By what means, do you KNOW the answer to that age old question?

Hahaaaa,...
LOL
Nonsense.
Atheists here have been told that the Copenhagen Interpretation supports with Science that a Creator observe was absolutely necessary for the Big Bang materialization.
But they ignore this truth, and even forget that the Wave/particle duality is "supernatural" right before our own eyes.

hahaaaaa... funny.

 

The Truth is inside us all, i.e.; memories of past life experiences which tell us how to behave as humans. [Luke 17:21]

Right and wrong has gradually developed by evolution, eliminating parts of us and even whole species which behaved against Reality.

 

..."gnosticism is a state of consciousness that is the validation"...

Gnosticism mean "knowing," which requires a long history validated by the success of avoiding extinction which have taken away people who acted otherwise.
Gnostics "think" they know things, based upon what at that time seem right to them.
But they disappeared, went extinct themselves.

 

No, that's the subhuman condition.

No, the question is how, if conditioning is the basis for human consciousness, such awareness is even possible.

Yes, that would be a wonderful question for you to ask yourself, but evidently you're not there yet.

Didn't bother with the rest.

 

Even the 'Bible' teaches the concept of slaying the self (ego) and at least one method of altering the thought process is mentioned in the 'Bible' (a method of reaching that tranquil state). So, how is it not like the mystic variety that you speak about? Also, I noticed that you indicated that the 'unknown' cannot be attained while the person is incessantly involved with the 'known' or memory/past. Perhaps that is what should first qualify someone as a scientist (if progress is to be seen or the 'unknown' to become 'known'.). Perhaps that is why so many have never experienced God in their conscious life... their were too involved in memory/past things they were taught.

 

My best friend in college was a physicist who specialized in quantum optics. I regularly communicated with both him and, well, pretty much every other physics major and physics professor at my school at one point or another. The majority were atheists or pantheists. I could probably count the number of theists on one hand. None of them backed up the idea that any aspect of physics, even quantum physics, required a Creator or universal observer.

The easiest way to get any of them to roll their eyes was to begin a sentence with "Quantum physics proves . . . "

 

Are you attempting to say that Quantum physics does not 'prove' anything?

 

No, just that people jump to a lot of unjustified conclusions based on a field that is still young, still prone to a lot of interpretation and that has been heavily abused by the public. I've heard people use it to try to "prove" that psychics are real, ghosts are real, God is real, fairies are real, faith healing is real, etc. Actual people working and researching in the field tend to be much more conservative about what quantum physics "proves".

I do think that quantum physics has shown enough that we should question our everyday, "common sense" way of looking at the universe. As with most such discoveries, it shows the the universe is more wondrous than once believed.

 

Thanks for that clarification. And I agree with you that too many people want to build up the field of Quantum physics when there is still too little actually known about it other than most of it appearing to be just wild guesses or stabs in the dark.

 

As there is absolutely no evidence that God does exist, I feel safe in assuming that no, God does not exist.

You can say "But you can't know for sure" with regards to any unfalsifiable statement, including that aliens killed JFK or the Moon Landings were faked. But there is no reason to believe a claim is true if there is no evidence backing it up.

 

That begs the question of what is 'evidence' and who makes the determination of what is acceptable "evidence"? Also who is the final arbiter of what is a suitable "reason" to believe a claim is true?

 

The evidence cannot be subjective, such as "God spoke to me, so I know he exists". As for the reason, you can if you want, but it's not rational, or based on anything real, it's purely based on what YOU WISH was real.

 

Atheists don't even consider God an option. They'd prefer to equate Him to things like tooth-faries and whatnot.

What do you mean by know? I don't really know that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I believe that it will.

As to your question, it is a means of canceling out. There are no alternatives beside God that makes any serious sense. You should hear the stuff some atheists come up with.

Lastly, learning more about God is far more important than "knowing" He exists.

 

Why can't the evidence be 'subjective'? In a court of law, subjective evidence is acceptable ... as in the case of an eye witness. The information that the witness gives is subjective... it is a recall of impressions that were formed in memory. Please read this article and see how 'intuition' is used and is important to scientists:
"Science, Rationality and Intuition" http://www.nal.res.in/pages/ipjul07.htm

 

Because if it's subjective, no one else can objectively verify its existence. We have to take your word for it. Sans other kinds of evidence, we have no reason to believe what you say.

 

Quite a bit of the time everyone is talking past each other.

Your theistic objective idealism is completely alien to someone coming from an atheistic naturalism/materialism mindset. You are literally talking a different language.

In other words -

You believe in a greater reality that has a source - God

They believe in a simple (obvious) reality that is based on material existence.

The one thing you do have in common is a belief in objective truth, its just that the basis for it is different.

 

Then why should anyone else have a reason to believe what you or others have to say. After all, a lot of tax payer dollars go into scientific research, so the scientists have a vested financial interest in saying whatever will please the sponsors of their research... ie... the government and other private financiers. Scientists are now talking about multiple universes... yet all they have is a theory and a bunch of numbers to support their suspicions. Numbers are not an acceptable evidence for the supposed existence of something that cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted and the multiple universes certainly have not been replicated. So where is the PROOF of multiverses? Why should anyone believe that type of hype?

 

So it comes down to language. I cannot argue that point. So, if they want to speak in a language that is foreign to religion (a language such as is used in science), then perhaps they should move such discussions that are conducted in that foreign language of science to the science section of the forum. Now, because this section of the forum is dedicated to Philosophy and Religion, the Philosophy of Science would be welcomed. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy " Despite its straightforward name, the field is complex and remains an area of current inquiry. Philosophers of science actively study such questions as:

• What is a law of nature? Are there any in non-physical sciences like biology and psychology?
• What kind of data can be used to distinguish between real causes and accidental regularities?
• How much evidence and what kinds of evidence do we need before we accept hypotheses?
• Why do scientists continue to rely on models and theories which they know are at least partially inaccurate (like Newton's physics)?

Though they might seem elementary, these questions are actually quite difficult to answer satisfactorily. Opinions on such issues vary widely within the field (and occasionally part ways with the views of scientists themselves — who mainly spend their time doing science, not analyzing it abstractly). Despite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science!" Also on that same page at the same link is this little tidbit: "Falsification — the view, associated with philosopher Karl Popper, that evidence can only be used to rule out ideas, not to support them. Popper proposed that scientific ideas can only be tested through falsification, never through a search for supporting evidence."

 

The multiverse cannot be proven to exist.

 

It is what you believe that makes the difference. Belief is really all we have.

 

Well, that is some of the hype being propagated by the scientific community and by some members on this forum. So the question remains: why should anyone believe such tales?

 

I cannot argue that point, but I'm certain that someone on this forum would enjoy arguing it with you.

 

I await their arguments.

 

Well I wish you the best fortune in that endeavor. Have fun with it.

 

So instead of making a straightforward proposal its best to propose its approximate opposite. Which if falsified proves your actual theory.

In a way that sounds like a lot of normal scientific procedure. The job of a scientist is to thoroughly test their theory, which amounts to trying to prove it wrong. If they think its defendable they expose it to peer review. Politics and money play a way bigger role in peer review than they should, but nothing is perfect.

The communication problem I was talking about has to do with what we use for a simple basis of reality.

Naturalism is the idea that reality is pretty much the way it appears, in a pure form it completely rejects the notion that reality is different from the observation of it. If you are theistic you would see god exactly as physically described by your religion. You would accept that god created everything, but most likely hold to a very simple fundamental faith. If atheistic you would most likely combine naturalism with materialism, so concepts would only be as real as the physical world allows. To a materialist the final test of reality is material existence.

Objective Idealism is the idea that the relationship between perception and the experienced world is the basis for reality. In other words the message is what makes anything real. (The physical world sends us messages though our senses.) Ideas and concepts and even processes of thought can be analyzed and accepted as real. To a theist this means that the message of god is what makes god real. Gods form would be inconsequential and the doctrine would only be as real as it reflects the true meaning behind it. For a atheist or agnostic the ultimate message comes from an absolute source which is not necessarily cognizant. To someone of this leaning reality is tested by the validity of its message.