|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Introducing me. There are no gods or supernatural!
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, for some reason you are quote-mining, as my point about 'fetish for truth' is obviously a reply to Martin, and not a general statement about truth.
I intended my introductory statements to lead into my thoughts on truth in religion. I didn't intend quote-mining; I am sorry if they came over that way.
quote:
I don't know if tribal religions try to establish their truth; for one thing, part of their value may stem from being counter-intuitive and costly.
Anthropologists differ.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
??
Are there tribal "religions"? There are journeys and experiences converted into story an symbol. There are shared experiences. There are relationships. I am particularly thinking more an more about the Australian Aborigine culture as I write - it's not a religion - it's a lived experience. The Dreamtime is another perceptual position. It's 100% experiential. Interesting programme I saw recently showing how the Songlines relate to river systems that existed about 100,000 years ago - the landscape has changed with climate but the songs remember what was and relate it to what is.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I'm really not sure how a logical system can work in this case when words like "exists" (and "cause") are so ill-defined. In fact their definition makes for the different positions. If you believe "exists" is a purely material concept, then the conclusions drawn will be different from those that had other starting points. e.g. to a materialist, anything spiritual clearly does not "exist".
That's not a difference of logic though, simply an illustration of the importance of clearly stating one's logical premises.
If your hypothetical materialist uses "exist" to mean having a corporeal, physical, material existence, and deduces that because spiritual entities are not corporeal, physical or material, then they do not "exist", then this conclusion is either valid, if he is consistent in his definition of "exist", or invalid (because of a fallacy of equivocation) if he tries to extend that definition to include the different sense in which a theist might use the word.
The rules by which we determine whether the conclusion is a valid deduction from the premises are entirely distinct from the question of whether the materialist is using the word "exist" in a useful way. It's difficult (for me, impossible) to imagine how those rules could be different, even in a universe with different physical laws, for example, that a fallacy of equivocation is not a ground for challenging a purported deduction. It's like asking me to imagine a world where you really could rub your hand til it was sore, then use that saw to cut the table...
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
??
Are there tribal "religions"? There are journeys and experiences converted into story an symbol. There are shared experiences. There are relationships. I am particularly thinking more an more about the Australian Aborigine culture as I write - it's not a religion - it's a lived experience. The Dreamtime is another perceptual position. It's 100% experiential. Interesting programme I saw recently showing how the Songlines relate to river systems that existed about 100,000 years ago - the landscape has changed with climate but the songs remember what was and relate it to what is.
Yes … I understand all religion(s) as "Reality orientation" … which is not least of the reasons the primal religious experience -- worship -- takes precedence over "theology" ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Both of which are trash in the face of injustice.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Both of which are trash in the face of injustice.
We human beings commonly universally mess things UP …
In classical terms, it's called, "Sin" ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Both of which are trash in the face of injustice.
We human beings commonly universally mess things UP …
In classical terms, it's called, "Sin" ...
I said I never wanted the silver.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Both of which are trash in the face of injustice.
We human beings commonly universally mess things UP …
In classical terms, it's called, "Sin" ...
I said I never wanted the silver.
Okay, then we'll use pewter … If you don't the smell, we can use iron, and if you don't like the taste, we can go to wood, okay … ???
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Both of which are trash in the face of injustice.
We human beings commonly universally mess things UP …
In classical terms, it's called, "Sin" ...
I said I never wanted the silver.
Okay, then we'll use pewter … If you don't the smell, we can use iron, and if you don't like the taste, we can go to wood, okay … ???
HAH! You lose, "… If you don't the smell" would have been perfect, would have been Mornington Crescent on acid: we were playing non-sequitur.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ma'am.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
windsofchange
Shipmate
# 13000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Forgive the double post, but I forgot to mention Unapologetic: “Why, despite everything, Christianity can still make surprising emotional sense” by Francis Spufford.
Not meaning to derail the thread, but just wanted to thank you for this book recommendation earlier. I have been reading it today and it has really had a great deal of meaning for me right now! Thank you very much! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on." (owner of Coney Island Freak Show, upon learning someone outbid him for a 5-legged puppy)
Posts: 153 | From: Reseda, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I'm impressed this thread is still running. It is a pity that games like "well, what do you mean by 'exist?'" are happening. One person (or several) on the thread deny the claim that there exists anything that is supernatural. Another side claims—without a single piece of evidence—that there is a supernatural. What's left to discuss? I'm also surprised that the theists just don't come out and say: "I fully admit that there is no evidence, but the Bible tells me to believe in the supernatural in the complete absence of evidence; and I find the Bible to be a reliable guide in matters of evidence and belief." That way you skip all the malarky of trying be an apologist for your own belief in the supernatural.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Forgive the double post, but I forgot to mention Unapologetic: “Why, despite everything, Christianity can still make surprising emotional sense” by Francis Spufford.
Not meaning to derail the thread, but just wanted to thank you for this book recommendation earlier. I have been reading it today and it has really had a great deal of meaning for me right now! Thank you very much!
You're very welcome. Thanks for taking the time to re-find the thread and posting.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I'm also surprised that the theists just don't come out and say: "I fully admit that there is no evidence, but the Bible tells me to believe in the supernatural in the complete absence of evidence; and I find the Bible to be a reliable guide in matters of evidence and belief."
I was an atheist, or at least agnostic, when God unilaterally decided to invade my awareness; what else could I do but become a (reluctant, puzzled, but utterly convinced) theist?
Later my Mom said she became a believer because she saw the change in me. I wasn't trying to convince her of anything, I was just being me, but me had changed.
Bible? Abraham didn't have a Bible. It's nice to have as a common reference but far from essential for getting to know God.
My belief is in no way based on the Bible. It couldn't be, I was taught from early to disdain the Bible as a bunch of silly tales. (I grew up in a "liberal" church). I was shocked to see in the British Museum remains of cities mentioned in the Bible - the cities weren't all myths? How could that be? Surely everything in the Bible was ignorant myths!
With that kind of deeply trained dismissive attitude towards the Bible, no way is someone going to base a belief in God on it! But God came and got me anyway, at which point I believed in God but not in the Bible.
The opposite of what you incorrectly assume.
Yes there is evidence for God's existence. Evidence that convince me, different evidence that convinced my Mom, probably lots of kinds of evidence; just not evidence that fits within the narrow range of what you are willing to accept as evidence.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Belle Ringer, I don't at all doubt the reality of your experiences, nor would I question the value of the positive changes those experiences have brought about. I merely doubt that they were supernatural. There is no evidence at all for it—no more than saying that stepping on spiders makes it rain. I really don't think this is an argument worth having—one side will simply say "it's magic" and the other side will demand evidence. The closest it ever comes to a genuine argument is when the theists ask things like 'what is evidence?' and then attempt to dilute the meaning of the word 'evidence' in order to accommodate their own belief in the supernatural. I have friends who believe in chakras and point to genuine benefits in their lives from this 'knowledge'. It's total bollocks, of course, but no worse than your claims to the supernatural.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Belle Ringer, I don't at all doubt the reality of your experiences, nor would I question the value of the positive changes those experiences have brought about.
The former is precisely what you're doing. In any case, personal testimony is evidence. What it is not is proof.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Komenskites demand a miraculous sign from God, indeed, more than just a simple sign. For of course, they will reject any human report of a miraculous sign as unreliable - as a delusion or perhaps even as an attempt to deceive. What they want is a sign that is permanently accessible, so that it may be tested by anyone in any way they want at their leisure, while nevertheless unequivocally not being reducible to natural causes. If the burning bush was a permanent fixture, and continued burning after being bombarded by water cannons or put into a vacuum, and if it answered all sort of carefully designed questions that Turing-test it for knowledge that no human agent could possibly possess, then maybe the Komenskites would be willing to admit the existence of God. Or maybe they would speculate about super-aliens playing an elaborate prank on humanity.
However, the proof Komenskites desire is right before their eyes. Nature itself is not fully explicable in natural terms, rather its causal structure points beyond itself to the supernatural. This is not however a miraculous spectacle, but requires philosophical thinking about the natural world. And it is easy enough to dismiss by "brute fact" denials of reasonable conclusions.
And so there is not much we can do for Komenskites. We have to wait for God tapping them on the shoulder and saying "Hey, you, I'm right here." At which point the former Komenskite will join the ranks of believers and instantly lose all credibility with the remaining Komenskites. One more sad person who let wishful thinking get to their head, the remaining Komenskites will say. And so it was, is, and will be till the Second Coming. At which point the Komenskite remnant will gaze toward the Lord coming from the east and speak "Oh, come on. Those aren't even good special effects. Pull the other one."
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Belle Ringer, I don't at all doubt the reality of your experiences, nor would I question the value of the positive changes those experiences have brought about.
The former is precisely what you're doing. In any case, personal testimony is evidence. What it is not is proof.
The trouble, it seems to me, or at least one of the troubles, is that "show me" atheists aren't happy with one person having what is for them irreducible proof (or evidence, if you will) of God's existence. If the exact same evidence isn't available to everybody, then it doesn't count as evidence at all.
It seems a bit problematic, if not to say arrogant, to attempt to interpret somebody else's experience for them. Here, you gullible fool, the atheist seems to be saying, you cannot be trusted to interpret your own experience, because the conclusions you draw are unacceptable to ME. Let me tell you what it REALLY means.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The closest it ever comes to a genuine argument is when the theists ask things like 'what is evidence?' and then attempt to dilute the meaning of the word 'evidence' in order to accommodate their own belief in the supernatural.
That's your pejorative characterisation from your subjective point of view.
The OED definition of evidence is 'Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion.'
Now obviously the important word here is 'tending': you aren't so naive as to think that evidence is only evidence if it actually proves the conclusion. All you're saying is that theists accept evidence that tends less firmly to prove conclusions that you think the evidence for conclusions you accept does (in your own personal estimation). Which is scarcely part of the definition of evidence, and does nothing to show who is correct.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But God came and got me anyway, at which point I believed in God but not in the Bible.
The opposite of what you incorrectly assume.
Yes there is evidence for God's existence. Evidence that convince me, different evidence that convinced my Mom, probably lots of kinds of evidence; just not evidence that fits within the narrow range of what you are willing to accept as evidence.
May I ask, then, what you think it is that convinced you, but woulde certainly not convince atheistslike me? Can you define it?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Er, Fool? What do you think of it so far?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There is no philosophical trump card.
What convinces is disposition.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There is no philosophical trump card.
What convinces is disposition.
There is a philosophical trump card.
What convinces is disposition.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Then play it. Or did you just?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Then play it. Or did you just?
I have played it often, though not recently. Still, if it convinces, then by disposition. A trump card wins the trick only if you play the same game.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
If we had to wait for God to suddenly tap us on the shoulder to convince us of his existence, there would not be billions of believers in the world. Consciousness of God's existence comes through in many surprising ways, whether through nature, God's creation; through the Bible, God's words given to people; through Jesus, God's way of showing and teaching us; through the church, God's extended family through generations; through theology, God's intellectual stimulation; through the most unusual of circumstances or of characters.
What we need is an open mind: not a superstitious one, nor a gullible one, nor a closed one.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If we had to wait for God to suddenly tap us on the shoulder to convince us of his existence, there would not be billions of believers in the world.
I don't think that's a universal need (it never has happened to me), but for some people it's what it took. Like Belle Ringer here, and many others on the ship who have told similar stories.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If we had to wait for God to suddenly tap us on the shoulder to convince us of his existence, there would not be billions of believers in the world.
I don't think that's a universal need (it never has happened to me), but for some people it's what it took. Like Belle Ringer here, and many others on the ship who have told similar stories.
To quote myself with some italics added for stress: 'And so there is not much we can do for Komenskites. We have to wait for God tapping them on the shoulder and saying "Hey, you, I'm right here."'
The influence of grace in accepting God can be so subtle that it is easily overlooked. But sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is more like a hammer blow that smashes old certainties.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
A game with a mere set of rules that lead to a super/natural premiss as truth is doubly dispositional at least.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Paul suggests just take a look at nature, it reveals God. My high school science teacher said that did it for him, everywhere you look, even microscopic animals are beautiful and fascinating, he couldn't accept that random evolution would have that result.
Others find God or accidentally bump into God though social interactions, or through logic, or though philosophy, or through too many perfectly timed coincidences, one person said mathematics convinced him - there are probably hundreds ways, we each respond to different things.
Scary thought, I read that people dying for their faith in persecution lands have convinced others by that act: some observers are so awed that anyone would do that, this God must be real; they become believers. Others just scorn the fools who gave up their lives instead of giving up their God. Different people react to the same things differently.
Why doesn't God seem to find a way to get through to everyone? I don't know. Maybe it just isn't their time yet.
Some good friends are atheists because they have (rightly ) rejected the brutal God they were taught by their parents. That shows spiritual wisdom their parents lacked. I think they are missing out in not being more aware of God, but they aren't endorsing an anti-God and calling it "God" like some do! As long as in their mind the word "God" is directly connected to the word "brutality" they probably won't be able to "see" the reality of God.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Belle Ringer, I don't at all doubt the reality of your experiences, nor would I question the value of the positive changes those experiences have brought about.
The former is precisely what you're doing. In any case, personal testimony is evidence. What it is not is proof.
Agreed that is could count as 'evidence' [here we go…], but of what? It sure as hell is not evidence of God.
A woman claimed to have been abducted by Spriggans. She had no physical evidence of the experience, but ever since that abduction she has felt more anxious than usual and has had frequent dreams of being chased. According to you this is evidence of the truth claims of Spriggan abduction.
A young boy was in boat in rough waters. He prayed to the monkey god Hanuman. The boat passed safely through the rough water. According to you this is evidence for Hanuman.
In neither case should we discount the reality of the experiences, but we ought to challenge the truth claims of the supernatural.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Belle Ringer wrote:
Paul suggests just take a look at nature, it reveals God. My high school science teacher said that did it for him, everywhere you look, even microscopic animals are beautiful and fascinating, he couldn't accept that random evolution would have that result.
Are you sure he was a science teacher? Evolution isn't random - have a look at camouflage and mimicry in animals. The wasp spider looks like a wasp, but not randomly. There's an old saying that animals carry their environment on their back. Ooops, is this a DH?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
A woman claimed to have been abducted by Spriggans. She had no physical evidence of the experience, but ever since that abduction she has felt more anxious than usual and has had frequent dreams of being chased. According to you this is evidence of the truth claims of Spriggan abduction.
Why isn't it evidence for spriggan abduction?
Are you saying that there is only evidence for something if that evidence is sufficient to make it unreasonable to disbelieve it?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Belle Ringer wrote:
Paul suggests just take a look at nature, it reveals God. My high school science teacher said that did it for him, everywhere you look, even microscopic animals are beautiful and fascinating, he couldn't accept that random evolution would have that result.
Are you sure he was a science teacher? Evolution isn't random - have a look at camouflage and mimicry in animals. The wasp spider looks like a wasp, but not randomly. There's an old saying that animals carry their environment on their back. Ooops, is this a DH?
I'm reporting what he said affected him in leading him to believe an amazing God exists, not discussing variations on the scientific theory of evolution.
The question was what convinces people God is real. Different things do it for different people. A song, a child's question, even a fiction play can raise the inner question and lead person to God even though it has no such effect on most people.
For many it's perhaps not one specific thing at all, but a slowly growing awareness that has no specific stating point or crossover from unbelief to belief. John the Baptist was said to recognize the reality of God from pre-birth.
One thing fun about the Ship is seeing so many ways different people relate to God. Look at discussion about worship styles or favorite songs, one person is totally turned off by another's most deeply felt.
And maybe we need some atheists to remind us it isn't all objectively obvious. (Not that the objectively obvious is the only reality!)
Of course, another possibility is: God is objectively obvious but many of us fail to "see" what's right there. We all occasionally miss an objectively obvious crossroad we were planning to turn on.
The psychology of vision is fascinating. After I was in a car wreck and had a significant concussion, I was failing to see some things that were centrally in my visual field. The brain was recognizing most things but blocking out some, filling in the space with what would have looked like if that thing didn't exist - like a bare table top instead of a table top with the stack of plates I was looking for on it. (I accidentally re-entered the room from a different side and then saw the plates on the table.) As the brain heals it does less of this blocking things out.
Maybe a lot of human brains don't see God until they are healed? Or until they approach things from a different angle? Not approach God from a different angel, but some aspect of life, and through that God becomes obvious?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Maybe a lot of human brains don't see God until they are healed? Or until they approach things from a different angle? Not approach God from a different angel, but some aspect of life, and through that God becomes obvious?
Deliberate pun or Freudian slip?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Agreed that is could count as 'evidence' [here we go…], but of what? It sure as hell is not evidence of God.
A woman claimed to have been abducted by Spriggans. She had no physical evidence of the experience, but ever since that abduction she has felt more anxious than usual and has had frequent dreams of being chased. According to you this is evidence of the truth claims of Spriggan abduction.
A young boy was in boat in rough waters. He prayed to the monkey god Hanuman. The boat passed safely through the rough water. According to you this is evidence for Hanuman.
In neither case should we discount the reality of the experiences, but we ought to challenge the truth claims of the supernatural.
K.
Of course they're evidence. On their own they're not convincing evidence, and a long way short of proof. They're the equivalent of finding a thread of fabric at a crime scene. It could come from the prime suspect, and it would be useful corroborating evidence is there are other pieces of evidence pointing in the same direction, but on its own you would discard it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I'm currently heading into a there is no god state. I may already be there. I've been there before and come out. Not sure about this time.
This time it goes like this. If there is a god, he is outside of time, and therefore knows what will happen from various events. In particular, he would have known how people would interpret the supposedly inspired scriptures.
And yet he did nothing to make sure that they included major statements about not killing, not raping, not beheading, not doing suicide bombing, not attacking wedding parties with drones, and so on and so on and so on. Nothing to make sure that it was absolutely impossible to ignore commandments to treat every other human being as valuable to him.
He would have known about the horrific state the Middle East has fallen into and taken action to prevent it. Without, of course, interfering with the free will of the manipulators and the killers and the users of other people, which is what is usually used to argue why he can't do anything to stop it.
The free will argument always leaves the weaker brethren, and especially sistren with the only way of exercising it to be by submitting to the horrors with a good grace.
****** that for a game of soldiers.
And I won't read any answer from IngoB. I'm sure he's got one. But it won't work.
[ 21. July 2015, 17:57: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I don't want to derail your argument. Your question "is free will worth the suffering of those?" is completely valid, and I think it transcends religion. I don't have an answer for it.
But the Bible does say "thou shalt not kill".
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
A woman claimed to have been abducted by Spriggans. She had no physical evidence of the experience, but ever since that abduction she has felt more anxious than usual and has had frequent dreams of being chased. According to you this is evidence of the truth claims of Spriggan abduction.
Why isn't it evidence for spriggan abduction?
Are you saying that there is only evidence for something if that evidence is sufficient to make it unreasonable to disbelieve it?
The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. Simply saying 'it happened' doesn't constitute proof of Spriggans.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Shifting the goal posts back to proof again, I see.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't want to derail your argument. Your question "is free will worth the suffering of those?" is completely valid, and I think it transcends religion. I don't have an answer for it.
But the Bible does say "thou shalt not kill".
Which people often twist to "thou shalt not commit murder", thus allowing other forms of killing. And there's all those places where god commands slaughter.
There are plenty of opportunities in the Bible and the Qu'ran for people who want to weasel round that commandment, or the statement that if you kill one man you kill the world.
It's not just the free will argument. It has to stop. And it doesn't.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
A woman claimed to have been abducted by Spriggans. She had no physical evidence of the experience, but ever since that abduction she has felt more anxious than usual and has had frequent dreams of being chased. According to you this is evidence of the truth claims of Spriggan abduction.
Why isn't it evidence for spriggan abduction?
Are you saying that there is only evidence for something if that evidence is sufficient to make it unreasonable to disbelieve it?
The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. Simply saying 'it happened' doesn't constitute proof of Spriggans.
1. I asked about evidence not proof.
2. 'Burden of proof' is an internet cliche. The phrase has a meaning in a court of law. What on earth can it mean in the context of epistemology?
3. 'Extraordinary claim' is also an internet cliche. Without begging any questions, what makes a claim extraordinary?
4. You've not answered my second question at all.
[ 21. July 2015, 20:30: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm currently heading into a there is no god state. I may already be there. I've been there before and come out. Not sure about this time.
This time it goes like this. If there is a god, he is outside of time, and therefore knows what will happen from various events. In particular, he would have known how people would interpret the supposedly inspired scriptures.
And yet he did nothing to make sure that they included major statements about not killing, not raping, not beheading, not doing suicide bombing, not attacking wedding parties with drones, and so on and so on and so on. Nothing to make sure that it was absolutely impossible to ignore commandments to treat every other human being as valuable to him.
He would have known about the horrific state the Middle East has fallen into and taken action to prevent it. Without, of course, interfering with the free will of the manipulators and the killers and the users of other people, which is what is usually used to argue why he can't do anything to stop it.
The free will argument always leaves the weaker brethren, and especially sistren with the only way of exercising it to be by submitting to the horrors with a good grace.
****** that for a game of soldiers.
.
Weren't we given all of the above in the human form of Jesus? What is it about the two commandments to love God and love one another that says it is OK to harm each other? Was Jesus weak when he was arrested, mocked, tortured and killed?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm currently heading into a there is no god state. I may already be there. I've been there before and come out. Not sure about this time.
Penny S. You're being pruned of magical thinking. Of superstition. Of nonsense. This is GOOD.
quote:
This time it goes like this. If there is a god, he is outside of time, and therefore knows what will happen from various events. In particular, he would have known how people would interpret the supposedly inspired scriptures.
God is. He sustains now. That's the only time there is. There is NOTHING categorical He hasn't known for eternity. He cannot, of course, know if it's going to rain tomorrow. Not without determining it: making it so. Which He NEVER does. Since Christ and the disciples, in any way that should be entertained. EVER.
quote:
And yet he did nothing to make sure that they included major statements about not killing, not raping, not beheading, not doing suicide bombing, not attacking wedding parties with drones, and so on and so on and so on. Nothing to make sure that it was absolutely impossible to ignore commandments to treat every other human being as valuable to him.
After 200,000 years at the very least, He did ALL that in Christ. What more - which is LESS - do you want? It's ENTIRELY up to us. We are free to be kind. It will take at least another 200,000 years. Of suffering.
quote:
He would have known about the horrific state the Middle East has fallen into and taken action to prevent it. Without, of course, interfering with the free will of the manipulators and the killers and the users of other people, which is what is usually used to argue why he can't do anything to stop it.
What is special about the Middle East? Why didn't He prevent Auschwitz, Hiroshima and onchocerciasis? To create is to suffer a suffering creation. Obviously. If He could do 'better', He would. He CAN'T. It is ontologically impossible.
quote:
The free will argument always leaves the weaker brethren, and especially sistren with the only way of exercising it to be by submitting to the horrors with a good grace.
He did.
quote:
****** that for a game of soldiers.
Then hedonism is all you've got. You might as well go to it. Although a moral person would do good regardless.
quote:
And I won't read any answer from IngoB. I'm sure he's got one. But it won't work.
NOTHING works. That's how it works.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
The Middle East because it's where the trouble is at the moment. And because this time it's deeply rooted in what people suppose god wants. I wasn't going to list absolutely every atrocity everywhere everywhen.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim.
I have two problems with this statement if it is meant to require believers to prove the existence of God to the satisfaction of nonbelievers.
1. It's not my job to prove the validity of my beliefs to anyone. My beliefs are mine, your beliefs are yours, that's all there is to it.
If you are trying to get me to change my beliefs, it's your job to do the proving. If no one is actively striving to get another to change beliefs or behaviors, no one has any burden of proof.
2. I'm under the impression the super-majority of humans throughout history and around the globe today are believers in one or more gods or other supernatural reality. That makes theism or at least belief in supernatural reality the ordinary and atheism the extraordinary position. If the extraordinary position has a burden of proof, atheism (not theism) has that burden.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So it's you that's changing Penny S. Good. Especially as you're becoming atheist of a false God. You're closer to the true God.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't want to derail your argument. Your question "is free will worth the suffering of those?" is completely valid, and I think it transcends religion. I don't have an answer for it.
But the Bible does say "thou shalt not kill".
Which people often twist to "thou shalt not commit murder", thus allowing other forms of killing. And there's all those places where god commands slaughter.
There are plenty of opportunities in the Bible and the Qu'ran for people who want to weasel round that commandment, or the statement that if you kill one man you kill the world.
It's not just the free will argument. It has to stop. And it doesn't.
Indeed. "Thou shalt not commit murder" is useless, unfortunately, because people find ways to say their killing isn't murder. Indeed, if you define murder as "unlawful killing" then the commandment becomes circular "Unlawful killing is unlawful".
I think the NT helps a bit with the idea that the core of murder is hatred - "he who hates his brother is a murderer". And it's correct that hatred is the problem; Jesus' remedy is love for enemies.
Ours is to blow them to bits.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
2. I'm under the impression the super-majority of humans throughout history and around the globe today are believers in one or more gods or other supernatural reality. That makes theism or at least belief in supernatural reality the ordinary and atheism the extraordinary position. If the extraordinary position has a burden of proof, atheism (not theism) has that burden.
just because a belief is older, doesn't make it less extraordinary.
But, anyway, the burden of proof is on the person attempting to convince.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
