Do you believe in God?

[Scaff]

Well, just keep telling yourself that.
My apologies for the intrusion on your own private reality.


"If the atheist experience was able to objectively look at the evidence provided by the truth movement, you would be compelled to support. This would be powerful, as I am finding that almost all atheist organizations seem to tow the line. You are looked up to – inspiring leaders of reason. Please re-consider your position, as I think you may start the house of “skeptics” to fall if you relate the proper information. This would be a great thing for society, as IMHO, the atheist and skeptics societies have failed miserably with their duty to seek the truth. But this can change, and reason and evidence can push through faulty conjecture."


(emphasis on, "their duty to seek the truth")

http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/201...rase-that-loses-every-argument/#ixzz3dh7Eknc5

BTW, Happy Fathers day.

You really, really, really didn't bother to read or understand that link at all did you?

Using that quote-mined extract from that link in regard to shut-down the conversation in question is stunningly ironic (really - quoting 911 conspiracy nuts wo openly admit to dismissing evidence if its doesn't match what they want it to "Unfortunately, their evidence and science contradicts what I see, so I cannot believe what they say").

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You really, really, really didn't bother to read or understand that link at all did you?

Using that quote-mined extract from that link in regard to shut-down the conversation in question is stunningly ironic (really - quoting 911 conspiracy nuts wo openly admit to dismissing evidence if its doesn't match what they want it to "Unfortunately, their evidence and science contradicts what I see, so I cannot believe what they say").

To the contrary yes I've read it all, more than once.
The author's confidence in what the truth will show, is obviously assumed as support of his position.
The important factor however is, the quest for truth.
Ultimately that may not agree with his position.
Let me put it this way, I am in no way reluctant or opposed to the quest for truth.
The debate is actually in establishment of what in reality, that is.

 

[JKgo]

...I did say I'll take a break from this thread, but I came across this and...well, the Biblical End of Days is NEAR!!

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33209548

 

[Scaff]

To the contrary yes I've read it all, more than once.
The author's confidence in what the truth will show, is obviously assumed as support of his position.
The important factor however is, the quest for truth.
Ultimately that may not agree with his position.

Which author?

The author of the whole article or the 911-truther who you cited in a manner that suggested it was from the main article and not a quote from it?

Let me put it this way, I am in no way reluctant or opposed to the quest for truth.
The debate is actually in establishment of what in reality, that is.

I don't doubt that you are in no way "reluctant or opposed to the quest for truth.", the issue is that you have already determined what that truth is.

 

[Mike458]

...I did say I'll take a break from this thread, but I came across this and...well, the Biblical End of Days is NEAR!!

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33209548

I wouldn't be surprised if this does happen, and it's not the Bible that accelerated these mass extinction events, but most likely us and our destruction to the environment.

 

[JKgo]

it's not the Bible that accelerated these mass extinction events

...

Sarcasm is lost on this one.

 

[Mike458]

...

Sarcasm is lost on this one.

My second reaction: "Oh no! We're all going to die! REPENT!!! REPENT!!!!!!!!! (The sarcasm is strong with this one!)"

 

[JKgo]

...Well, the world is ending. RUN. Like, now!

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Which author?

The author of the whole article or the 911-truther who you cited in a manner that suggested it was from the main article and not a quote from it?

The author of the whole article.
The quote from that article was to draw one to the link given for examination of the whole article.

I don't doubt that you are in no way "reluctant or opposed to the quest for truth.", the issue is that you have already determined what that truth is.

I can't disagree with you on that one, as far as this subject.
But I will say, as I have before, that conclusion is as per the extensive testing I have done on it.
And also again, if you confine yourself to the physical evidence box you will never be able to establish it.
That is the biggest pivotal point of difference between many of you and myself and a hurdle
which I cleared years ago.
And the reason for clearing it, is in the comprehensive dimensional aspects of reality, and specifically the relational
dimension in which we operate.

But likewise however the concept is not one that is inconsistent with the physical.
In that there are inumerous amounts of invisable forces acting upon the physical all the time.
So in reality it is compatible with the existence of the physical.

Now referring back to the relational, the only difference here is this force is not universal, but by invitation only.
But that invitation is extended to anyone and everyone, and optional in that, one can accept or decline and there are some graces of relational etiquette involved.

 

[Dotini]

...I did say I'll take a break from this thread, but I came across this and...well, the Biblical End of Days is NEAR!!

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33209548

If humanity were caught up in a 6th great extinction, would it really be any great loss?

Certainly natural forces are at work, as well as human forces such as overpopulation, resource depletion and pollution of the environment, so the blame can't be placed entirely on humans. Our works of art, music, architecture, science and technology probably lack any intrinsically redeeming qualities. The day the last human on Earth passes away will be just another "oh well, whatever" day for the universe at large. Our unmitigated problem is that we make everything about us, we anthropomorphize everything to make it seem the universe is all about us, me and mine, when at the end it's just a vain illusion.

 

[Scaff]

The author of the whole article.
The quote from that article was to draw one to the link given for examination of the whole article.

Then I would strongly suggest that in future you make that a lot clearer.

So do you support the contention of the quote you used, even given the context of the person who quoted it having no intention of being open to new evidence and having already found the truth they wanted?

I can't disagree with you on that one, as far as this subject.
But I will say, as I have before, that conclusion is as per the extensive testing I have done on it.
And also again, if you confine yourself to the physical evidence box you will never be able to establish it.
That is the biggest pivotal point of difference between many of you and myself and a hurdle
which I cleared years ago.
And the reason for clearing it, is in the comprehensive dimensional aspects of reality, and specifically the relational
dimension in which we operate.

But likewise however the concept is not one that is inconsistent with the physical.
In that there are inumerous amounts of invisable forces acting upon the physical all the time.
So in reality it is compatible with the existence of the physical.

Now referring back to the relational, the only difference here is this force is not universal, but by invitation only.
But that invitation is extended to anyone and everyone, and optional in that, one can accept or decline and there are some graces of relational etiquette involved.

And yet its still not repeatable and all you seem to do when any one says as much is blame them.

Its rather reminiscent of the charlatans that faith-healers embody so well.

 

[GBO Possum]

But I will say, as I have before, that conclusion is as per the extensive testing I have done on it.

So how about you publish the methodology and results in such a way that your "extensive testing" can be "extensively tested" by others to verify (or not) your conclusions. As @Scaff said above, we are looking for "repeatable".

So, documentation please!

Here's my prediction of the day. This recommendation will not be taken up by SCJ.

 

[LeMansAid]

But I will say, as I have before, that conclusion is as per the extensive testing I have done on it.

There's a very important distinction to be made here. Did you "test" before or after coming to your conclusion?

If you tested after, that's fine. It's just that my next question would be - were you prepared to change your conclusion?

* It is no accident that those are the biggest, boldest, most italicised quotation marks that I have ever used.

 

[JKgo]

If humanity were caught up in a 6th great extinction, would it really be any great loss?

Certainly natural forces are at work, as well as human forces such as overpopulation, resource depletion and pollution of the environment, so the blame can't be placed entirely on humans. Our works of art, music, architecture, science and technology probably lack any intrinsically redeeming qualities. The day the last human on Earth passes away will be just another "oh well, whatever" day for the universe at large. Our unmitigated problem is that we make everything about us, we anthropomorphize everything to make it seem the universe is all about us, me and mine, when at the end it's just a vain illusion.

...That is a rather fatalistic way of viewing things. I don't agree with the part about art, though. Like religion, art, music, those things are intensely personal objects so, one man's garbage is potentially someone else's Rembrandt. Or a lost Lennon record, if you're that way inclined.

But y'know what, you're right about the universe not giving two hoots 'bout us biting the dust. Our lives are a mere milisecond in the greater clock in the history of this universe anyways.

Oh, and I'll be too busy playing Fallout 4 when it hits the store shelves, so there's that.

 

[LeMansAid]

If humanity were caught up in a 6th great extinction, would it really be any great loss?

Certainly natural forces are at work, as well as human forces such as overpopulation, resource depletion and pollution of the environment, so the blame can't be placed entirely on humans. Our works of art, music, architecture, science and technology probably lack any intrinsically redeeming qualities. The day the last human on Earth passes away will be just another "oh well, whatever" day for the universe at large. Our unmitigated problem is that we make everything about us, we anthropomorphize everything to make it seem the universe is all about us, me and mine, when at the end it's just a vain illusion.

The irony for me is, in a sense, your argument just defeated your own argument.

It may just be that the introspection, self interrogation, and response to it, is what affords humankind it's one true crowning glory.

 

[JKgo]

The irony for me is, in a sense, your argument just defeated your own argument.

It may just be that the introspection, self interrogation, and response to it, is what affords humankind it's one true crowning glory.

...One true aspect of humanity, all succinctly described; our never-ending ability to repeat mistakes of past.

 

[Danoff]

Are you asking me to accept an effect without cause, because I can't say there was a cause in the first place?

Nope. See below.

So you say if you observe effects of an event, you are observing the event, not just effects of the event?

Yes. By the way you only ever observe the effects of events. An event that has no effects cannot be observed.

Didn't you just say your perception of reality is all that you have of reality, how then could you say there is a reality in the first place?

Because of your perception of reality.

Yet, how do you really know?

We don't really know all that much.

Can you see how we need to accept certain things in order to assign meaning to that which is our perception?

Assigning meaning is not the reason for accepting our interpretation of perceptions as truth. The reason we accept our perception of reality as being real is because we have no reason not to. The moment we have a reason to stop accepting it, we will do so - regardless of what meaning that holds.

So, to get back to the question of reality (which most of us would agree exists), what rationale do we really have to be certain of its existence, if what we call perception is all we really have? Or would you disagree with the latter?

Reality is what you perceive. You can be certain of its existence because you are certain that you perceive. Even if it's all just a daydream or computer program in your head. What reality is, you can't know for sure. We accept it for what it appears to be because we have no reason not to.

 

[Matej]

Deleted.

 

[doctorrg]

Nope. See below.




Yes. By the way you only ever observe the effects of events. An event that has no effects cannot be observed.

I fear we're getting a little too disconnected here from what we're actually talking about, so let us remind ourselves:

God can only be known through introspection (of sorts). You experience God by, in a sense, transcending your phenomenal self. By being what you really (in an absolute sense) are, devoid of perception and understanding. Naturally, as soon as you are trying to understand your experience, you are automatically back within the realm of phenomenal reality. You will have, in a sense, already lost the experience. The experience itself cannot be observed by the person having the experience. Yet, while a person is having such experience, the person can still be observed by a third party.

To illustrate this with an example from my own book:

Let's take a day where I've decided to meditate. I drop the kids off at 8:30am and head into the hills. By the time I get there and I'm set up it's about 9:30ish. I start with my meditation. Then, all of a sudden, and to me only moments later, my alarm rings, I'm suddenly "there", and I have all these wonderful feelings and thoughts running through me. Yes, it would be right to say I am having an experience then and there, I am observing an experiene then and there, yet, that wasn't the point. The point was that seeing my alarm rang it's already 3:00pm, and I have absolutely no recollection of what happened for at least the last 5 hours. In my mind, I have not made any observation within the last 5 hours. Yet, based on what I know from previous experience, and from countless other accounts of meditation, I make the connection that the thoughts and feelings I now have didn't just pop into existence, but are the effect (or as I've previously called it, residual effect) of the meditation.

Yet, even though I can observe these effects, I cannot at all say, in any meaning of the word, that I've observed the meditation.

I don't have a reason to doubt the meditation really happened, because I'm still sitting in the same spot I sat 5+ hours earlier when I started to meditate.

So, to get back to the question with respect to this concrete example. Are you saying that if you observe the effects, i.e. wonderful feelings and thoughts, you are observing what I consider to be the cause, i.e. the meditation?

Do you see here what my issue is?

Because of your perception of reality.

If it then exists you mean?

We don't really know all that much.

Agreed.

Assigning meaning is not the reason for accepting our interpretation of perceptions as truth. The reason we accept our perception of reality as being real is because we have no reason not to.

Indeed. Because we have no reason not to. And that, of course, is the crux of the entire matter.

The moment we have a reason to stop accepting it, we will do so - regardless of what meaning that holds.

So, in other words, what makes us stop accepting it, is that we have a reason to stop. We don't just stop for the mere fact that we have no reason not to stop.

Reality is what you perceive. You can be certain of its existence because you are certain that you perceive. Even if it's all just a daydream or computer program in your head. What reality is, you can't know for sure. We accept it for what it appears to be because we have no reason not to.

Agreed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@doctorrg, did I just read you having an entire conversation with yourself?

 

[dylansan]

Those were quotes from Danoff. Somehow the quote marker must have been messed up.

 

[sammy neuman]

That sounds a lot like wishful thinking. Makes me think of a conversation like this:

Sammy: Hello God, got a minute?
Devil: Yes, Sammy, what's up?
Sammy: Are you really the God of the Bible?
Devil: Sure I am, you wouldn't think I'd allow anyone to impersonate me, would you now?
Sammy: Of course not, sorry I doubted you.
Devil: No problem.

How do you know this?

I thought it through myself. Considering that anything to do with God is subjective, from a strictly scientific viewpoint any answer other than 'because I believe it is so' would be a meaningless waste of time, as would be the question. Having said that: As I specifically mentioned the Bible, any answer would be from Judeo-Christian beliefs, must be based on the Bible as authoritative, and accepted on those terms. Why? Because you are asking a faith- based question, not a scientific question.
The book of Job tells us that God can and does limit Satan's freedom of action. The phrase "For my names sake" is found in several places in the Bible, and Moses dissuades God from certain courses of action by arguing that it would be contrary to promises He had made, making Him a laughing-stock to others. While I cannot recall any texts prohibiting impersonation, seemingly a negative, my answer is falsifiable. The Bible is authoritative, remember? Produce a text which says that Satan can impersonate God.

 

[doctorrg]

@doctorrg, did I just read you having an entire conversation with yourself?

Indeed you did. lol Fixed quotes.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Let's take a day where I've decided to meditate. I drop the kids off at 8:30am and head into the hills. By the time I get there and I'm set up it's about 9:30ish. I start with my meditation. Then, all of a sudden, and to me only moments later, my alarm rings, I'm suddenly "there", and I have all these wonderful feelings and thoughts running through me. Yes, it would be right to say I am having an experience then and there, I am observing an experiene then and there, yet, that wasn't the point. The point was that seeing my alarm rang it's already 3:00pm, and I have absolutely no recollection of what happened for at least the last 5 hours. In my mind, I have not made any observation within the last 5 hours. Yet, based on what I know from previous experience, and from countless other accounts of meditation, I make the connection that the thoughts and feelings I now have didn't just pop into existence, but are the effect (or as I've previously called it, residual effect) of the meditation

Sounds like you fell asleep, I'm guessing that this isn't meant to be an example of a "god experience", because if it is you're making some pretty big assumptions based on zero evidence as far as I can tell.

 

[Imari]

Produce a text which says that Satan can impersonate God.

But anyone can produce a text that says Satan can impersonate God. I can do it right now.

"Satan can impersonate God."

I could publish it in book form, but it wouldn't really change the fact that I've just made it up on the spot.

Surely the only thing you would actually accept would be a text that says that Satan can impersonate God, and has the same or similar level of authority as the Bible.

Given that the Bible is at the top of the food chain, authority-wise, I don't see a Christian accepting any text as being even equivalent to the Bible, let alone able to override it. As such, this is not falsifiable, as your axiom (the Bible is authoritative) prevents any other text from providing what you need.

This is pretty simplified, and I'm not a Christian so I couldn't say, but I suspect that if there really is something that you would accept as "proof" of Satan's ability to impersonate God, even within established Christian beliefs, then you'd have to provide more definition than simply "a text that says Satan can impersonate God". I don't think you, or any Christian, would actually accept that, and nor should they.

 

[doctorrg]

Sounds like you fell asleep, I'm guessing that this isn't meant to be an example of a "god experience", because if it is you're making some pretty big assumptions based on zero evidence as far as I can tell.

Such as? Or did you think I was saying I was experiencing God the creator here?

 

[Spurgy 777]

Such as? Or did you think I was saying I was experiencing God the creator here?

That was how I read your post, yes, although it didn't seem very logical that you came to the conclusion you had experienced god during your meditation, so I guessed you meant something different. Which is it?

 

[Scaff]

To illustrate this with an example from my own book:

Which is? Link please.

 

[doctorrg]

That was how I read your post, yes, although it didn't seem very logical that you came to the conclusion you had experienced god during your meditation, so I guessed you meant something different. Which is it?

I very much doubt I fell asleep, as I don't find myself having such profound feelings and thoughts in the Morning. The point of course was, that if I did believe in the Holy Spirit, it wouldn't be so unreasonable to see this experience as just that. It really is that profound.

Which is? Link please.

Didn't mean it literally, was more my way of saying "A day in the life of...".

 

[Dotini]

That was how I read your post, yes, although it didn't seem very logical that you came to the conclusion you had experienced god during your meditation, so I guessed you meant something different. Which is it?

I don't think he claimed to have experienced God during meditation, only that he experienced a beneficial altered state of consciousness which was tantamount to a "religious experience". In a sense, he may have left his body and gone astral exploring.