Originally Posted by Catalpa

The consensus of those who hold that view you mean

The consensus of those who do not hold that view is different

Many 'near death' experiences point in the direction of a Life after Death

Of course its possible that God exists

- and there is no Life after Death!

But we won't out that until we go the way of all flesh...

NDEs are consistant with what you would expect from the individuals cultural conditioning. They dont confirm the existence of any deity whatsoever. Near-Death Experiences in Thailand with illustrations. 1st information in English

Originally Posted by Knapaghbeg

Do you believe that he sent himself to offer himself as sacrifice to himself to save us from his own rath?

He did not send himself in his form, that would never have worked at all.
God sent himself in as much human form as he could as that was the best way off getting his words off wisdom across.
If he came down as an true alien life form the world would have going bonkers.
Rath on the other hand is to my understanding an ol irish term for stronghold off say an chieftain.
Such a word would not apply to God as the earth is not his strong hold its part off his universe a much more impossible situation to comprehend.

Ah .... Proof of God.

Anytime I hear the argument for god's existence I use the"Santa clause" defence.

Any proof applied to god's existence can directly be transposed onto Santa.

I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic.

There's more a chance that earth is a giant alien terra forming experiment then the whole sky daddy zombie carpenter fairy tale.

Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar

Exactly and is that not his point? God is beyond knowledge and existence. Why do some atheists(of the more shallow variety) get hung up on details? They seem to revel in literalism and have no understanding of allegory(a fault they share with religious fundamentalists).

Christianity and Atheism have one thing in common - adherents who shouldn't be let near a microphone or a keyboard.

Originally Posted by Catalpa

The consensus of those who hold that view you mean

The consensus of those who do not hold that view is different

Many 'near death' experiences point in the direction of a Life after Death

Of course its possible that God exists

- and there is no Life after Death!

But we won't out that until we go the way of all flesh...

I wasn't talking about the living or near dead. I was talking about the fully dead.

They're not exactly jamming the phonelines...

Originally Posted by Mountaintop

Some valid points on this thread but I remain an agnostic dyslexic insomniac...

I'll be awake all night wondering if there really is a Dog..


..I'll get my coat..

Have a listen to Harry Nilsson warbling about his Good Old Desk.

Proof? what is a proof, how is one constituted and what are its foundations boundaries and limitations? -

By illustration can someone offer proof to a solipsist that there are in fact other minds?

1. What is the Problem of Other Minds?

That other human beings are mostly very like ourselves is something about which almost all of us, almost all of the time, are certain. There are exceptions, among them philosophical sceptics, and perhaps those suffering from some abnormal mental condition. We do not, of course, believe that we always or even mostly know about others' inner lives in detail, but we do not doubt that they have an inner life, that they experience the physical world much as we do, rejoice, suffer, have thoughts, beliefs, feelings, emotions, and so on. But what, if anything, justifies our certainty? Philosophers cannot agree on what underpins this most basic of human beliefs.

Unsurprisingly, given that human beings are social, if not all necessarily sociable beings, this lack of agreement is more than a case of philosophers engaging in some abstractly theoretical controversy and contestation. The different positions taken affect our view of what it is like to be the kind of creature we are, and possibly are affected by our view of who we are and our human situation.

There is general agreement among philosophers that the problem of other minds is concerned with the fundamental issue of what entitles us to our basic belief that other human beings do have inner lives rather than whether we are able in specific cases to be sure what is happening in those inner lives.

However, there are (at least) two problems of other minds. There is the epistemological problem, concerned with how our beliefs about mental states other than our own might be justified. There is also a conceptual problem: how is it possible for us to form a concept of mental states other than our own. It is generally thought that the materials used to fashion the epistemological problem are the very same materials that produce the conceptual problem. The conceptual problem is generally raised in the context of solving the epistemological problem. One view here is that there can only be an epistemological problem if the conceptual problem is solved, but solving the conceptual problem solves the epistemological problem (Malcolm 1962a). That would be just as well since otherwise the epistemological problem would still be with us. More straightforwardly, some have thought that the conceptual problem is the difficult one without, tantalizingly, showing how easy it is to solve the epistemological problem (Nagel 1986, 19–20).

Despite the above proposals, and allowing for philosophy's notorious lack of common agreement, it remains worth noting that philosophy provides no generally agreed solution to the problem of other minds.
1.1 The Epistemological Problem

The epistemological problem is produced by the radical difference that holds between our access to our own experience and our access to the experience of all other human beings. We often know directly that we are in a certain mental state. Typical cases would be where we are in serious pain, are itching, are smelling a rose, seeing a sunflower, are depressed, believe that today is Tuesday, and so forth. We do not always know directly that we are in the mental state we are in but what is striking is that we never have direct knowledge that other human beings are in whatever mental state they are in. It is this stark asymmetry that generates the epistemological problem of other minds.

The asymmetry is a matter of what is known directly and not known directly, and the specific kind of knowledge. It is not a matter of what can be observed, perceived, felt, as opposed to what cannot be observed, perceived, felt. Were I able to observe the mental states of another human being that would not mean that I did not have a problem of other minds. I would still lack what I needed. What I need is the capacity to observe those mental states as mental states belonging to that other human being. They would have to be experienced by me as someone else's mental state. My experience of the other would have to come accompanied by that guarantee, attached as it were to an epistemological label. The situation would only then be as it is in my own case. I would only then be in possession of the direct knowledge that I and all of us forever lack.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/

Originally Posted by Half Nelson

If you're that easily impressed you won't have any difficulty believing this, which claims yours is a lie.
[video=youtu]http://www.youtube.com/[/video]
Take your pick.

Mithra, legend says, was incarnated into human form (as prophesized by Zarathustra) in 272 bc. He was born of a virgin, who was called the Mother of God. Mithra's birthday was celebrated December 25 and he was called “the light of the world.” After teaching for 36 years, he ascended into heaven in 208 bc.

The Roman Empire

"The youthful Attis after his murder was miraculously brought to life again three days after his demise."
The death and resurrection in three days, the "Passion of Attis," is also related by Professor Merlin Stone (146):
Roman reports of the rituals of Cybele record that the son...was first tied to a tree and then buried. Three days later a light was said to appear in the burial tomb, whereupon Attis rose from the dead, bringing salvation with him in his rebirth.

Attis: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Crucified and Resurrected after Three Days

Originally Posted by Half Nelson

Christianity and Atheism have one thing in common - adherents who shouldn't be let near a microphone or a keyboard.

Prey tell. What are you Nelson?

Originally Posted by Hitch 22

The following are the classic arguments put forward for the existence of God:

1) St. Thomas Aquinas

His proofs have easily been the most influential.

(a) The unmoved mover The universe is in motion which is the transition from potentiality to actuality. Everything now in motion was put in motion by a chain of movers and the first unmoved mover that set things in motion is God. Of course this begs the question - What put God in motion? Why could the chain of movers not be endless?

(b) The first cause Similar to the first proof, everything is caused by something else which was caused by something else etc etc. So the first cause must be God. Again this begs the question - What caused God? Why could there not be an endless series of causes?

(c) The necessary being The universe is full of things that exist and but there was a time when nothing existed so a necessary being must have created them and therefore that must be God. Again this begs the question - How did God come into existence if not through another necessary being? Would there not be an endless chain of necessary beings?

(d) God as the source of goodness Aquinas take his cue from the Greek philosopher Plato who posited a theory of "forms" - ideal states out which there are degrees of imperfection which reflect the ideal form. God is the maximum of goodness and everything he supposedly created are degrees of goodness not quite reaching but reflecting the perfection of God. So there must be a source of goodness that created all things. Of course this is immediately refuted when the cruelty of nature and the randomness of suffering that afflicts both good people and evil people is scrutinized. Why does God have to be good and why not evil? Why shouldn't God be amoral? Perhaps it is more likely no God exists and the universe is blindly indifferent to our suffering or our happiness?

(e) Intelligent design The seemingly intelligent order of the universe must have been put in place by an intelligent God. The complexity of the human body and the intelligence of the human being or the existence of the correct conditions on earth for life to exist must mean that they were designed.

Of course modern science has shown that human evolution and the fact that conditions on earth allowed life to form are not in anyway dependent on an intelligent designer. The imperfection of human beings and the earth and the observable destruction of galaxies, stars, planets and species seems to be evidence there isn't an intelligent designer.

2. St. Anselm and the Ontological Argument.

The argument exists in three parts:

(a) God is that which nothing greater can be thought.

(b) That of which nothing greater can be thought exists both in the mind and in reality.

(c) Therefore God exists both in the mind and in reality.

This argument is easily refuted because it means that if you want something to exist all you have to do is just believe it exists and then it does.

3. Historical arguments:

All the major world religions claim that God or supernatural forces intervened in history and the founders of their faiths were either divine or were visited or touched by the divine and what they said and did are a matter of historical record. Of course it is possible that Moses, Jesus and Muhammed were real people and the accounts of the lives in religious writings may have an element of truth.

However Jesus for example is just one more holy heroic figure born of a virgin, who fought the forces of evil and died a heroic death before resurrecting. The lack of empirical proof is obvious and from what we know about humans, some are prone to lying, exaggerating and so on and others are alarmingly credulous. Just because millions of people follow a faith does not mean it is true.

Of course the existence of competing claims and competing faiths means that either one is true or none are.

When one disposes of the supposed "proofs" of God's existence and when one honestly takes on board their full implications the obvious position one must adopt is at the very least skepticism, agnosticism or hard atheism.

All of that sums up to:

"I can't explain it, ergo there is in invisible omnipotent being that filled in the gaps"




I hate to break it to Thomas Acquinas, but that ain't a proof.



I heard a bump in the night. There was nobody in the house. There was no sign of what could have caused it. Proof of a ghost.