I hate the subjectivity of personal experiences. Lots of christians have had strong personal experiences that led them to believe that Jesus is the son of god and savior of all. Hell, I've had a couple "mystical experiences" as a practicing christian when I was younger. Personal experiences might be life changing to an individual but they don't make god anymore more or less true.

Good point.

Like them or not, they are all we have.

Every experience you have ever had has been a subjective experience. It is not possible for a human being to have experiences that aren’t subjective.

Another good point. I guess subjective experience, backed up with subjectively verified objective concensus can lead one to a modality of truth that makes sense subjectively.

They are not all we have. There is such a thing as empirical evidence. Subjective experiences shouldn't be taken as evidence for anything, so we such do what science does and rely upon empirical evidence.

EDIT: Like I said, I'll even accept deductive reasoning for the existence of a higher or supernatural power. Math is mostly deductively reasoned so I'll consider it an acceptable form of obtaining knowledge. I've still never seen any empirical evidence or deductive reasoning for the existence of a supernatural power or being.

Check out this video, its in two parts and gives and explanation of god through the use of sacred geometry. (Originally posted by member: live)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujAlmq_v32c

I also just listened to last nights Coast to Coast AM titled: God & Universal Intelligence with Dr. Bernard Haisch an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. He served as a scientific editor of the Astrophysical Journal for ten years, and was Principal Investigator on several NASA research projects. His professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory and Deputy Director of the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley.

He did a pretty good job of explaining how science and spirituality are not incompatible, and can actually work together to gain a better understanding of reality. He pretty much summed up my current understandings of the existence we inhabit.

His latest book The Purpose-Guided Universe: Believing In Einstein, Darwin, and God postulates a universe that requires evolution, but also includes God. The show will probably be up on youtube in the next couple days, i'll provide a link when I find one.

All my experiences are objective. Except when I tell myself they are; that experience is clearly subjective!

I KNOW this. Objectively. Prove me wrong!! but you can't - your proof would be subjective!

Any objections?

JBArk the subjective object of the objective subject

They are all you have. Even empirical evidence is your subjective belief in the subjective beliefs of others, no matter how many may argree on a particular belief.

How do you acquire empirical evidence? I would assume through your senses. The acquisition of empirical evidence and subsequent mental processing of that evidence are subjective experiences.

I tend to consider myself atheist, but I do not doubt that a higher power could exist. Being a human, beliefs, religion, miracles, experiences, etc., do not matter, as everything that is, is what it will be, and there is no changing that. If you were given the answer to everything, whatever it is, you will only know the answer, but there is nothing you can do about it to change it, but you can choose to believe it or not. I find it ridiculous that if you are not saved you are going somewhere else than someone who has accepted and practiced a belief or religion. And why would "God" desire to be worshiped or praised. I think it is more reasonable that everything is one and connected and possibly eternal. We just need to live and embrace it.

Gibran2

Exactly, I couldn't agree more... I was just about to post the exact same
logical perspective.


Much Peace and Understanding

Those videos aren't evidence or reasoning for the existence of god. They assume the existence of god and then go on to theorize about he he might have create the world in a patterned and geometrical fashion. Geometry doesn't come first though, it come second. Geometry is a product of force acting upon matter. Geometrical patterns are the hallmark of efficiency in the biological world and that is why they are so widely used by plants and animals.

Of course it is reasoning. They don't assume the existence of god, they assume that there was nothing, and how something could arise out of nothing in the most efficient way...of how three dimensions would arise out of an infinite void. How does something come from nothing? What is that nothing that becomes something?

What was there before the Big Bang? Even if you believe that something arose out of nothing through quantum fluctuations, you still have the problem of where the laws of quantum mechanics come from...

So what is the first cause?

Wouldn't this make you an agnostic?

As I said, religions are all, without exception man made constructs, and therefore are inherently false. The concept of god you cite is totally absurd and fails in the face of logic and reason on so many levels.

My conception of God is that everything is One...connected and eternal. Live it, embrace it, be yourself in whatever form that takes...that is the expression of the divine...I AM.

f%ck jesus[freaks].

Agreed saidin, the evidence suggests the universe's unfolding can best be modelled as a stochastic process. Nature behaves geometrically more like pure fractals or higher-dimensional non-Euclidean geometries than Euclidean structures.

And aren't religions simply models or constructs and associated physical institutions which hopefully, when functioning healthily, fulfill several functions, including: providing community/communitas, this palpable sense of being part of something bigger than the sum of the individuals; facilitating interactions among people and promoting service for the larger world; providing a context in which people can come together in worship. A good religion (and good theology) should serve to point its finger towards the "I AM", and then get out of the way. I've read a number of statements from across the traditions to the effect that when humans gather in worship, "God" is in their midst. I've certainly felt I'm in the midst of something far greater than myself or our species during worship services, gatherings of energetic like-minded people at a domestic violence organization I volunteer for, and at a number of good festivals I've attended. Other people feel it too...

All models ultimately fail since they can't fully grasp reality itself. Also, religions, like all institutions, have certain limitations owing to their makeup of imperfect individuals.

Just because we do not know what the first cause is that does not mean that we should say God is the first cause.

"How do you acquire empirical evidence? I would assume through your senses. The acquisition of empirical evidence and subsequent mental processing of that evidence are subjective experiences."

I'm following what your trying to say with this statement but I find it impossible to deny the objectivity of empirical knowledge. All I'm asking for is a shred of scientific data that supports the existence of god or supernatural being or whatever you want to call.

lol
Imo jesus was just a guy that had some mystical experience. he saw a father, like others see a mama.
Thats all good. i think he was a loving man. also i think he did great work for humanity. he could have been a fiend of mine.. and i would love to go tripping with him

too bad others corrupted his thoughts. he would probably puke in his grave when he saw what others have done to his lessons.

Anyways, since im straight i wouldnt fuck him..

i do feel your anger against organized religion.
guess we are on the same boat (arc)

The questions aren't the assumption, Saidin (although they could arguably contain assumptions). The answer "god" is. A huge assumption. The biggest assumption. Maybe a correct assumption, but an assumption nevertheless.

There are a million other answers to those questions, and all are assumptions in the absence of evidence or proof. And all equally in/valid, and mere (albeit fascinating, and i would say essential) speculation and conjecture.

you said it yourself:





Including the assumption that there is a god. (edit: sorry if i mis-attributed the first quote. I cribbed it from another poster who I believe was quoting you...)


Cheers,
JBArk

I’m not claiming that there is evidence for God, either scientific or otherwise. What I’m claiming is quite the opposite, and I go even further:

There is no evidence that objective reality as we understand it exists at all.