Do you believe in God?

[Danoff]

Your "explanation", like Crafty's, ignores the same problem of veridical information acquired during the experience, and suffers from numerous other weaknesses. Back to school for you!

Do you have some sort of example of veridical information? All I've heard are stories about seeing doctors and that sort of thing - which... well... that's obvious.

What are the numerous other weaknesses?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Do you have some sort of example of veridical information? All I've heard are stories about seeing doctors and that sort of thing - which... well... that's obvious.

What are the numerous other weaknesses?

I'd also have to see some credible documentation to buy into the legitimacy of veridical experience.

Even if I did believe it, I don't see how that justifies belief in a higher power, especially if one believes, as you do, that "remote viewing", a very specific type of veridical experience, is being tested under laboratory conditions. If this is true, it puts veridical experience squarely in the sights of scientific inquiry into an as-yet unknown or misunderstood phenomenon and precludes it from forming the basis of supernatural belief.

 

[Cale]

I voted maybe, I don't right now but anything is possible. I'm very surprised this thread has lasted because no matter how careful everyone is with religious issues there will always be someone who is offended by it.

 

[Exorcet]

I can see this as an empirical, convincing way to accept God or something higher than man. A 300,000 foot tall man thumping his sandal at the UN is silly, and neither required nor in any way desired by anyone.

It is ridiculous. But it would settle things. At the very least, it would serve as easily verifiable proof of something.

NDE's are cannot do the same. To go NDE->God/higher realm is silly. It might lead there with tons of research, but at this point, it is unlikely to. Seemingly viable alternate explanations have been provided a few posts following your own after all.

I'm not at all afraid or uncomfortable with the existence of God/higher than man things, but ideas won't get much credibility from me without proof.

 

[DK]

Well if you can't respect me for that then so be it your entitled to your belifs and so am I,and I don't believe everything scientists say.

mazdaman, I'm sorry if you think I disrespected you. But I think this has proved one point: sometimes creationism vs. Darwinism can turn really ugly.

 

[Dotini]

Do you have some sort of example of veridical information? All I've heard are stories about seeing doctors and that sort of thing - which... well... that's obvious.

What are the numerous other weaknesses?

I'd also have to see some credible documentation to buy into the legitimacy of veridical experience.

Even if I did believe it, I don't see how that justifies belief in a higher power, especially if one believes, as you do, that "remote viewing", a very specific type of veridical experience, is being tested under laboratory conditions. If this is true, it puts veridical experience squarely in the sights of scientific inquiry into an as-yet unknown or misunderstood phenomenon and precludes it from forming the basis of supernatural belief.

It is ridiculous. But it would settle things. At the very least, it would serve as easily verifiable proof of something.

NDE's are cannot do the same. To go NDE->God/higher realm is silly. It might lead there with tons of research, but at this point, it is unlikely to. Seemingly viable alternate explanations have been provided a few posts following your own after all.

I'm not at all afraid or uncomfortable with the existence of God/higher than man things, but ideas won't get much credibility from me without proof.

As previously stated, frequently, I am neither an advocate of God nor a believer in any organized religion. I am quite content to allow the medical/scientific research now under way to settle the issue of NDE's. I'm pleased with Exorcet's statement that he does not fear the existence of God or higher powers. Crafty likewise seems to put some stock in scientific inquiry into poorly understood phenomena, and I like that too. Dan presents a thorny problem as an interlocutor on subjects involving spirituality and higher powers. As his signature so obviously implies, he has long ago taken Orders and Vows to vigorously deny the existence of such things. He has made an a priori judgment. Facts don't matter, as he reasons from his principles to a necessary effect. He can no more understand God or unconditional love than SCJ can understand evolution.

Peace and love,
Dotini

 

[Duke]

Dan presents a thorny problem as an interlocutor on subjects involving spirituality and higher powers. As his signature so obviously implies, he has long ago taken Orders and Vows to vigorously deny the existence of such things. He has made an a priori judgment. Facts don't matter, as he reasons from his principles to a necessary effect. He can no more understand God or unconditional love than SCJ can understand evolution.

Speaking on Dan's behalf, this is an incorrect analysis. Throughout his every utterance on this subject, Dan has repeatedly said "If god shows up in person and does something that is not explainable by any means except his supernatural existence, I will believe in him that very minute."

What he (or I) won't do is waste any time believing that anything supernatural might exist. Surely it could possibly exist somewhere we can't see it, and logic clearly indicates that we will never positively prove god does not exist because it is not logically possible to do so.

It's not at all an arbitrary a priori assumption that god doesn't exist. It's just that about 30 seconds after we started thinking about the subject, we came to terms with the logical impossibility of proving god doesn't exist, and we see no reason to continue wasting time repeating that we understand this impossibility and therefore must admit that god might exist. It's a logical given and therefore not worthy of any further consideration. The interesting part of the subject is not "Can god exist?" but "What proof is there that god does exist?"

If there was any positive proof that god exists, I'd change my thinking in a heartbeat. But in 40 years of looking, I haven't found any.

 

[Dotini]

Speaking on Dan's behalf, this is an incorrect analysis. Throughout his every utterance on this subject, Dan has repeatedly said "If god shows up in person and does something that is not explainable by any means except his supernatural existence, I will believe in him that very minute."

What he (or I) won't do is waste any time believing that anything supernatural might exist. Surely it could possibly exist somewhere we can't see it, and logic clearly indicates that we will never positively prove god does not exist because it is not logically possible to do so.

It's not at all an arbitrary a priori assumption that god doesn't exist. It's just that about 30 seconds after we started thinking about the subject, we came to terms with the logical impossibility of proving god doesn't exist, and we see no reason to continue wasting time repeating that we understand this impossibility and therefore must admit that god might exist. It's a logical given and therefore not worthy of any further consideration. The interesting part of the subject is not "Can god exist?" but "What proof is there that god does exist?"

If there was any positive proof that god exists, I'd change my thinking in a heartbeat. But in 40 years of looking, I haven't found any.

Duke, thanks for that eloquent apologia. Please forgive me if I do not accept it. Dan has confirmed that he is an Objectivist. Objectivism denies the existence of the spiritual. Therefore Dan must deny God and any spiritual phenomena. Open and shut. Anything thing said to the contrary is disingenuous.

Perhaps the matter is different in your case. In any case, I don't think the less of either of you. We all have our beliefs and our experiences. We should be open about them, but I'm no position to instruct either an Administrator or a friend of The Management who has been here for Ages.

On my own behalf, I can say that I've been around for 62 years and have had the "benefit" of certain unusual direct personal experiences which could be interpreted by some as being of a religious or supra-dimensional character. I have decided to categorize them as unexplained phenomena of an Earthly origin, but await further explanation.

All things considered, at the end of the day I'm not so different in my beliefs than the vast bulk of the people here. I believe evolution and the scientific method are quite valid. I doubt the existence of God and the validity of organized religion. Though it pleases me to caution against technology, I've made my living and my hobbies around it.

So I'm not offering proof of God's existence. I've never used the term "supernatural". I'm offering suggestive evidence of possibly higher but assuredly unexplained phenomena. This should offer entertainment and sufficient reason for gentlemanly debate and discussion. You say you won't waste time believing the "supernatural" might exist. This is an a priori judgment which would seem to prejudice discussion about any strange phenomena. You and he still pose a thorny problem for any who would choose to discuss this topic in these forums.

With the very highest regards,
Dotini

 

[mazdaman]

QUOTE=driftking18594;3737906]mazdaman, I'm sorry if you think I disrespected you. But I think this has proved one point: sometimes creationism vs. Darwinism can turn really ugly.[/QUOTE]

It's ok friends?

 

[Danoff]

Duke, thanks for that eloquent apologia. Please forgive me if I do not accept it. Dan has confirmed that he is an Objectivist. Objectivism denies the existence of the spiritual. Therefore Dan must deny God and any spiritual phenomena. Open and shut. Anything thing said to the contrary is disingenuous.

Duke has also described himself as Objectivist. Yet somehow neither of us claim that we must deny God in the face of compelling evidence. Strange how that happened...

 

[Dotini]

Duke has also described himself as Objectivist. Yet somehow neither of us claim that we must deny God in the face of compelling evidence. Strange how that happened...

I thoroughly applaud you and Duke for staking such a bold and apostate position! I had no idea!http://www.gtpla.net/forum/images/smilies/bowdown.gif

I'm really glad not to be in the business of providing compelling evidence of God. Heads you win, tails I lose.

In veritas,
Dotini

 

[Duke]

You say you won't waste time believing the "supernatural" might exist. This is an a priori judgment which would seem to prejudice discussion about any strange phenomena. You and he still pose a thorny problem for any who would choose to discuss this topic in these forums.

With the very highest regards,
Dotini

What I mean by "waste time" is that logic dictates that anything conceivable (and indeed even anything inconceivable) might actually exist. There is no way to positively prove that any given thing does NOT exist. Therefore there is no reason to waste time and effort trying to prove against the existence of supernatural entities. It can't be done and trying to do so is doomed to failure.

Which means I prefer to spend my time on the topic in discussing what proof may or may not exist that positively supports the existence of supernatural entities or forces. I have yet to see any repeatable, analyzable evidence that events occur which are caused by beings or forces that are not subject to the normal, non-supernatural laws of physics. That's not an a priori rejection. If solid, positive evidence is provided, I will believe it.

But I won't believe something happened just because it could happen. The burden of proof is on the claimant. If people claim that god exists they need to demonstrate proof that he does. It's not my responsibility to prove he doesn't (even if that was possible).

 

[Dotini]

Fatima, Portugal, 1917. This proves without the possibility of denial or contradiction that some mighty odd things happen on our old mudball, Earth. It is very suggestive evidence of a powerful and important phenomena that begs to be understood. I don't know what it is. Who does?

Too bad the standard of "repeatable, analyzable evidence" is not met.

You have said, "I prefer to spend my time on the topic in discussing what proof may or may not exist that positively supports the existence of supernatural entities or forces."

Is it to be taken that events in the nature of the Fatima are preferred by you to be off limits for discussion in this forum?

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

Fatima, Portugal, 1917. This proves without the possibility of denial or contradiction that some mighty odd things happen on our old mudball, Earth.

Some kids tell an uncheckable tale. Doesn't seem that odd.

Is it to be taken that events in the nature of the Fatima are preferred by you to be off limits for discussion in this forum?

Why would they be? Is there an amendment to the AUP of which I was unaware?

 

[Dotini]

Some kids tell an uncheckable tale. Doesn't seem that odd.

You must be unfamiliar with the story. Check it out before you make make your put-down. A gent as smart as you knows how to do his homework. 70,000 people saw something odd.

In irritation,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

You must be unfamiliar with the story. Check it out before you make make your put-down. A gent as smart as you knows how to do his homework. 70,000 people saw something odd.

In irritation,
Dotini

Official website: three shepherd kids see apparition. Official website again: three shepherd kids see apparition. Two were beatified by Pope John Paul II in 2000, the third is in the process.

Some kids tell an uncheckable tale.


Of course you might be referring to the subsequent "vision" had by an assembled throng of fervent Catholic believers that the three children allegedly predicted. In which case I'd go for "Assembled throng of fervent Catholic believers see things". And again note "Not that odd".

Edit: I might also add that, of the eyewitness descriptions noted, no two seem to agree on exactly what was seen. Again noting "Not that odd".

 

[DK]

Official website: three shepherd kids see apparition...

...while stoned on high-quality Dutch weed. I'm very skeptical of all these sightings of Jesus/the Virgin Mary/God, because I'll ask: "Where's your proof?" These seem to happen when the people seeing the apparition probably don't have anything to record the incident. Or maybe they were off their heads on weed/crack/ecstasy, and during their hallucination also saw Buddha, Michael Jackson, JFK and Homer Simpson.

 

[Dotini]

Official website: three shepherd kids see apparition. Official website again: three shepherd kids see apparition. Two were beatified by Pope John Paul II in 2000, the third is in the process.

Some kids tell an uncheckable tale.


Of course you might be referring to the subsequent "vision" had by an assembled throng of fervent Catholic believers that the three children allegedly predicted. In which case I'd go for "Assembled throng of fervent Catholic believers see things". And again note "Not that odd".

Edit: I might also add that, of the eyewitness descriptions noted, no two seem to agree on exactly what was seen. Again noting "Not that odd".

If I were Famine, and had his level of credibility, I would want to make some effort to maintain it. I'm sorry that hasn't happened here. My participation in this topic ends at this point, unless I hear a request otherwise.

Yours truly,
Dotini

 

[Duke]

Fatima, Portugal, 1917. This proves without the possibility of denial or contradiction that some mighty odd things happen on our old mudball, Earth. It is very suggestive evidence of a powerful and important phenomena that begs to be understood. I don't know what it is. Who does?

Too bad the standard of "repeatable, analyzable evidence" is not met.

Yes, too bad. Because that renders the entire event an odd, not fully-understood occurance.

However odd, it does nothing to prove that there is a god.

You have said, "I prefer to spend my time on the topic in discussing what proof may or may not exist that positively supports the existence of supernatural entities or forces."

Is it to be taken that events in the nature of the Fatima are preferred by you to be off limits for discussion in this forum?

Respectfully,
Dotini

Please understand that my participation in any discussion on this forum is unrelated to my role as a member of staff. When I need to put on my staff hat, it will be obvious, and I will do my best to keep it separate from my opinion hat.

The event at Fatima, and similar events, are fine for discussion. I do not see any reason they should not be welcome. But merely saying that the Fatima "vision" could be evidence of god is not the same as it being proof of god.

And, frankly, I'd automatically suspect anything that so carefully matches the overbearingly popular doctrine in such a highly-religious culture to be the direct result of predisposition. In other words, people saw a Catholic vision because it was a highly Catholic country... just like people see little green men with big eyes coming out of a brightly-lit spheroid when they are predisposed to believe that's what aliens look like.

Now, show me something utterly alien and I'll believe it might be alien.

Also, please understand, I think that statistically speaking it is certain that not only are there other sentient cultures in the universe; in fact there are bound to be many many so, no matter how rare. They could possibly have even visited this planet. But I wouldn't guarantee it based on the evidence.

 

[Dotini]

Yes, too bad. Because that renders the entire event an odd, not fully-understood occurance.

However odd, it does nothing to prove that there is a god.



Please understand that my participation in any discussion on this forum is unrelated to my role as a member of staff. When I need to put on my staff hat, it will be obvious, and I will do my best to keep it separate from my opinion hat.

The event at Fatima, and similar events, are fine for discussion. I do not see any reason they should not be welcome. But merely saying that the Fatima "vision" could be evidence of god is not the same as it being proof of god.

And, frankly, I'd automatically suspect anything that so carefully matches the overbearingly popular doctrine in such a highly-religious culture to be the direct result of predisposition. In other words, people saw a Catholic vision because it was a highly Catholic country... just like people see little green men with big eyes coming out of a brightly-lit spheroid when they are predisposed to believe that's what aliens look like.

Now, show me something utterly alien and I'll believe it might be alien.

Also, please understand, I think that statistically speaking it is certain that not only are there other sentient cultures in the universe; in fact there are bound to be many many so, no matter how rare. They could possibly have even visited this planet. But I wouldn't guarantee it based on the evidence.

Duke's credibility is still in good shape.

 

[Famine]

In which case I'd go for "Assembled throng of fervent Catholic believers see things". And again note "Not that odd".

Edit: I might also add that, of the eyewitness descriptions noted, no two seem to agree on exactly what was seen. Again noting "Not that odd".

And, frankly, I'd automatically suspect anything that so carefully matches the overbearingly popular doctrine in such a highly-religious culture to be the direct result of predisposition. In other words, people saw a Catholic vision because it was a highly Catholic country...

Duke's credibility is still in good shape.

I'm not seeing the disparity between the two.

 

[Dotini]

I'm not seeing the disparity between the two.

Duke actually made quite an intelligent observation, which is very germane to this case, i.e., it was an event which took place in a formerly highly Catholic culture which was experiencing a crisis of belief; people saw a Catholic vision because it was a Catholic culture. Nice going, Duke!👍

You, Famine, on the other hand, prejudiced and foreclosed further investigation by dismissing, and debunking the whole thing by blandly claiming that people were seeing things and nothing was odd. 👎

It's hard to know which of you is the scientist and which is the watchman. I say Duke is better at both, in this case.

Sincerely yours,
Dotini

 

[mindwise]

Science hasn't even cracked the surface of how the universe began.

i thought "'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009" was a really good lecture, nice bit of history on it too.

lecture begins around 4:30 very funny too.
begin at "20:50" for an animation of how the "mass of nothing" behaves. (or how most mass of mater is actually from virtual particles)

 

[Sam48]

^ So science showed there can be matter in empty space between protons. That's all good and well, now explain to me where that proton that inevitably started the universe came from.

 

[Exorcet]

As of now, the definitive answer to that cannot be found anywhere. Not even in a book.

 

[Duke]

^ So science showed there can be matter in empty space between protons. That's all good and well, now explain to me where that proton that inevitably started the universe came from.

It is more important to have the right answer later than it is to have the wrong answer right now.

 

[niky]

^ So science showed there can be matter in empty space between protons. That's all good and well, now explain to me where that proton that inevitably started the universe came from.

Who said it was a proton that started the Universe? Protons didn't even exist until after the "Big Bang".

It is more important to have the right answer later than it is to have the wrong answer right now.

+1

 

[Famine]

Duke actually made quite an intelligent observation, which is very germane to this case, i.e., it was an event which took place in a formerly highly Catholic culture which was experiencing a crisis of belief; people saw a Catholic vision because it was a Catholic culture. Nice going, Duke!👍

You, Famine, on the other hand, prejudiced and foreclosed further investigation by dismissing, and debunking the whole thing by blandly claiming that people were seeing things and nothing was odd. 👎

I'm still not seeing the disparity. What is a "vision" if not "seeing things"? Did I deny they saw something? Nope.

Both Duke and I pointed out that some Catholic people saw things and that this is not remarkably unusual - Pope Pius went on to see exactly the same thing while in the Vatican gardens (and which was unseen by anyone else) shortly before deciding that the event was a miracle.

Both of us have the same assessment of the same event, yet I'm deserving of your disdain and Duke attracts plaudits.

Fascinating.

 

[Omnis]

He's an admin; you're a puny super mod.

 

[bloodstriker]

This whole discussion = the eternal question.

Heck. Why do We exist?