"Would you state then logically you cant deduce that there is a God? "

yes, i would

people that have been unable to feel or sense God is not evidence he doesnt exist, while when theres millions of people that claim to have sensed him, it is evidence he does exist... if a billion people are watching the world cup and this player gets shot, and millions of people see 1 person do it, and the rest dont see who did it; there is good evidence that the 1 person did it, and not good evidence from that he didnt do it from the millions of people that didnt see him do it..

logically if you cant trust people's mind's interpretation of stimulus then the only thing you can logically deduce is your own mind exists and it receives stimulus...

> avogadro wrote:

> "Would you state then logically you cant deduce that there is a God? "

yes, i would

people that have been unable to feel or sense God is not evidence he doesnt exist, while when theres millions of people that claim to have sensed him, it is evidence he does exist... if a billion people are watching the world cup and this player gets shot, and millions of people see 1 person do it, and the rest dont see who did it; there is good evidence that the 1 person did it, and not good evidence from that he didnt do it from the millions of people that didnt see him do it..

logically if you cant trust people's mind's interpretation of stimulus then the only thing you can logically deduce is your own mind exists and it receives stimulus...

----------------

I find your example to be a bit misleading. I'm gonna rephrase what you said, in case i  misinterpreted what you said.

You say that 1 million people experiencing God is the same as 1 million people experiencing a soccer player get shot(when it comes to experiencing)?

--> Asuming that is what you said, i think you're making a false comparison.

Everyone experiences God in a different way. "Experiencing God" also seems more an emotional thing to me. You can experience murder in an emotional way aswell, but you can also experience it in a factual way(a bullet flies throug a mans brain, it  makes his life impossible).

You can't experience God in an empirical way. A murder can be experienced empirically.

> avogadro wrote:

people that have been unable to feel or sense God is not evidence he doesnt exist, while when theres millions of people that claim to have sensed him, it is evidence he does exist... if a billion people are watching the world cup and this player gets shot, and millions of people see 1 person do it, and the rest dont see who did it; there is good evidence that the 1 person did it, and not good evidence from that he didnt do it from the millions of people that didnt see him do it..

logically if you cant trust people's mind's interpretation of stimulus then the only thing you can logically deduce is your own mind exists and it receives stimulus...

But those people's testimony would relate other things such as a physical description, and subsequently an arrest.  With the God vs. No God debate, there is no physical evidence one way or the other.  Spiritual evidence is unreliable because people hold their faith as unquestionable.  I don't want to say people will lie to protect their beliefs, but they will certainly dilute themselves.  So, I don't see how the analogy can relate.

> Levitas wrote:

> > avogadro wrote:

people that have been unable to feel or sense God is not evidence he doesnt exist, while when theres millions of people that claim to have sensed him, it is evidence he does exist... if a billion people are watching the world cup and this player gets shot, and millions of people see 1 person do it, and the rest dont see who did it; there is good evidence that the 1 person did it, and not good evidence from that he didnt do it from the millions of people that didnt see him do it..

logically if you cant trust people's mind's interpretation of stimulus then the only thing you can logically deduce is your own mind exists and it receives stimulus...

But those people's testimony would relate other things such as a physical description, and subsequently an arrest.  With the God vs. No God debate, there is no physical evidence one way or the other.  Spiritual evidence is unreliable because people hold their faith as unquestionable.  I don't want to say people will lie to protect their beliefs, but they will certainly dilute themselves.  So, I don't see how the analogy can relate.

kinda pointless debate, we both agree that there is no absolute evidence either way, you consider the evidence for and against as nearly equal, i consider millions of people's testimony in what they sensed more viable proof then proof that God doesnt exist because some people dont think they experiance him the way millions do...

I'll wholeheartedly agree with you on the pointless debate aspect ... but isn't that what this whole thread is about?

> SOL wrote:
<> I think that's the difference between believers and non-believers.  Empirical experience is experienced in the same way by everyone, Experiencing God isn't.

people have empirical experiences of God...

atheists base their entire concept of humanity by relying on blind faith to our senses, and then they attack our senses whenever someone claims to have sensed God; its hypocritical if you ask me...

Main Entry: em

That's a pretty bold definition, here's a definiton of my university's dictionary(in dutch/flemish), it's also one of the most respected dictionaries for our language(Van Daele) , so i'm pretty sure this is the right definiton:

"empirisch
               
em

"atheists base their entire concept of humanity by relying on blind faith to our senses, and then they attack our senses whenever someone claims to have sensed God; its hypocritical if you ask me..."

no, atheists attacks your senses when you say you "sense" god, because you can sense anything you want and just tell yourself that its god.

the human brain is tricky.  if two people were sitting in a dark room;
person A: believes in ghost and paranormal aspects of the spirit realm
person B: is a sceptic, and has no belief in the spirit realm once so-ever.

environment: an unxeplainable light moves passed the room and disapears.

person A: believes it was a ghost or spirit, mainly because no matter what he/she is going to find reason for this to be true.
person B: looks towards science and/or other reasons to explain the experience to make themselves certain of their sceptical belief.

environment result: neither are correct.  Person A and person B decieve themselves to convince their personal beliefs are in fact the right chioce.  truth is, no human being on earth would not be too happy if they find out that their internal beliefs are wrong, this can make someone feel misplaced in life.  this is why not only religions cant get along with atheist, but religions historically never got along with eachother aswell.

"Someone saying he is experiencing it is not considered empirical. Everyone should be able to verify whether or not he is "feeling" God. That's what empirical means"

so empirical was impossible before we were able to read brain activity to prove whether someone is actually sensing what they claim to sense? no. thats the stupidest thing i've read in this thread and thats saying alot. a million people saying they sensed something is a million people getting similar results in the same experiment and is empirical...

First of all, measuring brain activity only measures brain activity. It doesn't prove anything about what he sensing. The cause for increased brain activity could be anything. (he might for example just be thinking about a hot naked girl wich makes him exited)

Second, that is hardly to be called an reliable experiment.(if it is to be called an experiment at all).
Experimentalism(empiricalism doesn't pop up in my translator) also requires that the experiment can be done at any giving time( unless the outcome would be dependant on time).

If you want to consider a person who says he experiences god to be empirical, everyone has to be able to to know that he is experiencing him. A person saying it's God while his brain activity is up doesn't necessarely mean he is experiencing God. H e coul be tripping, he could actually be experiencing God, he could also be thinking of a hot naked giorl, it could be anything

@avogrado

"an all powerful being would not have to put effort for anything to be accomplished; and the creation could be a side effect of him simply existing... whatever reason we exist, just because you cannot think of one where he wouldnt be perfect isnt logical proof that it doesnt exist..."

It isnt the effort put into it that I am trying to talk about here, it is the lack of perfection.
If we in this compare God to a perfect circle, the circle like god should already be complete. It should not need to create anything, seeing as it is already complete. If anything is created it is extra, not needed and needs to be removed for perfection to re-arise. If anything is missing from the circle, it is not a circle at all, and still not perfect.

Therefore logically, for God to be perfect, he could not create anything extra, and could not create whatever would be missing. He could only exist as a perfect entity. One of the main rules about the christian god is his awesome perfection.

I am trying to prove this wrong, using logics.

--

"first we have to define "perfect" what one person considers perfect another wouldnt. the basic concept of what god is, is that he is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. this is what many religions refer to when they call God perfect, an all powerful, all knowing, and all good being does not have to create beings that are all powerful, all knowing, and all good in order for him to be all powerful, all knowing, and all good."

- MY definition of perfect is simple. A full circle, a download at 100%, a completed building, something that does not need.

- If god were to create human beings in his own image he would need to share some of the power, knowledge and kindness, and have his followers spread such amongst their kinsmen. And it is also said several places in the bible itself that god certainly promotes these traits amongst humans. So why could he not simply give them ? Surely all-knowing, all-powerful, all-GOOD humans would be better than rapists and murderers ?

--

"this has the same problem as my last quote, suffering from an unspecified definition of perfection... if using the definition of perfection many religions use, then your statement is not correct...  an all powerful, all knowing, and all good being does not have to create beings that are all powerful, all knowing, and all good in order for him to be all powerful, all knowing, and all good."

Here I tried to prove that a free-willed god, simply could want people to follow certain guidelines, and then every living soul would go to heaven. This of course if he was allmighty. One would think a better world would be such a world ?
Knowing all future, and all past, he would also know on beforehand which people go where, so he is being cruel to all evil people by letting them create in the first place, knowing that they will indeed go to hell.
Accepting the very existence of hell is dodgy at best, but its certainly not good. Why havent god removed hell as an option ?
Does he like the chance of people going there ? He knows..before anyone is born, who will go and who will not, then how do a human really have free choice ? God already knows he will go to hell no matter where his free choices bring him.
God created the imperfect human, hoping that he will take the right choices and come to heaven, yet he already knows like Santa Claus, who gonna be good or bad, so what is then the point ? Humanity is erranous, and imperfect. God is too. He would not need to create people he already knows will go to hell, seeing as this defies his all-good purpose.

--

"i disagree, if a perfect being had a point to his creation, if he needed something from them, then he could not be perfect. him seeking nothing from his creation is a requirement of him being perfect..."

So it is better for a perfect entity to create waste ? For that is all a pointless creation is...
And he does not seek nothing. He seeks worshippers, believers, good folks, good actions, offerings and everlasting souls...
Remind you of someone ?

-.-

"God in the timeframe is he always existed.. he is the uncaused cause...  as i stated for your first point: an all powerful being would not have to put effort for anything to be accomplished; and the creation could be a side effect of him simply existing... whatever reason we exist, just because you cannot think of one where he wouldnt be perfect isnt logical proof that it doesnt exist..."

Ok, Im with you...God always existed...ok...why create our planet ? Why do it when he did ? Why create humanity when he did. We know for a fact universe existed long before our earth did..so why suddenly this life on this planet, to a being that is already complete and does not need ?

-.-

"why must a God want to prove to you his existence inorder for him to be worthy of worship, if anything the opposite is true... a God isnt much of a God if he needs to be worshiped..."

If he wants me to worship him he certainly needs to prove his existance. I dont worship dragons or unicorns either unless they prove their existance to me. And to be fair, I think both of the latter have a bigger chance of existing enough to prove it for me.
Which is more than can be said about this god of yours.

Your god demands worship, he demands faith, even in situation where faith is far-fetched, he demands prayers and apologies..so yeah..your God is not the one to turn his cheeks away from worship. Your god feeds on it.

-.-

"is not good and evil adjectives? do adjectives not compare? so humans compare events in their lives, and the things they think are best, they call good, and the things they think worst, they call evil. if the worst thing in life was a blow job, humans would still think theres so much evil in the world, you are calling human's perspective perfect..."

I think this part was below your average high-class responses. You compare Rapist murderers to heroes ? even in a different lighting these are still obvious counterparts. Can they be compared..sure...can they be merged..probably. But can the classes i boxed them in be merged... No.

-.-

"there is no contradiction. there are infinite possible futures because there are infinite possible actions God can do, and God can know these infinite futures and be able to do the infinite possibilities..."

No matter the number, this does not change the fact that god must know all to be all-knowing, and god must be able to change all to be all-powerful. So if god knows he wont change some guys life, then redecides and changes it anyways, god has proven all-powerful but not allknowing. If god knows he wont change some guys life, and then want to change it, but cant..he is not all-powerful, but is indeed all-knowing.