Does God Exist?

Color vision is 300 million years old

http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/fossils-suggest-color-vision-is-300-million-years-old-141223.htm

 

My color vision is new . From brilliance it is gone subdued , and just lately animated . I
certainly do pray for sensibility about this . Dearest , Lord of The Emergence ...

 

If you're talking about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, it's not. Now if the invisible entity is telling them to kill somebody, that's something else. I happen to live in a region where lots of otherwise normal seeming people believe that they get messages from an invisible entity that they have some understanding of. I don't think they're dangerous, although I don't share their belief. As to why anyone would consult millenia old books, they contain lots of wisdom. Ask Sam Harris where he gets his views about meditation.

I think it is. NeonSpectoralist is not allowing for the possibility that the completely capable, all loving being might not want to play his game. Since that Being is, by definition, way more knowledgeable that him, (S)he might have reasons for remaining hidden that he just can't fathom.

 

Yes, I understand that "weak anthropic" explanation, but plenty of scientists aren't convinced that we've just won the cosmic lottery, and there's no way of proving it one way or another.

 

Unbelievable. You're comparing the empirical, evidence-based and experimental technique of mindfulness with the rote memorization of ancient myths.

Sam Harris gets his views on meditation from being a neuroscientist studying and practising meditation. There is absolutely no need to appeal to any literature of old; you can spend 30 minutes right now and completely rediscover the vast amount of what is known about this neurological exercise.

What about Abrahamic scripture? If the Torah, Bible, and Quran all disappeared from earth tomorrow, along with our memory of it, how on earth would we ever discover them again?

You saying we've "won the cosmic lottery" shows you still don't understand the point and are confusing the causal direction of things. You aren't here because you "won the lottery". You're here because if you weren't, you wouldn't be here to know it!

 

One thing that puzzles me about these images of Jesus and the Virgin Mary in mud slides, cheese sandwiches, bathroom stains, etc., is how does anybody know what they looked like? There's a rock formation I've seen in Hawaii that really does look like President Kennedy, but nobody thinks its a miracle.

 

Hopeless. Preposterous post imo. This thread feels over for you because you have turned it into a versus argument and you can't win (no worries, nobody can in this argument). Frankly this is completely unnecessary when we would not stigmatize, stereotype and polarize eachother's 'side' and beliefs. No side need to be taken in this discussion, a lot of you guys just think you have to (apparently).
I think you would have little problems with OWB as your neighbour for example, without discussing eachother's beliefs. It's not like his faith seems to turn him into an unreasonable human being. I guess it looks like that when you demand unprovable questions of him or questions of which there is no satisfying answer for an agitating atheist.
When theists and religious folks are willing to discuss these matters with you and willing to answer questions of which there is no certain answer you should be happy that we are all sharing our thoughts on the matter. People are trying to give their views and thoughts on the matter, not to preach or evangelize. You however jump on every thing you disagree with and make the person with faith/spiritual or religious belief seem unreasonable, always focussing on only the negative aspects and examples you can find. All in all it seems certain that on this forum, while we would think this of the religious (if we would go by the stereotype ) the antireligious and agitating atheists are actually the ones with an intolerant and even an evangelizing approach. They're the ones out to discredit the people who have actually some faith and belief in a God, sounding often like the spanish inquisition (quite hysterical when we realize this is one of the things in christian religion atheists supposedly rallying against. They'r clearly not one bit better)...
Please understand that we do not have to agree with eachothers beliefs AT ALL. We never will and we don't have to. So trying to stigmatize eachother as either ungodly materialists or dogmatic and unreasonable idiots is all completely unconstructive, pathetic and unneccessary.

This is such a fun and interesting topic and it could be such a fun and interesting thread (it was on certain pages). But I can not blame a theist for staying out of this discussion when they're sincere thoughts and beliefs are raped by people who hold not any belief or have any faith (which is fine, they just seem unable to tolerate those who have, at least when they express them).

Writer if you are wondering why reasonable agnostics and non religious people are defending religion and always criticizing your posts in threads like this, it is of course because you are attacking religion. If this sounds like I repeat myself... well it is because you are consistently doing the same thing yourself )

 

I think the better question is why would a supposedly omnipotent being keep choosing such lame ways of presenting images of itself as evidence for its existence?

The problem is that people who accept a natural mudslide as a miraculous, divine image are desperate to see signs of the supernatural in anything absolutely mundane; which speaks volumes of their faith if they must continuously seek these signs as evidence of existence for something that cannot be proven to exist.

 

The "empirical evidence-based and experimental technique of mindfulness" came lock stock and barrel from Buddhism. That's where the ideas originated. The testing corroborated the theories. If some neuroscientist didn't think they were worth taking seriously enough to test, we wouldn't have this "technique". You seem to be suggesting that it ain't wisdom until a scientist tests it, which in most cases won't happen. That's fine. Be that way. But don't ridicule people who decide to take a chance. If we lost Abrahamic scriptures, we might be able to recover the wisdom millenia from now--or not. Our technocratic culture doesn't seem to be much into wisdom. Your point seems pointless. As for the "weak anthropic" theory, you present it as a definitive explanation instead of a theory. We're here, because if we weren't, we wouldn't be. What kind of explanation is that? I see. Things are the way they are because they just are.

 

It's not much of a game, really. I'm just thinking since God is out there and knows we're having this conversation, he *might* show up. I'm not saying God can't exist if he chooses not to.

It was never intended as a test of God, more of a joke to lighten the mood.

Still, I'm curious as to the conditions God, or one of God's messengers, would have to meet if they DID show up. I suppose magical powers is the key, though some might claim they came from Lucifer. But what would olderwaterbrother do, for instance, if God or his messengers were like, "It's basically a free for all. You can do whatever you want," instead of "Read your Bible"? Would the Bible take precedence over someone with magical powers?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&index=4&list=PLB97374A595B54292

 

Maybe that counts for those people (i'm not sure as I don't know any of them in person), but it is smart to not project this attitude/desperation on other religious people just because they share the same religious affiliation. It's the same with Writer's comfort cocoon example. He even projected it onto me when he assumed i was a 'born again christian' While if he would read enough posts of mine it is clear I am not inside any comfort cocoon like that. I don't hold it against him that he didn't read enough posts of my of course, but I do find it sad, hopeless and slightly offensive that he seriously makes such an easy prejudice.
It makes clear that we are often victims of our stereotypical and oversimplified associations.

"What counts for the guy who sees Jesus' image on a dogs ass or the example I saw in a vid by a very smart man explaining where fundamentalists go wrong must also count for the people I am discussing with in this thread"

Unfortunately it is not that simple.

 

I know it's difficult to follow the dialogue here at times but I specified my argument in regards to our understanding, so I stick by the argument as sound.

Despite your conception of God, if it were completely capable and omnibenevolent, it would be able to satisfy all circumstance and conditions where those qualities are being put to test.

How do you hold evolution to such close scrutiny by saying "It's one rabbit's foot away in the Cambrian area from being disproven" yet don't hold the concept of God to any scrutiny?

 

only got two things to say;

1) good and evil are completely human ideas/concepts so any foolishness concerning God doing/not doing something about natural disasters, bone cancer victims or starving children or attempting to lay blame for such things at God's feet is just silly and juvenile..


2) evolution does NOT negate the idea of God or a creator.
Hell, it seems like a pretty damn good system from my limited perspective and God should be commended for utilizing evolution.


all this silliness and contention is a factor of vision, and humans are rather myopic to say the least.

 

It's way too presumptuous for a human to try to predict what an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being would do. As for Cambrian rabbits, I was paying the theory of evolution the compliment of saying that it's refuatable--i.e., scientific. I'll concede that God is not a refutable proposition--and therefore is not scientific. But I still hold it to close scrutiny. Some aspects of religion are refutable, notably fundamentalist interpretations of scripture. Creation science is refutable--and refuted. Science is great, but some knowledge is more accessible through philosophy and history, and through inference and judgment.

 

It's way too presumptuous to predict there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being in the first place.

 

Probably my favorite instance of pareidolia.

 

That's why I don't believe in one. My God isn't "omnipotent" in the strict sense of the word, and isn't a "prediction" in the sense of being a statement about what will happen or what is the case. I think of it more as an educated bet or working hypothesis.

 

I agree with Okie. We can not say with certainty at all why an omnipotent and benevolent being does not give clarity about itself. We can pose it as such, but it doesn't change that we can't. When we make an argument like if he was omnibenevolent he would practice divine intervention in the physical world or show Itself to us we are already projecting human attributes to God.
To claim with certainty that there is a God doing this and that and thinking/handling things so is indeed presumptuous as well. But we do not claim that with certainty, and people who do so are merely sharing their beliefs and sincere thoughts. Just like people who claim with certainty that there isn't such a God and no chance of it

I agree, that is funny