[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…thank you for actually answering the question; [/quote] You are welcome. I thought it was an honest question and I was aware any positive answer would be interpreted as a subjective experience and I will get into why next.[quote]
however… substituting feelings for proof is the crux of the issue.[/quote]
You are absolutely correct is the crux of the issue; and that is why I said it was fact God is absent from the world - it isn’t necessarily what I believe but something that can be logically observed, though it is a correlation.[/quote]
…how can you say that’s a fact when you can’t establish that God actually exists?
[quote]Secondly, never did I say anything about feelings, this is your interpretation.
I said I see God every time I experience love. Love is not a feeling. Love is a sensation. Many feelings arise in the presence of love but love itself IS NOT a feeling. Conversely, many feelings arise in the absence of love; such as rejection and futility.[/quote]
…sensations or feelings are different names for the same thing: a brain-based reaction to a self inflicted trigger. The reason why i said it’s a feeling is because these issues do not venture outside the realm of subjectivity. They are a personal interpretation of ones of inner world that may not be objectified or superimposed on the outside world. This is one reason why the French developed separation of Church and State…
[quote]I cannot see the wind and yet when I sense the breeze in my hair I know the wind is present, in that moment, until it passes and the sensation is gone and I know the wind is absent. When the sensation of the wind is, I experience feelings of joy, surrender and pleasure but the breeze itself is not a feeling ( for example: I don’t feel breezed.).
So why do we attribute feeling loved with proof of God’s existence? It isn’t.
Feelings are not proof.
Exactly. In fact, many crimes are committed “in the name of God” precisely because people attribute their feeling nature to being guided by God.
At best, feelings are indicative of personal experiences, If God were present in the world His presence would be sensed collectively, and if he has left us to our own devices “seeing” God does indeed becomes an individual experience, based on how opened one is to sensory experiences: Just as some of us are more intelligent than others, some of us are sharper with our senses.[/quote]
…and yet again you go from the assumption that God exists, and now you base it on some kind of authority-fallacy?
[quote]which aren’t proof either.
You are correct, personal experiences are not proof of God’s existence.
Unless you are seeing the world through my eyes, why should your eyes see what I see if we are not watching the same channel? What we currently have is the concept of God. What you want is the perception of God: that proof may or may not have ever been part of your individual conscience. As per collective conscience I can say I see what you see; no proof of God, and in fact, some major dysfunction collectively going on.[/quote]
…well, that’s not entirely true, is it? The recent secularisation of the western world is a fairly modern one. It wasn’t after the 1960’s or so that that started to happen; before that the world would’ve been collectively functional?
[quote]And though I have never perceived God to be present on the collective conscience of man, on the individual level of the conscience of man I have. For example; if you have never looked at another human face and became conscious of God then my words will always be “female anatomy” to you, and on a collective level I agree with you: there is no evidence of God. And we know that because Obama is.
( My meaning being; for someone like him to be elected by the collective mind, that must count for some evidence of Divine absence in the collective conscience, no?). Anyway, that is just a little joke to further illustrate my meaning.[/quote]
…hmm, if you want to see evidence for God, you’re going to see it in everything, joke or not…
…could you preface such statements when you write them, please? Otherwise you can just say anything and later on deny ownership by saying the above. It’s dishonest debating, imo…
[quote]…but i do object against wilfull ignorance of scientific facts in favor of innane, and quite frankly utterly childish, ideas like creationism and young-earth beliefs. I think beliefs like that are harmful…
Yes, many things are harmful. And I hope you will have the clarity of mind to discern them regardless of their coating. The coat of science can be harmful, too, and one can become equally wilfully obstinate in wanting to be right or proving that others are wrong.[/quote]
…if having proof of something, like what hominids they found in S.A., which is proof of our early ancestors in regards to evolution, and continue to teach creationism in schools; or at least try to remove teaching of evolution in schools in favor of religious beliefs, then i’m going to object to that…
…again, when a generation of people are taught beliefs instead of facts. When, in my opinion, kids are dumbed-down for nefarious reasons, i’m going to speak out against that because no-one owns me. I’m not governed by a institution or a set of beliefs that wants me to behave a certain way, or to think a certain way. You’re not giving God his due by believing in him; you are submitting to the will of men…
[quote]This is the point Puushharder has been making all along; in that in many respects the scientific conscience is no different from the conscience of the “faithful”; in that you are both being owned by your own desire to be right.
To see God is to know one’s place in the larger scheme of things.
I see very few people display authentic evidence of that and being so, I am not surprised you see no proof of God.[/quote]
…push denies facts, evidence and proof in favor of delusion, belief and conjecture. You are substituting rationality for irrationality while claiming it’s truth, and thus we continue the dance. While i prefer dancing with you than with push, at the end of the day it’s as equally pointless, but i do thank you Alpha F, you’ve been most courteous…