If you think you can figure out why people believe what they do without analyzing their minds as shaped by their experiences, then you're going to have a very superficial and unrealistic picture of the human reality behind those beliefs.
The whole idea that we can dispassionately believe something is, I believe, a fallacy.
@LeakyNun If I believe in God and the other person doesn't, then there will be no useful discussion anyway. At the end of the discussion, we'll still disagree just as much as we did before, because we're discussing based on conflicting premises.
That's why all your debates between YECs and evolutionary biologists are total flops.
@LeakyNun If there is a God as I conceive of God, then everything in creation is in some way contained within the being of God. Even things that are a distortion of what's in God still owe their existence to the original elements of God of which they are a distortion. So if you believe in God, there is "nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9) in the sense that we cannot actually have a truly original idea. It had to come from somewhere, and ultimately, it had to come from God.
@LeakyNun Because, in my view, we can't actually invent anything that has no prior sources. And I don't see any prior sources in nature for a concept of God.
Ergo, assuming a God who has the qualities and relationship to Creation that I believe God has, it would be impossible to believe in gods without having some prior conception of God given to us or implanted in us in some way.
@LeakyNun The idea that we came up with gods because of lightning and thunder is an atheist idea. It assumes that there is no God, and that therefore we must have fabricated that idea somehow. And we fabricated it, they say, out of powerful and scary things in nature.
And my view is that if nature were all that existed, we would never come up with the idea of a god even from the scariest things in nature, because we'd have no basis in any kind of information or data present in our mind and memory to come up with such an idea.
@LeakyNun Then why don't atheists seriously consider the possibility that people might have come up with their gods because there actually are gods?
Atheists have a problem: They have to come up with some explanation for the fact that a massive number of people believe in a God or gods.
@LeakyNun Well, I do think they're irrational. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they rule out as valid any arguments that take "There is a God" as a premise. That actually is tautological. They do that by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't be atheists.
@LeakyNun No. I'm saying they've rejected the possibility that the premise might be true. Another way of saying this is: "They're atheists."
@LeeWoofenden I already said that I can't tell you about anything about atheists in general
except that they don't believe in God
Here is an argument: 1. Premise one: it is reasonable to believe that which is true. 2. Premise two: it is true that God exists 3. Conclusion: therefore, it is reasonable to believe that God exists. Guess which premise(s) I have a problem with.
@LeakyNun You seem not to want to deal with your own specific issues with God, but to keep it on a general level. If you want to have a personal conversation about God, I'm all about that. But you'd have to understand that my goal would be to weaken your atheism and plant seeds that at some point might grow into a stable belief in a believable (to you) God.
I'm a minister. My job is to bring God into people's lives. Do you really want to have that conversation with me?
@LeeWoofenden I don't want to deal with my own specifric issues with God in this very moment because we are not having an argument about my issues with God
I'm discussing whether the concept of God is required for humans to invent gods.
@LeeWoofenden maybe after this discussion if you want to
Here is an argument: 1. Premise one: it is reasonable to believe that which is true. 2. Premise two: it is true that God exists 3. Conclusion: therefore, it is reasonable to believe that God exists. Guess which premise(s) I have a problem with.
@LeakyNun Because, in my view, we can't actually invent anything that has no prior sources. And I don't see any prior sources in nature for a concept of God.
which of the concept of God do you see no prior sources in nature?
We don't actually see any gods or goddesses in nature. They are not visible to any of our senses. We see trees, fruits, grass, lions, bears, mountains, and so on. But we don't see any gods or goddesses.
My conception of all that exists is that there are three basic levels of reality: 1. God (divine reality) 2. The spiritual world or realm (spiritual reality) 3. The material universe or realm (physical reality)
@LeakyNun Even cultures that have fairly earth-bound ideas of gods and goddesses see them as something that imbues nature rather than something that is nature.
Superman is not a god. He's just a humanoid being who comes from a planet where their bodies have a much higher density and strength than the bodies of humans from earth.
There's nothing supernatural about it. Just a different evolution on a different planet.
A: there's a super powerful human that can control forces of nature B: where is it? A: well... I've never seen him on earth... B: so, where? A: maybe he's somewhere above the skies?
A: go to bed now B: no, I won't A: if you don't go to bed, you will be stricken by lightning B: how can you know that? A: I'll ask someone who controls the lightning to strike you
A: go to bed now B: no, I won't A: if you don't go to bed, your crops will receive no rain B: how can you know that? A: I'll ask someone who controls the rain to stop raining
@LeakyNun Sure it's possible. But I don't think they would, if there weren't actually beings who somehow answered to that description. And assuming there actually aren't any such beings (which is what atheists do), where would they get that idea? Why would they even bother to imagine such beings? What possible utility would it have to them?
Really, the universe is not any less mysterious to us today than it was to cave dwellers tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. So why don't secular scientists suddenly look at their scientific experiments and say, "Holy smokes! There must be gods!!!"
If I had my way with atheists, I'd flush all that crap out of their brains so that they can't even think about it anymore, and provide them with a sound understanding of God. But I don't get to do that. False conceptions of God are highly persistent and highly destructive.
@LeakyNun So was everyone on earth before there was any conception of God.
@LeakyNun Really, it can get quite exhausting to have to hear the same arguments from atheists over and over based on a conception of God, spirit, the Bible, and so on that I totally reject and think is utterly false and wrong.
I weep (sometimes literally) about the horrendous stuff that's been promulgated in the name of God, that has destroyed God in the minds of so many people, and held so many other people in subjection to a false god who is really a horrible bloodthirsty tyrant.
@LeakyNun Really, it can get quite exhausting to have to hear the same arguments from atheists over and over based on a conception of God, spirit, the Bible, and so on that I totally reject and think is utterly false and wrong.
You're going to say, "What about this way they could have thought up gods?" And I'm going to say, "I don't think they would have done that." And then we'll go round and round again with a different version of the same thing.
@LeakyNun Sure it's possible. But I don't think they would, if there weren't actually beings who somehow answered to that description. And assuming there actually aren't any such beings (which is what atheists do), where would they get that idea? Why would they even bother to imagine such beings? What possible utility would it have to them?
@LeakyNun This is really just the same discussion. I simply don't think they'd come up with those things for those reasons. It's all part of the same atheist origin story for the widespread belief in supernatural beings. And I don't buy it.
@LeakyNun Because, as I've said, there is nothing in nature, which would be the entirety of those humans' experience, to suggest such beings.
It's just a "God of the gaps" theory when there are massive gaps. But why would they fill those gaps with God when they could just shrug their shoulders and say, "I dunno"?
From my pov, it's just a theory atheists came up with because they by definition reject the possibility that we believe in gods because at least one God actually does exist.
@LeakyNun I don't actually say it's impossible. Rather, I say it's implausible.
I think it's a weak, conjectural argument based on implausibilities.
@LeakyNun God is not a character in the Harry Potter series, any more than God is a character in Star Wars. But there are still religion-inspired elements in both.
@LeeWoofenden and then I'm going to tell you that the concept of god is a composition of or variations on things that exist, and then you're going to tell me that people have no reasons to come up with such an idea
And religion, I believe, is based on revelation from God, not on observing natural phenomena.
@LeakyNun It's the supernatural part that early humans, fresh out of their evolutionary ascent from apes, would not have come up with, because they had no experience of such a thing.
Atheists find it convincing because it confirms their view that there is no God. Theists don't find it convincing because they think people came up with the idea of God because God revealed it to them.
People need arguments to support their position.
But the position itself isn't really subject to argument. You can't argue an atheism to belief in God, nor can you argue a theist to atheism.
For an atheist, "There is no God" functions as an axiom.
It's not something you debate or argue about. It's something you base your arguments and debating points on.
Here is an argument: 1. Premise one: it is reasonable to believe that which is true. 2. Premise two: it is true that God exists 3. Conclusion: therefore, it is reasonable to believe that God exists. Guess which premise(s) I have a problem with.
@LeakyNun When theists become atheists, it's often because of a shattering experience that broke their faith in God. When atheists become theists, it is also often because of a shattering experience that drove them to turn to God. Sometimes the "shattering" is long and drawn out. Other times it happens very quickly.
@LeakyNun What's your problem with the premise, "It is reasonable to believe that which is true"?
And if you're not sure whether or not it's true, and it's about something important, then it is rationality's job to investigate it carefully to determine whether or not it's true.
Obviously we can't believe a truth that we're unaware of. But we're not absolved from the responsibility to seek the truth to the extent that we are able, and to believe the truth when we find it.
[insert a theorem here] is either true or false. Our current mathematical tools are not enough to tell whether it is true or false. A believes that it is true, and B believes that it is false. One of them believes that which is true, but both are irrational.
@LeakyNun There are levels of rationality. And I believe that there is sufficient knowledge about God in existence for people to see the truth of it. And I believe that seeking that truth is incumbent upon rational people. Atheists may not be intentionally irrational. But to the extent that they deny the possibility of there being a God, I believe they have shut off the possibility of the highest level of rationality.
I also believe that atheists are atheists largely for emotional, not rational, reasons, even though they believe they are atheists for largely rational reasons.
And I believe that denying the existence of God requires atheists to believe a number of irrational ideas, one of which is that primitive humans invented the idea of God, and another of which is that near-death experiences are just hallucinations of an oxygen-deprived brain.
It requires atheists to reject as delusional all human experience of God, of which there is a vast quantity.
Given that vast quantity of human experience of God and of the spiritual realms, I believe that the actual existence of God and a spiritual realm is the most sensible, rational explanation for that phenomenon of almost universal religious belief for most of human history. Atheists have to say, "No, we made up this whole elaborate thing."
@LeeWoofenden it's not really irrational considering that your modern conception of God basically came into being several hundred or thousand years ago, and that the primitive conceptions of God are really human-like, basically an evolution of ideas
Further, I've not only read many accounts of near-death experiences, but I've personally talked to many NDEers and heard their stories. They universally think that atheists' explaining away of their experience as hallucinations and oxygen deprivation is the most ridiculous thing in the world spouted by people who have no idea what they're talking about because they haven't experienced it.
They can simply say, "You don't know what you're talking about. I was there. You weren't."
@LeakyNun Our knowledge of how the physical universe works also developed gradually, and was quite primitive for thousands of years. Does this mean that nature was really just a primitive blob, and it only became complex when we humans started realizing how complex and intricate it is through scientific research?
Equating God with human conceptions of God is itself irrational.
It's like saying, "nature doesn't exist because we used to have such a primitive understanding of it."
@LeakyNun You can't produce an NDE with a drug injection. NDEers are well aware of the distinction between drug-induced hallucinations and NDEs. That's another thing they would view as the ridiculous rantings of people who know nothing about what they're talking about because they haven't experienced it for themselves.
@LeakyNun No. If a God exists, that doesn't mean we humans will instantly have a perfect conception of God. We can only understand things that are within our capacity to understand. And if we're largely brutish, earth-bound creatures who are mostly concerned with food, shelter, protection, and reproduction, that gives God a rather narrow platform to work with in explaining to us the nature of God.
Atheists fault theists because our human conception of God developed only gradually over time. Why don't they fault scientist because our scientific conception of the physical universe developed only gradually over time?
Once again, it's an irrational idea that because several thousand years ago we had a rather limited conception of God, that means God must not exist, and we invented God.
Really, it's just atheists interpreting reality based on their pre-existing belief that there's no God.
There is nothing particularly rational about atheists' arguments. It's just what happens when you look at everything through the lens of atheism.
When you assume the result, you always get the result you want.
@LeeWoofenden I should have said "that they do view as the ridiculous rantings . . ." because I've had this specific conversation with NDEers.
@LeakyNun There are various common elements that occur in NDEs' including a sense of separation from the body, seeing the body and its surroundings from a different vantage point, going through a dark tunnel or dark space, seeing a light, encountering the light and finding it to be loving and wise, meeting departed loved ones, reaching a "line" beyond which they will not come back to the body, not crossing that line, returning to the body.
Few NDEs have all of these elements, and there are other elements that also occur, but these are some of the most common, recurring elements of NDEs.
Another common one is a rapid review of the events of one's life.
NDEs are not just random hallucinations such as you get when you take psychoactive drugs. They have a definite sequence: a beginning, a middle, and an end. They follow patterns that are well-known to those who study them or have experienced them. And they are usually life-changing experiences for those who have them. Not at all like a drug-induced hallucinogenic state.
Of course, the people who have them almost died, so they often come back to wracked and broken bodies. So for the most part they don't have a "beautiful life" after having an NDE. But they do come back with a whole different, and deeper, perspective on life.
And it commonly helps them get through the aftermath of whatever almost killed them.
These, of course, are generalizations. But they hold true as generalizations.
@LeakyNun Many NDErs have experienced both hallucinations and NDEs. After the hallucinations, they realize it was just a hallucination, and was not real. But after an NDE, they come back saying they have experienced something far more real even than their waking experience here on earth, let alone any hallucinations they've had.
Once again, NDEers themselves know the difference quite clearly between an NDE and other phenomena NDEs are commonly compared to such as hallucinations and drug-induced fantasies.
Of course, if a drug almost kills a person, that person might have an NDE just as with any other near-fatal thing. But the NDE produced by a near-fatal dose of drugs won't be significantly different from an NDE produced by a car accident or a heart attack. It's not the drugs producing the NDE; they are just the occasion for it since they almost killed the person.
@LeakyNun To someone who doesn't believe in spiritual reality, they prove nothing. Atheists and skeptics will find a way to explain away anything that conflicts with their view that there's no such thing as God, angels, spirits, a spiritual world, and so on.
For those of us who believe in an afterlife in a spiritual realm, and don't have prior conflicting religious beliefs about how that's supposed to work, NDEs are simply more evidence and information about the nature of the spiritual world and the afterlife.
When the first books about NDEs came out, we Swedenborgian were quite excited. Our reaction was, "Finally someone else is saying the same things we've been saying all along!"
Basically, the general pattern of NDEs confirmed everything Swedenborg wrote about the afterlife and our initial entry into it. The details differed, as they do among different NDErs. But the basic pattern and experience was precisely what Swedenborg described 250 years ago.
Swedenborg said that people who die are met by very loving and wise angels. NDEers commonly report a "being of light" who is very wise and loving, and who often takes them through a review of their life--something Swedenborg also reported.
@LeakyNun Swedenborg said that the Lord opened his spiritual eyes so that he could be fully present in the spiritual world virtually at will for what turned out to be the last three decades (almost) of his life. So he says that his descriptions are based on personal experience.
The Son of God references the words of God, the Son of Man references the words of man.
"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" - (Numbers 23:19 NKJV)
Once you sacrifice the Son of Man, you will see. Is born of the breath(spirit).
I am currently trying to SHORTEN via an edit the following answer: to a question Nathaniel asked about a question on clerical intention.
After about a dozen tries, and reloads, the site refuses to accept this edit.
Can one of the mods please overcome whatever obstacle/obex in the software pre...