Re: If you could ask God one question ...
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:26 am
Well I've seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you can't prove I haven't so there. The burden of proof is on you!
Discussions about Silent Computing
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=53282
You can make whatever point you wish, but please don't attribute that to Kant, becasue he didn't say or mean that.tim851 wrote:I was paraphrasing heavily to make a point.
The conclusion that nothing matters is yours, not mine. Just because you can't prove the things you claim to be true doesn't make everything meaningless.tim851 wrote:I won't waste time playing pseudo-philosophic children's games. You are deliberately misusing the term "belief system". You are argumenting like the Bomb in the movie "Dark Star".
I've been forced to play these stupid things in philosophy class too. It's pointless. Because you've reached the end of argument if you postulate everything is just subjective belief. All discussion becomes self-entertainment at this stage, because nothing matters anymore.
Science is the only way to test scientific knowledge or knowledge of empirical world. But science is not the only way to test knowledge which is outside the scope and ability of science to perceive it.tim851 wrote:Science doesn't provide knowledge. It is the only way to test knowledge.
If you claim that God does not exist, then you do have to prove it. If you claim that the only way that one can have knowledge of God is through science, you have to prove that also.tim851 wrote:1. I don't have to [prove God exists]. It's the great thing about science.
2. Or course it is. If you see God with your own eyes, the only way to make sure you ain't just hallucinating is to have other people see him too. And for other people to be sure, they have to do what you did to see him. That's not a belief system.
I am very happy for you that you have seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please don't send me you cleaning bill.edh wrote:Well I've seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you can't prove I haven't so there. The burden of proof is on you!
You are arguing a point that everyone knows is insoluble, so I will not bother to waste my time arguing against you.I would completely disagree with the statement that your beliefs about science are not like a religion. You may change your mind about certain things, but not likely to change your mind in the supremacy of science and reason as the sole method for understanding the world, especially on the question of whether God exists. You have provided no proof that reason can know these questions (and Kant has explicitly said that reason cannot know them), so your sole reliance on reason and science in these matters is a "belief" just like any other religion.
I am very glad that you recognise religion as man made, as such I would suggest that you create a totally new name for what you currently refer to as "God" because that name (in its hundreds of forms) has already been created by man in the form of religion, so to continue to use the word "God" for something that you suggest is "not" man-made is silly.Yes, religion is man made. But why do persist with equating religion with the question of whether God exists? Religion has little to do with the subject, just as there are many non-scientists (and often unreasonable people) who believe in the supremacy of science and reason.
You seem to have half made a few separate points and rolled them into one, I wont try to untangle them or read into them as I could easily misinterpret your real meaning.You claimed above that "trying to get a large amount of Atheists together in one place and at one time is like herding cats." However, as you also pointed out, a lot wars and other conflicts have taken place simply because people practice different religions, so I would doubt your conclusions on that matter. There is lots of unanimity among atheists, at least when it comes to matters of religion and what tools should be used to obtain knowledge about whether God exists.
I think that we mis-understand each other - I dont care in any way at all whether or not god exists or not. If someone wants to believe in the supernatural but "not" a religion then that's up to them, so long as they dont expect me to believe it as well and they dont try to infect the minds of vulnerable people (children, those with low IQ's and the mentally ill) with their nonsense.In general, you seem to be trying to prove that God does not exist by attacking religion, without really addressing the serious philosophical questions raised by those who belief God exists apart from any religious affiliation or religious worship. This is a logical fallacy, since not all people who believe that God exists even belong to a religion, and if God exists, that existence precedes man and any of his religions.
Just out of interest, what "powers" do you believe that God has.? Does God have morality.? Do you believe than anyone has ever "sensed" God in any way.? And do you believe that God interacts with Humans at all.?With regard to God, we are not talking about whether anyone has seen God (since God is not visible to our sense perceptions), we are talking about whether God exists
Oh I can prove the things I claim to be true. It's just you wanna label everything a belief-system. And if everything is just a belief-system, nothing matters anymore.m0002a wrote:Just because you can't prove the things you claim to be true doesn't make everything meaningless.
There's nothing but the empirical world. If you haven't seen, heard, felt or smelled something and you can't prove it's existence by way of calculation or deduction, it doesn't exist. What would we be talking about? "There is this thing that doesn't exist in our realm and hence I have no idea what it is - let's discuss it!"m0002a wrote:Science is the only way to test scientific knowledge or knowledge of empirical world. But science is not the only way to test knowledge which is outside the scope and ability of science to perceive it.
If you claim you never murdered somebody in your life, then you have to prove it. Go ahead murderer, make my day.m0002a wrote:If you claim that God does not exist, then you do have to prove it.
The only way one can knowledge of ANYTHING is through science. I chose to believe my gf when she just told me it's raining outside. I can only know if I look myself. That's science.m0002a wrote:If you claim that the only way that one can have knowledge of God is through science, you have to prove that also.
You prove your innocence, murderer. Then we talk.When you say you don't have to prove these things (and that is the great thing about science that you don't have to prove them) that sounds suspiciously like a religion to me.
Of course you have to rely on others. For a few days some guys at CERN thought neutrinos were moving faster than light. To be sure, they had others check up on that. Turned out to not be the case.If you are relying on other people to verify that one's knowledge is real and that one is not hallucinating
You will not find a large number of people who will make any substantial claims as to what that God creature is like, where he's at or what he's up to. They aren't really claiming much. They're hoping and believing a lot. That's why it's called a ... uh, belief-system.there certainly are a very large number of people who think that God definitely does exist, but personally (and apparently unlike you) I don't think proves anything.
"personal enrichment"My view is that it's not religion per se but the misuse of religion for human motives like personal enrichment, acquiring political and sexual power over human beings, expressing hatred
You have made a very common mistake: you assumed Hebraic slavery was like colonialist slavery. It wasn't. Hebrew slaves were more like contracted employees: they could own property, had significant legal protections, and had the right to purchase their freedom at any time. A few even rose to wealth and prominence while they were enslaved.andyb wrote:"acquiring political and sexual power over human beings"
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you ... (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
And these verses are simply taken out of context. This passage is from a prophecy. The language is figurative and the original target audience was the Jews taken captive by the Babylonians. Even if you interpret it literally and ignore the differences in cultural perspectives (both exceedingly dubious choices), the hatred is focused exclusively on Babylon and the intended recipients of the call to arms are Gentiles one would expect to neither know nor care about God's commands.andyb wrote:"expressing hatred"
"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod ... (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)
Please provide evidence, I may have missed it but I believe that you are wrong. I do know that there were two "types" of slavery, those where the slaves were Jewish and those who are not, and there are different "rules" that apply. Either way anyone who attempts to defend "the ownership of another human being" (slavery) is on a slippery slope.You have made a very common mistake: you assumed Hebraic slavery was like colonialist slavery. It wasn't. Hebrew slaves were more like contracted employees: they could own property, had significant legal protections, and had the right to purchase their freedom at any time. A few even rose to wealth and prominence while they were enslaved.
Now, I'm sure the system was abused (systems always are) but the Hebraic version of slavery functioned as a social safety net, providing employment for the impoverished without overburdening an economy that lacked the vast surpluses necessary to operate a modern welfare system. It was not about obtaining power.
I dont really care whether it was a "prophesy", a command from "God" or whether you consider that I have misinterpreted it, the simple fact is that the God of the desert, the Abrahamic God and the 3 (primary) religions that have spawned are full of statement, quotes, and commands to do evil deeds, a great many being committed directly by God, very often for pathetic reasons. Anyone who defends these evil actions is "cherry-picking" the good bits and ignoring the bad, congratulations on you having morals that are clearly not defined by religious text and distancing yourself from the hatred and violence - sadly many people do not.And these verses are simply taken out of context. This passage is from a prophecy. The language is figurative and the original target audience was the Jews taken captive by the Babylonians. Even if you interpret it literally and ignore the differences in cultural perspectives (both exceedingly dubious choices), the hatred is focused exclusively on Babylon and the intended recipients of the call to arms are Gentiles one would expect to neither know nor care about God's commands.
I disagree, God directly killed 2.5 million people in the Bible, how many were killed by the Devil - 10 and they were allowed to be killed by God.I don't know enough to comment one way or the other on your view of the Koran, but I am deeply disappointed that you would judge the Bible when you've clearly read nothing but carefully selected snippets. The Bible and the Koran are very old texts translated from very different languages spoken by very different cultures. They're not short stories you can sum up with a soundbite, or a mass-market novel you can idly speed-read on an airplane. As with all ancient texts, they're easy to misunderstand if you don't know the historical, cultural, and linguistic context.
In exactly the same way that bombard-marketing works, if you keep on repeating the same thing over and over (some) people are blind-sighted to anything else, not to mention of course that the majority of violent religious nutters are not literate, and many are not even allowed to be taught to read, so they become a victim of evil Priests and Imams, you may not know that it was "illegal" for a very long time to even own a Bible in your own language (in the UK) and people were murdered by the clergy for daring to read their religious book.And that is just one of many reasons why your belief that religion causes violence is absurd. Most "believers" can't be bothered to study their own holy book or learn about the faith they claim to follow. How can you blame a religion for the actions of those ignorant of its tenets? How could those too disinterested to attend services once a week also be so devoted that they'd risk life and limb for their alleged faith?
I suggest very strongly that all of the evidence is against you, you have all of the proof to provide. Saying this, please do note that I am not in any way suggesting that all people regardless of how well read in their holy book they are are going to do evil things, and likewise I would not dare to suggest that being Religious does not prompt people to do good things.I say again: religious violence is not about religion. For most badly behaving "believers," their alleged belief is a justification, not a motivation, and blaming that justification for their actions is like thinking your car broke down because of its paint job. Could you be right? Sure, but it's extremely unlikely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slaveryIrrelevant wrote:Hebrew slaves were more like contracted employees: they could own property, had significant legal protections, and had the right to purchase their freedom at any time. A few even rose to wealth and prominence while they were enslaved.
andyb wrote:Please provide evidence, I may have missed it but I believe that you are wrong.You have made a very common mistake: you assumed Hebraic slavery was like colonialist slavery. It wasn't ...
The Wikipedia article is misleading, and the only concise summary I found that didn't come from openly biased sources (ie, Christian or anti-Christian). The neutral articles/books on Google Scholar avoid conflict by burying their conclusions in details. The best, relatively concise resource I could find was this article which, at least at first glance, appears to be well documented and attempting objectivity.tim851 wrote:What you say only applies to Jewish slaves. Other slaves were just slaves. And the majority of slaves was not Jewish.
The man who wrote this is a self-confessed "Born Again Christian", would I believe anything that he preaches, I am a natural skeptic and I have seen/read/heard just about every argument there is that would be considered "pro-God" or "pro-religion", I will have a read, but I best point out that before reading a single word on the webpage I started to look for information about the Author, it doesn't look good for the "objectivity".The best, relatively concise resource I could find was this article which, at least at first glance, appears to be well documented and attempting objectivity.
I gave it a shot, it was soon apparent that it was a shocking case of TLDR, in response I give you this as a gift.
No thanks, I will politely decline, it is blatantly obvious that "the unholy Bible" condones slavery, also as mentioned before, if you continue to add ifs and buts to try to "defend" the text in the bible as "not being slavery" in some way, shape or form you are falling into the classic trap of ignoring the nasty bits and listening to the good bits.If you want to get really solid data, AFAIK you'll just have to wade through a dozen or so articles on Google Scholar. I did the equivalent when I read Deuteronomy a few years ago. I'm afraid I don't have time to do it again just to assemble you a bibliography, but if you're at all familiar with academic research methods, that wouldn't save you much time, anyway.
And what would you think if he decided he'd never believe anything from an atheist?andyb wrote:The man who wrote this is a self-confessed "Born Again Christian", would I believe anything that he preaches
So any such argument can be automatically disregarded?andyb wrote:I am a natural skeptic and I have seen/read/heard just about every argument there is that would be considered "pro-God" or "pro-religion"
I think, perhaps, I've spent too much time with scientific journals recently, because I thought it was a bit vague. I suppose after one spends enough time reading such gems as "The homotetrameric form of Cin8p, a Saccharomyces cerevisiae kinesin-5 motor, is essential for its in vivo function," one's perspective changes a bit.andyb wrote:I gave it a shot, it was soon apparent that it was a shocking case of TLDR ...
I don't do unexplained video links. Reading's faster and I don't risk being the umpteen-millionth person to watch some stupid video that has inexplicably become a phenomenon. If you're not just being snarky, you'll have to tell me what the video's about before I'll watch it.andyb wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGwfHxLkYK4
The only bits I've ignored are the Tabernacle-blueprinting chapters in Exodus. The rest, I've read, and contextualized using extra-biblical sources varied in both nature and bias. Evil Bible was one of them, though I found it essentially useless. It was difficult to find actual data in all that sneering.andyb wrote:if you continue to add ifs and buts to try to "defend" the text in the bible as "not being slavery" in some way, shape or form you are falling into the classic trap of ignoring the nasty bits and listening to the good bits.
The Jefferson Bible only covers the Gospels, which overlap enough that Jefferson wouldn't have needed to remove much (if anything) to achieve that page length.andyb wrote:If you want to cast the Christian Holy book in a good light then read the the "Jefferson Bible" where the great man removed anything that was either wrong or immoral
Seriously? What do you guys want? Coloring books?edh wrote:TLDR.
Nope. And you can't prove it does. Agnosticism wins.edh wrote:You still can't prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist!
Of course not, False Idols come to mind.And what would you think if he decided he'd never believe anything from an atheist?
This is a sunday call-in show for the people of the world, but based in Austen Texas called the "Athiest Experience" where bible thumpers often phone in to "prove the existence of God, or that certain Bible statements state that murdering homosexuals is just fine because the Bible says it is, as well as some who share their experience with their faith.I don't do unexplained video links. Reading's faster and I don't risk being the umpteen-millionth person to watch some stupid video that has inexplicably become a phenomenon. If you're not just being snarky, you'll have to tell me what the video's about before I'll watch it.
Please explain why any "extra-biblical sources" are needed when the Bible is the "true word of God".The only bits I've ignored are the Tabernacle-blueprinting chapters in Exodus. The rest, I've read, and contextualized using extra-biblical sources varied in both nature and bias.
Just like you wont watch any "unexplained videos", I wont read loads of text which is a horrible blend of "bible verses" and opinion, I am quite capable of reading Bible verses and making my own opinion, I dont need a load of explanations from a born again Christian, that's the reason why I concluded its a TLDR, what would potentially change my mind are quotations from the Bible that say that slavery is bad.At this point, I can only conclude that you are interested only in passing judgment, not genuine debate, and that your mind is firmly welded shut. If I'm wrong, then we have experienced a major failure of communication. Either way, further discussion between us will accomplish nothing but increase our post count.
I didn't read more than half a page of the Jefferson Bible either, my mind shut down with a bad case of boredom, although I did download it so that I can continue to read it at some point when I need to go to sleep fast. As I did not read it I would not know that it "only" included the Gospels - perhaps someone should finish what Jefferson started and go through the entire Bible, and then the Quran (and Hadiths) and the the Old Testament.The Jefferson Bible only covers the Gospels, which overlap enough that Jefferson wouldn't have needed to remove much (if anything) to achieve that page length.
Nope, I just want some Bible verses that say that Slavery is wrong and evil. Seemingly they dont exist, unlike bits of the Bible that say that you should not do xyz bad things, and then gives you an example of someone (or God) doing exactly that in a manner that seems to be acceptable.Seriously? What do you guys want? Coloring books?
Is it?Irrelevant wrote:The Wikipedia article is misleading
What a misleading Wikipedia article, quoting the bible and all. The bible is so vague, I can hardly make heads or tails of this. I should rely on a neutral website called christianthinktank.com, like you.39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
That's not what Positivists or Scientists say. Scientists say: a higher being would be part of the Universe too. If it transcends our known laws of physics, they have to be adapted. If it turns out that this being lives forever outside of space and time, we will have to incorporate this into our model of reality as well. But we will only do that once we've found that being. So let's go and search for it, or at least evidence for it. Because if we cannot see it, hear it, smell it, feel it, calculate it or otherwise know it's there, what the hell are we talking about?RHN wrote:As opposed to the positivists, who say the universe just is and any discussion about a higher being is wasted time
By way of definition:That's not what Positivists or Scientists say.
This definition is pretty much what I said.RHN wrote:By way of definition:
"The characteristic theses of positivism are that science is the only valid knowledge and facts the only possible objects of knowledge... Positivism denies the existence or intelligibility of forces or substances that go beyond the facts and the laws ascertained by science. It opposes any kind of metaphysics and, in general, any procedure of investigation that is not reducible to scientific method." [The Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Then tell me: if the experience of God is not possible through scientific analysis alone, what do I have to do, to get it? How did you come to "know" God? How does he/it manifest itself in your life?Here I am of a different opinion, the experience of God is not possible through scientific analysis alone. "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing."
I would add "Whatever evidence you site for these 'reasons of the heart' why do you think it is about the world around you and god, and not about yourself?"tim851 wrote:Then tell me: if the experience of God is not possible through scientific analysis alone, what do I have to do, to get it? How did you come to "know" God? How does he/it manifest itself in your life?Here I am of a different opinion, the experience of God is not possible through scientific analysis alone. "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing."
And: is there anything else in life that you experience in such a way?
I would be more than happy to meet anyone from SPCR in a pub, although language might be a problem as my spoken German is pathetic, and although I can get a rough idea of something from reading it would be a laborious conversation with pen and paperAppreciate AndyB's forthrightness, would like to down a pint with him in Essex and discuss this perennial question.
Somewhere (at least once in this very long thread that stretches across years) I have stated that I cannot be 100% certain that there is no God, but I still consider myself an Athiest because its much easier to round up my belief that there is no God from 99.999%. In that way I do like to differentiate myself from the average religious person whose entire religion is based on the "fact" that there is a God, so to even admit that the possibility that God does not exist might be 0.001% would still be far to much to admit - please consider me an Agnostic that is 99.999% certain that there is no god and if you wish to call me an Athiest I wont complain too muchAs opposed to the positivists, who say the universe just is and any discussion about a higher being is wasted time, the theists and the atheists are certain that their positions are true and discussion is possible (even if it gets heated at times).
I personally cannot abide anyone who considers themselves 50/50 as to the existence of God, they are the type of Agnostics that give Agnostics a bad name. I am Agnostic to the degree of 99.999% certainty that there is no Santa Claus, there are no Elves, there is no Loch Ness Monster, there is no Tooth Fairy.Yet as much as I admire the agnostic position, because arguments for or against God seem like an endless intellectual game, points accumulating on both sides but without any certain outcome, and the historical evidence is unsure, still I am a theist. I freely admit that this belief is based on subjective experiences and is a leap of faith, but like very much else in this mysterious life sometimes you have to rely on intuition, especially if you are talking about something that exists but largely lies outside the limits of human knowledge.
This begs the question to all religious people.I would add "Whatever evidence you site for these 'reasons of the heart' why do you think it is about the world around you and god, and not about yourself?"
I wish I could give you a satisfactory answer, but I don't think I can....if the experience of God is not possible through scientific analysis alone, what do I have to do, to get it? How did you come to "know" God? How does he/it manifest itself in your life?
I think I know what you're up to in asking this. No. The experiences--by the way, not full-blown mystical experiences, just a flash of something higher--have been unique and subjectively authoritative.Is there anything else in life that you experience in such a way?
Researchers have discovered that electrically stimulating a brain area could cause what might be called mystical experiences, or rather not mystical experiences but experiences that have the characteristics of alleged mystical experiences. It's entirely possible that these flashes of transcendental insight I and others have had are nothing more than coincidental neuronal discharges. I doubt it, but here, too, uncertainty.Whatever evidence you site for these 'reasons of the heart' why do you think it is about the world around you and god, and not about yourself?
If I had cancer, I doubt very much that my prayer, or other people's prayers, would cure me. That's magical thinking. The evidence is overwhelming that prayer, at least in this sense, is ineffective. Also, the idea that some being--the stereotypical white-bearded patriarch--is watching my every move strikes me as infantile. If I pray at all, it is not to fulfill my wishes but to live in accord with God's will, which I construe as an affirmation of life.Are you a "Theist" or a "Deist", the basic difference is "do you believe in a personal God", one who listens to your prayers, watches who you shag, doesn't like you eating certain things and cares about "you"?
I think my posts strongly suggest that I have one of those Star Trek-type instant translation devices. When we down that pint, I will have it ready....although language might be a problem as my spoken German is pathetic.
This is what baffles me. You seem to have no idea what your experience was. You even admit that it might be nothing at all. Yet you want to connect it to some sort of "personal God".RHN wrote:I hesitate to even discuss what I called the experience of God (...) language itself meets its limit. As for telling you what you have to do to "get it," I'm at a total loss. I can't claim to "know" God. I don't. I can only say that I have experienced a sense of a higher reality when, for example, listening to Bach or walking in the woods. (...) not full-blown mystical experiences, just a flash of something higher (...) If God is personal, then only insofar as God expresses Himself through human beings. That's very much "through a glass darkly" and as murky and uncertain as is human nature.
I do, but that experience is not directly communicable. Freud, referring to Rolland, called it the "oceanic feeling": a sense of awe, a sense, as Einstein put it, of a "sublime and marvelous order" as revealed in nature as a "single significant whole." That's why I can't call myself an atheist or an agnostic despite my respect for both views.This is what baffles me. You seem to have no idea what your experience was.
I try to keep an open mind. A Freudian would say that the so-called "oceanic feeling" might result from an unconscious memory of when I was beginning, as an infant, to differentiate myself from my mother. A biochemist might claim that a sudden alteration of brain chemistry triggered a synaptic event that I mistook for a transcendental experience. There's no end of reductionist explanations.You even admit that it might be nothing at all.
It's not my belief that God is a person or an anthropomorphic deity handing out rewards and punishments, conjuring up storms to punish the wicked, answering a prayer for a new car, and so on. If there is a personal God, then only insofar as a person makes God personal.Yet you want to connect it to some sort of "personal God".
I don't think most agnostics would see it that way, but I understand what you mean by agnostic evasiveness. But then positivists, too, may be evading the emotional and intuitive side of human nature that makes up such a large part of our experience of the world.The Agnostic would try to ignore it, in fear he might have to find something out one way or the other.
Both the scientist and the theist are proceeding from assumptions. The history of science is one of assumptions being forwarded, then dismissed and yielding to new assumption. Even in mathematics, the truth of axioms was once seen as beyond question, but, according to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, mathematics will never have enough axioms to complete itself as a system and, what is more, can't even prove that a chosen set of axioms is consistent.The Scientist would try to find an actual answer for what instilled the feeling in him. The Theist just assumes something.
I would call it an intuitive insight, not a belief in an easily disprovable cosmology or cultural drama of legendary gods.How is your sensing a higher reality when listening to Bach different from fearing the wrath of Thor when thunder bolts?
If I understood my psychology professor correctly, Freud has been "debunked", for the most part.I try to keep an open mind. A Freudian would say that the so-called "oceanic feeling" might result from an unconscious memory of when I was beginning, as an infant, to differentiate myself from my mother. A biochemist might claim that a sudden alteration of brain chemistry triggered a synaptic event that I mistook for a transcendental experience. There's no end of reductionist explanations.
Then you shouldn't call it God. The bible has a kind of specific view of God, as have Christians in general. If you believe in some loose definition of a higher power, you should give it a different term. It's also better for discussions like this one. Any atheist will tell you that there is no personal God, as any evidence for him has been disproven and ridiculed. If, however, you proclaim to believe in a higher order or something like it, even most atheists will tell you: sure, why not.It's not my belief that God is a person or an anthropomorphic deity handing out rewards and punishments, conjuring up storms to punish the wicked, answering a prayer for a new car, and so on.
Both are starting from assumptions, only the scientists proceeds though.Both the scientist and the theist are proceeding from assumptions.
Freud, the great debunker, debunked? That's funny. But actually Freud has been attacked ever since he made his theories public, including by his followers, most famously by C. G. Jung. And while it's true that psychologists are not referring to Freud the way they used to just a few decades ago, concepts like "transference," "attachment," "defense mechanism" and others are still regularly used, at least in a clinical setting.Freud has been "debunked"
The usual lexical definition is of "God" (capitalized) as "ultimate reality" and that is the sense in which it has been used for centuries. "God" as personal usually is understood in a subsidiary sense.Then you shouldn't call it God.
They work it through from guesses until they have empirical verification, but then the next set of data turns up and overturns their theories. And what they discover, valuable though it may be, is applicable only within a narrowly defined area of human knowledge.only the scientists