If God is real, how would you know?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Apr 8, 2020.

  1. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Atheists conceptualise God.
    In this, the Atheist can go deep.
    But ultimately there is a difference between concepts of God, and belief in God.
    An atheist, by definition, cannot enter into belief of God, without conceptualising it.
    The concept of “No God” is logically problematic.
    The problem is our explanation of God, the nature of God, and the term “God”
    I have come to the conclusion that there can not be “no God”.
    Yes. But not under a different name.
    It has it’s own category.
    It is what’s left when everything pertaining to that situation has been exhausted.
    Your son is a brilliant student, pays attention, does his homework. Now it come to the exam.
    Despite everything, and your confidence in his ability, you still hope he does well.
    That hope is expression of faith. Because we don’t know how it’s going to turn. All our knowledge and training, cannot determine how it is going to turn out. But we want it to how we want it.
    Actually it does.
    Most people in the west would say something like, good luck. Or if things don’t turn out, “bad luck mate”. Vestiges of god worship?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Nope. Science does not need to "try to be God." Science is just a tool used to understand the universe. It will never order anyone to sacrifice their son, or rape all the virgins and kill all the non-virgins, or kill the gays. It will not start religious wars. It will merely inform.

    Which makes it quite superior to many religions in terms of morality, come to think of it.
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    It's quite admirable to think about things properly...try it.
    My concept of god would be enhanced if he parted the Pacific Ocean for me.
    Rubbish. Every person has a reasonable idea of what you see as a god. I gave the dictionary definition to James.
    Why is it problematic?The concept of god/s though is certainly problematic...no empirical evidence, supernatural being and unscientific to boot.
    That's OK, that's your opinion. But why are you trying to ram your unscientific problematical opinion down every one's throat, on a science forum no less?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Did you even read what you responded to?
    If someone held out their hand in front of your face, and an apple materialised in front of your eyes. Would you regard that as a supernatural event?
    Maybe your used to having things rammed down your throat, so much so, you accuse everyone of ramming stuff.
    That’s not everybody’s kink, and it most certainly isn’t mine.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Sure, more of the general nonsense that you are renowned for.
    Not as dramatic as parting the Pacific Ocean, but anyway what do you think?
    Again, your the one preaching...your the one that lacks the balls to address the question scientifically...your the one that finds it necessary to continually lie and you certainly are the one trying to ram your nonsense down everyone's throat, just like my old parish priest in my school days, preaching his old fire and brimstone!
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    This is not an answer.
    Here’s the question again.
    If someone held out their hand in front of your face, and an apple materialised in front of your eyes. Would you regard that as a supernatural event?
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I don't believe you are either clever enough nor honest enough to decide if it is an answer or otherwise.
    The answer again....
    Not as dramatic as parting the Pacific Ocean, but anyway what do you think?
  11. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    You’re a fool.
    You blatantly evade questions, and somehow you are allowed to carry on.
    I can only assume it is because you are of the consensus.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    You looking into that mirror again my friend?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Hasn''t James chipped YOU about that?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You have my answer...want it again?
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Actually, that was pretty dishonest, Paddoboy.

    What you said:

    This is pretty straightforward: The statement that, "science would cease to be and we would all simply pray for whatever we wanted, and Darwinism and the theory of evolution would not be fact", is your own article of assertion, a projection drawn from a God of your invention and assigned attributes. It's your God, Paddoboy.

    So bury the self-righteousness: You would be out of here, if? Well, right; you're a religious zealot who would be out of here if only the infidel would satisfy you. So let me say, at this point, Paddoboy, that in whatever great cosmic show by which you are supposed to be one of the proverbial good guys, your result does not reflect that notion. Fallacious inflammation isn't going to convince religous believers they're wrong. What's the actual behavioral economy, there? Is it that they're wrong, so you're automatically right, thus ridicule them according to fallacious inventions of your own imagination in pursuit of personal satisfaction above all else, and they will suddenly see how right you are, and kneel in awestruck gratitude for their liberation into enlightenment? No, really, what do you expect to accomplish by this vice, other than ephemeral self-satisfcation?

    And, sure, it's not like you're the only one, Paddoboy. There was one atheist, recently, telling me his make-believe about and antagonism of religious people is how shows he cares about, "the harms these beliefs do to the believers themselves". No, he doesn't actually care about them for their own sake. He would behave differently, if he did, like actually attending reality and not assembling straw men to scold in order to feel better about himself. And if it really is about "the point where unsupported beliefs start having detrimental impacts on other people", as that other put it, we might expect him to bring something other than unsupported religious assertions.

    When people go out of their way to make things worse, they become a detriment and danger to the people around them.

    Moreover, seriously, how much credibility should I give an atheist of such poor judgment that Jan Ardena requires such panicked attention? Keep embarrassing yourselves; at least you'll have each other.

    So, here's a story, and it even involves Jan, so pay attention:

    • In another thread I happen to be razzing a particular proposition for its petulance. Think of it this way, a while back, I asked about some strange things going on, including an annoyed obsession with Jan, a proposition that theists should come say stuff on prompt so an atheist could disagree, and a strange discussion in which an atheistic argument made an affirmative argument, that one either believes in God or not, but could not explain what that meant. At any rate, the inquiry produced some interesting responses, faded out, and was then revived, a year later; Jan figured in the atheistic revival of the thread; over a year after that, the thread revived again in a fourteen-hundred post temper tantrum that opened by calling Jan out directly. Two and a half years, that took, and people are still freaking out about Jan, making him far more important than he is, and in that other thread I'm razzing, we're back to insisting that theists define God for atheists, which, let's face it, is just embarrassing.​

    Here's another story about Jan, and it's tied into that one: Somewhere along the way, I recalled an occasion that I couldn't pin down specifically, and Jan asked me to let him know if I ever remembered what it was. This thread brings it to mind, because, well, if I happened to be wrong about why and how Jan was botching something, he was still botching up. See, the subject might have been, isness. But sometime after being mislabeled by critics, Jan referred to Judaism in an affirmative way that would actually illuminate that episode; if it was isness, I was thinking of, that's been swirling around in his theology the whole time. Doesn't mean whatever occasion I was recalling didn't botch the concept in some way, but, rather, that it was a different manner of botchery.

    The reason isness comes to mind is that Jan recently, in the aftermath of his idolization by the atheistic community at Sciforums, saw it came up in the discussion of theists defining God for atheists, and whatever shortcomings the character Jan plays, here, might display, he does know what it looks like when atheists are in over their heads. And, well, the topic question in this thread pertains directly to isness. Unless, of course, it doesn't. But even inasmuch as it wouldn't, it still would. That is, even if Jan was just playing a word game with the source quote, it's still the concept he would have been exploiting. And if I thought he might have gotten it from me, maybe something I said pinged him, because who else spends much on the subject. Or I could be wrong; maybe he was thinking something else, or I was recalling something else, entirely.

    Still, that I have before told him what I think of his presentation says nothing about anyone else. Consider that the actual answer to Jan's topic question is that, you wouldn't know.

    He already knows this answer.

    To the other, as we learn from another, in that thread where I'm razzing a petulant mulligan, the problem with such answers is that they aren't useful, because atheists cannot judge such a God according to the needs of their personal aesthetics.

    No, no, the topic post wasn't an oblique jab at a post that came three days later, but every once in a while I find myself making some sort of grim joke about how atheists shouldn't be faring so poorly in these discussions. Oh, I'm sorry, that actually isn't a joke. At least, not anymore. Used to be, sure, but, hey, I took the hint years ago, and if there is something this atheistic community hasn't failed at, it would be the insistent sustenance of this grim pattern of self-obsessed failure.

    Remember, compared to, say, redemptive monotheism, I would usually be putting the topic question, or some form thereof, to believers who seek to usurp God, or contain It in a shoebox. It's absurd, and ought to be embarrassing, that Jan Ardena is some manner of crisis for any reasonable atheist. Juvenilia is one thing, but some of these people have been at it for years, and ought to know better. This should have been a can of corn. Like reading the early exchanges; I don't have to like Jan's method, but, damn, nobody need serve up, like that.

    To reiterate:

    • Generally speaking, his ministry ought to be harmless save for whatever the flock invests in him .... Sometimes a ministry itself is less dangerous than its congregation, but this version of it is, truly, one of the most ridiculous things I've ever witnessed ... he only has what power his flock gives him. (May, 2019↗)

    • There are a few ostensibly religious members, utterly full of shite, and while we haven't chased them away or thrown them out for being dishonest, their main effect, to borrow the word, is triggering atheists. One is clearly a clueless egocentric basking in the attention of being an evangelist with a flock. And, sure, give me the line about how these seemingly harmless wolves in sheep's clothing are dangerous to certain ranges of people despite their general inefficacy as evangelists. But, still, who is this unfortunate congregation? Near as I can tell, it's a small handful of evangelical atheists caught up in the thrall of their own zeal and religious fantasies. (August, 2019↗)

    • The Sciforums version of it would look at the scattered street preacher who makes no sense, has no real flock, and spends his time muttering after his own gratification in ways most of us just don't understand, and raise him up as an idol. (March, 2020↗)

    • And, again, Jan Ardena has no flock but those who need him as an idol to lash against. (March, 2020↗ [two days later; reiterated again eleven days↗ after that])

    Also, look, on the point of people lying and generally being dishonest about things, I might reiterate what I told you two and a half years ago↗. Furthermore, should you ask why you, or anyone else, as a member of Sciforums should be expected to endure such dishonesty, and why the staff does so little about it, please remember, it is already established that yes, we must keep them around even when they are full of shite, per the Administration↗.

    On irony: You'd be out of here, except for the setup? And this somehow warrants your bigotry?
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I reject most of what you say Tiassa.
    I'm not after any victory, and while I may sometimes make mistakes, I do try and be honest.
    I also don't generally go out of my way to interfere, or debunk religious people. What does though get my ire up, is when evangelists such as Jan, uses his beliefs to deride science. If that sounds self-righteous or makes me an evangelist in the name of science, then so be it.
    This is though a science forum.
    Just as an aside, not sure if you know, but I have mentioned to other people that my wife is a devout christian, and we have been married for 43 years now, both being our first and only marriages. She also has her quoir group over around once a month for practise, and I get on very well with all of them. What has this to do with what you are accusing me of? I don't know, just thought I would mention it.

    I also don't like being labelled an Atheist or any other label for that matter, and am simply in awe of science and the scientific method, what it has achieved and what it continues to achieve.
    If this makes me a science evangelist, then good...I'll accept that also.
    I would never enter a church Tiassa while a service was going on, and start preaching about how the BB has made any deity superfluous, or any other derision of their faith. I accept that we are all different and should be able to believe and conduct ourselves as we like...within the law of course.

    You are correct though, in that we are giving Jan attention he doesn't deserve, and the same can be said for river. On that issue, I take blame and responsibility.

    Finally in answer to your lengthy post, I'm not out to have any victory over Jan or river, or anyone else. I have been in a couple of wars in this forum already over my time here, simply in my opinion, because I say what I believe and I believe that in general I take a reasonable view on all matters.
  15. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    How would you know time could go on without being obstructed ever again without believing in life?
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2020
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Time is a consequence of space: Space is a consequence of time. They both exist independent and without any need for any god/s.
  17. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Time itself is a angel.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Any evidence of that? or is this just bulldust?
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Could you explain what you mean by that...it seems to makes no sense but I am sure you attach a meaning so may I ask for a wider interpretation of what you said?
  20. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Paradise would wish to be.
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Paradise was a garden for one of the kings of Persia. So you like gardening.
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Your points about Jan are correct, of course, as are those concerning Paddoboy. They all apply to you as well however.

    Paddoboy may have disingenuous in the strawman he raised but then you turn around and do the same thing with the atheist you were referring to.

    Jan may be the crazy street preacher talking to the wind but your posts are much the same.

    If the rules of the game were changed so that Jan and Paddoboy were forced to be out of here, those same rules would result in your being out of here as well. You being a moderator here makes just as much sense as having Jan as a moderator.
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Jan Ardena:


    I have asked on numerous occasions for you to tell me what convinces you that your God is real, in the hope that you could point me towards some relevant evidence. In response, you seem to be able to come up with nothing better than "I know God is real" - i.e. you believe you have magical knowledge whose source you won't/can't explain.

    Nobody believes in anything unnaturally.

    You're missing the relevance of science to the process. I can't claim to speak for all atheists, but I can tell you where science fits in for me. It is not that any one scientific fact killed my God belief. There is no smoking-gun scientific fact that is a guaranteed religion-killer. If there was, presumably I could present that to you and you'd be an instantly cured of your affliction. It doesn't work like that.

    The most important part of science is not its collection of knowledge, its particular facts or its powerful theories. The important part lies in the method, the way of thinking, the approach to gaining reliable knowledge. That is what tends to be the religion killer. Once you realise that your God belief is not defensible on rational grounds, if you have a commitment to rationality and a pursuit of reliable truths, something has to give. You find that you can't cling on to superstition any more.

    Science is one path to becoming a free thinker, but it's not the only one. Critical thinking can be learned in other contexts. A person doesn't have to have a great knowledge of any particular scientific fact or theory to be able to think critically. However, the method of critical thinking is largely inherited from science, in the modern context. Science is a prime example that shows the importance of objective evidence, hypothesis testing, falsifiability and other ideas that are today considered fundamental by critical thinkers.

    Many adults go their whole lives without really learning how to think critically about anything. As a result, their beliefs tend to be built on a mess of unjustified assumptions.

    You know what the number 1 reason is that people follow a particular religion, Jan? It is that they were brought up to believe in it from childhood. Indoctrinated into it. It's not so much that they think it's a good way to live; it's that they haven't ever seriously considered any alternative.

    It sounds like, for you, the theory of evolution is a big bogeyman that looms large in your mind. Since you are a creationist, it doesn't surprise me that you feel intimidated by the theory. It also wouldn't surprise me if you thought that if you could just manage to bring down the theory of evolution then all the atheists would suddenly give up on their "denial" of your God. The creationists you follow push that kind of line a lot. What they despise, most of all, is that they - the religious fundamentalists - have had some of their traditional power and control stripped away from them. They have been deprived of the carte blanche that they were accustomed to in previous generations: the power to shape young minds by teaching the bible as if it were indisputable fact, unchallenged. At least they can rest assured that they own your mind, Jan.

    Religions are institutions set up to propagate a belief in one or more divine powers or beings. Theism is the belief that such divine powers or beings exist. While not the same thing, there's an obvious relationship between the two.

    Not if it's not the "transcendental cause of everything". That's your definition, remember.

    I look forward to reading your careful and thorough explanation about what is illogical about "the alternative". Mind you, you've already had a decade or so to try to explain that here and so far you have come up with nothing.

    That doesn't make logical sense. Everything is, well, everything. How can anything not be included in "everything"?

    I think you need to be more careful about your usage of the word "everything". If you don't really mean everything, you should use a different word.
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2020
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.

Share This Page