There is no "god"

[bankside]

Ahh well that seems to change your earlier history lesson. When I think of opportunism, I think of action divorced from principle for expedient personal gain. However if Luther was disgusted and embarrassed by the church, and disapproved of it, then he was less an opportunist than a principled opponent. That he may have been a shrewd tactician in his efforts to disrupt the church, does not turn him into an opportunist. We might give later consideration to the quality of his principles, but it appears that he did have them.

 

[kallipolis]

Ahh well that seems to change your earlier history lesson. When I think of opportunism, I think of action divorced from principle for expedient personal gain. However if Luther was disgusted and embarrassed by the church, and disapproved of it, then he was less an opportunist than a principled opponent. That he may have been a shrewd tactician in his efforts to disrupt the church, does not turn him into an opportunist. We might give later consideration to the quality of his principles, but it appears that he did have them.

Seem may well be the pertinent word.....for my last post merely amplifies my earlier post.

Luther was opportunistic for he knew that the winds of change were heralding the rise of the German princedoms, and the decline of Spanish influence in northern Europe. Luther had a well developed political sense that tuned in well with the aspirations of the German princes, with timing everything......principles are a matter of reflection for those whose assessments are led by their prejudices....I have no horse in this race.

 

[Judahline]

calling “God” that “in which we live and move and have our being” was a poetic phrase taken directly from a Greek poet of the 6th century BC

Who was that?

 

[kallipolis]

Who was that?

First post, and on the religion forum...

Τύμβον ἐτεκτήναντο σέθεν, κύδιστε μέγιστε,
Κρῆτες, ἀεὶ ψευδεῖς, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί.
Ἀλλὰ σὺ γ᾽ οὐ θνῇσκεις, ἕστηκας γὰρ ζοὸς αίεί,
Ἐν γὰρ σοὶ ζῶμεν καὶ κινύμεθ᾽ ἠδὲ καὶ ἐσμέν.

for your easy convenience:

They fashioned a tomb for you, O holy and high one—The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies! But you are not dead; you live and abide forever, For in you we live and move and have our being. from the poem, Cretica authored by Epimenides ~circa. 600 BC

 

[Adrock-JD]

Reality is an illusion and what's real for one person may not be for another. Since the existence of God cannot be disproven it doesn't matter. Someone who believed in space aliens talking to them would be considered psychotic but replace space aliens with the word "God" and it becomes faith and religion. Society determines what is acceptable and what is not. Science can offer facts about many things but there is a limit to science.

I see it as a hypothesis: A higher being is in charge of the universe? Of course it is possible until/unless it is disproven.

 

[TX-Beau]

Reality is not an illusion. Two people may PERCEIVE the reality of falling off a cliff very differently - yet they both go splat in exactly the same way.

There is no point in religion if "God" is not EMPIRICALLY factual. Indeed none of the religious in this thread talking about spirituality or faith or even perception will dispute that. They'll just run away from the question because it requires them to defend the undefendable.

If one's God is not factually real, one's religion is false. Period.

 

[Adrock-JD]

^ Okay, reality is partly an illusion.

"Money, in reality, consists of pieces of paper, yet those papers represent something much more valuable. The pieces of paper have the power of life and death, but they wouldn't be worth anything if people didn't believe in their power."

from Through the Wormhole: Is Reality Real?

 

[star-warrior]

 

[kallipolis]

Moving the goal posts might well indicate there is a plot afoot to change the result whereas, reality informs us that insecurity is present in the life of every human being particularly, those who believe that empirical proof is the only means available to determine the existence of the creator.

 

[bankside]

Moving the goal posts might well indicate there is a plot afoot to change the result whereas, reality informs us that insecurity is present in the life of every human being particularly, those who believe that empirical proof is the only means available to determine the existence of the creator.

Allowing that there is some other means to make this determination, what of the circumstance where people apply this means and come to contradictory conclusions?

 

[kallipolis]

Allowing that there is some other means to make this determination, what of the circumstance where people apply this means and come to contradictory conclusions?

Personal experience is the means, without which the conclusion that the creator is, can never be determined.

 

[bankside]

Personal experience is the means, without which the conclusion that the creator is, can never be determined.

I see I haven't been clear.

Other people will use their personal experience to reach the certain conclusion that there is no such thing as a creator.

What then?

 

[kallipolis]

I see I haven't been clear.

Other people will use their personal experience to reach the certain conclusion that there is no such thing as a creator.

What then?

That one person can prove the existence of the creator, to their satisfaction as a result of their personal experience, and another cannot as a result of their experience being insufficient, to corroborate the other's conclusion that the creator is?

I agree that attempting to prove a negative, is a fruitless pursuit...even, waste of time....nevertheless, provides one with mind exercising gymnastics that might well be considered beneficial even, positive for those determined to prove a negative beyond their comprehension to prove.

 

[Telstra]

John Lennon is right, good is a concept

 

[Telstra]

hey in this video,
if you replace the word god with "i, me, my, myself" is the same thing ...

 

[TX-Beau]

That one person can prove the existence of the creator, to their satisfaction as a result of their personal experience, and another cannot as a result of their experience being insufficient, to corroborate the other's conclusion that the creator is?

I agree that attempting to prove a negative, is a fruitless pursuit...even, waste of time....nevertheless, provides one with mind exercising gymnastics that might well be considered beneficial even, positive for those determined to prove a negative beyond their comprehension to prove.

No one has to prove a negative, YOU have to prove a positive, which you can't, because you believe in magic - which isn't your fault I suppose, you were taught to believe in magic, no one is born believing in magic - you for example were not born with faith in Shiva, whom you would absolutely require proof to even consider as some kind of reasonable.

Which is where the hypocrisy rears it's Catholic head.

Your attempt to blame the reasonable for your inability to back up your fairy stories has been noted.

 

[bankside]

That one person can prove the existence of the creator, to their satisfaction as a result of their personal experience, and another cannot as a result of their experience being insufficient, to corroborate the other's conclusion that the creator is?

I agree that attempting to prove a negative, is a fruitless pursuit...even, waste of time....nevertheless, provides one with mind exercising gymnastics that might well be considered beneficial even, positive for those determined to prove a negative beyond their comprehension to prove.

The trouble, again, in your scenario, is that you assume the skeptic simply has insufficient experience. The experience of the satisfied believer may be limited or superficial, while the experience of the skeptic may be comprehensive and insightful. What then?

 

[kallipolis]

The trouble, again, in your scenario, is that you assume the skeptic simply has insufficient experience. The experience of the satisfied believer may be limited or superficial, while the experience of the skeptic may be comprehensive and insightful. What then?

A sceptic is so because they are lacking the experience, that would initiate their path of enlightenment....not that they lack insight, or are unable to comprehend rather, that they may well be unwilling to believe the signals inviting them into relationship with the creator.....not for one minute would I ever underestimate the intelligence, or integrity of the person seeking to understand the mysteries of life.

 

[Telstra]

A sceptic is so because they are lacking the experience, that would initiate their path of enlightenment....not that they lack insight, or are unable to comprehend rather, that they may well be unwilling to believe the signals inviting them into relationship with the creator.....not for one minute would I ever underestimate the intelligence, or integrity of the person seeking to understand the mysteries of life.

umm when i was very young, i was very sick and i saw ghosts, demons ... etc but it was all in my head.
Other people were not able to see it.

 

[bankside]

A sceptic is so because they are lacking the experience, that would initiate their path of enlightenment....not that they lack insight, or are unable to comprehend rather, that they may well be unwilling to believe the signals inviting them into relationship with the creator.....not for one minute would I ever underestimate the intelligence, or integrity of the person seeking to understand the mysteries of life.

You have only restated the same thing without addressing the point.