The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

You think Christians think its okay to kill these people?
You think Jesus would endorse killing these people who suffer from sin as all others?

I think once again you have the wrong religion.

All depends on which Gospel and who the writer is.

Most of us who have a clue about the historic origins on the bible and that it is written by authors who had different agendas know that there is not one consistent message.

I know that Acts 5:1-11 reads more like something that you might read from the Book of Mormon
Acts 5:1-11 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
 
Now this is getting ridiculous: if there's no reason for either, then the lack of meaning is the default position. Otherwise, what's your default?

It already became ridiculous when you stepped in and claimed we had the burden of proof. There is equal burden of proof on either side, as I explained to you. On the surface it looks as if theism is postulating more entities than atheism, but if you look a little more deeply, you will see that it's really about two opposing worldviews.

And, please, spare me the crap about a 'default position', which is really just the agreed starting point for an argument. Philosophers don't agree on where it should be and the atheist philosopher who popularised the idea, eventually became a deist.
 
Last edited:
If there are ananias among you who debt me, you too shall disapphira!

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
 
This fundamentally misunderstands the core philosophy of science -- the only method, I'd add, that has given us any sort of functional knowledge about objective reality.

You pile assumption upon assumption. First of all, this is the religion and philosophy section of the forum, not the science section. The scientific method itself comes under scrutiny here.

Then you assume that 'objective reality' first of all actually exists (have you heard of philosophical idealism?) and secondly is to be equated with the observable universe, which the scientific method was developed to describe. Nobody has proven there even is such an entity as 'objective reality', but you assume it before you even start, which I'm afraid stalls the debate right there.
 
I thought that's what you said. It's also the difficulty.

It may be difficult for some, certainly.:D

The obfuscation is how you pollute purpose. In simplicity, it's internally driven, by the human in question, not some other agency.

Indeed it can be. Nobody is denying that possibility. But that is a different kind of purpose from the grand purpose we theists believe in. Only ours is true purpose (although it can co-opt the other kind). The other kind is but the schemes of men. I'm not claiming this is how it has to be, incidentally. I'm claiming this is how it seems to be.

I say "other" because if I venture "external" I risk another round of your topological twisting.

This is hardly the Gordian knot. Occam's razor doesn't help you cut it either, because it's only a guide not an inviolable principle.



Sure: Obscurantist stringists! A fie upon your curlicues.
I hope you can tie your shoelaces.
 
On the surface it looks as if theism is postulating more entities than atheism, but if you look a little more deeply, you will see that it's really about two opposing worldviews.
...one of which is based on postulating extra entities.

The scientific method itself comes under scrutiny here.
And it withstands that scrutiny by getting actual results. Spiritual/religious claims don't.

Then you assume that 'objective reality' first of all actually exists
Your own claims have included the very same assumption. You're just trying to distract again, and getting rather desperate about it: throwing anything & everything you can think of now, other than the actual subject; anything that you hope might get in the way and bog down the conversation in anything other than the fact that your claims about reality don't match reality.

the observable universe, which the scientific method was developed to describe.
...and which your religious claims have also described... but inaccurately. Your attempts to back the conversation off to some vague non-reality nobody cares about or has made any claims about will not change the fact that your original claims were about this real world, and have no support in it.

stalls the debate right there.
You're the one who keeps trying to divert everything away to anywhere & everywhere else but the actual subject.
 
It already became ridiculous when you stepped in and claimed we had the burden of proof.

I've explained to you how the burden works and why. Why did you ignore it?

There is equal burden of proof on either side, as I explained to you.

You didn't explain it. You claimed it, and went on to show that you didn't understand the concept, which is why I explained it to you.

On the surface it looks as if theism is postulating more entities than atheism, but if you look a little more deeply, you will see that it's really about two opposing worldviews.

No, that's not how it works.

And, please, spare me the crap about a 'default position'

Your refusal to understand how science and skepticism works is not my problem. I will bring up these things even if you consider them crap.

Philosophers don't agree on where it should be and the atheist philosopher who popularised the idea, eventually became a deist.

Ad hominem.
 
You pile assumption upon assumption. First of all, this is the religion and philosophy section of the forum, not the science section. The scientific method itself comes under scrutiny here.

The scientific method objectively produces better results than other philosophies.

Then you assume that 'objective reality' first of all actually exists

You must be joking. Solipsism is a dead ideology. Reality exists. Dead with it.

Nobody has proven there even is such an entity as 'objective reality'

Your ignorance is not an argument.

you assume it before you even start, which I'm afraid stalls the debate right there.

Denying objective reality stalls ALL debates, since nothing can be discussed.
 
Indeed it can be. Nobody is denying that possibility.

I am happy to hear report of your having received the telegram. Now that you can reflect upon an alternative interpretation of 'purpose', perhaps you will be more gentle on those who use it thus.

But that is a different kind of purpose from the grand purpose we theists believe in. Only ours is true purpose (although it can co-opt the other kind). The other kind is but the schemes of men. I'm not claiming this is how it has to be, incidentally. I'm claiming this is how it seems to be.

Your purpose is the the true one; so it seems?

This is hardly the Gordian knot. Occam's razor doesn't help you cut it either, because it's only a guide not an inviolable principle.

As saws go, the knot yields with little fight.

I hope you can tie your shoelaces.

Crocs have laces? :jaw-dropp

:D
 
The scientific method objectively produces better results than other philosophies.



You must be joking. Solipsism is a dead ideology. Reality exists. Dead with it.

Quote:
Nobody has proven there even is such an entity as 'objective reality'

Your ignorance is not an argument.



Denying objective reality stalls ALL debates, since nothing can be discussed.

What? You don't find it convincing when someone who argues that god is real does so by way of arguing that reality itself might not be?

Yeah- me either. :rolleyes:
(Party on, BT)
picture.php
 
If it doesn't, why are scientific experiments so repeatable?

The problem with that question is that saying that objective reality might not exist disallows any standard for proving otherwise- repeatability doesn't matter, since it might just be repeated unreality (or unreal repetition). It's the ultimate catch-all argument for denying objective criteria, the mother of all false equivalencies, meant to suggest that the subjective is just as good as the objective, and sneaking god (or whatever) in the door by it. As Argumemnon says, it stalls debate, really cancels it, because it forbids any rational basis for it; you make your position literally inarguable by it.

I've argued with creationists who tried to use science to prove the reality of Noah's Ark, as told in the bible. They'd get increasingly frustrated as each hypothesis they'd pose as "scientifically possible" would be shown to be, in fact, objectively nonsense; finally, the ultimate retreat would be to the position they were really arguing for anyway- "well, god can do anything, man!" IOW, they'd need their conclusion to bolster the evidence for the conclusion. And it always struck me as a little dishonest to pretend your story was based strictly on science, only to abandon science when it no longer worked for the purpose.

Kind of the same thing here- BT wants his god to be an objective reality, but can't get there through objective means, so the objective baby gets thrown out with the subjective bathwater.
 
Because god, who is outside-in, wills it so. You stringist! Hyperrealmist! Nitpicker!

Shh. I'm waiting for Blue Triangle to point out that disagreement in science is actually quite common, and then I'm going to ask him if scientists tend to agree more or less than Christian theologians.
 
Kind of the same thing here- BT wants his god to be an objective reality, but can't get there through objective means, so the objective baby gets thrown out with the subjective bathwater.

Which, believe it or not, I'm okay with.

You want to say you had a personal Sign From God which completely changed your outlook on life? That's absolutely fine. I can't look inside your head and say why it isn't convincing. It's never happened to me, so I won't say it can't happen. Admit you don't have evidence for it and I'll just shrug and point out that it never happened to me.

But start with "evidence" like bad numerology? That's rubbish.
 
Which, believe it or not, I'm okay with.

You want to say you had a personal Sign From God which completely changed your outlook on life? That's absolutely fine. I can't look inside your head and say why it isn't convincing. It's never happened to me, so I won't say it can't happen. Admit you don't have evidence for it and I'll just shrug and point out that it never happened to me.

But start with "evidence" like bad numerology? That's rubbish.

Same here- people can believe what they want on whatever basis they want, and bask in whatever meaning it gives them. When they try to sell it to me on that basis, I can laugh it off, no problem. Where it can get to be a problem is when they proceed from that to thinking that people who don't share the beliefs must necessarily lead lives with lesser meaning. That is rubbish- BT may sincerely have no intention of imposing, but stuffy self-righteousness is a natural consequence of that sort of assumed superiority; a religious right to believe as you choose too easily becomes taken as a privilege to impose as you can. You can't be satisfied with minding your own business when you've satisfied yourself that yours is the only business that really means anything. Ask Kim Davis- she can tell you it's so.
 
Last edited:
I see the villagers are coming over the hill with their pitchforks and flaming torches. A hasty retreat may be in order (I can't take you all on, after all). But let me explain something, as some of you are getting confused about what exactly I mean by reality.

I think that the fundamental basis of reality is Mind (not our little ego minds, but something larger) and that this universe is projected by it. The reason science hasn't detected Mind is because science is part of the projection. This projected universe is real, but not objectively real. It's created by Mind and is more like a hologram, a shared dream or a movie. There are two kinds of knowledge, rational and empirical. Everything about the universe that we know, including all science, is empirical, and is therefore uncertain and does not deserve our complete trust. Rational knowledge, mathematics and logic, is certain and therefore really is fully trustworthy. Logically all you can be sure of is that you exist and have thoughts and experiences and that must be the starting point for any metaphysics, because it is all you know for certain. One consequence of it is that your knowledge that you are a conscious mind supercedes anything science has to say about consciousness, such as the claim that mind is merely an epiphenomenon of the workings of the brain. You already know you are a conscious mind with total moment-to-moment certainty. Nothing in science is certain, so you can eventually discount such claims as you learn more about your mind and its relationship to the movie. (This is why there is a 'hard problem of consciousness', because science is unable to detect the mind that projects everything our senses detect.)

Someone accused me of solipsism. If our mind has only thoughts, sensory experiences and emotions, then either solipsism (total identification with the mind) or naturalism (total identification with the movie it projects) becomes inevitable. However, we lose consciousness, we dream, some of us have visions and other spiritual experiences. We realise we did not consciously create these experiences and therefore that there is at least one deeper level of consciousness than we seem to be part of or in contact with. The little ego mind has discovered Mind at large, or the surface of it at least. We also observe others and suspect they have minds too. Some of us have experiences of being linked to those minds through telepathy and then we know that there are separate minds also connected to Mind at large and that we are not alone (solipcism is wrong).

If we identify with the projected world we forget to look inside and start to believe more and more that we are part of the movie. The actor identifies with the character and thinks the movie is reality. That's the position many atheists and skeptics are in. They are totally deluded. They couldn't be more wrong. They are almost out of their mind (think about that phrase). But because they are such great actors (and it's method acting writ large), they get most of the best parts in the movie and become 'men of the world'. But if we don't get too involved with the world, if we take time out for contemplation, if we avoid too many strong emotions and sensations, if we keep an open mind about everything, we become more aware that we are mind, we become mindful. We see that the signals we receive from and the emotions we feel about the projected world are strong, that our own thoughts can stir emotions up, and that dreams are ephemeral and intuitions and other subtle feelings are easily drowned out, so if we want to become mindful we have to seek silence. We go fishing or walking, solitary activities that give us space - in other words, help us get in contact with Mind-at-Large. We learn about people who pray and others who meditate, so we try these things and find that they help us too. We may start to see pictures in our head, have flashes of insight and knowledge, hear a 'still small voice', and we know there are still deeper layers of mind and we wonder how deep it goes. We also hear about the beliefs of people who pray and meditate and see that they correspond to what we are experiencing, so we take an interest in religion and spirituality. A lot of it seems crude and anachronistic and emotive, but we can see that there is also real insight and knowledge there. They are the people who are most like us now, so we may join a religion. There, we may learn about a book we never paid much attention to before, but which we eventually see was written by the scriptwriter to help us remember him. We may even witness a miracle, written into the script specially for us. We start to suspect this deeper layer of mind is helping us and notice an increasing correspondence between what is happening in our minds and what is happening in the movie-world around us. We understand then that this deeper layer of our mind is the one writing the ongoing script for the movie, putting clues in it for us. We stlll enjoy the movie now, but know that it really is just a movie, not real life, which is inside us, yet beyond our little ego minds. We realise that this is where the real action is and as we focus inward more than outwards we learn and are shown ever more about the larger Mind, which is limitless in extent and love. This is reality for us now, initially the picture house where the movie is being shown and eventually the door out of that picture house into the real world, from whence we came.
 
There appears to be a reality behind how we live. . . .I type on the keyboard and letters appear. Maybe it is all a projection in my own mind but it is not worth entertaining without evidence. In a practical sense, I therefore reject solipsism and related concepts even though I cannot disprove them.

You are asking us to accept this concept of God without presenting us with evidence for it. I see no reason to operate as if things exist when there is no evidence that they exist and seem to have no interaction with me.
 

Back
Top Bottom