Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2017 3:58 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2017 1:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: you have no way to say what anyone else knows or what they have seen in reality

Give me just one example of any human being who has ever been able to objectively demonstrate the existence of God.

Easy. Anybody who has genuinely known, met, communicated or had a relationship with God. If even one of those cases turns out to be genuine, your objection is defeated.

I can stand as that one example of a person who has seen proof of the existence of God, so your claim is disproved, and I have presented an account of that experience on this forum. I admit that I cannot prove it to you since you refuse to accept anyone else's evidence except that which you have experienced yourself. Odd, since most of science relies on the testimony of others on subjects where you do not have access to the proper equipment.

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 12:20 am
I can stand as that one example of a person who has seen proof of the existence of God, so your claim is disproved, and I have presented an account of that experience on this forum. I admit that I cannot prove it to you since you refuse to accept anyone else's evidence except that which you have experienced yourself. Odd, since most of science relies on the testimony of others on subjects where you do not have access to the proper equipment.

Well,there's a further case in point. The defence rests, your honour.

Dontaskme wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
The mind is a function of the brain. The brain is part of a biological organism
All biological organisms are descended from single cell non self replicating bacteria which was the very first life form

If the human rational thinking mind is descended from single cell non self replicating bacteria then surely there must have been a mind behind
the single cell non self replicating bacteria evolving that single cell non self replicating bacteria into the eventual form of a human brain with
the capacity to think rationally and morally. Something knew how to make a human brain from a single cell non self replicating bacteria

How in your opinion do you think a human brain is possible without a mind behind it?
One that built it from a single cell non self replicating bacteria

That the mind cannot be seen does not make it not exist. Its a supernatural phenomena
Anything that can build a human brain from scratch is worthy of my attention and gratitude

There was no mind behind single cell non self replicating bacteria. It was too primitive for that. It was not even composed of DNA. Rather a more simpler version called RNA. And also there is the small matter of three and a half to four billion years between it and the evolution of the human brain. This was only possible as organisms gradually became more complex over time. That in turn was only possible as a result of stability which allowed such complexity to develop in the first place. But it was certainly not a given that the human mind would exist when the only life on the planet was non self replicating bacteria at the very beginning of creation

The mind is not supernatural because it cannot be seen. It can be experienced so is therefore a physical phenomena. Emotions and thoughts and dreams and hallucinations also cannot be seen but they still exist as manifestations of the mind. So just because something cannot be seen does not mean it does not exist. Simply that it cannot be experienced by the eye. Most of the electromagnetic light spectrum cannot be seen. Atoms and subatomic particles cannot be seen. But they still exist despite this

Immanuel Can wrote:
a) if a person has a genuine experience with God and if God deliberately deals with individuals
how is that individual to transfer his / her experience to you so as to objectively demonstrate?

b) if a person can instruct God to provide an objective demonstration on command
is God the Supreme Being or is the person commanding Him the Supreme Being?

If those are problems then what would you reasonably expect for a person to do in order to show
you that God exists? In other words what would you accept as real evidence in such a situation?

The question is not rhetorical but sincere - I want to know so that if there is a way I can tell you about it or perform it for you

Evidence must satisfy specific criteria. It must be physical and observable. It must be capable of examination by multiple observers
Specifically scientists with expertise in the relevant field. Now here is what it is not. It is not personal testimony or belief. Nor it is
single person perspective. Or arguments from emotion or popularity or ignorance. It is none of these. Invariably however these are
the very things that are actually offered up as that is all there is. But they are all equally wrong so are therefore rejected entirely

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 3:22 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
a) if a person has a genuine experience with God and if God deliberately deals with individuals
how is that individual to transfer his / her experience to you so as to objectively demonstrate?

b) if a person can instruct God to provide an objective demonstration on command
is God the Supreme Being or is the person commanding Him the Supreme Being?

If those are problems then what would you reasonably expect for a person to do in order to show
you that God exists? In other words what would you accept as real evidence in such a situation?

The question is not rhetorical but sincere - I want to know so that if there is a way I can tell you about it or perform it for you

Evidence must satisfy specific criteria. It must be physical and observable. It must be capable of examination by multiple observers
Specifically scientists with expertise in the relevant field. Now here is what it is not. It is not personal testimony or belief. Nor it is
single person perspective. Or arguments from emotion or popularity or ignorance. It is none of these. Invariably however these are
the very things that are actually offered up as that is all there is. But they are all equally wrong so are therefore rejected entirely

We cannot classify something such as consciousness or the mind as physical or observable, yet we accept their existence. In fact, the only evidence we have for the existence of these is based on one's experience with either and their testimonies, as they are both metaphysical in nature. Perhaps things don't necessarily need to be physically observed to be said to exist, even scientifically. How might science explain something such as consciousness? Surely one cannot say that it doesn't exist as well.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2017 10:22 pm Women were largely property back then! If I were you I'd be outraged. I'm a male and I am. It just goes to show the archaic/antiquated mentality of that day. So what can one really expect from those people? Isn't it hard to project back into time so as to know and understand those that lived then. I believe that many would be quite surprised, with hollywood currently as their only guide. Such a joke!

I appreciate what you are saying. I don't think the human condition has changed much over time though, there is still a kind of archaic mentality hanging over us, albeit a different kind,it's a more cold and calculating sinister kind... reflected in the news, in our films, on the tv, in the soaps, in video games etc etc.. also, think of the people in close relationships with their partners how insecure they must feel now we're all connected to the WWW internet..how can one stay true and faithful?....I see people just using each other to get on in life...there is no trust,or reliability, humans seem to be watching their own backs all the time, becoming more selfish, who is there to put ones faith in anymore?...love thy neighbour is unheard of now, it's more like fear thy neighbour...is this the way we really want to live?.. People today are more dangerous than they were 2000 years ago. And yet humans have the most incredible potential to be the greatest thing that ever happened, they could have amazing lives if they used their rational minds more wisely, we are already kitted out and booted up for incredible potential, what an amazing opportunity we have at our fingers, we're so smart we don't even know it, and that's why we are so dumb ..when are we going to take advantage of the miracle of being alive and take in all the awesome beauty of this abundant nature that is freely giving of itself...why are humans so blasé taking their life for granted as if it was no big deal,they reap what they sow as said in the scriptures.

Vendetta wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2017 11:49 pm

Dontaskme wrote: That the mind cannot be seen does not make it not exist. It's a supernatural phenomena. Anything that can build a human being from scratch is worthy of my attention and gratitude

Exactly. And this same principle can be applied to the Supreme. There are many instances of things​ in our world that we are not able to see or grasp, per se, such as the mind, consciousness, or even things such as sound. Yet we do experience them, so therefore we know and believe them to exist.
Now, if you were to take an individual who has no concept for the experience such as sound (lets say they're deaf, perhaps), how can your possibly convince them for certain that the idea of hearing exists?

The whole sense of being alive is an experience only. An experience is not an experience, in the sense that an ''experience'' cannot be experienced, there is only ever ''experiencing'' experiencing itself. Although it does apparently feel like there is an entity who can make the claim to have had an experience and say ''..I experienced that experience...'' without realising the one having the experience does not exist apart from the experience itself. This is what the Vedantists have been saying for eons.

For a deaf person, I've heard they can still hear phantom noises in their heads similar to the condition known as Tinnitus, note that the sense of sound, is nought but an auditory illusion of the senses, there is no external source, it's all in the mind believed to be real as a sense experience.....also one can introduce a deaf person another way to interpret sound by using symbols in sign language....it's all about understanding from the heart centre what's being communicated. We do not need the faculty of hearing to work in order to be able to understand reality..for reality can be understood from a deep tacit sense of beingness...it is through any one of the senses that we are able to channel the inner workings of reality...and is how people come into phase with their innate knowing being where they are in perfect union with the Godhead...it's not fantasy, it's an actual experience that happens to people..if life has not yet made that happen to a particular person, that's because life has not evolved it to happen in that person yet.

.Anyone wanting to be in union with God is more that welcome to be so if that's what they genuinely ask for....God is closer that our very own skin..but for those who turn away and reject God are more than free to do so..God does not force his will on himself..God is free as the wind to blow where it so desires. God will reveal only when one really looks for God and they will see God is what's already looking.

.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 2:42 am
There was no mind behind single cell non self replicating bacteria. It was too primitive for that. It was not even composed of DNA. Rather a more simpler version called RNA. And also there is the small matter of three and a half to four billion years between it and the evolution of the human brain. This was only possible as organisms gradually became more complex over time. That in turn was only possible as a result of stability which allowed such complexity to develop in the first place. But it was certainly not a given that the human mind would exist when the only life on the planet was non self replicating bacteria at the very beginning of creation

The mind is not supernatural because it cannot be seen. It can be experienced so is therefore a physical phenomena. Emotions and thoughts and dreams and hallucinations also cannot be seen but they still exist as manifestations of the mind. So just because something cannot be seen does not mean it does not exist. Simply that it cannot be experienced by the eye. Most of the electromagnetic light spectrum cannot be seen. Atoms and subatomic particles cannot be seen. But they still exist despite this

I hear you, but I have to persist in there being something within the DNA process that is organising the DNA to perform specific configurations. And that it is a supernatural non-human phenomena.

Human mind is a holographic representation of an original supreme living mind. Also, I intuit that the physical is an idea of the mind and no physical thing has ever been seen...in that what appears to be a physical solid object is but an empty image of the conscious mind. The space in which an object is projected has nowhere or place to exist apart from the space it's in. There is only ONE SPACE...everywhere at once infinite and boundless.The contents of space are the space in which they are appearing as illusory form..an illusion appearing real ...and there is / was no human being that authored this illusion, it is supernatural by it's very nature...beyond human comprehension. Science can balk at that all they want, they are only interested in what's physically evident, they love to play with their illusions.

I don't understand why people cannot wrap their mind around what the concept of supernatural means....I think you are confusing the natural physical with the supernatural mind ...the physical is an image of the mind, inseparable from the mind....the physical aspect of nature is artificial, the artist of nature is the supernatural mind which is beyond the physical artificial image.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 3:22 am
Evidence must satisfy specific criteria. It must be physical and observable.

Then we must obey and hold faith to the God of our scientific society, and obey their rules and laws that they command to be true.

If there is no absolute moral law maker, then it's all relative to what we believe even though we have no idea what the mind is, and therefore have no miracle worker to relate to. How can a rational mind come from a non-rational mind?..and would you trust a mind that has no physical evidence for itself? ..do you see the dilemma you set up for yourself human?

Hmm, sounds like the intelligence of a tubeworm.

You trust your sense of being, and your ability to reason and think as real, you believe it...you hold faith in that, and then you reject the idea of faith in the unseen....yup,sounds about right.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 3:22 am
Evidence must satisfy specific criteria.

Agreed.

It must be physical and observable.

But you cannot observe the edge of the universe. Nobody has. We see it expanding, but wonder how it can expand. Into what is it expanding?

The universe must have an edge. We know that. But nobody has seen it, or knows whether it is physical or observable. So your claim there is incorrect.

It must be capable of examination by multiple observers

Do you mean "it must be capable of" or "it must actually have been observed by multiple observers"?

If it's the former, then a revelation of God to one person meets your specific criterion there. If it's the latter, then your statement isn't true. A phenomenon genuinely observed by one observer would be sufficient for that one person to have warranted belief that it actually happened. "Seeing is believing," as they say. It would perhaps be problematic to prove to others it happened, but it certainly could have genuinely happened.

Specifically scientists with expertise in the relevant field.

This is manifestly untrue. At one time, there were no such things as "scientists" with any particular "expertise." That cannot mean that nothing was happening. They cannot be the only "observers" we can take seriously.

I'll take a reputedly-honest private citizen over a known-liar of a scientist every day. So would you.

Now here is what it is not. It is not personal testimony or belief. Nor it is
single person perspective.

The only difference between "personal testimony" and "scientific testimony" is one's faith in scientists and lack of faith in other persons. But it's merely faith. Both are merely "testimonies." That cannot, then be a sufficient criterion for proof.

Nor can we cavalierly reject the witness of personal testimony. If I'm the only person who has seen the last living Tasmanian tiger, then that beast still exists, even if I'm only one. So "single person perspective" is still legitimate for the existence of a phenomenon...problematic only for confirming that phenomenon to others.

Or arguments from emotion or popularity or ignorance.

Of course. Agreed.

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 12:20 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2017 3:58 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2017 1:19 pm

Give me just one example of any human being who has ever been able to objectively demonstrate the existence of God.

Easy. Anybody who has genuinely known, met, communicated or had a relationship with God. If even one of those cases turns out to be genuine, your objection is defeated.

I can stand as that one example of a person who has seen proof of the existence of God, so your claim is disproved, and I have presented an account of that experience on this forum. I admit that I cannot prove it to you since you refuse to accept anyone else's evidence except that which you have experienced yourself. Odd, since most of science relies on the testimony of others on subjects where you do not have access to the proper equipment.

No you haven't, you simply applied your need to believe to a man made event. So you're a liar!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 2:15 am

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 12:20 am
I can stand as that one example of a person who has seen proof of the existence of God, so your claim is disproved, and I have presented an account of that experience on this forum. I admit that I cannot prove it to you since you refuse to accept anyone else's evidence except that which you have experienced yourself. Odd, since most of science relies on the testimony of others on subjects where you do not have access to the proper equipment.

Well,there's a further case in point. The defence rests, your honour.

You're a liar, you wouldn't know truth if it bit you on the ass! You mean to say that your foolishness rests! No one here has shown any proofs! It's just simple misguided belief!

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 2:42 am

Dontaskme wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
The mind is a function of the brain. The brain is part of a biological organism
All biological organisms are descended from single cell non self replicating bacteria which was the very first life form

If the human rational thinking mind is descended from single cell non self replicating bacteria then surely there must have been a mind behind
the single cell non self replicating bacteria evolving that single cell non self replicating bacteria into the eventual form of a human brain with
the capacity to think rationally and morally. Something knew how to make a human brain from a single cell non self replicating bacteria

How in your opinion do you think a human brain is possible without a mind behind it?
One that built it from a single cell non self replicating bacteria

That the mind cannot be seen does not make it not exist. Its a supernatural phenomena
Anything that can build a human brain from scratch is worthy of my attention and gratitude

There was no mind behind single cell non self replicating bacteria. It was too primitive for that. It was not even composed of DNA. Rather a more simpler version called RNA. And also there is the small matter of three and a half to four billion years between it and the evolution of the human brain. This was only possible as organisms gradually became more complex over time. That in turn was only possible as a result of stability which allowed such complexity to develop in the first place. But it was certainly not a given that the human mind would exist when the only life on the planet was non self replicating bacteria at the very beginning of creation

The mind is not supernatural because it cannot be seen. It can be experienced so is therefore a physical phenomena. Emotions and thoughts and dreams and hallucinations also cannot be seen but they still exist as manifestations of the mind. So just because something cannot be seen does not mean it does not exist. Simply that it cannot be experienced by the eye. Most of the electromagnetic light spectrum cannot be seen. Atoms and subatomic particles cannot be seen. But they still exist despite this

Don't let these charlatans pull you around by your nose. You are correct to not believe in their aged old archaic, antiquated case for their god, They can provide no proofs, nor have they ever tried! They just shroud their lies with more lies meant to protect the original lies. It's a lie pyramid. The funny thing is that many of them are just far too stupid to realize it, after all it was started over 2000 years ago. The originators of the lies are long dead and can't be tested for drugs, schizophrenia or other diseases of the mind. Though scientists are pretty certain that Ezekiel had epilepsy. They tell you that they don't have the burden of proof, you do, yet they are the only ones that have the burden of proof, when it comes to invisible entities. They've placed conditions on his truth, yet you can't. The only time that ploy works is when anyone, even in an instant, pays their story any credence whatsoever! When one does so, they apply the basis to their cockamamie story, and they've already lost the battle. The only way to win the argument is to not pay any credence whatsoever to their argument; None; Zero! Attack it from other angles, never start with their basic invalid premises!

Good luck to you!

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 3:58 pm
You're a liar, you wouldn't know truth if it bit you on the ass! You mean to say that your foolishness rests! No one here has shown any proofs! It's just simple misguided belief!

I haven't noticed that truth is associated with big, red font. Apparently, this is an impression you've received somewhere... On the average, big font means small ideas. Big, red, font means anger, yelling, irrationality...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 4:22 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 3:58 pm
You're a liar, you wouldn't know truth if it bit you on the ass! You mean to say that your foolishness rests! No one here has shown any proofs! It's just simple misguided belief!

I haven't noticed that truth is associated with big, red font. Apparently, this is an impression you've received somewhere... On the average, big font means small ideas. Big, red, font means anger, yelling, irrationality...

That you read into my text, your desire, indicative of your problem! Go play with your imaginary leprechaun, this is a philosophy forum, not an asylum!
Do you like blue? I do!