Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
romansh

Opinion

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, thormas said:

All I have reported is that "even this 'evidence' (of anaesthetics for materialism) is questioned in the (scientific and philosophical) community.

Just to be clear is anaesthetics evidence in support of materialism, although some might contest it?

13 minutes ago, thormas said:

God who is referred to as I AM,

OK I don't recall this one. But I'll let it pass.

So you have no evidence for this I AM, but you believe it anyway? I agree beliefs and traditions exist, but these are not Gods by any stretch of the imagination as the word is commonly used.

Just out of interest what is your evidence to say Roman gods never existed and we can state it as a fact?

Are you claiming materialism is not verifiable … if this an opinion what is it based on? How much evidence in support of materialism would you require? And if you are asking the reverse of me … how the consciousness manipulates matter would be a good place to start. 

If you were to argue the pantheist position I would agree there is plenty of evidence for the universe, and by tradition we could say this is god, but we would still have a debate on the properties of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, romansh said:

So you have no evidence for this I AM, but you believe it anyway? I agree beliefs and traditions exist, but these are not Gods by any stretch of the imagination as the word is commonly used.

Just out of interest what is your evidence to say Roman gods never existed and we can state it as a fact?

Are you claiming materialism is not verifiable … if this an opinion what is it based on? How much evidence in support of materialism would you require? And if you are asking the reverse of me … how the consciousness manipulates matter would be a good place to start. 

If you were to argue the pantheist position I would agree there is plenty of evidence for the universe, and by tradition we could say this is god, but we would still have a debate on the properties of the universe.

Yes and this has been said previously: belief but no evidence. To say "there are not Gods..." is an opinion or a belief statement, also without evidence. As for the "word as commonly used" that, for some, is the point and the word has been redefined, i.e. theism to panentheism. 

Pantheism never resonated with me because I don't believe that the physical universe is God and, also, I believe God or Being is 'personal' although not a person, supreme or otherwise. "There is plenty of evidence for the universe" but that the universe is God is a belief. Seemingly, in pantheism, the property of the universe is god. Isn't it pretty cut and dry? If one talks about the properties of the universe in pantheism, aren't they bring to define god?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, thormas said:

Yes and this has been said previously: belief but no evidence.

OK just to be clear some believe in things that we have no evidence for. 

16 hours ago, thormas said:

To say "there are not Gods..." is an opinion or a belief statement, also without evidence.

Very few people even amongst atheists actually say this. They may disavow literal Abrahamic Gods much in the same way most of us do not believe in Roman Gods etc.

17 hours ago, thormas said:

but that the universe is God is a belief.

Yes, but it is a coherent belief … no extras needed.

17 hours ago, thormas said:

If one talks about the properties of the universe in pantheism, aren't they bring to define god?

Exactly

20 hours ago, romansh said:

Just out of interest what is your evidence to say Roman gods never existed and we can state it as a fact?

Any thoughts?

20 hours ago, romansh said:

Are you claiming materialism is not verifiable … if this an opinion what is it based on?

????

And I still don't have a clear sense of whether you think anaesthetics are evidence for materialism, and if not why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romansh said:

OK just to be clear some believe in things that we have no evidence for. 

18 hours ago, thormas said:

Well, it depends on what you mean by evidence. I am associating it with proof or at least leading to proof and, therefore, there is no proof, no overriding evidence, perhaps no evidence at all, that can either establish the existence or non-existence of God or establish what God is, so to speak. There is a rational element or there can be, in this. However, ultimately, reason takes one so far, the experience and insight of the religious community and the theology takes one so far and, eventually, comes the decision: to believe or to not believe (the faith commitment).

1 hour ago, romansh said:

"To say 'there are not Gods...' is an opinion or a belief statement, also without evidence." Very few people even amongst atheists actually say this. They may disavow literal Abrahamic Gods much in the same way most of us do not believe in Roman Gods etc.

 If you are talking about the Abrahamic God (I AM (story of Moses), Abba, Allah - different names for the same 'experienced' Reality) - then what I said above holds. My point is that whether God IS or Is not is beyond evidence. This goes back to the idea that Being or God is not an object or thing (among other things). Not sure what you mean by Abrahamic gods - since in each of the great western religions, there is only God (not gods). I have seen atheism defined as either a-theist or atheist: the former is primarily against the theistic take on God, the latter is against any and all notions of God (God is not), so not sure what you mean by "even amongst atheists."

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Yes, but it is a coherent belief … no extras needed.

Perhaps for some, simply not for me and not for all/most who accept the Abrahamic faiths.

1 hour ago, romansh said:

" Just out of interest what is your evidence to say Roman gods never existed and we can state it as a fact?" Any thoughts?

First, it would be a belief statement since I don't buy into multiple gods who do use humans as playthings. I always took this as a developing stage to monotheism but 'evidence' would seem to be going to Mt. Olympus (Greek gods) and seeing if we can find evidence that the gods once lived there - an archeological expedition. 

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Are you claiming materialism is not verifiable … if this an opinion what is it based on?

What I have seen (Sheldrake, Egnor, D B Hart) suggests that what is verifiable for one, is not for another. Or, the interpretation is disputed and thus verification is questionable. 

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...