God

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This pedigree Chum of a post tends to assume all religious claims for historicity are the same.

No it doesn’t – it was a response to TS’s effort specifically. If other religious traditions have claims of historical accuracy that do satisfy the basic tests of academic historicity, then fair enough.

Also if you lower the bar even further you end up with Jesus as myth.

No, Jesus (the man/god, dead for then alive again version) as myth is what you get when you keep the historicity bar just where it is. To arrive at non-mythic status you need to lower that bar such that any other faith claim gets over it too.     

Have a nice day.

You too.

[Owlswing]

I see you're totally disconnected from reality and objective evidence, then.

Ain't that the truth, something TS seems totally unable to comprehend.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

As I have no belief in any gods(in the theist/deist, not the colloquial sense) I would find that hard to answer. I could give you plenty of examples of gods that others believe/have believed in. Would that satisfy you?

I wouldn't suppose them to be gods at all because of the total lack of evidence for their existence as gods although I am always open to the seemingly remote possibility that such evidence might be forthcoming in the future. It is up to those that venerate their particular god(s) to give an answer as to why they suppose them to be god(s), not me.

Nonsense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

Nonsense.

Why do you think that?

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Let me add my two cents worth to this....

In Hinduism...we differentiate between the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Brahman (or God) from what we call Devas (gods).  Brahman is One and is the Universal Spirit or Universal Consciousness which generates the universe and projects itself into lower levels of consciousness.   

Devas or gods are the many levels of celestial beings (like angels perhaps) who are involved in the functioning of the world. These beings directly or indirectly are involved in our daily lives.  Our prayers are normally directly at such beings.

Besides this, we also consider anyone who helps us or gives us something important as a deva or devi (female).  'Matru devo bhava, pitru devo bhava, acharya devo bhava'....is a common reference statement in Sanskrit.  It means 'Mother is god, father is god, teacher is god'....in the sense that we owe these people our life and learning and therefore they are like gods deserving respect and gratitude.

In the same manner we also consider any thing that gives us life and support as a god deserving gratitude.

Just for information.

Cheers.

Sriram   

[ippy]

Hi everyone,

Let me add my two cents worth to this....

In Hinduism...we differentiate between the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Brahman (or God) from what we call Devas (gods).  Brahman is One and is the Universal Spirit or Universal Consciousness which generates the universe and projects itself into lower levels of consciousness.   

Devas or gods are the many levels of celestial beings (like angels perhaps) who are involved in the functioning of the world. These beings directly or indirectly are involved in our daily lives.  Our prayers are normally directly at such beings.

Besides this, we also consider anyone who helps us or gives us something important as a deva or devi (female).  'Matru devo bhava, pitru devo bhava, acharya devo bhava'....is a common reference statement in Sanskrit.  It means 'Mother is god, father is god, teacher is god'....in the sense that we owe these people our life and learning and therefore they are like gods deserving respect and gratitude.

In the same manner we also consider any thing that gives us life and support as a god deserving gratitude.

Just for information.

Cheers.

Sriram   

Other than you must be another one of those unfortunate people that are a particularly susceptible victim of indoctrination, I really can't think why you bother with such a load of old nonsense Sriram.

Why don't you take up 'Star Trek' worship with me instead of that old Hinduism stuff? You might as well it'd make just as much sense.

May the force be with you, ippy, or was it May the fourth?

[Enki]

Nonsense.

"Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense."
Robert Frost

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Thank you Sriram, that was very informative. I've always thought that it was interesting that Hinduism apparently is thought of as monotheistic though having many gods. The various gods and goddesses represent powers and functions of the one supreme God.

Though Christianity teaches God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, the Bible doesn't agree. 

[Owlswing]

 from: enki on 25-10-2020, 12:19:23

    As I have no belief in any gods (in the theist/deist, not the colloquial sense) I would find that hard to answer. I could give you plenty of examples of gods that others believe/have believed in. Would that satisfy you?

    I wouldn't suppose them to be gods at all because of the total lack of evidence for their existence as gods although I am always open to the seemingly remote possibility that such evidence might be forthcoming in the future. It is up to those that venerate their particular god(s) to give an answer as to why they suppose them to be god(s), not me.

Nonsense.

Why 'nonsense'?

Where is your proof of the existence of the God you believe in? What evidence, verifiable evidence, do you hacve for his existance?

Oh, and please give proof that does not in any way shape of form rely on the Bible.

)O(

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Why 'nonsense'?

Where is your proof of the existence of the God you believe in? What evidence, verifiable evidence, do you hacve for his existance?

Oh, and please give proof that does not in any way shape of form rely on the Bible.

)O(

Give proof of what you had for breakfast.

[Owlswing]

Give proof of what you had for breakfast.

I am not making any claims about what I had for breakfast.

You are the one making claims for which, to my mind, there is no proof - so I am asking you to provide that proof.

[Sriram]

Thank you Sriram, that was very informative. I've always thought that it was interesting that Hinduism apparently is thought of as monotheistic though having many gods. The various gods and goddesses represent powers and functions of the one supreme God.

Though Christianity teaches God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, the Bible doesn't agree.

Yes...the many gods in Hinduism are functions and also sometimes represent many levels of celestial beings that exist besides the earth. We believe in seven levels of celestial worlds with the earth being at the first level. So, people living in other worlds are at higher spiritual levels and can influence our lives.

Besides taking scriptural references from Hinduism, I also like  comparing them to what science has discovered. I believe that science can point at realities other than the material, if we know where to look.

1. Parallel universes for example, can be compared to many celestial worlds. 
2. The contemporary ideas of Panpsychism, Cosmopsychism and Participatory Anthropic Principle indicate that our inner hidden levels of Consciousness can generate and influence the material world. 
3. Strings point to a common single source that vibrates in 11 dimensions and transforms itself into the material world.
4. Phenotypic plasticity points at intelligent responses of organisms to the environment.
5. NDE research by professional scientists could confirm an after-life.

And many more...

Interesting ideas all of them.

Cheers.

Sriram

[ippy]

Yes...the many gods in Hinduism are functions and also sometimes represent many levels of celestial beings that exist besides the earth. We believe in seven levels of celestial worlds with the earth being at the first level. So, people living in other worlds are at higher spiritual levels and can influence our lives.

Besides taking scriptural references from Hinduism, I also like  comparing them to what science has discovered. I believe that science can point at realities other than the material, if we know where to look.

1. Parallel universes for example, can be compared to many celestial worlds. 
2. The contemporary ideas of Panpsychism, Cosmopsychism and Participatory Anthropic Principle indicate that our inner hidden levels of Consciousness can generate and influence the material world. 
3. Strings point to a common single source that vibrates in 11 dimensions and transforms itself into the material world.
4. Phenotypic plasticity points at intelligent responses of organisms to the environment.
5. NDE research by professional scientists could confirm an after-life.

And many more...

Interesting ideas all of them.

Cheers.

Sriram

Yes Sriram, isn't that how science works dream up a few ideas and then hang on to the ideas where largely all the indicators add up, shouldn't that be the way we, humanity, moves on rather than stagnating? Blue Elephant heads etc, come on Sriram?

ippy.

[SusanDoris]

Yes Sriram, isn't that how science works dream up a few ideas and then hang on to the ideas where largely all the indicators add up, shouldn't that be the way we, humanity, moves on rather than stagnating? Blue Elephant heads etc, come on Sriram?

ippy.

How strange to want to live in such a fantasy world, when we have the real and wonderful world around us to live in, real faults and all, but far more real wonder and life and being.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I am not making any claims about what I had for breakfast.

You are the one making claims for which, to my mind, there is no proof - so I am asking you to provide that proof.

I don't recall making any claims except for that y'all don't know what a god is. You, more or less, are making the claim that to prove something means anything. It doesn't. Prove what you had for lunch. You can't. It means nothing.

The reason why you think it means something is the crutch that atheism supplies for you which is the illusion a) that there are concrete answers and b) that you know what is real. You don't.

[Owlswing]

I don't recall making any claims except for that y'all don't know what a god is. You, more or less, are making the claim that to prove something means anything. It doesn't. Prove what you had for lunch. You can't. It means nothing.

The reason why you think it means something is the crutch that atheism supplies for you which is the illusion a) that there are concrete answers and b) that you know what is real. You don't.

Problem - I am NOT atheist!

If you bothered to actually read what is written, you would realise this!

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

I don't recall making any claims except for that y'all don't know what a god is.

Did you not claim as facts Adam & Eve, angels etc?

You, more or less, are making the claim that to prove something means anything. It doesn't. Prove what you had for lunch. You can't. It means nothing.

No, it means a lot provided you don’t corrupt “prove” into an absolute. I can “prove” that 2+2=4. I cannot though prove that I haven’t been programmed to think that way because “I” am actually a piece of junk code in a celestial kid’s computer game. That doesn’t however give you licence to assert any truth claim to be epistemically equivalent to any other – known as the “going nuclear” option.   

The reason why you think it means something is the crutch that atheism supplies for you which is the illusion a) that there are concrete answers and b) that you know what is real. You don't.

No, it’s because some truths statements are logically coherent, cogent and able to provide solutions; other truth statements though are not. This isn’t hard to grasp even for a relative non-thinker such as yourself.     

[Stranger]

I don't recall making any claims except for that y'all don't know what a god is.

You've made multiple claims, among them that you know when Adam was created (and by implication that there was such a person and he was created) and that the bible is more accurate than "secular history".

You, more or less, are making the claim that to prove something means anything. It doesn't. Prove what you had for lunch. You can't. It means nothing.

The reason why you think it means something is the crutch that atheism supplies for you which is the illusion a) that there are concrete answers and b) that you know what is real. You don't.

The use of evidence and reasoning (rather than proof, which implies certainty as is applicable only to logic and mathematics) has led directly to the technology that allows you to post absurd assertions and have them read all over the world.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

You've made multiple claims, among them that you know when Adam was created (and by implication that there was such a person and he was created) and that the bible is more accurate than "secular history".

The use of evidence and reasoning (rather than proof, which implies certainty as is applicable only to logic and mathematics) has led directly to the technology that allows you to post absurd assertions and have them read all over the world.

Get over yourself, dude. Two Dropouts in one of their parent's garage and the evil US military created the junk I post on. Maybe some doofus in a lab coat had nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon and figured out how they did it but that's about as far as it goes.

Yeah, Science brought us eugenics and weapons of mass destruction and an endless series of inaccurate speculations about everything from eggs to the age of the universe.

Science is God's bitch. Good for a laugh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Problem - I am NOT atheist!

Yeah you are.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

Get over yourself, dude. Two Dropouts in one of their parent's garage and the evil US military created the junk I post on. Maybe some doofus in a lab coat had nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon and figured out how they did it but that's about as far as it goes.

Yeah, Science brought us eugenics and weapons of mass destruction and an endless series of inaccurate speculations about everything from eggs to the age of the universe.

Science is God's bitch. Good for a laugh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA

So presumably if – heaven forfend – you were diagnosed with something nasty and were offered a product of evil science (ie, medicine) you’d turn it down right? Or perhaps if the two of us were in a ‘plane with engine failure and one parachute you’d be happy for me to have it, what with evil science having developed parachutes?

Or how about if you were run over one day, an ambulance arrived and a (scientifically trained) medic ran toward you with a defribrilator. Naturally you’d raise your enfeebled arm to wave him away in the hope that a native American would appear to burn some sage leaves and do a special healing dance just for you right?

Good luck with that.           

[Theoretical Skeptic]

TS,

So presumably if – heaven forfend – you were diagnosed with something nasty and were offered a product of evil science (ie, medicine) you’d turn it down right? Or perhaps if the two of us were in a ‘plane with engine failure and one parachute you’d be happy for me to have it, what with evil science having developed parachutes?

Or how about if you were run over one day, an ambulance arrived and a (scientifically trained) medic ran toward you with a defribrilator. Naturally you’d raise your enfeebled arm to wave him away in the hope that a native American would appear to burn some sage leaves and do a special healing dance just for you right?

Good luck with that.         

First of all, know it all, luck is a false god. I don't believe in luck.

Secondly, the modern day school of medicine was founded by robber barons of the industrial age and a farce. They chased all of the real medicine out of this country and made it illegal. I'll take the latter and you can shove science elsewhere.

Thirdly, ain't nobody going anywhere in anything unless God had created them. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

First of all, know it all,…

I don’t need to be a know all to falsify your arguments (or rather, your unqualified assertions) – I just need to be a “know more than you do” which, so far at least, has been a simple matter.

…luck is a false god.

It’s not a god at all, just a reality – at least until we get to the quantum field level.

I don't believe in luck.

Why not? Luck, chance and happenstance have an overwhelming effect on all our lives. If you want to argue instead for an a priori, purposive planner then you have a vast amount of epistemological work to do to get there. And no, “but that’s my faith” is worthless for this purpose. The only proper answer to that is, “so what”?
   

Secondly,…

You can’t have a secondly when your firstly has just collapsed.

…the modern day school of medicine was founded by robber barons of the industrial age and a farce.

Actually the modern day school of medicine was founded by Galen (c129 AD – c200 AD). If you’re referring though to the Enlightenment, the modern discoveries in medicine began in the 18th century with, for example, the germ theory of disease. If you consider modern man to have existed for around 150,000 – 250,000 years before then (I’m assuming for now that you’re not a complete fruit loop creationist, though your efforts so far don’t give me much confidence about that) then, while shamanic attempts at medicine during that time might be culturally interesting, they produced little of demonstrably remedial use. 

They chased all of the real medicine out of this country and made it illegal.

“The real medicine” eh? What real medicine do you think pre-Enlightenment shamans and witch doctors actually produced?

I'll take the latter and you can shove science elsewhere.

I don’t believe you. If you had a child in hospital with life-threatening sepsis, are you seriously claiming you’d turn down the antibiotics in favour of Hopi chanting or suchlike?   

Thirdly…

Again, there is no “thirdly” when your attempts at a firstly and a secondly have just collapsed.

…ain't nobody going anywhere in anything unless God had created them.

Thank you for that expression of blind, albeit incoherent, faith. What value do you think it has though when you’re talking to rational (rather than credulous) people?   

[Owlswing]

Quote from: Owlswing on 27-10-2020, 18:11:20

    Problem - I am NOT atheist!

Yeah, you are.

Oxford Dictionaries Online defines today's “pagan” as “a member of a modern religious movement which seeks to incorporate beliefs or practices from outside the main world religions, especially nature worship.”

Oh NO I ain't!

[SusanDoris]

TS,

So presumably if – heaven forfend – you were diagnosed with something nasty and were offered a product of evil science (ie, medicine) you’d turn it down right? Or perhaps if the two of us were in a ‘plane with engine failure and one parachute you’d be happy for me to have it, what with evil science having developed parachutes?

Or how about if you were run over one day, an ambulance arrived and a (scientifically trained) medic ran toward you with a defribrilator. Naturally you’d raise your enfeebled arm to wave him away in the hope that a native American would appear to burn some sage leaves and do a special healing dance just for you right?

Good luck with that.         

Very much seconded!