Here is a riddle for ya'll!
Be cool with this one, for if you get too aggressive, you'll slip to the bottom...
Suppose, we are all born blind...ALL, I mean, the whole world! Will the Sun still shine like it does today?
(Does God exist?)
The sun would still shine like it does today.
This will present an argument from atheists and Christians because one has nothing to do with the other. Even if we were all struck blind tomorrow we would still know that the sun exists because we have proof of the existence of the sun.
What 'proof' would you have?
....And, would the Sun still exist, if everyone in this world were born blind?
Well, although I would not know for sure what it was feeling if I were born blind, there would still be evidence that the sun exists because if you are outside long enough, you would get a sunburn on your skin.. The only difference is that I wouldn't know to call it the sun
The issue we're facing here with your question is that ultimately even if we were born blind, the sun would still exist and we would have evidence of the existence of the sun though we wouldn't know what to call it. This would cause conflict because different people would call the sun different things.. The difference between the sun and God is that if we were born blind, there isn't really anything in God which would show evidence of His existence to our physical senses.
Another issue is that if we were all born blind, we would not be able to have had all of the advances we do now (books, written language... etc.. We wouldn't even have braille because we would have to be able to see in order to translate the letters to the raised dots.
Suppose, in that world where everyone is born blind, a man is born with eye-sight. Suppose, he loses his eyesight when he is still a teenager (14/15 years old).
Suppose, after he becomes blind, he meets with the rest of the world. He tells them (the people who are born blind) that the Sun exists, that the blue sky exists, that there are stars in the night sky..... how wonderful the world actually is....
Will anyone believe him?
Some will because if he at one time could see they will trust his experience.. Others will believe him because they could picture and imagine this idea. But some won't because they simply cannot look outside of their own experiences to picture anything different... Some won't have a guess nor a care one way or the other.
Edit: Even if a man was born with sight, since everyone else was born blind he wouldn't know what the sun was to call it the sun. At best he would either give it his own name or he would simply describe what he had seen
what's your point?
"Some will because if he at one time could see they will trust his experience.."
How would they know that 'he at one time could see'?
They wouldn't know.. But I did say that others would trust him because of their imagination...
Again.. What's your point?
in order for me to know what the sun is (it's not supposedly the sun, it IS the sun, for such and such scientific proofs) I must have birh read and seen it, therefore, no, if the whole planet population is blind, there is no difference or point in talking or knowing about any star...for blindness is all about darkness, and darkness is absence of colors, and absence of colors means no light reflection or refraction, and so...the answer to your prime question or the subprime, is a fat no.
I guess we rephrase the question..if all humankind on earth (there maybe others hanging around the universe ...if all were born blind since the beginning of times, we just would not have the 'concept' of a sun, we might even not have a language the way we know it, and remember that language 'restricts' our perceptions (with which we generate our concepts and elaborate them thru the power we may have with our language. Specilists of linguistics say that on top, there a cutural influence as add up to our forms/symbols etc, and, then, the never ending luggage of... traumas. Inherited, acquired, but traumas never the less. So if mankind already knew about the sun and then got all blind, it's a different story...I am guessing then that the question meant to be is if mankind was allways blind...Of course, being blind is a particular situation... and still allows concepts, but how so about the sun? The sun 'felt' (like thunders and lightnening? like earthquakes? like music? like softness of toucj=hing and hugs? and assurance of sympathies and support? Was not that the case of primitive man? Not knowing is a way of not seeing? and/or vice-versa? If God exists (which I believe) would then get a way to get to us... However, St Thomas invented "to see is to believe" but that has quite a particular context. He meant to believe that Resurrection did happen Thomas 'needed" to actually put his fingers thru the holes in Jesus hands...That is, more than faith, an insurance policy...then why would someone want to 'believe' if the condition is an insurance??? Does not make sense from the 'faith' point f view.
Yes if they are aware that they are blind.
No, if they are not aware that they are blind.
God exist only to those who are aware of Him.
How could someone not be aware that the eyes they were given were not functioning as according to their purpose?
Obviously from a purely scientific perspective yes. Would we be able to tell? Not as easily.
Light, heat, sound these things are physical realities not perceptions.
We accept the existence of anything by virtue of our experience of it in the past.
Anything that we are aware of happened in the past, even if it was only a micro-second ago. It takes a finite amount of time for the effect of anything to reach our senses, whether that sense be of hearing, seeing, etc. So, in regard to the sun, we presume that it exists, on the basis of the sensations (light and heat) that we receive right now. Yet those emanations of energy which we see or feel arose a finite time before hand.
Coming to the question of this Thread, I suspect the intention is to ask: "Is the existence of anything dependent upon our ability to perceive it?" I would answer, No, because we can conclude that the sun, etc., existed "before I was born." There is no proof, because it was in the past, but it's a reasonable conclusion to reach.
This brings me back to a favourite platform of mine, which several of you people will have seen before: the only point of reality is in this here and now, this infinite, no-past-no-future, Now. Quite a conundrum, really, and infinitely fascinating. You will be here forever trying to fathom it!
Well I can see here that this question is all about whether God exist or not?
The sun would still shine whether one is blind or not.
Let me share with you a simple story that I read the other day.
Let me share with you a short story...
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed.
As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.
They talked about so many things and various subjects.
When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said:
"I don't believe that God exists."
"Why do you say that?" asked the customer. "Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist.
Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people?
Would there be abandoned children?
If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain.
I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things."
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument.
The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.
Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard.
He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber:
"You know what? Barbers do not exist."
"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber.
"I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!"
"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because
if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."
"Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens when people do not come to me."
"Exactly!" affirmed the customer... "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist!
That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help.
That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."
The interesting thing is that mindexplorer1 is banned from hubpages. check out her profile...
By comparing apparently similar situations then extrapolating that, because it is proven and known that barbers exist, then by the same logic god exists, is not logic at all..... just playing illogical games.
You still have not proven that god exists, because god does not exist as we understand the word "exists" in this physical world.
I believe without the existence of any intelligent being the creation of the intelligent being that created the universe and everything in it was not possible. We can't say this creator is all accidental.
Keep that nonsense where it belongs. It's become quite old now. Bring something new.
A Creator is required for a physical Creation. God, if That exists, is not physical. He's outside time, and is not bound by time in any way.
Why didn't you practice what you preach? Why didn't you keep the nonsense where it belongs?
If god is not physical then matters are quite simple - god is a concept that exists only in the mind of a sentient being. Who is that being?
Time, who said anything about time? How is anybody "bound by time"? By using the minute hand?
It my response were really nonsense, then you would not have asked all these questions. Instead, you would have provided the obvious answers.
Tell me, what is sentience?
Ok, so why would you continue to refer to "god" as "He?" Is that not old-fashioned?
Great - I understand your opinion.
Now, can you tell us the reasoning used to come to that opinion? The observations made, the logical thought process or tests performed to get from observation to the conclusion?
A personal opinion is, after all, virtually worthless to anyone else without a thorough understanding of where it comes from. Only then can a listener (me) come to their own conclusion and opinion.
Try to describe to a blind person how the color 'golden' looks like. If you need it, anyway.
One of the nice things about the sun besides 'light' is warmth. Being blind, we'd be limited to feeling it, not seeing it. If we were a society that couldn't see or hear, (and assuming we survived predators) everything would be tailored to suit a world of hearing and feeling. Another thing you'd have to question would be if the animals were also blind. It makes an interesting concept for evolution and a possibility on what kind of people would exist on a world with either limited light, or in complete darkness (eyeball worlds).
If all mankind was born blind, they would not have the sense of sight. To say that the sun shines, distinguishes the quality of brightness. You cannot do that if you are blind. Additionally, if the sun did not exist, blind humankind could not be born into existence.
I'm not sure where you were going with this ME, though you certainly stirred up a lot of reaction. Please allow me to re-phrase the issue. Just because someone doesn't believe in gravity won't prevent them from plummeting to their death if they jump from a skyscraper. Though God is real, and has provided salvation for all of us in His Son, Jesus. Sadly their will be some who will not believe until they die and its too late to correct the skepticism.
The riddle makes me think of quicksand.
If we were blind, then we would know that something warm exists. We would sense its movement from the burning or cooling of our flesh. We would associate rain or snow with its absence. After a while, we would associate wind with this warm object, if we were as intelligent.
The only question would be if this warm object were a god. I think the same is for the question of the existence of God. We know there is some kind of force that creates life and intelligence. We just have different interpretations as to who or what that force is.
No, there is no known force that creates life and intelligence, unless you alone are aware of such of force?
Everyone is aware of a force of some type. that creates life.. See, ATM, when a man and a woman decide they like each other enough, the man inserts his...Were you not given this talk?
J/k.. I get your overall point..
Yes, ATM, you have a good point. But some of us have felt the warmth of the sun in our blindness. It is that warmth that is subject to private interpretation, and is, by no means, meant to convince the public; only the individual to whom that warmth comes.
We cannot see a force, only the manifestations of a force.
You feel the warmth of the sun.
Your skin still burns.
Your crops still die if they are scorched by it.
You would notice the difference in heat in areas closer to the equator.
If the sun was too close to the earth you would melt.
At night you would notice a difference in temperature.
The seasons especially speak of the change in heat.
Blind people are not unintelligent. They can still read, hear and feel. They simply can't see. Do you think they don't have a word for things they can't see? That would mean they didn't have a word for *anything. They have the same language we do and it would be impossible not to notice the sun. They can't see water, food or their parents. Do you think they would not notice the absence of this?
I think the overall point is if everyone in the world was born blind even to the beginning, would the sun still exist. This is a faith question
Yeah... I got it.
Did you notice that I gave many examples of how we would feel and notice the effects of the sun even if we were blind?
Yet, we notice the absence of gods, what does that say about intelligence?
Blind people could feel heat, could feel the direction it comes from, could feel plants and come to understand they need the heat source to grow. They would have access to ample direct and indirect evidence. So I think the analogy fails.
So change the sun to the moon or stars :-) and yes, in my opinion, as integrated as everything interacts there is an innate independence to the nature of existence.
Pretty much anything that physically exists at any distance can be clearly experienced (with agreement of multiple observers) without the use of sight, especially if you allow the use of technology. That is the difference.
This analogy is just stating the assumption of God in a different way and not demonstrating anything about it.
Is it not demonstrating anything about it? It reminds me a great deal of the, "if a tree falls in the wood and no one hears it did it really fall?" Aren't these prompts to question how self based our perceptions are?
Reality is not dependent on an observer. Whether we are aware of any part of it or not, it is still there. What lies at the bottom of the ocean is there, whether we have seen it yet or not. All that lies beyond our ability to detect exists. If no human lived, everything else would still be there. Reality does not depend on us to validate it as reality.
Yeh. That one seemed like a no brainer. The more interesting question would have been 'if God was blind would we exist?' We are one of the newest additions to reality, by our calculations. So, therefore, the least necessary observers.
But, don't you have to believe in reality to make it true?
That would make it true only to you. Would it not?
Then how do you make it objective? That is, how do you eliminate perceptions and see it objectively?
You cannot totally eliminate perceptions because we will always have an opinion and our feelings about a subject. At best, we can only step outside of ourselves to try to see and understand a differing point of view. the reality of events themselves are what happened. what we would have to eliminate is emotions and opinions as well as a desire to understand why something happened.
I suppose, the parts you have the ability to view objectively are done by a meticulous attempt to study and reach consensus. But, without accepting that some things don't fall into that category you can't claim objectivity. Imo.
Consensus is still a matter of perception, is it not? Once there was a consensus that earth was flat!
At that moment, in human history, were they in a position to make an informed decision? I think that is the greater point. You can't make claims that will stand the test of time without the information necessary to make an informed claim. Not and argue it as unarguable truth.
There are parts of the universe we can touch and feel. We can observe them at close range. They are of a size and proximity which allow us to minutely study them. We don't have a problem coming to consensus on these things. But some things are too far removed from us to make firm claims. Some things, although close at hand, are still too obscure to reach consensus. To argue over these things means little more than we have come to personal conclusions based on available data. To claim consensus where none yet exists is dishonest. Imo.
"Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the collection, identification, organization, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment. All perception involves signals in the nervous system, which in turn result from physical stimulation of the sense organs" (wikipedia)
Then, how to eliminate perceptions????? a bit difficult To interpret sensations is a perception, so we eliminate sensations!!!! and then...are we alive??? Reality IS, our perception is lower-case 'is' and why???? because is subjet to 'sensations' and our 'rationality' skilss..Rationality??? yes, that is, how reason-based are we reasoning whatever we are 'perceiving'...SO, I guess the answer to 'how do we eliminate perceptions' begs a quite different question "how do we become soundly reasonable on our perceptions'...there, we are still to step on the first stone of this looong journey of reason-God-faith-disbelief
Faith in "god" is beyond reason. Ask any person to explain their "beliefs" and they will depart from good sensible logical reason pretty quickly. They will even try to call their understanding scientific!
The word "faith" implies a departure from logical reason. But google the word "fovea" (which is the detail-enhancing part of the eye), and there should begin to be a trace of evidence of some type of design, after wondering how something like that can come about by natural selection.
Oh, I full understand you there, SamboRambo. I too cannot draw myself away from the probability that there is some kind of "designer" that is responsible for our conscious world. Yes, you mentioned the fovea, and I also look at the intricacies of all living things, the minute, microscopic details that allow a function to take place, all neatly co-ordinated and with every necessary sequential step built in. If there is a "designer" that conjured up such wonders, then the evolutionary process, or something along those lines, was probably used to build the creation.
If anyone thinks such stuff arose out of the blue, like a flash out of a Harry Potter wand, then holding such faith would be nonsensical in my estimation.
If this "designer" is referred to as "god" then I have no problem with that. The "god" bit simply refers to the mystery that will always exist. From that I gain more and more a sense of awe and great respect.
The bit I reject is adding onto that mysterious, wonderful "god" the man-made attributes of "father," "mother," (in the case of the Virgin Mary). the judge, the inquisitor, the stern school master who is going to whip your hide....... these attributes are man-made for the purpose of control over other people, and detract from looking inside of one's self to find the flaws and the solutions there.
If any individual wants to be controlled and feels comfortable under the thumb of such a controller, then that is his/her right and choice. But he/she has no right to impose such a control on my life. We have earthly laws, set and enacted by humans that do such a job and we have courts to make those decisions. There is no "god" involved.
But self admitted ignorance (how the fovea came to be) is not a logical reason to declare a method. Not understand how such a thing can come about by evolution does not logically transform into "God did it".
Just as you say "faith" implies a departure from logical reasoning.
It comes about due to huge amounts of time and small incremental steps. The eye would be a very poor design if designed. It wasn't, though.
I totally disagree with you JCL...you are mixing quite a bit...The proof is real though relative... Just analyze how unreasonable love in a couple can be, or just love from parents to children...There is a lot of non-sense yet sense or not, you cannot deny that love is there but with more lack of reasonable foundations than not...In love, we mix sensations, perceptions, hopes, dreams, failures, in a repetitive fashion that more often than not brings deception into the 'relationship' yest, YET, we keep up hoping...and it pays...Many divorcees, after the years, say that in viewing back, they considered the 'reason' for separation was not based on any unsurpassable conflict!!! Faith is based in non-reason?? that is too broad an statement to just fly fast after saying it...So you are 'ready' to state that most of the planet believe based in lack of reason? so we love unreasonable but without love what are we? And you consider yourself completely 'reasonable'??? my dear JCL, like the automated answering of any customer service keep saying: let's review the details...in the details is the 'nous'...cheers
Thank you Puella, you are free to disagree. Especially when you seem "fixed up," if not "mixed up," based upon what you want to believe. That's ok. We don't all have to believe what's dished up in front of us, and the world is big enough for difference of opinion.
Mary mary quite contrary, how does your garden grow...Yes, I know that I am free to disagree; and you too; that's not "in' question nor it is 'the' question...no wander you talk about 'mixed up'. Now, seriously, you do not believe what you want to believe? gee... Sometimes in life, you 'want' to believe in spite of reality...so it should not be surprising what we 'really' believe, in the end or, from the beginning right? I do not know what you believe but I surely know what I believe...and it does not worry me what you be;ieve nor what I do should worry you. Worry if/when these beliefs interfere with your life in a way that precludes you from being what you consider you want to be... If it's "fixed up" or "mixed up" then it is my reality and what this means is exactly what most here have been spelling: it's reality weather you see it or not...It's reality for any if.when he/she finally 'realizes'...other than that, just because you do not agree you give it a name of fixed or mixed up, then that's the reality for you, but is it real or true? cheers...thanks for the opportunity to easily show precisely what we were talking about all along...cheers
Ok, would you like to spell it out, clearly and simply, exactly what you believe? Then you will be able to see for yourself what you want to believe.
I have sorted out in my own mind, at my own pace, what I do not want to accept, i.e., the existence of an afterlife in which I personally, individually, will have any consciousness at all. Therefore I do not accept the existence of a judgmental god that will be waiting to judge me for the quality of my life. Therefore I exclude any need to concentrate upon such an "afterlife" and can spend much more time on doing what I can, positively and helpfully, in this life. I can draw from any of the philosophies and religions available the morals and principles which suite my perception and sense of what is right.
It is probable that you will totally disagree with me on most of these points but, as I said previously, that is your choice. In reading about your choices in what you believe, for yourself, I will continue to respect that for you, as long as it is not put over to me as fact or facts that I need to take on board myself.
Is this clear enough? Does it help us to accept and respect each others' points of view and live in community?
I know this post is slightly off topic for this Hub, but these points need to be made, I feel.
So for you to disagree is to disrespect? then JCL I am sorry to disagree again...I am not trying to 'make' you believe anything and I would not have ever thought that you wanted to 'make' me believe your creed. Evolution springs from disagreements and adapting...springs for and to changes...and choices...; in order for s to evolve and grow we need to adapt, to change, to tolerate and not blister for a sun we do not see. In the future, be assured that I will not refer to you anymore as I know it bothers you...sorry...
Where and how did I imply that to "disagree" is to "disrespect?" I was under the impression that I was offering respect regardless of disagreement, provided there was no pressure upon me to agree; and of course I put no pressure upon you to agree with me.
Whether any of us wants to "believe" that the sun exists regardless of our agreeing about it, is a very convoluted question and probably destined for the too-hard basket, like the chicken and the egg!
I will stop cackling and crowing about it.
as scientific as the 'proofs' that God does not exist; and if, a lot of iffs, the answer to this is that the burden of the proof is on the believers, then how come the non-believers are so occupied with reasoning after reasoning, to just come up saying that the burden is bla bla bla...There are hubs here that call the non-believing another sort of religions, based, though, in the pride it gives them to 'beat' the 'believers' in their reasoning. For asking to treat the hypothesis that God exists as if it were a 'science' topic and reject the evidences for 'lacking' science is a contradiction. How if the definition of God is about spiritual realm dies it have to be able to be submitted to 'science' evidencing?? how then hypothesis on material stuff could be, then, be proved true by means of spiritual methods/evidence? In science, what comes around goes around (to fulfill the equations...and remember almost everything is 'equational'... The argument that any explanation 'reasoned' by christians is said to water down to 'non-scientific" If anybody considering himself a scientific required the scientific method to be used to prove God's existence, then we are all pan seared... But, still, science can use some 'intuition' to proceed in a certain route to achieve a proof...that is called 'guts' and guts has more about non science than science is it for this 'nature' that science has also watered down some of ots proofs about God? failed intuition? what makes an intuition an intuition? do we follow our intuitions? I am afraid that boxed minds do not but feel entitled to called others 'boxed and mixed ups and fixed ups"...unfixable as it seems, there still rooms for perfection if that is a, if any, a goal, in the lives of the outboxed...And why is that i can feel that God dwells in me? beware of some 'reasons'...there has to be a good, cocise, consistent with the definition of God, reasons...and then, we go back to square one: did not I say that I do not expect/believe in a judgemental Gd? then of what God am I speaking when I say "what if I am a microGod"...I believe that micro is a hook to be thought after and of...I think...therefore I believe...and of course, as I see myself as part of God and see god as part of me, I exist...
Faith, belief, and all that jazzz: pse. read @ Wikipedia…:
"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. Dispositional and occurrent belief concerns the contextual activation of the belief into thoughts (reactive of propositions) or ideas (based on the belief's premise).
Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief. The primary problem in epistemology is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have true knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as "justified true belief". The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.
Philosopher Lynne Rudder Baker has outlined four main contemporary approaches to belief in her controversial book Saving Belief:
• Our common-sense understanding of belief is correct - Sometimes called the "mental sentence theory," in this conception, beliefs exist as coherent entities, and the way we talk about them in everyday life is a valid basis for scientific endeavour. Jerry Fodor is one of the principal defenders of this point of view.
• Our common-sense understanding of belief may not be entirely correct, but it is close enough to make some useful predictions - This view argues that we will eventually reject the idea of belief as we use it now, but that there may be a correlation between what we take to be a belief when someone says "I believe that snow is white" and how a future theory of psychology will explain this behaviour. Most notably, philosopher Stephen Stich has argued for this particular understanding of belief.
• Our common-sense understanding of belief is entirely wrong and will be completely superseded by a radically different theory that will have no use for the concept of belief as we know it - Known as eliminativism, this view, (most notably proposed by Paul and Patricia Churchland), argues that the concept of belief is like obsolete theories of times past such as the four humours theory of medicine, or the phlogiston theory of combustion. In these cases science hasn't provided us with a more detailed account of these theories, but completely rejected them as valid scientific concepts to be replaced by entirely different accounts. The Churchlands argue that our common-sense concept of belief is similar in that as we discover more about neuroscience and the brain, the inevitable conclusion will be to reject the belief hypothesis in its entirety.
• Our common-sense understanding of belief is entirely wrong; however, treating people, animals, and even computers as if they had beliefs is often a successful strategy - The major proponents of this view, Daniel Dennett and Lynne Rudder Baker, are both eliminativists in that they hold that beliefs are not a scientifically valid concept, but they don't go as far as rejecting the concept of belief as a predictive device. Dennett gives the example of playing a computer at chess. While few people would agree that the computer held beliefs, treating the computer as if it did (e.g. that the computer believes that taking the opposition's queen will give it a considerable advantage) is likely to be a successful and predictive strategy. In this understanding of belief, named by Dennett the intentional stance, belief-based explanations of mind and behaviour are at a different level of explanation and are not reducible to those based on fundamental neuroscience, although both may be explanatory at their own level.
To "believe in" someone or something is a distinct concept from "believe-that." There are two types of belief-in:
• Commendatory - an expression of confidence in a person or entity, as in, "I believe in his ability to do the job."
• Existential claim - to claim belief in the existence of an entity or phenomenon with the implied need to justify its claim to existence. It is often used when the entity is not real, or its existence is in doubt. "He believes in witches and ghosts" or "many children believe in Santa Claus" are typical examples.
Puella, would you like to tell us, in a maximum of THREE lines, just what your main point is?
Three lines? no, impossible! sorry... But since you say that reality is perceived only when it 'changes', I felt the need to clarify a bit on some terms...For example, what do we do with a perceived reality? what do you do with that? What a/any perception comes, in the end, to imply, in our life? and what do I care to 'perceive' it..why not turning our face the other way when I perceive what I perceive as a 'reality? and why do you, JCL assure that we only perceive reality when it changes!!!!! I think the opposite to be true: we perceived if/only we are 'ready' and not reality is ready..so the main changes happening in a process must spring from man and not context...Man has to interpret a context to then declare a preception to then a concept to then knowledge, the g=final frontier...and what do we do with knowledge??? let's ask uncle Sherlock ...See? impossib;le in three lines...
yeap me too...not that is not important but it's hard to write spontaneously and be short when, iff, then, else, therefores, all is involeved, ingrained, in the only thinh we, as humans, can do...try to be happy about what we've got, accpet it the way we've got it, project our acceptance to the rest, and live alife that at least is fulfilling without affecting in the negative the life of others...only one commandment Jesus left and that is the root to so much...yeah, I too give up but not concerned...I know you and everybody else are trying your best to bring your own, particular best to yoyr context...your little 2 cents...imagine, multyply 2 cents by some billion!!! if each would contribute with as much as 2 cents
"how do we become soundly reasonable on our perceptions"
I would rather say, how do we become soundly reasonable inspite of our perceptions
The on;y way to do that would be to remain as objective regarding possibilities as possible. This would involve doing what few people are willing to do, which is to acknnowledge the possibility that they could be wrong in what they believe
Soundly reasonable on our perceptions ...It is said that decisions are not good or bad...just facts/context good or bad analyzed. Analysis means to decompose to then compose; however, and here is the 'human' aspect that contributes more to decompose than to compose, everything has to be filtered by our minds in a thought processing; our minds do, really DO keep records of everything since it can record in the mom's womb...whatever science 'decides' when that happens should not be the issue... so, no matter how unbiased anybody wants to be, ithere will always be a tint/tilt far from objectivity; and so, we create norms, rules, laws, for the generality, and we even do guidelines for the particular cases, but there is also the presence of loopholes...so it happens in our minds too...loopholes which are created/generated by our flaws. Flaws??? of course...we are not/never perfect; only God is
Even in statistical experiments, we allow for a portion of a certain size in a sample not to conform to the main pattern and declare with a formal statement that 'this' phenomenon is 'highly' probable to be "that'...because it is impossible to gather all the data that there is and analyze it: we are physically finite and mentally restricted, precisely by our upbringing and patterns toward our social life...
If we, with our own kids do fail in our perceptions!!! and in spite of our infinite and undying love for them, we still fail them, what can we speak or say about reasonable perceptions?!!! We are what we are and so our statements and beliefs...all flawed, but by no means, unvaluable. We still do what we must, out of love and responsability and we enjoy doing our parts (if we are 'sane') that is...but 'reasonablt sane.... So the answer to you is: I do not see how we can be reasonable in spite of perceptions...but we try for our own sake...
No.. Reality happens whether we want to believe them or not. The earth was round even when people swore it was flat. That is reality. Evolution happened whether we want to believe it or not.
Reality keeps going untouched. the only thing that changes is our perception of said reality.
I would say that our perception of reality changes and reality is only perceived because of change itself.
Without the change we cannot perceive.
How do you know it is reality?
PS: It was a dig at Emile, a little sarcastic question. I know reality do not change. Weren't we discussing 'reality' two days before?
Because no matter If we see it or not or how we see it, reality is what it is.. How we see the events happening does not change the fact that it happened..
Personal example. My father left home when I was 7 years old. This is reality. My father was a drug addict. This is reality. I was unaware of this fact until I was 9 , but that doesn't change that it was reality. I thought he left because my mother chased him away. My brothers figure he left because of his addictions. But he still left. But the reality is that he left.
There is no contention here. My question is regarding "reality is what it is". How to "totally eliminate perceptions"?
There is no way to totally eliminate perceptions because to do so would mean that we all think alike and we were not designed (for lack of a better term) that way
So what if the question is the other way round, that is, can something exist if nobody perceived it?
Yes, something can still exist if nobody can perceive it as it is. This almost is the same as the OP's question.. Even if nobody were able to have ever seen the sun, the sun would still exist. The only thing that would change is how we perceive it.
We were discussing perception of reality two days ago.
Reality is that which is real. It cannot be changed for it is fact.
We can believe whatever we want concerning God, but He is either real or He is not.
I find it funny when ppl say the burden of proof is on the believer. That is a term used when a prosecutor is hired to prove a defendant's guilt. The success of their career is on the line. However, what does the believer gain or lose should a non-believer continue in their unbelief? The gain is for the un-believer if there is a God and they seek Him out and believe. Otherwise, if there is a God and the un-believer rejects Him, they have sacrificed salvation. That is the burden. A burden to great for any soul to bear.
Personally, I have told you God is real. I have given experiential evidence that you dismiss. Ok. I have given others testimony, including scientist, archaeologists and medical professionals. You dismiss it. Ok. Now all I can do is pray for you, but there is no burden. I lay my head on my pillow at night and know I have tried, I am still trying, but whether or not you actually seek the truth, is on you.
Now can you tell me what you mean by god, real and believe.
If you say god is the creator, how did he created by being nothing himself?
That is an old argument, Pascal's Wager. Souls have never been shown to exist.
No, you have never provided any experimental evidence.
Testimonies are not valid without evidence.
You need not lose any sleep over us, we're just fine, thanks.
I have no burden being an atheist, becoming an atheist at a young age as I saw through a lot of the Christians at the church. They only ever believed in god because they were scared not because they really believed him or had proof. I was a youngster and I could see god wasn't real.
ANY REAL good god would not look at innocent children starving and suffering and not do anything. Anyone with a heart, even mere mortals humans have mercy, this god has none. ANY true god would not let people suffer for eternity in hell if you believe that you are a deluded as the bible.
The bible is one of the most repulsive books I have ever read which basically reads believe in god or go to hell (sorry for spoiling it if you havent read the bible ).
I go each day knowing I do my best in life and follow a moral code which has nothing to do with god. If I go to hell after living a moral life I will accept there is a god and I will accept that he is evil not good or the deluded good he thinks he is. No one with any human compassion would throw an innocent baby into the flames of hell for eternity because they were aborted. Sure the churches came up with a concept that the babies will go to limbo but where did they get that idea from. What about atheists.
Im glad for you that you take comfort in this 'good god' pray to your invisible friend if it makes you happy and I'll talk to mine (Santa claus) . No doubt you believe in god because you were brought up that way, you can break free from that and live a life of freedom being a good person you don't need to follow nonsense rules that have no justification. I tried to tell you giving you all the evidence which far outweighs anything a Christian can say to prove god, I put my head on my pillow every night feeling happy that I can be the good person I want to be and not be scared like I was when I was a kid that one day I would rot in hell because I was not worthy of heaven.
I could not say it better. Voted up +++
Spoken like a true "born again," that's got it, and it's got him.
If your rocky road has led you to this point in your life, simply rejoice in it, for yourself, then have empathy with others who are also travelling their own road. You cannot direct their path. You are simply here to help IF asked to. Your own road cannot be transplanted onto someone else, you are not in a position to know their needs. No matter what your pastor tries to convince you.
See, I don't know about that, Beth. Think of it this way. Everything we see or hear or feel, happens that way ONLY because we all, as a collective conciousness, perceive it and agree on one general Idea of what the sun actually is. for everyone it is a completely different perception. So in my eyes at least, I feel that it would be Very possible, if every living thing on the Earth were blind, for the sun not to shine at all the way we "perceive" it does now. I'm not saying that For sure the Sun Wouldn't shine, I'm just saying I think the concept is %100 valid and applicable to everyday life. If we all agree that General Boulderdash (fictional example) is a terrible terrible man with a LOT of power, then he always WILL have lots of power. The same goes for the Sun, If we all keep agreeing that it shines and burns our skin, it always will. Just thought I'd throw another perspective into the melting pot!
So if we say the sun does not blister our skin, it does not?
If enough of us know and accept a general "idea" of functionality such as "the Sun doesn't Have to burn us" and everyone involved merely changes their Perception of the the Sun, we will realize that the effects of our natural environment are only a projection of our individual inner being. The reality You perceive is ONLY a Reflection of what lies IN YOU! Reality that exists outside of you is only a mirror. If enough people find a way to change their concious perspective, they will adapt to certain things in their physical reflection. It's simple, yet Infinitely complicated. I plan on covering many of these topics on my Hub very soon.
Well this is a very simple story...I cannot show you God here in writing. .. drop this logic thing for a moment.. come to him, you will find him...
check out my this hub, hope it help you see the truth...
Your version, your understanding of "god" is not for me, thank you. For yourself, that is fine, and I wish you well.
I am just giving my opinion. Anyway thanks !
Thank you, Raitu. I am not of course against you holding your views, and respect you having them.
I, like so many others here, do hold to the possibility that there is/was some kind of designer. The nature of that force/energy/entity, whatever one likes to call it, cannot be known by us for certain. All we can do is admire, live in awe, try to treat the "creation" sensitively and without destroying everything we touch. We are blessed with the ability to be conscious of it all.
As said in other posts and hubs, I don't go along with a "judgmental" god. That function is performed by my fellow humans, for good or ill.
I really appreciated that post. It was, at least to me, very enlightened and it spoke of possibilities and I was impressed by that, but there was one point, I had to address if you don't mind.
No matter who God is... angry, patient, loving, judgmental... no matter the aspect... if He *is... then He is. You cannot fashion Him to suit your imagination. A real, live God is gonna come pre-set.
"God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” Ex 3:14
God looks like every single thing that exists in the Universe existing at one time.
Oh my word! I can't believe this info has just been revealed on a tiny thread on a slightly larger forum on a small, but well loved site called Hubpages.
It's beautiful isn't it. I wasn't around for all of the discussion, but reading it is just exhilarating!
Just a thought here, by way of discussion: What if the God that Is, i.e., the I AM, consists of everything that is finite? What if you, and I, and every living thing, being the manifestation of that "god," are the God? Extend this into the inanimate things of this world. These also are god? Being finite, each part can be measured, yet the continuum of existence is infinite, it can't be measured by anything earthly.
If you can agree upon what I have hypothesized above, then we don't have to imagine God any more, because God becomes knowable.
All the time the "belief" in God is couched in someone's imagination, which that someone tries to convince everyone else about, none of us can agree about that imagination, because it's a different perception for each of us.
I am thinking aloud here, but my suggestion seems to be pointing more to the Pagan concept, and that appeals to me.
So, the "I AM" is God. Jesus said "I AM." You and I can say, "I AM." Each of us is an aspect of God.
I see that god of your religion as being only in your imagination.
" You cannot fashion Him to suit your imagination." ---- You can and you do, to suit yourself!
Not trying to be critical here, so much as to simply point out to you what in fact happens.
God is gracious and merciful!
He loves us... He wants only the best for us...
He loves the sinner , not the sin...
He is holy, .. So He will destroy all that is unclean and sinful,
He will judge all the evildoers...
Come to Him before , its too late..
No one here can show you who God is, you have to experience it by yourself, check out this hub, I hope it will show you some important truth..
I know nobody would want to hear this, but that's the truth... Instead of asking others, try to experience it by yourself. This is the best test...Here I am referring to everyone, including me...
Fully understand you. I have been down that road myself, and found only my own ego. It was disguised as a christian who was born again (at least, that is what others told me I was). It stopped me seeing the world in reality. It was only painted in the terms I wanted. Now, having shed that stuff, I can see that the world is infinitely big, infinitely small, able to incorporated the views of a person like yourself, and myself. I have chosen not to keep the concept of god which is yours. You and I are equally valid. Don't waste your time on my journey, I can handle it.
I am not telling you how to handle your life. This is a place where we are free to disagree. This is forum!..You can continue in your way, it's your will, i am just giving my opinion. I am glad you found something to hold on to. continue you journey...
I would hate to scare people who aren't ready! Patience is a virtue. Besides, the media would twist it for profit!
I wouldn't care, because at least then people would know if 'god' is real. Everyone would know and all this mess with religions would be over and done with as soon as whatever 'real' god there is steps up and declares itself. Up to this point however, none had stepped up. It's all just books and more books. More BS and holier than thou crap. And people are tired of crap.
Don't perceive the crap! You don't have too see or hear it. In a sense we are all God. Everything that exists is God. As long as you can find yourself, you can find God.
No, I don't believe in concepts like that. I'm happy being a human being. And yes there is a lot of crap. Saying 'don't perceive the crap' is the same as 'don't pay too much attention and ignore it'. Yes, yes I will pay attention and I won't back down.
this link was deleted, so I am posting here again- <link snipped> , Does God exist?
I agree jonnycomelately,
And the words "I AM" are powerful indeed.
Possibly the question must be asked if our sole purpose on this planet is to ensure that our soul has a heavenly future.
If that is the case then I would suggest that we all stop what we are doing right now, repent, repent and repent some more and forgo anything in the future that might be construed as unholy - and that would be almost everything. If you believe in God but do not abide by biblical principals will you be condemned or do you have to believe and be holier than thou? If we are to be judged on judgement day than 99.9999999% of us are going to have a hellish future. How good or bad do you have to be to cross the fine white line into heaven?
Are there different Gods who look more or less favorably on different actions? Surely not!!! - Our heavenly father must surely be a father of immense love and forgiveness, for why would be be subjected to this earth, be given free thought and then condemned for it afterwards???
Is God sitting on a throne in heaven or is he with us and within us? Is God an all powerful soul who runs the universe with an iron fist or is God the actual universe itself - the one that we live in.
We live in the universe and the universe (which is God) lives in us!!!!!
In other words, is God possibly like a massive puzzle and we are all parts of the puzzle that make up the universe. In other words we are all tiny parts of God himself - because we are his children. We as parents would never destroy our own children, no matter what - so would God destroy his children and condemn them to everlasting hell. That is not God the Father that I know and believe in.
Timaeus of Locris described God as a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere. - Though provoking, not so?
If God loves us deeply than he is part of us and why would God destroy part of himself?
Helen Keller had some apt words in this regard when she stated that what we once enjoyed and deeply loved we can never lose, for all that we love deeply becomes part of us!!
Mikesage, you have the courage and intelligence to look beyond the square.
I suggest that anyone with a christian perspective could, if they want to, look outside of the biblical scriptures, outside of their treasured concepts, outside of the dogma. Have a look at some of the understandings which have come through such other enlightened minds such as the Buddha and sages. (No pun intended Mike.) If your faith is as strong as you claim it is, then there can be no danger to you exploring other aspects of life.
Ultimately, you will either advance beyond the narrow constructs of christianity, and have a more beautiful, wonderful view of the world, OR you will fall back into your old, comfortable belief system.
You will at least have a much more informed choice and be all the stronger for it, as a person.
Agreed, and nice to see that there are others who think the same way.
We all need to look beyond the square or out of the box. If not, we are destined to be swallowed up by blown into oblivion. I think the same applies to all religions and other vices.
Faith is the important issue, the way one lives in goodness and righteousness. If Christians (and other religions) actually read the parts of the bible, apocryphal texts, that the powers that be would prefer us not to read, then I think one will notice that the Buddha (The Wise Old Sage - (also no pun intended) and Christians are actually quite close to each other. Did Jesus actually study Buddhism in the missing years and is Christianity an off shoot of Judaism and Buddhism and even Greek philosophy?? There are many parallels that make this a distinct possibility.
Belief systems are fine, but it is the rigidity that becomes problematic. Hence all the trouble in the world at present. Its all about dogmatic and fundamentalistic (If there is such a word) beliefs.
But then when it comes to religion there is, for the foreseeable future, not going to be an agreement on these matters - sigh!!!! I think we need a new world order!!
This website is maybe controversial but a great read - http://www.thezensite.com/non_Zen/Was_J … dhist.html
"outside the box", "narrow constructs"...etc etc etc...Christianity and budists and everyone is made up of the very same 4 elements (so physicists say), so we luckily or unfortunately, are all squared up by a common box: ego (ne of the most damaging elements)
Once ego, in the name of 'me, only me and nothing but me" or some others less open-mouthed, "I a first, I am second and then, just in case, I al so third" in priorities...All this has nothing to do with Xtianity, it all has to do with traumas, social, physical, emotional, traumas, and even, poverty traumas...Whereas we can do a limited improvement of some of those traumas, including the poverty one, we still are years-light from being the "I am" we pretend to declare, as if saying and believing that is,IS, the real thing...Actually, whenever we can heartedly say "I am YOU" with all that it takes...and therefore "You are me too"... which is pretty much the main commandment that Jesus left us to live by, is the real box to be in. In the mean time, anybody can fill all of the newspapers and all of trees converted to papers and all of the messages in the internet, preaching about "if I can define and mean that I am" and If the rest of the humans can respect me for who I am, then number 1, I conlcude that indeed I am, and seciod, I conclude that I have lived a worthemwhile life"...so far, thats very peculiar and at the same time common...It's the common criticisms...but like an empty cheese sandwich, it's missing the cheese...Sorry, this is thinking outside the box? or, it is thinking outside the box! or is it any thinking?! Onecan live without the anxiety of 'controlling' the future, one can live without the anxiety of 'knowing' (remember Adan and Eve?) and one can live by our own set values...weather they are consistent with Xtian's or not, it does not matter, in the end, sages of all ages, credos of all faiths, philosophy of thought, and whatever, they all have a congruence: to live is to seek, to live is to suffer, to live is to overcome failures, to love is to live and not to love is to die little by little...I am a nobody to say what Xtians do wrong or what budits do wrong ; I am responsible to my self and to humankind of what I do wrong. Nobody has to tell me: I know when I ahave been wrong. The less you ack, failures, the worst human you become; the worst to be forgiving of others, the worst you become, the worst you handle others, the worst you become...What about the worst of others??? that's none of my business...How about that!
The rigidity has nothing to do with the faith itself but with, guess who, all of us...Rigidity is a consequence of coldness (if it happens in metals, it can happen in hearts..remeber, we are all made out of the same 4 elements, only diffrence is the proprtions of those for eah different species, and then, yes, the traumas...)... Rigidity is not a spiritual feature...criticisms are...Rigidity, if (a lot of iffes) has more to do with wanting to get the right things done...Not hat I advocate for it, but it has an explanation. Complaining/whining is never going to solve it...even if it reahes to solutions because like I said in one of the criptical paragrapghs, outside the box is forthe 'outsider' a whoever feels being an outsider then has to accept/admit that outsiders remain outsiders for the one and only one statistical reason of percentages...Nothing else or more...It's just plain statistical... What is called "normal" has nothing to do with normalcy...has to do with high frequency, but that does not mean that that 'normal' is right!!! a trick of etatistics...
No more powerful than the words "YOU ARE" unless perhaps, I didn't use caps.
I can't decide whether someone should just kill me now or somehow let me live forever.
Why can't it be simpler and more understandable if we just say there is the universe and we live in it. Adding gods to the equation only serves to bring up questions, adds complexity and is much less understood.
I think I'm going to follow you, just for asking this question.
If you buy Bishop Berkeley's argument against the existence of an external material world, the answer is...YES, because God is perceiving it ! (I am assuming you've read Berkeley. If not, this response will seem confusing to you).
If Berkeley is right, and God does not exist, then the answer would probably be no, or if not no, the existence would be a very strange one.
If God could 'consciously' perceive It's own Creation, then It wouldn't have had the need to send human beings into this world.
Well for Berkeley it would all be part of God's perception right?
I also don't know why it would follow that if God is the source of all reality (assuming Berkeley's concept is coherent), humans wouldn't be sent to the world. Why must that be the case?
Some may not believe the Sun was a good metaphor for your topic of discussion. Since we would still be able to "feel" the Sun's warmth and the Sun would still provide nourishment for the all of the living creatures on Earth. But for me, I believe that there is a God, simply because I can feel his presence and see how he nourishes the people around me. That question is similar to the "would a tree still fall in the forest, if there was no one around to hear it" Of course it would!
by Jeffrey Maskel 3 years ago
What is the difference between living and existing?
by Chouji-Von-Lycan 7 years ago
it's simple, of course they exist, otherwise how else would we so readily know what they are, if they didn't exist we wouldn't know about them to argue of the existence of themalso, if you think of God(s) as the force, that makes things be, then they exist, otherwise, things wouldn't exist
by Alan 3 years ago
In other words, does the existence of "God" depend upon the mind of Man to support that existence?
by AKA Winston 6 years ago
I have heard all sorts of arguments about existence, how the laws of logic exist, how morality exists, how love exists, and so on. I have tried to challenge these assumptions with the object/concept explanation, but that seems to be either too simple or too difficult to accept for many -...
by Thom Carnes 9 years ago
A few weeks ago I asked what I thought was quite a serious, searching question about the existence of God, and was rather disappointed when it got a very limited response. (This could have been because we were all wrestling this other equally important issues at the time.)Peter Lopez made a valiant...
by Eric Dierker 19 months ago
Are we born with original sin? I do not think so. Correct me if I am wrong.We have the Council of Nicea. We have Augustine and we have Paul. Some claim Adam and Eve sealed the sin deal for every wonderful beautiful baby born. If you wanted to you could show some interesting notions regarding...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|