Is it possible to prove the existence of a loving God?

@dalehileman,

I'm not questioning the fact that humans still do not have "all the answers" to the question of life and nature. From those questions about the unknowns, it's possible that some form of "creator" can be answered, but the overwhelming origin of human religions only muddies the water.

With the advance in technology, and humans ability to investigate far off planets, we may one day have an answer to "our nature."

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

But the basic q is, why should there be anything at all

Not necessarily. If you examine my non-dualist position with respect to "existence" you will see that "thingers" (aka thinkers) are always co-existent and co-extensive with "things". In other words it is an oxymoron to conceive of "nothing" from this view since by definition that concept entails the existence of its conceiver! Hence I conclude that "a void" is contingent on dualistic thinking, which we all indulge in as a result of the grammar of language.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Very well put.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You're trying to compare apples and oranges. This is about the human gods, not planets.

No I am not...but you see the absurdity of your line of reasoning, so you are going to say that I am.

Look at what you wrote...and look at what I wrote. My reasoning is sound.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

but the overwhelming origin of human religions only muddies the water.

Cis you might elaborate on that, if only to spare me the trouble of scanning the entire thread

Quote:

With the advance in technology, and humans ability to investigate far off planets, we may one day have an answer to "our nature."

Believe we're getting there; it's becoming increasingly apparent that things are the way they are because that's the way they have to be, that the constants assume the values they do because they're interdependent; the Universe wasn't created, it always was, that "creation" is an ongoing process

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

In other words it is an oxymoron to conceive of "nothing" from this view since by definition that concept entails the existence of its conceiver!

Fres I can't agree. Although we can't conceive--in the mind's eye at least--of nothingness, the idea that the state would be a lot easier to explain certainly makes it possible to hypothesize

I see no contradiction of any sort

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

"The minds eye" necessitates the presence of at least "a mind "which thereby contravenes "nothing". This is a particular instance of that set of dualistic assumptions about "existence without observers".

The way into this is to consider for example the "nature of reality" if all observers were say, frogs. Given that the particular perceptual apparatus of frogs has been shown to exclude their perception of what we call "dead insects", it follows that the "is-ness" ot "thing-ness"of "reality" is contingent on interaction between observer and observed, and it makes no sense (for human frogs) to talk about or try to describe an independent reality. (Kant's noumena). The position was elaborated by the phenomenologists who refused to discuss such "an independent reality".

(And I seem to remember too that modern physicists are also opposed to the notion that "nothing" is meaningful i.e a target for "explanation").

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
but the overwhelming origin of human religions only muddies the water.

You,

Quote:
Cis you might elaborate on that, if only to spare me the trouble of scanning the entire thread

If it were not for all the religions, humankind would probably have a better grasp of our nature and reality. There is no afterlife after death; that's a religious belief and nothing more. Religions create the idea of a superhuman entity that created everything, and many believe that.

Many can't help it, because their place of birth and parents brainwash them before they are old enough to understand there's a difference between religious belief and facts that we understand from history.

That's the reason why I call religion an accident of birth. Anyone born in a Catholic country will probably end up being a Catholic. It's the same with all major religions of the country - or place of birth. If one is born in India, it's a good chance they'll be Hindu - for the rest of their life, and so will their offsprings.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

"The minds eye" necessitates the presence of at least "a mind "which thereby contravenes "nothing"

You seem to be saying that in a state of nothingness there can't be a mind to observe it and of course that's pretty obvious

Quote:

dualistic assumptions about "existence without observers"…….no sense ……. to talk about…..an independent reality.

But in a state of nothingness however there's no existence while of course "reality" loses its meaning

I still don't see what's so difficult about hypothesizing a state of nothing, a lot easier to deal with than the need to explain why there's something

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

If it were not for all the religions, humankind would probably have a better grasp of our nature and reality.

I'll have to agree that the typical religion discourages further speculation about the nature of things

Quote:

There is no afterlife after death; that's a religious belief and nothing more.

I'd incline to agree though it probably provides a degree of comfort

Quote:

Religions create the idea of a superhuman entity that created everything, and many believe that.

Intuition insists on it though an instance of its being wrong. I find it a lot easier to assume the Universe--in whatever form it takes at the moment---has always existed

Quote:

Many can't help it, because their place of birth and parents brainwash them …….. the reason why I call religion an accident of birth.

Well yes and no. A few of us generate our own religion. Pantheism for instance can be an independent idea, the notion of God being an abstract concept

Still it's hard to reject the idea that there's something more to the Whole Schebang than immediately apparent

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

Fresco is wedded to his non-dualism with the same enthusiasm theists are wedded to their belief in a god. He cannot even conceive of being wrong and will inject masses of words (whether meaningful or simply an aggregate) in an attempt to do for his "non-dualism" what theists do for their "there is a god."

It is interesting to see, but trying to understand it...or to misinterpret it to be an intellectual exercise rather than an abuse of apologetics...will only lead to frustration.

You might as well be questioning a Catholic Church official about the Immaculate Conception or the Trinity as asking Fresco questions about the dogma of non-dualism.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Quote:
That's the reason why I call religion an accident of birth.

You,

Quote:
Well yes and no. A few of us generate our own religion. Pantheism for instance can be an independent idea, the notion of God being an abstract concept

I speaking in general terms; all my siblings are christians married to christians. I'm an atheist married to a buddhist.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Fresco is wedded to his non-dualism

Interesting Frank that you should so label it but as a pantheist I can't see any sort of dualism by which we must suppose is meant God on one hand and matter on the other

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

You certainly are free to ask Fresco about the "dualism" part of the non-dualist's dogma, but I suspect it is much more involved than a god and matter. They seem to think we are all one...or some such.

And we may well be.

My argument with them is not that they are wrong...but that that they are pretending they have a solid argument that they cannot be wrong.

They may be correct (I tend toward their side)...BUT THEY MAY BE DEAD WRONG.

But of course, another thing about many of the posters here in A2K is that they absolutely abhor the notion of "I do not know"...and do their best to derogate such a position when it is offered.

Hey...!!!

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

The issue of course is not the infantile dichotomy of "right" and "wrong" as chanted by Frank, but one of "meaningfulmess". My argument is that the concept/meaning of "nothing" is predicated on that "something" for which the presence of a thinger/human is axiomatic. To attempt to remove that factor from picture, as dualism does, is failing to recognize that "the standard disembodied observer" as assumed by the sciences is merely a functional device utilized in the quest to predict and control what we visualize as "the world". The fact that such visualization, prediction and control, are all ultimately delimited by our physiology and communicative needs is rarely considered. ( For more on this see Maturana's discussion of "science" with respect to his attempts to define "life").

Questions of ontology and epistemology are inextricable from those of semantics as recognized by Quine, Wittgenstein and Derrida (et al). There is no question of "the existence of God"., in a community of "believers" because "God" is central to their communicative modus operandi and that is all that can be said !

2 Replies

@fresco,

That there are believers doesn't necessarily make it true. The earth is flat.....

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Forget "truth". The real issue is whether a concept is "functional" or not. Clearly "flat earthists" are merely promoting the experience we all have of everyday dealings with our local bit of the earth, at the expense of ignoring the concept of a global planet which is a functional necessity for other purposes.
In a sense they are neither "right or wrong", only intellectually limited or adopting a an idiosyncratic posture for attention purposes.

But we are all prone to the same trap when discussing "existence". The question applied to "gods" equates to whether such a concept is functional or not, and the answer seems to be that for many is that "God" is a psychological and social necessity.

1 Reply

@fresco,

There's no denying the fact that society has a psychological need for god(s), but that doesn't mean all of us must accept their beliefs/faith. After all, that's the reason why there's a word for people like us; it's called atheist.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

...one has to concede how very difficult to explain why the constants seem to have been "adjusted," in some cases within a fraction of 1 percent, to permit evolution of the humanoid...

We do not have to concede anything because it's not difficult to explain why some people perceive things as having been "adjusted" when there are much better natural explanations for such perceptions.

The "things have been adjusted" is an old old argument which is addressed by the various anthropic explanations.

Why is it that people are amazed that humans can exist on earth (which is a perfect habitat for us) but they're not amazed that a fish can live in water? Did something "adjust" the water to make it a perfect fit for the fish?

Life exists in the Universe not because the Universe was tweaked to allow life, but because life is a natural expression of the Universe itself.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Well, I hope these comments of yours makes your arguments clearer to Dale. Actually, I hope these comments of yours makes your arguments clearer to anyone. But I suspect most of them are offered for two reasons:

One...if you do not have a real answer, do a song and dance...dazzle 'em with your footwork.

Two...anything is better to some people than acknowledging that they do not know.

Wink

1 Reply

Is it possible to prove the existence of a loving God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know