RE: This Will Cause Believers To Lose Their Shit
March 28, 2018 at 2:59 am
(This post was last modified: March 28, 2018 at 3:21 am by Mystic.)
Quote:[size=undefined][b]1: The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.[/b]
When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Like a steamroller. Why the Sun rises and sets. Where thunder and lightning come from. Why people get sick. Why people look like their parents. How the complexity of life came into being. I could go on and on.
All these things were once explained by religion. But as we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the explanations based on religion were replaced by ones based on physical cause and effect. Consistently. Thoroughly. Like a steamroller. The number of times that a supernatural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a natural explanation? Thousands upon thousands upon thousands.
[/size]
[size=undefined]
Now. The number of times that a natural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a supernatural one? The number of times humankind has said, “We used to think (X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it’s caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul”?
Exactly zero.
Sure, people come up with new supernatural “explanations” for stuff all the time. But explanations with evidence? Replicable evidence? Carefully gathered, patiently tested, rigorously reviewed evidence? Internally consistent evidence? Large amounts of it, from many different sources? Again — exactly zero.
Given that this is true, what are the chances that any given phenomenon for which we currently don’t have a thorough explanation — human consciousness, for instance, or the origin of the Universe — will be best explained by the supernatural?
Given this pattern, it’s clear that the chances of this are essentially zero. So close to zero that they might as well be zero. And the hypothesis of the supernatural is therefore a hypothesis we can discard. It is a hypothesis we came up with when we didn’t understand the world as well as we do now… but that, on more careful examination, has never once been shown to be correct.
If I see any solid evidence to support God, or any supernatural explanation of any phenomenon, I’ll reconsider my disbelief. Until then, I’ll assume that the mind-bogglingly consistent pattern of natural explanations replacing supernatural ones is almost certain to continue.
(Oh — for the sake of brevity, I’m generally going to say “God” in this chapter when I mean “God, or the soul, or metaphysical energy, or any sort of supernatural being or substance.” I don’t feel like getting into discussions about, “Well, I don’t believe in an old man in the clouds with a white beard, but I believe…” It’s not just the man in the white beard that I don’t believe in. I don’t believe in any sort of religion, any sort of soul or spirit or metaphysical guiding force, anything that isn’t the physical world and its vast and astonishing manifestations.[/size]
There is several problems with this.
1. The Ancient societies, over all, be the they polytheistic or be they monotheistic or whatever, never relied on these type of reasoning from my research. We attribute and assume them ignorance, but when you go study the wisdom of their wisdom leaders, you will see none of this nonsense.
So we are being unjust to the people of the past. Of course there is stupid people and stupid traditions, but, when you go to the wisdom of their wisdom leaders, you will see they didn't rely on such things.
Not only that, but it seems the ancients relied on the moral argument which is sound but paraphrased in much more eloquent sacred way. They relied on the spiritual nature of the self which is a sound argument. And they relied on what they knew of the human experience like the sacred beauty of love and it's sacred language.
They knew it was dove that reached to the highest sky and aimed towards it, drank from it's springs or it would burns it wings. They knew of ascension and stages.
They also were very well acquainted with their 6th sense which we are becoming more ignorant of.
That said to dismiss the mystical power of love and goodness, etc, by just calling ambiguous by conjecture, doesn't do away with the human experience of the sacred power burrowed from the sacred being.
That said, consciousness will never be solved by "science" as it transcends materialism, love transcends the material world, and we transcend it, and even if can be explained materially, I have shown in the past, there is a paradox when you go about it in evolution which is regardless of the supernatural nature of it.
That said, Ancients, had deep philosophies. They had their paradigms and reminders, which reminded of the moral argument in elaborate way, of guidance needed, of the sacred nature of love, and of the supernatural way we are accounted for and inherit our actions.
And if they didn't, than that is a mistake they did. We shouldn't let their mistakes obscure from possible proofs for God. This is just then beating on the chest that humans often got things wrong which doesn't amount to much.
It doesn't do away with the logic of Aristotle and Plato that do prove God in many ways.
Will move on to the next point....
Quote:If God (or any other metaphysical being or beings) were real, and people were really perceiving him/ her/ it/ them, why do these perceptions differ so wildly?
When different people look at, say, a tree, we more or less agree about what we’re looking at: what size it is, what shape, whether it currently has leaves or not and what color those leaves are, etc. We may have disagreements regarding the tree — what other plants it’s most closely related to, where it stands in the evolutionary scheme, should it be cut down to make way for a new sports stadium, etc. But unless one of us is hallucinating or deranged or literally unable to see, we can all agree on the tree’s basic existence, and the basic facts about it.
This is blatantly not the case for God. Even among people who do believe in God, there is no agreement about what God is, what God does, what God wants from us, how he acts or doesn’t act on the world, whether he’s a he, whether there’s one or more of him, whether he’s a personal being or a diffuse metaphysical substance. And this is among smart, thoughtful people. What’s more, many smart, thoughtful people don’t even think God exists.
And if God existed, he’d be a whole lot bigger, a whole lot more powerful, with a whole lot more effect in the world, than a tree. Why is it that we can all see a tree in more or less the same way, but we don’t see God in even remotely the same way?
The explanation, of course, is that God does not exist. We disagree so radically over what he is because we aren’t perceiving anything that’s real. We’re “perceiving” something we made up; something we were taught to believe; something that the part of our brain that’s wired to see pattern and intention, even when none exists, is inclined to see and believe.
It's because they equate idols with God. That simple. When we follow clergy and let them distort God, and don't care of truth and falsehood, our vision will be distorted.
As seeing God needs you to have the right moral outlook and humans love to be followed regarding moral outlook, it's as the Bible states, all corruption stemmed when humans named themselves with the name of God when it's God that appoints his names.
This is the trial of good and evil. This is the trial, are we going to be sincere to God or are we going to distort God by our deceiving selves and let deceiving idols deceives, and let the deceiving leaders deceive us.
The explain default is not that God doesn't exist, it's that evil exists and that evil is dividing us regarding goodness and it's absolute source.
This is such a lazy way to approach why we dispute and differ, rather, then to see why we do in the paradigm that God exists.
As for 3, it seems he hasn't seen my arguments
Not only that, but it seems he is either doing a strawman on the arguments he has seen or really hasn't looked too far.
As for the families thing, it's simply due to the fact society is taught and they emphasize not to be sincere to the truth. When people aren't sincere to the truth, they are going to prefer the falsehood of their parents and family over other paradigms and viewpoints.
When people are enjoined to be bias, they will self-deceive themselves on the view point of their parents.
The solution if we all start to enjoin seeking the truth, you can't just say, by default that will be Atheism.
We may all unite on the true religion but everyone has to do their part on only enjoining truth they know and emphasize on seeking the truth.
When we don't care about proof and want people to be loyal to blood, yeah, that's gonna happen.
We are what we as a people decide to be. Right now we are deciding truth doesn't matter. Which is a sad sad state.
Infancy or not, there is sound arguments that will prove we have a soul no matter how deep you go into neuroscience etc. Next.
7,8,9 is just rehashing what has been said already.
There is plenty of proofs. And divisions on truth like I always tell Brian, it's not a reason to give up on the quest for it.
And when it comes to finding the true religion, it's easy if you give God a chance through his appointed guides.
But if you are going to wait till people not appointed to God to bring you to God, you might be waiting till the cows come home!
