Evidence

[Willamena]

It certainly matters whether it is connected.

In what way is it connected?

 

[Willamena]

First of all, if consciousness is the primary reality, I find it strange that someone would expect the universe to behave any differently than they expect. Second, I also find it strange that much faith is placed in science until experiments present a challenge to their materialistic view. Third, if consciousness does not cause a finger to wiggle that would not otherwise wiggle, what does?

First, consciousness isn't the primary reality. "Me" is. Consciousness is something I possess; i.e. the ability to be aware.

Second, I don't believe in "experiments" that "present a challenge to their materialistic view" since it remains ever their materilaistic view. eh?

Third: does it matter what cause we attribute?

 

[Yerda]

Thank you Jaiket! Really!

No bother. Cheers for the blether.

 

[rojse]

Never. Religious experience is an intensely personal experience and so is the conceptual interpretation.

You would agree that it makes it quite hard to debate with this fact in mind then, do you not?

Hehehe. Did I say I was opposed to logic, reason or evidence? I only said evidence has limited applications.

Evidence has unlimited applications. It's not much of a reply, but I believe it is. It's not just physical evidence that I am talking about, but also mental evidence as well. Certainly, your experiences are the evidences that have allowed you to conclude that your God exists, and my experienes are the evidences that have allowed me to conclude the exact opposite.

According to some scientists, it does. Besides, it wiggles you finger, doesn't it?

Hardly transcending matter. Transcending matter would mean that it would be able to affect matter outside of it, would it not?

And if the conscious could transcend matter, why does it not interact with other consciousnesses that have transcended matter, and communicate together, much like ESP?

If this is true, tell me the answers for this through this wonderous new form of communication, please.

I repeat: Did I say I was opposed to logic, reason or evidence? I only said evidence has limited applications.

I have replied to this previously. See above.

Not at all. You have a correlation. When a theologian was presented with the results of such experiments his reaction was, "I should certainly hope so!"

Finding a correlation between the two is the first step of explaining the event as it occurs in the normal environment, and that is the first step of allowing us to recreate the event for ourselves.

If we could recreate the event itself, there is more than a mere correlation at work, that is an artificial form of the event itself.

Not really.

I believe that religion begins with finding phenomena that cannot be explained through current scientific thinking, and then answering it with religious answers, instead.

If people wish to solve their problems morally first, and shoehorning in ideas about God, a big question regarding this philosophy would be why atheism came about, then?

If you think that religions begin with moral values, how come there are legends of gods of different religions involving incest, murder, trickery, or gods fighting eachother for superiority? I would hardly consider these values morally based.

"...the natural man, being a rational creature, craves rational explanations."

That still does not address my point - the word natural is an overworked term. It has lost all meaning from constant prostitution by use of advertisers and the like to market products and ideas.

If you want to claim that religion is good because it is a natural idea, do you support homosexuality? Many animals "naturally" do it. Does this fact make the act right? What about marking your territory on trees and shrubs and the like? This is "natural". Does this make marking your territory right?

Don''t use the word natural to defend an idea, please. I believe that you are capable of mounting a far better argument than that.

 

[rojse]

What God IS, I have no way of knowing. I know anthropomorphism is a silly notion when speaking of the mysteries of God.

I would disagree with that statement. You apply human concepts to a non-human entity, such as compassion, love, pride, and when He is in the mood, revenge.

Surely a being far more advanced than us would have emotions that are far beyond these simplistic human emotions.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just an old strawman. You have to hold it up, because it can no longer hold itself up.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an excellent counter argument to any presupposed notions of God. The concept of the FSM is as hard to prove, or disprove, as the Abrahamic version of God, because it is based on the same evidences, and the same arguments.

 

[Willamena]

I would disagree with that statement. You apply human concepts to a non-human entity, such as compassion, love, pride, and when He is in the mood, revenge.

Doesn't non-applying those concepts to this "non-human" entity make it very human? or is that the point? Isn't it still silly?

Surely a being far more advanced than us would have emotions that are far beyond these simplistic human emotions.

How do you know?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an excellent counter argument to any presupposed notions of God. The concept of the FSM is as hard to prove, or disprove, as the Abrahamic version of God, because it is based on the same evidences, and the same arguments.

Yeah, I guess it's the supposed (as opposed to presupposed) notions that it cannot counter.

 

[sandandfoam]

First, consciousness isn't the primary reality. "Me" is. Consciousness is something I possess; i.e. the ability to be aware.

Second, I don't believe in "experiments" that "present a challenge to their materialistic view" since it remains ever their materilaistic view. eh?

Third: does it matter what cause we attribute?

I agree with your first two points. In relation to your third point I think it does matter.
It matters because understanding matters.

 

[rojse]

Doesn't non-applying those concepts to this "non-human" entity make it very human? or is that the point? Isn't it still silly?

Anthropromorhism means applying human-based concepts to non-human entities.

Personally, I find it... I would not say silly, because I do not wish to insult other people who do do this, but I do find it odd. However, I am not the one that does it.

How do you know?

I find the idea that there is an omniprescent and omnipotent God, who is supposed to be far greater than we are, shares all of our emotions, including our baser emotions such as revenge, anger, and rage, worthy of comment. Certainly, I do not know, but it is still worth discussing, isn't it?

Yeah, I guess it's the supposed (as opposed to presupposed) notions that it cannot counter.

Apart from the fact that millions of people have been brought up to believe in the Abrahamic God instead of the Pastafarian God, I do not find anything more or less ridiculous between any of the claims made for either deity.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You would agree that it makes it quite hard to debate with this fact in mind then, do you not?

Yes, I agree. "The God-knowing man describes his spiritual experiences, not to convince unbelievers, but for the edification and mutual satisfaction of believers."

Evidence has unlimited applications. It's not much of a reply, but I believe it is. It's not just physical evidence that I am talking about, but also mental evidence as well. Certainly, your experiences are the evidences that have allowed you to conclude that your God exists, and my experienes are the evidences that have allowed me to conclude the exact opposite.

True, but the kind of evidence I was talking about was objective evidence and how the incessent demand for evidence from atheists is silly.

Hardly transcending matter. Transcending matter would mean that it would be able to affect matter outside of it, would it not?

And if the conscious could transcend matter, why does it not interact with other consciousnesses that have transcended matter, and communicate together, much like ESP?

If this is true, tell me the answers for this through this wonderous new form of communication, please.

If consciousness makes the finger wiggle when it otherwise wouldn't wiggle, it's acting on matter--shaping its motion regardless of whether it's physically connected ot not. Besides, how can you expect matter behave outside your expectations?

Finding a correlation between the two is the first step of explaining the event as it occurs in the normal environment, and that is the first step of allowing us to recreate the event for ourselves.

If we could recreate the event itself, there is more than a mere correlation at work, that is an artificial form of the event itself.

Describing the workings of the radio doesn't explain thee transmission.

I believe that religion begins with finding phenomena that cannot be explained through current scientific thinking, and then answering it with religious answers, instead.

This is simply wrong. Even primitive fear-based religions, valuing security first, sought to control their environment from ignorance (second).

That still does not address my point - the word natural is an overworked term. It has lost all meaning from constant prostitution by use of advertisers and the like to market products and ideas.

If you want to claim that religion is good because it is a natural idea, do you support homosexuality? Many animals "naturally" do it. Does this fact make the act right? What about marking your territory on trees and shrubs and the like? This is "natural". Does this make marking your territory right?

This assumes religion is first a body of ideas followed by values. Religious concepts are natural to man because man is a rational creature.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an excellent counter argument to any presupposed notions of God. The concept of the FSM is as hard to prove, or disprove, as the Abrahamic version of God, because it is based on the same evidences, and the same arguments.

I wanted to add that this has already been addressed and shown to be childish--stupid, even--so many times that anyone who maintains this position either isn't paying attention or has nothing left and is simply desparate.

The God that is conceived is not God! It is a finger pointing.

 

[rojse]

I wanted to add that this has already been addressed and shown to be childish--stupid, even--so many times that anyone who maintains this position either isn't paying attention or has nothing left and is simply desparate.

I haven't seen any proofs against the FSM.

 

[yossarian22]

Yes, I agree. "The God-knowing man describes his spiritual experiences, not to convince unbelievers, but for the edification and mutual satisfaction of believers."

No problem with that. Until I am informed that I am heathen who will burn in hell.

True, but the kind of evidence I was talking about was objective evidence and how the incessent demand for evidence from atheists is silly.

It is not unreasonable if you claim that there is a god who will do X if you do Y.
Otherwise it is pointless. I justify my atheism with Occam's razor, but probably would stop if something personal experience (which I hear oh so much about) happens to me.

If consciousness makes the finger wiggle when it otherwise wouldn't wiggle, it's acting on matter--shaping its motion regardless of whether it's physically connected ot not. Besides, how can you expect matter behave outside your expectations?

How do you know that consciousness makes the finger wiggle? Relativity is also extremely counter intuitive (at least the notion of time in it is). If you insist on only looking at matter, there is quantum theory.

Describing the workings of the radio doesn't explain thee transmission.

Not to hard. Open it up. Look at the antennae wiring. Not that there appears to be voltage coming from nowhere, it has to be coming from somewhere. A transmission could be inferred by putting the radio in a lead box and noticing that the noise stops. You can then test other things and eventually draw a conclusion. This requires an fairly large of knowledge about electronics though. Keeping with the analogy, we could not do this because we do not comprehend the brain well enough.

This is simply wrong. Even primitive fear-based religions, valuing security first, sought to control their environment from ignorance (second).

Well, primitive fear based religions typically have a leader (or group of leaders) who conveniently define what security is. And questioning the primitive fear based religion which states that we can summon rain by dancing around a pig is probably a threat to security in the eyes of the leaders.

This assumes religion is first a body of ideas followed by values. Religious concepts are natural to man because man is a rational creature.

I disagree here. Many of the things we do are totally irrational.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

No problem with that. Until I am informed that I am heathen who will burn in hell.

That won't be coming from me. All that hell stuff is symbolism taken literally by fools.

It is not unreasonable if you claim that there is a god who will do X if you do Y.
Otherwise it is pointless. I justify my atheism with Occam's razor, but probably would stop if something personal experience (which I hear oh so much about) happens to me.

Yes it is, especially since I can justify my radically out-of-the-ordinary theism using the same principle,
[/QUOTE]How do you know that consciousness makes the finger wiggle? Relativity is also extremely counter intuitive (at least the notion of time in it is). If you insist on only looking at matter, there is quantum theory.
Not to hard. Open it up. Look at the antennae wiring. Not that there appears to be voltage coming from nowhere, it has to be coming from somewhere. A transmission could be inferred by putting the radio in a lead box and noticing that the noise stops. You can then test other things and eventually draw a conclusion. This requires an fairly large of knowledge about electronics though. Keeping with the analogy, we could not do this because we do not comprehend the brain well enough.

Forgive me, but I started a new thread resulting from a sudden shift in my understanding of consciousness thanks in part to jaiket. I'm still trying to get my mind around it. Individual awareness is free only to resist the impetus from universal and undifferentiated consciousness. Most of our "choices" are mere reactions.

Well, primitive fear based religions typically have a leader (or group of leaders) who conveniently define what security is. And questioning the primitive fear based religion which states that we can summon rain by dancing around a pig is probably a threat to security in the eyes of the leaders.

The leader defines how the security is to be achieved and would have little or no influence if wasn't able to use what's already there--a desire for security.

I disagree here. Many of the things we do are totally irrational.

Many? I'd say most, by far. But he still seeks intelligible answers--or what he assumes to be intelligible. Atheism is throwing up the hands and saying, "Just because." The God in the gaps is saying the flying pink unicorn did it. My "theism" (which is a term I'm beginning to hesitate using) is merely an effort to understand what is without convenient omissions.

 

[sandandfoam]

That won't be coming from me. All that hell stuff is symbolism taken literally by fools.


Yes it is, especially since I can justify my radically out-of-the-ordinary theism using the same principle,

How do you know that consciousness makes the finger wiggle? Relativity is also extremely counter intuitive (at least the notion of time in it is). If you insist on only looking at matter, there is quantum theory.
Not to hard. Open it up. Look at the antennae wiring. Not that there appears to be voltage coming from nowhere, it has to be coming from somewhere. A transmission could be inferred by putting the radio in a lead box and noticing that the noise stops. You can then test other things and eventually draw a conclusion. This requires an fairly large of knowledge about electronics though. Keeping with the analogy, we could not do this because we do not comprehend the brain well enough.

Forgive me, but I started a new thread resulting from a sudden shift in my understanding of consciousness thanks in part to jaiket. I'm still trying to get my mind around it. Individual awareness is free only to resist the impetus from universal and undifferentiated consciousness. Most of our "choices" are mere reactions.

The leader defines how the security is to be achieved and would have little or no influence if wasn't able to use what's already there--a desire for security.
Many? I'd say most, by far. But he still seeks intelligible answers--or what he assumes to be intelligible. Atheism is throwing up the hands and saying, "Just because." The God in the gaps is saying the flying pink unicorn did it. My "theism" (which is a term I'm beginning to hesitate using) is merely an effort to understand what is without convenient omissions.

RS I'd like to ask 2 questions arising from this post:-
1. Why are you beginning to hesitate to describe your quest to understand as theism?

2. You say that most of what we do is irrational, am I right to think you are talking about those things we consciously do?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

RS I'd like to ask 2 questions arising from this post:-
1. Why are you beginning to hesitate to describe your quest to understand as theism?

This might answer that.

2. You say that most of what we do is irrational, am I right to think you are talking about those things we consciously do?

Yes.

 

[yossarian22]

That won't be coming from me. All that hell stuff is symbolism taken literally by fools.

Indeed

Yes it is, especially since I can justify my radically out-of-the-ordinary theism using the same principle,

Do you mean Occam's razor or the God X will burn you if you do Y?

me, but I started a new thread resulting from a sudden shift in my understanding of consciousness thanks in part to jaiket. I'm still trying to get my mind around it. Individual awareness is free only to resist the impetus from universal and undifferentiated consciousness. Most of our "choices" are mere reactions.

Does that mean our 'choices' are mere mechanisms? I have seen that asserted several times, and it is an interesting (albiet dehumanizing) notion.
Or did I just totally misunderstand what you said?

The leader defines how the security is to be achieved and would have little or no influence if wasn't able to use what's already there--a desire for security.

I do not disagree with that, but such reasoning often clashes with a desire for knowledge, especially when knowledge threatens the leader's power.

Many? I'd say most, by far

I would say that anything we determine by emotion is probably irrational. But we do not do everything based on emotion, hopefully.

But he still seeks intelligible answers--or what he assumes to be intelligible.

Which is irrational because most of our nature is irrational.

Atheism is throwing up the hands and saying, "Just because." The God in the gaps is saying the flying pink unicorn did it.

Painting with a broad brush.
I am atheist because I do not see a need for a god concept.
I agree that attempting to define god is pointless as it limits god, which by nature needs to be limitless, but the flying pink unicorn is not a stupid and childish argument when faced with fundamental bible thumpers. (I am drawing a blank for better examples)

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Indeed

Do you mean Occam's razor or the God X will burn you if you do Y?

Hehehe. Occam's razor informs me that God is, but bear in mind that the God conceived is not God.

Does that mean our 'choices' are mere mechanisms? I have seen that asserted several times, and it is an interesting (albiet dehumanizing) notion.
Or did I just totally misunderstand what you said?

I posted this in another thread:

We can adapt Plato’s cave allegory to represent monistic idealism in the following way. The fire is replaced by the light of the sun (pure Awareness) coming in through the entrance to the cave, and the puppets are replaced by archetypal objects within the transcendent realm. The phenomenal world of matter and thoughts is merely the shadow of the archetypes in the light of consciousness. Here, we clearly see a complementarity of phenomenon and Noumenon. To look only at the shadows is to be unaware of Awareness. To be directly aware of Awareness is to realize that the phenomenal world is merely a shadow. The shadow world is what we perceive. Awareness can only be apperceived, i.e., realized by a knowing that is beyond perception. Apperception liberates one from the shackles of the cave, and exposes one to infinite freedom. Apperception is the proof that consciousness is all there is.

God exists (or his existence questioned) when we are shackled; when freed from our shackles, God disappears but remains as a finger pointing.

I do not disagree with that, but such reasoning often clashes with a desire for knowledge, especially when knowledge threatens the leader's power.

Hell yes! :yes:

I would say that anything we determine by emotion is probably irrational. But we do not do everything based on emotion, hopefully.

We are a lot less rational than we like to think. How much of our decision-making is based on an emotional attachment to outcome?

Which is irrational because most of our nature is irrational.

I agree. There's got to be a better description. It's mostly reactionary with a propensity for increasing in order, like evolution.

Painting with a broad brush.

Yup. Sorta like saying, "Men are taller than women."

I am atheist because I do not see a need for a god concept.

God is God only when we're outside the circle. See highlighted area above.

I agree that attempting to define god is pointless as it limits god, which by nature needs to be limitless, but the flying pink unicorn is not a stupid and childish argument when faced with fundamental bible thumpers. (I am drawing a blank for better examples)

Well, yes. I can agree here. But it's painting with a broad brush, isn't it?

Edit: from another thread: Check out A_COURSE_IN_CONSCIOUSNESS. If I'm nuts, at least I'm not alone.

 

[autonomous1one1]

....
1)there is an experience that some interpret as an 'awakening'
2)there are many examples documented and described throughout history
3)there is some consistency of characteristics among the 'awakened' persons
4)these characteristics result from the being that has believed and interpreted the experience and been transformed by it
5)if the experience is actually real as believed, the 'awakening' is of immense importance (e.g.'s, realization of eternal life, loss of fear, knowing a higher reality, etc.)
6)the experience is evidence in favor of God
7) Even one example of awakening that proved to be true would be significant.
8) Case studies of potentially awakened beings can be conducted to 'learn from others' and help collect evidence for our own experiment. (Literature research is essential in scientific investigation. )
9) One should verify and validate the findings of others through one's own study and experimentation.
10)The founders of religion each have pointed us in the same direction to begin our experiment. (See post #42 in thread http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ts/1051-pitch-your-religion-5.html#post586838) Yes, we must use ourselves in the experiment to 'know' for sure.:angel2:

I don't know what 5) means. Every experience is "real." That doesn't mean that there exists a corresponding external reality. In addition, 5) is an "if" statement. You seem to be missing the assertion that the experience is "real", whatever that means. I doubt that many would agree that it is possible to conclude that there exists some external reality corresponding to these experiences......

Greetings Autodidact. Thank you for your comment. Hope you are still watching this thread; took me some time to get back because of computer failure (still working on it). From one perspective you make a good point on #5 above. The experience is real regardless of how it is interpreted. My intention was to make the words "..as believed.." the primary operative ones for the rest of #5 to be true; that is, 'of immense importance...'

....I see no connection between any of it and 6) whatsoever. Why would you leap from shared transcendent experience to God? Why not a transcendent level of reality or being?......

My #6 was meant to be an 'unbelievable leap' and bring out a smile as indicated in posts #141 and #144 in response to others who questioned #6: post #141 for you r convenience -

Yes, you are right. There is an obvious flawed connection from 5 to 6 - i intended it. It was for humor and i meant to get a smile out of you because it was so obviously a blind leap. Sorry to hang you up on that. I was really addressing Rioku but what do you think of 1 thru 5. In my opinion, you should be able to agree with them on the basis of my prior posts. Treat them as individual statements not leading to any conclusion beyond what they say individually.

However, Rioku made a good point and I changed #6 in the list in this post to his wording. One last note, the individuals who have this 'awakening' experience most often have God in their explanations.
Regards,
a..1

 

[yossarian22]

1)there is an experience that some interpret as an 'awakening'
2)there are many examples documented and described throughout history
3)there is some consistency of characteristics among the 'awakened' persons
4)these characteristics result from the being that has believed and interpreted the experience and been transformed by it
5)if the experience is actually real as believed, the 'awakening' is of immense importance (e.g.'s, realization of eternal life, loss of fear, knowing a higher reality, etc.)
6)the experience is evidence in favor of God

It could also be evidence that we are simply inclined to believe in a higher power.
Sorry if you addressed that already.
This would be an interesting paper to write, but collecting data on this would suck.

 

[Francine]

Your thumb did not make the light the candle exhibits, the candlemaker provides the candle and the potential for light. By itself your thumb can't make much light.

Do sore thumbs really stick out?