I don’t really know enough about how they work it out really! This is the part where I look like an asshole, because I have no valid argument! I simply don’t know! It may seem kind of juvenile to the nonbeliever, that a grown person is, believing things like a child believes in santa, but to me it is a real as the hair on my head. So I guess we will have to wait and see who was wrong, in the end.
If I’m right about the non-duality premise, then the kind of God a person thinks they meet when they undergo a non-duality experience will likely be determined by the culture. A person could believe the Earth is flat and 6000 years old, that evolution is a crock and that sinners are going to Hell, have this experience and frame it in terms of what they have been taught.
A person could be as ignorant as you like and have a non-duality experience. It won’t bring answers to questions like, “Does P=NP or not?”-that kind of thing is in the opposite direction. They might not have the tools to interpret their experience at all and may end up running with it in one of any number of directions. So to answer your question, they’d all be somewhat wrong in terms of how such a thing winds up represented symbolically because, well hm. Because it involves a kind of stripping away of your usual everyday dialectic mind. It can’t be told.
The question of whether there is a God is a scientific question - it’s a question about an external reality, which we can use logic and evidence to draw provisional conclusions. I say this because “proof” doesn’t apply to science. It’s a term that exists in mathematics, but in science we provisionally accept conclusions.
So I’ll assume that by “proof” you meant “convincing evidence.”
How can we show you evidence that God doesn’t exist? I mean, we have figured out the real reasons behind what people used to believe required God, like lightning and earthquakes, like the formation of the galaxies, stars, our solar system, like the development of life here on Earth. All those used to be attributed to God, but now we have explanations that don’t require the action of any God. But this still doesn’t show that a God doesn’t exist, does it? Just that we can’t see anything in the universe that would require the actions of a God.
The reason people here have compared this God idea to Santa Claus, is to show you that you have a double standard of evidence. Do you agree that it would be impossible to prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist? Especially if you define him in a way that his existence has no observable characteristics? Wouldn’t you agree that the only the “null hypothesis” is that Santa likely does not exist, and hold this opinion, until someone brings along some evidence that he really does exist? What would you say to someone who told you he was going to believe in Santa until he saw proof that he didn’t exist?
That’s what we say about God.
You don’t look like an asshole, you just look like someone who has not examined his own beliefs. We don’t know either, but we can say that there doesn’t seem to be any convincing evidence that there is a God, and until we see that, the only reasonable position is to accept that it likely doesn’t exist, until such evidence is found for us to change our minds.
To follow on from what CurtC is saying, there are individuals that don’t particularly strongly hold onto the belief in an afterlife or an omniscient creator of the heavens and the earth that have a respect for all humans and wish improve life for as many people as possible. I particularly respect those that are willing to discuss their beliefs without demeaning other participants in a discussion. I believe that one can have a particularly strong personal revelation that doesn’t translate very well to other people and that one is quite unlikely to convince them without access to some evidence… Either by replicating the circumstances where one had that revelation or by collecting forensic evidence from the unique event.
Even then, competing hypotheses must be accepted if they fit the rule of parsimony, despite the consequences of holding such a belief. For example, we may find it eerie that Peter Popoff can know the personal details of an individual, but there may be a natural mechanism by which such knowledge is attained (I find it unusual that faith-healers are permitted to practice in the US, but public healthcare is decried). Likewise, mutually contradictory claims should be held as precisely that. A statue consuming milk in Southall does not lend credence to a belief in monotheism. Nor does a flaw in a study or claim lend credence to creationism or Lysenkoism.
Thank you! I appreciate that! At least I am admitting my argument was fallacious, and I shouldn’t have tried to state it as if it was valid. Although, that does not diminish the fact that I still believe in God, and apparently always will. I have gone and researched evolution and read some arguments regarding evolution vs design, my quest for something more substantial as proof, continues.
Well I sincerely thank you for saying this! Though my beliefs are pretty strong, after visiting this thread and I’d be lying if I said I didn’t doubt myself momentarily. I stopped and thought, then thought again, and I wondered if perhaps I am thinking like a crack pot. It didn’t pan out, to me its pretty solid! But thank you for not completely debunking my ‘revelation’.
And amazingly, that’s exactly what you believe! Wonder of wonders how that happened.
You didn’t read my post, did you?
CurtC was being somewhat facetious. He stated that all adults start out as babies. No stunning revelations there, and not intended to mean he claims that poof there were babies from the ether or whatever.
Yes, Evolution Rocks! Things fit neatly into place because they developed as an interlocking system. Nothing was created in a vacuum (well, nothing but virtual particles and whatever was the source of the Big Bang, but those are different topics).
No, I understand, it is you who fail to understand. If he had said something about smells at the hospital and all you had smelled was ammonia and urine or whatever, and you didn’t register a hit, he would have said something else that made you think “Aha”, and then you wouldn’t remember the hospital odor question, you would remember whatever that other point was that made you go “Aha”. That is noticing the “hits” and forgetting the “misses”. You provide the meaning. The guy just has to ask leading questions, and be good at capitalizing on your reactions.
Look, I know I can’t prove to you anything about your experience. But the principles of cold reading are very convincing and work through some clever psychological ploys. I certainly don’t know what happened in your story, so I can’t know if he was cold reading you or anything else. But I would like to suggest that your descriptions sound very familiar to ploys used to con people, very successful cons. And maybe you didn’t pay this guy any money or anything. But just be aware there are other explanations for things. Certainly enough explanations that your story cannot convince anyone else of the veracity.
So you allow God to measure people by their actions and not their belief. How nice of you. Get’s you around some of those traditional dilemmas of God believers. But not all of them.
Do you know much about monkeys? Do you know that they think, feel, cry, and laugh? They may not have all the reasoning ability, contemplation, language skills, etc of humans, but they are not feeble automatons either.
More disinformation you’ve been fed. Why are there still monkeys? Because monkeys are successful in their environments. Why did some monkeys evolve into humans and others not? Because the human predecessor population found a niche that worked for them, where other monkey populations found a niche that worked for them. Those niches were different, the selection pressures were different, the population groups developed differently.
Then you’ve been lied to. The Intelligent Design proponents are dishonest. They misrepresent and distort the science of evolution. They lie about statements made by scientists, take words out of context and twist them to say the opposite of what the words meant. There proposed theories don’t stand up to scrutiny and aren’t consistent even with the evidence they themselves present. You’d be better off listening to Young Earth Creationists than Intelligent Designers. At least they make no pretense to science, and you can evaluate their claims at face value.
And it is only damned, lying fundies who see Evolution and God as mutually exclusive to begin with.
Solo projects that weren’t nearly as good, just enough to keep fans pining for the fjords.
A Hamburg bar band.