imaginaryme
Active Member
Good for you! All day yesterday I had that song in my head...
The Brits got the monarchy, the U.S. got the money... but I know you wanna be Canadian...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's Present Some Evidence ...
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
The Brits got the monarchy, the U.S. got the money... but I know you wanna be Canadian...
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Good for you! All day yesterday I had that song in my head...
The Brits got the monarchy, the U.S. got the money... but I know you wanna be Canadian...
Hahaha. Where are you from, anyway? Judging by your use of "compy", I'd guess somewhere in the UK.
imaginaryme
Active Member
From Worcester, MA. The body resides in Phoenix, AZ; the mind is everywhere and nowhere. Good tune, btw. The hockey game was pretty cool as well. It's a good sport, but a lot of Americans "don't get it." I can't skate worth a ****, but I can play video games. Hockey's pretty cool.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
From Worcester, MA. The body resides in Phoenix, AZ; the mind is everywhere and nowhere. Good tune, btw. The hockey game was pretty cool as well. It's a good sport, but a lot of Americans "don't get it." I can't skate worth a ****, but I can play video games. Hockey's pretty cool.
That'd have been my second guess lol.
And yeah. That game against Russia was probably the best I've ever seen. Canada vs. Russia is always a good hockey game to watch. The Russians play a little dirty, though.
imaginaryme
Active Member
They always have.
They're Russian. But in New England, a lot of folk understand hockey as it gets downright cold; and what could be better than being warm indoors, watching people beat the snot outta each other... (cough, cough) I mean, play hockey. Another funny thing was that everyone I knew was a Bruins fan, but I always liked the Canadiens, as they caused so much trouble for the home team - and I'm kinda contrary like that. A few months ago a couple in our church in New York city had a baby born with a hole in his heart. An older Christian sister in the church called the mother at the hospital and prayed with with her.
The mother felt a supernatural warmth in her hands. She and her husband snuck into the intensive care unit where the baby was, lifted the cover, laid hands on the baby and prayed for him.
The alarms sounded indicating the baby tempature was high and endangering his life. Nurses and doctors ran in. They took the babys tempature and it was normal. The doctor than took the baby and x-rayed his heart. The hole was gone and the baby was completely healed.
The mother felt a supernatural warmth in her hands. She and her husband snuck into the intensive care unit where the baby was, lifted the cover, laid hands on the baby and prayed for him.
The alarms sounded indicating the baby tempature was high and endangering his life. Nurses and doctors ran in. They took the babys tempature and it was normal. The doctor than took the baby and x-rayed his heart. The hole was gone and the baby was completely healed.
Last edited:
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Therefore, God done it.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
That's the kind of anecdote that gets passed around a lot by religious believers who understand the need for miracles as evidence for the existence of God, and it is just this kind of story that makes God the subject of empirical investigation. Are the facts in the story correct, or have they been embellished by those who pass them back and forth? If true, can they be given a perfectly natural explanation? For example, the doctors could have misdiagnosed the problem initially and then were shocked to discover that the heart damage was no longer there on a subsequent examination.
But, beyond such empirical questions, there are deeper concerns. If God does intervene on behalf of devout believers who pray for assistance, then why is there no statistical evidence to back up that perception? And why would God respond to some prayers and not to others? Why does prayer fail so miserably and so often to achieve successful results? What set these people apart from other devout believers whose prayers go unanswered?
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
They always have.
Bruins vs. Canadiens always promises to be good, too. I'm a Leafs fan myself. I really don't know why. More team loyalty, I guess. Now, they are absolute garbage.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Perhaps I dismissed it too quickly out of hand, so I guess I should elaborate on my skepticism.
1) How did the mother know this "warmth" was "supernatural"?
2) If something is "supernatural" how can it manifest itself in the natural world?
3) Why did this couple disobey the rules of the hospital?
4) Do you know the effects of rapid body temperature change on an infant?
5) How have you discounted the possibility of an original misinterpretation of the angiography?
6) As Copernicus points out, how have you discounted the possibility of embellishment of crucial details?
..And that's just a few questions..
imaginaryme
Active Member
These holes often heal themselves. Read the literature. Or, consider the Schrodinger wave function. I believe that faith healing is possible, not because of god, but because of science.
TheGodless1
Member
How about this? If there is "evidence" for God then there is equal "evidence for the lack thereof. Neither has any PROOF which is what the evidence adds up to. So neither can be anything more nor anything less.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Question: How can you have evidence for the lack of something?
Commoner
Headache
imaginaryme
Active Member
Here in AZ we have the AIMS tests - evidence for the lack of public education to actually educate.
Greetings Commoner.
Let me note at the outset that if you notice any points skipped please keep my perspective in mind and take no offense. From my perspective there is no need to defend anything. There certainly is no intent to 'win' anything over anyone else, there is absolutely no intent of changing anyone or anyone's views, and avoiding threats to another's beliefs is an axiom along with avoiding annoyance and offense to others if possible. So few of us are here in RF because only a fraction of us lack the wisdom to avoid attempts to walk the tight wire through these intentions.
A few areas have been selected from your recent responses, (posts #1346 & #1344), that seem to contain important issues for further attention. Feel free (one is sure that you do not need to be offered this) to raise any other areas of interest to you.
Concerning your second point, the primary motif of the Being is love. Oneness-with-all is an important result of the Realization. For one who is truly awakened, there is no separation from any other, and one's own ego is under control. Thus, there will be no 'annoyance' or any offense felt, and the potential for these negatives do not need to be a concern in your posting. The implied sentiment is appreciated however.
For me, Commoner, the Being has been a big clue that something special is available, that the Realization is unique. The unusual nature of the Being coupled with the message given (my post #1159) is what launches many into this area for inquiry in the first place - to understand what makes being like that. One assumes that such beings as Jesus, Buddha, authors of the Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita, for examples, were humans just like the rest of us. From one view, if the Realization is natural, that is, not supernatural, it would seem more likely to be available to all of us. From my perspective, the realization is natural, not supernatural, and is available to all; but at the same time, most consider that the realization does involve something outside the control of the individual. It was this kind of thinking, to look at the Beings to learn that their realizations were special, which led to the recent question about learning from others, but in looking back at our previous discussions (my post #1159 and your response post #1162) one concludes that this recent question was ill-advised. 'My bad' for repeating because you had made it clear that the realization would not be special to you unless it involves the supernatural. From the perspective presented in #526 either nothing or all is supernatural so with your #1162 our case actually was closed.
A most excellent challenge, Commoner, and one uses contemplation and meditation to find a viable way to respond. (In other words, one has had to 'sleep on it.' HoHo) It may be a matter of semantics to you but it is easy to show that the 'awareness' differs from our usual ways of thinking - the awareness is not 'thinking' at all. In fact, meditation and stillness of the mind without any thought is one way that some teach to prepare one's self towards the 'awareness.' But that probably is irrelevant since you wre questioning my post #1343 which states "from one perspective one might conclude that the resultant being and awareness from the experience is the evidence of God." This was meant to indicate that the being after the Mystic Instance was evidence from our observance of its characteristics, nature, actions, and words and what it tells us of the content of its awareness. The previous post was not meant to say as you note above that 'an extraordinary human (women included) has the Mystic Experience' (although this may be true too) but rather to say that after the 'Experience' the resultant being is extraordinary. As explained by the Mystic this content of awareness is dramatically different from conventional. Corroboration by similar words from many adds weight to the validity of its difference for me because it shows that others too have come to this unusual view through their own experience. In retrospect it can be understood why this corroboration notion might not be of any importance to you or Copernicus. The only way to know for sure is to experience it for one's self and that is possible.
Let me respond to your comment about God in the post below but offer here that there is no intention of 'simply re-defining "God" as the experience itself.'
(continued next post)
Let me note at the outset that if you notice any points skipped please keep my perspective in mind and take no offense. From my perspective there is no need to defend anything. There certainly is no intent to 'win' anything over anyone else, there is absolutely no intent of changing anyone or anyone's views, and avoiding threats to another's beliefs is an axiom along with avoiding annoyance and offense to others if possible. So few of us are here in RF because only a fraction of us lack the wisdom to avoid attempts to walk the tight wire through these intentions.
A few areas have been selected from your recent responses, (posts #1346 & #1344), that seem to contain important issues for further attention. Feel free (one is sure that you do not need to be offered this) to raise any other areas of interest to you.
First, let me say a few words about the Being that is after the Realization. (For the purposes of this post 'Realization' will be used for the Mystic Experience, the Enlightenment, or the Awakening.) Although your two comments above were given in relation to different subjects they are addressed here as they relate to the Being.
Concerning your second point, the primary motif of the Being is love. Oneness-with-all is an important result of the Realization. For one who is truly awakened, there is no separation from any other, and one's own ego is under control. Thus, there will be no 'annoyance' or any offense felt, and the potential for these negatives do not need to be a concern in your posting. The implied sentiment is appreciated however.
For me, Commoner, the Being has been a big clue that something special is available, that the Realization is unique. The unusual nature of the Being coupled with the message given (my post #1159) is what launches many into this area for inquiry in the first place - to understand what makes being like that. One assumes that such beings as Jesus, Buddha, authors of the Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita, for examples, were humans just like the rest of us. From one view, if the Realization is natural, that is, not supernatural, it would seem more likely to be available to all of us. From my perspective, the realization is natural, not supernatural, and is available to all; but at the same time, most consider that the realization does involve something outside the control of the individual. It was this kind of thinking, to look at the Beings to learn that their realizations were special, which led to the recent question about learning from others, but in looking back at our previous discussions (my post #1159 and your response post #1162) one concludes that this recent question was ill-advised. 'My bad' for repeating because you had made it clear that the realization would not be special to you unless it involves the supernatural. From the perspective presented in #526 either nothing or all is supernatural so with your #1162 our case actually was closed.
A most excellent challenge, Commoner, and one uses contemplation and meditation to find a viable way to respond. (In other words, one has had to 'sleep on it.' HoHo) It may be a matter of semantics to you but it is easy to show that the 'awareness' differs from our usual ways of thinking - the awareness is not 'thinking' at all. In fact, meditation and stillness of the mind without any thought is one way that some teach to prepare one's self towards the 'awareness.' But that probably is irrelevant since you wre questioning my post #1343 which states "from one perspective one might conclude that the resultant being and awareness from the experience is the evidence of God." This was meant to indicate that the being after the Mystic Instance was evidence from our observance of its characteristics, nature, actions, and words and what it tells us of the content of its awareness. The previous post was not meant to say as you note above that 'an extraordinary human (women included) has the Mystic Experience' (although this may be true too) but rather to say that after the 'Experience' the resultant being is extraordinary. As explained by the Mystic this content of awareness is dramatically different from conventional. Corroboration by similar words from many adds weight to the validity of its difference for me because it shows that others too have come to this unusual view through their own experience. In retrospect it can be understood why this corroboration notion might not be of any importance to you or Copernicus. The only way to know for sure is to experience it for one's self and that is possible.
Let me respond to your comment about God in the post below but offer here that there is no intention of 'simply re-defining "God" as the experience itself.'
(continued next post)
The following sentence was a conclusion presented in my post #1337: [FONT="]It is not an interpretation for it is part of the instance at the outset.[/FONT][FONT="] That is the very conditional conclusion you premise in your post above but that prior post must not have been very convincing so let me offer some additional thoughts. My position all along has been not to weigh interpretation too heavily because the paradigm shift in ones being and in perspective is inherent in the instance. Unfortunately, search for words and concepts to explain the Instance has not been totally successful. Because of the nondual aspect, it may not be possible to put into words. If you or anyone is interested in more exacting explanation someone like Ken Wilber seems so much more adept at it than most of us. Anyway, as always please consider any use of words, concepts, symbols, metaphors, similes, etc. to be pointers but not the reality itself.
Perhaps we can use two types of experiences that have been studied by science to point to the nature of realizations that can have the 'Result' inherent in the experience; although they differ from the 'Mystic Realization.'
The 'Eureka moment' in science is sometimes called the Aha! experience and in common language might be thought of as 'when the answer to a problem seems to pop out of thin air.' Coined first by Archimedes, it might be considered a 'flash of insight' that gives immediate knowledge of a discovery or solution to a problem. It feels 'very different in nature than when an answer gradually dawns.' There is no interpretation involved because the 'experience is the provision of the 'answer,' it is the realization. Conceptualization and thought are applied subsequently around this original insight. In studying this 'moment' scientists have created problems that can reproduce moments of insight and determined through magnetic resonance imaging that there is a striking increase in activity in the right side of the brain in an area called the right hemisphere anterior superior temporal gyrus
. Perhaps the neurotheology that Themadhair suggests will tell us more about the Mystic Experience but most consider it impossible to predict when, or if, it will occur.'Intuition' has been said to be a knowing, a sensing that is beyond the conscious. It, too, has been described as a knowing that appears as flashes of insight or a keen and quick insight. One dictionary defines intuition as 'direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.' Tuition has been said to be the apparent ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason.
[/FONT] [FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]From one view it seems that the Eureka moment and direct tuition although differing from the subject experience are akin to the Mystic Experience in that there is no interpretation involved; the experience is the realization is the result; and the occurrence is not totally within the individuals control.[/FONT]
[FONT="]This is perhaps to me one of the most interesting statements that you have made, Commoner. From one viewpoint it would be nice if attributes of the Realization were the same as those of common human experiences and therefore, that the Realization hopefully would be a more common happening. However, available information and even the limited portion presented in this thread point towards a fairly rare occurrence that is extraordinarily different from the common. It is always possible, (and now knowing you it is likely
), that my understanding of your comment is shallower than your intention but it seems that even the attributes in common with the Eureka moment and with the direct intuition set it apart from most common human experiences. Or do you call the Eureka moment and direct intuition common? [/FONT][FONT="]Let me try to put into words what is seen from my view as one of the major differences from most common human experiences. Most humans grow up to have a conventional view of the finite self and the world around them - -subject-object, space, time, substance, causality, dualistic, etc. It seems to me that most common human experiences occur within that conventional view. The potential mystic grows up to have that view too. The Mystic Experience, however, is the realization of a paradigm shift in ones view of reality to a nondual one and new sense-of-self. (As noted previously though, the conventional view is not lost nor distorted.) Some consider that God is the best term/concept to apply to the One that is realized although others prefer different terms (mentioned before) such as the Ground of Being, Consciousness-itself, or the TrueSelf. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Regards,[/FONT]
[FONT="]a..1[/FONT]
PureX
Veteran Member
It's not that difficult with most things. As most things will have some sort of natural proposed environment that can be searched. Not finding the things being searched for in their supposed natural environment is not proof that they don't exist, but it clearly is evidence that they don't exist.
We've been all through this earlier in this thread, I think.
Commoner
Headache
Yes, we've certainly disagreed with you before.
Commoner
Headache
Hi!
Well, not that I want to get into another debate over this, but I really don't think Jesus is a good example as we have no way of knowing if he was actually a historical figure - he certainly wasn't what Christianity claims him to be. If nothing else, I feel confident that you'll agree that at least certain parts of the story must have been embellished. But anyway...
Well, that's a bit of a cop out, isn't it? Either nothing is supernatural or all is supernatural? While I would agree that nothing that exists is supernatural, we certainly have concepts that are considered to be supernatural - for instance, omniscience. Now, if such a thing were actually proven to exist, it would probably (at least with time) lose its status of being supernatural. So I will restate what I've been saying, now without any fear of causing annoyance: for a phenomenon (instace, event...) to be considered special (by me) it must differ in some relevant way from other, already explained phenomena (instances, events...).
Well yes, I got that, I didn't mean to imply that the extraordinary people were extraordinary before the experience. I was trying to convey the notion that experiences that have had a transformative effect have not necessarily been recognized as anything special on their own (that is to say, the effect might be extraordinary, but the experience itself is not). So to conclude that something paranormal must have happened to the person to have undergone such a transformation is, I feel, false.
Well, not that I want to get into another debate over this, but I really don't think Jesus is a good example as we have no way of knowing if he was actually a historical figure - he certainly wasn't what Christianity claims him to be. If nothing else, I feel confident that you'll agree that at least certain parts of the story must have been embellished. But anyway...
Well, that's a bit of a cop out, isn't it? Either nothing is supernatural or all is supernatural? While I would agree that nothing that exists is supernatural, we certainly have concepts that are considered to be supernatural - for instance, omniscience. Now, if such a thing were actually proven to exist, it would probably (at least with time) lose its status of being supernatural. So I will restate what I've been saying, now without any fear of causing annoyance: for a phenomenon (instace, event...) to be considered special (by me) it must differ in some relevant way from other, already explained phenomena (instances, events...).
Well yes, I got that, I didn't mean to imply that the extraordinary people were extraordinary before the experience. I was trying to convey the notion that experiences that have had a transformative effect have not necessarily been recognized as anything special on their own (that is to say, the effect might be extraordinary, but the experience itself is not). So to conclude that something paranormal must have happened to the person to have undergone such a transformation is, I feel, false.