From existence to the existence of God

cthia wrote:At any rate, I don't count christians who have developed a personal vendetta or grudge against the church through no fault of God's.

God sat idly by while unbelievably atrocities were committed in his name, by people thoroughly convinced that what they did was in service of him.
He didn't lift a finger when uncountable numbers of people were slaughtered or tortured for his greater glory.
He couldn't be bothered to intervene when his name was invoked to justify abuse.

So, if your god exists? He gets to share the blame there.

This would include the people or their loved ones who have been mishandled by the clergy (nuns, preachers, teachers, staff, etc.), like the kids and adults who have been sexually, physically, and emotionally abused, mishandled and mistreated. Or any one of a plethora of emotional reasons that may turn a believer away. If ones toddler dies of cancer, wife dies giving birth, or any number of other horrible things that may happen in life, these are not the reasons I was referring to. Defection with the brain and not with the heart.

It is quite rational to abandon a belief that does not provide comfort, or to seriously question a belief that can be twisted into a rationale for all the things you listed.

God is constantly being blamed for man's sins. People simply do not understand the notion and scope of free will.

He isn't, and that's kinda the problem. Christians are quick to thank god for good things and blame themselves for bad things; Do elaborate please on why this is good and proper and doing the reverse isn't.

At any rate, I was referencing the more learned scientists and physicists who have a vested interest in finding the truth, regardless of whether the wife ran off with the butler, or their place of worship has become soiled by sin.

None of those scientists have been able to deliver a definite proof of the existence of god though, have they.

(Likely because they, unlike you, realize that their belief is theirs and theirs only and not actually something that can be proven right or wrong with the tools of science and reason)

by Mariue » Thu Aug 05, 2021 5:11 am

[ . . . . ]

Why are you guys so afraid to concur with me that first and foremost we must work together: as to arrive at agreement on what is existence, what is it to prove something to exist, and what is God?

Anyway, I will start acting honest intelligent and productive with my proposal of what is existence, here in very few words:

"Existence is the object of man's experience." ( 7 words )

If you guys never experience something at all, how do you know that it exists?

Take caviar, if someone never experienced it, how can he ever know it exists?

Mariue wrote:Take caviar, if someone never experienced it, how can he ever know it exists?

Because fish exists.

Our national census is on this week. It is widely tipped to show that more than 50% have no religion now. The last one was just over 50% including all faiths (Pasterfarian and Jedi Knights included, along with nominal Christians who never do anything).
Certainly Australian society is different to the US in that we tend to not "do religion" much, at least publicly. That is probably why Hillsong went to the US to make more money than possible here.
In my case it isn't just the bad way I was treated as a kid by Christians. Since then my experiences with anything religious have been negative. I'd trust a Bikie before a Bishop. Not simplistically just because nominal Christians have been bad people, but their entire organisations have been.

Mariue wrote:If you guys never experience something at all, how do you know that it exists?

One thing I am definitely not experiencing is you actually engaging substantially with anyone's posts but your own. If this is to be a discussion, you need to actually discuss things and not just drop proclamations from on high.

Take caviar, if someone never experienced it, how can he ever know it exists?

Ah, but what does "experienced" and "someone" mean, in this context?`

Quantum physics introduced the concept of an "observer" into physics: the idea that there are things that are unknown until a measurement is taken.
A lot of idiots have mistaken the technical meaning of the term observer in context for its colloquial one: Thus, we got a whole new genre of snake oil salesmen that used the vocabulary of quantum physics for their bullshit.

Caviar, as in fish eggs, exist because fish exist; they are "observed" or "experienced" by the fish laying them, the fish inseminating them, other aquatic biology, water molecules, grains of sand.... there are plenty of "observers" who "experience" caviar at every stage of its existence; a vanishingly small subset of those may even be monkeys with delusions of grandeur.

Point being, "someone" in your sentence there is implied to be a human being, but it doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be anything resembling a person at all!
In the end, "How do we know caviar exists if noone experiences it" is just a variation on "does a tree falling in the woods make a sound if noone is around to hear it", which as Terry Pratchett pointed out in "Small Gods", is a ridiculous question, because your average wood is just brimming with someones ready and able to hear falling things -- Incidentally, for a devoted christian, the answer must be yes, because regardless of anything else being present, God always is.

Experiencing something, observing something, doesn't require consciousness, or even anything resembling a metabolism.

.... If, that is, you are a materialist like me and believe, like I do, that the material is the only level of existence.

Mariue wrote:Mariue wrote:
"From existence to the existence of God"

What do you all honest intelligent and productive thinkers (say), shouldn't we all first work together as to concur on what we mean by the words: existence, prove, and God?

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


No, I have not seen anyone here whom I would want to consider to be an honest intelligent productive thinker, not one at all.

Why are you guys so afraid to concur with me that first and foremost we must work together: as to arrive at agreement on what is existence, what is it to prove something to exist, and what is God?

Anyway, I will start acting honest intelligent and productive with my proposal of what is existence, here in very few words:

"Existence is the object of man's experience." ( 7 words )

We must work together, yes. I haven't known that to exist in any thread dealing with religion. I grow weary of them. All there ever is is fighting, bickering, deflection, or nitpicking about something, anything but what is broached.

I am sorry you have to experience that. As far as existence, I think your definition is far too limited, but I assume that you are simply trying to jumpstart a meaningful conversation. Personally, I would define existence as...

existence = life + consciousness

Existence has a transcendental quality. It is the "to be or not to be." It is Martin Heidegger's dasein. It is the soul of man. Which leads right back to God.

Existence is the object of man's experience. ( 7 words ) -Mariue

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


That above is my proposal of a definition of existence.

Suppose you all guys here propose also your definition of what is existence in not more than 10 words?

That should be a most honest intelligent and productive contribution from your part to the present thread.

Then we can work out together to arrive at a concurred on definition of what is existence, from the accumulated definitions from you all in not more than 10 words.

Recall that the OP has to do with the proposition of "From existence to the existence of God."

Once we have concurred on the definition of existence, then we can further work as to concur on what it is to prove something to exist, and finally concur on what is God.

So, for a starter, propose your definition of existence in not more than 10 words.

If you have already produced definitions of existence, please now just redraft it again as to come to not more than 10 words, okay?

Existence is life plus consciousness. (5 words)

cthia wrote:Existence is life plus consciousness. (5 words)

That is very good(?).

Still, it is not yet all comprehensive of everything that exists, for example, a pebble is not life but it exists, okay?

When you and I die, we no longer live, but still our earthly remains i.e. cadavers exist - until they come to degrade into chemical elements and compounds which are not possessed of life, but they exist, okay?

How do you define consciousness?

cthia wrote:Existence is life plus consciousness. (5 words)