re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]
So if it is not material then by which empirical data can one assert that this "god" concept is real?
What do you mean by empirical data?
Each of these questions merit their own thread. But the question relevant for this thread remains: If this "god" concept cannot be tested if it is real, then why choose to believe it?
Which is why I find it strange that you want me to prove God exists in one thread, start With Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica Pars 1 then come back.
People believe in God because they have a personal relationship With him, experience him, and becuase God makes sense of the world and existance in it's totality.
No one believes in God because of some empirical, or testable data.
Most of the Things most People believe have nothing to do With empirical or testable data.
But there is constant actual empirical evidence for gravity. There are none for this "god" concept, so why should one assume it is real?
No there isn't, there is empirical evidence for data that gravity can be posited as the best explination for.
What a borderline position. Many flaws with this:
1) It seems there is something wrong with crating meaning for one's self according to the analogy.
2) I hold the polar position to this one: The deluded are incapable of creating meaning (at least not the kind shared by all).
THe problem is the same one as the concept of "subjective morality" subjective morality simple is not morality at all, it's nothing more than personal fancy, it's akin to saying "subjective Law" if a Law is subjective then it isn't Law. The same goes With "meaning."
I choose to prescribe in many alternative explanations other than believing in imaginary beings such as the incapable to be tested in reality - "god" concept. There are many such theories mentioned in the "Origins of Life" here in the Science Section in DP.
God is not an imaginary being, he is the ground of all being. The question had nothing to do With the "Origins of life," but if you have an alternative explination let's hear it.
1) Which is the supreme consciousness to that of human consciousness?
2) How do the two consciousness relate to one another?
3) Present actual empirical evidence that the supreme consciousness actually exists in reality. Just in case this is a different wording to the same incapable to be tested imaginary concept of "god."
1) I don't understand the question.
2) in the sense that individual consciousness comes from a supreme consciousness since it cannot be explain in material terms, or in itself.
3) We have empirical evidence that individual consciousness exists, and that it is irreducable, the best explination from that is that consciousness has a Source Beyond nature.
I do not read books that build upon an imaginary concepts that are incapable to be reality tested in real life (e.g., "god" concept), I prefer the present life compared to the afterlife because there are no actual empirical evidence of an afterlife. So no thank you.
Ok, so basically, you want to argue against philosophical theology, but you refuse to read any of it .... that's called being willfully ignorant.
In this sense Your no better than the person who argues against evolution but refuses to read anything about it (other than by creationists).
