Was the Socratic method doing some heavy lifting here or does this gentleman simply rate high on agreeableness? Not sure, but he seems so affable, I would have offered to buy him lunch.
How is it possible for a human to distinguish hearing/experiencing God from an hallucination, as each human is unavoidably imperfect and limited? How can any committee of humans can get around this? If true, then the question of God's existence becomes moot. Believe what you want, it means nothing to any skeptic.
If true, this would also extend to literally all things, not just gods, that can be reasonable said to be external to an observing human mind. The only way to actually know something is to be one with it.
Of course God exists, c'mon now! Do you breathe air; the molecules you don't see but need to stay alive! You need God in your lives especially if ya don't wanna go to the Eternal Lake of Fire!
...pretty sure there's no air down there too! LoL!
This was a great conversation, thank you for modeling and sharing this! I think Paul Nelson presents compelling reason and evidence in this video (under 10 minutes):
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Peter! You are right, intelligent design is different from God. Your placeholder question is a good one, I wouldn’t describe intelligent design (ID) as a placeholder for God. Bracketing the Intelligent Design label for a moment, I’d like to try to answer the question I perceive you to be asking. Correct me if I’m wrong. I believe you are asking: In the hypothetical scenario in which the Paul Nelson video provides evidence for God, what is the placeholder for God in the video? The placeholder for God in the video is the one who fills the role of designer. Nelson is claiming a worm “carries the signal of design”. The existence of a design would be proof that [placeholder] is filling the role of designer and therefore must exist. I realize that leaves the question, “what constitutes carrying the signal of design?” unanswered for now, but I’d like to know whether my perception of your first question was in the ballpark (and if I answered it) before moving on to another question.
Returning to the intelligent design label, I don’t like the label because it is clunky to use the same phrase to describe the cause and the method for detecting the cause. Paul Nelson uses the label Intelligent Design to describe an intuition we all use every day to recognize artificial products, such as recognizing a sandcastle is not a product of erosion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sna0oSVJiCk Stephen C. Meyer uses the label ID to describe a cause that is known to currently be in operation. https://youtu.be/HcMM1V6w1rs?t=3761 I think the term ID originated as a counter to the idea that design could be accounted for without appealing to an intelligence, or intelligent (type of) design.
no not at all, I think faith can be a beautiful, necessary thing.
my point is that since there are limits to human understanding, agnosticism seems to be the most rational, default state for human beings. so it seems that to believe in God or to not believe, is to use a leap of faith, or intuition/feeling. like two sides of the same coin coming to opposite conclusions...
Was the Socratic method doing some heavy lifting here or does this gentleman simply rate high on agreeableness? Not sure, but he seems so affable, I would have offered to buy him lunch.
Brilliant conversation. And love that he couldn’t pin your beliefs down based on your questioning. Thanks for modeling great conversation and logic.
Thank you!
How is it possible for a human to distinguish hearing/experiencing God from an hallucination, as each human is unavoidably imperfect and limited? How can any committee of humans can get around this? If true, then the question of God's existence becomes moot. Believe what you want, it means nothing to any skeptic.
If true, this would also extend to literally all things, not just gods, that can be reasonable said to be external to an observing human mind. The only way to actually know something is to be one with it.
That's why God's existence would have to be "reasoned to".
It is helpful to distinguish between and not confuse:
1. Categorisation of PROOF / EVIDENCE
2. Historical… literal… scientific… rational… legal… experiential… technological… personal PROOF / EVIDENCE
3. Faith as trust demonstrable through action // faith as a literary creedal proffession.
Of course God exists, c'mon now! Do you breathe air; the molecules you don't see but need to stay alive! You need God in your lives especially if ya don't wanna go to the Eternal Lake of Fire!
...pretty sure there's no air down there too! LoL!
Sarcasm?
This was a great conversation, thank you for modeling and sharing this! I think Paul Nelson presents compelling reason and evidence in this video (under 10 minutes):
How to Build a Worm
youtube.com/watch?v=QDQ0NJQ_z3U
science.org/content/article/tiny-worm-lands-big-prize
nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2002/brenner/facts/
Intelligent design is different from God. Or is that a placeholder?
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Peter! You are right, intelligent design is different from God. Your placeholder question is a good one, I wouldn’t describe intelligent design (ID) as a placeholder for God. Bracketing the Intelligent Design label for a moment, I’d like to try to answer the question I perceive you to be asking. Correct me if I’m wrong. I believe you are asking: In the hypothetical scenario in which the Paul Nelson video provides evidence for God, what is the placeholder for God in the video? The placeholder for God in the video is the one who fills the role of designer. Nelson is claiming a worm “carries the signal of design”. The existence of a design would be proof that [placeholder] is filling the role of designer and therefore must exist. I realize that leaves the question, “what constitutes carrying the signal of design?” unanswered for now, but I’d like to know whether my perception of your first question was in the ballpark (and if I answered it) before moving on to another question.
Returning to the intelligent design label, I don’t like the label because it is clunky to use the same phrase to describe the cause and the method for detecting the cause. Paul Nelson uses the label Intelligent Design to describe an intuition we all use every day to recognize artificial products, such as recognizing a sandcastle is not a product of erosion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sna0oSVJiCk Stephen C. Meyer uses the label ID to describe a cause that is known to currently be in operation. https://youtu.be/HcMM1V6w1rs?t=3761 I think the term ID originated as a counter to the idea that design could be accounted for without appealing to an intelligence, or intelligent (type of) design.
Always good to really think through these questions. Personally I'm agnostic on the question of god's existence or not.
uugghh.
God isn't something that can be proven in any objective sense. Both theism and atheism are faith based belief structures.
ask a believer and a non believer what it would take to change their mind and every individual argument will fall apart eventually.
How is atheism a faith-based belief structure? And if you're implying that's a bad thing, then aren't you implying faith is bad?
no not at all, I think faith can be a beautiful, necessary thing.
my point is that since there are limits to human understanding, agnosticism seems to be the most rational, default state for human beings. so it seems that to believe in God or to not believe, is to use a leap of faith, or intuition/feeling. like two sides of the same coin coming to opposite conclusions...
If you could prove God exists that would defeat the point of believing he does. When you have proof of something there's no FAITH needed.
Yup