I don’t try to persuade people on something so subjective as this, just try to give different perspectives. It’s annoying enough when Bible-thumping Christians try to “persuade” (or inflame their own intolerance through speech).
The criteria that you have selected (“scientific” proof) are not suited to the subject at hand. If I “prove” sprirituality exists with scientific means, you will redraw the boundaries of science to include those phenomena, and it will be “electromagnetic energy” not “spirits.” what you are asking for is impossible as a matter of identity. Some things must be experienced. However, The existence of auras or the subtle energy body is a well-documented fact that “science” tends to ignore. Perhaps investigation of this subject will be more fruitful than our discussion of the doors. Also, I would ask you to examine the source material (No One Here Get Out Alive by Jerry Hopkins and Danny Sugerman) before you dismiss my claim. That is, if you are looking to be persuaded. If you simply want to argue then I suppose it will be a waste of your time.
I’ll be your Huckleberry.
could you please explain to me how, as a matter of definition, electromagnetic energy is excluded from your definition? Its intangible, and its related to the soul. Auras contain information about people. Thats why holy figures are depicted with halos.
Infinite sets can still be encompassed. Infinite sets can even be ranked in order of (relative) size. The important thing is that the theistic theory is explanatory and predictive, whereas you seem to admit that the atheistic theory is confounded by existence. My answer is simple: existence exists because God prefers that existence exists. my answer to your assertion that the first cause could be impersonal is that we conceive of a universe that is subordinate to its Creator. Since God is ontologically supreme, it follows that He would exhibit properties not just of personhood, but of Personhood. So its perfectly fine for you to posit an alternate theory with some dumb causal non-agent. We can argue about which theory is better at explanation and prediction.
I am not quite sure what your beef is?
contrast. God prefers to have other persons and things around. You are here to glorify God.
do you mean that it commits the fallacy of assertion or do you mean that there’s some other fallacy (argument from ignorance, etc.)?
“The criteria that you have selected (“scientific” proof) are not suited to the subject at hand. If I “prove” sprirituality exists with scientific means, you will redraw the boundaries of science to include those phenomena, and it will be “electromagnetic energy” not “spirits.””
You’re probably right. Long ago, lightning was the work of Zeus, but that theory does not have many adherents today.
“However, The existence of auras or the subtle energy body is a well-documented fact that “science” tends to ignore.”
Proving that claim would be hard. First you have to show when auras were discovered and known to scientists and that scientists intentionally ignored it. There are many scientific journals to browse to verify or falsify your claim. Even if, for example, auras were discovered and known to scientists, let’s say in 1905, that does not mean scientists are ignoring it because they can’t explain it. There are many phenomena that deserve scientific scrutiny. There is only so much time to devote to each field of study. I could be totally wrong about this, and if you have evidence to show I am wrong on this point, I would be glad to see it.
“I’ll be your Huckleberry.”
Don’t understand. I think you mean Huckleberry Finn, but my recollection of that literary character is poor.
“could you please explain to me how, as a matter of definition, electromagnetic energy is excluded from your definition? Its intangible,”
If it can be seen, touched, smelt, tasted, or heard, including with assistance from scientific tools, I don’t consider it intangible.
I think we have differing definitions.
“and its related to the soul.”
Soul: the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
I don’t believe the soul exists because I don’t see evidence for it. If Joe Schmoe is walking down the street and is killed by a hit-and-run driver, Joe Schmoe’s alleged soul should still exist, but where is it? I can’t see it, touch it, smell it, taste, or hear it, even with scientific tools. As far as I see, brain death is the end.
“whereas you seem to admit that the atheistic theory is confounded by existence.”
No. Atheism is about disbelief in god, not a theory of the universe, of earth, of morality, or anything else. One could be an atheist and regularly seek the advice of fortune tellers. There is common expression used by atheists that everyone is an atheist about most gods that been said to exist, but some of us just go one god further.
“my answer is simple: existence exists because God prefers that existence exists.”
Translation: existence exists because [insert unproven explanation here] prefers that existence exists.
(1) why does the creator have to be more complex than the creation? (2) If you are arguing against a believer you should know that they think that t God is simple because everything being equal, the most powerful thing only requires a few or one single movement to effect its purposes. So the most powerful thing is simple. Also the simplest thing is most powerful since the transcendentally one is one with all its power, existence, etc. This is seen in common life where people who have lots of control over something are reckoned to be “one” with it.
About eternal time: This is actually the most fascinating part of the argument. I admit that I’m not sure in what aspect the series of causes could be infinite, so I’m held in a certain wonder, but I’ll say that as to being qua being, the admission that not all objects in the universe are necessary means that given infinite time, eventually these beings would all cease to be so either in the past there would be nothing or there would be nothing now since nothing can come from nothing. This is absurd so there must be a purely necessary being or God. And there can’t be multiple gods since multiple infinites can’t exist side by side, so we’ve answered why is there something rather than nothing: there’s no other way for it to be. Perhaps one could say that that’s not really an answer or explanation , and I think that is half-true since God is unknowable essentially; when one says “necessary being” one describes God in terms of a non-God object as if one says of a book that “its bigger than a pencil”: true but not essentially true. But again as for the above proof, one wonders, can’t there something now and nothing in the future? that possibility isn’t ruled out… maybe I’ll think about this more later and come up with some answer.
How do you think, or what story do you have to tell that elucidates how an infinite series came about?
“(1) why does the creator have to be more complex than the creation?”
Typically, the complex universe is seen as not having an explanation, but the proposed theistic answer is that it was created from nothing by God whom is eternal. A flat-screen TV is complex. What is more complex is inventing the constituent parts from nothing and then making that object. To create the whole universe from nothing via an eternal God requires much explanation than a universe that has always existed in one form or another.
Ex nihilo: The Latin term ex nihilo literally means “out of nothing.” It is used to refer to the Christian doctrine that God created the universe and all of reality “out of nothing” - there was no prior existing substance besides God. Although it was employed by Augustine and widely accepted by most Christian churches by the end of the second century, it was not formally defined by the Roman Catholic Church in 1215. One of the consequences of the doctrine of ex nihilo creation is that God is not required to conform to any standards of goodness, reason or logic. If all substance and form is a creation of God, then so are all standards - thus, if God conforms to any standards at all, it is only because God chooses to do so.
This article, Creation ex nihilo - without God, goes into scientific detail that ex nihilo is arguably possible.
“you are arguing against a believer you should know that they think that t God is simple”
If God just snaps his fingers and poof something exists, there remains the gap between snapping and something existing. How did something occur?
“the admission that not all objects in the universe are necessary means that given infinite time, eventually these beings would all cease to be so either in the past there would be nothing or there would be nothing now since nothing can come from nothing.”
Do you mean necessary as in ice necessarily melts at a certain temperature or something is necessary to achieve a goal? Obviously, everything that exists is due to a reason, but I deny that there is a grand purpose like worshiping a god or that humanity is center of the universe in importance by divine decree.
“How do you think, or what story do you have to tell that elucidates how an infinite series came about?”
I don’t think much about infinity. I believe the big bang explanation. So it doesn’t explain everything, but as I said before, science is slowly pushing back the boundaries of ignorance.
google “kirlian photography” and see how it is used to perform diagnostic medicine. Yet somehow we dont use that in the states.
spirits can be seen. So we still havent moved past the stage of definitions.
which is tangible. So meditate until you can see auras. Then you will have proved it to yourself.
I would like a reference for this assertion.
and as such, atheism per se has no bearing on anything. So its puzzling that people are so insistent that it must be true. But we find out that the affirmative belief, theism can and does have broad and far-reaching implications for all of existence, including philosophy and morality. So while you wonder why anything exists at all, I already have a coherent theory that allows for explanation and successful prediction. This is the essence of science.
in all honesty, that retort is bankrupt for purposes of actual discussion. We need to make assertions before we can prove them. You have no explanation for events, but you have a theory. My theory explains events. On scientific grounds, I have more evidence than you.
God supersedes the quality of “location.” the idea of being local or distant presupposes contrast. God invented contrast, He existed before there were places and things.
To Gero:
“Do you mean necessary as in ice necessarily melts at a certain temperature or something is necessary to achieve a goal? Obviously, everything that exists is due to a reason, but I deny that there is a grand purpose like worshiping a god or that humanity is center of the universe in importance by divine decree.”
I mean something like “ice necessarily melts”; a necessary being is something that operates regardless of the operation of some other being. Of course there are two necessities: prior and posterior. An example of the first: a tautology, an example of the second: a conditional statement where the antecedent is true.
“Typically, the complex universe is seen as not having an explanation, but the proposed theistic answer is that it was created from nothing by God whom is eternal. A flat-screen TV is complex. What is more complex is inventing the constituent parts from nothing and then making that object. To create the whole universe from nothing via an eternal God requires much explanation than a universe that has always existed in one form or another.”
I think the only response I can think of is that the question is a little leading; the sufficient explanation is that God can do things simultaneously and instantaneously but the question seems to assume some sort of mean of power or intent b/t God’s willing it and it being so.
Also (but this is less explanation and more story) one must remember that we see God (and any simple thing) in a more complex manner than they really exist. So our concept of angel or soul is usually some sort of winged being or shimmering light when both are infact lacking in parts and clearly the soul cannot reflect light.
" If God just snaps his fingers and poof something exists, there remains the gap between snapping and something existing. How did something occur?"
IMO I imagine that the method of God creating or causing things is more like how a foot leaves a footprint, where cause and effect are simultaneous, instead of a finger-snap where there’s time between the cause and effect.
"Ex nihilo: The Latin term ex nihilo literally means “out of nothing.” It is used to refer to the Christian doctrine that God created the universe and all of reality “out of nothing” - there was no prior existing substance besides God. Although it was employed by Augustine and widely accepted by most Christian churches by the end of the second century, it was not formally defined by the Roman Catholic Church in 1215. One of the consequences of the doctrine of ex nihilo creation is that God is not required to conform to any standards of goodness, reason or logic. If all substance and form is a creation of God, then so are all standards - thus, if God conforms to any standards at all, it is only because God chooses to do so."
Again, the euthyphro argument was always a quandary for me, since it looks like God both wills things freely since they are good and makes things good by willing them. So in your opinion, what does that mean? Does it make morality arbitrary, or does it make God subject to a higher morality than his own will? It almost seems that both answers are true and yet that would be nonsense.
RE: ex nihilo and the implication that God is arbitrary, I’d also add that if God is perfect wisdom then he does things sanely and consistently.
“google “kirlian photography” and see how it is used to perform diagnostic medicine. Yet somehow we dont use that in the states.”
I did. Not impressed.
“spirits can be seen. So we still havent moved past the stage of definitions.”
I think you were right about redefining new stuff as natural and not spiritual. If you see something that you call a spirit, I may just call it an unidentified flying object.
“So meditate until you can see auras.”
It could be synaesthesia.
“I would like a reference for this assertion.”
It was a hypothetical example, not a real event. I have not seen evidence of a soul being found after death. I illustrated with an example. If you have a counter-example, I would like to see it.
“and as such, atheism per se has no bearing on anything.”
There are many definitions for atheism and agnosticism, but skipping over that terminological dispute, I disbelieve in all gods because I don’t see evidence for them. It bears greatly on humanity because gods have been claimed as the explanation for, well, likely everything: origins, morality, beauty, truth, future, the weather, illness, and so forth. If these near all-explaining gods don’t exist, that leaves room for inquiry as to how humanity came to its present state.
“I already have a coherent theory that allows for explanation and successful prediction. This is the essence of science.”
The United States National Academy of Sciences said, “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously. One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.” So, I don’t think you have a scientific theory.
Your god evidence so far is rioting music crowds and auras, both explainable by current science. Rioting music crowds can just be excited people and auras can be synaesthesia. I see natural explanations where you see spiritual ones.
“God supersedes the quality of “location.””
I have mentioned how science has explained more and more of what was once widely claimed to be explained by religion. Nowadays, there is more of the type of argument that god is just beyond science, like being beyond location. If the whole universe was filled with camera recorders that saw no God, well then god is allegedly beyond location. Amazing how God allegedly evades science so thoroughly, but people claim to see him or spirits or other supernatural occurrences.
“the sufficient explanation is that God can”
To me, first you have to prove God exists, and then you can tell me the qualities of God.
“both are infact lacking in parts and clearly the soul cannot reflect light.”
Can you prove that the “angel or soul” lack undefined parts and the soul “cannot reflect light”?
“IMO I imagine that the method of God creating or causing things is more like how a foot leaves a footprint, where cause and effect are simultaneous, instead of a finger-snap where there’s time between the cause and effect.”
Where are the footprints or fingerprints or other signs of divine creation?
“So in your opinion, what does that mean? Does it make morality arbitrary, or does it make God subject to a higher morality than his own will? It almost seems that both answers are true and yet that would be nonsense.”
An infidel’s opinion: Is genocide bad because God prohibits it, or is it prohibited because it is already bad? If it is already bad, then it is bad independent of God. If it is not bad unless God says so, then God is a moral relativist. One response to the argument of separating God from morality is to claim that while God may command genocide, God would never do so because that is contrary to God’s character. The argument still applies, but in modified form: Is God’s character good because God says so or is God’s character good for another reason? Morality is a socially constructed concept which differs among cultures. Morality predates religion. Morality’s origin was the evolution of moral sentiments which maximized the benefits of living in groups. The ‘I will help you, if you help me’ principle is a good explanation. Most people are born with the ability to empathize. One is likely to empathize more for a family member than for a stranger. The empathized person is cared for more than the non-empathized person. In-group loyalties and out-group indifference or hostility are common. A sports game can show how excited people can become over group identity.
LOL a Mormon video, should have known. If we’re getting Biblical I like to state a few things: The Republic was written approx 300 years before Christ (and the Bible), and I’m making the claim Odin fashioned the world out of Ymir’s body while the universe was created in the Ginnungagap when Niflheim and Muspelheim met in the void.
Why not?
so, what exactly do you want me to prove to you?
Translation: it could be (insert unproven theory here).
apparently you havent looked for it. You cant “disprove” theories with blanket unproven assertions, and then try to shift the burden of proof to me when I question them. If I did provide evidence of souls departing the corpus at physical death, you already said you would be “not impressed” and define them as UFOs.
“disbelief” sounds like an affirmative belief. What would “evidence for God” look like, in your opinion?
a theory is a causal explanation of events that allows for explanation and prediction. It doesnt require vast bodies of evidence to posit a theory, otherwise science could not advance. Our understanding of philosophy teaches us that evidence is largely a matter of interpretation. Did the bloody gloves serve to convict OJ Simpson, or to acquit him? You have alread admitted that the evidence (existence) does not fit the theory (atheism). Lets not forget that.
the truth of both of those can be established by observation, as can the existence of auras and the soul.
the atomic theory of chemistry is not a subject of content in this thread, but it is useful to illustrate that the usefulness of the theory is not dependent on the factual existence of molecules with valence electrons that behave according to rules; but on the theory’s utility for explanation and prediction.
think again. The existence of the Israeli state is just one of the successful predictions I have. You cant even explain existence.
You are getting confused. I havent presented evidence for anything, because we havent moved past the stage of definitions. I referred you to source material that you apparently havent bothered to read, and I need a definition for “synaesthesia” before I can see if it allows for explanation and prediction of auras.
when the big bang started with a singularity, and I posit a Being that can contain all of existence in His mind, I dont see how you can act like there is no scientific evidence.
“So meditate until you can see auras.”
I’ll be honest: don’t take this advice; I’ve heard way too many “I’ve met the devil” stories from people trying to investigate paranormal stuff.
Not reasons that will convince any non-believers but I’m just trying to keep people safe based on the experiences I’ve heard.
“Can you prove that the “angel or soul” lack undefined parts and the soul “cannot reflect light”?”
Personally no, but I heard that aristotle proved that any spiritual (that is non-physical) thing had no parts. he may have said the same about the soul. Perhaps you may want to search for this in these books: Physics, On the Soul, or Metaphysics -but I don’t know.
“Where are the footprints or fingerprints or other signs of divine creation?”
Well, only if you think that God made the universe, then the whole of the universe is the footprint. I was just articulating how your view of how God made things (sequential cause and effect) was different from my view of how God made things (simulanteously).
Meditation is not paranormal, and modern television and music is replete with satanic imagery. So, what is the “paranormal,” please, sir?
This is a subject of which I have little systematic knowledge and mainly just the communicated experiences of others.
Meditation as such is not paranormal (the spiritual excercises of St. Ignatius for instance), but certain types of meditation definitely can “get into it” (appraently transcendental meditation; don’t know exactly how that happens). Now, what is paranormal? I’m guessing that it is anything which is preter or super-natural; God, demons, angels, etc. (for some reason the soul seems not to be included).
Somehow, the soul or mind more easily receives the influence of spiritual things (like demons) when it is unconnected with the body (as in some types of meditation which in some way, limit one’s connection with one’s body). Note: this separation does not make one more intellectual, but it rather confuses the mind; how this latter affect may connect with the paranormal, I don’t know. Does this separation allow one to meet anything besides evil angels? I don’t know.
I do have plans to study demonology or mystical theology though, however those subjects are very obscure.