How do we tell the difference between beings whose existence cannot be determined from beings that don't exist at all?We don't. Evidence makes sense in relation to the notion of a unicorn. It is not clear it makes sense in relation to God expect by a very narrow definition. If God fails to be a being about whom it makes sense to make empirical statements then what?
Why I'm not agnostic
by Coded Logic 84 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
slimboyfat
-
Coded Logic
"God" is a manmade construct. Either it is an accurate description of some existent being or it is not.
If you're asking "could there be something out there of which we could not comprehend and cannot be described in anyway" then you're NOT talking about God. You're talking about something very much different.
-
Coded Logic
If God fails to be a being about whom it makes sense to make empirical statements then what?
Then we're not justified in believing in it.
It doesn't make sense to make empirical statements about things which don't exist - like flying unicorns - because there are no empirical statements that can be made.
-
slimboyfat
"God" is a manmade construct. Either it is an accurate description of some existent being or it is not.
Or it could be an accurate description of a God beyond existence as we understand it.
If you're asking "could there be something out there of which we could not comprehend and cannot be described in anyway" then you're NOT talking about God. You're talking about something very much different.
It seems you are simply unaware of this rather well explored possibility in philosophy of religion.
-
Coded Logic
Or it could be an accurate description of a God beyond existence as we understand it.
"Beyond existence" is not something that has been established as being a real thing. And, until such a time as it is shown to be possible that something can exist "beyond existence" - there's no good reason to believe any such claims. Once again, I could just as easily put flying unicorns in the category of "beyond existence". But it still wouldn't mean anyone was justified in believing they're actually real.
You also don't seem to understand that negative theology is a thought experiment. It's not an actual way of describing things. Because we can only explain things in relation to other things. If you don't know what a ship is I might say it's a large boat. If you don't know what a boat is then I would have to explain it in reference to a vessel that floats on water, etc - until I get to something you have experience with or you already understand and then I can explain a ship in reference to that. But we can't explain things solely on what it isn't. If I say there I have a device that's not a computer and it's not alive and it doesn't have any minerals in it - could you then understand what that device is?
"Beyond existence" is just an Ad Hoc response you made up to try and rescue a failed hypothesis. There's a huge difference between following the evidence where it leads vs making up new terms so you can try and lead the evidence where you want it to go. -
David_Jay
Cofty,
Did my wife love me? What's the evidence? What is the scientific theory of love called? What is the model? What is to prove that biological readings and actions of people equal "love"? And what is "love," just a biological or psychological or physical response? Is it less or more? Science has a theory of evolution and gravity, but one for love or one that proves loyalty?
Neither exist. I work in my sheriff's CSI department in forensics. There are no such things scientifically. Prove your statements, your beliefs about love and loyalty. But I tell you now: There is no scientific evidence for them.
And claiming that you don't put faith in something that doesn't exist is nothing, childish. If God is not real, what big thing is it to not believe in that which is not real? Takes no courage either. That's my opinion.
What I think would be interesting is if there was a God and undeniable evidence thereof, and then find a person who doesn't believe in that God. That would be courageous, bold. But to believe that something doesn't exist that doesn't exist is easy. And I think both sides who think it's so import to convince the other they are right is a waste of good life.
This is just a forum. Just giving my opinion. What does it matter to you if I count atheists and theists as fools? I also know there is always the possibility that I can be wrong and that I may need to change my current view. But I don't think many atheists or theists are just as willing to admit the same. Who is the greater fool, the one who argues they cannot be wrong or the one who doesn't argue such a ridiculous thing?
-
LisaRose
Did my wife love me? What's the evidence?
It seems to me you should have had plenty of evidence if your wife loved you, if she did. Did she act in a loving way towards you? What difference does it make what science says about love or loyalty? You either felt loved or you didn't.
After a thirty year one sided relationship with a God, I realized it was an entirely one sided relationship. I would be surprised if that is what you experienced with your wife.
-
Coded Logic
Love is an emotion. Emotions are real brain states that we can detect with measurable accuracy.
Love is also manifested by signs of affection. These too are demonstrable. Love is a real thing. It's been extensively studied. Here's some peer reviewed scientific articles if you're interested on the topic:
http://www.vislab.ucl.ac.uk/pdf/NeuralBasisOfLove.pdf
-
David_Jay
If you hired me to build you a house after I assured you I was the best house builder around, and after investing much of your hard-earned money and a lot of your time, the house I built fell in upon itself, would you hire me to build you another house? Even if it wasn't your house I did a shoddy job on, would any of you hire me to build your home with my track record of such a horrible mistake, even if it was only one horribly-built fiasco I was responsible for? I would be surprised if you did.
Try as one can, there is still no definitive scientific theory of "love" or "loyalty." What you folks are pointing out is not proving "love," but other things associated with what we call "love." If there is such a scientifically proven thing as "love," then what is its agreed upon scientific definition? Who defined the "theory of love" or discovered the "theoretic model of loyalty"? No one. You won't find a Newton or Einstein responsible for these discoveries. These aren't scientific notions, not in themselves.
I do not mean to insult anyone here who have different views than mine. You are no less a person because you are atheist or agnostic or theist. Forgive me where my words seem disrespectful. But at times we struggle to have or find answers when there are none. This is partially due to a characteristic some of us may have in common.
Some of us want very much to be right or have the true view of life and the world around us. Having been in the Watchtower form of religion that abused us with such a facade of truth, it is no wonder we strive for accuracy and realistic logic-based understandings instead of silly notions.
Yet for some of us (obviously not all) we have not moved past the view that we need to be right and that we need to have the truth once again. We had this view as Witnesses, and maybe for some, like me, it has been a character trait not easily dismissed or even recognizable in ourselves. Our desire to be in the "right" religion and have "the truth" is not one universal in the world of religion, though the JWs often left us with the impression that it is. It isn't as widely shared as some of us may have been taught.
Upon leaving the Watchtower we who have this trait may not have let it go. Again we think our current view, be it a new religion, atheism, or agnosticism is the "right" one, and we debate with others who do not share our "truth," even acting as hateful and disrespectful of others with views that conflict with ours similar in fashion to the Witnesses regarding other religions. We might close ourselves off to reasoning others may offer for their convictions, insult them for having these views different from ours, and then use our views as a panacea to supply us with "all the answers we need" in this world.
But it may be that we are just as scared to be without thinking we are "right" or have "the truth," since having "answers" gives us a feeling of control. No convictions, philosophies, or even science can give us all the answers. Just like there is not a religious answer to everything, there is not a scientific answer to everything either. We can't keep trading one "panacea" for another, as there is likely no one "right" way or "truth." That is just another lie of the Watchtower. We can't have the answers to everything. We can't find something that will make us "right" with the correct answers about everything, science included.
And, if we are ex-JWs, we are the last people who should be thinking or declaring we have the right answers, debating with others to prove them wrong and defend our new-found convictions as right. Like the house builder who made a horrible house, our track record with finding the "truth" and thinking we have all the answers is not very good. We should learn that we are not suddenly experts at knowing the right way to go in life just becuase we left one path that was clearly wrong. It doesn't work that way.
Science doesn't always have the answer. You can't always be sure you are right at this point in your life just because you're not a JW anymore and have found atheism or a new relgion or whatever. There may be no definitive right way. But that is no reason to be frightened nor an excuse to think we can't be wrong again where we now stand. We need to be humble because, in all truth, no one in their right mind is going to "hire us to build them a house" with our track record.
-
Clambake
David Jay
Cofty actually does know everything about everything. There are no mysteries. It's not just a rotten pompous trait left over from his jw days.
He is the smartest man alive.