No one can prove gods existence or lack of it. To me i believe in a creator but not in an organized religion sense, i think god is real and people throughout time felt it and used that feeling to convince people their version is right. No human can fathom god and we dont know anything about his limits or beliefs but the chances of a few modern age scientist and their neckbeard followers being right over many millenia of humans is slim, especially so when the question at hand is not scientific in nature but spiritual. Even many scientist would agree the energy of your consciousness cant be destroyed even though we dont know what happens to it. When also considering science has proven things like human thought effects random number generators without explanation and have theories about multiple universes and higher plains of existences, denying spiritual possibilities becomes illogical .
No one can prove gods existence or lack of it. To me i believe in a creator but not in an organized religion sense...
>ilLOGical
i believe in a god but not a creator. but for the most part, i agree with you.
i believe that whatever "god" is is not conscious of what it is doing. it is completely alien to anything else that may or may not exist in the universe. impossible to comprehend.
>Even many scientist would agree the energy of your consciousness cant be destroyed even though we dont know what happens to it.
Your consciousness is a product of your brain, and it therefore goes away when your brain stops working. We know this because people who have experienced brain damage can lose certain abilities. If your consciousness was the product of a spirit then damaging the physical brain should have no affect on consciousness.
The idea of consciousness surviving death is motivated only by wishful thinking and fear of death. There is no reason to think that after you die is any different from before you were born.
>but the chances of a few modern age scientist and their neckbeard followers being right over many millenia of humans is slim
The odds that you would be born and live the life that you've lived is also slim, but it happened. It sounds strange, but unlikely events occur all the time. An idea being popular does not make it true.
>the question at hand is not scientific in nature but spiritual
What does that mean?
What is illogical is accepting "spiritual possibilities" without reason.
>No one can prove gods existence or lack of it
No one can prove the existence of leprechauns or lack of it. But the reasons to think leprechauns do not exist are very strong. We can safely conclude leprechauns don't exist until we are given good evidence to change our view. Same goes for your god.
I think there's plenty of evidence for the Christian faith. How do we know George Washington ever existed? Nobody alive has ever met him. But people who did witness his existence documented it thoroughly so we know all about him. That's all the Bible really is. Eye witness accounts compiled together. People saw Christ, confirmed His existence, and documented the prophesies that he then fulfilled with his resurrection. All proving himself to be the son of God who you can accept as savior for eternal life. There's a reason the books of the Bible work so well together. All the eye witness accounts authenticate each other and basically give the same message that has survived over 2,000 years. People have even died to tell that message. They wouldn't die for something they knew to be fake.
The energy of your consciousness is limited to your brain when on this plane of existence. Your thoughts however have power that can be "broadcast" for lack of a better word. When you die something must happen to that energy just it ceasing goes against what we know of physics
>All proving himself to be the son of God who you can accept as savior for eternal life
It doesn't though. Even if you could somehow show that he fulfilled prophecies and was resurrected, it wouldn't prove that God exists, that he was the son of God, or that anything he said about the afterlife was correct. Again, that's even if you can show that the resurrection happened, which I don't think you can do.
>They wouldn't die for something they knew to be fake.
But they might die for something that they didn't know to be fake.
True improbable things happen, but they are still less likely
As for spiritual questions those are things relating to spiritual matters i.e. beliefs, religion, morals, and ethics
You know the census that took place around the time of Jesus' birth? The one that made Mary and Joseph travel to Bethlehem to register?
That census never happened. And even if there had been one, no census ever required people to travel to their ancestral homeland to register for it.
Those versus are entirely factually and historically wrong. So if we can't even trust the Bible to accurately report mundane historical events, how can we trust the Bible on fantastical supernatural events?
If your thoughts are ultimately physical, that is to say electrochemical reactions, then it is not at all surprising that physical causes can have physical effects.
>When you die something must happen to that energy just it ceasing goes against what we know of physics
Sure, just like when you die something must happen to the matter of your body. You're still dead.
There's a lot of evidence to think consciousness is a product of physical processes in the brain.
What evidence do you have to support your "broadcast" theory? Everything you said is hocus pocus.
Billions throughout history dont believe in leprechauns, but i disagree with your logic just because science doesnt currently know something doesn't mean you should assume its wrong. Scientist shit on eachother throughout every invention or discovery
>True improbable things happen, but they are still less likely
By the way, I didn't mean to imply that it was actually more probable that people throughout history are correct.
>As for spiritual questions those are things relating to spiritual matters i.e. beliefs, religion, morals, and ethics
You said that you believe in a creator and that god is real and has been felt. This sounds like a claim on reality, that something is causing something that can be perceived. How would this not be scientific?
>Billions throughout history
see pic
>just because science doesnt currently know something doesn't mean you should assume its wrong.
This is called the God of the Gaps argument. There are lots of good reasons to think magical beings don't exist, and no good reasons to think they do.
Not my theory and theres plenty of evidence like i said in the op post. Theres also helmets invented that let you control computers with thought waves. Theres alot of research however contreversial on psychic abilities. People taking psychedelic drugs have been known to share hallucinations. If you look into there is a bunch of examples.
If a dude says I'm gonna die and resurrect in 3 days and it actually happens. It doesn't require much faith to believe that everything else he says is probably also true. And like I said the Bible is composed of eyewitness accounts by multiple people. If everyone in town says Joe Somebody murdered someone and they all saw it. Joe Somebody is getting nailed for murder. Same thing here. There are enough eye witness accounts recorded to believe it to be true.
Arguing whether religion is true is gay
Here's a hotter take: the Jews are guilty of the murder of Christ and the thing they currently worship is not the God of Christianity but instead what Christians call Satan
You sound like you're very desperate to believe in magic if you accept such bad evidence. There is a reason why science rejects the hocus pocus you're talking about: because those things can't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Its not scientific because it cannot be tested or proven or measured.
Scientism is also gay.
Reminder that science is completely epistemologically unfounded if you only allow empirical evidence
>It doesn't require much faith to believe that everything else he says is probably also true.
Of course it does. You're saying that if someone makes claims A, B, and C and it turns out that A is true, then B and C are probably also true. That doesn't follow.
>And like I said the Bible is composed of eyewitness accounts by multiple people
You can talk to living eyewitnesses who will tell you about how they were abducted by aliens. Tons of them, and their accounts are similar. Should we believe that they were abducted by aliens?
It's one thing to simply accept it when someone tells you that a new restaurant opened downtown, quite another to simply accept it when they tell you that Godzilla is attacking the city. The former is in line with our experiences, the latter is not and requires additional justification.
You put classifications on my arguments good job!
Is it purely conceptual like morality?
When you start arguing against the validity of science as a process you've pretty much lost the argument.
I was actually referring to scientific proven studies on some of those, random number generators and thought waves controlling computers. Also you talk about science like all scientists agree on everything. I think your trying to belittle me and sound smarter than you are.
That's not what I said retard, I'm telling you that science literally cannot provide knowledge unless you accept non-scientific types of knowledge as well. Pure empiricism leads to an infinite regress where nothing can be proven and nothing can be known.
I guess i mean alot of things are like love and government and the economy are just concepts but they are still real
No, only the concrete is real goy
>but how do we even know ANYTHING is real doe!!1!! *hits blunt*
like I said, you've lost the argument at this point
Normally I'd agree with you but come on now. Someone dying and then resurrecting is a whole lot different than any other scenario. Claim A is so massive and something that has never been done before and never will again. Claim A is a miracle. It isn't like someone said the traffic light is gonna turn red and it does and now I believe he's God. This is a case of someone coming back from the dead. As for the eyewitnesses they saw and authenticated the same event. Not scattered events like alien stories. If 50 people are in a room and one of them murders another. There's 48 witnesses right there that know it happened. Again, much more significant than your alien example.
Sure, are you saying that God is real in this way? Not an existent thing which creates universes but just a concept people have?
Isn't divine something that humans can't prove or disprove?
You're making a technical claim then linking it to another, separate claim, using the original technical claim improperly.
I don't necessarily agree with your original claim that non-scientific knowledge is required to increase scientific knowledge, but even if I were to give you benefit of the doubt it doesn't then mean you should accept all non-scientific knowledge.
>No one can prove gods existence or lack of it.
what was asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Your beliefs are as interesting and significant for my life as a child telling me about his imaginary friend.
/thread
You just dont understand what hes saying
>you lost because i said so
Thats you like a little kid who cant argue
No im saying sure you can define it as a concept but some concepts are real in other ways than physical
>Someone dying and then resurrecting is a whole lot different than any other scenario.
Which is part of what makes it unbelievable in the first place.
>Claim A is so massive and something that has never been done before and never will again.
...and? It still does not prove any of his other claims.
>As for the eyewitnesses they saw and authenticated the same event.
Years, even decades, after the fact. How reliable do you suppose eyewitness accounts are even when the memories are fresh in the people's mind? How reliable do you suppose they become over time? What do you think happens when those eyewitnesses talk to one another?
Like what? So far we have physical and we have conceptual. What other kind of real is there?
All you need to do is be honest about what we know versus what we don't know. And be honest about what the evidence says. You sound like you are highly motivated to believe in magic, maybe because it makes dealing with your mortality easier, maybe because it makes explaining the world easier, or maybe some other reason. Try being honest with yourself and asking why you believe the things you believe.
none
he's making shit up on the spot
either a troll or sect guru.
I don't care about the atheist versus religious debate. I think ideological atheism is gay and motivated by a 'fuck you dad I don't wanna go to church' mindset, but I'm not particularly Christian or particularly religious at all.
I'm merely taking issue with his (objectively false) position that science has an exclusive claim on knowledge.
science has failed humanity and earth
I'm merely taking issue with his (objectively false) position that science has an exclusive claim on knowledge.
Jordan Peterson is telling you to clean your room and let the adults talk.
>I'm merely taking issue with his (objectively false) position that science has an exclusive claim on knowledge.
"Science" is not a person or an institution.
It's not making any claims.
It's merely our most sophisticated method to generate knowledge.
Don't like this method?
Come up with a better one.
So when there was no way to prove tje earth was round but people thought it was they should have been dismissed even tho theres benefits from said belief
In the context of the thread, the idea of somehow broadcasting multi dimensional waves, or something like that, to the brain as consciousness - saying that science doesn't work unless you accept non-scientific knowledge is an extreme stretch. I am also uninterested in some sort of atheist vs god debate. It's been beaten to death over thousands of years. I was saying that even if you are correct about non-scientific knowledge, you still can't just say anything is therefore true.
Also, how something that shows no evidence can have any matter? Isn't even empyrical to any human being. God is a social thing.
God does not exist gods do. The will of man created dieties in order to blind themselves from the glare of our wretched species destroying itself in countless new ways like the virus we are. So why does it matter?
Columbus made a strong case for a globe earth in front of the spanish king, USING ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS, I.E. SCIENCE.
Go fetch a better example for your argument.
this one just backfired.
What a basic bitch talking point. Please don't speak to me unless you have something to say that hasn't been perpetually rehashed since the early 2000s.
Peterson can't even admit that he's a Christian, he has to hide behind layers of self-helpism and Jungian psychology. Why should I listen to him?
I agree with you though.
For me dogs looks ,more like a primitive thing, think about it. Animals need a leader for the group. Even sapient beings need it, but we have this rational thing that makes us think we are all equal. So how can we legitimate all the equality? Putting a imaginary leader above us all, and justifying it as the way he imaginaryly is.
That's a complicated question. It depends on what you mean by 'God'. I think that, that we are here implies to some degree that there are forces larger than us. Now, we can get into the semanticalities but the very notion of belief itself can be be rhetorically whittled to the bare nub of its meaning. I'd like to talk to you a lot more about this, would you be interested in reading some of my literature?
I feel like i explained it already lets just call it spiritual
>What a basic bitch talking point. Please don't speak to me unless you have something to say that hasn't been perpetually rehashed since the early 2000s.
Yea, I know.
Like a child raging against his father's influence on his upbringing, even tho his most significant deed was leaving it as an infant.
Dude, I don't care about you trying to deny reality, so you can get your talking points across.
You know that you have nothing of value to say, I know that you have nothing of value to say.
You can either leave it at that, or continue to be my personal lolcow for this evening.
I'm up for either.
You might feel like you explained it already, but you haven't. What is the difference between what you are calling spiritual and conceptual?
You are not arguing against my arguments bro. There is evidence.
Ibelieve in god
Theres evidence thought can effect machines
>lets just call it spiritual
define it
>I feel like i explained it already
spouting some random ass mumbo jumbo, frequently repeated by hallucinating drug addicts is not considered "explaining"
As much as I'd like to spend a few hours laughing at a level one Dawkinsite trying to play the intellectual, I think I'll pass.
Mark came first, even though it's placed second.
Matthew and Luke pretty clearly copy and embellish on Mark. Naturally, they line up. John came even later, and he certainly would have had access to the others, though he includes things-- like Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life-- that the others somehow missed.
Was there some guy named Jesus wandering around at the time? Quite possibly. Do I have to accept the Christian version of him any more than I accept the medieval poets' version of Arthur or Homer's version of the Trojan War? Why? Ancient history, written by ancients, tends to err on the side of the mythological.
Aint no God
I said before it could be proven thats when it could be proven
"Since the early 2000s?"
That "talking point" has been around quite a bit longer, and has the advantage of being a factually correct statement.
This. If your "spirit" or whatever you want to call your mind is not directly dependent on the body and its physical functions, then brain damage, Alzheimer's, etc. shouldn't affect who you are.
Well, the original citation was from hitchens, but sure, we can play Dawkins, too.
I mean, first you rage against (((Science))) like it was an entity you could wage war against (while it still is just a method), now you try to pull the same shenanigans with scientists who you can't debunk, either.
I mean, you already claimed to not be particularly religious, so why the heck would you even attempt to vilify a guy who spend his later life to expose the hypocrisy of institutions, rather than arguing against pure faith.
unless, ofc, you have the mindset of a crying child who desperately wants to wish santa claus back into reality after having being told the truth by some kid in school.
youve got it half right. thought doesnt actually effect the machines results like some sort of force or energy transfer, but more the act of observing the results creates the results. You cannot tell where a particle that has a wave function is untill you observe it, therefore untill you observe it, it is everywhere. By measuring it, you limit its volume from infinity down to a point (volume isnt the right word but you get the idea)
>atheist using echoes
The irony. You know 'new atheism' is a Jewish movement, right?
before it could be proven, it was the peoples right to laugh at them.
even tho they were right afterall, they had no say on the matter until they could prove it.
pre-administration, based on nothing but claims is stupid, especially in terms of religions, who make HUGE dibs on how a (((good life))) is defined in their opinion.
Nope.
Science, bitch.
Get it right, or get out.
That's just what the Reptoids want you to believe.
I cant keep going in circles dudes
Final explination: god to me is real as a concept as well as something more. People feel gods existence like they feel emotion. God is greater than emotion though because he exists throughout not just while you feel him that to me is spiritual. Whether or not he abides by man created rationing is irrelevant to his existence
Im sorry its not the scientific concrete evidence you want but that is the point of being spiritual instead
Who cares who controls some arbitrary movement.
I don't pay membership fees, nor do I vote some group into power based on the sole merit of being atheistic.
I actually voted for a christian party in my homeland, simply because their agend is the best solution for our current problems (i.m.o). Obviously, their agenda had nothing to do with them being christian.
But lets dive deeper, what is the endgoal of this evil (((jewish scheme))) behind atheism? My tinfoil hat tingles already.
ofc god is a real concept, because we are able to conceptualise him.
doesn't make him objectively real, tho.
wanna continue to play semantics bingo? Cause this shit is getting hilarious.
>Final explination: god to me is real as a concept as well as something more.
>God is greater than emotion though because he exists throughout
So physical?
This isn't even about evidence, this is about clarifying what you are trying to say.
how about just being a real christian instead of following the false doctrines of human churches?
Literally your opinion i disagree
>real christian
I have nails and some planks.
I can make you a real christian in no time.
ok, so if a random guy approaches you, tells you some spiritual mumbo jumbo about some deity, and hands you a guideline how to act in the good will of said deity, you just follow!?
Fucking kek, you ARE a sheep afterall.
No wonder that they call him the "good shepard"
you can't make gods out of humans. if you want that kind of false religion, try atheism
The economy is real whether we conceptualize it or not. So is god. They just do different things. Neither is physically touchable
sure, the absence of belief just became a religion.
Dude, stop, my sides are literally hurting right now.
Why are these threads a thing? I just came here to fap a quickie to some furrie or something and now I’m questioning existence
No
and the economy just achieved divinity.
I'd be careful around communists, if I were you.
The economy is a concept which refers to a physical system of exchanges taking place. It isn't spiritual.
Never said it was
but this is the necessary result of your disagreement. unless you secretly already agree but can't admit it because it would equal in admitting that you are as stupid as you already appear.
in other words, this was a checkmate 3 posts ago.
Actually he put a logical fallacy to your argument. If you consider that as the classification then I have bad news for your argument.
Existing on a seperate plane but able to effect our own. Economy was an analogy
So what is spiritual?
>Existing on a seperate plane but able to effect our own
I would call that physical.
no, economy has nothing to compare your mumbo jumbo to.
it wasn't an analogy.
It was wishfulk thinking on your part, born out of ignorance and a lack of (economic) education.
but hey, I'm certainly not the first one to inform you that your upper department is lacking some pretty important things.
common sense comes to mind.
atheism is essentially the belief that we can transcend from humans into gods through science.
lolwut
whatever you've snorted, I want some.
Im not saying beleive everything im saying dont disreguad just cuz u dont understand them
>im saying dont disreguad just cuz u dont understand them
so, why do you disregard the flying spaghetti-monster?
Christianity is essentially a belief that we can mutate us into zombies by stripping the god from his flesh and eating it and then turn in to immortal cannibal zombie gods ourselves
Fine spiritual is physical but not physically here
God is a human from billions of years in the future, he communicates with us in simple stories because we could not understand him if he spoke to us directly.