What I believe.....

[Thomas]

Why? The reason is the same - lack of reliable evidence.

It rather depends on what one calls evidence. This, in turn, depends on what taxonomical class we place 'God' and 'Bigfoot'. It's axiomatic that God is in a class of its own, and if such a being exists, it is not subject to empirical determination. The classic 'Five Ways' are an argument for the existence of God. Bigfoot, on the other hand, will fall within a taxonomic class in which one can safely assume that an empirical trace must be found if we are to assume Bigfoot exists. As there is none, then it is safe to assume that Bigfoot does not exist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My belief system prohibits us from accepting things merely on faith. How many other belief systems can say that?

All. Ask a Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Sikh, or even a Muslim.

It's axiomatic that God is in a class of its own, and if such a being exists, it is not subject to empirical determination.

Very convenient. Special pleading. Neither God, nor his acts and ommissions (existence of evil), not subject to empirical determination.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Convenient, perhaps, though I believe Thomas' comment to be essentially true never the less. When one is dealing with a physical creature, physical evidence should be available to prove its existence. In the last 50 years the mounting technology available to most average people in industrialized nations means that today about everyone is carrying an object that is phone, camera and video device all in one.

And yet still not one shred of evidence for the Bigfoot. Not one single clear picture, or piece of verifiable video. Not one dead carcass, not one instance where a lumber truck traveling from the back country has accidentally hit & killed one. Normally absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence but in this case I tend to think otherwise.

Gods on the other hand, by their very nature, do not tend to be physical entities that roam our planet. Though a lot of them didn't seem to mind traipsing around millennia ago. Since then though they have gotten rather shy of showing themselves on this plane of existence.

Since this is the case, the demands for their evidence cannot be the same as for a physical creature that supposedly do roam our planet to this day.

Not that I don't share your frustration. All of the Gods, not just the Christian one, do themselves a disservice, in my opinion, by not visiting once in a while.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

If everything of value is subject to empirical determination then what can be proven empirically is the only thing of value. If things can have value without being empirical then I think it is irrelevant if it is empirically provable or not.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Not that I don't share your frustration. All of the Gods, not just the Christian one, do themselves a disservice, in my opinion, by not visiting once in a while.

That depends on their purpose for visiting or not, no? Do we know why they don't visit? Do everyone agree on that point? You have some assumptions you base your logic on?

 

[wil]

Visiting? You believe G!d has a capablity of visiting?

I believe G!d to be principle, G!d to be love, G!d to be here in us, among us at all times...

Visit?

 

[Gordian Knot]

Tea, that's why I put in that magic phrase in my opinion. I've learned that much in my time here! That's a get-out-of-jail-free card. lol.

No I don't have a clue why the Gods, if they exist, do not visit their creation from time to time. Does everyone agree that they do not? No idea. But they obviously do not in any sort of public way. A public appearance by Jehovah, or Vishnu, or Odin would certainly cause something of a stir wouldn't you think?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

GK, I agree. If Jesus really was god, you'd think he'd visit more often.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Tea, that's why I put in that magic phrase in my opinion. I've learned that much in my time here! That's a get-out-of-jail-free card. lol.

Yes I always kick myself when I forget that one.

Still, I think wil brought up an interesting point, even if you think that the divine is more then a principle, many don't believe it has a personality or a plan as we know it. Gaining followers might not be part of it's plan.

I kind of see your point, but since gods don't drop from the sky the issue seems moot, no? Instead of working from the idea that they would benefit from a visit because they are cool cats that wants an audience, shouldn't we work from the assumption that they don't visit, or do it without your an mine knowing, and rework our idea of those possible gods?

It's interesting. Today we had a visit from a couple of jehovah's witnesses, they come by every other week and we can discuss why another time. This time we ended their visit with them trying to explain why I should make up my mind, that is, not being agnostic. It reminded me of our discussion of agnosticism and having opinions. I take great pride in eliminating opinion when I can, I wonder if it's an odd trait, and if it's as bad as you and they make it out to be. Time will tell I guess.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not that I don't share your frustration.

Frustration, hardly any, more of amusement. We are doing quite well without them. However, they are supposed to return in Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. The stir would be a bit late in the day because it will culminate in the end of Kaliyuga or the judgment. Buddhism, Jainism, and my form of Advaita Hinduism, do not except existence of any.

 

[Thomas]

At what point does the distinction become significant? My expectation is that such a point is going to be different for every person. Which is a problem for me.

I would say it becomes significant when he person brings reason and logic into play. But I might be misunderstanding why you think it's problematic.

I'm a little uncertain about your numbers versus theorems comment.

I'm saying numbers are a construct. There's more evidence of God than there is evidence of number. Numbers are not things, they don't exist. But they are a very useful way of explaining how the cosmos works.

How do you look at a theorem?

They are formulae that define a reality.

Is not the theorem as much a theoretical construct as a number?

No. Numbers can be used to explain reality, that's my point.

 

[Thomas]

... I agree that one of the most important things we can do is to acknowledge the other person's point view. I think this is what GK is trying to do.

I think GK is going further than that. I think GK acknowledges (it seems to me) that while his pov is his pov, it rests on no firmer proof than the pov of another, which he (for whatever reason) rejects.

The trickiest part of all is acknowledging the other person's point view while still disagreeing with them. This is the tricky balance that I think GK is wrestling with."

I think he's reaching beyond that. I think GK's moving towards acknowledging the other person's pov without judgement. This is no easy road, but it does enable one to be authentically open to the other.

 

[Thomas]

The first step is accepting that our 'accepting an unreality' is flawed.
The next step is asking why I should accept my understanding is flawed.

If you phrase the question 'why should I believe in something I think is unreal' then the first step is to ask why you think it's unreal, rather than why you should believe in it.

I think in previous posts you're dancing around the notion that why you think it's unreal might not be as certain as you assumed it to be.

So you start reasoning it out ... at which point it's easier to argue against the existence of Bigfoot than it is to argue against the existence of God.

 

[Thomas]

My belief system prohibits us from accepting things merely on faith. How many other belief systems can say that?

All of them, I think.

 

[Thomas]

Why? The reason is the same - lack of reliable evidence.

Is the intellect always unreliable?

 

[Thomas]

Very convenient. Special pleading.

Here's the problem:
The definition of God as something in a class of its own has been the case for millennia. It's reasonable, rational and logical. It's not 'special pleading', any more than saying the speed of light is constant is special pleading. What you mean is, you can't refute the argument, so you refuse to accept it.

OK. I can accept that. There's no argument that obliges anyone to accept God in faith.

But what I am not obliged to accept is specious arguments thrown out to ridicule what I choose believe.

 

[Gordian Knot]

I take great pride in eliminating opinion when I can, I wonder if it's an odd trait, and if it's as bad as you and they make it out to be. Time will tell I guess.

Woah there pardner. I never said it was a bad trait. (Did I?) In my experience eliminating opinion is an unusual trait. Matter of fact I can't remember the last time I knew anyone who did. Very Socratic of you. And he was certainly well thought of.

What I did say was that there was something about it that was nagging at me. And nag it still does. Not yet been able to put a finger on what's bugging me though.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Visiting? You believe G!d has a capablity of visiting?

I believe G!d to be principle, G!d to be love, G!d to be here in us, among us at all times...

Visit?

Yes. I too lean more towards whatever God is, it is something within each of us, rather than something separate from us. I was speaking about the concept of most of the major western religions, where God is considered separate from us. If he/she/it were a distinct entity separate from us, I would think they would want to come visit once in a while.

Most people enjoy visiting their children. Now Gods is not people. We are made in their image though, so my thinking is that they are more like us than not like us.

 

[Thomas]

Do everyone agree on that point?

No, this one doesn't.

 

[Thomas]

Yes. I too lean more towards whatever God is, it is something within each of us, rather than something separate from us.

Indeed. Whether one are aware of it is another question.

I was speaking about the concept of most of the major western religions, where God is considered separate from us. If he/she/it were a distinct entity separate from us, I would think they would want to come visit once in a while.

They might well do.