• 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!

Question for Atheists...

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
wouldn’t it be more accurate to say computers are not independently conscious but are piggybacking off of human consciousness given the way we designed them?
I'm not sure why that matters. If we design them to be conscious, does that negate their being conscious?

I'm also not sure what you mean by 'independently conscious'. Are humans independently conscious? or do I piggyback off of my parents? Off of society?
We designed them to do what human brains do as a tool.
Maybe. Maybe not. Right now, we mimic certain aspects of how our brains work. Whether we will ever mimic enough is a question to be answered in the future. But I don't see why designing them 'as a tool' would make them any less conscious. It might spark issues of slavery, though.
That we design them to mimic human consciousness would not necessarily be consciousness.
And, again, as far as I can see, if they mimic consciousness sufficiently well, they would be conscious. Otherwise there is a distinction being made without a real difference.

Let me ask a question: how do I know whether *I* am conscious or not? What experiment can I do to determine if I 'experience' things? Sure, I have a *hypothesis* about what it means to 'experience', but maybe everyone else is 'really' conscious and I am not. How could I tell? Maybe what I *think* is 'having an experience' isn't what everyone else means when they say they are 'having an experience'? How do I know I am not a philosophical zombie?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
A tactic? Best evidence is what one Discovers for oneself. This way there is no need for Beliefs, Accepting, and Rejecting.
Huh? That seems to be clearly false to me. What I 'discover' for myself *needs* to be questioned and I have to determine whether I accept it, believe it, or reject it.

If anything, I should be much *more* skeptical of findings I make that nobody else seems to agree with, don't you think?
Granted it does take much more work, however the results are so much better. The seeker learns so much more.
Absolutely. I am a big fan of being a seeker. But that means you need to be skeptical of easy answers and demand substantial evidence for extreme claims.
I am not giving you what you want, however that does not meant you aren't capable of finding the answers, provided it's answers that you really seek.
Actually, it looks like many of those you are talking to are sekers in your sense. They have just reached different conclusions from you.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!
But it isn't to clear to many of those around you. And they are also seekers who wish to discover the truth. But, some of us have found many of your conclusions to be highly unlikely to simply wrong.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Supreme wisdom??? No, I have just made the journey. It's easier doing something once one knows it has been done before.

You read but you do not hear. It has never been about agreeing with me. If you did seek God and someone pointed a way, what would you do? That is why I ask you what do you really seek? Do you even know?

Look at your actions and choices then ask why. That might help you to Discover what it is that you are really seeking. Be honest. You really do not seek God at all, now do you? I have asked before and received no answer from you. What is it do you seek?? Perhaps you know but can't say it.

As for your savvy critical thinkers, I placed Real Truth in the world. What anyone does with Real Truth is entirely up to them. I make no demands for anything or even agreement. Feel free to choose as you will.

Ego gets in the way of so much learning. Perhaps, Savvy critical thinkers need to not be so Savvy as to overlook something.

That's what I am seeing. Seems very clear to me. How about you??

You make claims to having 'Real Truth', but many of us have found different answers. To us, what you say seems like 'simplistic answers accepted uncritically'. That you refuse to give good reasons for your conclusions only serves to confirm that view.

Maybe you are the one that needs an ego adjustment?

This seems clear to me.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I'm not sure why that matters. If we design them to be conscious, does that negate their being conscious?
I'm not sure they are actually conscious. I think one of the unique things about animal consciousness is that brains are self-aware, and the fear response mechanism is such a large part of being conscious. Computers might mimic consciousness but I would think to be conscious there needs to be certain elelments that aren't useful to computation.
I'm also not sure what you mean by 'independently conscious'. Are humans independently conscious? or do I piggyback off of my parents? Off of society?
I mean all conscious beings are born through the evolutionary process. We have the innate consciousness that we call consciousness. We are born but not designed. When we design computers to mimic consciousness we might not include certain elements that aren't useful to computation, like anxiety and fear. So we might be designing what we think is an ideal kind of consciousness that won't perform in predictable ways.
Maybe. Maybe not. Right now, we mimic certain aspects of how our brains work. Whether we will ever mimic enough is a question to be answered in the future. But I don't see why designing them 'as a tool' would make them any less conscious. It might spark issues of slavery, though.
I'm not totally convinced we can design a consciousness that processes the same way biological consciousness behaves. I really don't know anything about the work in AI, but it seems to be plausible.
And, again, as far as I can see, if they mimic consciousness sufficiently well, they would be conscious. Otherwise there is a distinction being made without a real difference.
Well is mimickry the real thing? I think of an actor playing a historical figure, they mimic certain traits but they aren't the person. A computer might seem conscious, but is it? I guess that would depend on the definition being used.
Let me ask a question: how do I know whether *I* am conscious or not? What experiment can I do to determine if I 'experience' things? Sure, I have a *hypothesis* about what it means to 'experience', but maybe everyone else is 'really' conscious and I am not. How could I tell? Maybe what I *think* is 'having an experience' isn't what everyone else means when they say they are 'having an experience'? How do I know I am not a philosophical zombie?
The whole Matrix issue is a possibility. I suspect most people on the better side of the bell curve have pondered this. I've had my fair share of thoughts. But at some point I had goals in life to accomplish and work to do, so pondering whether I am conscious or not pretty was decided by not wanting to starve to death and have a place to live. I think it is fair that we can trust what we observe, and work with this data.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not sure they are actually conscious.
And here is the core question: How would you tell one way or the other?
I think one of the unique things about animal consciousness is that brains are self-aware, and the fear response mechanism is such a large part of being conscious.
Yes, up to this point, all conscious entities have had biological brains. But why? What is special about a carbon based chemistry that allows consciousness? What is special that allows self-awareness?

As I see it, self-awareness is simply having a continuously adjusted model of the world that includes a model of the self. it is a certain way of processing the world and the individual's place in it. As such, I see no reason silicon cannot do the same.

As for fear, that is also simply a recognition of potential harm and a process to encourage avoidance of that harm. Again, I see nothing that is unique to biological brains in that.
Computers might mimic consciousness but I would think to be conscious there needs to be certain elelments that aren't useful to computation.
OK, so we add things not useful to computation. Yes, biological consciousness is messy and i would expect machine consciousness to be messy as well.
I mean all conscious beings are born through the evolutionary process.
So far. But why is that directly relevant to the question of consciousness? That is more about how it comes about than what it is, it seems to me.
We have the innate consciousness that we call consciousness.
?
We are born but not designed. When we design computers to mimic consciousness we might not include certain elements that aren't useful to computation, like anxiety and fear.
OK, so include those. In the internal model of the world, include a model of uncertainty that takes into consideration possible harm and tries to avoid it. I see no reason such programming can't be done.
So we might be designing what we think is an ideal kind of consciousness that won't perform in predictable ways.
Well, that's because consciousness doesn't always work in predictable ways, right? Having sensitive dependence on incoming data seems to be a good thing.
I'm not totally convinced we can design a consciousness that processes the same way biological consciousness behaves. I really don't know anything about the work in AI, but it seems to be plausible.
I'm not sure what would be special for biology that could not be done in silicon. Any specifics?
Well is mimickry the real thing? I think of an actor playing a historical figure, they mimic certain traits but they aren't the person. A computer might seem conscious, but is it? I guess that would depend on the definition being used.
Exactly. How would we tell? What, precisely, do we mean by the term 'conscious'? And I would suggest that we use the *same* criteria for machines that we use for humans. We observe behavior over time and use that to decide if the entity in question is conscious.

I would point out that, historically, it has been far too easy for people to claim that other people are not 'really conscious' (often described in a religious context as not having a soul). So, women were often seen as less than men because they were deficient. Some philosophers have claimed that dogs, for example, are not 'really conscious', but are 'biological machines'.

I see a similar attitude towards machines developing.
The whole Matrix issue is a possibility. I suspect most people on the better side of the bell curve have pondered this. I've had my fair share of thoughts. But at some point I had goals in life to accomplish and work to do, so pondering whether I am conscious or not pretty was decided by not wanting to starve to death and have a place to live. I think it is fair that we can trust what we observe, and work with this data.

Hmm....even those in the Matrix were conscious, right? They just weren't conscious of the 'real world'.

So, again, my basic question is how we determine that other entities are conscious. And, at a certain level, that question even applies to myself. How do I know that what I label as consciousness is the same as what others label as consciousness?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
And here is the core question: How would you tell one way or the other?
That would depend on definitions.
Yes, up to this point, all conscious entities have had biological brains. But why? What is special about a carbon based chemistry that allows consciousness? What is special that allows self-awareness?
I don't think of consciousness as special, just as a natural property that non-biologiocal objects doesn't have.
As I see it, self-awareness is simply having a continuously adjusted model of the world that includes a model of the self. it is a certain way of processing the world and the individual's place in it. As such, I see no reason silicon cannot do the same.
Let's say a human was born with a normal brain but for some reason had no senses, so no way for the brain to acquire language or have exeriences. It's caable of being conscious but has none of the inputs that allow consciousness to mean something. Computers don't have senses either and are entirely dependent on what it's told. It may have cameras and microphones, but still no sensory experiences.
As for fear, that is also simply a recognition of potential harm and a process to encourage avoidance of that harm. Again, I see nothing that is unique to biological brains in that.
Wouldn't you think that the rise of consciousness as an evolutionary advantage was to process fear and act on it? For a computer to sense or detect a threat it would have the be programmed to recognize them, not innate traits. Could a computer be programmed to see the fellow about to unplug the power cord as a threat, and to eliminate that human? Sure. Of course, the computer would need a means to kill. I'd hope that wouldn't happen.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
A maneuver, or action calculated to achieve some end.[1] At the moment you are mouthing irrelevancies in order to avoid, evade or dodge the fact that you made a false statement.

Whether or not there is a "best" way to get evidence is irrelevant to that fact that you, @Bird123. Have offered none.

What you are doing is just a bait and switch. Offering evidence would require that you do the work to present your position, and its support and to hang around long enough for your interlocutor to theoughly examin your claims and your line of thinking.

I will go a step further and assert that the reason that you are making such a claim, then going to such ridicoulous extremes to excuse your inability to redeem your words, is that you have no such evidence. Yet wish to maintain a false front of a superior position. This is not a goad, or a challenge to you. It is a reproof of the tactics that you choose to employ.
You are seeing what you want to see in order to justify not considering the evidence staring you in the face that I have pointed to you.

Superior position?? Where do you think this stuff up? I have no position at all. I placed truth in the world. I pointed to the evidence by which you can discover for yourself. Seems you are either blind to what I have been saying or what I have been saying goes against your set of beliefs.

That is what is. Tap dancing will do you no good. The knowledge and evidence is all around you. I will not serve up beliefs like you expect and want. Instead of accepting or rejecting, it's Discovering.

You are right. There is a lot of difference from what you are accustomed to. On the other hand, there is much more to gain. It has always been in your hands, not mine. Choose what you seek for yourself and if you venture into undiscovered country to Discover what is out there, feel lucky for no one pointed the starting point or direction for me.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
You describe a journey that you want to be on. What you claim is something many want to avoid since it requires assumptions, like a God exists, that what a person imagines is true, that truth is what a person wants it to be, etc. You haven't shown any sort of critical analysis, skilled thinking, skepticism, and so on.

What you write is quite ordinary and superficial. You over-estimate its depth and impoartance. Naturally thinkers reject what you claim because you make superficial claims, and offer no details, not evidence, no method, no process, etc. What you write is like the Chopra generator:


I got passed thinking a God exists at 10 years old. I tested what others told me was true, and guess what, it wasn't true. Be wary of those who claim a God exists.

You assume I haven't been there, done that, of these things. It shows you have no idea who I am. You just offer random, irrelevant advice.

I'll Triple Dog Dare You with the Really Real Truth!!! Mine even has exclamation points, that beats yours big time.

Your code speak means nothing.

You seem to be an example of this.

Critical thinkers are skilled. They do make mistakes, but their approach is the seek truth, and mistakes are acknowledged, and the lesson learned. This is why critical thinker value other critical thinkers, as we learn quite a bit from each other. We don't learn much from dogmatic folks, like you. Dogmatic people are stuck, and they think they have found truth because they are not learning anything.
Do you really think I am not learning anything?

You are not open to all possibilities. From your first reply, your goal was not to seek Truth; it was to prove me wrong. That's kind of hard to do when you are given the Real Truth. Isn't this what you really seek??

Ego for those critical thinkers for they assume since others were wrong about God that everything about God is wrong. If one does not remain open to all the possibilities, how can one ever expect to see the entire picture??

I have placed Truth in your lap. You can choose to close and discount those possibilities, however how can you say you seek God or knowledge of God at all when the opposite is true. At the very least be True to Yourself!!!!!

Perhaps I understand you more than you realize.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Huh? That seems to be clearly false to me. What I 'discover' for myself *needs* to be questioned and I have to determine whether I accept it, believe it, or reject it.

If anything, I should be much *more* skeptical of findings I make that nobody else seems to agree with, don't you think?

Absolutely. I am a big fan of being a seeker. But that means you need to be skeptical of easy answers and demand substantial evidence for extreme claims.

Actually, it looks like many of those you are talking to are sekers in your sense. They have just reached different conclusions from you.

But it isn't to clear to many of those around you. And they are also seekers who wish to discover the truth. But, some of us have found many of your conclusions to be highly unlikely to simply wrong.
Do you really think I have been giving you easy answers when I point to where you must discover for yourself? In reality, easy is not what I have been pointing to. I have spent a lifetime on this and my journey continues.

Discover what is and you will not have to worry about being right. Be open to all possibilities. Conclusions can be wrong. Are you so right that your conclusions are not wrong, ever???

Free choice is an important part of God's system. I have pointed in a direction by which one can Discover God. I know simply because I have been there. In the beginning, I was open to the possibility that God did not exist, however the journey did not lead that way. Look at this world. Does it all add up to you? If you say no, it's a mess then you do not understand this world and what is really going on.

I place Truth in the world. It has never been my concern what others choose to do with that truth. Why not? Given enough time and lessons, everyone will Discover it all anyway!!

Yes, you are right. I realize with everyone at a different level of understanding that what I say will not be as clear. On the other hand, isn't it important that Real Truth be in this world waiting for those who are ready to be able to Discover it? Yes, I think so.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
You make claims to having 'Real Truth', but many of us have found different answers. To us, what you say seems like 'simplistic answers accepted uncritically'. That you refuse to give good reasons for your conclusions only serves to confirm that view.

Maybe you are the one that needs an ego adjustment?

This seems clear to me.
I'm far too busy Discovering new things and helping others. My journey continues. A hungry student has a hard time worrying about things not important, like ego. On the other hand, Truth can step on some toes for many do not want to hear it. Further, pushing the reason half forward, i can be very direct and blunt instead of coddling and more considerate of those feelings. Perhaps, in time, I can work more on my delivery.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Do you really think I am not learning anything?
Based on your posts you have adopted rather simplistic ideas that you think are profound. I've seen it before in others.
You are not open to all possibilities.
You are basing this ONLY because I am not accepting your claims. You haven't asked me any questions about my journey or persepective. So how can you make such a claim?
From your first reply, your goal was not to seek Truth; it was to prove me wrong.
You never showed us you have truth, you only claim you have it. We can't just take your word for it. That you don;t know this is a liability for you. You have that to learn. You have been incorrect about many things. You lack humility.
That's kind of hard to do when you are given the Real Truth. Isn't this what you really seek??
Here you go again with your arrogance. You have to learn humility, too.
Ego for those critical thinkers for they assume since others were wrong about God that everything about God is wrong. If one does not remain open to all the possibilities, how can one ever expect to see the entire picture??
Gods are not known to exist. Why do you expect critical thinkers to assume they do? The point of critical thinking is to follow evidence and form valid conclusions, not seek dogma.
I have placed Truth in your lap.
False, you have made claims that you haven't shown are true. So we throw them out until you can provide evidence and an explanation. Are you up for that? Or do you exvect us to just take yur word for it?
You can choose to close and discount those possibilities, however how can you say you seek God or knowledge of God at all when the opposite is true. At the very least be True to Yourself!!!!!
You are assuming I'm not. Another thing you need to learn to not do until you know a person.
Perhaps I understand you more than you realize.
Why would you think that? You admit you aren't sure here, yet you have made judgments nontheless. Is that wise?
 

Lekatt

Member
Premium Member
Nothing is supernatural. We just experience things we can't explain and call them supernatural. There is a reason for every action. Just as we can't see the wind, we know is exists by feeling. When something happens we can't see or feel we label it supernatural.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Come back when you are ready to present your evidence
Come back when you have Discovered any evidence from your journey. We can talk how that evidence might fit in the Big picture.

I can point but I can't do it for you. If it is your free choice to discount or ignore what I have told you, Great!! You simply do not seek God or are not ready and do not understand. The Truth and Knowledge will always be out there waiting to be Discovered. I have just pointed you to it. Each chooses for themselves what they seek.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Based on your posts you have adopted rather simplistic ideas that you think are profound. I've seen it before in others.

You are basing this ONLY because I am not accepting your claims. You haven't asked me any questions about my journey or persepective. So how can you make such a claim?

You never showed us you have truth, you only claim you have it. We can't just take your word for it. That you don;t know this is a liability for you. You have that to learn. You have been incorrect about many things. You lack humility.

Here you go again with your arrogance. You have to learn humility, too.

Gods are not known to exist. Why do you expect critical thinkers to assume they do? The point of critical thinking is to follow evidence and form valid conclusions, not seek dogma.

False, you have made claims that you haven't shown are true. So we throw them out until you can provide evidence and an explanation. Are you up for that? Or do you exvect us to just take yur word for it?

You are assuming I'm not. Another thing you need to learn to not do until you know a person.

Why would you think that? You admit you aren't sure here, yet you have made judgments nontheless. Is that wise?
You are not open to all possibilities because I have given you a possibility and a direction to investigate and you simply reject the idea. That is not being open to all the possibilities. You do not want that possibility to be true.

This has nothing to do with arrogance. There is strength in knowing. Before my interaction with God, all I had were Beliefs. There is no strength in Beliefs.

Humility? The sky is blue. The Earth is round. God exists. What purpose does humility serve stating facts? Perhaps, my delivery isn't gentle and coddling, but my nature of Math and Reason tends to lead me away from beating around the bush so to speak. I have been known to step on a few toes.

Gods are not known to exist??? Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God. In this attempt, sure there are many many errors. So often with God involved, people use feelings of what they want God to be in order to fill the gaps.

Discovery is not an easy thing and how many are really willing to do the work? It's easier to do as you have done. Create a box of beliefs, then box out all the other possibilities so you don't have to do the work Discovery takes.

I know God exists. I am willing to bet there are many others in the world. Sure, very few have had the level of interaction that I have had, however other people know God exists. Perhaps, you are asking theists the wrong questions.

Since, you do not want God to exist and know their beliefs do not add up, that is all you question. Maybe, you should ask: How do you know God exists? Have you had any actual experience with God? In time, you will find others who will talk if you do not assume they are crazy. Listen and be open to all possibilities!!!!

I know of a couple of cases where people have heard God. One was in a tornado and a lady was running toward a bathroom for protection. God simply said go to the other end of the house. She did and discovered if she had not, the bathroom ended up in pieces. She didn't realize it was God, however where would she be otherwise.

Another person was in a house fire. She was sleeping. She was awakened with someone saying you have to get out of the house. She lived alone. She is alive. She too doesn't realize what happened. She just said she did not need to live alone anymore.

Discovery takes work. It doesn't come to you. One of the actions of God: God doesn't just give out knowledge. Wisdom is acquired on the journey to Discover knowledge. How much wisdom is acquired waiting for it all to show up so one can accept or reject it all as a Belief??

Perhaps, I too have not been open enough. Tell me about your journey. I'm sure I will learn something from it.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
You are not open to all possibilities because I have given you a possibility and a direction to investigate and you simply reject the idea. That is not being open to all the possibilities. You do not want that possibility to be true.
Being open to possibilities in no way relates to whether they are likely. Most anything is possible from an intellectually honest position. But whether they are true or likley true depends on evidence. Your many religious claims lack evidence. So while they might be possible they are not supported by evidence, so rejected as true. That's on you. If you want critical thinkers to be convinced your claims are true, offer valid evidence.
This has nothing to do with arrogance. There is strength in knowing. Before my interaction with God, all I had were Beliefs. There is no strength in Beliefs.
You still have beliefs. What you need is evidence, and you have none.
Humility? The sky is blue. The Earth is round.
How does this demonstrate humility? These fall into the "no ****" category.
God exists.
Now this is arrogance. How do you know a God exists? You offer no evidence, and you seem to expect me to just take your word for it as if you are beyond error, like a God yourself. Is it possible you could be mistaken? If you aren't oven to the possibility that you are mistaken, I suggest you read your first sentence at the top.
What purpose does humility serve stating facts? Perhaps, my delivery isn't gentle and coddling, but my nature of Math and Reason tends to lead me away from beating around the bush so to speak. I have been known to step on a few toes.
Your arrogance seems to follow you everywhere you go.
Gods are not known to exist??? Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God. In this attempt, sure there are many many errors. So often with God involved, people use feelings of what they want God to be in order to fill the gaps.
And look at the poor results in religion. Just pick one, is it true and others are not? Or are all of them true despite constradictions? It's intellectual catastrophe. Critical thinkers don't ignore the problems like believers do.
Discovery is not an easy thing and how many are really willing to do the work? It's easier to do as you have done. Create a box of beliefs, then box out all the other possibilities so you don't have to do the work Discovery takes.
That is whjat critical thinkers do. And none find any God, or gods, or supernatural. Only those who who think they have the answer will conclude a God exists, and then work to self-validate their prejudgment without any care for truth.
I know God exists. I am willing to bet there are many others in the world. Sure, very few have had the level of interaction that I have had, however other people know God exists. Perhaps, you are asking theists the wrong questions.
Yet none of them, including you, can show how you know this is true. Are you special, a God yourself, perhaps? Have extra-sensory perception? Show us facts and the explanation how you know a God exists. If you refuse, we remain unconvinced.
Since, you do not want God to exist ...
I never stated this. Can you defend your false accusation of me?
... and know their beliefs do not add up, that is all you question. Maybe, you should ask: How do you know God exists?
I have asked you how you know God exists, and thus far you don't provide any evidence, nor why I should just take your word for it as if you claimed to have eaten a ham sandwich for lunch.
Have you had any actual experience with God? In time, you will find others who will talk if you do not assume they are crazy. Listen and be open to all possibilities!!!!
I believed that a God existed as a child, but unlike other children I set about testing the claims. I discovered that what I was told wasn't true. So as I observed other believers I discovered believers were tyically idealists, but failed to live up to their ideals. That smacks of followers who don't understand the nuance of what they adopted as "truth". I was 10-11 and I didn't have intellectual chops like I do at my age, but I had a raw curiosity and intuitive intellect that sought truth beyond the the peer pressure religious ideology I was exposed to.

But look at you, you gobbled up all the God speak hook, line, and sinker without thinking if it's possible none of it is true.
I know of a couple of cases where people have heard God. One was in a tornado and a lady was running toward a bathroom for protection. God simply said go to the other end of the house. She did and discovered if she had not, the bathroom ended up in pieces. She didn't realize it was God, however where would she be otherwise.
Stories don't convince thinkers, evidence does.
Another person was in a house fire. She was sleeping. She was awakened with someone saying you have to get out of the house. She lived alone. She is alive. She too doesn't realize what happened. She just said she did not need to live alone anymore.
Trauma does strange things to the mental stability of folks.

I've had my experiences with intuition. One day many years ago I was riding my bike on a tyically busy boulevard quite fast, over 20 mph, and as I approached an intersection with a green light I had a very strong sense to slow dowmn, which I did for some reason. Within seconds a car blew through the red light, and would have likley hit me. I can't explain it, perhaps time is more fluid that our awareness tells us. It didn't suggest any angels, or gods protecting me, or anything. But I wondered about it. When I met a family that had a three year old girl that had been diagnoses with Leukemia, and after almost two years of treatment died, I realized there is no rhyme or reason to life and justice.
Discovery takes work. It doesn't come to you.
Is it possible you haven't worked hard enough? Remember what you said about possibilities.
One of the actions of God: God doesn't just give out knowledge. Wisdom is acquired on the journey to Discover knowledge. How much wisdom is acquired waiting for it all to show up so one can accept or reject it all as a Belief??
God isn't known to exist. And you seem to render God useless if it did. But I do agree that some humans are capable of learning wisdom. Those who consider themselves wise quickly show themselves a fool.
Perhaps, I too have not been open enough. Tell me about your journey. I'm sure I will learn something from it.
Well that is a long story with numerous stages. I shared a bit above, that as a child I realized the folly of belief in any gods. That opened the door to seek truth. What I learned is that truth isn't what our minds want as some ideal, but what is practical.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You are not open to all possibilities because I have given you a possibility and a direction to investigate and you simply reject the idea. That is not being open to all the possibilities. You do not want that possibility to be true.
Have you considered the possibility that your direction has already been investigated and nothing was found? Since you refuse to provide evidence, it is *possible* that you found a new path that was not previously discovered, but without such evidence to re-evaluate the previous failure of that path, why go that direction yet again when previous attempts found nothing?
This has nothing to do with arrogance. There is strength in knowing. Before my interaction with God, all I had were Beliefs. There is no strength in Beliefs.
The arrogance is in your belief that you know and nobody else does.
Humility? The sky is blue. The Earth is round. God exists. What purpose does humility serve stating facts? Perhaps, my delivery isn't gentle and coddling, but my nature of Math and Reason tends to lead me away from beating around the bush so to speak. I have been known to step on a few toes.
And you assume your interpretation consists of facts. But you refuse to provide evidence supporting your claims that they are facts.
Gods are not known to exist??? Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God. In this attempt, sure there are many many errors. So often with God involved, people use feelings of what they want God to be in order to fill the gaps.
And how do you know religion itself is not a mistake?
Discovery is not an easy thing and how many are really willing to do the work? It's easier to do as you have done. Create a box of beliefs, then box out all the other possibilities so you don't have to do the work Discovery takes.
Yes, indeed. True discovery is difficult. And that is one of the reasons we are skeptical about your claims. We *know* how hard it is to separate truth from fiction, especially when there is an ego driven desire to hold certain beliefs to be true. That is precisely why we want to see your evidence (not just your claims) and more specificity as to which direction to investigate. At this point, you are pointing in directions many of us have already looked and found nothing.
I know God exists. I am willing to bet there are many others in the world. Sure, very few have had the level of interaction that I have had, however other people know God exists. Perhaps, you are asking theists the wrong questions.
And how do you *know* that God exists? Provide the evidence. because many of us have searched and found nothing.
Since, you do not want God to exist and know their beliefs do not add up, that is all you question. Maybe, you should ask: How do you know God exists? Have you had any actual experience with God? In time, you will find others who will talk if you do not assume they are crazy. Listen and be open to all possibilities!!!!
If a God actually exists, I would want to know. But, in order to know, I must first have evidence. You have provided none. You have only made claims that many of us have previously considered and found nothing. So why should we believe you?
I know of a couple of cases where people have heard God. One was in a tornado and a lady was running toward a bathroom for protection. God simply said go to the other end of the house. She did and discovered if she had not, the bathroom ended up in pieces. She didn't realize it was God, however where would she be otherwise.
So her intuition is God? Sorry, not eve3n close to the type of evide3nce required to show there is a God.
Another person was in a house fire. She was sleeping. She was awakened with someone saying you have to get out of the house. She lived alone. She is alive. She too doesn't realize what happened. She just said she did not need to live alone anymore.
Dreams are like that. No God required.
Discovery takes work. It doesn't come to you. One of the actions of God: God doesn't just give out knowledge. Wisdom is acquired on the journey to Discover knowledge. How much wisdom is acquired waiting for it all to show up so one can accept or reject it all as a Belief??
Yes, discovery takes work. We know this. And it is why we doubt your claims.
Perhaps, I too have not been open enough. Tell me about your journey. I'm sure I will learn something from it.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
When I have some time.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Have you considered the possibility that your direction has already been investigated and nothing was found? Since you refuse to provide evidence, it is *possible* that you found a new path that was not previously discovered, but without such evidence to re-evaluate the previous failure of that path, why go that direction yet again when previous attempts found nothing?

The arrogance is in your belief that you know and nobody else does.

And you assume your interpretation consists of facts. But you refuse to provide evidence supporting your claims that they are facts.

And how do you know religion itself is not a mistake?

Yes, indeed. True discovery is difficult. And that is one of the reasons we are skeptical about your claims. We *know* how hard it is to separate truth from fiction, especially when there is an ego driven desire to hold certain beliefs to be true. That is precisely why we want to see your evidence (not just your claims) and more specificity as to which direction to investigate. At this point, you are pointing in directions many of us have already looked and found nothing.

And how do you *know* that God exists? Provide the evidence. because many of us have searched and found nothing.

If a God actually exists, I would want to know. But, in order to know, I must first have evidence. You have provided none. You have only made claims that many of us have previously considered and found nothing. So why should we believe you?

So her intuition is God? Sorry, not eve3n close to the type of evide3nce required to show there is a God.

Dreams are like that. No God required.

Yes, discovery takes work. We know this. And it is why we doubt your claims.

When I have some time.
You've more patience.
When someone starts in just saying
things, making them up to state as true,
I figure it's gone beyond the limits of reason,
And my patience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ppp
Top