "know" two different, conflicting "truths". One or both of them has to be wrong, but I'd like you to explain how you can determine which one.

The answer is too subjective for you. There is one true and living God. That is not arrogant, that is just how it works. Truth only works one way, it is authoritarian. There is one God, therefore one source for all of existence, therefore one authority. You have a problem with the scenario, as do the rest of us sinners, but I acknowledge the existence of the scenario. You exercise your free will not to, and that is the difference between us.

 

[Exorcet]

The answer is too subjective for you. There is one true and living God. That is not arrogant, that is just how it works. Truth only works one way, it is authoritarian. There is one God, therefore one source for all of existence, therefore one authority. You have a problem with the scenario, as do the rest of us sinners, but I acknowledge the existence of the scenario. You exercise your free will not to, and that is the difference between us.

The difference is your disdain for reasoning. I have to be honest, the last few posts you made are probably some of the worst in the thread.

You have no idea if there is a God, yet you keep proclaiming that there is.

 

[Sach]

When you experience a lucid dream or a hallucination and see a forty foot tall banana standing in front of you holding a flaming sword, the only objective fact is that you believe you saw a forty foot tall banana holding a flaming sword.


Why is it rubbish to say this?

It's funny how you come up with an 'arbitrary' example that happens to be the most absurd thing you can imagine.

This is God, the source of all wisdom, not the nonsense you are suggesting. Again, you fail to give God the credit for being what that word defines.

This is why, when you experience a sensation, you have two choices. To accept it as what it seems to be, or to try to discover what it is.

This just keeps becoming clearer and clearer. God is not a sensation.

I've learned how to do this because I once went through a period where I had hallucinations every night and I needed to learn how to differentiate between the apparent and the real.

While I won't say that you can't experience God through a hallucination (I've never had one), I will again say that your error is in attempting to equate God to a hallucination.



Now, stop for one second and take away the Christian context that I obviously present God in, and put on your Logic hat when it comes to the definition of the word "God". Whether you believe Christianity or not is irrelevant; you are critically misrepresenting the definition of what God is limited to. Even if I were an atheist I would not be so foolish as to think that I could contain the actions of a God within our own incredibly limited understanding of reality, whether it be just a concept or not.

I realize that I've presented a contradiction there using the word atheist, but the point is that you all are pretending to be scientists here while fundamentally misrepresenting the concept of God, by stubborn and ill-witted preference.

A more concrete example. My daughter's pillow sparkles at night. Not twinkly glitter sparkles. It glows. I can accept that it seems to me to glow, and say that it's fairies doing it, or I can try to figure out the objective reason behind this apparent phenomenon.

Two problems here:


#1 - You're doing it again.

#2 - You are doing it again... God is the source of every law that you think has to bow to the throne of objectivity. He, however, is God, and is above any law you may think He must abide by. Once again, not even the Christian definition of God, but ANY definition of God.

Which turns out, upon further experimentation, to be static charge building up between the microbeads in the filling whenever you cause the beads to rub against each other.

Some things are determined by rational use of the scientific method, and some are irrational because they don't have to abide by that same system, however they are no less true.

That's science. No accepting something that apparently seems so, but trying to figure out what it actually means.

I am not confused as to the definition of science, however inept it may be at addressing matters of spirituality.

It is odd however, that for some reason you choose to use science as an explaining device for why you don't believe in God. I don't go to the school writing center to get help for trigonometry, for example. (awaits "unless there's..." commments)

The only "rubbish" is in accepting things at face value without digging deeper. If you have extrasensory phenomena occuring or what seems to be shared transcendental experiences, it's up to you whether you accept these at face value or dig deeper.

Man, I am not the smartest person alive, but I can produce evidence to support that I at least lean on the fortunate side of the intelligence scale. I have also been a believer for years. I have questioned my experiences so many times. I have struggles with faith. You think I have no humility, but the fact is that God remains constant even when I don't. I have dug deeper than any of you science-only chaps and the conclusion is always the same. Please don't attempt to present me in this light.

There are people out there who are willing to examine these things without pre-judging you or being negative towards you. Yet they have to examine these things with a critical eye.

It's up to you whether you want to let them or not.

That sounds like you are suggesting counseling.



This is the remarkable thing about these discussions. The only thing that I am suggesting is that there are things that exist outside of the realm of objectivity and scientific law which are applicable, important, and evident in every persons' life, every day. You all on the other hand, are limiting yourselves to the confines of objectivity, yet you present me in the light of a close-minded person.


Experiences with God are not glitter on a pillow.

You have no idea if there is a God, yet you keep proclaiming that there is.

You have no idea if I am wrong, yet you keep proclaiming that I am.

 

[dylansan]

The answer is too subjective for you. There is one true and living God. That is not arrogant, that is just how it works. Truth only works one way, it is authoritarian. There is one God, therefore one source for all of existence, therefore one authority. You have a problem with the scenario, as do the rest of us sinners, but I acknowledge the existence of the scenario. You exercise your free will not to, and that is the difference between us.

What?

You're exactly right that there can be only one truth. That was exactly my point. If two people claim two different truths, only one of them can be correct. There is no conflict there with what you are saying, and in fact it totally allows for the fact that there could be one God, exactly as you describe.

But when other people say they also know the truth, that there are more Gods or different Gods or no Gods, it all comes down to the fact that I simply don't believe you. You can tell me you know the truth all you want, but that's what everyone else claims. You can tell me I don't understand, but that's what everyone else says. From my perspective, you're absolutely no different than anyone else, and I have absolutely no reason to believe a single thing you say.

I might even go so far as to say I know you're wrong, and that you simply don't understand that there's no God. I'll tell you I've had subjective experience which prove that there is no God. And according to what you've been saying this whole time, I have to be right.

 

[Sach]

I might even go so far as to say I know you're wrong, and that you simply don't understand that there's no God. I'll tell you I've had subjective experience which prove that there is no God. And according to what you've been saying this whole time, I have to be right.

Once again, a misunderstanding. God is experienced subjectively, only by way that it is always a personal experience. Sometimes it is shared by many simultaneously, but ultimately it is a personal and intimate thing in every case.

However, since we agree in the authoritarian quality of truth, perhaps it will make sense to you that if you experience the source of all truth, it is something different than a merely subjective experience, even if the event is revealed personally and internally.



This ultimately comes back to why my previous statement "If you knew, you would know" is not arrogant when you look at it logically. If you experience the one truth, there is no reason to question the validity of other non-truths.



We design airplanes based on our observations of how gravity operates; the truth of gravity, if you will. We don't stick 200 people on a plane that is built for another system of gravity 'just in case', for example, etc., etc. That would actually be dangerous.

 

[Azuremen]

It's funny how you come up with an 'arbitrary' example that happens to be the most absurd thing you can imagine.

This is God, the source of all wisdom, not the nonsense you are suggesting. Again, you fail to give God the credit for being what that word defines.

I give God credit for being credited by people. You never did address my point, which is that God was created by Human ego/narcissism to make us feel more special about our existence.

A dream is no more arbitrary than someone claiming to have seen miracles - they both can easily be explained as a hallucination, which having had those myself, can seem quite real at the time till you apply reasoning to it or ask for others to verify. Niky wasn't saying God is a hallucination, his point was that the many pieces of "proof" of God could easily be just that - hallucinations, dreams, and so on. Which are quite powerful and can feel extremely real. For instance, I've awoken from a dream thinking I had talked with my father the night before and that I needed to call him, only to recall he has been dead for years and the conversation was just a dream.

It seems you actively choose to disregard the logical or even anecdotal issues with God in order to make things conform to your beliefs.

For instance, if God was all knowing and all powerful, and if the Bible is to believed, he loves all people and thus why Jesus had to be crucified, why did he forsake so many parts of the world? The Americas (unless you go with Mormonism) did not get the Word of God till the Europeans arrived in the 15th Century. You can also consider many parts of Africa, Asia, Australia, and the many, many Pacific Islands.

Even if one stays within the confines of Biblical reasoning, a huge array of errors and hypocrisy arises. Which is often why people just pick and choose from a book they regard as the ultimate Truth.

Honestly, your reasoning truly has turned into:

EDIT:

This ultimately comes back to why my previous statement "If you knew, you would know" is not arrogant when you look at it logically. If you experience the one truth, there is no reason to question the validity of other non-truths.

I'll address this, having been in a situation of "knowing," where I truly did feel I had experienced the divine and God. I was convinced it was Truth, and it made me happy.

Ultimately, what I realized is I had to lie to myself, deny other parts of reality, pretend the contradictions, fallacies, and so forth didn't exist for that Truth to work out. That is when I understood that "knowing" was just pure complacency in thinking I had found a "solution" to life. More or less, I was lying to myself, using a commonly accepted belief.

Now I believe there is no God, and especially find faiths of The Book hypocritical and short sighted. You die and that is it; we are not so important in this massive Universe to have a special place reserved for those that met the arbitrary demands of some greater entity.

 

[Exorcet]

You have no idea if I am wrong, yet you keep proclaiming that I am.

No, I know that you're wrong. It's obvious. I'm seeing it. Isn't it clear?

It's funny how you come up with an 'arbitrary' example that happens to be the most absurd thing you can imagine.

This is God, the source of all wisdom, not the nonsense you are suggesting. Again, you fail to give God the credit for being what that word defines.

Yes God, something that is by definition is on the same level as a 40 ft tall banana. Improbable. Just because you can think of something great and amazing does mean it has to be real.

Further, if God is really, he certainly could not be the Christian God, who is basically the opposite of what his religion describes him as in terms of character. This isn't an attack, or some kind of fear of submission to God, it's just a pretty obvious conclusion from Christianity itself.

While I won't say that you can't experience God through a hallucination (I've never had one), I will again say that your error is in attempting to equate God to a hallucination.

Not done. Experiencing God does equate to an illusion, because it's an experience you take in through imperfect sensors. This why your line of reasoning is so flawed. No matter how sure you are of what is going on around you, you never really know.

Now, stop for one second and take away the Christian context that I obviously present God in, and put on your Logic hat when it comes to the definition of the word "God". Whether you believe Christianity or not is irrelevant; you are critically misrepresenting the definition of what God is limited to. Even if I were an atheist I would not be so foolish as to think that I could contain the actions of a God within our own incredibly limited understanding of reality, whether it be just a concept or not.

I realize that I've presented a contradiction there using the word atheist, but the point is that you all are pretending to be scientists here while fundamentally misrepresenting the concept of God, by stubborn and ill-witted preference.

No one is misrepresenting God. You won't even consider the possibility that God does not exist. Your arguments only make sense if God does exist, it's circular reasoning all the way through. It doesn't matter what context God is taken in, or what religion he's taken from. He doesn't have to exist because the concept of God does not explain everything, and if you accept God, then you might as well accept other unprovables since they are on equal footing.

You bring up that God could be beyond our understanding. I don't think a single person has objected to that. But this does nothing to support the idea that God may exist. If God is beyond our understanding, how would anyone even know about him? They couldn't, unless he came down to our realm so to speak. Given that there has never been any consensus regarding God, it seems unlikely that he's ever made a serious attempt to convince anyone that he is there. This of course assumes that he is even there at all.

God is the source of every law that you think has to bow to the throne of objectivity. He, however, is God, and is above any law you may think He must abide by. Once again, not even the Christian definition of God, but ANY definition of God.

And where in the definition of God, is existence? And if it is there, where is the proof? And if there is proof, and it's not objective and within human ability to comprehend it, why waste time believing?

Some things are determined by rational use of the scientific method, and some are irrational because they don't have to abide by that same system, however they are no less true.

Making things up doesn't make them true. All of this talk about spirituality and you've never even defined it. I'm sure you could have made/been taught some arbitrary set of rules that define what is in the spiritual realm, but then it would conflict with someone else's definition, and they could insist on being correct just as much as you.

I am not confused

It's not like you could be and not know it.

It is odd however, that for some reason you choose to use science as an explaining device for why you don't believe in God. I don't go to the school writing center to get help for trigonometry, for example. (awaits "unless there's..." commments)

Science is all we have. You said it yourself, God might be beyond us. If that's true, then science would say he's probably not there, and the only logical thing we could do would be to agree that he probably isn't there. You instead just give into to whatever you feel is most convenient and go with it.

If you're trying to read a book in a language you don't know, you don't pretend the words mean what you want them to mean. Yet, this is exactly what you're doing.

Man, I am not the smartest person alive, but I can produce evidence to support that I at least lean on the fortunate side of the intelligence scale. I have also been a believer for years. I have questioned my experiences so many times. I have struggles with faith. You think I have no humility, but the fact is that God remains constant even when I don't. I have dug deeper than any of you science-only chaps and the conclusion is always the same. Please don't attempt to present me in this light.

You dug deeper? From what I've read, you haven't gone anywhere that the people you're debating with have not. You might be entrenched deeper, but besides that I don't know.

This is the remarkable thing about these discussions. The only thing that I am suggesting is that there are things that exist outside of the realm of objectivity and scientific law which are applicable, important, and evident in every persons' life, every day. You all on the other hand, are limiting yourselves to the confines of objectivity, yet you present me in the light of a close-minded person.

niky has been clearer than anyone else in agreeing with your very point. No one is confining themselves but you. When you use "if you knew, you'd know", that becomes clear.

Experiences with God are not glitter on a pillow.

But they come from the very same brain and are subject to the same misinterpretation. The pillow analogy is a very fitting example.

If you experience the one truth, there is no reason to question the validity of other non-truths.

But you must address the problem of experiencing your perception of the one truth, and not the truth itself.

If you knew, you'd know. But you wouldn't know, unless you knew.

We design airplanes based on our observations of how gravity operates; the truth of gravity, if you will. We don't stick 200 people on a plane that is built for another system of gravity 'just in case', for example, etc., etc. That would actually be dangerous.

??????

We build planes based on the workings of the physical world that we can understand. If we don't understand something, we don't try to make use of it until proper research is carried out.

 

[dylansan]

...if you experience the source of all truth, it is something different than a merely subjective experience, even if the event is revealed personally and internally.

Only if you already know it's the source of all truth. And to know for sure, you'd have to experience the source of all truth to figure out if it's the source of all truth. But then that source of truth may not actually be the source of all truth...

The point is, something could seem like the source of all truth, even if it isn't. And it still doesn't explain that other people also claim to have had personal experiences with absolute truth, and yet their claims conflict with yours. Again, to some of those people, what they thought was absolute truth, wasn't. Or else there wouldn't be conflicting claims. Something seemed like absolute truth to those people. And I don't have any reason to think you're not one of them.

 

[Sach]

I give God credit for being credited by people. You never did address my point, which is that God was created by Human ego/narcissism to make us feel more special about our existence.

Ok, I'll address it.


That's an interesting theory, and one possible answer to the existence of religion, for a person who does not know God.

A dream is no more arbitrary than someone claiming to have seen miracles

You can't be serious. If a person is miraculously healed, well that's slightly different than a banana with a machine gun driving down the street in an Oscar Meyer Weeniemobile in a dream.

- they both can easily be explained as a hallucination, which having had those myself, can seem quite real at the time till you apply reasoning to it or ask for others to verify. Niky wasn't saying God is a hallucination, his point was that the many pieces of "proof" of God could easily be just that - hallucinations, dreams, and so on. Which are quite powerful and can feel extremely real. For instance, I've awoken from a dream thinking I had talked with my father the night before and that I needed to call him, only to recall he has been dead for years and the conversation was just a dream.

"Because God."


(not "father dream", which is different)

It seems you actively choose to disregard the logical or even anecdotal issues with God in order to make things conform to your beliefs.

God does not conform to my beliefs. You assume too much from the things posted in this thread.

For instance, if God was all knowing and all powerful, and if the Bible is to believed, he loves all people and thus why Jesus had to be crucified, why did he forsake so many parts of the world? The Americas (unless you go with Mormonism) did not get the Word of God till the Europeans arrived in the 15th Century. You can also consider many parts of Africa, Asia, Australia, and the many, many Pacific Islands.

This is addressed in scripture. I urge you to read up on it. Furthermore, you think you are entitled an explanation from God, which you aren't. I know that doesn't sit well with you, but it's just how differing levels of authority works.

Even if one stays within the confines of Biblical reasoning, a huge array of errors and hypocrisy arises. Which is often why people just pick and choose from a book they regard as the ultimate Truth.

There is not such hypocrisy in the bible. Someone produced some list of 85 contradictions in the bible way back in this thread... every single one of which has been explained by biblical scholars. I went through the first 10 and explained them myself. However, for someone like yourself that's all you need, some list that says one thing, yet you yourself will not research it to look for the bible's validity, because in reality you do not want the bible to have any validity.

Honestly, your reasoning truly has turned into:"jpg"

Ironic that such a non-authoritarian depiction would in fact be 100% true. "Because God." is actually the most intelligent one-liner to have graced this thread. Also ironic that the thing people would tend to respect the least, has the most authority. Not ironic however, if you know the character of God, which is not 'worldly'.

I'll address this, having been in a situation of "knowing," where I truly did feel I had experienced the divine and God. I was convinced it was Truth, and it made me happy.

Ultimately, what I realized is I had to lie to myself

I'm sorry that what you experienced was not actually God, or that if it was, something may need more time, etc. I also seem to remember that you are pretty young; not that I am so old, but give it time.

Now I believe there is no God, and especially find faiths of The Book hypocritical and short sighted. You die and that is it; we are not so important in this massive Universe to have a special place reserved for those that met the arbitrary demands of some greater entity.

Translated, "Now I believe that we die and that's it."


- Works will never unite you with God after death. You are also wrong in that we are special.

 

[Sach]

The point is, something could seem like the source of all truth, even if it isn't.

Over, and over again...


Yes, this is a factual statement, only IF that something is limited to your definition, which God is not. Literal truth is authoritarian, and is not confused. I never add 1+1 and get 3...



"Transcendent" is a useful word for you all to study.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm sorry that what you experienced was not actually God

Unbelievable, if I were to describe that in a word.

Yes, this is a factual statement, only IF that something is limited to your definition, which God is not.

God has nothing to do with it. You experienced your experience, and nothing else.

 

[Sach]

Unbelievable, if I were to describe that in a word.

Thanks for not including the rest of the sentence. Typical. The use of etc. implies that I cannot possibly know all of the many reasons why that experience did not fit at the time. It in fact may lead to his faith later in life. Once again, the goings on in this thread cannot limit what God can or will do.


Truth only works one way, which means there are literally millions of false gods out there. In fact, all you people do in this thread is stroke your own egos about how many of these Gods are false based on your reasons of objectivity, yet when I tell someone the same thing I'm suddenly a religious oppressor.

More interesting logic from such supposedly objective and logical positions.

God has nothing to do with it. You experienced your experience, and nothing else.

Your authority is misplaced.

 

[dylansan]

Literal truth is authoritarian, and is not confused.

Over, and over again...


This is true only if it was presented to you by a source of absolute truth. The only way you can know if something is absolute truth is if an absolute truth tells you so.

Literal truth is not confused, but you cannot judge if you have confused something or not, unless you compare your knowledge with the actual truth. If your knowledge matches the truth, you have not confused it. If it does not match, you have confused it. But by definition every person's knowledge is the truth, at least to them. No one can know one thing but also think the truth is something different. By definition. And you've defined 1+1 to equal 3 in your own bizarro logic where what a person knows and what is true can somehow be subjectively compared to one another by that person, to arrive at a completely objective knowledge of truth.



"Circular Reasoning" is a useful phrase for you to study.

Edit: Are you kidding?

In fact, all you people do in this thread is stroke your own egos about how many of these Gods are false based on your reasons of objectivity, yet when I tell someone the same thing I'm suddenly a religious oppressor.

As far as I can tell, everyone that's been arguing with you lately has made it explicitly clear that God may exist. We haven't made the claim that one doesn't because we don't have evidence that one doesn't. You, however, have been making the claim that one does exist, and then spent pages and pages trying to explain why you don't need evidence, because subjective experiences count as proof, except for other people, whose subjective experiences are all wrong. If anyone is stroking their own ego, it's you.

And Your authority is misplaced.

 

[Sach]

Over, and over again...


This is true only if it was presented to you by a source of absolute truth. The only way you can know if something is absolute truth is if an absolute truth tells you so.

You are again trying to limit God within the confines of your inadequate understanding. I at least recognize these confines and understand that the workings of any God are beyond them.

On the other hand, you just agreed that if God (absolute truth) tells me so, I will know it. We are in agreement.

Literal truth is not confused, but you cannot judge if you have confused something or not, unless you compare your knowledge with the actual truth.

I agree, 100%.

If your knowledge matches the truth, you have not confused it. If it does not match, you have confused it. But by definition every person's knowledge is the truth, at least to them.

Not really, because God is true whether people choose to acknowledge Him or not. But the rest of what you said is sound.

No one can know one thing but also think the truth is something different. By definition.

Again, not really. I know that God (specifically Christ) is the truth, the life, and the way. There are many things that I know to be true, but I am not God himself. A potter can mold the clay and rearrange it however he wishes, to use a relevant parable.

And you've defined 1+1 to equal 3 in your own bizarro logic

"Circular Reasoning" is a useful phrase for you to study.

No, I didn't.

"Paradox" is another useful word. I wonder, why it is even in the canon of language?





Interesting change of tone in this thread since one of the moderators summed up all arguments for God with a picture of a flying monkey, which is not really as arbitrary as he would make it out to be, being that it's directly related to a common phrase which suggests that someone is "full of ___".


My experiences here suggest that the title of this thread is misleading, or rather it's very incomplete.

 

[dylansan]

You are again trying to limit God within the confines of your inadequate understanding. I at least recognize these confines and understand that the workings of any God are beyond them.

You are again not understanding the limits of the human mind to understand things and make accurate judgments on subjective experiences. I at least recognize these limits and understand that the workings of your mind are within them.

On the other hand, you just agreed that if God (absolute truth) tells me so, I will know it. We are in agreement.

I agree that if you know an absolute truth tells you, you will know it. You do not know if what you are experiencing is an absolute truth, or just seems like absolute truth. You have yet to show that things that aren't true can't seem like absolute truth.

Not really, because God is true whether people choose to acknowledge Him or not. But the rest of what you said is sound.

The truth is true regardless of whether people choose to acknowledge it. The point is that what you perceive as truth is by definition your perception. You cannot know anything but what you perceive, because to compare your perception with the truth, you have to perceive the truth. And at that point you're just comparing a perception to a perception.

Again, not really. I know that God (specifically Christ) is the truth, the life, and the way. There are many things that I know to be true, but I am not God himself. A potter can mold the clay and rearrange it however he wishes, to use a relevant parable.

I'm merely saying that what you think is true is exactly the same as what you "know", which is exactly the same as what you think, which is exactly the same as what you judge based on experiences. These things cannot be different for one person. I cannot think elves exist but know they don't, nor can I know they exist but find their existence to be absolute truth.

No, I didn't.

"Paradox", is another useful word. I wonder, why it is even in the canon of language?





Interesting change of tone in this thread since one of the moderators summed up all arguments for God with a picture of a flying monkey.


My experiences here suggest that the title of this thread is misleading.

He was just trying to lighten the mood with what should have been obvious humor. If you think that was "summing up" any arguments, then you haven't been paying attention to the arguments at all.

Regarding the thread title, if you had said you believed in God, that would have answered the title, and we'd be done. Once you made the claim that you know God exists, you're expected to back it up, or retract the claim. By that I don't mean stop believing in God, but stop trying to convince others of it. You can either admit you have no proof or continue in this discussion, but you should not expect to have any other options simply because the thread title seems so benign.

 

[Sach]

For kicks I Googled "circular reasoning" to see what would come up. This is ironically what I find going on in this thread from my accusers.

Example from Wiki: "Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."

Precisely how you all operate concerning subjectivity and experiences with God.

"Some subjective experiences can be interpreted wrongly, therefore all subjective experiences are the same and can be interpreted wrongly." Etc.


Just like this one...

You are again not understanding the limits of the human mind to understand things and make accurate judgments on subjective experiences.

I'm talking about an experience with the one true God, a transcendental experience. This is not ordinary subjectivity, so please stop trying to analyze it by that model. You again are not understanding that you cannot limit God to the human mind. The human mind is not all there is to the story.

He was just trying to lighten the mood with what should have been obvious humor. If you think that was "summing up" any arguments, then you haven't been paying attention to the arguments at all.

No, he wasn't. It might have been funny to you, but the tone of responses toward me has drastically changed, and he in fact called my logic "bizarro". It was not obvious how I should interpret that, and I actually feel that your interpretation is wrong. Either way, it would be an honest mistake and things have clearly turned less friendly toward me in this thread.

Regarding the thread title, if you had said you believed in God, that would have answered the title, and we'd be done. Once you made the claim that you know God exists, you're expected to back it up, or retract the claim. By that I don't mean stop believing in God, but stop trying to convince others of it. You can either admit you have no proof or continue in this discussion, but you should not expect to have any other options simply because the thread title seems so benign.

You choose to respond to what I write, just like I choose to respond to what others have written here. It's not like I came into a thread full of one-line declarations of whether people believe in God or not. The argument was ongoing for quite a while, hence the very long thread length.



I'm really starting to not appreciate the so-called 'objective' people interpreting things for their own purposes to present me in a false light. What I have just pointed out is common sense, and I shouldn't have even had to respond to it. People here are less interested in objective logic concerning a paradoxical subject and are simply stooping lower and lower with their retorts.



I have given you proof, you have just subjectively misjudged it. And this is the paradox of God... "by faith alone." I don't pretend to be able to reform God's plan in a text-only environment on the internet. Spirituality is innately personal, and none of you will come to know God except through His own personal dealings with you. He will open the door for you, but that is not enough. Love means nothing if it is not set in contrast to evil. Doing the right thing is worthless without the option of doing the wrong thing. Robots are objective because they are programmed, but human beings are subjective, designed that way by a God who also operates subjectively. Free will gives our choices value, and coincidentally "the path is narrow".