This is an interesting discussion,as I understand it the word “God” has different meanings to different people. If the word God is “A Being” there will never be any proof…however; if God is “being” (all of what exists) then there is proof. Before a being can exist there has to be a place first in which to exist. Go I my mind is what exists, and Moses asked, “Who are you”? God is quoted as saying I am what is.
Monavis
Forgive the typos ,Thanks
So if we believe that what is, is, then we believe in God?
There always the idea that the supernatural is merely the natural that we don’t understand yet and haven’t found a way to measure.
MAny of the things we accept today would seem supernatural only a few generations ago.
Probably as many different meanings as there are people.
A book I’ve been reading suggests that God is indeed all of what exists. The only reality. The Universe as we know it is the eqivilent to a dream or a mirage created by the mind. Created by us not God. Like the old chinese fabel of the the man who dreamed he was a butterfly. If this is the dream then we won’t know until we choose to wake up.
Dan, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that I’m a character in your dream.
G. E. Moore had a proof of the existence of the external world. He would hold up his right hand, look at it, show it to the audience, and say “This is my right hand”. Same with the left. That was it.
[QUOTE]
Yes I know. And my point is that you are doing exactly the thing you rail against.
You assume your beliefs are the “correct ones” and preach against those who don’t agree with you.
Simply false. Our beliefs are a product of input from various sources. If I happen to agree with a point someone is making or I am influenced by certain sources, that doesn’t mean I’m buying a con. Are we supposed to come up with unique beliefs devoid of any outside input. Your own beliefs have come from somewhere.
Personnel experience, logic, reason, and a little soul searching helps us sift through the input and decide what we will embrace or discard.
It is true that some people are more succeptable to outside influence than others.
This might be considered a clever answer if it related to my point. If you are taking a stand according to your beliefs great. I support that. That doesn’t negate the fact that you are preaching what you assume to be the “truth” while complaining about others doing the same thing. That is the pot calling the kettle black.
If you understand and support their right to live according to thier beliefs {which includes their belief in shareing their “truth” with others} while disagreeing and asserting your own then there is no hypocracy. When your big complaint aboout them is that they are doing something that you yourself are doing, that is hypocracy.
There is a subtle ridicule in your posts when refering to people with spiritual beliefs . As I said there is no superiority in believeing or not believeing. Each person should be true to themselves. We should also be aware that our beliefs are evolving and give equal consideration to the many things we don’t know.
There seems to be some idea that religous beliefs are in a different catagory than moral beliefs of cultural and philosophical beliefs. There’s an attitude of it being impolite or rude to question someones religous beliefs. The freedom of worship and all that. For me they are all in the same catagory. When our beliefs , whatever they are, reach into the lives of others then they are elligible to be questioned or challenged. Thats how we grow.
Cute, and yet if he dreamed he was at a seminar and did that, would that be reality if he didn’t know he was dreaming?
If he dreamed he asked everyone at the seminar if it was reality and they all said yes this is reality, would that make it so? He wouldn’t know the difference until he woke up.
I’m not saying I’m convinced, but it is an intesting concept and preferable to me over God created everything and now we’d better tow the mark or he will punish us.
It would not prove to Moore that he was not dreaming. It would demonstrate that he could not argue to the students that he was dreaming.
Did you think you were the first atheist?
I don’t get your point.
the very bestest one too I guess.
If I told you that you were a figment of my imagination, would you believe me?
and I still don’t get your point.
If we’re in a dream agreeing that we’re not in a dream. Is it still a dream?
The point is we may be and not know it. It’s one of those unproveable things. You are free to ridcule the idea. I dreamed I was talking to someone about it last night and they ridiculed it.
So Dan, answer the question, and we’ll continue.
please note the “nope” in the title of my previous response.
If you said I was a figment of your imagination I wouldn’t believe you.
please continue.
Dan, I love this! An argument between two solipsists. Surrealism central. Sorry, I missed the “nope”. Solipsism is logically irrefutable. But whose dream are we in, mine or yours? To be settled only by a duel – chose your weapons, sir!
Well Hoo, I’m not familiar with the term So I looked it up. From a brief reading I don’t think I’m talking about solipsism.
I won’t be able to explain it well because I’m still studying the concept.
It’s basicly this.
God is the only reality. We are a part of that reality. We created the universe when we chose to believe we are seperate from God. That is the meaning of the truth will set you free.
Solipsism seems egocentric. My perceptions are the only ones that matter. What I’m talking about is accpeting the fact that my perceptions are illusions and trying to lose those illusions. Its also that I believe you are a much a part of God as I am. “Whatever you do unto the least of these”
It’s almost as if we are cells in the same body, each believeing we are a seperate body. That would make us cellmates I suppose Ha! I slay me.
Each of us percieves our individuality differently. Each of is sheds our illusions at a our own rate according to our own experience and choice.
Pardon my clumsy and meager explanation.
My best friends call me “who?”.
Same to you.
funny
What explanation are you refering to?