2 of 3
2
Existence of spiritual beings (invisible?): on experience, facts, and reason
Posted: 22 November 2015 05:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2015-07-02

Thanks, TimB, for your reply.

You have trouble understanding this text from me:
“... we must also reason on logic and truths and facts from the perceptible like a phenomenon to the imperceptible like the factors of its causality.”

The its in the text above is the possessive case of it; its must be distinguished from it’s which means it is.

Now, its causality means the causality that is owned by it, it stands for “the imperceptible.”

Here, let me rewrite so as to make it very clear to understand:

Rewritten:
“... we must also reason on logic and truths and facts from the perceptible like a phenomenon to the imperceptible like the factors of the causality of the imperceptible.”

Original:
“... we must also reason on logic and truths and facts from the perceptible like a phenomenon to the imperceptible like the factors of its causality.”


I am in the Philippines.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2015 05:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2015-07-02

You see, TimB, there are skeptics who deny the existence of anything that is not visible [perceptible], like Nickell and McGaha.

But they are not being critical, not thinking on truths, facts, and logic.

From the perception of a visible phenomenon i.e. event, like for example, the rising of the sun in the morning and its setting in the evening, man has reasoned all the way to the existence of a creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, i.e., God.

The rising and setting of the sun is the visible or perceptible phenomenon, and the invisible or imperceptible God is the cause of the phenomenon, in ultimate terms of course.

Nickell and McGaha are talking about ghosts, etc., but they are not factoring into their thinking the fact that we only know about some 4% of the visible i.e. perceptible universe, the rest of the 96% are not known to man with his visual faculty by which he senses visible or perceptible things and phenomena; but there exists indeed 96% of the whole universe no matter that only 4% are known visibly or perceptibly.

That 96% of the whole universe exists and scientists come to their conclusion on its existence, namely, the 96% of the whole universe, by critical thinking on truths, facts, and logic, all the way to the ultimate cause, God.

But there are scientists and it is the fad today, to not go into the ultimate causality which is God, the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

The refusal of today’s scientists to go beyond, beyond, beyond… all the way to God, that is an example of a taboo with today’s scientists; but it has not been always like that with scientists in the whole history of science.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2015 05:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Mdejess - 22 November 2015 05:23 PM

Thanks, TimB, for your reply.

You have trouble understanding this text from me:
“... we must also reason on logic and truths and facts from the perceptible like a phenomenon to the imperceptible like the factors of its causality.”

The its in the text above is the possessive case of it; its must be distinguished from it’s which means it is.

Now, its causality means the causality that is owned by it, it stands for “the imperceptible.”

Here, let me rewrite so as to make it very clear to understand:

Rewritten:
“... we must also reason on logic and truths and facts from the perceptible like a phenomenon to the imperceptible like the factors of the causality of the imperceptible.”

Original:
“... we must also reason on logic and truths and facts from the perceptible like a phenomenon to the imperceptible like the factors of its causality.”


I am in the Philippines.

“By logical thinking we must recognize, by virtue of things that are perceivable, that there are things that are imperceptible, as are the factors that lead to the imperceptible.”

That’s my best guess at a translation of “... we must also reason on logic and truths and facts from the perceptible like a phenomenon to the imperceptible like the factors of its causality.”

*****

The Phillipines, Si, Claro.  Entonces, usted puede hablar en Espanol, tambien. Verdad? Yo no puedo hablar en Espanol, muy bien.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2015 05:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2015-07-02

Spanish is one of the official languages of the Philippines.

I am very sad that my people are what I may honestly say, fickle folks.

Another word to describe my people, shallow.

They have ‘succeeded’ to forget 300 years of Spanish civilization and culture, and yes, language.

The government even took away the courses in Spanish language, from the college curriculum.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2015 05:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Mdejess - 22 November 2015 05:53 PM

Spanish is one of the official languages of the Philippines.

I am very sad that my people are what I may honestly say, fickle folks.

Another word to describe my people, shallow.

They have ‘succeeded’ to forget 300 years of Spanish civilization and culture, and yes, language.

The government even took away the courses in Spanish language, from the college curriculum.

Ouch!  I did not know that.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2015 06:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Mdejess - 22 November 2015 05:42 PM

You see, TimB, there are skeptics who deny the existence of anything that is not visible [perceptible], like Nickell and McGaha.

But they are not being critical, not thinking on truths, facts, and logic.

From the perception of a visible phenomenon i.e. event, like for example, the rising of the sun in the morning and its setting in the evening, man has reasoned all the way to the existence of a creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, i.e., God.

The rising and setting of the sun is the visible or perceptible phenomenon, and the invisible or imperceptible God is the cause of the phenomenon, in ultimate terms of course.

Nickell and McGaha are talking about ghosts, etc., but they are not factoring into their thinking the fact that we only know about some 4% of the visible i.e. perceptible universe, the rest of the 96% are not known to man with his visual faculty by which he senses visible or perceptible things and phenomena; but there exists indeed 96% of the whole universe no matter that only 4% are known visibly or perceptibly.

That 96% of the whole universe exists and scientists come to their conclusion on its existence, namely, the 96% of the whole universe, by critical thinking on truths, facts, and logic, all the way to the ultimate cause, God.

But there are scientists and it is the fad today, to not go into the ultimate causality which is God, the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

The refusal of today’s scientists to go beyond, beyond, beyond… all the way to God, that is an example of a taboo with today’s scientists; but it has not been always like that with scientists in the whole history of science.

Well, scientists, based on what is perceptible, have hypothesized that there was a BIG BANG.  They don’t seem content, to me, with that knowledge.  There are efforts to try to perceive what happened at moments closer and closer to the initiation of that BIG BANG.  As far as the hypothesized existence of a vast portion of our universe that is, currently, imperceptible, I expect that there will continue to be scientists who will try to develop methodologies and technologies to begin to perceive it. 

If and when they do, we don’t yet know what they will find.  You assume that if they learned enough, they would eventually find that it is “God” that set it all off, and that “God” is behind its operation.

That is simply a “God of the gaps” argument.  i.e., anything that we don’t yet know or are unable to perceive, must be God.

There was a time when we didn’t know why the wind blows, and some assumed that it must be God doing it.  Then we eventually learned that hot air rises, and the uneven surfaces of the Earth, warming and cooling, were involved in the circulation of our air. In our past, when vast numbers of people suddenly got sick and died, many people assumed that God was angry for some reason and just decided to kill them off.  Then we eventually learned about certain microbes that are involved in plagues.

We don’t need to assume that there is a God.  We just need to have a tolerance for not knowing, while maintaining a desire to know.  We don’t really need to explain what we are not yet prepared to explain.  We just need to keep trying.  But in the meantime, it is not helpful, in my opinion, to assume that it is “God” that started it all and is behind everything that we cannot yet perceive and understand.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2015 07:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12

Three things to consider about these unusual claims that invisible spiritual beings exist.

1. There is no way to confirm the nonexistence of invisible spiritual beings.

2. Those who don’t believe in these so called beings are under no obligation to prove that they don’t exist.

3. The onus is on those making the claim that invisible spiritual beings exist, to provide proof of the existence of these so called beings.

As someone who does not believe in these invisible spiritual beings, I can only say again, and again, and again, that I am not persuaded at all by any of the evidence that has been provided.

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2015 05:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2015-07-02

What exactly is the “‘God of the gaps’ argument”?

That is a ploy to cover up the lack of critical thinking with folks who do not think at all critically, but resort to cliché.


Now, what is it to prove something exists?

On critical thinking?


Dear readers here, do genuine critical thinking and tell me what exactly is the socalled God of the gaps argument, availed of by deniers of God to convince people that there is no God, or there is no proof for God existing.

I can predict that you will go into dodges, instead of coming up with critical thinking to prove God not existing.


You MUST first to begin at all to engage in critical thinking to prove that something exists or does not exist, present your concept of the thing that you claim to exist or to not exist.

So, readers here, I challenge you to present your concept of God, for you who want to prove God does not exist, or also for you who care to prove that God exists.

Please do not bring in extraneous matters, attend to (1) your explanation of what is the socalled God of the gaps argument, and also (2) what is it to prove that something exists or does not exist.

But first and above everything else, (3) what is your concept of God? For you cannot be into proving something exists or does not exists, unless you first have a concept of that something: otherwise you will be talking nonsense.

I wait with bated breath to read your post answering to each of the three questions I present above, or just only one of the three, any one at all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2015 06:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Mdejess - 23 November 2015 05:40 PM

What exactly is the “‘God of the gaps’ argument”?

That is a ploy to cover up the lack of critical thinking with folks who do not think at all critically, but resort to cliché.


Now, what is it to prove something exists?

On critical thinking?


Dear readers here, do genuine critical thinking and tell me what exactly is the socalled God of the gaps argument, availed of by deniers of God to convince people that there is no God, or there is no proof for God existing.

I can predict that you will go into dodges, instead of coming up with critical thinking to prove God not existing.


You MUST first to begin at all to engage in critical thinking to prove that something exists or does not exist, present your concept of the thing that you claim to exist or to not exist.

So, readers here, I challenge you to present your concept of God, for you who want to prove God does not exist, or also for you who care to prove that God exists.

Please do not bring in extraneous matters, attend to (1) your explanation of what is the socalled God of the gaps argument, and also (2) what is it to prove that something exists or does not exist.

But first and above everything else, (3) what is your concept of God? For you cannot be into proving something exists or does not exists, unless you first have a concept of that something: otherwise you will be talking nonsense.

I wait with bated breath to read your post answering to each of the three questions I present above, or just only one of the three, any one at all.


Mdjess, Please give an example of how you can prove something that is claimed to be supernatural doesn’t exist. 

A concept of God does exist.  In fact many different concepts of God exist.  Most are completely ludicrous.  But do any of those concepts match a real existing entity? Based on all that I have learned and experienced, so far, I would say, very probably not.  But in regards to scientific inquiry, it doesn’t matter.  If something akin to one of the concepts of God actually exists in the natural universe, scientific advances, if they continue, may reveal that.  However, so far, scientific advances have only revealed that most concepts of God that have come up so far, are a bunch of superstitious mumbo jumbo.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2015 09:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2015-07-02

From TimB [addressing me]:

“Mdjess, Please give an example of how you can prove something that is claimed to be supernatural doesn’t exist.”


Do you notice, TimB, that you have introduced a new term, ‘superantural’, that from my part I nave not mentioned at all in my posts here.

If I have, then show me the texts where I have used the term ‘supernatural’, and I will apologize to you most sincerely.

What is my point about you bringing in a new term like supernatural?

Here: you are going into a non-critical way of exchanging ideas, because there are enough materials for us to work on, without messing up the exchange with introducing a term that has no usefulness for the present, except to mess up the actual current concern, namely, the three questions I am proposing for us all posters and readers here to work on with our brain cells:

Please do not bring in extraneous matters, attend to (1) your explanation of what is the socalled God of the gaps argument, and also (2) what is it to prove that something exists or does not exist.

But first and above everything else, (3) what is your concept of God? For you cannot be into proving something exists or does not exists, unless you first have a concept of that something: otherwise you will be talking nonsense.

I wait with bated breath to read your post answering to each of the three questions I present above, or just only one of the three, any one at all.


For the present don’t busy your mind with the term supernatural, just concentrate on existence or non-existence.

Is that not obviously more simple and easy and constructive and productive to dwell our minds on, by not bringing in a new term, like supernatural?

If I may, let you just tell me in your next post, what is your stock concept of God, in say just 50 words, simply the concept only.

If you have any stock concept of God in your mental database, please bring it forth; if not, then you can read up on the definitions of God in the standard English dictionaries, and formulate a concise, precise, and intelligible concept of God, from the definitions of God you come across in dictionaries.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2015 10:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Mdejess - 23 November 2015 09:23 PM

From TimB [addressing me]:

“Mdjess, Please give an example of how you can prove something that is claimed to be supernatural doesn’t exist.”


Do you notice, TimB, that you have introduced a new term, ‘superantural’, that from my part I nave not mentioned at all in my posts here.

If I have, then show me the texts where I have used the term ‘supernatural’, and I will apologize to you most sincerely.

What is my point about you bringing in a new term like supernatural?...

Pardon my assumption.  Generally, most concepts of God include the supernatural.  You have not stated your concept of God, previously.  If I had recognized that your concept of God does not include the supernatural, my request would have been:

  Please give an example of how you can prove something that is imperceptible does not exist?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2015 10:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Mdejess - 23 November 2015 09:23 PM

From TimB [addressing me]:

...
Here: you are going into a non-critical way of exchanging ideas, because there are enough materials for us to work on, without messing up the exchange with introducing a term that has no usefulness for the present, except to mess up the actual current concern, namely, the three questions I am proposing for us all posters and readers here to work on with our brain cells:

Please do not bring in extraneous matters, attend to (1) your explanation of what is the socalled God of the gaps argument, and also (2) what is it to prove that something exists or does not exist.

But first and above everything else, (3) what is your concept of God? For you cannot be into proving something exists or does not exists, unless you first have a concept of that something: otherwise you will be talking nonsense.

I wait with bated breath to read your post answering to each of the three questions I present above, or just only one of the three, any one at all.


For the present don’t busy your mind with the term supernatural, just concentrate on existence or non-existence.

Is that not obviously more simple and easy and constructive and productive to dwell our minds on, by not bringing in a new term, like supernatural?

If I may, let you just tell me in your next post, what is your stock concept of God, in say just 50 words, simply the concept only.

If you have any stock concept of God in your mental database, please bring it forth; if not, then you can read up on the definitions of God in the standard English dictionaries, and formulate a concise, precise, and intelligible concept of God, from the definitions of God you come across in dictionaries.

You seem angry, Mdjess.  I wonder what your hostility is about.  Anyway, please give me an example of how one can prove that something that is imperceptible does not exist.  Then I will answer one or more of your questions.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2015 01:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2015-07-02

I notice that you are going into a devious manner of exchanging thoughts with me, and I will be wasting my time reacting to your dodging posts.

Take the way you write questions as the two examples below, they are indicative of a devious heart and mind:

“Mdjess, Please give an example of how you can prove something that is claimed to be supernatural doesn’t exist.”

“Anyway, please give me an example of how one can prove that something that is imperceptible does not exist.  Then I will answer one or more of your questions.”


You ask me to prove something supernatural does not exist, or something imperceptible does not exist.

That is a devious manner of asking a question, because you do not set the space and time circumstances, in which circumstances of space and time something is to be proven to not exist [in].

That is what I always notice with people like you from the way you ask a negative question, because that kind of a question cannot be answered at all without exhausting all the space and time dimensions of the universe, which reach of such dimensions no human can ever be capable of.

Here is a lesson for you in critical thinking with asking a question as also in answering a question: in the eventuality that the issue has to do with existence, you must demand where and when the thing is supposed to be existing in or not existing in.

Yes, you can prove a negative, if the asker or you demand from the asker, that he set the space and time where and when the thing is to be proven to exist or not exist [in].

So, you can prove that there is no Bigfoot in the house now, by bringing your questioner to search the house thoroughly, every nook and corner and cranny.


Okay, TimB, read my concept of God below, and produce also your concept of God, and we will work sincerely and honestly in the quest for the answer to the question “Does God exist?”

Read again my post below but pay attention to the text in bold.

Mdejess - 22 November 2015 05:42 PM

You see, TimB, there are skeptics who deny the existence of anything that is not visible [perceptible], like Nickell and McGaha.

But they are not being critical, not thinking on truths, facts, and logic.

From the perception of a visible phenomenon i.e. event, like for example, the rising of the sun in the morning and its setting in the evening, man has reasoned all the way to the existence of a creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, i.e., God.

The rising and setting of the sun is the visible or perceptible phenomenon, and the invisible or imperceptible God is the cause of the phenomenon, in ultimate terms of course.

Nickell and McGaha are talking about ghosts, etc., but they are not factoring into their thinking the fact that we only know about some 4% of the visible i.e. perceptible universe, the rest of the 96% are not known to man with his visual faculty by which he senses visible or perceptible things and phenomena; but there exists indeed 96% of the whole universe no matter that only 4% are known visibly or perceptibly.

That 96% of the whole universe exists and scientists come to their conclusion on its existence, namely, the 96% of the whole universe, by critical thinking on truths, facts, and logic, all the way to the ultimate cause, God.

But there are scientists and it is the fad today, to not go into the ultimate causality which is God, the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

The refusal of today’s scientists to go beyond, beyond, beyond… all the way to God, that is an example of a taboo with today’s scientists; but it has not been always like that with scientists in the whole history of science.


Cease and desist already from your devious mind and heart in the exchange of ideas among fellow seekers of knowledge.

Present your concept of God when you write again, in concise, precise and intelligible words, otherwise you are wasting the time and trouble of everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2015 11:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Mdejess - 24 November 2015 01:54 AM

I notice that you are going into a devious manner of exchanging thoughts with me, and I will be wasting my time reacting to your dodging posts.

Take the way you write questions as the two examples below, they are indicative of a devious heart and mind:

“Mdjess, Please give an example of how you can prove something that is claimed to be supernatural doesn’t exist.”

“Anyway, please give me an example of how one can prove that something that is imperceptible does not exist.  Then I will answer one or more of your questions.”


You ask me to prove something supernatural does not exist, or something imperceptible does not exist.

That is a devious manner of asking a question, because you do not set the space and time circumstances, in which circumstances of space and time something is to be proven to not exist [in].

That is what I always notice with people like you from the way you ask a negative question, because that kind of a question cannot be answered at all without exhausting all the space and time dimensions of the universe, which reach of such dimensions no human can ever be capable of…

 

Mdjess, You accuse me of having a devious heart and mind, when my request was an echo of what YOU commanded in post #23, when YOU said for me or others to answer “what is it to prove that something exists or does not exist.”

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2015 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Mdejess - 24 November 2015 01:54 AM

...Yes, you can prove a negative, if the asker or you demand from the asker, that he set the space and time where and when the thing is to be proven to exist or not exist [in].

So, you can prove that there is no Bigfoot in the house now, by bringing your questioner to search the house thoroughly, every nook and corner and cranny…

Ah. You answered my request, (although, only after belligerently casting dispersions on my character).  So, as I said I will answer one or more of your questions in subsequent post/s.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2