₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
You edited your post. Lemme make my statement a little more clear, the above arguments are all based on an appeal to intuition aka gut feeling.

1. Since we seem to feel the need for high ideals we intuit that a god is out there with those ideals.

2. Since the world is intelligible we intuit it was made by an intelligence.

3. We intuit that the universe is not purposeless therefore a god did it.

All of it summed up by an example of a personal feeling of profundity giving rise to an intuition of a god.

This is what you are presenting as evidence for a god?

Right. Don't get carried away by the term "God", reason would still lead you to the same essence of a "being" of some sort, or a phenomenon, as HellVictorinho termed it. Some people get all worked up and triggered when the term God is used.

LordReed:
one of my favorites is the approach that begins with desire.

So that's one approach to God beginning with our own deep desire.

“I felt a gratitude that was so enormous that I knew it would correspond to nothing in this world.” There was nothing/nobody in this world she could possibly thank that would correspond to the gratitude she was feeling. That's it! that's exactly it! What she was sensing was “God!

Right. Cool. Although that's not the main explanation but an example. Still okay, I'm sure you got the context.

HellVictorinho:
The Constant of Existentiality is an Ever-existing Phenomenon that keeps the Ever-occurring 'Forming of Existence' in Actuality.

Gbam! You are there! We only differ in terms of the name/term we call the same phenomenon.

This is the reason why In-Existence is Ever-impossible.
There has never been a period when 'Forms of Existence' weren't occurring.
The 'Forms of Existence' occur at ANYTIME.
We use words like beginning/end due to limitations.
We are able to calculate our TIME because of observable limits such as the Distance/Speed/Height/Velocity, etc in this planet.
We are also able to determine our TIME because of observable limits as regards the movement/position of the Earth in the Solar System.
But the Earth is a Form of Existence that wouldn't have been except for the Occurrence of the Solar System.
Lastly, The Forms of Existence are acting upon themselves timelessly in order for the Determination of Characterization to occur timelessly.

I couldn't agree more!

LordReed:
So feelings is your evidence of god?

From which of the three approaches did you get that?
1. The argument from desire
2. The objective intelligibility of the world
3. The argument from contingency.

HellVictorinho:
Existential Constant=Forming of Existence=Actualization of Solar System=Characterization of Solar System=Occurrence of Chemical Properties, Biological Systems, Physical Quantities=Nature.

Please explain the origin of the "Existential Constant."

LordReed:
You do that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP2rLgrBtTI

How do we know there's a God? Why do we believe in God at all?
That's the foundation for the whole spiritual life. The great theologians and spiritual teachers have used different approaches to this question over the centuries. One of my favorites is the approach that begins with desire. We human beings desire the truth. Our minds seek the truth and we get it sometimes. But no matter how much truth we get out of this world, it's never enough; the mind remains unsatisfied. We seek the good and find it a lot of ways in this world, but no matter how many goods we attain, we’re never really satisfied. We seek justice in all kinds of ways and we achieve it sometimes to a remarkable degree. Think of in our own time, civil rights movement, the end to apartheid, the breakdown of the Soviet Union… all those were wonderful things that were attainment of justice but no matter how much justice we attain, we never have enough.

There's something in us - this desire for the good, the true, the just, that pushes us beyond this world. This approach is called the argument from desire. You can't desire what you don't know. Therefore, if we are desiring something that transcends anything in this world, in some way, we must already know it. Therefore, we do know the truth itself; we do know the good itself; we do know justice itself… and that's who God is!

God is not one of the true things in the world, but God is the truth itself which has seized the mind of any scientist, any philosopher, any seeker after the truth.

God is not one more good thing in the world, but God is goodness itself which has seized anybody when he's living the moral life or seeking the ethically good.

God is not one more just thing in the world, but God is justice itself which has seized the will of the lawyer or the judge or anyone seeking justice.

The Bible talks about the primacy of God. When you're seeking God, the most important to realize is you've already been found by God. Remember the Russian cosmonauts who went up into space and they kind of sarcastically radioed back to earth “well, we're up in the heavens and we haven't found God.” Of course, any biblical person would know he'll never find God that way. Of course not, you don't find God anywhere in the cosmos he's made, but God is the creative source of all that exists in the cosmos. So that's one approach to God beginning with our own deep desire.

Here's a second approach and it comes from Pope [Benedict XVI] who wrote a great book in 1968 called introduction to Christianity. In that book, he formulates this argument and what I like about it is it shows the link between religion and science because very often those two are seen as enemies. He says “no, at their depth, religion and science come together.” Here's why: what does every scientist assume? Whether you're a physicist, a chemist, biologist, psychologist… whatever you are, you assume that ‘being’ is intelligible. That means that the world can be known. Even the name ‘psychology’ designates ‘logos’ (word). The scientist goes out to meet a world that's imbued with meaning.

Well how do you explain that? How do you explain the universality of the meaningfulness of the world? Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) said it's because it has been thought into being. In other words, the world is not just dumbly there. Rather, the world is filled with ‘logos’; it's filled with reason, which is why when we understand the truth, we say we “re”-cognize” it. He says, “right, you ‘re’-cognize it” (you think it again) because it's already been thought into being by God... So, he argues from the objective intelligibility of the world to the existence of a great intelligence which has thought the world into being.

Here's a third approach the philosophers and theologians have used. it's called the argument from contingency. It's a fancy way of saying that the world as we know it exists but doesn't have to exist. You and I are here but we don't have to be here; there's nothing necessary about our being. It's true the world as we know it is fleeting (it's passing). Therefore, we have to go outside the world to God. God who does exist through himself and who therefore grounds and creates the whole of the world that we know.

Relatedly, Dorothy Day, when she was in the process of coming to the church (she was going through a process of conversion), she had a child. And one day when she was on the porch of her house and she was holding her child, she said, “I felt a gratitude that was so enormous that I knew it would correspond to nothing in this world.” There was nothing/nobody in this world she could possibly thank that would correspond to the gratitude she was feeling. That's it! that's exactly it! What she was sensing was “....this world... myself... my child… none of it has to be here, yet it's here.” And the proper response is “thank you to the person who made them.”

HellVictorinho:
They didn't emanate from any specific thing.
They actually occurred.

Please explain how they came to be/occur.

HellVictorinho:
The Chemical Properties, The Biological Systems and the Physical Quantities.

From were did they emanate?

LordReed:
What lie? That amateurs can confirm scientific results?

Yes, as long as you are not certified to do so. How painful is it that you will never be able to walk or take back your incoherent argument as I have quoted all of them?

When is she goner marry kwanu?

LordReed:
You were the one making a mountain out of a molehill as though you don't know what a amateur is.

Well, I don't see it as a mountain out of a molehill, but rather a lie that you were trying to smuggle into the argument and got caught red handed.

LordReed:
Sorry not watching that. Are you going to define your god or provide evidence any unbeliever can verify?

The definition and evidence you need is in the video. Done my bit, over to you. If data is your problem, I could transcribe for you when I'm less busy, sorry.

LordReed:
Stop grasping at straws. Either you provide a definition of your god or evidence of it that unbelievers can verify.

Clever way to bow out of a line of argument you lost a couple of posts ago. You got tired of throwing stuff out there to see what will stick, don't you? Grasping at straws, that's what you've been doing

Now we can focus on the God question.

HellVictorinho:
The components of Nature-The Description of 'The Form of Existence' acted upon the actualization of 'The Possibility of Man' in the 'Forming of Existence'.

And those components of Nature being what?

LordReed:
Define your god and I'll think of some.

Here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP2rLgrBtTI

LordReed:
Correction, his verification will be classed under the data produced from amateurs and will not be grouped with those from professionals.

Meanwhile I am still waiting for you to produce anything that can be verified by a nonbeliever.

He is still without credibility as long as he is not certified for such.

LordReed:
Meanwhile produce anything about your god that can be verified by a nonbeliever.

Anything like what? What kind of evidence or theory are you looking for?

LordReed:
Meanwhile produce anything about your god that can be verified by a nonbeliever.

Wrong! If he is not certified for such, his 'verification' is without credibility and useless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3rhPa7h4ro

LordReed:
Did you miss a class of their own?

Irrelevant if he's not an engineer.

LordReed:
I would if I had the inclination and equipment to do so.

You haven't done so yourself yet you believe the scientists like I do?

That is more than can be said for any faith position.

Errrm, you forgot this:

9inches:
This last kind of knowledge (D) is termed faith, and is clearly necessary in daily life. If the authority upon which we base our assent is human and therefore fallible, we have human and fallible faith; if the authority is Divine, we have Divine and infallible faith.

LordReed:
Exactly why those experiments need to be replicated and results verified. Its not every study, research or procedure that will pass the test.

The sun distance measurement has been repeated in so many ways for about 400years, not something you will say nobody can replicate or verify.

@bolded,
That's exactly something I will say YOU cannot replicate or verify.

LordReed:
Yeah because amateurs are not generally considered when talking about any endeavour; in sports, STEM, astronomy, etc. Nobody will call a person tinkering in their garage an engineer if he doesn't have any formal training or certification. So they are in a class of their own.

@bolded
Right, because he is not an engineer. Formal training or certification would make him an engineer regardless if he is tinkering in his garage or in a Boeing hangar.
"Amateurs are not generally considered when talking about any endeavour" but you just did them a great service by considering them.

HellVictorinho:
Yes,Man is a Form of Existence.
And he was never created.
He was formed as result of certain occurrences/events that were bound to happen.

Describe those occurences/events.

HellVictorinho:
Check out the 'Explanation for Existence'.
It's a topic I created.
Read everything I posted including my reply to 'budaatum' on the 'Existential Constant'.

HellVictorinho:
Lastly,I choose to describe this 'Ever-Existing-Drive',behind the ever-occurring event which I have observed as 'The Forming of Existence', as the 'Existential Constant'.
This 'Constant' allows possibilities to become actualized in different ways.
The manner in which this possibilities are actualized depends on the functional consequences of the possibilities.

Hmmm, interesting!

Please watch and respond/critic. I'd appreciate it.
1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_Yjue8MXAI
2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak-riGdz-UM
3.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvqWTx8ykzg

HellVictorinho:
The 'functional consequences' are the effects of the 'Possibility of Man's predetermined Existence', which was actualized during ANYTIME as part of 'The Forming of Existence'..
These effects characterized the manner in which The First Humans were formed (not created).

The effects of the 'Possibility of Man's predetermined Existence' can be called the 'Functional Consequences'. These effects (Functional Consequences) characterized the manner in which the first humans were formed and which predetermined man's suffering to no end!

Possibility of Man's predetermined Existence ---> Functional Consequences ---> Man/suffering

HellVictorinho:
To no end!!!!
He is an 'Expression of Predetermined Absurdity'.
He is on Earth, which is the 'Prison of Man'.
And the 'Possibility of the Spirit Realm' is nothing but a 'declarification'.

The functional consequences that determined man's existence also [pre]determined man's suffering to no end!

I'm following. I'm sure you are working on second part of my question.

And by the way, be free to point out any misrepresentation of what you say as I'm putting them all together.

LordReed:
Any other persons able to test and verify the results either professional scientists or amateurs so inclined.

Are professional scientists or amateurs different from "scientists"?

So, in essence, you were saying "We do not accept that the sun is 1AU away because scientists said so. We accept it because the methods they used are repeatable and the results can be verified by professional scientists or amateurs. Hmm

HellVictorinho:
Alright, I'm going to burst your bubble.
Man is suffering because he is bound to suffer!!!
This is what makes him an 'Expression of Predetermined Absurdity'.
Philosophically,he is not just suffering.
He is actually occurring in a manner that is determined by the functional consequences of the 'The Possibility of his Existence'.

Man is bound to suffer
1. to what end, and
2. kindly throw more light on the "functional consequences" that determined man's existence.

LordReed:
What a gross mischaracterization. We do not accept that the sun is 1AU away because scientists said so. We accept it because the methods they used are repeatable and the results can be verified by others. Don't equate our acceptance of scientific facts with your unfounded faith.

Who are the "others"? Non scientists I'd guess?

More than 70% of researchers who took part in a recent study published in Nature have tried and failed to replicate another scientist’s experiment. Another study found that at least 50% of life science research cannot be replicated. The same holds for 51% of economics papers. The findings of these studies resonate with the gut feeling of many in contemporary academia that a lot of published research findings may be false. Just like any other information source, academic journals may contain fake news. There are as well scientific facts that have been disproven over time.

HellVictorinho:
"The Truth is a lie".
And I hope you now understand what Biology is all about.

I'm sorry I don't. Mind expatiating on that?

HellVictorinho:
Okay, there is suffering in the world because humans are causing/allowing themselves to suffer.
We have cars that make transportation easy and also make it easy for humans to inflict pain on themselves.
And I have one question for you-Why can't you read and understand ?

Again, you are talking about causality. Please explain WHY there is suffering, not who is responsible for suffering. Thanks!