Evidence?

[Storm]

The best by the criterion of Occam's Razor.

No, because the Razor assumes equally satisfactory explanations.

Not so fast. The correlation is reasonably established as causal. We can induce predictable changes in mental function by causing things to happen to the physical brain. It goes beyond mere statistical correlation.

I didn't mean statistical correlation, like they just happen to coexist. I just meant that, while the physical has an effect, so does the non-physical.

 

[Autodidact]

Like if someone said, "I just had a revelation. I learned that me and everyone like me is the problem, and we should shut up and listen to the other people, so I'm going to do that." That would be a lot more credible to me. Wait, there's more. "Hey, I just had another revelation. It said I should give all my money to you, and quit my position of power and authority, and go help people."

 

[Autodidact]

No, because the Razor assumes equally satisfactory explanations.


I didn't mean statistical correlation, like they just happen to coexist. I just meant that, while the physical has an effect, so does the non-physical.

I still don't get what the heck the non-physical is.

 

[Storm]

Like if someone said, "I just had a revelation. I learned that me and everyone like me is the problem, and we should shut up and listen to the other people, so I'm going to do that." That would be a lot more credible to me. Wait, there's more. "Hey, I just had another revelation. It said I should give all my money to you, and quit my position of power and authority, and go help people."

Heh..

 

[Storm]

I still don't get what the heck the non-physical is.

At a minimum, thought itself.

 

[Autodidact]

Well what do you man by "non-physical?" Because we can capture people thinking on an MRI. We can take a picture of them having thoughts in their physical brains. Again, no neurons, no thoughts. 100% correlation. Pretty high correlation there.

 

[Storm]

Well what do you man by "non-physical?" Because we can capture people thinking on an MRI. We can take a picture of them having thoughts in their physical brains. Again, no neurons, no thoughts. 100% correlation. Pretty high correlation there.

WE can capture the mechanism, not the thought itself.

 

[Autodidact]

WE can capture the mechanism, not the thought itself.

Well, we can't capture an image, or the perception of a sound, but we don't call these senses non-physical.

Come to think of it, we don't call thought a mode of perception, either.

 

[Storm]

Well, we can't capture an image, or the perception of a sound, but we don't call these senses non-physical.

Sure we can: cameras, audio recordings....

Come to think of it, we don't call thought a mode of perception, either.

I wasn't saying thought was a mode of perception.

 

[Autodidact]

You confuse me. I thought the subject was non-physical perception. What non-physical thing were you talking about?

We can actually track a thought. The thought itself. We can locate it in the brain.

 

[Storm]

You confuse me. I thought the subject was non-physical perception. What non-physical thing were you talking about?

I thought you asked for an example of anything non-physical that we know exists.

We can actually track a thought. The thought itself. We can locate it in the brain.

But can we tell what it is? Can we distinguish thinking about apples and oranges?

 

[Autodidact]

No, I don't think so.

We are a bit off track, but I'm liking it, so lblblblb, right?

O.K., I guess my current thinking, what I'm hearing and reading, is that thought is an activity, or as some say, an emergent property, of the brain. Thoughts are what brains do. You might say it's a verb. Legs walk, fingers tap, brains think.

 

[Storm]

We are a bit off track, but I'm liking it, so lblblblb, right?

Huh?

O.K., I guess my current thinking, what I'm hearing and reading, is that thought is an activity, or as some say, an emergent property, of the brain. Thoughts are what brains do. You might say it's a verb. Legs walk, fingers tap, brains think.

See, I just don't buy that. Materialism just can't account for everything.

 

[gnostic]

Ok, let's say that people have personal experience of meeting god, vision or whatever.

Then, yes, each one evidence. But we need more than just a testimonial or experiential evidence to prove the existence of god.

How do you go about validating such a weak evidence?

Such an evidence need to be tested? Can a personal experience be tested?

Can they describe what god look like? Will god appear the same to everyone?

Or will black person see a black-skinned god? Will Hispanic person see a Latin god? Will he be bearded, just moustache or clean-shaven? Will a Muslim see an Arabic man, wearing the traditional Arabic headgear? Or will only women see that the god is not a god, but a goddess?

Personal experience is all fine and well, but as plasmid say earlier, is it real or was the experience simply a delusion? Or even an acid-trip or drunkenness?

Personal experience is very weak. I'd prefer hard physical evidences that can be tested. Evidences that can be verified and that are conclusive.

 

[Autodidact]

Huh?


See, I just don't buy that. Materialism just can't account for everything.

Well, it's probably not knowable, but the fact that thought has never been observed outside of a brain, and no consciousness has ever been observed without a brain, is kind of a big hint.

lblblblbl is a Bronx cheer. NOt at you, but just to express that we're defying the rules and following the conversation where it will.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok, let's say that people have personal experience of meeting god, vision or whatever.

Then, yes, each one evidence. But we need more than just a testimonial or experiential evidence to prove the existence of god.

How do you go about validating such a weak evidence?

Such an evidence need to be tested? Can a personal experience be tested?

Can they describe what god look like? Will god appear the same to everyone?

Or will black person see a black-skinned god? Will Hispanic person see a Latin god? Will he be bearded, just moustache or clean-shaven? Will a Muslim see an Arabic man, wearing the traditional Arabic headgear? Or will only women see that the god is not a god, but a goddess?

Personal experience is all fine and well, but as plasmid say earlier, is it real or was the experience simply a delusion? Or even an acid-trip or drunkenness?

Personal experience is very weak. I'd prefer hard physical evidences that can be tested. Evidences that can be verified and that are conclusive.

The data seems to indicate that each one experiences the God they were trained to believe in as children.

 

[Azakel]

The data seems to indicate that each one experiences the God they were trained to believe in as children.

Really? I was raised in a Christian family yet each of my experiences with the gods non of them looked like the Christian god. I guess I wasn't trained good enough ^_^

 

[Storm]

The data seems to indicate that each one experiences the God they were trained to believe in as children.

I think there's a good reason for this: when confronted with an ineffable experience, most of us interpret it in terms we're familiar with.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...at this point...
I can see no 'evidence' possible.

Most of this has been whether God can be perceived.
If you take away the 'one on one' possibility then there can be no angel, no prophet, no scribe, no saint, no martyrs, no communication.
This lack of communication cannot affirm there is no God.
He might be the kind of God that is seen only by His creation.
'a creation is the reflection of it's creator.'

If you insist we keep the possibility of some one getting 'picked on' for representation... then we keep religion as is ...all around.

Proving God on such a small scale (personal interaction) is not likely....
as the occurrence of prophets seems well spaced in history...
and some religions have made declaration they have received the 'last prophet'.

I made a post earlier in this thread...no one cared.
But really....when you look up at night...can you really say...there is no God?
I say it is the rotation...the orbits...the movement of the stars...that proclaim there is a God.
The big bang would be no more than a simple explosion, without the snap of His fingers.

Previous generations did not have such knowledge.
They thought the earth was flat....prophets included.
They did not know the stars for their true nature.
They did not understand what lay beneath their feet, nor what hung above their heads.
But religion says they knew God.

So...look up...and decide.

 

[Willamena]

Then, yes, each one evidence. But we need more than just a testimonial or experiential evidence to prove the existence of god.

Is proof necessary, or even desirable? Is it even possible?