Quote:
Originally Posted by right-track
Non because he/she/it doesn't exist.
Who's looking for God's signature? Certainly not me.
Is there any evidence of God's signature? Certainly not, unless you can provide me with hard evidence of course.
And don't quote Leibniz because "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a question and not an answer. What kind of evidence is that other than an opinion.
Most people start out in life not with what they are taught but what they are told as children. This isn't learning btw. And for the most part children believe what they are told.
I was told Santa Claus was real, until it became obvious that he didn't exist.
"everyone seems to start from what they don't know (ie, what they've been taught--science) rather from what they do know... emotions, interpersonal relationships, desire--for meaning, companionship, reward for overcoming urges that set us against others... why isn't all that evidence?"
Is it possible these things you speak of are able to exist without God?
1. I don't.
2. Why should I? Do they provide hard evidence of God's existence? If not, I won't waste my time.
My opinions on the non existence/existence of God are based on complete lack of evidence. This doesn't make me any less spiritual than a christian, or any other deluded religious individual.
I consider myself spiritual when I listen to music, read poetry, wonder at the beauty of the universe, but I don't put these things down to a divine influence. I have no reason to.
There are lots of things in this world we can't disprove. What matters in life is what is true. God nor the universe care what I think. If there was no God would I be bereft of my emotions, my love of music, my sense of compassion with all things sentient?
|
that question should have been "what kind of evidence
would you expect God to leave behind?" if God did exist, what 'hard evidence' would convince you of it? what Kierkegaard and Pascal do is not provide hard evidence, they provide profound queries, they look at life in ways people generally do not, from multiple perspectives, with incredible depth.
when you distinguish between considering yourself spiritual and sensing divine influence you're to me just playing with words. i see them as the same thing. if something is 'spiritual,' that implies a spirit, and if that spirituality is common to all living things that implies a spirit that resides within all living things, and that's all I'm talking about when I say 'God' (although there are other conceptions, of course)
in that regard, yes, you would be bereft of your emotions, love of music and compassion if there were no God, because those very things are expressions of God, they are how we
know God.
you say truth is important, but what is truth? if you think that's a stupid question, then you must not realize there are many different ways of thinking about truth, and that anyone truly concerned with finding out "the Truth" must be ready to attack the notion of Truth itself, to see what it is made of, to explore the different perspectives on it.
for this reason it really saddens me to put reading Kierkegaard or Pascal down to a "waste of time." at least then admit that looking for Truth is also a waste of time.
you ask, could subjective phenomena exist without God? I believe in God, though I do not know the nature of God. however, the two ways in which I usually think about God is either as the source of subjective phenomena (that is, we experience love because we are indirectly experiencing God) or the totality of subjective phenomena (that is, God is love and hate and beauty and revulsion etc.). so again, no i do not think subjective phenomena would be possible without God. I think subjective phenomena must have a source, and that this source cannot be material objects since the very idea of a 'material object' is simply 'that which we do not recognize as a subject.' for me, the very existence of emotions (the very existence of the universe) is a proof of God, which is nothing but the proof that the Universe wants to exist. another way of saying the same thing is "I have a will, I am part of the Universe, therefore the Universe has will(s), hence the Universe is personal, hence I can call it God, since God is the notion of a personal entity that transcends my boundaries"