psychoblast
Bluelighter
^^^^
Wow.
~psychoblast~
Wow.
~psychoblast~
why do people believe in god?
- Thread starter Tr6ai0ls4
- Start date
ananda
Bluelighter
God is a bit like love, or the color green, it defies explanation. Try explaining to someone who has never experienced love what it is, it is impossible. You have to actually experience love to understand it and know it exists. To a blind man the color green doesnt exist, so to him green is just a word he hears people talk about but has no direct experience of. God is the same, to someone who has not experienced god, god is just a word and can be laughed off as figment of people's imagination.
To the people that argue that god doesn't exist because it cannot be explained by science, i say that i can produce the same argument about love. Science cannot explain love yet we know it exists because we have experienced it. I know god exists because i have experienced god. I cannot explain god to you because the experience is beyond language just as love is. The closest i can come to an explanation is that everything is a manifestation of god, much like a wave is formed from the ocean and merges back into the ocean. God = ocean, people = waves. Words just cannot do justice to an explanation of god.
It seems that people often get confused between god and religion. Religion is just a poor attempt at trying to explain and recreate the experience of god. Religion in modern times is just a power game that gives religious leaders, governments and zealouts a means of controlling people's actions and beliefs and has very little to with spirituality.
I was once an atheist myself until i had a direct experience of god, which changed my whole outlook on life and the world, so i know where a lot of you people are coming from in your arguments against the existence of god ( i am still not religous). All i can say to you is that one day, maybe in this lifetime or another, you will have a direct experience of god and you will then understand why words can never explain something which is beyond language.
Peace
Ananda
[ 25 February 2003: Message edited by: ananda ]
To the people that argue that god doesn't exist because it cannot be explained by science, i say that i can produce the same argument about love. Science cannot explain love yet we know it exists because we have experienced it. I know god exists because i have experienced god. I cannot explain god to you because the experience is beyond language just as love is. The closest i can come to an explanation is that everything is a manifestation of god, much like a wave is formed from the ocean and merges back into the ocean. God = ocean, people = waves. Words just cannot do justice to an explanation of god.
It seems that people often get confused between god and religion. Religion is just a poor attempt at trying to explain and recreate the experience of god. Religion in modern times is just a power game that gives religious leaders, governments and zealouts a means of controlling people's actions and beliefs and has very little to with spirituality.
I was once an atheist myself until i had a direct experience of god, which changed my whole outlook on life and the world, so i know where a lot of you people are coming from in your arguments against the existence of god ( i am still not religous). All i can say to you is that one day, maybe in this lifetime or another, you will have a direct experience of god and you will then understand why words can never explain something which is beyond language.
Peace
Ananda
[ 25 February 2003: Message edited by: ananda ]
Last edited by a moderator:
(I apologize if this strays a bit from the intended topic...)
Bricoleur:
I entirely agree with you in that belief in god is irrational, and I'd throw irrelevant in there as well. However, I do experience bizarre things that some may term spiritual, and which many may throw into the same category as the god-concept. I see some major distinctions, however, and I was just curious as to your thoughts on the matter due to a few key things you put in your last post. As you said:
For instance -- and I say this in the hopes that I will not be mocked -- I have had experiences where I have out-of-body sensations and end up in an environment that obviously isn't ordinary reality. You can call this a dream and dismiss it as such and be done with it, but these are very real experiences. I can honestly say that `over there' is much more real to me than `over here.'
Since this has been happening since May of 1995 and my fears of the experiences have lessened, I've learned things about the environment and my abilities there through trying out new things. I found that I cannot alter the reality around me by will alone. To the contrary, it's taken me a few years to gain good control of my `body' over there. I've learned that I can taste things. I can obviously see things. Things feel undoubtedly physically real. I can hear things. I have the sense of movement, balance, etc. I don't remember smell, really, at all. I don't know why.
Now the reason I bring this up is because it SEEMS to meet your criteria for not requiring belief: I experience it directly. Hell, I experience it directly on repeated occasions. However, I cannot provide any evidence for it. By experiencing it directly, belief is not necessary, and if I were to deny what I sense, that would be what you call irrational -- but since I am obviously unable to provide sufficient physical evidence for it, what exactly would you call this? What would science call this? `Delusional'? `Knowing'? `Belief'? `Somewhere in-between'? `Inapplicable'?
Or is this just irrelevant in your eyes -- as irrelevant as I (and it seems to be, you) feel the god concept is?
[ 25 February 2003: Message edited by: rewiiired ]
Bricoleur:
I entirely agree with you in that belief in god is irrational, and I'd throw irrelevant in there as well. However, I do experience bizarre things that some may term spiritual, and which many may throw into the same category as the god-concept. I see some major distinctions, however, and I was just curious as to your thoughts on the matter due to a few key things you put in your last post. As you said:
and
So what happens if something is observable -- or better, you can taste it, touch it, smell it, hear it, AND observe it -- but due to it's specific nature, you cannot provide evidence for it?
For instance -- and I say this in the hopes that I will not be mocked -- I have had experiences where I have out-of-body sensations and end up in an environment that obviously isn't ordinary reality. You can call this a dream and dismiss it as such and be done with it, but these are very real experiences. I can honestly say that `over there' is much more real to me than `over here.'
Since this has been happening since May of 1995 and my fears of the experiences have lessened, I've learned things about the environment and my abilities there through trying out new things. I found that I cannot alter the reality around me by will alone. To the contrary, it's taken me a few years to gain good control of my `body' over there. I've learned that I can taste things. I can obviously see things. Things feel undoubtedly physically real. I can hear things. I have the sense of movement, balance, etc. I don't remember smell, really, at all. I don't know why.
Now the reason I bring this up is because it SEEMS to meet your criteria for not requiring belief: I experience it directly. Hell, I experience it directly on repeated occasions. However, I cannot provide any evidence for it. By experiencing it directly, belief is not necessary, and if I were to deny what I sense, that would be what you call irrational -- but since I am obviously unable to provide sufficient physical evidence for it, what exactly would you call this? What would science call this? `Delusional'? `Knowing'? `Belief'? `Somewhere in-between'? `Inapplicable'?
Or is this just irrelevant in your eyes -- as irrelevant as I (and it seems to be, you) feel the god concept is?
[ 25 February 2003: Message edited by: rewiiired ]
Last edited by a moderator:
Ananda,
Lets not confuse a direct experience of god with the feeling that lies at the heart of spirituality.
How arrogant and egotistical of you to assume that I have not had an experience similar to what you describe. I suppose you think that the only means of navigating the experience is to follow the dogmatic dead end path laid by the tired footsteps of those before you. I guess you have never considered that this experience could be interpreted in a dynamic and novel way; one that does not lead to dead spaces, that does not rely on dead myths and boring psychological complexes.
Sorry Ananda, but I need new myths and archetypes.
rewiiired,
The only point I want to raise from the above is your comment that it appears more real than ‘here’. Well, what is real? And how can something be ‘more’ real?
While you have not stated that this experience is a result of psychedelics, it is no doubt the result of having accessed an altered state of consciousness, so the following quote from a paper I wrote on the dogmatic nature of the general psychedelic scene is still relevant, “To believe that a psychedelic experience is more valid, more real and truer than any other shadowy concepts we gloss over in our search for meaning and relevance, is to admit that the first lesson of psychedelics has not been learned. Nothing is Real. Everything is Permitted.”
This aspect is something my discussion with Tr6ai0ls4 did not touch on, but if you are unable to share the experience, then it does change the nature of your interaction with the space. Or it should IMO.
But at the at the heart of spirituality is a "feeling", a feeling of what it is like to be connected to something bigger than your illusory self - what the philosopher Schleiermacher called "a sense and taste for the infinite", a taste for God, a taste for the interconnectedness of things, a taste for being in love with life and the world, etc.”
This is not irrelevant, but can become irrelevant through its interpretation and application.
Take myself for example, I am a temporal lobe epileptic who has profound mystical experiences during seizure, including OBE’s. I have written a paper which looks into current research in neuroscience with regards to mystical experiences – one topic that is relevant here is that of Michael Persinger who has held over 900 experiments on ‘ordinary’ people where he sends electromagnetic pulses into the temporal lobes, and these people have mystical experiences, feel the presence of ‘god’, have typical OBE’s, etc.
Now what I am excited about with this type of research is not that it demeans the experience, but that it forces people to interpret and apply them in dynamic and novel ways. There will be no more room for sentimental notions of ‘god’, but rather the human whose worldview is based on an equality of subjectivities will be of great assistance in generating a future space for interaction, comprised of multiplicities, paradoxes; a space of spaces, a topology of diversions, unifications, temporal shifts of agreement and non binary logics…
Hope this has helped…
take care and control.
the bricoleur
Thank you for your condescending and sanctimonious remarks – are you sure you’re not religious? Because it certainly sounds like you are.
Lets not confuse a direct experience of god with the feeling that lies at the heart of spirituality.
How arrogant and egotistical of you to assume that I have not had an experience similar to what you describe. I suppose you think that the only means of navigating the experience is to follow the dogmatic dead end path laid by the tired footsteps of those before you. I guess you have never considered that this experience could be interpreted in a dynamic and novel way; one that does not lead to dead spaces, that does not rely on dead myths and boring psychological complexes.
Sorry Ananda, but I need new myths and archetypes.
rewiiired,
This is interesting…
Then you should ask whether this thing can be shared. Once you can answer this, you should then ask whether you want to share it. This choice will determine whether you are going to indulge in solipsism or not. From my experience solipsism rapidly becomes boring and very lonely, but that is my opinion.
I certainly will not mock you. And while I may not agree with the common, like Ananda, interpretation of the experience ‘of god’, I do not deny the experience itself.
The only point I want to raise from the above is your comment that it appears more real than ‘here’. Well, what is real? And how can something be ‘more’ real?
While you have not stated that this experience is a result of psychedelics, it is no doubt the result of having accessed an altered state of consciousness, so the following quote from a paper I wrote on the dogmatic nature of the general psychedelic scene is still relevant, “To believe that a psychedelic experience is more valid, more real and truer than any other shadowy concepts we gloss over in our search for meaning and relevance, is to admit that the first lesson of psychedelics has not been learned. Nothing is Real. Everything is Permitted.”
Why do you keep going back to this place? What is your primary motivation for returning to this space? Where is it going?
I return to my previous question, can the experience be shared? Can you share this space with another person? Can another person exist in this space with you? How important is it to you that you are able to share this experience with someone (and not just through the telling of it)?
This aspect is something my discussion with Tr6ai0ls4 did not touch on, but if you are unable to share the experience, then it does change the nature of your interaction with the space. Or it should IMO.
What do YOU call it?
Well a concept of god is irrelevant.
But at the at the heart of spirituality is a "feeling", a feeling of what it is like to be connected to something bigger than your illusory self - what the philosopher Schleiermacher called "a sense and taste for the infinite", a taste for God, a taste for the interconnectedness of things, a taste for being in love with life and the world, etc.”
This is not irrelevant, but can become irrelevant through its interpretation and application.
Take myself for example, I am a temporal lobe epileptic who has profound mystical experiences during seizure, including OBE’s. I have written a paper which looks into current research in neuroscience with regards to mystical experiences – one topic that is relevant here is that of Michael Persinger who has held over 900 experiments on ‘ordinary’ people where he sends electromagnetic pulses into the temporal lobes, and these people have mystical experiences, feel the presence of ‘god’, have typical OBE’s, etc.
Now what I am excited about with this type of research is not that it demeans the experience, but that it forces people to interpret and apply them in dynamic and novel ways. There will be no more room for sentimental notions of ‘god’, but rather the human whose worldview is based on an equality of subjectivities will be of great assistance in generating a future space for interaction, comprised of multiplicities, paradoxes; a space of spaces, a topology of diversions, unifications, temporal shifts of agreement and non binary logics…
Hope this has helped…
take care and control.
the bricoleur
Last edited by a moderator:
&
This aspect is something my discussion with Tr6ai0ls4 did not touch on, but if you are unable to share the experience, then it does change the nature of your interaction with the space. Or it should IMO.
I know others have had this experience and reported many of the same details I have. I knew nothing about the parallel experiences of others until long after I had had my own, so I know my experiences weren't unconsciously influenced by things I had read beforehand. I know this doesn't prove it objectivity.
I met someone who had the same experiences in 1999. In my presence, he achieved the experience through the aide of drugs and was able to do away with whatever it was attacking me during the first 4 years of my spontaneous experiences down there. And yes, I realize he may have only `banished' it because I believed he did, and that this proves nothing. None the less, my experiences dramatically changed from terrifying to experiences that allowed me to explore down there.
I have never seen another human being there that could validate the objectivity of my experience -- for instance, someone who had the experience the same time I did and interacted with me while in that `other place'.
The experience can be shared, then, and has been, but not with me and another human being simultaneously in the same space. Until I have such an experience, I know that the parallel experiences of others only imply something subjective-but-archetypal, rather than what it seems to me -- which is a sort of alternate and parallel objective reality.
The other place is as distinct from and `more real' than ordinary reality as ordinary reality is from our dreams. I am also at a higher and clearer state of consciousness when I'm over there then when I'm over here; again, it's as distinct as the quality of the state of consciousness we experience in the everyday compared to those which we experience in dreams. I admit I probably did a piss poor job of explaining this...
For the record, these experiences are not the result of psychedelics. I had these experiences years before I would try so much as a cigarette; as a matter of fact, I steered away from drugs in high school due to the fact that I did not wish to push myself over the edge in regards to these experiences. Within the last year or two, however, I learned that my experiences closely match what many report while on DMT, Ketamine or Salvia Divinorum. Of these, within the last two years, I have tried only Salvia -- and had not even a visual hallucination.
It just happens. It's nothing I've learned to control; the experience come on spontaneously. The first four years of it's occurrence, the experiences involved me getting attacked by something. Now I'm usually alone, but my last experience involved a `presence' that seemed neutral, if not positive. I have the sense that these experiences are going somewhere, but I don't know where, and I fully realize that could just be a delusional feeling.
I once came upon a Ziggy cartoon. Ziggy was standing before a bookshelf split into three sections. One was Fiction, one was Non-Fiction, and there was a space between labeled Not-Sure. Due to what I've grown up being taught/programmed, a part of me shoved it in the Not-Sure or `Undetermined' category.
Another part of me regards it as absolutely real, more real; a different kind of real. I usually call the place I go to the Otherworld, or just the Other. The place I initially go through when I'm there, before the Other, I call the Limbo (it's usually a black void of zero gravity, but sometimes it's this seemingly endless well).
Any discussion on the matter or anything that surrounds it helps. This certainly has been a help. Thanks for the response.
[ 26 February 2003: Message edited by: rewiiired ]
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, i'm going to keep this as short as possible, because i do not really have the time to keep writing ridiculously long threads as I have been.
Also, none of you seem to be reading them in their full anyways, and asking the same questions which i have allready anwsered.
So,
Bricoleur,
Yes, it is completely irrational unless you have some sort of logical reason to believe that the definition of god (not just your own personal definition of him) corresponds to the definition of a table. Which it does not.
What i see god to be is not 'out there', there is no 'out there'. Reality is everything that is existant. There is nothing beyond everything that is existant. So 'out there'(being beyond reality) does not fit with what I am saying god is.
These grounds being, what most religions make god out to be, is a being which is all of existance. Go ahead, do some research. Take into consideration that whatever any religions description of god is, it is either a. a being which is all of existance or b. a metaphor which could mean a being that is all of existance c. something that can be compared to a being which is all of existance or other religious views of god which mean a being that is all of existance.
After you do that, come back here and tell i'm wrong, and i will listen to what you have with an open mind and open ears. But, you must provide the definition of god and show how it clearly could not possibly mean all of existance or why it is irrational to believe that it could mean that.
-- It does not in any way suggest that nothing is true.
-- It does not state, there is no way at all that you can determine the truth of any statements.
-- It does not say, if you use different methods to determine whether or not different things are true, you will never find the truth.
All it sais, is that there is no ONE universal way to determine the truth of EVERY statement.
There are things which are definitely 100% true.
For example:
--2+2=4
--2*5=10
--You, bricoleur, at this current point in time, can't breathe in space or underwater without use of technology.
--You, bricoleur, at this current point in time, do not have green hair, one eye, three arms, and purple skin.
Go ahead, take your best shot and show me how any of those could possibly not be 100% true. I'm really curious as to what you have to say....
Who is the one being irrational here?
I am not at all trying to say that just because god might exist, that means there is a greater chance that he exists. That would be completely absurb.
Why do you and psychoblast always insist on just putting words in my mouth like that?
My statement, ("In order to see anything, not just god, you have to be open to the fact that it might exist.") sais exactly what it sais. Whats so hard to understand?
Where in that statement do you see anything that suggest me saying, god has a greater chance of existing or must exist just because he might exist? That is absolutely ridiculous...
As far as I know, i was speaking of a theory, not any conclusion.. i dont have the slightest idea where you got that from.
Also, if there was any experiments that i could possibly perform to determine whether or not my theory is true or false, and reach this conclusion that you're speaking of. Don't you think I would have allready done so ?
Why dont you name me 3 experiments that will falsify the theory of relativity in its whole, not just little parts of it? or any other theory that hasn't been proven...
1. A scientific experiment used to determine whether or not reality is a living entity.
2. A scientific experiment used to determine whether or not reality works and/or functions in one certain speculated way.
3. A scientific experiment devised to determine whether or not reality works and/or functions in another certain speculated way.
Some experiments that would determine whether or not reality works in certain speculated ways are doable and have allready been performed..
I allready gave one as an example in a prior post..
It doesn't totally prove gods existance or anything. Just like any experiment for any other scientifical theory.
Your statement is based on assumption and your belief, not fact.
I have many hypotheses and i have demonstrated this and if i have not, I could, so you're wrong in saying that i'm lacking...
here's a list of just some......
1. Reality is a living entity.
2. Your thoughts manifest themselves into reality.
3. Religious text shows that belief in god will yield a sense of well-being and a better life, and they do.
4. The atoms in our bodies are vibrating at a unique frequency akin to optical phonons or acoustic phonons. (A rather vague description of the soul)
etc......
My theory is as falsiable as most other theories, so you're wrong in saying that i'm lacking, can't you see that?
If you were to prove my theory right in its full, including all the above listed hypotheses, wouldn't you say it would be usefull knowledge and beneficial to the human race? I have a hard time seeing how you would say no,
So once again, you're wrong in saying that i'm lacking.
Also, to clear this up once and for all...
scientific theory
n : a theory derived from or used in science
My theory is partially derived from science, and nowhere in that definition does it say it has to be falsiable, even though I agree that it does.
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
notice how it sais especially one that... and not must be one that ....
I observed them and questioned them and came to the conclusion that the ones that believe in god without blind faith, are happier and in better health... heh ...
The questions consisted of what they would do in certain situations, about their experiences in the past with the belief in god to determine whether they just believe cause they were taught to, and other stuff like that...
I asked a bunch of different kinds of people of different ages, of different religions and beliefs....probably around 20 to 30 of each a, b, and c...
The experiments that support my theory could be found online. Just do a search for things like the experiment mentioned above or for any of my other hypotheses that are mentioned here or that you might think I might have.
Ask around, I allready put way more time in this post then I expected. I'm sure there are many. If you look for them you will find them. I dont doubt it.
1. Most religious beliefs spawned spontaneously in different locations that have the same idea as to what god is, once you remove all the extra shit added on (afterlife, no pre-marital sex, ritual, prayer) etc..
2. That experiment that I mentioned.
3. I can feel and sense every persons vibration.
4. I have seen what I believe to be other planes of existance, and many people share this belief although i didn't know of them until after having experienced these things.
5. Many people share my other beliefs, almost exactly, from all over, most of these people either had no knowledge that other people have these beliefs, or still have no knowledge of them. They were just based on observations they have made as were mine.
6. My thoughts often manifest themselves.
7. It is quite frequent that I know almost exactly what another person is thinking when I am looking at them, or that i think of something right before somebody sais it. Much more often the other people. Yes, it is a coincidence. But the amount of times that it happens, leads me to belive that it is unlikely for it to happen as it does without there being some sort of reason or explanation for it other then, its just a coincidence. (I do not claim its definitely 100% not coincidence. All im doing is just considering the possibility that it might not be, and that something might be responsible for it.)
8. I've had dreams about future events that happened after I had dreamed them.
9. I died at age 4, was proclaimed dead for 30 minutes, nobody knew how long i had no heartbeat before that. Then somehow I just came back to life. During this time, i had a dream. For years I couldn't explain what it was or where it came from. It doesn't even feel like a dream. Just a memory that I have that couldn't be possible in this world.
10. I've had many of what i believe to be out of body experiences, so have many other people.
There are many more, I do not feel like listing them, because 1) I allready know the kind of resopnse i'm going to get for these and
2) personal reasons, people who have experienced shit like might understand.
If are not one of those people, who has experienced this kind of phenomena, keep in mind that you might be responding differently if you did experience them.
These are all personal reasons, as to why I consider the possibility that god might exist, and believe that he does. It would have to happen to you for you to understand. If you had experienced all these things (+ more then i'm not comfortable mentioning because people claim i have some kind of brain ailment, or some other bs. Even though, i seem to have superior intelligence to most my age, do not have intentions of hurting anybody nor myself, nor am I depressed in any way shape or form.) Would you not at least consider the possibility that there might be more to this world then you can just see with your eyes and technology? That is all i'm doing.... considering that possibility... I am in no way stating that i'm definitely correct.. and that there definitely is a god. I'm simply theorizing, speculating, conjegating, watever you want to call it, based on observations that I have made, and believing that those theories are correct based on observations i have made that make sense (some of them).
My statement which your above quote is the reply to, was referring to the other 2 definitions you had posted, and simply saying that the word belief could be used to mean something other then your definition of the word as something that has been accepted as true. It doesn't have to be that. That is just one definition of the word. If you meant that, ok. I didn't mean that. I meant the other 2 definitions. OK?
Just because you see something, doesn't make it real. You are very much able to see things which you can't just say are real. You can believe they are, but you can't just say they are.
Also, you're right sufficient evidence would render belief unnecessary. No i do not see your point in saying that. In what way, does observation qualify as sufficient evidence? How can you call me irrational after having made a statement like that?
Weak... i expected more from somebody of your caliber...For a while, I actually considered that you weren't at all like psychoblast.. guess i was wrong... i'm not surprised he likes your posts.. heh.. how typical
2. Growth
3. Response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the supposed living organism.
etc... those are the basic ones
axiom - A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
belief (according to what seems to be your definition of it) - something that is self-evident or accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument.
So science makes things axiomatic yet there is no room in science for belief? heh... i dont get it.. kinda funny actually .. unless i'm seriously misunderstanding your statement.. or the definitions...
A fact is distinguishable from a strong theory. Otherwise, it would just be called a strong theory. The reason its called a fact, is because its 100% true. For example...(once again) 2+2=4... that is a fact... as opposed to hmmm.. i think 2+2 can be 4 because of this and this and that, which is theory.
As far as I see your argument that fact is neither true or false is just a word game that you're playing in order to prove me wrong in someway cause you just want to be right. But then again, according to you I can't be dead wrong..because virtually everything is probable..heh... go figure...
You're right that is intersting...
i think u misunderstood wat he was saying in there.. it doesn't conflict with my views watsoever... look again...if anything it agrees with them...
psychoblast --- nothing to say other then wow? heh.. nice of you to just ignore my reply to your post...
well there goes my attempt to keep it short.. lol... i tried and everything
peace and much love to all,
- Tr6ai0ls4 -
[ 26 February 2003: Message edited by: Tr6ai0ls4 ]
[ 26 February 2003: Message edited by: Tr6ai0ls4 ]
Also, none of you seem to be reading them in their full anyways, and asking the same questions which i have allready anwsered.
So,
Bricoleur,
The point for my explanation of god is to seek anwsers to unanswered questions. All my explanation of god is observations that i have made of how reality works and functions. God being reality. I do not like to call 'reality' god. But because of what i see reality to be (and seemingly what other religions see god to be), i think it is rather appropriate to call it god. If i say reality, people who believe in god do not have a full understanding of what I am talking about. When i say god, at least their views are closer to what i'm talking about.
Saying god is a table, and saying god is reality is not the same thing. You cannot compare reality to a table. Every question that we have about a table has been anwsered allready and it doesn't really do anything, or perform any function other then just vibrating (as far as i know). There are many things which we do not know about reality and how it functions. So your statement saying that i might as well be saying god is table, is completely invalid. You obviously do not understand what I am talking about.
Yes, it is completely irrational unless you have some sort of logical reason to believe that the definition of god (not just your own personal definition of him) corresponds to the definition of a table. Which it does not.
What i see god to be is not 'out there', there is no 'out there'. Reality is everything that is existant. There is nothing beyond everything that is existant. So 'out there'(being beyond reality) does not fit with what I am saying god is.
I have given grounds, just not in a reply to your post. It is in this thread, and it is in my replies to psychoblasts posts, which he is blatantly ignoring.
These grounds being, what most religions make god out to be, is a being which is all of existance. Go ahead, do some research. Take into consideration that whatever any religions description of god is, it is either a. a being which is all of existance or b. a metaphor which could mean a being that is all of existance c. something that can be compared to a being which is all of existance or other religious views of god which mean a being that is all of existance.
After you do that, come back here and tell i'm wrong, and i will listen to what you have with an open mind and open ears. But, you must provide the definition of god and show how it clearly could not possibly mean all of existance or why it is irrational to believe that it could mean that.
Yes, i am ... the theorem states that there can never be a universal procedure by which people can determine all mathematical truths.
-- It does not in any way suggest that nothing is true.
-- It does not state, there is no way at all that you can determine the truth of any statements.
-- It does not say, if you use different methods to determine whether or not different things are true, you will never find the truth.
All it sais, is that there is no ONE universal way to determine the truth of EVERY statement.
There are things which are definitely 100% true.
For example:
--2+2=4
--2*5=10
--You, bricoleur, at this current point in time, can't breathe in space or underwater without use of technology.
--You, bricoleur, at this current point in time, do not have green hair, one eye, three arms, and purple skin.
Go ahead, take your best shot and show me how any of those could possibly not be 100% true. I'm really curious as to what you have to say....
If it is, how so?
WOW!!!!! when will you guys stop just straight up saying, I AM RIGHT... this is what you're attempting to postulate, it is this. There is no way you were trying to say something different and i misunderstood. That is what this statement sounds like to me, so i must be right.
Who is the one being irrational here?
I am not at all trying to say that just because god might exist, that means there is a greater chance that he exists. That would be completely absurb.
Why do you and psychoblast always insist on just putting words in my mouth like that?
My statement, ("In order to see anything, not just god, you have to be open to the fact that it might exist.") sais exactly what it sais. Whats so hard to understand?
Where in that statement do you see anything that suggest me saying, god has a greater chance of existing or must exist just because he might exist? That is absolutely ridiculous...
what conclusion? lol .. when did i ever say anything about a conclusion?
As far as I know, i was speaking of a theory, not any conclusion.. i dont have the slightest idea where you got that from.
Also, if there was any experiments that i could possibly perform to determine whether or not my theory is true or false, and reach this conclusion that you're speaking of. Don't you think I would have allready done so ?
Why dont you name me 3 experiments that will falsify the theory of relativity in its whole, not just little parts of it? or any other theory that hasn't been proven...
1. A scientific experiment used to determine whether or not reality is a living entity.
2. A scientific experiment used to determine whether or not reality works and/or functions in one certain speculated way.
3. A scientific experiment devised to determine whether or not reality works and/or functions in another certain speculated way.
Some experiments that would determine whether or not reality works in certain speculated ways are doable and have allready been performed..
I allready gave one as an example in a prior post..
It doesn't totally prove gods existance or anything. Just like any experiment for any other scientifical theory.
you are wrong.... there is nothing in science that states that belief cannot be part of a scientifical experiment. Many scientifical experiments that pertain to belief have been performed, I have allready given you an example of one of them.
Your statement is based on assumption and your belief, not fact.
First of all,
I have many hypotheses and i have demonstrated this and if i have not, I could, so you're wrong in saying that i'm lacking...
here's a list of just some......
1. Reality is a living entity.
2. Your thoughts manifest themselves into reality.
3. Religious text shows that belief in god will yield a sense of well-being and a better life, and they do.
4. The atoms in our bodies are vibrating at a unique frequency akin to optical phonons or acoustic phonons. (A rather vague description of the soul)
etc......
My theory is as falsiable as most other theories, so you're wrong in saying that i'm lacking, can't you see that?
If you were to prove my theory right in its full, including all the above listed hypotheses, wouldn't you say it would be usefull knowledge and beneficial to the human race? I have a hard time seeing how you would say no,
So once again, you're wrong in saying that i'm lacking.
Also, to clear this up once and for all...
scientific theory
n : a theory derived from or used in science
My theory is partially derived from science, and nowhere in that definition does it say it has to be falsiable, even though I agree that it does.
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
notice how it sais especially one that... and not must be one that ....
Yea, you're absolutely right. You know why? The experiments were devised to determine the over-all..... not just in one sex, or in one nationality, but in all people. Those aren't variables in those experiments. They do not need to be.
for the sake of brevity.... i will stop at 2...lol....
Ok, I've asked people i've talked to whether they mind being asked a few questions. There were 3 differents kinds of people a. people who believe in god without blind faith b. dont' believe in god c. neither...
I observed them and questioned them and came to the conclusion that the ones that believe in god without blind faith, are happier and in better health... heh ...
The questions consisted of what they would do in certain situations, about their experiences in the past with the belief in god to determine whether they just believe cause they were taught to, and other stuff like that...
I asked a bunch of different kinds of people of different ages, of different religions and beliefs....probably around 20 to 30 of each a, b, and c...
The experiments that support my theory could be found online. Just do a search for things like the experiment mentioned above or for any of my other hypotheses that are mentioned here or that you might think I might have.
Ask around, I allready put way more time in this post then I expected. I'm sure there are many. If you look for them you will find them. I dont doubt it.
Well, thats you.
Read my posts... i share them all the time... A few are..
1. Most religious beliefs spawned spontaneously in different locations that have the same idea as to what god is, once you remove all the extra shit added on (afterlife, no pre-marital sex, ritual, prayer) etc..
2. That experiment that I mentioned.
3. I can feel and sense every persons vibration.
4. I have seen what I believe to be other planes of existance, and many people share this belief although i didn't know of them until after having experienced these things.
5. Many people share my other beliefs, almost exactly, from all over, most of these people either had no knowledge that other people have these beliefs, or still have no knowledge of them. They were just based on observations they have made as were mine.
6. My thoughts often manifest themselves.
7. It is quite frequent that I know almost exactly what another person is thinking when I am looking at them, or that i think of something right before somebody sais it. Much more often the other people. Yes, it is a coincidence. But the amount of times that it happens, leads me to belive that it is unlikely for it to happen as it does without there being some sort of reason or explanation for it other then, its just a coincidence. (I do not claim its definitely 100% not coincidence. All im doing is just considering the possibility that it might not be, and that something might be responsible for it.)
8. I've had dreams about future events that happened after I had dreamed them.
9. I died at age 4, was proclaimed dead for 30 minutes, nobody knew how long i had no heartbeat before that. Then somehow I just came back to life. During this time, i had a dream. For years I couldn't explain what it was or where it came from. It doesn't even feel like a dream. Just a memory that I have that couldn't be possible in this world.
10. I've had many of what i believe to be out of body experiences, so have many other people.
There are many more, I do not feel like listing them, because 1) I allready know the kind of resopnse i'm going to get for these and
2) personal reasons, people who have experienced shit like might understand.
If are not one of those people, who has experienced this kind of phenomena, keep in mind that you might be responding differently if you did experience them.
These are all personal reasons, as to why I consider the possibility that god might exist, and believe that he does. It would have to happen to you for you to understand. If you had experienced all these things (+ more then i'm not comfortable mentioning because people claim i have some kind of brain ailment, or some other bs. Even though, i seem to have superior intelligence to most my age, do not have intentions of hurting anybody nor myself, nor am I depressed in any way shape or form.) Would you not at least consider the possibility that there might be more to this world then you can just see with your eyes and technology? That is all i'm doing.... considering that possibility... I am in no way stating that i'm definitely correct.. and that there definitely is a god. I'm simply theorizing, speculating, conjegating, watever you want to call it, based on observations that I have made, and believing that those theories are correct based on observations i have made that make sense (some of them).
once again, great job at not understanding what i'm saying.. and twisting it around to mean something else ...
My statement which your above quote is the reply to, was referring to the other 2 definitions you had posted, and simply saying that the word belief could be used to mean something other then your definition of the word as something that has been accepted as true. It doesn't have to be that. That is just one definition of the word. If you meant that, ok. I didn't mean that. I meant the other 2 definitions. OK?
Are you for real man? Do i really need to explain why you're wrong? Haven't you ever hallucinated something? Did you immediately assume that it was real after having seen it? If you did, it is you who is irrational, not me.
Just because you see something, doesn't make it real. You are very much able to see things which you can't just say are real. You can believe they are, but you can't just say they are.
Also, you're right sufficient evidence would render belief unnecessary. No i do not see your point in saying that. In what way, does observation qualify as sufficient evidence? How can you call me irrational after having made a statement like that?
It is not in any way other then you quoting one statement while leaving out important details such as that I do not claim to know anything for a fact, and you trying to make it look like it is.
Weak... i expected more from somebody of your caliber...For a while, I actually considered that you weren't at all like psychoblast.. guess i was wrong... i'm not surprised he likes your posts.. heh.. how typical
As far as i know, anthropomorphisizing would mean to ascribe specifically human characteristics to something. Living is not specifically a human characteristic. There are many other forms of life like plant life for example.
1. Metabolism
2. Growth
3. Response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the supposed living organism.
etc... those are the basic ones
Wow, so according to this statement not only science just simply take the best rules that it has found without proof that they're the best rules, then they make em axiomatic...and then actually uses these axioms as a foundation for further thinking, without knowing whether or not they're valid... LOL... do you see what you wrote?
axiom - A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
belief (according to what seems to be your definition of it) - something that is self-evident or accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument.
So science makes things axiomatic yet there is no room in science for belief? heh... i dont get it.. kinda funny actually .. unless i'm seriously misunderstanding your statement.. or the definitions...
theres plenty allready listed in this post, i do not feel like repeating myself... just pick em out, they're in here
I dont understand, if a fact is undistinguishable from a strong theory, why are they 2 different words?
A fact is distinguishable from a strong theory. Otherwise, it would just be called a strong theory. The reason its called a fact, is because its 100% true. For example...(once again) 2+2=4... that is a fact... as opposed to hmmm.. i think 2+2 can be 4 because of this and this and that, which is theory.
As far as I see your argument that fact is neither true or false is just a word game that you're playing in order to prove me wrong in someway cause you just want to be right. But then again, according to you I can't be dead wrong..because virtually everything is probable..heh... go figure...
I do have one... it is not 'god exists'. That is just what you make it out to be. By now, you should know what it is... if you had read this therad and my other threads at all...
You're right that is intersting...
i think u misunderstood wat he was saying in there.. it doesn't conflict with my views watsoever... look again...if anything it agrees with them...
psychoblast --- nothing to say other then wow? heh.. nice of you to just ignore my reply to your post...
well there goes my attempt to keep it short.. lol... i tried and everything
peace and much love to all,
- Tr6ai0ls4 -
[ 26 February 2003: Message edited by: Tr6ai0ls4 ]
[ 26 February 2003: Message edited by: Tr6ai0ls4 ]
Last edited by a moderator:
psychoblast
Bluelighter
^^^
Too long, I only skimmed it for now. One thing that occured to me. You wrote:
And are you seriously contending, after all the posts on god I have been active in, that I am not really considering the evidence and arguments in support of god? That is really annoying. Why do you think I, as an atheist, care so much about these religious threads? Because somewhere deep down I recognize the possibility that some one might actually have something clever to say in favor of belief in god that I had not thought of before, that makes sense and that makes me believe. To date, I have been consistently disappointed.
A skeptic about god is NOT some one who assumes god does not exist. Just the opposite, by the very act of the skeptic in critically examining claims regarding god's existence, the skeptic necessarily IS open to the fact that god might exist.
Anyway, your quote, above, is so obviously a short and dirty and invalid method of seeking to discredit anyone that disagrees with you, and I can't believe you don't see that.
"I don't believe in god."
"If you opened yourself up to the possibility that god exists, you would see the evidence."
"What evidence?"
"You can't see it because you are not open to the possibility that god exists."
"Sure I am, I just don't see the evidence and you are refusing to show it to me."
"I can't show it to you. If you were open to the possibilty of god's existence, you would see the evidence that would proof his existence to you. Since you don't see the evidence, you must not be open to the possibility of god's existence."
"Are we really talking about evidence, because that is something you can show a doubter to convince him/her of your position. It sounds more like you are saying that I have to actually BELIEVE in god and then I will see evidence to support that belief."
"I don't know about that, but it is true that if you did believe, then you would see the evidence."
"Um...that's a little circular, isn't it? I mean, it's not really evidence for a position if you have to believe in the position before you can see the evidence."
Another point. You say that claiming God is a table is inherently different than claiming god is all tables, all planets, all people etc. (though I would contend it is just a matter of scale). It appears you are basing this on the fact that we (supposedly) fully understand a table, but not the universe. Are you suggesting that ignorance of characteristics leads to the conclusion those characteristics include godliness? That unknown = divine?
As a further inquiry into your position, can you explain to me what is qualitatively different between claiming that God is the universe and claiming that God is Las Vegas? I live in Las Vegas. I believe Las Vegas exists. So, by defining God as Las Vegas, do I cease being an atheist? See, we do not know all the parameters of Las Vegas. It is a mix of animate and inanimate objects, living matter and non-living matter, that can be viewed as interacting in an unimaginable number of complex ways every second of every day, with people, animals and things coming into existence, passing out of existence... Now, what is different between calling the universe "God" and calling Las Vegas "God" except the scale? Each home in Las Vegas could be likened to a galaxy in the universe.
Or does it go back to the idea that we have explored all of Las Vegas and found nothing divine, whereas most of the universe is unexplored and, perhaps, unexplorable by us? Because this would still seem to be a claim that the universe is godlike just because it is impressively big and not completely understood. Again, reasoning that our ignorance of its characteristics makes it probable those characteristics include godliness.
~psychoblast~
Too long, I only skimmed it for now. One thing that occured to me. You wrote:
This implies that those of us who do not see god as existing are in denial because we are not "open" to the fact that god might exist. Can't you see how this precludes all reasoned debate? I mean, by the same token, I could say that believers are not open to the possibilty that god might NOT exist. Where does that get us?
And are you seriously contending, after all the posts on god I have been active in, that I am not really considering the evidence and arguments in support of god? That is really annoying. Why do you think I, as an atheist, care so much about these religious threads? Because somewhere deep down I recognize the possibility that some one might actually have something clever to say in favor of belief in god that I had not thought of before, that makes sense and that makes me believe. To date, I have been consistently disappointed.
A skeptic about god is NOT some one who assumes god does not exist. Just the opposite, by the very act of the skeptic in critically examining claims regarding god's existence, the skeptic necessarily IS open to the fact that god might exist.
Anyway, your quote, above, is so obviously a short and dirty and invalid method of seeking to discredit anyone that disagrees with you, and I can't believe you don't see that.
"I don't believe in god."
"If you opened yourself up to the possibility that god exists, you would see the evidence."
"What evidence?"
"You can't see it because you are not open to the possibility that god exists."
"Sure I am, I just don't see the evidence and you are refusing to show it to me."
"I can't show it to you. If you were open to the possibilty of god's existence, you would see the evidence that would proof his existence to you. Since you don't see the evidence, you must not be open to the possibility of god's existence."
"Are we really talking about evidence, because that is something you can show a doubter to convince him/her of your position. It sounds more like you are saying that I have to actually BELIEVE in god and then I will see evidence to support that belief."
"I don't know about that, but it is true that if you did believe, then you would see the evidence."
"Um...that's a little circular, isn't it? I mean, it's not really evidence for a position if you have to believe in the position before you can see the evidence."
Another point. You say that claiming God is a table is inherently different than claiming god is all tables, all planets, all people etc. (though I would contend it is just a matter of scale). It appears you are basing this on the fact that we (supposedly) fully understand a table, but not the universe. Are you suggesting that ignorance of characteristics leads to the conclusion those characteristics include godliness? That unknown = divine?
As a further inquiry into your position, can you explain to me what is qualitatively different between claiming that God is the universe and claiming that God is Las Vegas? I live in Las Vegas. I believe Las Vegas exists. So, by defining God as Las Vegas, do I cease being an atheist? See, we do not know all the parameters of Las Vegas. It is a mix of animate and inanimate objects, living matter and non-living matter, that can be viewed as interacting in an unimaginable number of complex ways every second of every day, with people, animals and things coming into existence, passing out of existence... Now, what is different between calling the universe "God" and calling Las Vegas "God" except the scale? Each home in Las Vegas could be likened to a galaxy in the universe.
Or does it go back to the idea that we have explored all of Las Vegas and found nothing divine, whereas most of the universe is unexplored and, perhaps, unexplorable by us? Because this would still seem to be a claim that the universe is godlike just because it is impressively big and not completely understood. Again, reasoning that our ignorance of its characteristics makes it probable those characteristics include godliness.
~psychoblast~
Last edited by a moderator:
No it does not imply anything like that. Are you really that blind that you cannot understand something so simple? If you 100% deny something exists you will never see it exists. Do you deny the existance of god 100%? If yes, then yes that statement applies to you. If no, it does not imply anything of the sort. Read it again.
I do not imply anything by anything. Everything I say, is exactly what it is. It isn't implying anything further then what is said. Stop assuming that it does. You constantly do this, along with other people on your side of the debate.
Nowhere in there does it say that people who dont believe in god, dont believe because they're not open to the fact that he might exist. This is just you twisting my words around in your head.
As for the point of the statement ...there was one.. i dont remember it...but it was definitely there. If you're that curious read the post in which i made the statement instead of telling me what my statement implies. heh... (i'm not trying to dodge anything here, this is my attempt to keep my posts brief so that you will read them, i'm trying to not repeat myself)
Where did i say anything that suggests anything like that? Once again, you are just drawing your own conclusions from my statements...yes in previous posts I have said things such as, it SEEMS like you just dont want to believe, because of the tone and attitude that you expressed. But it was made clear that i could not possibly say anything like that for a fact, and that always is made clear. Also notice there are no comments in this thread which imply anything of the sort, other then the ones which just YOU THINK imply it.
Ok, someone who denies the existance of god 100% is not a skeptic. Once again, this is irrelevant and just you drawing your own conclusions about what i said.
Anyway, your multiple quotes above and below, are so obviously a lengthier and dirtier and invalid method of seeking to discredit anyone that disagrees with you, and I can't believe you dont see that.
he said as he continued to put words in my mouth...
No, i'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that existance as a whole = Divine. A table as a whole does not. Do you not see the ridiculously great difference between a table which is nothing more then what it appears to be, (according to logical reasoning and rationality), and reality which is a lot more then what it just appears to be, (according to science, religion, and logical reasoning and rationality).
If you do not see the difference, I rest my case.
The fact that reality, (not the universe because saying the universe is too general) (It is possible for something to be beyond the universe, and it is not possible for something to be beyond reality or all of existance.)) is godlike is not based upon the fact that it is impressively big and not completely understood. It is based upon other facts and observations that suggest that all of existance is god.
Am i more clear now? I'm sorry if everything i had said earlier was too vague and easy to misunderstand. As you can see, my posts were extremely long, i was trying to simply not make them any longer then they allready were. Perhaps it was me, that didnt' fully explain what i was talking about. On the other hand, i think i conveyed my point just fine, and it was just simply you skimming through posts that didnt' understand the point in its whole, or simply misinterpreted my words.
Thank you for time psychoblast, it is appreciated.
peace and much love,
- Tr6 -
[ 27 February 2003: Message edited by: Tr6ai0ls4 ]
Last edited by a moderator:
bricoleur --- I missed this statement... heres my explanation..
This is what happens, in order. I think you will agree...
1. You see something.
2. You percieve what you see in the way that your mind is trained to percieve it.
3. You feel what you feel based on what you percieve. Not on what you see.
The people who are happy simply have a different perception.
That is why they are happy. Their perception results in their thoughts being manifested into reality, and their lives become better.
If you have a positive state of mind, it is more likely for positive things to happen. If you have a negative state of mind, it is more likely for negative things to happen.
There is no actual truth as to whether or not something is bad or good. That is all a matter of perception. Therefore, yes, happiness is not based upon truth or actuality for there is no truth or actuality in most things that you observe. It is based upon whether or not you percieve things to be good or bad, real or not real.
I'm sure you know what i'm talking about, you are the one arguing the point that nothing is true.
My point is that somethings are true, however most things have no validity. Truth is subjective with those things. Whatever you want to be true, is what will be true in the case that something has no definite truth validity.
The above paragraph is based upon the rational and observable belief and/or theory that states:
Thoughts of a certain nature (either good or bad) pertain to whether your life will be of that same nature.
^^^
let call this "Tr6 theory of thought manifestation". If there isn't allready a name for it, or it doesn't qualify as a theory.
and on this,
There is no such thing as absolute real, or absolute truth when it comes to certain specific things which cannot be proven by using the same one universal mathematical method which is currently used to provide the truth or realness of something.
^^^^
"Godels incompleteness theorem" (I think)
peace and much love,
- Tr6 -
What you feel is not based upon what you see.
This is what happens, in order. I think you will agree...
1. You see something.
2. You percieve what you see in the way that your mind is trained to percieve it.
3. You feel what you feel based on what you percieve. Not on what you see.
The people who are happy simply have a different perception.
That is why they are happy. Their perception results in their thoughts being manifested into reality, and their lives become better.
If you have a positive state of mind, it is more likely for positive things to happen. If you have a negative state of mind, it is more likely for negative things to happen.
There is no actual truth as to whether or not something is bad or good. That is all a matter of perception. Therefore, yes, happiness is not based upon truth or actuality for there is no truth or actuality in most things that you observe. It is based upon whether or not you percieve things to be good or bad, real or not real.
I'm sure you know what i'm talking about, you are the one arguing the point that nothing is true.
My point is that somethings are true, however most things have no validity. Truth is subjective with those things. Whatever you want to be true, is what will be true in the case that something has no definite truth validity.
The above paragraph is based upon the rational and observable belief and/or theory that states:
Thoughts of a certain nature (either good or bad) pertain to whether your life will be of that same nature.
^^^
let call this "Tr6 theory of thought manifestation". If there isn't allready a name for it, or it doesn't qualify as a theory.
and on this,
There is no such thing as absolute real, or absolute truth when it comes to certain specific things which cannot be proven by using the same one universal mathematical method which is currently used to provide the truth or realness of something.
^^^^
"Godels incompleteness theorem" (I think)
peace and much love,
- Tr6 -
Last edited by a moderator:
DigitalDuality
Bluelighter
i think people (including myself) believe in anything faith based for two reasons
#1-- insecurity and over powering emotions
#2-- lack of education
its that simple.
#1-- insecurity and over powering emotions
#2-- lack of education
its that simple.
Tr6,
With that fresh in our minds lets move onto ‘truth’...
Basically there can be no absolute truth. We now know beyond a shadow of doubt that any formal system of representation is best at representing its own contents, and only succeeds in generating paradoxes when it is used to describe itself as a whole, let alone anything outside itself.
I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything is permitted – possibility has no limits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You replied with:
The universe can best be described as the set of all things, real and imaginary, which have existence or potential existence (not a stretch see my Webster’s definition in previous reply).
For all things in the universe that have existence - e.g. have been imagined, there exists a transform, which can move them into an appropriate set. All things and concepts can live quite comfortably in this Universe - including "The Concrete Universe" and other universii.
Consider the following high-level subsets of the universe set:
1 (Unreal and not yet imagined things)
2 (Unreal and qualified (imagined and described) things)
3 (Real (identified through the senses) but not yet qualified (described) things)
4 (Real (identified through the senses) and qualified (described) things)
Assume that all "things" start out in the 1st category (unreal and not yet imagined) and migrate to the other sets depending on the function assigned to move it. Note that while "things" possess attributes, which assist in defining the function, attributes are allowed to contradict each other (e.g. light wave particle duality, the blind men describing an elephant, the “infinite love” of a god who will torture for an infinite period anyone who does not worship him) and this does not cause a problem for the system. Meta-things are also permitted, and need to be carefully identified and separated from instances of the thing. So there may be a meta-set (Balls), and the "Bouncy Ball" referred to above is then an instance of a meta set of balls with the attribute "Bouncy". On the other hand, a set (Bouncy Balls) could not contain an instance of a "Ball" which is "bounceless".
However, getting back to the gods in the thread, the process which leads to the migration requires a valid Misesian epistemological basis (Misesian Epistemology asserts that as far as man is able to attain any knowledge, however limited, he can use only one avenue of approach, that opened by reason.)
This means that Alice (of "Through the Looking Glass"), the IPU and all other less rational "gods" all manage to move from 1 to 2, as they have been imagined, yet never manage to get past 2 as no function exists or can be fashioned to transform them to 3 or 4, while Alice Liddle (the prototype Alice) is definitely a type 4 thing as she undoubtedly had a real existence as a person. Examples of type 3 items are more difficult, as the act of identifying things well enough to decide that they are valid things tends to qualify them, an example might be extra-solar planets (try The Discovery of Extrasolar Planets, Geoffrey Marcy and R. Paul Butler), We know there is something there, we think they are planets... Hopefully it is obvious that objects belonging to subset 1 cannot be listed, as the act of describing them automatically shifts them to type 2 objects.
You fallaciously think that your ‘god’ moves from 2 to 3/4 by merely utilising metaphor (understood as that figure of speech we use to describe one thing by suggesting another). David E. Leary puts it “metaphor consists in giving to one thing a name or description that belongs by convention to something else, on the grounds of some similarity between the two”, and what this implies is that YOU conveniently find the similarities between YOUR definition of ‘god’ and ‘reality’. The problem is that metaphors always lie to us, because they cannot accurately convey the nature of a thing using something it is not. They can only represent relationships of similarity or difference. This lie is only incapacitating if you believe in an objective reality and the possibility of articulating it. Uncovering the lie can be liberating if you are prepared to create a subjective, or intra-subjective reality, that is constantly open to new “readings” and new possibilities – I would suggest holding off uncovering this lie...
You have no conclusion, yet you are arguing that you have a theory... ? I rest my case.
I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give me at least 3 scientific experiments that I can use to falsify gods existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and you replied:
I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is irrational by the fact that the experiment requires belief in something. Belief, faith and trust have no place in science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You replied with:
I have addressed this directly in a paper I posted to another forum: Faith in Science it will show your comments to be empty and unjustified.
The scientific method as we know it today, revised by Karl Popper (you know of Popperian Falsifiability fame!?!), is;
1 Pose a question about nature (Some would say, not necessarily as the result of an observation).
2 Collect the pertinent, observable evidence.
3 Formulate an explanatory hypothesis, defining relevant assumptions.
4 Deduce its implications.
5 Test all of the implications experimentally.
6 Accept, reject, or modify the hypothesis based upon the experimental results.
7 Define its range of applicability.
8 Peer review
9 Publish (including methodology, data and analysis)
10 Evaluation and peers continue to test, extend and challenge the hypothesis.
You still do NOT have pertinent evidence... all you have is your use of metaphor – see my comments on metaphor above.
So going back to an earlier post you said,
“i look at god as if god is everything...all of material existence is the physical representation of his brain and all occurences in reality are his thoughts.
…
When you look at it like that all things mentioned like
1) all-knowing (omniscient),
2) all-powerful (omnipotent),
3) all-good (omnibenevolent)
4) creator of the universe (omnicreative first cause) who
5) exists everywhere at once (omnipresence).
seem to apply.
...
You still want to make this statement before I tear it down and expose its sloppy logic?
It should be noted that I am rather annoyed at your dishonesty. Initially you told me you were familiar with the scientific method yet you continue to show that you haven’t a clue, and then you told me you were familiar with Godel’s theorem yet you make the novice mistake that anyone with the faintest idea of the theorem would be aware of.
Why the lies?
from this moment forth am going to reserve my arguments on the scientific method, Godels incompleteness theorem, etc. until you can follow them.
It should be noted that when such variables are controlled for in these studies, the formerly significant results drop off to insignificance!!!
What say you now?
I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Failure to control for multiple comparisons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You replied with:
Now do you really think that I, or anyone, is going to take your juvenile excuse for an “experiment” seriously?
I'm sure there are many. If you look for them you will find them. I dont doubt it.
I would much prefer you supplied the ones you had in mind so as to avoid your now predictable response that is along the lines of, that not what I meant, you misunderstood etc.
And going back to something you stated in an earlier post, “Point well taken. Belief is not required in the scientifical method thereby making science completely independant from all belief in anything.”
I have addressed this above.
All part and parcel of the scientific method – you know the one you claimed to be familiar with, again more lies.
As for your follow-up post on truth and happiness, please do not bore me with your solipsism.
You say, “Therefore, yes, happiness is not based upon truth or actuality for there is no truth or actuality in most things that you observe.”
This is such a portmanteau of debating fallacy and error that I am hard pressed to categorise it, except to suggest that the error of the "Complex Question" (Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.) and ad hominem is undoubtedly present.
You are representing the pursuit of happiness as contrasted and opposed to the pursuit of truth. The illogic of this takes my breath away. How can any rational person claim that these are opposite? The answer is that they cannot. I believe it fair to say that any person making this kind of claim is not only irrational but makes a mockery of whatever that person professes to believe. I for one would not accept anything which said that I should ignore "truth" in preference to "happiness", as any "happiness" that may be found in accepting lies (the opposite of the "truth" posited) will eventually come up against the reality of the universe, and this will invariably create more unhappiness or irrationality than an initial acceptance of reality ("truth").
I leave you with a categorical syllogism that disproves your implied hypothesis:
I am a (long term) atheist and always seek truth.
I am a happy person and I always seek happiness.
(Major) The pursuit of truth and the pursuit of happiness are not opposed.
(Minor) Atheists can achieve happiness.
Now to define ‘truth’ as I have been using throughout this thread:
‘truth’: Gödelian incompleteness and Popperian Falsifiability together necessitate that outside of a formal system of limited application, a "truth", to have any measure of rational support, must by necessity, always be provisional, incomplete and falsifiable, in other words, there must always, at least hypothetically, exist some evidence which would permit that supposed truth to be rejected. This implies that outside of formal systems, the truth of a thing is not an absolute, but encompasses a range of probabilities which will have varying truth values (i.e. from "false" through "insufficient evidence to adduce a truth value" to "true") depending on the evidence for or against such a thing.
take care and control.
the bricoleur.
Sorry for the lenght but I do not have the time to edit, and hopefully this will be the last time I need to educate you on the scientific method or Godels Incompleteness...
[ 27 February 2003: Message edited by: Bricoleur ]
And what unanswered question(s) has ‘god’ thus far answered?
What I now understand is that for you reality can only be called ‘god’ if we are unable to explain the cause and effect nature of that ‘reality’. Rather convenient for your ‘theory’... but we end up at square one – replacing one mystery with another and in the process we end up chasing our tails... YAWN!
Which is why I asked you to give me the attributes that make something ‘god’.
Nice of you to construct the context in such a way as to be all-inclusive! So no matter what I say you can always pull point b. out... but let’s not forget that metaphor can swing both ways... and is better at reflecting itself... We tend to think that information about reality looks a lot like the symbolic system - language - we use to represent it. But our systems of symbolic representation say more about themselves, and our own limited perceptions than they say about reality.
With that fresh in our minds lets move onto ‘truth’...
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem On Formally Undecidable Propositions, tells us that in any system (other than a trivial definitionally complete system (e.g. A=A – and including your examples above (I thought you said you were familiar with this theorem and yet you break the rule!!!)), there will always exist propositions that cannot be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms of that system. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about something within a particular system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.
Basically there can be no absolute truth. We now know beyond a shadow of doubt that any formal system of representation is best at representing its own contents, and only succeeds in generating paradoxes when it is used to describe itself as a whole, let alone anything outside itself.
I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything is permitted – possibility has no limits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You replied with:
It looks like I am going to have to extrapolate... and the following will also address your reply to my statements that you are confusing possibility with probability.
The universe can best be described as the set of all things, real and imaginary, which have existence or potential existence (not a stretch see my Webster’s definition in previous reply).
For all things in the universe that have existence - e.g. have been imagined, there exists a transform, which can move them into an appropriate set. All things and concepts can live quite comfortably in this Universe - including "The Concrete Universe" and other universii.
Consider the following high-level subsets of the universe set:
1 (Unreal and not yet imagined things)
2 (Unreal and qualified (imagined and described) things)
3 (Real (identified through the senses) but not yet qualified (described) things)
4 (Real (identified through the senses) and qualified (described) things)
Assume that all "things" start out in the 1st category (unreal and not yet imagined) and migrate to the other sets depending on the function assigned to move it. Note that while "things" possess attributes, which assist in defining the function, attributes are allowed to contradict each other (e.g. light wave particle duality, the blind men describing an elephant, the “infinite love” of a god who will torture for an infinite period anyone who does not worship him) and this does not cause a problem for the system. Meta-things are also permitted, and need to be carefully identified and separated from instances of the thing. So there may be a meta-set (Balls), and the "Bouncy Ball" referred to above is then an instance of a meta set of balls with the attribute "Bouncy". On the other hand, a set (Bouncy Balls) could not contain an instance of a "Ball" which is "bounceless".
However, getting back to the gods in the thread, the process which leads to the migration requires a valid Misesian epistemological basis (Misesian Epistemology asserts that as far as man is able to attain any knowledge, however limited, he can use only one avenue of approach, that opened by reason.)
This means that Alice (of "Through the Looking Glass"), the IPU and all other less rational "gods" all manage to move from 1 to 2, as they have been imagined, yet never manage to get past 2 as no function exists or can be fashioned to transform them to 3 or 4, while Alice Liddle (the prototype Alice) is definitely a type 4 thing as she undoubtedly had a real existence as a person. Examples of type 3 items are more difficult, as the act of identifying things well enough to decide that they are valid things tends to qualify them, an example might be extra-solar planets (try The Discovery of Extrasolar Planets, Geoffrey Marcy and R. Paul Butler), We know there is something there, we think they are planets... Hopefully it is obvious that objects belonging to subset 1 cannot be listed, as the act of describing them automatically shifts them to type 2 objects.
You fallaciously think that your ‘god’ moves from 2 to 3/4 by merely utilising metaphor (understood as that figure of speech we use to describe one thing by suggesting another). David E. Leary puts it “metaphor consists in giving to one thing a name or description that belongs by convention to something else, on the grounds of some similarity between the two”, and what this implies is that YOU conveniently find the similarities between YOUR definition of ‘god’ and ‘reality’. The problem is that metaphors always lie to us, because they cannot accurately convey the nature of a thing using something it is not. They can only represent relationships of similarity or difference. This lie is only incapacitating if you believe in an objective reality and the possibility of articulating it. Uncovering the lie can be liberating if you are prepared to create a subjective, or intra-subjective reality, that is constantly open to new “readings” and new possibilities – I would suggest holding off uncovering this lie...
As far as I know, i was speaking of a theory, not any conclusion.. i dont have the slightest idea where you got that from.
You have no conclusion, yet you are arguing that you have a theory... ? I rest my case.
Precisely my point... Again I rest my case.
I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give me at least 3 scientific experiments that I can use to falsify gods existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and you replied:
None of these experiments has anything to do with falsifying ‘gods existence’ – please refer back to my comments on metaphor.
I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is irrational by the fact that the experiment requires belief in something. Belief, faith and trust have no place in science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You replied with:
Your statement is based on assumption and your belief, not fact.
I have addressed this directly in a paper I posted to another forum: Faith in Science it will show your comments to be empty and unjustified.
I agree that this needs to be cleared up, but you have not done that. A theory used in science... in other words one that is used within the context of the scientific method.
The scientific method as we know it today, revised by Karl Popper (you know of Popperian Falsifiability fame!?!), is;
1 Pose a question about nature (Some would say, not necessarily as the result of an observation).
2 Collect the pertinent, observable evidence.
3 Formulate an explanatory hypothesis, defining relevant assumptions.
4 Deduce its implications.
5 Test all of the implications experimentally.
6 Accept, reject, or modify the hypothesis based upon the experimental results.
7 Define its range of applicability.
8 Peer review
9 Publish (including methodology, data and analysis)
10 Evaluation and peers continue to test, extend and challenge the hypothesis.
You still do NOT have pertinent evidence... all you have is your use of metaphor – see my comments on metaphor above.
So going back to an earlier post you said,
“i look at god as if god is everything...all of material existence is the physical representation of his brain and all occurences in reality are his thoughts.
…
When you look at it like that all things mentioned like
1) all-knowing (omniscient),
2) all-powerful (omnipotent),
3) all-good (omnibenevolent)
4) creator of the universe (omnicreative first cause) who
5) exists everywhere at once (omnipresence).
seem to apply.
...
You still want to make this statement before I tear it down and expose its sloppy logic?
It should be noted that I am rather annoyed at your dishonesty. Initially you told me you were familiar with the scientific method yet you continue to show that you haven’t a clue, and then you told me you were familiar with Godel’s theorem yet you make the novice mistake that anyone with the faintest idea of the theorem would be aware of.
Why the lies?
from this moment forth am going to reserve my arguments on the scientific method, Godels incompleteness theorem, etc. until you can follow them.
lol You really do not have a clue on how to perform research do you lol
It should be noted that when such variables are controlled for in these studies, the formerly significant results drop off to insignificance!!!
What say you now?
I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Failure to control for multiple comparisons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You replied with:
Is that the best you could do? How would you know whether it was an assumption or not when I made no reference to a specific study?
The term “non-blind faith” is an oxymoron. Faith by definition is blind or it would not be faith.
Now do you really think that I, or anyone, is going to take your juvenile excuse for an “experiment” seriously?
How did you measure their ‘happiness’ and how did you measure their ‘health’?
Obviously they believe because they were taught to – god is a human concept passed to us via culture!! Ask a feral child about god and you’ll see my point.
…
I'm sure there are many. If you look for them you will find them. I dont doubt it.
I would much prefer you supplied the ones you had in mind so as to avoid your now predictable response that is along the lines of, that not what I meant, you misunderstood etc.
“spawned spontaneously in different locations..”? You need to do some research! Lets see, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam ALL began at DIFFERENT times.
Already addressed.
Me too – what is your point?
What makes you believe that they are other planes of existence and not a brain aberration?
Are you suggesting that you formulated a belief system before being exposed to other belief systems?
extrapolate.
Me too – but I have an explanation for this phenomena that does not require a ‘god’ in order to illustrate its applicability. So what is your point?
So your life is completely determined. Sounds like hell...
Sadly you were not brain dead though... so your merely making assumptions to bolster your beliefs...
Me too – see my previous post about temporal lobe epilepsy.
Invalid. Read my reply to rewiired ...
I have experienced those things, as illustrated above... so your point is totally invalid and illustrates that you only believe what you want to believe. And this brings me back round to something I said to you earlier, and that is that as soon as you base your thinking on belief you loose the ability to examine that belief... I see images of you flying a plane into a building for your belief...
Sufficient evidence is an observation that is repeatable. The observations are repeatable by anyone... not just by you.
Observation is repeatable.
Yes but who decides what ‘alive’ is...? Humans. Besides in your earlier post you call god ‘him’...
All you have done is illustrate your complete ignorance of the scientific method. The very scientific method you claimed you knew... more lies. Please refer to the link to ‘Faith in Science’ I supplied above as it will make it very clear to you...
Well see my link for clarity of your misunderstanding.
And going back to something you stated in an earlier post, “Point well taken. Belief is not required in the scientifical method thereby making science completely independant from all belief in anything.”
Your ignorance of Godels Incompleteness Theorem is showing - you know the theorem you claimed to be familiar with? Again more lies.
I have addressed this above.
No. But again if you were familiar with Godels Incompleteness Theorem (which you said you were, more lies) and Popperian Falsifiability, you would realise that its implications are that while nothing can be considered absolutely true, something CAN be falsified absolutely.
All part and parcel of the scientific method – you know the one you claimed to be familiar with, again more lies.
I know that all you are doing is playing a metaphor game... Addressed above.
As for your follow-up post on truth and happiness, please do not bore me with your solipsism.
You say, “Therefore, yes, happiness is not based upon truth or actuality for there is no truth or actuality in most things that you observe.”
This is such a portmanteau of debating fallacy and error that I am hard pressed to categorise it, except to suggest that the error of the "Complex Question" (Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.) and ad hominem is undoubtedly present.
You are representing the pursuit of happiness as contrasted and opposed to the pursuit of truth. The illogic of this takes my breath away. How can any rational person claim that these are opposite? The answer is that they cannot. I believe it fair to say that any person making this kind of claim is not only irrational but makes a mockery of whatever that person professes to believe. I for one would not accept anything which said that I should ignore "truth" in preference to "happiness", as any "happiness" that may be found in accepting lies (the opposite of the "truth" posited) will eventually come up against the reality of the universe, and this will invariably create more unhappiness or irrationality than an initial acceptance of reality ("truth").
I leave you with a categorical syllogism that disproves your implied hypothesis:
I am a (long term) atheist and always seek truth.
I am a happy person and I always seek happiness.
(Major) The pursuit of truth and the pursuit of happiness are not opposed.
(Minor) Atheists can achieve happiness.
Now to define ‘truth’ as I have been using throughout this thread:
‘truth’: Gödelian incompleteness and Popperian Falsifiability together necessitate that outside of a formal system of limited application, a "truth", to have any measure of rational support, must by necessity, always be provisional, incomplete and falsifiable, in other words, there must always, at least hypothetically, exist some evidence which would permit that supposed truth to be rejected. This implies that outside of formal systems, the truth of a thing is not an absolute, but encompasses a range of probabilities which will have varying truth values (i.e. from "false" through "insufficient evidence to adduce a truth value" to "true") depending on the evidence for or against such a thing.
take care and control.
the bricoleur.
Sorry for the lenght but I do not have the time to edit, and hopefully this will be the last time I need to educate you on the scientific method or Godels Incompleteness...
[ 27 February 2003: Message edited by: Bricoleur ]
Last edited by a moderator:
beanergrl
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2000
- Messages
- 3,991
^^ Oh, you feel like you're educating do you? Har,Har,Har. It's the ignorance of people like you -and PB who goes out of his way to reply to any thread pertaining God- that keeps me from replying to post like these. It is simply not worth the energy to debate someone who is clearly not enlightened.
And when i say not enlightened i do me just that. You are totally out of line when you come in and tell someone what exactly they experienced according to you because you can't expand your mind beyond anything that science has told you.
I have had a life full of amazing experiences too and there is no way that someone like you is going to tell me that i imagined everything.
First, laugh as you may but i remember being in my mothers womb and since i could speak told her about it.I remember to my birth and then my memory picks up again right before my first birthday, maybe 10 months or so. And i know this because i described my babyroom to my mom in a house we lived in on a navy base that i moved out of right before i was one. I told her how i would sit in my crib and wait for her to come get me playing with my Pebbles doll. I knew that if i cried i would wake her up and i didnt want to do that. Before i was one i knew that my mom was happy if i let her sleep later and she always got up and came to me smiling instead of groggy. I remember knowing this.My mom agrees that she always woke to find me just sitting there holding my doll and smiling waiting for her like.
Second, my entire life i knew that my soulmates name was Tony and he would be from New York and he would be Italian-like (he's Maltese). My parents thought this was so funny because at the time we lived in a very small farm town ,in an Amish town,in Indiana and New York was the farthest thing away.Later they often would tease me when i would date lighter color boys by saying "he doesnt look like a Tony".
As soon as i saw my husband we were immeadiatly drawn to each other and i knew who he was including his name before he even told me his name. (he knew the first night we met that i was the perfect person for him too). We continued to get to know each other for about the next 18 months or so neither of us telling the other how we felt. One night he came over and we started talking as usual. (We always would find ourselves together in a corner talking and talking). On this one paticular night on a full moon (i noticed later) things we talked about just got out of control. Our deepest secrets, fantasies ,everything were revealed. The vibes were very strong. Finally ,at almost 6 when the sun was coming up and he knew he would have to go because things we just too much and it was turning day he looks at me and he says "if you were going down the hall and your left arm hit the wall what would you do?" And i said i would hit my right arm against the wall too. And he said "balance" and i said yes, for balance. I have this ocd that i never revealed to him intill then about the need for everything to balance.If you kiss my right cheek you have to kiss my left, ect.. He has the same ocd. Then he asked me if the spot between my eye vibrated when something was near it. This freaked me out completley because my whole life i had been asking people if that spot vibrated. (i didnt know about the whole third eye thing or chakra thing then). Nobody else had ever had this feeling let alone asked me if i had it.We just stared at each other. We could'nt believe it. He said he had to leave and he'd call me when he woke up. He called me an hour later and told me that we are supposed to be together and that hes always known it and last night just confirmed everything to him.Before this night we were too stubborn to tell each other how we felt because we thought that we were going crazy ourselves and maybe we were deluding ourselves that this was our soulmate and everything was too perfect and the other didnt feel that way. It was finally like the Forces that be had said enough! and showed us how perfect we really were for each other.
Before that night i had always told my closest friend that i didnt feel like my life had began. I had children (twins) from a marriage from my highschool boyfriend who i stayed with not just from young lust but also because his name was David Anthony and he was from Rhode Island. I figured it was close enough to Tony from New York. Don't laugh because i followed my soul. And had i not had him and stayed with him and had my sons i would'nt be where i am now. Anyway, i had my own house and boat and my husband ran his fathers roofing company in south fla where the hurricane just hit. I had life of someone who was twice my age yet i always said i felt like my life had'nt began. That night that feeling went away and has never came back. I feel like my life really began that night. My husband (tony) just connected to my soul in such a way and filled it and brought to me all these feelings that i knew were there but thought i was alone in feeling. I came alive.When i look in his eyes i feel like i have known him in many worlds. I feel like i see me when i see him. It's weird. No, it's special.
Why would we need to be connected together? My children i am sure. I'm sure the whole reason for my life is about my children. they are all so special. I know all parents say that but my children have alot of amazing gifts and they are so calm and peaceful and giving and are always doing good things. I swear they almost have halos. This is a very personal story that i really don't share. But what the heck. When our son Jacob was conceived (our first son)it was the first time my husband had ever came into me or anyone else without a condom on. It was also the first night i ever had an orgasm without using my hand and when we mutually did it was literally like the whole world rocked (of coarse i know it did'nt but it did to us and it wasnt because of the orgasm either.) Right after that my husband said you're pregnant. And sure enough the ultrasound showed that it was indeed valentines day that i got pregnant on. I just think that the specialness of it all, sacredness i would say, combined with my truly gifted child and his brother(s)and our entire relationship and our life provides me with enough explaination of why i had revelations of who my partner in this world should be.
Third- I had an OBE when i was a child. I was going fast on an ATC on a trail and was about to hit a fallen tree. I screamed and the next thing i knew i saw myself from a distance. I was floating and a saw myself and the machine falling and tumbling. When i landed i got up. I did'nt feel a thing though i was very confused on how i could of saw my self flinging around in the air.Right at the moment i picked myself up my uncle had finally found me. He told me i was missing for almost three hours. I thought i had just landed. I tried to tell him what happened to me but he was confused looking as was everyone else when i tried to explain my accident.
When i was 16 I was on an ATV and going down a mountain trail when a snake crossed my path. For some reason i hit my breaks and i went sliding on the loose gravel and slid right off the mountain into a stream with the machine on my back and neck. I felt weak and trapped and helpless. i tried to move but the weight of the ATV was pinning me underwater. My life started to flash before my eyes. It was more then scenes from my life it was as if i was feeling and reliving that moment again. I thought "i am dying. i am going to drown. Then i thought how i never thought i would die young and then i remembered how much i wanted to be a mother some day and i prayed "God help me. I don't want to die. I want to live and have babies." (i know kind of strange prayer, makes sense now though)And then i felt a big whoosh and the ATV had been thrown off of me and was now on the bank. I was so weak i barely could pull myself from the water up onto the bank. I could hear my brothers ATV coming finally and i just closed my eyes. I thought i was going to die right then and i opened my eyes to make sure i still had control over me. Then i saw this dust light with a face is how i have to explain it vanish before my eyes or i just closed my eyes i can't remember i passed out. I knew it was an angel who saved me though.
I tried not to think too much into either experience. The first one was more mysterious to me.By my late teens i had heard of OBEs and was sure this is what i experienced. I always knew not to waste time thinking about it because i would have my answer later. One day i was early twenty something and i was home alone. I had the t.v. on mute and i was smoking one and i decided i was going to force myself to think about it. After a few minutes i went in circles in my head and something told me to pick up the remote and turn it up. A&Es mysteries of the Bible happened to be on and it was on angels. The first thing i heard was a passage from the bible that says something like (God)"for just ask Me for your angels, they are yours to use. they will guard you in all your ways and keep your foot from striking stone". Then it went into how angels often pull the souls from children to spare them from pain. I knew then that is what happened to me during my OBE. Then i believe my angel stayed there with me intill my uncle found me. I believe it took the fall to spare my pain.
No one in this entire world will ever convince me that what happened to me did not happen. Just because it did'nt happen to you and you don't believe in it you cannot say that you speak for someone elses experiences by explaning it by saying their brain was just in another state.
There are so many people in this world who experience all kinds of paranormal things happening every single day and people who experience them do not need people like you shoving your "religion" down our throats when you fail to understand what we have really experienced.
So go on believing your religion of darwinism, evolution, science, atheism, whatever you're calling it but you should'nt bring it in here in a thread about why people believe in God if you have no clue. It is not a debate about if God exist. Why do you people feel like you have to come into threads about things you don't believe in and start making it a debate?? An opinion is different then debating.Either open up another thread so people like us don't have to read the shit if we don't want to and other people who have things in common with you can jump in and join you there or simply state your opinion and leave it at that.
[ 27 February 2003: Message edited by: beanergrl ]
And when i say not enlightened i do me just that. You are totally out of line when you come in and tell someone what exactly they experienced according to you because you can't expand your mind beyond anything that science has told you.
I have had a life full of amazing experiences too and there is no way that someone like you is going to tell me that i imagined everything.
First, laugh as you may but i remember being in my mothers womb and since i could speak told her about it.I remember to my birth and then my memory picks up again right before my first birthday, maybe 10 months or so. And i know this because i described my babyroom to my mom in a house we lived in on a navy base that i moved out of right before i was one. I told her how i would sit in my crib and wait for her to come get me playing with my Pebbles doll. I knew that if i cried i would wake her up and i didnt want to do that. Before i was one i knew that my mom was happy if i let her sleep later and she always got up and came to me smiling instead of groggy. I remember knowing this.My mom agrees that she always woke to find me just sitting there holding my doll and smiling waiting for her like.
Second, my entire life i knew that my soulmates name was Tony and he would be from New York and he would be Italian-like (he's Maltese). My parents thought this was so funny because at the time we lived in a very small farm town ,in an Amish town,in Indiana and New York was the farthest thing away.Later they often would tease me when i would date lighter color boys by saying "he doesnt look like a Tony".
As soon as i saw my husband we were immeadiatly drawn to each other and i knew who he was including his name before he even told me his name. (he knew the first night we met that i was the perfect person for him too). We continued to get to know each other for about the next 18 months or so neither of us telling the other how we felt. One night he came over and we started talking as usual. (We always would find ourselves together in a corner talking and talking). On this one paticular night on a full moon (i noticed later) things we talked about just got out of control. Our deepest secrets, fantasies ,everything were revealed. The vibes were very strong. Finally ,at almost 6 when the sun was coming up and he knew he would have to go because things we just too much and it was turning day he looks at me and he says "if you were going down the hall and your left arm hit the wall what would you do?" And i said i would hit my right arm against the wall too. And he said "balance" and i said yes, for balance. I have this ocd that i never revealed to him intill then about the need for everything to balance.If you kiss my right cheek you have to kiss my left, ect.. He has the same ocd. Then he asked me if the spot between my eye vibrated when something was near it. This freaked me out completley because my whole life i had been asking people if that spot vibrated. (i didnt know about the whole third eye thing or chakra thing then). Nobody else had ever had this feeling let alone asked me if i had it.We just stared at each other. We could'nt believe it. He said he had to leave and he'd call me when he woke up. He called me an hour later and told me that we are supposed to be together and that hes always known it and last night just confirmed everything to him.Before this night we were too stubborn to tell each other how we felt because we thought that we were going crazy ourselves and maybe we were deluding ourselves that this was our soulmate and everything was too perfect and the other didnt feel that way. It was finally like the Forces that be had said enough! and showed us how perfect we really were for each other.
Before that night i had always told my closest friend that i didnt feel like my life had began. I had children (twins) from a marriage from my highschool boyfriend who i stayed with not just from young lust but also because his name was David Anthony and he was from Rhode Island. I figured it was close enough to Tony from New York. Don't laugh because i followed my soul. And had i not had him and stayed with him and had my sons i would'nt be where i am now. Anyway, i had my own house and boat and my husband ran his fathers roofing company in south fla where the hurricane just hit. I had life of someone who was twice my age yet i always said i felt like my life had'nt began. That night that feeling went away and has never came back. I feel like my life really began that night. My husband (tony) just connected to my soul in such a way and filled it and brought to me all these feelings that i knew were there but thought i was alone in feeling. I came alive.When i look in his eyes i feel like i have known him in many worlds. I feel like i see me when i see him. It's weird. No, it's special.
Why would we need to be connected together? My children i am sure. I'm sure the whole reason for my life is about my children. they are all so special. I know all parents say that but my children have alot of amazing gifts and they are so calm and peaceful and giving and are always doing good things. I swear they almost have halos. This is a very personal story that i really don't share. But what the heck. When our son Jacob was conceived (our first son)it was the first time my husband had ever came into me or anyone else without a condom on. It was also the first night i ever had an orgasm without using my hand and when we mutually did it was literally like the whole world rocked (of coarse i know it did'nt but it did to us and it wasnt because of the orgasm either.) Right after that my husband said you're pregnant. And sure enough the ultrasound showed that it was indeed valentines day that i got pregnant on. I just think that the specialness of it all, sacredness i would say, combined with my truly gifted child and his brother(s)and our entire relationship and our life provides me with enough explaination of why i had revelations of who my partner in this world should be.
Third- I had an OBE when i was a child. I was going fast on an ATC on a trail and was about to hit a fallen tree. I screamed and the next thing i knew i saw myself from a distance. I was floating and a saw myself and the machine falling and tumbling. When i landed i got up. I did'nt feel a thing though i was very confused on how i could of saw my self flinging around in the air.Right at the moment i picked myself up my uncle had finally found me. He told me i was missing for almost three hours. I thought i had just landed. I tried to tell him what happened to me but he was confused looking as was everyone else when i tried to explain my accident.
When i was 16 I was on an ATV and going down a mountain trail when a snake crossed my path. For some reason i hit my breaks and i went sliding on the loose gravel and slid right off the mountain into a stream with the machine on my back and neck. I felt weak and trapped and helpless. i tried to move but the weight of the ATV was pinning me underwater. My life started to flash before my eyes. It was more then scenes from my life it was as if i was feeling and reliving that moment again. I thought "i am dying. i am going to drown. Then i thought how i never thought i would die young and then i remembered how much i wanted to be a mother some day and i prayed "God help me. I don't want to die. I want to live and have babies." (i know kind of strange prayer, makes sense now though)And then i felt a big whoosh and the ATV had been thrown off of me and was now on the bank. I was so weak i barely could pull myself from the water up onto the bank. I could hear my brothers ATV coming finally and i just closed my eyes. I thought i was going to die right then and i opened my eyes to make sure i still had control over me. Then i saw this dust light with a face is how i have to explain it vanish before my eyes or i just closed my eyes i can't remember i passed out. I knew it was an angel who saved me though.
I tried not to think too much into either experience. The first one was more mysterious to me.By my late teens i had heard of OBEs and was sure this is what i experienced. I always knew not to waste time thinking about it because i would have my answer later. One day i was early twenty something and i was home alone. I had the t.v. on mute and i was smoking one and i decided i was going to force myself to think about it. After a few minutes i went in circles in my head and something told me to pick up the remote and turn it up. A&Es mysteries of the Bible happened to be on and it was on angels. The first thing i heard was a passage from the bible that says something like (God)"for just ask Me for your angels, they are yours to use. they will guard you in all your ways and keep your foot from striking stone". Then it went into how angels often pull the souls from children to spare them from pain. I knew then that is what happened to me during my OBE. Then i believe my angel stayed there with me intill my uncle found me. I believe it took the fall to spare my pain.
No one in this entire world will ever convince me that what happened to me did not happen. Just because it did'nt happen to you and you don't believe in it you cannot say that you speak for someone elses experiences by explaning it by saying their brain was just in another state.
There are so many people in this world who experience all kinds of paranormal things happening every single day and people who experience them do not need people like you shoving your "religion" down our throats when you fail to understand what we have really experienced.
So go on believing your religion of darwinism, evolution, science, atheism, whatever you're calling it but you should'nt bring it in here in a thread about why people believe in God if you have no clue. It is not a debate about if God exist. Why do you people feel like you have to come into threads about things you don't believe in and start making it a debate?? An opinion is different then debating.Either open up another thread so people like us don't have to read the shit if we don't want to and other people who have things in common with you can jump in and join you there or simply state your opinion and leave it at that.
[ 27 February 2003: Message edited by: beanergrl ]
Last edited by a moderator:
psychoblast
Bluelighter
^^^^^
That was very uncalled for.
The thread is "why do PEOPLE believe in god?" not "why do YOU believe in god?" I agree that in the latter thread, posts by atheists criticizing belief in god might be inappropriate. However, in the former thread, it is perfectly appropriate for anyone to give their opinion on why people believe in god, including atheists.
Also, the very first post seemed slightly askew from the threat title, as TR seems to be spelling out his theory that all religions can be viewed as consistent if god is viewed as being all of reality. Again, inviting debate on this point.
TR asks for us to respond, apparently wanting to debate. If all he wanted to do was post his opinion, he did that in his first post, and he never needed to return to this thread to respond to any criticisms by any other poster. He has been an active participant in this debate.
Funny, you criticize those of us who criticize theological belief, while sparing those who criticize theological disbelief (such as yourself).
As for your particular views, I'd just point out the difference between perception and interpretation.
1. Abnormally complete memories of early life.
How does this prove god existed? Did god have some purpose in wanting you in particular to remember being in your mother's womb or remembering your first year of life? I mean, while this seems neuroligically unique, there is no basis for claiming it is divine intervention.
2. Premonition about N.Y. Tony.
How does this prove god exists? Precognition does not prove god exists any more than telekinesis or telepathy. While I am also skeptical about these sorts of mental powers existing, their existence would not prove the divine.
3. First OBE.
See # 2. Extra sensory perception does not prove the divine, or even support belief in the divine.
4. Rescue from stream.
See #2. Telekinesis does not prove the divine, or even support belief in the divine.
If you are asking me to believe that god granted you the miracle of saving your 16 year old life, can you tell me why you and not all the 16 year olds who DO die accidentally every year? I'm sure their families would love to know what is so special about you that you get a miracle while they get to go to their love one's funeral.
The bottom line is that bad things happen to good people, even good people who are praying for help, and so any belief that a particular fortunate event is a miracle from god implies that god is running around playing favorites, haphazardly rescuing some people and forsaking others. I think this is an absurd notion of a divine being.
5. Seeing a show on A&E about god.
Now this is probably a coincidence. Let me tell you a personal story of my own. I was abusing drugs and at a fairly low point emotionally. Sort of for a lark, or to see how it felt, as I went to sleep I sent a prayer asking god, if he existed, to prove himself to me. The next morning, I was getting ready for work when 2 mormon missionaries came to my door. I was apalled by the idea that God might be the mormon god, but this seemed like a really amazing coincidence, so I arranged to have them come back to my house on Saturday when I could talk to them further (since I had to go to work). Saturday came and I was not sure what I'd do about the mormons. Anyway, as it turns out, they never came back, never called (I'd given them my phone number). I was around all day. So, anyway, it is sort of like a near miss to one of these amazing conversion stories. Which seems to me some pretty damn good evidence that these stories are, in fact, just coincidences. Besides, I'd still hate to think god is mormon...those self-righteous, sexist, hypocritical homophobes.
Anyway, the bottom line is that you have perceived various events that you yourself seem to acknowledge are extremely, extremely, extremely rare (which makes you feel special, I'd bet). And you wonder why those of us who have not had these repeated "miraculous" events are atheists? How fucking dare you! Even if you are absolutely right that god does exist and made all these things happen for you, that would just really suck ass for the rest of us who did NOT get a bunch of fucking miracles painting a fucking giant billboard for us saying "god exists." If god is that fickle and plays favorites like that, you can keep that son of a bitch.
I mean, it is like some one who won the lottery saying, "This proves god exists, I don't see how others can doubt, when things like this happen." Well, the rest of us who didn't win the lottery have a hard fucking time sharing that perspective SINCE WE DIDN'T WIN THE LOTTERY.
I mean, the fallacy in your reasoning from blessed events happening for you to proving that an all-loving god exists...
If the events are blessed, then they must be rare (for example, if something happens to everyone, it is usually not viewed as miraculous)
If they are rare, they happen to few people.
If blessed events happen to few people, then those few people have an advantage in believing in god compared to the other people who are supposed to believe...what, based on secondhand accounts from those few of how they have been blessed? Give me a break.
Or better yet: Tell me why I did not know the name of MY soul mate when I was a child and tell me why I never had memories of when I was an infant or toddler and tell me why I never had any spontaneous OBEs? Because I did not become an atheist until I was 17 or 18...and I was about as faithful and moral a child as you will find. Hmmm? Oh, yeah, because you are "special." And your kids are "special."
By the way, what is the opposite of special? Because that is what you are calling just about everyone else in the world besides you and your family. Hmmmm...
~psychoblast~
That was very uncalled for.
The thread is "why do PEOPLE believe in god?" not "why do YOU believe in god?" I agree that in the latter thread, posts by atheists criticizing belief in god might be inappropriate. However, in the former thread, it is perfectly appropriate for anyone to give their opinion on why people believe in god, including atheists.
Also, the very first post seemed slightly askew from the threat title, as TR seems to be spelling out his theory that all religions can be viewed as consistent if god is viewed as being all of reality. Again, inviting debate on this point.
TR asks for us to respond, apparently wanting to debate. If all he wanted to do was post his opinion, he did that in his first post, and he never needed to return to this thread to respond to any criticisms by any other poster. He has been an active participant in this debate.
Funny, you criticize those of us who criticize theological belief, while sparing those who criticize theological disbelief (such as yourself).
As for your particular views, I'd just point out the difference between perception and interpretation.
1. Abnormally complete memories of early life.
How does this prove god existed? Did god have some purpose in wanting you in particular to remember being in your mother's womb or remembering your first year of life? I mean, while this seems neuroligically unique, there is no basis for claiming it is divine intervention.
2. Premonition about N.Y. Tony.
How does this prove god exists? Precognition does not prove god exists any more than telekinesis or telepathy. While I am also skeptical about these sorts of mental powers existing, their existence would not prove the divine.
3. First OBE.
See # 2. Extra sensory perception does not prove the divine, or even support belief in the divine.
4. Rescue from stream.
See #2. Telekinesis does not prove the divine, or even support belief in the divine.
If you are asking me to believe that god granted you the miracle of saving your 16 year old life, can you tell me why you and not all the 16 year olds who DO die accidentally every year? I'm sure their families would love to know what is so special about you that you get a miracle while they get to go to their love one's funeral.
The bottom line is that bad things happen to good people, even good people who are praying for help, and so any belief that a particular fortunate event is a miracle from god implies that god is running around playing favorites, haphazardly rescuing some people and forsaking others. I think this is an absurd notion of a divine being.
5. Seeing a show on A&E about god.
Now this is probably a coincidence. Let me tell you a personal story of my own. I was abusing drugs and at a fairly low point emotionally. Sort of for a lark, or to see how it felt, as I went to sleep I sent a prayer asking god, if he existed, to prove himself to me. The next morning, I was getting ready for work when 2 mormon missionaries came to my door. I was apalled by the idea that God might be the mormon god, but this seemed like a really amazing coincidence, so I arranged to have them come back to my house on Saturday when I could talk to them further (since I had to go to work). Saturday came and I was not sure what I'd do about the mormons. Anyway, as it turns out, they never came back, never called (I'd given them my phone number). I was around all day. So, anyway, it is sort of like a near miss to one of these amazing conversion stories. Which seems to me some pretty damn good evidence that these stories are, in fact, just coincidences. Besides, I'd still hate to think god is mormon...those self-righteous, sexist, hypocritical homophobes.
Anyway, the bottom line is that you have perceived various events that you yourself seem to acknowledge are extremely, extremely, extremely rare (which makes you feel special, I'd bet). And you wonder why those of us who have not had these repeated "miraculous" events are atheists? How fucking dare you! Even if you are absolutely right that god does exist and made all these things happen for you, that would just really suck ass for the rest of us who did NOT get a bunch of fucking miracles painting a fucking giant billboard for us saying "god exists." If god is that fickle and plays favorites like that, you can keep that son of a bitch.
I mean, it is like some one who won the lottery saying, "This proves god exists, I don't see how others can doubt, when things like this happen." Well, the rest of us who didn't win the lottery have a hard fucking time sharing that perspective SINCE WE DIDN'T WIN THE LOTTERY.
I mean, the fallacy in your reasoning from blessed events happening for you to proving that an all-loving god exists...
If the events are blessed, then they must be rare (for example, if something happens to everyone, it is usually not viewed as miraculous)
If they are rare, they happen to few people.
If blessed events happen to few people, then those few people have an advantage in believing in god compared to the other people who are supposed to believe...what, based on secondhand accounts from those few of how they have been blessed? Give me a break.
Or better yet: Tell me why I did not know the name of MY soul mate when I was a child and tell me why I never had memories of when I was an infant or toddler and tell me why I never had any spontaneous OBEs? Because I did not become an atheist until I was 17 or 18...and I was about as faithful and moral a child as you will find. Hmmm? Oh, yeah, because you are "special." And your kids are "special."
By the way, what is the opposite of special? Because that is what you are calling just about everyone else in the world besides you and your family. Hmmmm...
~psychoblast~
Last edited by a moderator:
beanergrl
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2000
- Messages
- 3,991
Oh, blah,blah, blah, why did i expect to hear from you. As i stated in my post to give your opinion is one thing, as it was asked for about everyone. But to take and try to explain it again and again and turn it into a debate is quite another.And that's all you and bricolor want to do is debate it.I doubt that Trails was debating it, more like defending himself.He asked for opinions after all. I always ask you why you care so much to do this. Why do you feel the need to post in every single thread about God and attack anyone who believes. And believe me you do attack.
By sharing my life experiences i was trying to show how things that happened to me i felt were all for higher purposes. I never saw anything special about me as to why these things had happened intill i had my children. Perhaps, there are many ,many mothers who feel this same way.
I did'nt elaborate on my memory in the above but i can recall almost everyday in my life. I can't recall everything i read or see, but i can recall everything i do on everyday or something that i wore for nearly everyday of my life since i was a very small child. I think that having this memory is extraordinary as most people i have known through the years don't recall much of anything, esp their childhood.I think that this memory has helped keep me focused on what i am to do here.
Why others havent had this happen, i do not know. I have many possible explinations but i would say most likly is 1) you would not be the person you are needed to be here if you had experiences like mine as it takes many different things to make us who we are and who we are to become and what we do with using the things we get. 2) i would of been a different person or not here at all had'nt i been saved and i was still needed for the future. As for you not knowing who your soulmate would be, maybe my husband and i were needed to be together to create someone of great importance who will be somebody in this world tomorrow. Maybe we are supposed to be together to achieve the things we do that we couldnt alone. You have your own life to deal with and what is needed from me is not needed from you. Maybe someday you will see your soulmate and without even speaking to her you'll know who she is.It would help if you opened yourself up to the fact that it could happen. and 3) I believe that earth is the last place our souls are and from here we get what we need to complete ourself with God.A last test, maybe. Perhaps your soul has a problem with authority or compassion or having faith and you are here to try to overcome that. If you think you never got the chance to do these things , well, i believe one day you will be shown exactly how many chances you got and how you denied Him.
There's millions of people from all religions or no religion at all who have had things happen to them that can't explain why it happened to them either. I have read lots of stories about non-believers who had paranormal experiences and now they believe.There are many 16 year olds who have had Divine Intervention save their lives too, i know i'm not alone.It can happen to anyone you don't always have to be a believer and even if you are a believer it doesnt mean a thing if it's your time to go..Theres a verse in Eccleslastes in the Bible that says "don't take chances by being foolish. you may die before your time". I think i was foolish on those ATVs and it was'nt my time to die and i was spared. I have also never said that i wonder why people who dont have things like these happen to them are atheist, that even sounds stupid. Don't put words in my mouth.
Again, i must say you don't read enough of my post because i believe we all are special. Even atheist.I thought i made that clear in enough of my post. So i'll say it here. Psychoblast, you are very special and you to have an important space to fill in this world. And someday you may have baby Psychoblast and he will be part of you and your soulmate and maybe it will be through him that finally allows you to experience God.You don't know what may happen to you.We all are needed to affect each other and make everything happen in this world. I believe that we all have been blessed even if we can't always see our blessings. Again, don't put words in my mouth .
I never intended for one thing i wrote to imply that that is my reason i believe for God exisiting.Nothing i said was to convince anyone. My post was more directed to bricolor who mocked Trails experiences. Like i said above, nobody is going to tell me that it was all mental. That was, if you could'nt read between the lines, my whole intention of the post. I havent been replying to these threads just because i am tired of going in the same circle with you year after year and i decided i was through with it.
To answer the question why do people believe in God? I'm sure there are several reasons. For some they have always accepted God and what was told to them and it was for them. Others may have had experiences like mine or similar ones. For myself though it has nothing to do with my experiences but for the simple fact that i always have just believed. I always knew since i first heard the mystery of God that there was something else and that it explained why i thought the way i did. There was never a need to question it. Nobody taught me about God i had to seek Him out on my own because i wanted to.
As for your morman story be careful what you ask for you just may get it. You just didnt like the answer you got. Maybe mormonism was'nt your answer, but you asked for a sign. There's only a few people who go door to door. God couldnt of sent a buddist or someone you deemed as cool enough for you. All religion is man made.They all contain some truth and some lies and some misinterpetations. Why do you have to choose one? Do you think one could actually be right. The mormons did'nt come back because God had given you your sign and you still scoffed.Reminds me of another Bible verse that says to "entertain strangers who come to you because you never know when you may be in the presence of an angel".- Hebrews 13:2
[ 28 February 2003: Message edited by: beanergrl ]
By sharing my life experiences i was trying to show how things that happened to me i felt were all for higher purposes. I never saw anything special about me as to why these things had happened intill i had my children. Perhaps, there are many ,many mothers who feel this same way.
I did'nt elaborate on my memory in the above but i can recall almost everyday in my life. I can't recall everything i read or see, but i can recall everything i do on everyday or something that i wore for nearly everyday of my life since i was a very small child. I think that having this memory is extraordinary as most people i have known through the years don't recall much of anything, esp their childhood.I think that this memory has helped keep me focused on what i am to do here.
Why others havent had this happen, i do not know. I have many possible explinations but i would say most likly is 1) you would not be the person you are needed to be here if you had experiences like mine as it takes many different things to make us who we are and who we are to become and what we do with using the things we get. 2) i would of been a different person or not here at all had'nt i been saved and i was still needed for the future. As for you not knowing who your soulmate would be, maybe my husband and i were needed to be together to create someone of great importance who will be somebody in this world tomorrow. Maybe we are supposed to be together to achieve the things we do that we couldnt alone. You have your own life to deal with and what is needed from me is not needed from you. Maybe someday you will see your soulmate and without even speaking to her you'll know who she is.It would help if you opened yourself up to the fact that it could happen. and 3) I believe that earth is the last place our souls are and from here we get what we need to complete ourself with God.A last test, maybe. Perhaps your soul has a problem with authority or compassion or having faith and you are here to try to overcome that. If you think you never got the chance to do these things , well, i believe one day you will be shown exactly how many chances you got and how you denied Him.
There's millions of people from all religions or no religion at all who have had things happen to them that can't explain why it happened to them either. I have read lots of stories about non-believers who had paranormal experiences and now they believe.There are many 16 year olds who have had Divine Intervention save their lives too, i know i'm not alone.It can happen to anyone you don't always have to be a believer and even if you are a believer it doesnt mean a thing if it's your time to go..Theres a verse in Eccleslastes in the Bible that says "don't take chances by being foolish. you may die before your time". I think i was foolish on those ATVs and it was'nt my time to die and i was spared. I have also never said that i wonder why people who dont have things like these happen to them are atheist, that even sounds stupid. Don't put words in my mouth.
Again, i must say you don't read enough of my post because i believe we all are special. Even atheist.I thought i made that clear in enough of my post. So i'll say it here. Psychoblast, you are very special and you to have an important space to fill in this world. And someday you may have baby Psychoblast and he will be part of you and your soulmate and maybe it will be through him that finally allows you to experience God.You don't know what may happen to you.We all are needed to affect each other and make everything happen in this world. I believe that we all have been blessed even if we can't always see our blessings. Again, don't put words in my mouth .
I never intended for one thing i wrote to imply that that is my reason i believe for God exisiting.Nothing i said was to convince anyone. My post was more directed to bricolor who mocked Trails experiences. Like i said above, nobody is going to tell me that it was all mental. That was, if you could'nt read between the lines, my whole intention of the post. I havent been replying to these threads just because i am tired of going in the same circle with you year after year and i decided i was through with it.
To answer the question why do people believe in God? I'm sure there are several reasons. For some they have always accepted God and what was told to them and it was for them. Others may have had experiences like mine or similar ones. For myself though it has nothing to do with my experiences but for the simple fact that i always have just believed. I always knew since i first heard the mystery of God that there was something else and that it explained why i thought the way i did. There was never a need to question it. Nobody taught me about God i had to seek Him out on my own because i wanted to.
As for your morman story be careful what you ask for you just may get it. You just didnt like the answer you got. Maybe mormonism was'nt your answer, but you asked for a sign. There's only a few people who go door to door. God couldnt of sent a buddist or someone you deemed as cool enough for you. All religion is man made.They all contain some truth and some lies and some misinterpetations. Why do you have to choose one? Do you think one could actually be right. The mormons did'nt come back because God had given you your sign and you still scoffed.Reminds me of another Bible verse that says to "entertain strangers who come to you because you never know when you may be in the presence of an angel".- Hebrews 13:2
[ 28 February 2003: Message edited by: beanergrl ]
Last edited by a moderator:
beanergrl
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2000
- Messages
- 3,991
^ A faith in a followed religion can make one evil.Such as christain pro-lifers who think it's okay to kill doctors who perform abortions or the catholics and protestants trying to kill each other in Ireland or the Jews and Muslims, ect. That is all brought from what religion has created.
Walking in the light of God never makes a person evil.Walking in the light of religion will. Even if you don't believe but you strive never to hurt others and help them in all ways possible and give all you can and sacrefice for the sake of others, and if you practice the one rule, the golden rule as all humans should, then no matter what you believe you are still in Gods light. There will never be any evil come out of following the Golden Rule.
Walking in the light of God never makes a person evil.Walking in the light of religion will. Even if you don't believe but you strive never to hurt others and help them in all ways possible and give all you can and sacrefice for the sake of others, and if you practice the one rule, the golden rule as all humans should, then no matter what you believe you are still in Gods light. There will never be any evil come out of following the Golden Rule.
psychoblast
Bluelighter
bg:
You now say you weren't presenting these events in your life as evidence of god, but in your prior post it sure seemed like it. You were basically saying, "here's how I know god exists...because these various miraculous things happened to me..."
Well, miraculous things may imply a miracle worker, but not necessarily god. Everything you posted is consistent with, say, some very advanced alien race watching over and conducting experiments on humans, including occasionally intervening on their behalf. I mean, if some aliens thought, "I wonder what effect it would have on a human's outlook to have a memory going back to the womb...let's make that happen....oh, look, our subject just fell in that river with an atc on her...better zap it over."
Simultaneously, these aliens could be engaged in a human breeding program, picking you to be with a certain person named Tony, so they subconsciously feed you that info.
I'm not saying this is true, but the point is that there are alternative explanations other than "god did it" for the most astounding, coincidental, miraculous events. It is like, just because we can't explain something that proves god? How is that different from a caveman assuming it is a miracle if you go up to him and light a cigarette lighter? Or turn on a light bulb?
~psychoblast~
You now say you weren't presenting these events in your life as evidence of god, but in your prior post it sure seemed like it. You were basically saying, "here's how I know god exists...because these various miraculous things happened to me..."
Well, miraculous things may imply a miracle worker, but not necessarily god. Everything you posted is consistent with, say, some very advanced alien race watching over and conducting experiments on humans, including occasionally intervening on their behalf. I mean, if some aliens thought, "I wonder what effect it would have on a human's outlook to have a memory going back to the womb...let's make that happen....oh, look, our subject just fell in that river with an atc on her...better zap it over."
Simultaneously, these aliens could be engaged in a human breeding program, picking you to be with a certain person named Tony, so they subconsciously feed you that info.
I'm not saying this is true, but the point is that there are alternative explanations other than "god did it" for the most astounding, coincidental, miraculous events. It is like, just because we can't explain something that proves god? How is that different from a caveman assuming it is a miracle if you go up to him and light a cigarette lighter? Or turn on a light bulb?
~psychoblast~
beanergrl
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2000
- Messages
- 3,991
Hey, perhaps it is aliens. Whatever, you know i'm not denying that i don't exactly know what God is, just that there are powers that we don't control that are unexplained that even science can't help with.
I believe that when i said " i have had many amazing experiences in my life too" in my above post i was referring to what Trails had said his experiencs were. I wouldnt of replied at all to this thread about "why people believe" had he not been told it was fabricated by his brain.That got to me.
I told my experiences and i tried to explain that i felt that they were about Higher purposes, not that i believed in a higher power because of them.
Somehow the thread went from why people believe to why people who believe are wrong .
I believe that when i said " i have had many amazing experiences in my life too" in my above post i was referring to what Trails had said his experiencs were. I wouldnt of replied at all to this thread about "why people believe" had he not been told it was fabricated by his brain.That got to me.
I told my experiences and i tried to explain that i felt that they were about Higher purposes, not that i believed in a higher power because of them.
Somehow the thread went from why people believe to why people who believe are wrong .
psychoblast
Bluelighter
bg:
You still are mis-stating the original point of this thread. The point (see first post) was TR's theory that the pervasiveness of religion throughout history is evidence that god exists. TR then asked for opinions on this theory. So, TR specifically asked for feedback, which I among others gave him.
The thread has drifted, admittedly, to TR's theory that god is reality, and that this view of god is consistent with every prior religious view of god (at least metaphorically if not literally).
Anyway, I can see from the topic thread how you might jump to the conclusion that this thread was started for people to share why they believe in god. But that is simply not correct.
Oh, also I do not automatically attack any thread pertaining to god. I just have not seen a proposal as to what god is, or why god exists, that was not inherently flawed.
I still think it is funny how you theists feel banded together by belief in god, even though your versions of god are SO disparate that I think many beliefs have more in common with atheism than they do with other religions. And yet you still divide things between "belief in god" and "disbelief in god." As if that is important when you are not specifying which god you mean.
~psychoblast~
You still are mis-stating the original point of this thread. The point (see first post) was TR's theory that the pervasiveness of religion throughout history is evidence that god exists. TR then asked for opinions on this theory. So, TR specifically asked for feedback, which I among others gave him.
The thread has drifted, admittedly, to TR's theory that god is reality, and that this view of god is consistent with every prior religious view of god (at least metaphorically if not literally).
Anyway, I can see from the topic thread how you might jump to the conclusion that this thread was started for people to share why they believe in god. But that is simply not correct.
Oh, also I do not automatically attack any thread pertaining to god. I just have not seen a proposal as to what god is, or why god exists, that was not inherently flawed.
I still think it is funny how you theists feel banded together by belief in god, even though your versions of god are SO disparate that I think many beliefs have more in common with atheism than they do with other religions. And yet you still divide things between "belief in god" and "disbelief in god." As if that is important when you are not specifying which god you mean.
~psychoblast~