Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

I believe I understand what you're saying but if there are 'gods' and they hide their god-like qualities from us and have always done so, surely we have just imagined that there are 'gods' and agnostics aren't willing to give up the hope that what has only been imagined might actually be the case.

In Buddhist philosophy the question of how a creator god could create everything is looked at i.e. the problems with the notion of a prime mover and how a god could create something etc... Non-creator gods are seen as sentient beings who understand to some extent the true nature of reality but subtly misunderstand it also.

Buddhists also examine what the term 'existence' means and whether that term is tenable given the impermanence of each examined moment. They also look at the self or ego and whether there can be such a thing or whether it is a fiction. Then there is the question of freewill and how that could operate. All these questions tend to deconstruct the question about 'gods', existence and the very person who asks such questions.

I believe I understand what you're saying but if there are 'gods' and they hide their god-like qualities from us and have always done so, surely we have just imagined that there are 'gods' and agnostics aren't willing to give up the hope that what has only been imagined might actually be the case.



Not sure what this means. I am an agnostic; I have no “hopes” of this sort; and frankly, I do not know any other agnostics who do. (Some might, but I don’t know of any.)

I am an agnostic; I have no “hopes” of this sort;

Quote:

In Buddhist philosophy the question of how a creator god could create everything is looked at i.e. the problems with the notion of a prime mover and how a god could create something etc... Non-creator gods are seen as sentient beings who understand to some extent the true nature of reality but subtly misunderstand it also.

Buddhists also examine what the term 'existence' means and whether that term is tenable given the impermanence of each examined moment. They also look at the self or ego and whether there can be such a thing or whether it is a fiction. Then there is the question of freewill and how that could operate. All these questions tend to deconstruct the question about 'gods', existence and the very person who asks such questions.

Interesting, but besides the point being discussed.

You indicated that you wanted to answer the question I asked Bill.

The “question” was: What do you see about what "we know of the universe at this point in time" that causes you to suggest that the existence of gods is near to zero?

What is your answer?

Care to explain why you contradicted yourself?, Or why you changed your opinion, so fast after the post of Steven Hawking??

Care to explain why you contradicted yourself?,

Maybe consciously you do not but I wonder if unconsciously you do or maybe not hope but rather a precaution just in case there is a God.

The reason I wonder is because you seem to give a God a better chance of existing than you do an Elf or something else we have no evidence of.

I believe I've answered the question but I am willing to concede that you don't believe that to be the case. Surely, an answer is just a reply to a question.. no more.. no less (unless it's another question). I'm willing to elaborate on what I've said if you feel that would help but I'm also happy to leave it there.

No need to "elaborate." But if you could just cut and paste...and use the "bold" function on the answers to the question "What do you see about what "we know of the universe at this point in time" that causes you to suggest that the existence of gods is near to zero?" I'd appreciate that, because I do not see that answer at all.

Frank, with all due respect. I have answered by replying to your questions. The answer could be perceived by you as: valid, invalid, untrue, true, wrong, correct, incorrect, missing the point, unclear etc… etc… but nevertheless it was an answer which then requires the correct adjective to be applied to it to further define what type of answer you perceive it to be.

Please give me the single most compelling reason you have for suggesting that the likelihood of gods existing is near to zero.

Just give the most compelling reason you have for that suggestion…and let’s discuss it.

Part of what I’ve said is to do with our imagination and the link to the notion of the existence of gods. As there is no proof of a god, then we imagine gods i.e. we can’t see, hear or detect in any way the existence of gods therefore our imagination creates the idea of gods. So, what you are effectively saying, is that an imagined god, cannot be proved not to exist outside of your imagination. The problem with this, is it therefore necessarily follows, that unless you give reasons why anything that can be imagined, cannot be proved not to exist outside of your imagination, you must concede that your stance, must be taken, even in regard to the most absurd imagined thing. Others have attempted to point this out to you. You must, in order to be taken seriously, from a philosophical standpoint, embrace this, as a consequence of your thesis. If you don’t, then you are being logically inconsistent and your argument fails to be a stance, you could take on logical or philosophical grounds.

I’d say that imagined things without any other proof “causes me to suggest that the existence of gods is near to zero”. For the very reason I have clearly stated i.e. that imagined things without proof have next to no probability of existing and by definition cannot be proved to exist.

Quote:

What I find interesting is the sad and silly reasonings that the defenders of the gods fantasies need to turn to in order to defend their childhood conditionings.

All MINDS of the REALITY of the MIND is conditioned from a child, CAPTIVATED by the DREAM, CONDITIONED by SHARED CONSCIOUSNESS.

Quote:

Sorry guys there is no tooth fairy or three in one Christian god or any others of the tens of thousands of gods that mankind had dream up.

Politics, Religion, Philosophy, PERCEPTIONS of REALITY are all constructs of the IMAGINATION within the DREAM of the DREAMER.

Quote:

Too bad that you are trapped by your childhood conditionings to not be able to enjoy the wonderful and amazing universe we are living in instead of living in a fantasy land that is so must poorer then reality.

TRAPPED within the MIND of the DREAM within the DARKNESS of the IMAGINATION, CARNAL MIND

FREE within the SPIRIT of the MIND of the DREAM. SPIRITUAL MIND

Too bad that you are trapped by your childhood conditionings to not be able to enjoy the wonderful and amazing universe we are living in instead of living in a fantasy land that is so must poorer then reality.

A pack of dogs would soon run you down in the wilderness.

Politics, Religion, Philosophy, PERCEPTIONS of REALITY are all constructs of the IMAGINATION within the DREAM of the DREAMER.

I like that and it seem to be true but when you added this "within the DREAM of the DREAMER" it seems to lose its truthfulness from my observation.

I do not think that we can all dream the same dream. there are some things that theist and atheist can both experience and these are the things I call reality.

Do you "believe" that theists and atheists both experience, a conscience??

but yet they can be different from person to person?

what are things that are agreed upon? Give me one example...That both "believe" they are right?

Frank, do you favor one thing that you can imagine i.e. gods, over another, when it comes to saying that: ‘… there is insufficient evidence that they do not exist’?. (I imagine your reply is possible but I don't think it will become a reality). Also, how and why you can defend one imagined thing over another?

If you don't answer then for me you are the agnostic that believes that imaginary gods are superior to the most absurd thing I can imagine but can't defend that viewpoint because he knows there is no reasonable argument that will successfully defend it.