Ahh the invisible, vague, “spirit”. It’s there but it isnt. A ghost. I’m sure theres some schizophrenic psychosis that makes people think they’ve encountered God.
It is quite likely that all invisible friends are invented.
You are mixing your groups and creating relationships that don’t exist. You are mixing up sets and subsets. It’s a logical fallacy.
Nor does it mean ANY of them are true or that any friends are invisible (proper continuity of your set)
Actually, we aren’t. Eyewitness testimony that the eyewitness is sure of is proven wrong in court every single day. Ask a litigator, they will tell you that eyewitness testimony is pretty unreliable.
If God interacts with the physical world then we should be able to find evidence of that interaction. If he doesn’t, then it is no different than there being no god.
Maybe all physical phenomena we observe is exactly the evidence you are looking for?? People throughout the ages have wanted some sort of violation of his natural laws in order to believe.
God as an infinite upholder, universal controller makes sense to me. Its difficult for me to conceive of a universe that is not mind made and personality managed.
Back to the 6k age of the earth-it’s interesting to me that the most brilliant/famous scientist that ever lived believed in this story, evidenced in his 6.5 million word manuscript “Principia Theologica”
No, I’m not a believer in this interpretation of bible story.
What’s a spirit?
Maybe. But you asserting something is evidence does not make it evidence. You need to show why it is evidence. Otherwise I can say 1+1=2 is evidence of no god existing.
I was attempting to address the opening premise of people yearn for something greater, so they invented God–which I say is also a fallacy from its very infancy. Do you consider a conclusion of, “I never encountered God, hence all those who say they did must have created Him themselves” a valid conclusion?
Interesting but a totally different type of discussion.
This is actually about BECOMING the Buddha yourself.
My point is that people observe what is going on around them, they do take note of things. You mention some eye-witness accounts are proven wrong. How many eye witness accounts are spot on? (I’m about to tell you. 
)
Research shows that in the past police paid little or no attention to the confidence level of their witness. They used witnesses who may have identified the perpetrator, but they were only somewhat confident of their identification. In these cases, eye-witness testimony often proved to be in error. However, those totally confident in their identification were likely to be correct, at least ninety percent of the time. Yes, still a margin for error, but certainly not as great as the one that happens when a witness is not confident from the start and is then coached into confidence.
Also, I doubt this happens every single day. For example in the two hundred cases of wrongful convictions , a contributing factor in 73% of them was eye-witness testimony. In other words, it was not the only factor. Still, in many of them, that eye-witness testimony did carry great weight, and I want to be clear on that as well.
This means if someone actually knows the perpetrator, the testimony can be considered reliable. For example, if one of my brothers broke a vase, and Mom asked me which brother, without a doubt I could name that brother. On the other hand, if the person who broke the vase was in a crowd of boys I did not know, there would be a very good chance of a mis-identification.
Why are we assuming that humans are comprised of mind, body, and spirit?
Why is it fallacy to assume people invented a deity?
We know people invent stories to explain things all the time.
In fact, storytelling may be humans’ greatest evolutionary trait.
Without storytelling capacity, a far-flung human civilization is not possible.
Well, the alternative is cause and effect and there is no 2plus2 for that either.
The cause needed to solve the simple equation is absolutely elusive.
Good question. Spirit can be defined as the essential you, the part of you that is unique.
I often think of it like this: My brain presents me with lots of information and usually several options. The essential me is the one that chooses between the various options. When I am relaxing, it is the essential me that seems to direct what I want to think (or day-dream) about.
Why is it difficult for you to imagine a universe that is not created or mind-managed?
What evidence is there that an “essential me” exists?
I’ll try to answer:
Does the concept of an un-caused cause settle comfortably in your mind? For me this concept is more like a state of denial, being comfortable (by choice) with the idea that everything came from nothing. Living in a universe without purpose or destiny, basing a pseudo-science on easily observable every day cause and effect but when pondering the original cause, it is not explainable logically.
The urge to find god has been stimulating human intellect since there were humans. In my experience when people sincerely search for him, finding him translates to more like the desire to be like him. It’s a personal relationship, not an emotional one and it is completely objective. Personal experience has validity.
Why do people want to bargain with our creator? demand that he reveal his nature based on their demands so that 2plus2 gives evidence demanded to be needed in order to be accepted?
Again, we don’t change God, he changes us.
Different from your theoretical roof brain chatter.
Isn’t God an uncaused cause?
Do you have a hard time dealing with that concept?
If not, why do you have this same problem with the universe existing uncaused?
1 Like
The moment you conceptualize like this the further you are from grasping reality as it is.
