PurpleRain said:
An animal born without eyes or any idea of sight, how would it understand light? It could not comprehend light or the spectrum or colours.
So why are we only limited to five senses? That can't be all of them? There's more. I find it kind of close-minded to think otherwise.
Our senses are based on detecting energy. Well, two of them are. The other three are based on detecting physical contact or chemicals. There are many more energies that we know about that our senses cannot detect. It's not that hard to imagine what other senses we could have.
Logic can only prove things that are in the physical plane of existence. How do we know that we have more senses, or souls? To even think about it, you NEED to leave logic behind. Those that cling to it are too scared and want the shelter of something safe and familiar.
Logic and reason is just a formalized version of how we come to know or understand anything. Speaking of leaving logic and reason behind is foolish because all there is beyond it is delusion and insanity, "seeing" things that are not there. Too often I hear people say that logic has failings, but when examined it turns out that it's not logic at fault but the fool using it incorrectly. like that 1 = .9999... thing. That does so a failing in maths so much as a failing in the fool who did not use the correct math.
It always makes me uncomfortable when someone talks about leaving logic behind. Because I've heard this before and I know where this is going. We'll get to that in time. Also, I'm really sick of this Discovery Institute wedge bullshit. [http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html] It's all engery misplaced by all involved.
So how is it that people want to disprove god?
I believe the burden of proof is on the other side of the table.
But you can't deny a presents of something great and amazing that lives on planes without logic. This is why I don't see god as any physical being, because something as great as that, and to live on every level of existence, to feel more than five senses, and to obtain more emotion, it can't be logical. Perhaps its physical side it us (animals, planets, rocks, planets, space dust, atoms, etc) but... yeah. It defies logic that if witnessing it, it would destroy people's minds. We're too dependent on this logic we have.
I have already deal with your abuse of the concept of logic above. The rest I will answer with a copy and paste i have used before when a similar topic had come up. I copy and paste this a lot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't think I'm quite as certain of the non-existence of god as I come off, but my reasoning is like this.... Incidentally, this opener is paraphrased from the novel Sphere by Michael Crichton. In that novel, the topic was life on other planets.
The probably for the existence of any creator god as described in any of the major religions can be expressed as a function of there being an entity that is high than Man (A), that this of sufficient ability to have been able to make the universe (B), and this being is actually aware of mankind (C), that this being cares about the plight of mankind (D), this being is able to have an effect on our lives (E), That this being actually does have an effect (F), that an afterlife exists (G), that this being has any control over this afterlife (H), that this being has any control over this afterlife (I), that these plans include us in any way (J).
A x B x C x D x E x F x G x H x I x J = X
The problem is, we cannot compute this formula because we have no facts. We have to guess at each and every one of these variables. So it's just as easy to guess there is a god exactly like the one in the bible or the qur'an or the torah or whatever book you choose. But it's also just as easy to guess that there is no god at all.
So we can't have any objective measure of god. We can only be subjective about it. This may be why I give christian apologetics, especially half-assed ones, a rough time. Because they're trying to prove objectively something that can only be subjective.
So speaking subjectively, that is in my own personal experience and opinion, does a god exist?
I suppose that variable A is possible, some sort of of higher being exists. Perhaps as removed from us as we are from microscopic organisms.
But here's the thing about that. Admitting that much is sort of the christian apologetic's goal. To get you to admit there may be a god but then ask "but who is this god?" "Oh, let me tell you," he chortles as he pulls out his bible.
It's a leap to go from "there is possibly a being or beings greater than man" to being able to say anything about this being. No less a leap than if the microbes that live in my intestine make any claims about me.
This means debating some mere higher being, particularly without any evidence present, is pointless. For the debate to have any meaning, it needs to be an active god. A loving god. A god who can deliver eternal life. (although an after life is a related but separate debate in itself). Because if it isn't this sort of god, then there's no point to even worrying about it's very existence. For the most part, it does not effect us and we do not effect them.
So, speaking of my own experience, is there a loving god?
I don't know, but I don't think so.
What would it take to change my mind?
I quote Pulp Fiction:
"I mean, it could be that God stopped the bullets, or He changed Coke to Pepsi, He found my fucking car keys. You don't judge shit like this based on merit. Now, whether or not what we experienced was an 'according to Hoyle' miracle is insignificant. What is significant is that I felt the touch of God. God got involved."
While god suddenly appearing in the sky and addressing the world in a booming voice would be impressive, it doesn't have to be anything so drastic. Personal proof could be anything so long as one feels the touch of god.
Now, I've been around a while and have even had experiences that cannot be easily explained, I guess you could call them paranormal. But never in all my years have I felt the touch of god. Never.
Now, this flies in the face of the loving god idea, particularly christianity or maybe I'm just singling christianity out since I had to deal with that religion growing up... not "raised as," the religion was always just something I had to deal with. Like a sore that never properly heals.
So why haven't I felt the touch of god?
Perhaps it's unable to reveal itself to me. If so, then it's not omnipotent.
Perhaps it's able but it is still trying to find a way to do so. If so, then it's not omniscient.
Perhaps it is able and knows exactly what to do but simply chooses not to. If so, then it's not a loving god.
This is goes against christianity as well since there's a real sense of urgency since you could die any minute. The future is uncertain, you are not promised tomorrow. Best to be saved now. Yet god takes its sweet time getting me to believe.
I suppose it could be argued that god, being omniscient, knows when I'll die and will reveal himself before that but that's kind of a slippery slope. I mean what benefit is there to worshiping god? (a verb I never understood. I mean, what do you do? I once clicked a link for a video on cock worshiping, but I've never seen anyone do that with Jesus, unless you count Linda Blair in the Exorcist)
What benefit is there? None. God "causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matthew 5:45)
When you pray, what happens? Sometime you're answered yes, sometimes no.
It's usually explained as "god moves in mysterious ways," but if that's true, then god is moving in the exact manner necessary to look like it's not even there and the events where its followers claim have its influence could be easily dismissed as just random chance.
So, I don't believe in any loving god. Higher beings may exist, but they don't seem to be taking any action in our little lives. No more than I takes in the live of my intestinal fauna (although I sometimes take antibiotics and murder them all! Mu-wu-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!) So we can safely ignore it the way it ignores us.
