TED Conversations

Adel Bibi

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Can anyone prove the existence of a supernatural deity?

I think that any philosophical ideal that isn't governed by the laws of physics will never be proven. Therefore, I guess all gods are just delusion. Whenever a person believes in god, that is because he found his parents doing so. Which means all our beliefs are nothing but a geographical accident!

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Dec 3 2012: dieties and all is a very vast subject and to understand this one has to come out of the laws of physics and others....whatever r der.....every subject on earth has a meaning, some relation and ofcourse history no matter how long back the history is......if billions of people r worshipping, putting there faith in an unseen figure then there has to be some reason and reality....as nothing is without reason...
    • thumb
      Dec 4 2012: Mona, I agree there are reasons people believe(d) in Yahwah, Allah, ghosts, aliens, Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, Maduk, El, reincarnation etc.

      Can all the conflicting beliefs be correct. No.

      At best one is correct, or many are partially correct.

      How can you tell if you are not basing your analysis on evidence.

      Popularity does not make some thing true or correct.

      In the past most may have believe the earth was stationary and the sun moved across the sky, rather than earth rotating.

      I suggest the reasons for religion relate more to fear of death, explaining the universe out pf ignorance, social and cultural dynamics, and our cognitive processes such as assuming agency, susceptibility to hallucinating, subservience to hierachy etc.
      • thumb
        Dec 6 2012: "You don't know if the physical brain is just a receiver. No reason not to think it is the source."

        Wrong again. To be sure, anecdotal evidence, borne from a plethora of experience, not sufficient to convince skeptics such as yourself--but the "brain is just a receiver," and the body an "avatar," existing because another body gives it life, an existence through which it interacts in a realm that's unnatural to itself (our physical, material realm), as did Jake Sully on the planet Pandora.

        "Again a argument from ignorance."

        Not "ignorance," experience. There's a difference.
        • thumb
          Dec 7 2012: Is this personal experience sufficient evidence?

          How do you know your interpretation is correct.

          How do know much of anything about all this. How it works.

          Aren't you speculating on the explanation for your experience.

          What makes your interpretation any more robust than opinion

          What makes you right and the Christians wrong, the Buddhists wrong etc.

          How do you know you are right.

          How is it different to me stating my dreams create another universe. My spirit is eternal and has always existed. That there is a spiritual brain, made of spiritual
          Neurons etc. There are astral and etheric realms etc.
      • thumb
        Dec 7 2012: "Is this personal experience sufficient evidence?"

        Perhaps not for you, but it's compelling enough for me to believe in its authenticity.

        "How do you know your interpretation is correct."

        How does one "know" anything, if not that we compare and contrast it with current and previous experience? Any aspect of reality and experience can be called into question, and often is. No two realities are the same, just as total consensus is impossible, as no two can reach the same conclusion, or the same place, using the same criteria--similar criteria, but not identical.

        "How do know much of anything about all this. How it works."

        The same way you "know" anything about "anything," because it's a part of your experience. You experienced it. You observed it. You experimented with it. From that involvement, you determined "how it works."

        "Aren't you speculating on the explanation for your experience."

        No more than others--those who have "experienced" NDE's, or telepathy, or precognition, or, for that matter, those who have fallen in love, or have answered a calling to sacrifice themselves for a greater good.

        "What makes your interpretation any more robust than opinion."

        Not all "opinions" are formed as a result of experience, but are oftentimes the result of a capitulation to a trusted authority, or a surrender to a popular view.

        From my vantage point, what you cite as "opinion" is for me unimpeachable facts, a firmness derived from replicable experimentation--my own, of course--conducted over many years.

        "What makes you right and the Christians wrong, the Buddhists wrong etc."

        I don't make others wrong: They can choose to believe whatever they wish. I simply present my evidence, and allow others to agree or disagree. Whether they agree or not is their business. In that I have no preference.

        "How do you know you are right."

        In the same way that I know anything. The answers are becoming circular.

        "How is it different"?

        Not. Stranger things have happened!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.