Present Evidence Here II

[Baruch]

What do you mean "faith is real"? So what? That's no indication that the object of that faith is indeed real.

Reason is a lighthouse, faith is the rocks below.

Yes, Bugs Bunny is real ... as a cartoon.

No, Bugs Bunny isn't real ... as a living person (or even formerly living person)

So this is how rhetoric works, we take a person's words, make s subtle shift in meaning, and bitch slap them.

A sentence is usually made up of a subject and a predicate.  A predicate is made up of a verb and an object.  Nut cases want to deny the existence of one or more of those things.  A materialist will emphasize the "object" over the "verb" or the "subject".  A solipsist will emphasize the "subject" over the "object" or the "verb".  The break dancer will emphasize the "verb" over the "subject" or the "object".  Balance the Force, Luke.

[Baruch]

I know I haven't done any chemical alterants other than caffeine.  And I can be drug-tested to demonstrate that I'm not high.

Obviously, the brain is going to react similarly to similar stimuli -- and that's independent of the trigger cause of the stimulus.  Kind of like how 4 is 4 whether you're getting it by multiplying 2x2 or -2x-2.

That is just the rational function of the brain.  It does more than arithmetic.  The objectivity status of arithmetic is also, very different than the objectivity status of my typing this right now.  Pythagoras didn't get that, he overgeneralized.  Aristotle developed biology, he knew more about brains than any other contemporary, being an anatomist.  And no, I don't find that the chaotic nature of humanity, to be ... reacts similar to similar stimuli.  That would be a rational system.  Since human beings do science and math, and since humans are irrational and delusional, the acme of math or science is unreachable.  We are not the species to achieve that.  We are not Vulcans.

[Baruch]

Scientific research can only take us so far.  It is not long before we enter the realm of speculation regardless of which side of the line you are on.  I speculate that the brain responds to a stimuli such as cocaine or the presence of another person.  If this is true, then could the stimuli that triggers the "religious experience response" be the presence of God in that persons experience?

Good question.  But the presence can be subjective or objective.  I would deny the objective presence of G-d, in ordinary terms.  But i don't agree with those terms, being a mystic.  I find the objective presence of G-d in everything, because I don't limit myself to self-defeating definitions or confusing notions.  And that objective presence, is something I subjectively experience.

[Blackleaf]

It would not be unreasonable to conclude that faith is as real as love and drugs.

Faith being real and God being real are two totally different things. One is a subjective experience, the other is a supposed person. If God really existed, and he were a personal god, his existence would be as plain to see as anyone here.

[Baruch]

Faith being real and God being real are two totally different things. One is a subjective experience, the other is a supposed person. If God really existed, and he were a personal god, his existence would be as plain to see as anyone here.

The Christian god isn't objective.  No religion god is.  All such gods are invisible.  And that is something hard to demonstrate.  I reject religion gods.  Humans are demigods, I accept them as real.  Faith isn't real ... it is a belief (as misdefined).  Faith is real ... it is trust between two people (at least it is real for some pairs of people).  So keep using the worthless English language, and only achieve confusion?

[Mike Cl]

Good question.  But the presence can be subjective or objective.  I would deny the objective presence of G-d, in ordinary terms.  But i don't agree with those terms, being a mystic.  I find the objective presence of G-d in everything, because I don't limit myself to self-defeating definitions or confusing notions.  And that objective presence, is something I subjectively experience.

False.  You cannot experience an objective presence when none exists.  Therefore, all you CAN experience is a subjective experience.  I'm sure your god is real to you, but not to anybody else--and you cannot demonstrate it/him or whatever to anybody else.

[Baruch]

False.  You cannot experience an objective presence when none exists.  Therefore, all you CAN experience is a subjective experience.  I'm sure your god is real to you, but not to anybody else--and you cannot demonstrate it/him or whatever to anybody else.

You misidentify your hand, you think it is something else, or that it is nothing, a figment of your imagination, for example.  Like the man who mistook his wife for a hat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Mistook_His_Wife_for_a_Hat

As an antitheist, you can't admit even to the vocabulary of religion (see Wittgenstein).  You are a particular anti-logos, an embodiment or meme carrier of one part of Newspeak, who limits the OED to your cultural ideology.  In Newspeak, any words you don't like, are nonsense (as Logical Positivism claimed against metaphysics).

I can demonstrate my hand, and much more ... a whole living person.  There are many of people here and now.  You can misdefine that as ... jello.  And we all know that jello isn't alive, so therefore it is logical, that these non-people are not alive.  If we carefully misdefine natural, then all things are natural, by definition, but that is circular and thus invalid reasoning.

I recognize the whole living person, as a demigod.  This isn't G-d, it isn't the Christian god etc.  It is democratic Greco-Roman paganism.  I reject the false dichotomy of natural/supernatural as used here.  Rhetorically, being duplicitous is the whole game.  All people are rhetorical, so all people are duplicitous.  Thus there is no trustworthiness ... which means all relationships are faithless.

It has nothing to do with believing in a particular number of unicorns that can dance on the head of an angel.  That is a misdirection, which I choose to ignore.

[Hakurei Reimu]

We don't need a way to compare God to an emotion like love. We need to compare God to a fiction like Gandalf. That is the relevant comparison.

[Baruch]

We don't need a way to compare God to an emotion like love. We need to compare God to a fiction like Gandalf. That is the relevant comparison.

I would take a fictional Gandalf over any of you ;-)  Your bodies may be real, but your ideas are no less fictional.  All ideas are notional.

[Mike Cl]

You misidentify your hand, you think it is something else, or that it is nothing, a figment of your imagination, for example.  Like the man who mistook his wife for a hat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Mistook_His_Wife_for_a_Hat

As an antitheist, you can't admit even to the vocabulary of religion (see Wittgenstein).  You are a particular anti-logos, an embodiment or meme carrier of one part of Newspeak, who limits the OED to your cultural ideology.  In Newspeak, any words you don't like, are nonsense (as Logical Positivism claimed against metaphysics).

I can demonstrate my hand, and much more ... a whole living person.  There are many of people here and now.  You can misdefine that as ... jello.  And we all know that jello isn't alive, so therefore it is logical, that these non-people are not alive.  If we carefully misdefine natural, then all things are natural, by definition, but that is circular and thus invalid reasoning.

I recognize the whole living person, as a demigod.  This isn't G-d, it isn't the Christian god etc.  It is democratic Greco-Roman paganism.  I reject the false dichotomy of natural/supernatural as used here.  Rhetorically, being duplicitous is the whole game.  All people are rhetorical, so all people are duplicitous.  Thus there is no trustworthiness ... which means all relationships are faithless.

It has nothing to do with believing in a particular number of unicorns that can dance on the head of an angel.  That is a misdirection, which I choose to ignore.

All of that is your opinion--The world according to Garp--or Baruch.  Yes, you can demonstrate your hand--but not your god.  You recognize people as demigods--that is simply your opinion and nothing more.  You can believe in the supernatural all you want, with the greatest of  sincerity and just is still your opinion.  Your god and demigod is still a fiction whether you chose to 'believe' that or not.

[Cavebear]

Good afternoon.  Its been a while since I've been here, a good long while.

This thread asks me to post evidence for God.  I find this an interesting request as it assumes that there must be proof for something to be real.  Can you prove to me that you love your mother?  Can you prove to me you love your significant other?  Can you prove to me that friendship is even possible?

Ah, so THIS is where you have been lurking!  I saw rumors of you elsewhere.

I had a mother and Father, and loved them as much as they deserved.  I have friends.  I can see them.  Can you see a deity in that same way?  If you can, then you need professional help...

[Baruch]

All of that is your opinion--The world according to Garp--or Baruch.  Yes, you can demonstrate your hand--but not your god.  You recognize people as demigods--that is simply your opinion and nothing more.  You can believe in the supernatural all you want, with the greatest of  sincerity and just is still your opinion.  Your god and demigod is still a fiction whether you chose to 'believe' that or not.

Yes, it is merely my deluded opinion, that Wikipedia exists, and that this forum exists.  But why do you share similar delusions with me?

Do you recognize people in the street as Americans?  How would you know?  Did you ask to see their papers?  Well I can't either, but I do know a human when I see one.  And yes, American etc are just nationalist memes, they aren't real.  So how is raising my hand to type, supernatural?  I am saying that natural/supernatural, as used here, are meaningless words used rhetorically (dishonestly?).  Raising my hand to type is artificial, not natural.  The hunger in my stomach each morning, that is natural.  But people misuse words, for many reasons?

[Mike Cl]

Yes, it is merely my deluded opinion, that Wikipedia exists, and that this forum exists.  But why do you share similar delusions with me?

Do you recognize people in the street as Americans?  How would you know?  Did you ask to see their papers?  Well I can't either, but I do know a human when I see one.  And yes, American etc are just nationalist memes, they aren't real.  So how is raising my hand to type, supernatural?  I am saying that natural/supernatural, as used here, are meaningless words used rhetorically (dishonestly?).  Raising my hand to type is artificial, not natural.  The hunger in my stomach each morning, that is natural.  But people misuse words, for many reasons?

I hope you feel better.  I don't really know what your rant is supposed to mean.  Why is typing 'unnatural' (much less supernatural) and hunger pangs 'natural'?  Humans have always manipulated their environments with their hands, so I'd suggest typing is completely  natural.   People do misuse words all them time and for many reasons.  You do it to confuse--like using the word 'supernatural' as though it has any real meaning; you use it as the theists who invented it to help them 'prove' the fiction of their god, or your G_d; your god and all others, are fictions and you have a hard time with that.

[Baruch]

I hope you feel better.  I don't really know what your rant is supposed to mean.  Why is typing 'unnatural' (much less supernatural) and hunger pangs 'natural'?  Humans have always manipulated their environments with their hands, so I'd suggest typing is completely  natural.   People do misuse words all them time and for many reasons.  You do it to confuse--like using the word 'supernatural' as though it has any real meaning; you use it as the theists who invented it to help them 'prove' the fiction of their god, or your G_d; your god and all others, are fictions and you have a hard time with that.

Theists didn't invent "supernatural" ... atheists did.  They also invented "natural".  Before that, there wasn't even a word for religion.  Your views are too contemporary, to apply to ancient times.

Yes, all things end, but I am not sure how happy I am with that.  Are you?  Oh, that would be a religious question ...

[cabinetmaker]

No, it couldn't be the presence of God, since no such thing exists, but it could be a hallucination or simply a delusion, or wishful thinking.

You offer an assertion, not proof.  People put much time and effort into proving or disproving the existence of God without ever first pausing to think about what they are trying to prove.  Is there a  physical nature to God?  If so, what would that look like?  Does God exist in ways that we cannot fathom?  For instance. we exist in a 4 dimensional world; x,y,z, and t.  A biology professor from CU-Boulder speculates that God exists in at least 5 dimensions.  What is that 5th dimension.  He went on to say that God would exist in n+1 dimensions.  Mathematically we can prove that there are at least 12 dimensions meaning God exists in 13 dimensions.  How does one begin to prove or disprove the existence of a 13 dimensional Being?  In short, asserting that God doesn't exist is just an assertion. 

This leaves me in the same position though.  I can no more prove that God exists than you can prove that God does not exist.  None the less, I believe that He does exist.