Evidence that God is real

[Musika]

You're surely already question begging that Buddhism has knowledge to impart. It may be that they have opinions to impart, but you surely shouldn't assume up front that they have knowledge. Knowledge is (in simplistic terms) a justified true belief. I get how everything you've put forth so far, with regard to "how one has to be" can lead one to justify their belief (whether others find that justification circular or not), but how can you establish that it is actually true, that it is the explanation of whatever it is you believe, rather than just a belief, a conviction, that it is true?

If one didn't believe that Buddhism had any knowledge to impart, one's study of it would simply be relegated to externals of culture and history. I'm not sure how one would establish such externals as the "true" form of Buddhism without relying on crutches of belief, etc.

That is certainly a claim made by Jesus. How is it knowledge?

It establishes a certain standard of being in relation to a result.

On what grounds is it to be accepted as true?

On the grounds that Jesus is better at acquiring results and ascertaining the means to get them.

Where is the issue of epistemology raised in this?
And when you do you move into the subjective realm, away from any knowledge of God's existence being objectively true, and toward "true for me, not true for you".

If Jesus is suggesting one has to be a certain way to know God, it only becomes subjective when you think he doesn't know what he is talking about. One can employ the same means to discredit advice from doctors, lawyers, mechanics etc.

I have no doubt that that is what you believe.

Regardless of what you, I or even the Andaman islanders believe, it changes nothing at the end of the day regarding the means and what is and isn't possible for the Andaman Islanders to know.

Are you suggesting that knowing God is self-evident?

In a literal sense, yes. You have to utilize the self in a specific manner, in order to evidence God. Much like (personally) eating food is the only real means to know what it tastes like. Cerebral pursuits will not help.

 

[Goldtop]

If God did provide such information, why wouldn't you expect it to take the form of testimony by saintly persons (or scripture,) ?

That would be one of the last expectations of form one would expect from a God who can create a universe, but can't deliver his message to all mankind. As we all know, that method failed miserably considering how many religions there have been throughout history, all based on the testimony of alleged saintly persons and alleged scriptures.

 

[Musika]

That would be one of the last expectations of form one would expect from a God who can create a universe, but can't deliver his message to all mankind.

What would be one of the first?

As we all know, that method failed miserably considering how many religions there have been throughout history, all based on the testimony of alleged saintly persons and alleged scriptures.

Sounds like you are esteeming atheists as the forerunners for "something we all know".

 

[Goldtop]

What would be one of the first?

As a non-omnipotent being, I can only imagine how God would accomplish such a thing. As a human being, one can easily deduce the current methods are just short of confidence tricksters tactics. And, as a human being, we already possess methods of getting messages to all mankind, successfully.

Sounds like you are esteeming atheists as the forerunners for "something we all know".

Nope, I am merely pointing out God's failures based on the results.

 

[spidergoat]

On the contrary, if one was not approaching the definition of God as given by God, its not clear how one would be doing anything but producing such things through one's mind.

We aren't talking about a definition of God, but rather some kind of confirmation of God, such that definitions can be conceived. It's not clear you aren't just pulling this nonsense out of your ass.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If God did provide such information, why wouldn't you expect it to take the form of testimony by saintly persons (or scripture,) ?

I expect a God would have the ability to talk direct to all humans such that his presence is more than a mystery.
Alex

 

[billvon]

If God did provide such information, why wouldn't you expect it to take the form of testimony by saintly persons (or scripture,) ?

"The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls - and tenement halls."

Jesus was considered a dirtbag by most of society when he began preaching. Indeed, people managed to frame him and get him crucified. (One guy even got thirty shekels of silver for turning him over to the INS - I mean, the temple priests.) If he came back today he'd be an illegal immigrant preaching in Tucson, and the GOP would make him into a symbol of all that was wrong with immigrants - he's a communist, he's filthy, he hates capitalism, he hates America, he doesn't work etc etc.

Per Scripture, that's who God used to convey such information - a filthy, poor criminal (in the eyes of society of the time.)

 

[Write4U]

If you define Bob in relation to the pizza, you have a means to go forth. If you haven't/ can't/ won't, then you don't.

My name is Bob and I like pizza. My pizza delivery man is named Pete. When anyone sees pizza on my table they know it was delivered by Pete.

Once Pete ran out of pizza and sent John. A friend came by, saw the pizza on the table and exclaimed, "I see Pete came by to deliver pizza", whereupon I had to dissappoint his enthusiasm by confessing that the pizza was actually delivered by John.

The problem with theists is that they cannot conceive of any causal action without God as the causal agent. Bob ALWAYS goes forth and delivers the pizza, not.

 

[Musika]

We aren't talking about a definition of God, but rather some kind of confirmation of God, such that definitions can be conceived. It's not clear you aren't just pulling this nonsense out of your ass.

If you want to talk of evidence by first bypassing discussions of definition and/or relationship, then you are most certainly demanding that there is value in the contents of your arsehole.

 

[Musika]

As a non-omnipotent being, I can only imagine how God would accomplish such a thing. As a human being, one can easily deduce the current methods are just short of confidence tricksters tactics. And, as a human being, we already possess methods of getting messages to all mankind, successfully.




Nope, I am merely pointing out God's failures based on the results.

What would be an such an example of humanity's ability to uniformly socially, philosophically and politically codify behaviour behind facts, findings or ideas?
Climate change?

 

[Musika]

I expect a God would have the ability to talk direct to all humans such that his presence is more than a mystery.
Alex

You are assuming the problem can be assessed merely within the parameters of obedience and the mutual interest between two sincere parties. Introduce free will, and the notion of desire to be independant from God (ie, the notion of using free will adversely) and things start to get more complicated. As I mentioned to another poster (before their intelligence got snuffed out by atheist soundbites), are you ready to give up your gig in conditioned life immediately? If not, what would you propose to be socialized around if God suddenly rained on your parade with the ultimatum of complete ideological obedience?

 

[Musika]

"The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls - and tenement halls."

Jesus was considered a dirtbag by most of society when he began preaching. Indeed, people managed to frame him and get him crucified. (One guy even got thirty shekels of silver for turning him over to the INS - I mean, the temple priests.) If he came back today he'd be an illegal immigrant preaching in Tucson, and the GOP would make him into a symbol of all that was wrong with immigrants - he's a communist, he's filthy, he hates capitalism, he hates America, he doesn't work etc etc.

Per Scripture, that's who God used to convey such information - a filthy, poor criminal (in the eyes of society of the time.)

That probably says more about human nature and/or the inherent value of human society.

 

[Musika]

My name is Bob and I like pizza. My pizza delivery man is named Pete. When anyone sees pizza on my table they know it was delivered by Pete.

Once Pete ran out of pizza and sent John. A friend came by, saw the pizza on the table and exclaimed, "I see Pete came by to deliver pizza", whereupon I had to dissappoint his enthusiasm by confessing that the pizza was actually delivered by John.

The problem with theists is that they cannot conceive of any causal action without God as the causal agent. Bob ALWAYS goes forth and delivers the pizza, not.

You have it wrong.
That sounds precisely like the atheist problem.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You are assuming the problem can be assessed merely within the parameters of obedience and the mutual interest between two sincere parties. Introduce free will, and the notion of desire to be independant from God (ie, the notion of using free will adversely) and things start to get more complicated. As I mentioned to another poster (before their intelligence got snuffed out by atheist soundbites), are you ready to give up your gig in conditioned life immediately? If not, what would you propose to be socialized around if God suddenly rained on your parade with the ultimatum of complete ideological obedience?

Interesting observation yet I feel no need to abandon my post.

You assume if God did make himself know it must only be to demand obedience...I was thinking more like an address to the nation event

.."Hi God here, just letting you know all is good and that I just diverted an asteriod from impacting Earth check these coordinates so you can see it was a biggie"


Alex

 

[Musika]

Interesting observation yet I feel no need to abandon my post.

You assume if God did make himself know it must only be to demand obedience...I was thinking more like an address to the nation event

.."Hi God here, just letting you know all is good and that I just diverted an asteriod from impacting Earth check these coordinates so you can see it was a biggie"


Alex

And what uniform social behaviour would you expect humanity to adopt after such an event?

 

[Write4U]

You have it wrong.
That sounds precisely like the atheist problem.

No, an atheist waits until the pizza is delivered before he declares who did the delivery.
Atheists do not believe that all (or any) pizzas are delivered by a person named Bob.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

And what uniform social behaviour would you expect humanity to adopt after such an event?

That they take up astronomy and check that there was an asteriod that changed course in a way consistent with the address to the nation.

And that folk like yourself would not have to avoid questions re a definition of God☺.

Have a great day keep up your wonderful posts I do enjoy them as I do like your writting style.

I must go and get back to work.

Alex

 

[Musika]

No, an atheist waits until the pizza is delivered before he declares who did the delivery.
Atheists do not believe that all (or any) pizzas are delivered by a person named Bob.

That is certainly not there in your ideas on how the universe functions or what or the means it has delivered, especially as it pertains to necessarily excluding God.

 

[Write4U]

That is certainly not there in your ideas on how the universe functions or what or the means it has delivered, especially as it pertains to necessarily excluding God.

Tell me where I have offered my observation of how the universe functions without providing scientific evidence.
I exclude God, because there is no scientific evidence of a God. Actually, I don't exclude God, I don't consider God at all. No evidence on which to draw any conclusions. There is plenty of evidence on how the universe functions without need for a god.

 

[Musika]

That they take up astronomy and check that there was an asteriod that changed course in a way consistent with the address to the nation.

I am talking about after that.
After "yay day", celebrating that "God" showed an asteroid that didn't hit earth, what happens next?
Does He now have to post on youtube to attempt to pacify the discontent of online commentators ("fake news", "God is just an alien", "its the devil in disguise", "what about the world trade centre").
Does it path the way for a bunch of other demands for God to fix, from arthritis, to broadband speeds?
IOW behind this idea of yours is an idea of the role God "should" play in order to be real, valid, credible etc (namely "fixer", servant of the brilliance that is us, human society, etc). Is there the possibility that something more sublime is at stake?