will freethinkers accept god if they find evidence?
or will they discredit the evidence as fake?
That’s an unbelievably silly post. First, you are demonstrating your prejudice by lumping all freethinkers as having one response. Second, how would you show that that which you call evidence can be verified? Third, by the statement of your question without any other qualification, you seem to be demonstrating very likely bias.
And your second post is pure babble. You admit that there is no proof of any god, then say there are other paths to god. More just plain silliness.
it seems that you atheists are haunted by terrorism of monotheistic faith: christianity, islam and judaism so much so that you cannot think up of a god who is non violent. pity on you.
My, you certainly do demonstrate your own complete objectivity, don’t you?
please do meditation, read zen or buddhist text books and try to understand what they say. you will have your empirical evidence.
Unfortunately, you’re demonstrating that you’ve destroyed your ability to think critically by the stupid self-hypnosis fairytales you’ve inculcated into your brain.
A thoroughly demonstrated psychological reason for a certain behavior is that when someone feels distress that their beliefs may be false, they try to convince others of them, thereby hoping to shore up their own beliefs. It appears that you are concerned that you are losing your beliefs in god, meditation, zen, tao, buddha, etc. and have come here hoping to convert us so you’ll feel better about yourself and think you haven’t been wrong for so long.
I try to be open-minded… maybe there is a god? Where is the god? What god are you talking about? Abraham’s god? The ancient Greek god Apollo, pulling the Sun across the sky? The ancient Egyptian god of the dead, Osiris?
What evidence will prove that there is a god? Not a big fire, that happens each summer in the West of the USA. Not a big storm, the hurricanes that hit New Orleans is over, and it takes people to clean up the mess, they are still cleaning up. Not a big flood like the Sri lanka tsunami, or the Fukshima one. Life here on Earth, could life be the proof of a god, or does that prove that molecules can become alive when they are complex enough.
What sort of evidence could be considered proof of a god?
Bicycling alone can sometimes be a meditation for me, but certainly not in traffic.
Interesting question which presumes the existence of god. However, the question is moot, as it is all to easy to prove a “god” in fact cannot exist. Here goes (although it is easier with a pen and paper).
Existence includes all existents.
Non-existence simply does not exist and as a result, non-existence cannot contain any existents.
The concept of “god” rests primarily on the premise that it created existence.
This requires that “god” existed outside of existence, which is impossible because one cannot exist and not exist at the same time.
On the other hand, “god” had to have existed in existence before it created existence, which is also impossible because if it existed in existence, it could not have created existence because it already existed within existence.
That my dear fellows and ladies is why any belief in the concept of god requires “faith” or non-reason and non-logic. Indeed, all theories on existence (other than the actual fact that Existence Exists), require that the artificially created existent - be it god, society, the public, the state, etc. - be unprovable by their very description.
Wow, you mentioned existence 14 times in one post. That’s twice 7, the magic number for the mystical 7 directions created by god. Therefore, god exists. Nuff’ said. And BTW, if it wasn’t for Isis Oriris wouldn’t exist, existence. And I posted the sacred word two times which, according to the book of the three dog night can be as bad as one, a monotheistic god. Therefore, god exists. Behold my superior debating skills, a master debater and a cunning linguist.
No, it’s YOU who doesn’t understand the difference between assertions and reasoning. You are not able to see that the texts are irrational opinions without basis in fact.
If there was a way to prove the existence of a God, and I’m speaking of the traditional western idea of an omnipotent being, then God would be a natural, not supernatural phenomenon. In that case, wouldn’t we just study God? In fact, that’s probably a good way to worship a rational God. As far as the eastern traditions go, do they claim their religion gives access to a supernatural God? One who’s existence is questioned only at the risk of condemnation in this world and everlasting torture in the next? If they don’t, I don’t have an issue with them.
The concept of god exists. I think that god can only exist as a concept. In the beginning (of god being conceptualized) was the word (complex language). And the word (complex language) was (allowed the conceptualization of) god.
BTW, as far as god existing as a concept, I think we should give kudos to Krishna, as I think it has been around for the longest uninterrupted chain of human lifetimes. I mean with actual believers in every generation. (I could be wrong about this. Am I?)
Wow, you mentioned existence 14 times in one post. That’s twice 7, the magic number for the mystical 7 directions created by god. Therefore, god exists. Nuff’ said. And BTW, if it wasn’t for Isis Oriris wouldn’t exist, existence. And I posted the sacred word two times which, according to the book of the three dog night can be as bad as one, a monotheistic god. Therefore, god exists. Behold my superior debating skills, a master debater and a cunning linguist.
Cap’t Jack
Flaunting mystical numerical skills, master debater skills, and cunning linguist abilities in a single post, I daresay, pressies the threshold of arrogance. Take heed. All glory is fleeting.
Also, I am not so sure that Jeremiah really was a bullfrog.
Flaunting mystical numerical skills, master debater skills, and cunning linguist abilities in a single post, I daresay, pressies the threshold of arrogance. Take heed. All glory is fleeting.
Also, I am not so sure that Jeremiah really was a bullfrog.
I totally reject your objectification of my obviously superior linguistic skills. It isn’t arrogance that you object to, it is envy my friend. Sheer envy. there, I have you knave. And yes, he was a good friend of mine.
will freethinkers accept god if they find evidence?
or will they discredit the evidence as fake?
I am intrigued by the concept of “finding evidence” for a god. What on earth could that evidence consist of? The whole idea of a maker lies in the assumption (argument from ignorance) of irreducible complexity from Intelligent Design, which covers the entire universe. We now know (almost to Planck scale) that irreducible complexity does not exists and we do know that the (pseudo) intelligence involved in universal evolution are universal constants (at least for this universe) which allow for the building of these complex structures.
If anything god would be a mathematical abstraction, but I am not prepared to assign sentient intelligence to this abstraction. Only the concept of the entire cosmos can be used as an argument for a creator. But this creator can also be just an inevitable causality.
How can you prove (or present as evidence) an abstraction of that which lies outside our event horizon?
God is and always will be an unproven (unprovable) TOE. Actually, nothing in reality needs a god, it does quite well on its own from what reliable evidence we have.
Wow, you mentioned existence 14 times in one post. That’s twice 7, the magic number for the mystical 7 directions created by god. Therefore, god exists. Nuff’ said. And BTW, if it wasn’t for Isis Oriris wouldn’t exist, existence. And I posted the sacred word two times which, according to the book of the three dog night can be as bad as one, a monotheistic god. Therefore, god exists. Behold my superior debating skills, a master debater and a cunning linguist.
Non-existent 1 (mystical 7 directions), created by non-existent 2 (god), means non-existent 2 exists? Really? Not to mention you failed or refused to actually address the content of the argument. And this means you created in yourself superior debating skills and can use words and numbers? WOW! Of course, it is typical today to avoid the argument one cannot grasp or refute. And this is debating skills?
Nothing from nothing means nothing!
‘Nough’ said.
BTW, Maybe you should actually attempt to address the argument, but you will have to think first.
I knew von Däniken was right.
