i guess i just dont understand if there isnt an afterlife, what is the point of living and achieving anything? Because the human race will exist for less than an eye blink in the life of the universe. And even if we can find another planet(s) and colonize, what's the point? There is nothing to reach for really. why would we decide to continue the race and continue life if there is absolutely nothing after we die? Even if you are Alexander the Great, one day, almost everyone EVER will forget about you. You legacy will die even. So what's the point?
Why live a life of kindness? It wont help in the long run. Why live a life of crime, it wont get you anything because you cant keep what you steal. anyway, not sure if i got my point across very well.
It annoys me to no end when people try to argue for existence of god or an afterlife because they hate to think that there's no clear cut reason for our existence. I also think it's ridiculous to compare yourself or even humanity to the freakin UNIVERSE! do you really need to be able to affect the universe in a major way in order to live? I know I don't, I am perfectly happy living my life knowing that when it ends it ends forever but until then I'll live how i see fit and take what joys i can from it.
i mean i'm sorry, but you say life isn't worth living if there's no god or afterlife but the fact of the matter is that i'm talking to you through a computer which was created by our species and there's nothing remotely like this in a billion light years! you could claim that that's the hand of god but i say that's humanity taking steps forward on its own as a collective life form, and every person in the world has the potential to add to that. when we start colonizing other solar systems i'll start comparing us to the universe but to me...we, as a collective life form, are still just a seed that's still growing.
I don't think the implication is that life only matters if we are effecting some greater cause in the universe.
The perplexity is more that, if there is nothing more than this universe which erupts into being, gives birth to vast things, and life, which gains sentience, which participates in incredibly nuanced psycho-emotional-social-cultural dramas, and then they snuff out just as soon as they started, and then everything just goes dark in the end, how is there not something else to it?
If life were all killing, screwing, and drinking, it might be easier to say it's all just some perpetual machine.
But self-awareness, and awareness of self, are extremely curious things in the face of such immediate obliteration.
I'm not confusing my faith with scientific knowledge of any sort.
This, this right here is what gets me, especially since my dad does the same thing. Why shouldn't I treat God, a soul, an afterlife as a hypothesis? There are plenty of other other nigh-unobservable effects that we have carefully crafted experiments for. And if these things are somehow completely and entirely disparate from the human realm, why is it a virtue to believe in it? In every other area of human experience it's folly to believe in something sans evidence or hard reasoning. The only thing that separates this class of beliefs is that it is somehow intangible, incapable of being measured or observed. But these assertions of intangibility don't come from any scientific limitation, but rather from human desires and inconsistent religious texts.
In short, fuck faith.
I think faith has certain benefits to leading a positive life. But it backfires often enough, and works as a kind of placebo or way of avoiding real problems and avoiding confrontation.
A lot of religions have snuffed out "seeking", looking for big experiences/answer within, via many methods, and i think this is a real shame.
I can't imagine believing something just because I want it to be true.
But to each his own. If it makes your life better go for it.
Some people actually believe some fantastic things because they have, or think they have, experienced them.
This is the key phrase, here.
As an aside, I'm an Atheist. Tonight it seems I'll be sitting in on a friends' Bible group. This will be interesting, to say the least.
It is and it isn't, the key phrase that is. We can boil the entire universe down to a hallucination.
I think that personal experiences what someone might think of as the "ineffable" are of high value, much higher than, say, the bible.
Good luck with that, btw. I recommend pointing out as many inconsistencies between the bible and their beliefs, spiritual or political, as you can.
There's been something that bothers me that relates to death.
Who has a friend (or is that guy) who says that people dying doesn't bother them? I can't understand this when it relates to someone close to you. I mean, my grandmother's both died when I was a kid, and I don't remember their deaths affecting me all that much. However, I was a kid, and I think that kids are really resilient to that kind of thing, also, I wasn't super close to them. I have to say though that when either of my parents die it's going to fuck me up.
I guess I really want to know if the people who say that the death of loved ones doesn't bother them are just repressing, or if they're right. I don't know much about psychology (in this area), but it seems too weird to be true for me, like someone saying that they never got happy, ever. I wouldn't even be able to relate to that kind of person because they are so far from what I understand to be human experience.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't suppose you plan on responding to the part of the post with actual content?
Why would I? My premise is "faith and scientific logic are two separate things." Your premise is "no, faith should be held to logical standards." Your argument invites me to logically prove that faith shouldn't be be restricted to scientific logic. This would be like me saying that the only way you'll convince me of your viewpoint is if you have enough faith in it.
We have two different viewpoints. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and you're openly contemptuous of mine.
So now you've said that give it a go. You're saying that despite the fact someone convinced you of your beliefs it is impossible for you to convince someone of them.
Thats not what he is saying. yes, we are convinced of our faith, but as he said before, its not supported by "science". And it makes plenty of sense to me, logically, once you understand/believe that there is a God. But because you all seem to think that if we can explain what we once believed was the power of God with specialized experience now proves there is no God and that the only way to prove that God exists is through scientific proof, then I agree with takyris.
We will never convince you that way.
But there has to be something that makes you take the first step into believing though, I'm not after proof just want it was that convinced you that this was the case. Something you've always known, a revelation at an unexpected time, or the result of a long period of contemplation on the subject?
You're not going to get a detailed line by line deconstruction of the post, just a 'ah, fair enough', at least from me. I'm just curious.
I don't suppose you plan on responding to the part of the post with actual content?
Why would I? My premise is "faith and scientific logic are two separate things." Your premise is "no, faith should be held to logical standards." Your argument invites me to logically prove that faith shouldn't be be restricted to scientific logic. This would be like me saying that the only way you'll convince me of your viewpoint is if you have enough faith in it.
We have two different viewpoints. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and you're openly contemptuous of mine.
So now you've said that give it a go. You're saying that despite the fact someone convinced you of your beliefs it is impossible for you to convince someone of them.
Thats not what he is saying. yes, we are convinced of our faith, but as he said before, its not supported by "science". And it makes plenty of sense to me, logically, once you understand/believe that there is a God. But because you all seem to think that if we can explain what we once believed was the power of God with specialized experience now proves there is no God and that the only way to prove that God exists is through scientific proof, then I agree with takyris.
We will never convince you that way.
But there has to be something that makes you take the first step into believing though, I'm not after proof just want it was that convinced you that this was the case. Something you've always known, a revelation at an unexpected time, or the result of a long period of contemplation on the subject?
You're not going to get a detailed line by line deconstruction of the post, just a 'ah, fair enough', at least from me. I'm just curious.
understood mr. Fish.
it was actually a combination of those three things you just offered as possible reasons. I was born in a situtation where God was taught and the afterlife and whatnot. I only understood it after reading a TON and living according to what I was taught; which at that point I came to the knowledge that it is true. Then, there have been a LOT of times where i have come to know it more or have it reaffirmed out of purely nowhere. When i say nowhere, Im talking about walking down the street and seeing a bird fly and it hitting me that there IS more to this life than just exisiting and that there IS something afterwards.
And yes, there is ia difference between belief and knowledge. I used to believe that there was a God. I know that there is one now. Same deal with the afterlife. I know it exists. And its been through thought and contemplation, living according to what i believed and then having it confirmed. With this type of thing (faith) you have to live according to what you believe and its only after believing in something you havent seen when y ou get to find out, for SURE, that its true.
Isn't the scientific method pretty much the same? You postulate that something is either true or isnt true. Then you study it, experiment with it and then BAM you find it out. It might take a lifetime it might take several people's life time, or it might take just as long as watching an apple fall from a tree and then you dropping that same apple. But it call comes from a belief. My proof comes from having lived and experimented with what I believe and then being rewarded with proof.
edit: i called the scientific method the "scientific theory". I knew it sounded weird for a reason!
Lot of people are going to take issue with that last bit though, as I'd say the scientific method rests pretty heavily on the idea that you can show the evidence to other people rather than being a personal experience. But I know where you're coming from, having felt something similar but coming from the other direction as it were.
Lot of people are going to take issue with that last bit though, as I'd say the scientific method rests pretty heavily on the idea that you can show the evidence to other people rather than being a personal experience. But I know where you're coming from, having felt something similar but coming from the other direction as it were.
i understand where people might take issue. but they can find their own proof by experimenting themselves. its not limited to just a few people.
anyone can have this type of an experience or a variation of it and come to the same results. whereas, i cant go and test my theory of molecular blah bla blah blah because i dont have the trainging. people get caught up with the fact that people who believe in God can't prove He exists. We can, so can anyone. The proof and results are in the scriptures and in our daily lives. We share the proof in scriptures and example, through propehts and apostles.
Just like we accept new scientific discoveries because we accept and trust the scientific method, why can't we accept the belief/knowledge that God exists? I believe new discoveries because i trust the method. Why can't others believe me when I have performed the experiment and they have not?
(im not sure if what I wanted to say in that last paragraph came out correctly lol)
Lot of people are going to take issue with that last bit though, as I'd say the scientific method rests pretty heavily on the idea that you can show the evidence to other people rather than being a personal experience. But I know where you're coming from, having felt something similar but coming from the other direction as it were.
i understand where people might take issue. but they can find their own proof by experimenting themselves. its not limited to just a few people.
anyone can have this type of an experience or a variation of it and come to the same results. whereas, i cant go and test my theory of molecular blah bla blah blah because i dont have the trainging. people get caught up with the fact that people who believe in God can't prove He exists. We can, so can anyone. The proof and results are in the scriptures and in our daily lives. We share the proof in scriptures and example, through propehts and apostles.
Just like we accept new scientific discoveries because we accept and trust the scientific method, why can't we accept the belief/knowledge that God exists? I believe new discoveries because i trust the method. Why can't others believe me when I have performed the experiment and they have not?
(im not sure if what I wanted to say in that last paragraph came out correctly lol)
I have a feeling does not reality make or I would be getting laid a lot more often.
An experiment must be re creatable and for a theory to be proven must have the same out come each time.
You can't do that with a god.
Notice I said a god? Because every religion is convinced its right and all the others are wrong(with a few exceptions).
You said the scriptures are proof? Which ones? Most are just as unlikely as the others. With out the ability to prove a god is real in the first place other than I've got a feeling, it becomes a circle jerk of "My god is real and yours isn't".
And the argument "well something had to create us, it was god" is flawed in that your base assumption is that everything requires a beginning, then what created god? another god?
Arguing about whether there is a god or an after life is pointless because of both the lack of evidence and the mentality of those arguing for religion of "it doesn't matter what you say".
Lot of people are going to take issue with that last bit though, as I'd say the scientific method rests pretty heavily on the idea that you can show the evidence to other people rather than being a personal experience. But I know where you're coming from, having felt something similar but coming from the other direction as it were.
i understand where people might take issue. but they can find their own proof by experimenting themselves. its not limited to just a few people.
anyone can have this type of an experience or a variation of it and come to the same results. whereas, i cant go and test my theory of molecular blah bla blah blah because i dont have the trainging. people get caught up with the fact that people who believe in God can't prove He exists. We can, so can anyone. The proof and results are in the scriptures and in our daily lives. We share the proof in scriptures and example, through propehts and apostles.
Just like we accept new scientific discoveries because we accept and trust the scientific method, why can't we accept the belief/knowledge that God exists? I believe new discoveries because i trust the method. Why can't others believe me when I have performed the experiment and they have not?
(im not sure if what I wanted to say in that last paragraph came out correctly lol)
I have a feeling does not reality make or I would be getting laid a lot more often.
An experiment must be re creatable and for a theory to be proven must have the same out come each time.
You can't do that with a god.
Notice I said a god? Because every religion is convinced its right and all the others are wrong(with a few exceptions).
You said the scriptures are proof? Which ones? Most are just as unlikely as the others. With out the ability to prove a god is real in the first place other than I've got a feeling, it becomes a circle jerk of "My god is real and yours isn't".
And the argument "well something had to create us, it was god" is flawed in that your base assumption is that everything requires a beginning, then what created god? another god?
Arguing about whether there is a god or an after life is pointless because of both the lack of evidence and the mentality of those arguing for religion of "it doesn't matter what you say".
i told you how to recreate the same test and get the same result. read Alma 32 of the Book of Mormon its a very simple and straight forward test that you can do. you=anyone. and it will have the same outcome each time. never different. with the same and correct "ingredients" everyone can receive the same outcome.
you call it a lack of evidence because you reject the evidence one shows you becuase you d ont like the source or the way it is presented. evidence is evidence; whether its shown in a beaker or in the life of a human being.
i have two questions: 1. what evidence are you looking for that will convince you that either a) there is a god or b) there is an afterlife? 2. can you disprove God exists? Do you have the evidence to support that I am wrong?
also. its not based purely on feelings. its based on a confirmation both in the mind AND the heart. otherwise its not true.
I don't suppose you plan on responding to the part of the post with actual content?
Why would I? My premise is "faith and scientific logic are two separate things." Your premise is "no, faith should be held to logical standards." Your argument invites me to logically prove that faith shouldn't be be restricted to scientific logic. This would be like me saying that the only way you'll convince me of your viewpoint is if you have enough faith in it.
We have two different viewpoints. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and you're openly contemptuous of mine.
Faith and scientific logic are most certainly two different things. However, if you have a problem with logically proving that faith shouldn't be scrutinized, you really shouldn't be in a debate forum. The basis to argument is logic, and once you throw that out the window there's no way to actually debate.
By the way, I still believe that things that were once viewed as miracles and the power of God still are. if He created this world and the universe and designed it and put everything that is in it, then our cures and scientific principles are all things He has been using for trillions of years. HE is the one that lets US know the principles. Discovering them doesnt disprove God.
In that case, God has also been raping, killing, stealing, and generally being a dick for trillions of years as well.
i told you how to recreate the same test and get the same result. read Alma 32 of the Book of Mormon its a very simple and straight forward test that you can do. you=anyone. and it will have the same outcome each time. never different. with the same and correct "ingredients" everyone can receive the same outcome.
So I read it, what was the outcome supposed to be?
you call it a lack of evidence because you reject the evidence one shows you becuase you d ont like the source or the way it is presented. evidence is evidence; whether its shown in a beaker or in the life of a human being.
The Bible is not valid evidence because it has no backing other than itself. You can present something as evidence, that but doesn't make it valid evidence.
can you disprove God exists? Do you have the evidence to support that I am wrong?
i told you how to recreate the same test and get the same result. read Alma 32 of the Book of Mormon its a very simple and straight forward test that you can do. you=anyone. and it will have the same outcome each time. never different. with the same and correct "ingredients" everyone can receive the same outcome.
I have read Alma 32. At least, I think I did, being unfamiliar with Mormonism, but a Google search brought up this link.
The... 'test'... I assume you are proposing is the whole 'plant a seed in your heart' thing. Of course, this test cannot be taken literally because, hey, if you plant a seed in your heart you die. Instead it sounds like you ought to meditate on 'the word' (of God, I assume) and you'll get some kind of emotional response.
Wow. By this standard, Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance must be divinely inspired for when I let it into my heart and contemplate upon it I can truly feel my brotherhood with all sentient things grow.
But it gets better! The test only works if you cast out unbelief and don't resist the Spirit of the Lord because the 'seed' will be cast out otherwise. In other words, you must already hold Christianity to be true first or it won't work.
Really, the only thing this supposed experiment can 'prove' is that, yep, you believe in a certain kind of Christianity. Not that God exists.
Unless, of course, this isn't the Alma 32 you meant or I totally misunderstood the experiment - which is entirely possible because it isn't very clearly described.
Does your computer fuck around on a higher plane of existence when you unplug it?
Your brain is just a Turing machine made out of meat, why would it be any different?
Well, the electricity sure as hell doesn't go away.
And there's a lot about electrons we still don't know.
And there's a lot we still don't know about the brain and nervous system and dna.
anyways, there's no proof of what you say - i defy you to prove it in fact.
You're the one proposing more entities, Occam's razor places the burden of proof on your end. I mean, you're not even making any sense right now. What the hell do electrons have to do with anything? Are you going to go all Leibniz and claim that every subatomic particle has a little micro-soul in it?
Occam's Razor does nothing of the sort.
I said nothing about "entities".
The computer was your analogy. I was just pointing out that even a computer needs an outside force to activate, and going further to say that there is a lot more that science doesn't understand about life and the universe than it does understand.
The laws of physics and entropy would seem to dictate that, given infinite time and infinite space, the likelihood of not only our universe, but life itself, existing at this very moment, is very very very very small.
Still waiting for that proof.
You aren't even addressing what I'm talking about.
1) The human brain is equivalent to a Turing machine (I propose that it is, and if you want to demonstrate that it is not, all you need to do is produce one problem (or formal language) that cannot be solved (or recognized) by a Turing machine but can be by the human brain).
2) If the human brain is equivalent to a Turing machine, the human brain can be simulated on any other Turing machine, for instance a computer. (Familiarize yourself with the Church-Turing thesis if you don't know what I'm talking about.)
3) If the human brain can be simulated on a computer, it would produce the same output given the same input (this is pretty much just the definition of simulation).
4) Does the computer simulating a human brain have a "soul"? If it produces the same output given the same input as a human mind, I propose one of two things must be true:
a. There is no such thing as a "soul"; your brain is nothing more than a computer made out of cells.
b. Both the computer and the human brain have a "soul".
Honestly, the idea of a computer having a "soul" sounds ludicrous to me, and probably does for you too.
5) If there's no such thing as a soul, it follows that there's no afterlife, because how would that even work?
You'll note that I never made any statements regarding a God. Please actually argue with one of the above points.
Why can't a computer have a soul? You went "logic logic logic thing I find odd therefore CONCLUSION!"
There are belief systems in which rocks and rivers have souls.
And they don't have nearly as much access to blogs and lolcats.
Unless maybe blogs and lolcats are antithetical to having a soul, which is entirely possible.
You could go with such a system, I suppose, and the logical conclusion of it is Leibniz's "Monadology", where each atom has its own little mini-soul. (Leibniz stumbled upon basically the same logical train and this was his solution to it.) Personally, I feel that that reduces the definition of a "soul" to something almost meaningless, and still doesn't solve the problem of why the soul (or aggregate collection of mini-souls) associated with your brain gets to go somewhere after death and the soul (or aggregate collection of mini-souls) associated with my computer does not, and it also presents the problem of someone with more mass having more of a soul but I guess you can gloss over that bit.
Why can't a computer have a soul? You went "logic logic logic thing I find odd therefore CONCLUSION!"
There are belief systems in which rocks and rivers have souls.
And they don't have nearly as much access to blogs and lolcats.
Unless maybe blogs and lolcats are antithetical to having a soul, which is entirely possible.
You could go with such a system, I suppose, and the logical conclusion of it is Leibniz's "Monadology", where each atom has its own little mini-soul. (Leibniz stumbled upon basically the same logical train and this was his solution to it.) Personally, I feel that that reduces the definition of a "soul" to something almost meaningless, and still doesn't solve the problem of why the soul (or aggregate collection of mini-souls) associated with your brain gets to go somewhere after death and the soul (or aggregate collection of mini-souls) associated with my computer does not, and it also presents the problem of someone with more mass having more of a soul but I guess you can gloss over that bit.
Why do rocks and rivers not get afterlifes? A change to the thing that results in a complete change of nature (on the order of human death and decomposition) results in the soul moving on and a new soul, for the new form, coming in.
I should check out Leibniz, since I'm likely muddling through an amateur-hour Internet-stupid version of whatever he came up with.
i told you how to recreate the same test and get the same result. read Alma 32 of the Book of Mormon its a very simple and straight forward test that you can do. you=anyone. and it will have the same outcome each time. never different. with the same and correct "ingredients" everyone can receive the same outcome.
I have read Alma 32. At least, I think I did, being unfamiliar with Mormonism, but a Google search brought up this link.
The... 'test'... I assume you are proposing is the whole 'plant a seed in your heart' thing. Of course, this test cannot be taken literally because, hey, if you plant a seed in your heart you die. Instead it sounds like you ought to meditate on 'the word' (of God, I assume) and you'll get some kind of emotional response.
Wow. By this standard, Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance must be divinely inspired for when I let it into my heart and contemplate upon it I can truly feel my brotherhood with all sentient things grow.
But it gets better! The test only works if you cast out unbelief and don't resist the Spirit of the Lord because the 'seed' will be cast out otherwise. In other words, you must already hold Christianity to be true first or it won't work.
Really, the only thing this supposed experiment can 'prove' is that, yep, you believe in a certain kind of Christianity. Not that God exists.
Unless, of course, this isn't the Alma 32 you meant or I totally misunderstood the experiment - which is entirely possible because it isn't very clearly described.
no, you dont have to already be christian to have the experiment work. you have to be open to the idea that it could possibly be true. and then, having that in your heart, you begin to let the word of God work with in you. its not just a feeling. God speaks to the mind and the heart.
what Alma is talking about with the feeling this is much different than what you experienced with the game you referred to. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temprance. Its those kinds of feelings that come to you as you ponder the word of God and He confirms it both in your mind and your heart. Its also those feelings that come to you when you follow the Word of God.
i told you how to recreate the same test and get the same result. read Alma 32 of the Book of Mormon its a very simple and straight forward test that you can do. you=anyone. and it will have the same outcome each time. never different. with the same and correct "ingredients" everyone can receive the same outcome.
I have read Alma 32. At least, I think I did, being unfamiliar with Mormonism, but a Google search brought up this link.
The... 'test'... I assume you are proposing is the whole 'plant a seed in your heart' thing. Of course, this test cannot be taken literally because, hey, if you plant a seed in your heart you die. Instead it sounds like you ought to meditate on 'the word' (of God, I assume) and you'll get some kind of emotional response.
Wow. By this standard, Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance must be divinely inspired for when I let it into my heart and contemplate upon it I can truly feel my brotherhood with all sentient things grow.
But it gets better! The test only works if you cast out unbelief and don't resist the Spirit of the Lord because the 'seed' will be cast out otherwise. In other words, you must already hold Christianity to be true first or it won't work.
Really, the only thing this supposed experiment can 'prove' is that, yep, you believe in a certain kind of Christianity. Not that God exists.
Unless, of course, this isn't the Alma 32 you meant or I totally misunderstood the experiment - which is entirely possible because it isn't very clearly described.
no, you dont have to already be christian to have the experiment work. you have to be open to the idea that it could possibly be true. and then, having that in your heart, you begin to let the word of God work with in you. its not just a feeling. God speaks to the mind and the heart.
what Alma is talking about with the feeling this is much different than what you experienced with the game you referred to. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temprance. Its those kinds of feelings that come to you as you ponder the word of God and He confirms it both in your mind and your heart. Its also those feelings that come to you when you follow the Word of God.
Okay, lets get down to it.
You are offering no evidence by which anyone could logically conclude that a god exists, other than anecdotal evidence, which is not demonstrable.
When you spout "You can't prove that god doesn't exist." you are committing a logical fallacy, more specifically, a shift of the burden of proof. If we applied this to ALL claims, we'd be unable to develop any useful picture of reality.
Many people claim that god is love, or god is the act of feeling good, or oxygen, and for the most part, I have no problem with these definitions. However, you must prove that god exists without citing the bible as evidence.
i told you how to recreate the same test and get the same result. read Alma 32 of the Book of Mormon its a very simple and straight forward test that you can do. you=anyone. and it will have the same outcome each time. never different. with the same and correct "ingredients" everyone can receive the same outcome.
I have read Alma 32. At least, I think I did, being unfamiliar with Mormonism, but a Google search brought up this link.
The... 'test'... I assume you are proposing is the whole 'plant a seed in your heart' thing. Of course, this test cannot be taken literally because, hey, if you plant a seed in your heart you die. Instead it sounds like you ought to meditate on 'the word' (of God, I assume) and you'll get some kind of emotional response.
Wow. By this standard, Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance must be divinely inspired for when I let it into my heart and contemplate upon it I can truly feel my brotherhood with all sentient things grow.
But it gets better! The test only works if you cast out unbelief and don't resist the Spirit of the Lord because the 'seed' will be cast out otherwise. In other words, you must already hold Christianity to be true first or it won't work.
Really, the only thing this supposed experiment can 'prove' is that, yep, you believe in a certain kind of Christianity. Not that God exists.
Unless, of course, this isn't the Alma 32 you meant or I totally misunderstood the experiment - which is entirely possible because it isn't very clearly described.
no, you dont have to already be christian to have the experiment work. you have to be open to the idea that it could possibly be true. and then, having that in your heart, you begin to let the word of God work with in you. its not just a feeling. God speaks to the mind and the heart.
what Alma is talking about with the feeling this is much different than what you experienced with the game you referred to. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temprance. Its those kinds of feelings that come to you as you ponder the word of God and He confirms it both in your mind and your heart. Its also those feelings that come to you when you follow the Word of God.
Ok, so Anubis read Alma 32, and says he didn't experience the result you predicted. From what I can tell, there are three reasons why this might be true:
a) He's lying.
b) He didn't go in with the correct preconditions. (being open to the idea that it could possibly be true, etc.)
c) He's telling the truth, and the experiment does not produce the result you predicted in all cases.
Now, neither you nor I have any way of knowing for sure which of these is the case, because we can't see inside Anubis's head. However, you are discounting option c) out of hand. Why?
through my own experience and being present in the same experiment of hundreds of people.
just like any experiment, if you do it wrong, you wont get the right results. and until you do it right, you wont get the right results.
also... im offering TONS of evidence but you dont accept it. im offering ways to find out and you are rejecting that too.
so i guess it comes down to "i said it first" when it comes to proving my side. Because you guys said prove God exists before i said prove God doesnt exist? i've offered what I have offered but i have had nothing offered in return. if you reject the evidence and experiment, how am i ever going to prove His existence?
and if that is the case, we might as well just end the conversation.
through my own experience and being present in the same experiment of hundreds of people.
just like any experiment, if you do it wrong, you wont get the right results. and until you do it right, you wont get the right results.
also... im offering TONS of evidence but you dont accept it. im offering ways to find out and you are rejecting that too.
so i guess it comes down to "i said it first" when it comes to proving my side. Because you guys said prove God exists before i said prove God doesnt exist? i've offered what I have offered but i have had nothing offered in return. if you reject the evidence and experiment, how am i ever going to prove His existence?
and if that is the case, we might as well just end the conversation.
Uh, no. You're not getting off that easy.
First of all, this has nothing to do with who said "prove it" first. You have the burden of proof, therefore, you must prove your stance.
Second, just because you call something an "experiment" doesn't give it any weight. It's not an experiment. From what I can understand, the only people that "get" what your saying are people that already except what you believe. It doesn't work that way.
Lastly, you are offering no evidence other than anecdotal or self referential.
For clarity's sake, please concisely list what your evidence is that a god exists.
You can say that about anything, whether it's true or not, and people can easily be moved by anything, or deceive themselves into thinking something, or simply interpret a feeling as a religious experience or communication with god
that doesn't make it so
you surely do have the feeling, but what you have to offer real, concrete evidence for is your interpretation of that feeling.
you have yet to offer the suitable evidence for an undergraduate English paper, let alone a broad statement about the nature of reality.
Besides, "I feel God within me" or somesuch is the default of almost EVERY religion or belief system. A traditional Christian in the same thread would make this exact same claim. So would a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Pagan, or a Buddhist. Not all are necessarily tied to a literal god, but there is always some sort of transcendent experience involved. Even a cult like Heaven's Gate is based on those exact results. The only conclusion one can draw about that is belief in a religion results in expectations of religious experience.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
You can say that about anything, whether it's true or not, and people can easily be moved by anything, or deceive themselves into thinking something, or simply interpret a feeling as a religious experience or communication with god
that doesn't make it so
you surely do have the feeling, but what you have to offer real, concrete evidence for is your interpretation of that feeling.
you have yet to offer the suitable evidence for an undergraduate English paper, let alone a broad statement about the nature of reality.
I don't feel god working within me...I do feel those tacos I ate though...That must mean Tacos are god!.. Such a cruel vengeful god...*gurgle*
Once again "I have a feeling" is not proof or my friend wouldn't have just lost 80 bucks at a slot machine....
what Alma is talking about with the feeling this is much different than what you experienced with the game you referred to. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temprance.
Hey now, when I contemplate Path of Radiance and its message, I feel love, joy, peace, gentleness and goodness. Even a bit of faith (though a faith belonging to the fictional characters, not me) and understand the virtues of meekness and temperance... in moderation. Even longsuffering comes to me as I contemplate the history of the laguz or the emotional turmoil of Jill as she struggles between long-held beliefs and the evidence of her own eyes.
Of course, this isn't evidence that Path of Radiance is in any way divine, I'm just saying I do experience those particular emotions when contemplating the game.
Anyway, Bluefoot...
he didn't experience the result you predicted. From what I can tell, there are three reasons why this might be true:
Actually, it was D) I did not perform the experiment because I knew would apply. The experiment calls for a casting out of unbelief which I am incapable of. Faith is not something I can switch on or off, so I'd be guaranteed to fail from the start. Of course, the whole outcome of the experiment is supposed to be some kind of emotional state (I think), so I'd hardly call that objective evidence.
Furthermore, the experiment suffers from a lot faithspeak: words and phrases that don't make much sense to an outsider like myself, but that, I assume, are perfectly clear to a believer.
So, for the sake of me actually being capable of performing the experiment should I ever feel the desire to believe (as verse 27 requires), I'd like tubaloth to clear up a few things for me without using... well... faithspeak.
28) The word - I'm assuming The Word of God. However, what is the word of God? Are we talking the text of the Bible? Perhaps the Book of Mormon? Should I have certain passages clearly in mind or merely the idea of them?
28) Plant it in your heart. How do I that? I don't quite understand the metaphor. It sounds like I should accept 'the word' is possibly true (which I can't due to, you know, the problems of evidence which I'm supposed to get at the end of the experiment, not the beginning). Perhaps I am mistaken, though.
28) Don't resist the Spirit of the Lord. Uhm... yeah. How should I go about doing that? Casting out unbelief I get (kind of) - I should start believing somehow. But this... this I don't get. Probably because I have no concept of 'the Spirit of the Lord' and wouldn't recognise it if it came to me somehow.
28) Bit of a sidenote, actually, but if 'the word' is good my soul is enlarged. Now, I don't believe in souls, but in this case I should assume that I should feel uplifted, elated, made better somehow. Unfortunately, lots of words do this to me - including those from certain games. So if it happened, I wouldn't call it proof. Anyway, moving on...
29) "Would not this increase your faith"? What? I hope I misread that, because it sounds like that you already need to have some faith before starting. Which would defeat the entire point of this little excercise being promoted as kind of evidence for the existence of God.
30) Again with the seed metaphor, and now with the strenghtening of faith. Not the awakening of faith, not the start of faith, but the bolstering of a faith that is already there. Also, 'swelleth and sprouted'? What's that supposed to mean? That I start considering 'the word' to be more true or something?
31) "Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own alikeness." Yeah, I just need a believer-to-unbeliever translation here. I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
34) 34... 34 is just a mess. Perfect knowledge? Perfect knowledge of what? Not of everything, because that'd mean I'd become omniscient somehow. Again, a translation is sorely needed.
35) Whatsoever is light, is good. I'm gonna need to know what is meant with 'light' here. After all, a house on fire would shine brightly in the night, but I wouldn't call it good. However, perhaps this is not necessary for the experiment.
36) Again, it sounds like you need to have at least a bit of faith before getting started otherwise it just won't work.
So... yeah, I can't perform this experiment. Perhaps it would work if sometimes 'faith' really means 'open to the possibility', but then I'm also supposed to cast out unbelief and not resist the Spirit of the Lord, at least one of which would require a bit of faith.
Still, like I said... from what I can decipher, it still sounds like this test is supposed to be about you meditating upon 'the word' and feeling something because of it. So I don't think this is a particularly objective test capable of determining the existence of God, only the existence of a person's belief in the existence of God.
okay, i'm sorry but i'm calling major bullshit with tubaloth's posts that borders on fanatical.
under his views any possible action, reaction, matter, concept, or what have you can be used as evidence of god's existence. that's absolutely ridiculous.
that's not knowing that god exists, that's contributing random and completely superflous bits to your faith. I will not accept that as evidence, I will not accept that as absolute proof because its your comprehension of events. by your logic, i can see a rubber ball bounce down the street and interpert that as the love of god and THAT'S proof that he exists? and what about other religions? does their god not exist? are you assimilating all gods into yours so they can exist and thus give weight to your claims or all gods completely seperate and only associated with their own believers? in which case, would you say that i, as an atheist, would simply die and be snuffed out completely of existence? and if that's the case, wouldn't you agree that any and all religions are simply a way of comprehending our natural world in a simple way you can understand? If so do you think religion will have to continue to make their laws and beliefs even more and more broad and malleable so that they can be applied in this ever-growing age of scientific discovery?
Actually, it was D) I did not perform the experiment because I knew would apply. The experiment calls for a casting out of unbelief which I am incapable of.
Ok, yeah, I was under the impression that it only required an "open mind" rather than actively trying to believe. But what ev, we can just substitute hypothetical failed convert X and the point stands.
just like any experiment, if you do it wrong, you wont get the right results. and until you do it right, you wont get the right results.
My point is that there is no way to tell if the experiment was done correctly or not. Using the fact that the experiment returned unexpected results to say that it was done incorrectly defeats the purpose of running the experiment in the first place.
Bluefoot on
0
Options
PasserbyeI am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
Preferred method? On my own terms, as much as possible, even if that means assisted suicide 'cause of nasty cancers. If I go to sleep and don't wake up, ehn, not so much my thing (painless is nice, but not required). I think I'd like some warning (more specific than "dude you're OLD") so I can get my affairs in order before kicking off.
As for what happens after? Hahahaha, why not paint a target on my chest and tape a sign to my back which reads 'kick me'? As was mentioned, most people here would say 'nothing', then a few very vocal ones would vehemently disagree with anyone who would say 'something', so I think I'll keep my thoughts on that to a bare hint and nothing more (just so, you know, you other, quieter, 'something'ers won't feel alone ).
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
Asking someone to explain faith or knowledge of God (and hence the afterlife) without feelings is like asking someone to explain calculus theorems without numbers. Its just not possible.
Asking someone to explain faith or knowledge of God (and hence the afterlife) without feelings is like asking someone to explain calculus theorems without numbers. Its just not possible.
Yes, and since feelings are in no way an effective basis for making claims about reality, what does this tell you?
Asking someone to explain faith or knowledge of God (and hence the afterlife) without feelings is like asking someone to explain calculus theorems without numbers. Its just not possible.
Yes, and since feelings are in no way an effective basis for making claims about reality, what does this tell you?
It tells me you don't include spirituality as part of reality.
Asking someone to explain faith or knowledge of God (and hence the afterlife) without feelings is like asking someone to explain calculus theorems without numbers. Its just not possible.
Yes, and since feelings are in no way an effective basis for making claims about reality, what does this tell you?
It tells me you don't include spirituality as part of reality.
...because it isn't?
Inter_d on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Asking someone to explain faith or knowledge of God (and hence the afterlife) without feelings is like asking someone to explain calculus theorems without numbers. Its just not possible.
Yes, and since feelings are in no way an effective basis for making claims about reality, what does this tell you?
It tells me you don't include spirituality as part of reality.
Asking someone to explain faith or knowledge of God (and hence the afterlife) without feelings is like asking someone to explain calculus theorems without numbers. Its just not possible.
Yes, and since feelings are in no way an effective basis for making claims about reality, what does this tell you?
It tells me you don't include spirituality as part of reality.
Let me explain.
If I feel there is no god/afterlife/whatever, I have exactly as much evidence as anyone else who claims there is. Our argument is equally strong, in that there is none. The guy on the street who thinks he's god himself? His argument is just as strong as anyone who claims god is real because they feel it.
Since many other claims based on feelings are demonstrably wrong, every day, every second, there is no reason to believe that feelings ever have any connection to reality. Trying to privilege certain feelings by calling them "spiritual" has no justification; there is no demonstrable difference between these so-called spiritual feelings and any other feelings.
Whenever a feeling is right, it is not right because we felt it; and no one believes the claim simply because of that feeling. Usually they are right because they are generated by a bunch of subconscious observations that percolate in the hindbrain before coming to the fore, or because you got lucky. To take feelings as evidence in themselves is to abandon the ability to discuss and make conclusions and communicate in any meaningful way.
Feelings are not means to an end, they are an end in themselves.
Posts
I don't think the implication is that life only matters if we are effecting some greater cause in the universe.
The perplexity is more that, if there is nothing more than this universe which erupts into being, gives birth to vast things, and life, which gains sentience, which participates in incredibly nuanced psycho-emotional-social-cultural dramas, and then they snuff out just as soon as they started, and then everything just goes dark in the end, how is there not something else to it?
If life were all killing, screwing, and drinking, it might be easier to say it's all just some perpetual machine.
But self-awareness, and awareness of self, are extremely curious things in the face of such immediate obliteration.
* \m/
U
Some people actually believe some fantastic things because they have, or think they have, experienced them.
* \m/
U
This is the key phrase, here.
As an aside, I'm an Atheist. Tonight it seems I'll be sitting in on a friends' Bible group. This will be interesting, to say the least.
I think faith has certain benefits to leading a positive life. But it backfires often enough, and works as a kind of placebo or way of avoiding real problems and avoiding confrontation.
A lot of religions have snuffed out "seeking", looking for big experiences/answer within, via many methods, and i think this is a real shame.
* \m/
U
It is and it isn't, the key phrase that is. We can boil the entire universe down to a hallucination.
I think that personal experiences what someone might think of as the "ineffable" are of high value, much higher than, say, the bible.
Good luck with that, btw. I recommend pointing out as many inconsistencies between the bible and their beliefs, spiritual or political, as you can.
* \m/
U
Who has a friend (or is that guy) who says that people dying doesn't bother them? I can't understand this when it relates to someone close to you. I mean, my grandmother's both died when I was a kid, and I don't remember their deaths affecting me all that much. However, I was a kid, and I think that kids are really resilient to that kind of thing, also, I wasn't super close to them. I have to say though that when either of my parents die it's going to fuck me up.
I guess I really want to know if the people who say that the death of loved ones doesn't bother them are just repressing, or if they're right. I don't know much about psychology (in this area), but it seems too weird to be true for me, like someone saying that they never got happy, ever. I wouldn't even be able to relate to that kind of person because they are so far from what I understand to be human experience.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
You're not going to get a detailed line by line deconstruction of the post, just a 'ah, fair enough', at least from me. I'm just curious.
understood mr. Fish.
it was actually a combination of those three things you just offered as possible reasons. I was born in a situtation where God was taught and the afterlife and whatnot. I only understood it after reading a TON and living according to what I was taught; which at that point I came to the knowledge that it is true. Then, there have been a LOT of times where i have come to know it more or have it reaffirmed out of purely nowhere. When i say nowhere, Im talking about walking down the street and seeing a bird fly and it hitting me that there IS more to this life than just exisiting and that there IS something afterwards.
And yes, there is ia difference between belief and knowledge. I used to believe that there was a God. I know that there is one now. Same deal with the afterlife. I know it exists. And its been through thought and contemplation, living according to what i believed and then having it confirmed. With this type of thing (faith) you have to live according to what you believe and its only after believing in something you havent seen when y ou get to find out, for SURE, that its true.
Isn't the scientific method pretty much the same? You postulate that something is either true or isnt true. Then you study it, experiment with it and then BAM you find it out. It might take a lifetime it might take several people's life time, or it might take just as long as watching an apple fall from a tree and then you dropping that same apple. But it call comes from a belief. My proof comes from having lived and experimented with what I believe and then being rewarded with proof.
edit: i called the scientific method the "scientific theory". I knew it sounded weird for a reason!
Lot of people are going to take issue with that last bit though, as I'd say the scientific method rests pretty heavily on the idea that you can show the evidence to other people rather than being a personal experience. But I know where you're coming from, having felt something similar but coming from the other direction as it were.
i understand where people might take issue. but they can find their own proof by experimenting themselves. its not limited to just a few people.
anyone can have this type of an experience or a variation of it and come to the same results. whereas, i cant go and test my theory of molecular blah bla blah blah because i dont have the trainging. people get caught up with the fact that people who believe in God can't prove He exists. We can, so can anyone. The proof and results are in the scriptures and in our daily lives. We share the proof in scriptures and example, through propehts and apostles.
Just like we accept new scientific discoveries because we accept and trust the scientific method, why can't we accept the belief/knowledge that God exists? I believe new discoveries because i trust the method. Why can't others believe me when I have performed the experiment and they have not?
(im not sure if what I wanted to say in that last paragraph came out correctly lol)
I have a feeling does not reality make or I would be getting laid a lot more often.
An experiment must be re creatable and for a theory to be proven must have the same out come each time.
You can't do that with a god.
Notice I said a god? Because every religion is convinced its right and all the others are wrong(with a few exceptions).
You said the scriptures are proof? Which ones? Most are just as unlikely as the others. With out the ability to prove a god is real in the first place other than I've got a feeling, it becomes a circle jerk of "My god is real and yours isn't".
And the argument "well something had to create us, it was god" is flawed in that your base assumption is that everything requires a beginning, then what created god? another god?
Arguing about whether there is a god or an after life is pointless because of both the lack of evidence and the mentality of those arguing for religion of "it doesn't matter what you say".
i told you how to recreate the same test and get the same result. read Alma 32 of the Book of Mormon its a very simple and straight forward test that you can do. you=anyone. and it will have the same outcome each time. never different. with the same and correct "ingredients" everyone can receive the same outcome.
you call it a lack of evidence because you reject the evidence one shows you becuase you d ont like the source or the way it is presented. evidence is evidence; whether its shown in a beaker or in the life of a human being.
i have two questions: 1. what evidence are you looking for that will convince you that either a) there is a god or b) there is an afterlife? 2. can you disprove God exists? Do you have the evidence to support that I am wrong?
also. its not based purely on feelings. its based on a confirmation both in the mind AND the heart. otherwise its not true.
In that case, God has also been raping, killing, stealing, and generally being a dick for trillions of years as well.
So I read it, what was the outcome supposed to be?
The Bible is not valid evidence because it has no backing other than itself. You can present something as evidence, that but doesn't make it valid evidence.
Burden of proof lies on the claimant.
The... 'test'... I assume you are proposing is the whole 'plant a seed in your heart' thing. Of course, this test cannot be taken literally because, hey, if you plant a seed in your heart you die. Instead it sounds like you ought to meditate on 'the word' (of God, I assume) and you'll get some kind of emotional response.
Wow. By this standard, Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance must be divinely inspired for when I let it into my heart and contemplate upon it I can truly feel my brotherhood with all sentient things grow.
But it gets better! The test only works if you cast out unbelief and don't resist the Spirit of the Lord because the 'seed' will be cast out otherwise. In other words, you must already hold Christianity to be true first or it won't work.
Really, the only thing this supposed experiment can 'prove' is that, yep, you believe in a certain kind of Christianity. Not that God exists.
Unless, of course, this isn't the Alma 32 you meant or I totally misunderstood the experiment - which is entirely possible because it isn't very clearly described.
You aren't even addressing what I'm talking about.
1) The human brain is equivalent to a Turing machine (I propose that it is, and if you want to demonstrate that it is not, all you need to do is produce one problem (or formal language) that cannot be solved (or recognized) by a Turing machine but can be by the human brain).
2) If the human brain is equivalent to a Turing machine, the human brain can be simulated on any other Turing machine, for instance a computer. (Familiarize yourself with the Church-Turing thesis if you don't know what I'm talking about.)
3) If the human brain can be simulated on a computer, it would produce the same output given the same input (this is pretty much just the definition of simulation).
4) Does the computer simulating a human brain have a "soul"? If it produces the same output given the same input as a human mind, I propose one of two things must be true:
a. There is no such thing as a "soul"; your brain is nothing more than a computer made out of cells.
b. Both the computer and the human brain have a "soul".
Honestly, the idea of a computer having a "soul" sounds ludicrous to me, and probably does for you too.
5) If there's no such thing as a soul, it follows that there's no afterlife, because how would that even work?
You'll note that I never made any statements regarding a God. Please actually argue with one of the above points.
There are belief systems in which rocks and rivers have souls.
And they don't have nearly as much access to blogs and lolcats.
Unless maybe blogs and lolcats are antithetical to having a soul, which is entirely possible.
You could go with such a system, I suppose, and the logical conclusion of it is Leibniz's "Monadology", where each atom has its own little mini-soul. (Leibniz stumbled upon basically the same logical train and this was his solution to it.) Personally, I feel that that reduces the definition of a "soul" to something almost meaningless, and still doesn't solve the problem of why the soul (or aggregate collection of mini-souls) associated with your brain gets to go somewhere after death and the soul (or aggregate collection of mini-souls) associated with my computer does not, and it also presents the problem of someone with more mass having more of a soul but I guess you can gloss over that bit.
Why do rocks and rivers not get afterlifes? A change to the thing that results in a complete change of nature (on the order of human death and decomposition) results in the soul moving on and a new soul, for the new form, coming in.
I should check out Leibniz, since I'm likely muddling through an amateur-hour Internet-stupid version of whatever he came up with.
no, you dont have to already be christian to have the experiment work. you have to be open to the idea that it could possibly be true. and then, having that in your heart, you begin to let the word of God work with in you. its not just a feeling. God speaks to the mind and the heart.
what Alma is talking about with the feeling this is much different than what you experienced with the game you referred to. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temprance. Its those kinds of feelings that come to you as you ponder the word of God and He confirms it both in your mind and your heart. Its also those feelings that come to you when you follow the Word of God.
Okay, lets get down to it.
You are offering no evidence by which anyone could logically conclude that a god exists, other than anecdotal evidence, which is not demonstrable.
When you spout "You can't prove that god doesn't exist." you are committing a logical fallacy, more specifically, a shift of the burden of proof. If we applied this to ALL claims, we'd be unable to develop any useful picture of reality.
Many people claim that god is love, or god is the act of feeling good, or oxygen, and for the most part, I have no problem with these definitions. However, you must prove that god exists without citing the bible as evidence.
Ok, so Anubis read Alma 32, and says he didn't experience the result you predicted. From what I can tell, there are three reasons why this might be true:
a) He's lying.
b) He didn't go in with the correct preconditions. (being open to the idea that it could possibly be true, etc.)
c) He's telling the truth, and the experiment does not produce the result you predicted in all cases.
Now, neither you nor I have any way of knowing for sure which of these is the case, because we can't see inside Anubis's head. However, you are discounting option c) out of hand. Why?
just like any experiment, if you do it wrong, you wont get the right results. and until you do it right, you wont get the right results.
also... im offering TONS of evidence but you dont accept it. im offering ways to find out and you are rejecting that too.
so i guess it comes down to "i said it first" when it comes to proving my side. Because you guys said prove God exists before i said prove God doesnt exist? i've offered what I have offered but i have had nothing offered in return. if you reject the evidence and experiment, how am i ever going to prove His existence?
and if that is the case, we might as well just end the conversation.
Uh, no. You're not getting off that easy.
First of all, this has nothing to do with who said "prove it" first. You have the burden of proof, therefore, you must prove your stance.
Second, just because you call something an "experiment" doesn't give it any weight. It's not an experiment. From what I can understand, the only people that "get" what your saying are people that already except what you believe. It doesn't work that way.
Lastly, you are offering no evidence other than anecdotal or self referential.
For clarity's sake, please concisely list what your evidence is that a god exists.
You can say that about anything, whether it's true or not, and people can easily be moved by anything, or deceive themselves into thinking something, or simply interpret a feeling as a religious experience or communication with god
that doesn't make it so
you surely do have the feeling, but what you have to offer real, concrete evidence for is your interpretation of that feeling.
you have yet to offer the suitable evidence for an undergraduate English paper, let alone a broad statement about the nature of reality.
I don't feel god working within me...I do feel those tacos I ate though...That must mean Tacos are god!.. Such a cruel vengeful god...*gurgle*
Once again "I have a feeling" is not proof or my friend wouldn't have just lost 80 bucks at a slot machine....
Of course, this isn't evidence that Path of Radiance is in any way divine, I'm just saying I do experience those particular emotions when contemplating the game.
Anyway, Bluefoot... Actually, it was D) I did not perform the experiment because I knew
Furthermore, the experiment suffers from a lot faithspeak: words and phrases that don't make much sense to an outsider like myself, but that, I assume, are perfectly clear to a believer.
So, for the sake of me actually being capable of performing the experiment should I ever feel the desire to believe (as verse 27 requires), I'd like tubaloth to clear up a few things for me without using... well... faithspeak.
28) The word - I'm assuming The Word of God. However, what is the word of God? Are we talking the text of the Bible? Perhaps the Book of Mormon? Should I have certain passages clearly in mind or merely the idea of them?
28) Plant it in your heart. How do I that? I don't quite understand the metaphor. It sounds like I should accept 'the word' is possibly true (which I can't due to, you know, the problems of evidence which I'm supposed to get at the end of the experiment, not the beginning). Perhaps I am mistaken, though.
28) Don't resist the Spirit of the Lord. Uhm... yeah. How should I go about doing that? Casting out unbelief I get (kind of) - I should start believing somehow. But this... this I don't get. Probably because I have no concept of 'the Spirit of the Lord' and wouldn't recognise it if it came to me somehow.
28) Bit of a sidenote, actually, but if 'the word' is good my soul is enlarged. Now, I don't believe in souls, but in this case I should assume that I should feel uplifted, elated, made better somehow. Unfortunately, lots of words do this to me - including those from certain games. So if it happened, I wouldn't call it proof. Anyway, moving on...
29) "Would not this increase your faith"? What? I hope I misread that, because it sounds like that you already need to have some faith before starting. Which would defeat the entire point of this little excercise being promoted as kind of evidence for the existence of God.
30) Again with the seed metaphor, and now with the strenghtening of faith. Not the awakening of faith, not the start of faith, but the bolstering of a faith that is already there. Also, 'swelleth and sprouted'? What's that supposed to mean? That I start considering 'the word' to be more true or something?
31) "Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own alikeness." Yeah, I just need a believer-to-unbeliever translation here. I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
34) 34... 34 is just a mess. Perfect knowledge? Perfect knowledge of what? Not of everything, because that'd mean I'd become omniscient somehow. Again, a translation is sorely needed.
35) Whatsoever is light, is good. I'm gonna need to know what is meant with 'light' here. After all, a house on fire would shine brightly in the night, but I wouldn't call it good. However, perhaps this is not necessary for the experiment.
36) Again, it sounds like you need to have at least a bit of faith before getting started otherwise it just won't work.
So... yeah, I can't perform this experiment. Perhaps it would work if sometimes 'faith' really means 'open to the possibility', but then I'm also supposed to cast out unbelief and not resist the Spirit of the Lord, at least one of which would require a bit of faith.
Still, like I said... from what I can decipher, it still sounds like this test is supposed to be about you meditating upon 'the word' and feeling something because of it. So I don't think this is a particularly objective test capable of determining the existence of God, only the existence of a person's belief in the existence of God.
under his views any possible action, reaction, matter, concept, or what have you can be used as evidence of god's existence. that's absolutely ridiculous.
that's not knowing that god exists, that's contributing random and completely superflous bits to your faith. I will not accept that as evidence, I will not accept that as absolute proof because its your comprehension of events. by your logic, i can see a rubber ball bounce down the street and interpert that as the love of god and THAT'S proof that he exists? and what about other religions? does their god not exist? are you assimilating all gods into yours so they can exist and thus give weight to your claims or all gods completely seperate and only associated with their own believers? in which case, would you say that i, as an atheist, would simply die and be snuffed out completely of existence? and if that's the case, wouldn't you agree that any and all religions are simply a way of comprehending our natural world in a simple way you can understand? If so do you think religion will have to continue to make their laws and beliefs even more and more broad and malleable so that they can be applied in this ever-growing age of scientific discovery?
Ok, yeah, I was under the impression that it only required an "open mind" rather than actively trying to believe. But what ev, we can just substitute hypothetical failed convert X and the point stands.
My point is that there is no way to tell if the experiment was done correctly or not. Using the fact that the experiment returned unexpected results to say that it was done incorrectly defeats the purpose of running the experiment in the first place.
As for what happens after? Hahahaha, why not paint a target on my chest and tape a sign to my back which reads 'kick me'? As was mentioned, most people here would say 'nothing', then a few very vocal ones would vehemently disagree with anyone who would say 'something', so I think I'll keep my thoughts on that to a bare hint and nothing more (just so, you know, you other, quieter, 'something'ers won't feel alone
Face Twit Rav Gram
Yes, and since feelings are in no way an effective basis for making claims about reality, what does this tell you?
It tells me you don't include spirituality as part of reality.
...because it isn't?
It is. You just, apparently, don't know it yet.
Let me explain.
If I feel there is no god/afterlife/whatever, I have exactly as much evidence as anyone else who claims there is. Our argument is equally strong, in that there is none. The guy on the street who thinks he's god himself? His argument is just as strong as anyone who claims god is real because they feel it.
Since many other claims based on feelings are demonstrably wrong, every day, every second, there is no reason to believe that feelings ever have any connection to reality. Trying to privilege certain feelings by calling them "spiritual" has no justification; there is no demonstrable difference between these so-called spiritual feelings and any other feelings.
Whenever a feeling is right, it is not right because we felt it; and no one believes the claim simply because of that feeling. Usually they are right because they are generated by a bunch of subconscious observations that percolate in the hindbrain before coming to the fore, or because you got lucky. To take feelings as evidence in themselves is to abandon the ability to discuss and make conclusions and communicate in any meaningful way.
Feelings are not means to an end, they are an end in themselves.