EPTA girl talked to OP and that proves God exists?
How I Believe in God - Page 11
| Blogs > GrayArea |
|
xxsaznpride
United States506 Posts
A girl talked to OP and that proves God exists? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On March 29 2009 13:40 GrayArea wrote: I'm actually Hindu, so I don't follow the Bible and have not read of the passage that says not to test God. Hindu? This makes even less sense now. You don't think making a girl talk to you is far, far beneath Para Brahman? | ||
|
404.Nintu
Canada1723 Posts
On March 30 2009 09:53 xxsaznpride wrote: Wait... did I skim/breeze through this blog right? A girl talked to OP and that proves God exists? I think the official statement is that he feels closer to God based on a prayer and what he chose to interpret as a sign. Believers aren't as shallow as to go: guy:"If she talks to me, you exist" girl:"hi" guy:"Well played, God." But ionno. Maybe he did take it the way you said. I'm starting to forget parts of this thread. | ||
micronesia
United States24772 Posts
On March 30 2009 09:43 404.Nintu wrote: I believe he refers to the Abrahamic 3. Y'know, these guys: (Pink) ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Abraham_Dharma.png) The only point you could be making here is that 'it' should have been obvious... and it wasn't. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On March 30 2009 03:31 TheYango wrote: You've never wondered what happens to your consciousness after death, or any of those other intractable questions that can't be empirically answered? It doesn't bother you that those are fundamentally unknowable? Empirically, your consciousness ceases to exist after you die... Of course I've wondered, but it doesn't keep me up at night, nor am I not creative enough to think of my own theories. It's pointless to worry about; I'll find out when I die, and there's no sense in trying to prepare for something I can't predict. It's weird that you choose 'afterlife' as your example, because it's one of those things that are completely irrational. Apart from 'really, really wanting one' there's no reason to think there is an afterlife. I think "When was the beginning of time?" or "Where did the first matter come from?" are much more 'unknowable' and reasonable questions. "God created it" is the answer some people like, but that just brings up more questions "So where did God come from? When was the beginning of God?" and even most religious nuts are okay with there being no answer to that... "It's not our place to question," or "I don't know, it's not important." Does that bring you sleepless nights that you can't explain god's existence? Or does your curiousity stop at your own creation? When all is said and done, being so desperate for an answer you take an unprovable one (that you possibly just made up yourself) is a character fault. "Why does rain fall?" "Dunno. Something godly must do it." "Let's waste time dancing to make him happy so we can have rain for our crops." Isn't far from "What happens after we die?" "Dunno. God must take us somewhere." "Let's waste our time going to a building every week and following arbitrary rules someone made up so he brings us somewhere good." Both end up having a negative impact on your life because both are based on an assumption that has no basis except desire. For a non-religious example, I could say I sometimes wonder what certain people are thinking. But I can never know. That doesn't mean I just make up their internal dialogue and respond to it. I would almost certainly get it wrong, and they'd think I was crazy. Just guessing answers tends to lead to negative consequences. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
On March 30 2009 06:24 micronesia wrote: First of all you are assuming that everyone feels this indescribable thing you are trying to convey... and I don't share your feelings as far as I can tell, nor do I think it is agreed upon by most people. What reason do you have for saying that this is so? that's what I was basically talking about in a prior post. Many scientists and philosophers who have put enormous efforts to try to decode life and universe thru pure science have reached a place where they start talking about very abstract things which imply existance of a higher force. You may call it selective memory on my part, but I have seen at least half a dozen advanced scientists talk similar stuff. As for not being able to produce alive things... that's really a stretch of a related thing to talk about based on what you were saying immediately prior. However, it is important to note that the general inability of humans to create 'a single alive thing from non-alive components' doesn't prove either party right or wrong in any specific way since there are many very reasonable arguments for why that is so from both sides of the argument. I agree it's a strech and it doesn't prove anything. Why do you think the God being described in different religions is in fact the same being? Which religions in particular? You mean the key 3? How could there be more gods? That just wouldn't make any sense at all. I had this 'knowing' since I was very young, and later I learned that both leading Christian thinkers and many others from other religions agree on this. Although I appreciate your reasonable offer, I can assure you that you have misjudged me. If you look through the thread closely you'll probably see that my involvement in this topic is usually not to change the religious beliefs of people, but rather to cut through the b.s. that often comes up from both sides and just stick to the heart of the matter. Basically, my goal would be for all the relevant and useful information to be on the table, and then the only thing that's left is for each reader to choose how to interpret it for themself. I'd prefer if more people agreed with me, and occasionally I make a few points to encourage this, but I'm far from searching for anything at this point. non-believers always want hard facts and proof. If there was stuff like that, it would be widely known and spread and everyone would be a in the same religion or everyone would be atheist. Believers and other non-atheists are willing to 'give it a shot'. In fact, I think I just realized what Jesus meant when he said "Blessed are those who have not seen me and yet believe." When I was a kid, I thought this meant "You will be blessed/rewarded because even tho you haven't seen me, you believe" But now I see it as "It's your blessing that you are able to believe even tho you haven't seen me." Columbus would have never discovered America if he was looking for 'pics' of it first. Tho it is the truth that you don't need to discover america if you're happy in europe. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
It was a bit of exaggeration to say that it wouldn't make any sense, but it is my opinion that the monotheistic system is much more logical and intuitive. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
BackHo
New Zealand400 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24772 Posts
On March 30 2009 16:45 niteReloaded wrote: non-believers always want hard facts and proof. If there was stuff like that, it would be widely known and spread and everyone would be a in the same religion or everyone would be atheist. Believers and other non-atheists are willing to 'give it a shot'. In fact, I think I just realized what Jesus meant when he said "Blessed are those who have not seen me and yet believe." When I was a kid, I thought this meant "You will be blessed/rewarded because even tho you haven't seen me, you believe" But now I see it as "It's your blessing that you are able to believe even tho you haven't seen me." Columbus would have never discovered America if he was looking for 'pics' of it first. Tho it is the truth that you don't need to discover america if you're happy in europe. This brings up the old question of... why should you 'give it a shot' to begin with? What are the cues that you should be willing to give it a shot? The reasons I've had to believe that there is some supernatural existence such as the Abrahamic God are: 1) Word of mouth (often unreliable) 2) Old books (often unreliable) There could just as easily have been word of mouth and/or old books about pasta monsters ruling the universe. What makes Christianity/Judaism/Islam or any other modern religion different with respect to why you should potentially subscribe to it to begin with? I don't consider the modern day prevalence of the key three to be relevant to this discussion. | ||
|
Samurai-
Slovenia2035 Posts
completely agree  | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On March 30 2009 11:21 Chef wrote: Empirically, your consciousness ceases to exist after you die... Um, what? Empirical means gained from observation and experiment. You can't really observe what happens to one's consciousness when someone dies. On March 30 2009 11:21 Chef wrote: I think "When was the beginning of time?" or "Where did the first matter come from?" are much more 'unknowable' and reasonable questions. "God created it" is the answer some people like, but that just brings up more questions "So where did God come from? When was the beginning of God?" and even most religious nuts are okay with there being no answer to that... "It's not our place to question," or "I don't know, it's not important." Does that bring you sleepless nights that you can't explain god's existence? Or does your curiousity stop at your own creation? Once again, you miss my point entirely. Its not about having an answer, but knowing that one exists. The way to look at "what happened at the beginning of time?" is not "God created it" but "if it's worth knowing, God will show me in due time." On March 30 2009 11:21 Chef wrote: When all is said and done, being so desperate for an answer you take an unprovable one (that you possibly just made up yourself) is a character fault. "Why does rain fall?" "Dunno. Something godly must do it." "Let's waste time dancing to make him happy so we can have rain for our crops." Isn't far from "What happens after we die?" "Dunno. God must take us somewhere." "Let's waste our time going to a building every week and following arbitrary rules someone made up so he brings us somewhere good." Both end up having a negative impact on your life because both are based on an assumption that has no basis except desire. For a non-religious example, I could say I sometimes wonder what certain people are thinking. But I can never know. That doesn't mean I just make up their internal dialogue and respond to it. I would almost certainly get it wrong, and they'd think I was crazy. Just guessing answers tends to lead to negative consequences. Um, no, thats a poor example, because its something you can find out by asking that person. Religion doesn't address the knowable very well. It addresses the unknowable, where, because you CAN'T have a rational answer, you have to resort to assumptions (because, frankly, its better than nothing). Guessing leads to negative consequences when those guesses have bearing on real actions you perform. But an answer to the question of "what happened at the beginning of time" does not in and of itself force specific actions. Yes some religions have regular religious ritual, but religious ritual is NOT inherent to all religions. Just because some religions do it doesn't mean its a reason to call religion fundamentally flawed. As fas as religious ritual having a "negative impact on your life", well thats to be contested. Even if its based on something that may be fundamentally untrue. It's still an experience that (or at least, should) connects one with fellow worshipers. Connecting with fellow human beings that would otherwise have no relationship with you shouldn't be a negative experience. Even if you don't believe religious worship is a valuable spiritual experience, it can still be a valuable social experience. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
Um, what? Empirical means gained from observation and experiment. You can't really observe what happens to one's consciousness when someone dies. I believe they call it a MRI scan. Um, no, thats a poor example, because its something you can find out by asking that person. They could lie, or the question could be inappropriate to ask (and often is, when you're curious). | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
On March 30 2009 21:51 micronesia wrote: This brings up the old question of... why should you 'give it a shot' to begin with? What are the cues that you should be willing to give it a shot? The reasons I've had to believe that there is some supernatural existence such as the Abrahamic God are: 1) Word of mouth (often unreliable) 2) Old books (often unreliable) There could just as easily have been word of mouth and/or old books about pasta monsters ruling the universe. What makes Christianity/Judaism/Islam or any other modern religion different with respect to why you should potentially subscribe to it to begin with? Nobody says you should. You could tho. (Actually If the positive messages of the religion appeal to you, if it feels right to you in your heart. By heart, I mean that deeper place within, some kind of intuitive inner knowing that doesn't quite fit the label of analytical mind. (some say it's actually our right brain) It's easy to drown religion/faith/spirituality by asking for proof. It's hard to believe when all you have is a hunch. | ||
|
ManBearPig
Belgium207 Posts
On March 31 2009 02:44 Chef wrote: I believe they call it a MRI scan. They could lie, or the question could be inappropriate to ask (and often is, when you're curious). You can't look into someone's consciousness using an MRI scan, you can only see the brain activity. There's a thought experiment to illustrate this, which is quite famous in philosophy of consciousness. Suppose there is a woman, Lucy, living in a world without any color. It's not that she's colorblind, everything is just black & white (pls don't argue that these are actually colors, this is not at all relevant), so she's just never seen a color. She is a neurologist. She receives a patient on which she performs an experiment. While Lucy is in another room looking at scans of the patient's brain, the patient is shown a red tablet. Lucy herself does not see this. However, as a fine neurologist, she can tell from the scans the patient is looking at a colored tablet. She might even be able to tell which color it is, through a long and intricate process of various experiments. But she won't actually know what the color red looks like. She will have seen scans of a brain that is watching a red color, or thinking about it, but she herself has no clue what red looks like. I'm sure you'll argue that an MRI scan or something like it can show that there is no brain activity, thus showing that there can be no consciousness. Linking to consciousness to brain activity in this matter is, however, quite problematic. There are also different 'theories' stating when a person should be considered dead. I'm not sure, but I believe in the current consensus, you are considered dead even if there is some remaining neurological activity. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
If you're talking about a person's 'soul,' then we're just getting into another example of wanting to believe something, rather than actually having any reason to believe it. PS: Your thought experiment was pointless. What are you trying to prove? So the patients neurons fire in places that indicate she's seeing colour, and Lucy's don't because her eyes have a defect. So what? Are you trying to prove that something can exist even if you can't see it? It's still testable, and isn't the same as believing in God, which is untestable. PPS: I reread it... "She can't see colours... But she's not colourblind." That doesn't make any sense. | ||
|
ManBearPig
Belgium207 Posts
On March 31 2009 03:25 Chef wrote: No neural activity means no thinking. It's not that difficult to understand lol. If you're talking about a person's 'soul,' then we're just getting into another example of wanting to believe something, rather than actually having any reason to believe it. PS: Your thought experiment was pointless. What are you trying to prove? So the patients neurons fire in places that indicate she's seeing colour, and Lucy's don't because her eyes have a defect. So what? Are you trying to prove that something can exist even if you can't see it? It's still testable, and isn't the same as believing in God, which is untestable. Oh God no you completely misunderstood lol. It's not my thought experiment, it was thought up by some philosopher. And no Lucy's eyes have no defect, she can see colors, but everything is black & white (edit: it's a thought experiment, these are often quite unrealistic; she lives in a black & white world, although colors do exist and although she can see them. let's say there just aren't any colors readily available where she lives, but they do have tablets in the research center). The point is that there is a difference between looking at someone's brain through scans and what not, and actually looking 'at' or 'into' their consciousness. The latter is quite impossible, at least for the time being. Although intuitively you link consciousness to neural activity, showing that this is true is actually really hard and research is still being done here. I agree that in death, you will very likely lose all consciousness. I was just objecting to your claim that you can empirically research someone else's consciousness. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
| ||
