Who Said the Bible is True?

[Cephus]

Have you ever been in love? Prove it.

I don't have to prove it, but it is certainly possible to do using an MRI.

 

[Cephus]

Demonstrate mystical experience? Very well, you demonstrate love first. Explain the process, explain the experiment to demonstrate love, or mysticism. What would qualify as evidence to you?

Done in another post. Your turn. And I already gave criteria, demonstrable, objective evidence that can be tested and defined objectively. Let me know when you're going to provide this evidence.

What are your terms that you dismiss the content of other's experiences? Mystical = Pink Bunny Rabbits and Flying Monkeys? Well if that's your definition, you win. But no mystic I know claims such things are real.

You have no means of knowing they are real, you're just making assertions without evidence. You can't define what the "mystical" is, you can't explain how you came to a "knowledge" about the mystical, how you know that anything mystical is going on, etc. At best, you can say that something you don't understand happened. You can't rationally attribute it to the mystical unless you can actually demonstrate that the mystical exists and had a demonstrably causal relationship with the experience. You're doing the exact same thing that the religious do, you're making a massive leap of illogic to make yourself happy. You describe how you came to the conclusion that the mystical was actually real, in precise detail and I'll be happy to point out where you went off the rational rails.

No, it's a mystical experience that has a physiological correlate, like love does. Your brain is not the experience of love. The experience is. It's really no more complex than simply defining categories of experience, such as a feeling of peace, of love, or a connection with all life as your own. Do you have no experiences of this yourself? Do you think others who do are somehow incorrect in saying they are, because you don't?

But love is a wholly electrochemical reaction, it happens because of the brain chemistry in your head. Whether you like that fact or not has no bearing whatsoever on it's truth. All you are doing is putting your emotional comfort first and insisting that the world has to conform to your feelings. You and your feelings are completely and totally irrelevant to reality. Reality exists entirely separate from your feelings about it.

Here, allow me to quote a little Einstein for you:

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

There's your definition of mystical experience. To those who are as Einstein said, "Good as dead," I'm sure they would scoff at those who make claims of standing in "rapt awe", as woo woo. We always hate what we fear, and we fear what is unknown to us. So much for your bloody rationality.

Einstein didn't believe in the mystical, sorry, and even if he did, that has no bearing on reality. Appeals to authority mean nothing. Try again.

 

[Skwim]

@Skwim If you say so.....no one is standing over anyone with a big stick forcing them to believe.

Well, some do. Those who preach hell fire and damnation, forcing them into acceptance with psychological terror. .

We will all know the truth one day, won't we?

Perhaps. If there's absolutely nothing after death then there won't be any knowing at all.

Are you a gambler? You must be confident of your odds.....

Is this what god wants, someone who says he believes, not because he truly accepts Christ, or whatever, but because he's been too frightened to say no? Or is god blind to lip service? "I don't really care if you revere me or not. Just say you do."

 

[Faybull]

Well, some do. Those who preach hell fire and damnation, forcing them into acceptance with psychological terror. .

Perhaps. If there's absolutely nothing after death then there won't be any knowing at all.


Is this what god wants, someone who says he believes, not because he truly accepts Christ, or whatever, but because he's been too frightened to say no? Or is god blind to lip service? "I don't really care if you revere me or not. Just say you do."

psych terror....me likes that. like telling a 4 year old to grab the hammer while someone holds the nail.

And here I thought shame was hell. Humpppf.

 

[JayJayDee]

Well, some do. Those who preach hell fire and damnation, forcing them into acceptance with psychological terror.

There is no hellfire and damnation. The leaders in Christendom invented those places to use such terror as a battering ram in coercing people into the church and keeping them under control. They then deliberately kept the people in ignorance to further their own agenda.

God does not accept people who are terrified of him....he wants people to love him, but how can they when he has been portrayed as a fiendish monster?

f there's absolutely nothing after death then there won't be any knowing at all.

And that is exactly what the Bible teaches. Everlasting death is the opposite of everlasting life.....it always was.

God only ever placed "life and death" before his people....there was never a choice between "heaven and hell". (Deut 30:19)

Those not granted life will receive the death penalty. There is no higher penalty under God's law.
There is no immortal part of man that lives on after death. So the common grave is the "hell" to which we all go. (Eccl 9:5, 10) There is no conscious existence in that place so hence, no torment or suffering.

Both "the righteous and the unrighteous" will be given opportunity to live again by means of a resurrection (John 5:28, 29) whilst the wicked will remain in death for all eternity....as if they never existed.

This is what the Bible teaches......Christendom screwed that up...big time!

When you make souls live forever, you have to invent places for them to go.

Is this what god wants, someone who says he believes, not because he truly accepts Christ, or whatever, but because he's been too frightened to say no? Or is god blind to lip service? "I don't really care if you revere me or not. Just say you do."

God hates mindless performance. He always has. If you do not genuinely love God with all your heart, no amount of performance will earn brownie points with him. You must get to know him.....not the god that Christendom has created, but the true God who was the Father of Jesus Christ.
If you read about Jesus; his teachings, actions and attitudes, you can see what his Father is like because he said he was the exact representation of his Father's personality in human form. (Heb 1:1-3)

Imagining a Father who is as gentle and compassionate as Jesus was, will give him a whole new image from the one created by the churches. Which is odd because the churches teach that Jesus is God...go figure!

Christendom is the "weeds" of Jesus parable....sown by another god. (2 Cor 4:3, 4)

 

[Twilight Hue]

My experience is not biological--my experience of EVERYTHING is not biological. My experience is phenomenological and has to be understood with the tools of phenomenology (the science of experience). I suppose you are going to say "love" is biological too. Well, my thoughts *produce* the biological response to love, not the other way around. Think about it. You can't reduce the experience of love to biology,

Of course it's biology. What do you think is responsible for thoughts themselves that gives rise to the notion of love? Biology.


Love is an induced reaction brought about by our senses by which we label the culmination of sensations. Certainly not a producer of biological nuances.

 

[Skwim]

There is no hellfire and damnation. The leaders in Christendom invented those places to use such terror as a battering ram in coercing people into the church and keeping them under control. They then deliberately kept the people in ignorance to further their own agenda.

You may not believe there are such things, but others do.

God does not accept people who are terrified of him....he wants people to love him, but how can they when he has been portrayed as a fiendish monster?

Even if they're good people who have been duped into fearing him?

God hates mindless performance. He always has. If you do not genuinely love God with all your heart, no amount of performance will earn brownie points with him. You must get to know him.....not the god that Christendom has created, but the true God who was the Father of Jesus Christ.

So what is the point of your remark, "Are you a gambler? You must be confident of your odds....."?

 

[JayJayDee]

You may not believe there are such things, but others do.

It is up to each one of us to find the truth. The Bible says it is like "hidden treasure".....how much would you dig if you knew a priceless treasure was there in your own backyard? Most just want to pick up what is lying around on the surface, but the real valuable stuff is buried....but not by God.

We each have it within ourselves to be what God requires us to be in order to qualify for what he is offering every one of us.
As the Creator, God has provided a guidebook that transcends time to speak with us today about issues of human nature that have never changed.

He has the right to requires certain behaviors from his children, just we we have the right to require certain behaviors from our own children. Rebels in the house just disrupt the peace of the entire household....so like any good parent who cares about the influence such a rebel will have on the other member of his family, he may lay down some ground rules. "If you want to live under my roof, you abide by my rules....if you do not wish to abide by those rules...there is the door."

A loving parent will never slam or lock that door. The child must feel free to return home at any time but on the parents' terms. It is not the child that is rejected, but the bahaviors chosen by them. If they cannot separate themselves from those behaviors, then they can choose to live elsewhere and abide by their own rules.

This is how God treats us as his children. In terms of longevity, our father will always view us as "infants" with something to learn every day of our lives.

Just because the churches have recreated God in their own image, doesn't make what they teach, true.
We are all capable of finding the truth, but some will just accept what they are spoon fed regardless of whether it makes a lick of sense or not. We have to care enough to do our own investigations about whether someone is telling the truth or not. Digging requires effort....the bigger the effort, the more the reward.

Even if they're good people who have been duped into fearing him?

No one is duped who doesn't wish to be.
Paul made this clear....

2 Thess 2:9-12...."But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness."

Those who want to believe the lies...will do so, because they love them. They have no love for the truth. If the truth is presented to them, they reject it in favor of what "they" want to believe. They do not view these things as "unrighteous" even though God does. That means that he will allow them to be deluded because it is in keeping with the desires of their own heart.

God doesn't condemn us....we condemn ourselves by the exercise of our own free will.

So what is the point of your remark, "Are you a gambler? You must be confident of your odds....."?

That was meant to convey the idea that because people have no fear of disobeying the Creator and disparaging the standards and rules conveyed by his word, that there is a real risk of losing the gift of life. It is a gamble to dismiss the Creator and his commands just because we see rotten fruit in Christendom. If you understand that Christendom is a fractured and disjointed excuse for Christianity, then you will see that God has no intention of saving anyone who clings to her or any other belief system that eliminates him or misrepresents him. (Rev 18:4, 5; Matt 7:21-23)

Some people are so smug about their atheism that they do not think twice about bad mouthing God and his word. From what they observe according to their limited understanding, there is no God......the odds look pretty good from their perspective. But unbelief does not make God go away. He will just never reveal himself to anyone who thinks they know better. They will remain in their delusion because they have chosen it as their truth. Like the people of Noah's day, they will find out the hard way that sometimes it is better to listen to that lone voice than to run with the mob and lose everything. (Matt 24:36-39)

If you gave someone a precious gift and they threw it in the dirt and trampled it underfoot, would you not take it back and clean it up and give it to someone more deserving? We are told 'not to cast our pearls before swine' simply because a pig places no value on a pearl......they prefer swill. (Recycled garbage)

What is valuable to each of us? We demonstrate that by what we choose as our truth.

 

[Orbit]

Of course it's biology. What do you think is responsible for thoughts themselves that gives rise to the notion of love? Biology.


Love is an induced reaction brought about by our senses by which we label the culmination of sensations. Certainly not a producer of biological nuances.

My thoughts produce biology. It's a feedback loop. I am not a slave to my brain chemistry under normal circumstances. You can't reduce a feeling to biology. There are biological correlates to feeling, but they are not the feeling itself, just correlates.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There are rational evidences that the Bible exists historically. That's a given. The chain of events (just as the creation of the United Sates and the succession of events through presidential rules) are the result of what we have today. If there were no evidence of the Bible, then we'd have to conclude that the Jews, Romans, Italians, and so forth just "made up" the wars they have with each other. Basically, all the inquisition and all that mess would be fabricated.

So, the events definitely existed. If you're talking about the miracles, and resurrection, and things like that, there is no rational evidence. All of it is based on synchronicity, and what Skwim said:

You do know, don't you, that the various writings were chosen for inclusion because they agreed with one another, and those that didn't agree were rejected. It amounted to cherry picking. Moreover, various translations were retouched so as to conform to the theology of the sponsoring agency.

Rational to a believer is a personal experience and inpersonalization of biblical wordings that correlate to their own experience that some how, even if they do not relate whatsoever, to a believer, they are in perfect harmony.

And why should we believe them? The evidence?

The Focus on the Family web site tried this tact but failed miserably. It asked "How Do We Know the Bible Is True?" and then went on to answer by essentially saying "because Christians believe it is." Nice, but hardly convincing. Nothing becomes true simply because we believe it is. Of course other characteristics were cited that supposedly confirms the Bible's truth: "it corresponds to reality," it's "internally consistent," and it's "coherent." But as we all know, this can be equally true of a whole lot of BS.

Then they presented a basket full of specious evidence such as, "copies show that the Bible has been transmitted accurately," "the Christian worldview is robust, reasonable and grounded in history," and "making a case for the truth of the resurrection also makes a case for the truth claims of Jesus and, in turn, the reliability and truth of the Bible." and what makes the case for the truth of the resurrection? They say it's Paul's admission that "if the resurrection did not happen, Christian faith "is futile; you are still in your sins."

But perhaps Focus on the Family is simply inept in making a case for the truth of the Bible, and really botched the job. So I ask:,

What rational evidence do you have that the Bible is true?
(No need to bother yourself with things such as the Flood or Jonah in the "big fish." We'll just accept them as tall tails)

 

[Skwim]

No one is duped who doesn't wish to be.

Platitudes like this are a simplistic crock of ****. It's like saying, no one is robbed who doesn't want to be, or no one gets poor grades who doesn't want to. OR no one is shorter than six feet tall who doesn't wish to be. Get the idea? It's stupid!

That was meant to convey the idea that because people have no fear of disobeying the Creator and disparaging the standards and rules conveyed by his word, that there is a real risk of losing the gift of life. It is a gamble to dismiss the Creator and his commands just because we see rotten fruit in Christendom.

And just what should people do who remain unconvinced that disobeying your god and disparaging the standards and rules conveyed by his word is a risk? Pretend to anyway? Believe it or not, not everyone buys the Christian sales pitch. And whose fault is that? Mine because I find insurmountable cracks and faults in your religion, or yours for not overcoming my fault finding? I'm sure you don't find turning Buddhist or Hindu as appealing as staying Christian, and whose fault is that? Yours or those trying to sell these beliefs? And what if I told you that by not adopting Hinduism you will die and suffer a never ending cycle of rebirths without ever achieving ‘Samsara’, true liberation? Are you ready to pretend to be a good Hindu just to avoid this peril? If not, why not? As I said, not everyone buys the Christian sales pitch, and for the same reasons you're not buying the Hindu sales pitch. WE DON'T FIND IT REASONABLE. So, when you say things like "some people are so smug about their atheism that they do not think twice about bad mouthing God and his word." it comes across as unctuous arrogance, abetted by incredible naivete. A lot of people simply don't share your need for the comfort and security of Christianity, and aren't about to sacrifice their principles and self-worth for it. Why should they? Certainly not because of veiled Christian scare tactics like. "Are you a gambler? You must be confident of your odds....." You're going to have to do a lot better than this to win converts. At least the thinking ones.

 

[JayJayDee]

Platitudes like this are a simplistic crock of ****. It's like saying, no one is robbed who doesn't want to be, or no one gets poor grades who doesn't want to. OR no one is shorter than six feet tall who doesn't wish to be. Get the idea? It's stupid!

Belief is what we choose. I can't choose to be smarter or taller but I can choose what I believe. Why get angry?
I was merely repeating what an apostle wrote. Some people choose their beliefs like they were strolling down the isles of a spiritual supermarket. Others treat God as if he was some kind of celestial waiter, ready for some to snap their fingers and ask him to do things for them. Others place him in the realms of mythology because he dwells in a place that they cannot see. There are forces here on earth that we cannot see, but we know they exist because what they do is visible.

Our view of God is shaped from childhood. We are moulded by others for the most part and sometimes its hard to shake that image.
But what if God is nothing like we imagine him to be. Would you want to know?
Would you like people to form an opinion about you from others who have only misrepresented you and what you said...and what you stand for?

How do you see God? (If you see him at all) Who or what gave you that view of him?

Why do any of us choose to believe anything?

No one can really answer that. The truth is, when we hear something that resonates with is, we are drawn to it. Who can know why? It just strikes a chord. There is a spiritual part of us that lives if we feed it. If we fail to feed it, it withers and dies.

But unfortunately, not all spirituality is beneficial...some of it is downright toxic. But we still can investigate and make decisions about it.
We have intellect enough to discern when something is not ringing true for us.

Often it is a matter of "who" we believe rather than "what". There are always people wanting others to follow their spiritual path with promises of enlightenment, miracles or paradise. It leads to skepticism when they do not deliver.

I believe that we are designed to be spiritual beings and when we cut off that spirituality, we fail to feel whole. A secular and materialistic life is an empty one.
We need more....the problem appears to be where to find it.

If you are lost and someone offers you a compass instead of a GPS, would you be disappointed? That outdated and outmoded compass was OK for explorers to use successfully for a very long time....but how many people carry one today?

Does that mean that an outdated compass couldn't get you out of trouble and guide you in the right direction?

I see the Bible as a compass....not religion, but the Bible itself. Have you ever allowed the Bible to speak for itself?

 

[JayJayDee]

And just what should people do who remain unconvinced that disobeying your god and disparaging the standards and rules conveyed by his word is a risk? Pretend to anyway? Believe it or not, not everyone buys the Christian sales pitch.

There is an assurance given by Jesus in the scriptures (for what its worth)....."No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him". (John 6:44)

This means that we as individuals get an invitation from God himself if we present ourselves as ones who would make good citizens of his coming kingdom. What qualities is God looking for in those he will "draw" to his Son and lead us to life in that kingdom that he assures us is waiting for us.

Don't you find it strange that we collectively desire the life God is offering?....a life that is peaceful and happy with no conflicts among mankind that would lead to hatred or war. I believe that is how we started out.....and that is where we will end up. Not in heaven but right here on earth where God put us on the first place.

What kind of citizen is God looking for so that he might draw them to his one truth?

Would he want rebels? Lawbreakers? Those who can't follow instructions? Those who are persistently disobedient? Indecisive ones? Does he want selfish people or those who only want things their own way? What do you think? If you were building a city and you could choose your citizens, what kind of people would you choose to live there?

Why would God be any different? Aren't we telling him what kind of people we are every day?

 

[JayJayDee]

A lot of people simply don't share your need for the comfort and security of Christianity, and aren't about to sacrifice their principles and self-worth for it. Why should they? Certainly not because of veiled Christian scare tactics like. "Are you a gambler? You must be confident of your odds....." You're going to have to do a lot better than this to win converts. At least the thinking ones.

It's not my job to "win converts". All I am is a messenger. One of many. You are free to ignore my message if you like, God forces himself on no one. You either want what God is offering on his terms or you don't.

We all have to decide on a belief system or be happy to have no spiritual beliefs at all. We all have these choices.

Like I said, the "treasure" is buried. Do you want to dig, or are you content to stand back with your arms folded and complain that it's not lying there in front of you so you can easily pick it and insure your future? Forever is a long time. And in this life we get to choose where to spend it.

Since you identify as an agnostic.....do you really want to know? Will you give God a chance to explain himself or are you happy to accuse him on the limited evidence you have so far?

 

[Windwalker]

Done in another post. Your turn. And I already gave criteria, demonstrable, objective evidence that can be tested and defined objectively. Let me know when you're going to provide this evidence.

Help me out here. Can you provide a link to it? You mean showing an MRI? I can show you an MRI of a meditator's brain and you can see notable differences in it, proving "something" is going on. As in your MRI it is not showing "love", but merely that "something" is going on. To know what that something is, you have to have to person tell what is going on. They have to describe it. And when you see that "something" is going on in the brain of a meditator, in order to know what that "something" is, they have to describe it to you. And what they describe are mystical states of experience. So "something" is happening. That's as much proof as your MRI is to prove love.

You simply have to listen to what those who have such experiences, such as mystical states of awareness, are in fact describing and piece together a map. Or you can do it one step better, and actually follow the practices and have your own direct experiences. That will tell you a lot more than just a brain scan. Don't you think?

You have no means of knowing they are real, you're just making assertions without evidence.

Would you consider firsthand experience assertions without evidence? Of course the experiences are real. Something is going on in the brain, showing it's not just imaginary. Something is actually happening. And add to the fact, you can also do analysis of reports using scientific methods of research and map out patterns. So there is that as well. So, firsthand personal experience, along with metadata from researchers sure makes a pretty strong case the mystical experiences are not just some fiction, as much as some may with it is for whatever personal reason.

You can't define what the "mystical" is, you can't explain how you came to a "knowledge" about the mystical, how you know that anything mystical is going on, etc.

What the hell are you talking about? I have giving an high-level definition of mystical (see post #20 in this thread). Have you given yours? Everything I hear you saying displays ignorance about the area, and nothing but straw man arguments against this fictional definition in your mind. Why don't you lay it out so we quit wasting time. You have mine in post 20. Where's yours?

At best, you can say that something you don't understand happened. You can't rationally attribute it to the mystical unless you can actually demonstrate that the mystical exists and had a demonstrably causal relationship with the experience.

Once again, I think you have a funny idea of what mystical experience is. "Demonstrate that the mystical exists"?? What does that mean? Do you think it means the land of pink sky fairies? How can we have a discussion when you are working off some definition of the mystical as if it were the Land of Oz? I don't accept it as a "place" that "exists". It simply is an awareness of what exists before us in everything, except a whole lot more deep and subtle levels. If you really want to understand what mystical experience is, actually talk with someone who has such experiences and practices that sort of awareness. I don't know where you get your ideas from, but they're not even close to what we're talking about.

You're doing the exact same thing that the religious do, you're making a massive leap of illogic to make yourself happy.

Of for Christ's sake! Talk about assumptions. I live this. What I am talking about is extremely well-researched and logical. And your assumptions about my motivations is just really stupid, to be honest. It says a lot about you. You have no idea what motivates me.

You describe how you came to the conclusion that the mystical was actually real, in precise detail and I'll be happy to point out where you went off the rational rails.

Oh, so you have think you have a handle on this enough to set us straight? It would help if you demonstrated any actually understanding of what you say isn't real.

But love is a wholly electrochemical reaction, it happens because of the brain chemistry in your head.

"Wholly". You mean you have no conscious awareness of the experience? It doesn't tell you things, shape your views, your actions, your beliefs, you lived quality of life? It's "just the brain"? Why not just plug you into an iron lung then and manipulate your body with electrodes? Is that life to you?

Whether you like that fact or not has no bearing whatsoever on it's truth.

"Wholly the brain" is a religious assumption, not a scientific teaching. I think your religion lacks range.

All you are doing is putting your emotional comfort first and insisting that the world has to conform to your feelings. You and your feelings are completely and totally irrelevant to reality. Reality exists entirely separate from your feelings about it.

Blah, blah, blah.... Does this make you feel comfortable to believe this is true?

Einstein didn't believe in the mystical, sorry, and even if he did, that has no bearing on reality. Appeals to authority mean nothing. Try again.

"Believe in the mystical". What the hell is that? Einstein very much was a mystic, as well as all the founders of modern physics. I don't know anyone who has mystical insights or awareness whol would say "believe in the mystical" as if it were some "thing". It's awareness, not a "thing" you believe in.

When you bone up on this topic, then we can actually have a discussion.

 

[Muffled]

There are rational evidences that the Bible exists historically. That's a given. The chain of events (just as the creation of the United Sates and the succession of events through presidential rules) are the result of what we have today. If there were no evidence of the Bible, then we'd have to conclude that the Jews, Romans, Italians, and so forth just "made up" the wars they have with each other. Basically, all the inquisition and all that mess would be fabricated.

So, the events definitely existed. If you're talking about the miracles, and resurrection, and things like that, there is no rational evidence. All of it is based on synchronicity, and what Skwim said:



Rational to a believer is a personal experience and inpersonalization of biblical wordings that correlate to their own experience that some how, even if they do not relate whatsoever, to a believer, they are in perfect harmony.

I agree with you. I believe the Constitution of the USA is true because it has passed down to us over 200 years as a true document and I believe the same can be said of the Bible.

As for the wisdom contained in the documents, I believe they become self evident based on personal preference. For instance I prefer to not have the government dictate how I should worship God and I prefer a religion where one is able to love one's neighbor.

 

[Orbit]

I don't have to prove it, but it is certainly possible to do using an MRI.

So where in there is your experience of love?

 

[Windwalker]

So where in there is your experience of love?

Brain scans are proof that reports of love have something to back it up with. Before that of course, love was consider only to be a myth, the stuff of poets and artists and those whose heads are full of woo, making up fanciful things like pink bunny rabbits. Now science tell us it's okay to believe in it. Thank God for Science! Now I can tell my parents their love was actually real! Shout it on the mountains! We're not all nuts.

Thank you Science for showing all of us what we felt and believed all these years to in fact be true! All doubt has left us now about the myth of love. I am so lost without someone outside of me with an MRI machine to tell me I'm not delusional. What a sad reality my life is without Science! Science, it's better than God telling me what is true and false! Where is there an MRI machine in religion? It's not there!

 

[Cephus]

Help me out here. Can you provide a link to it? You mean showing an MRI? I can show you an MRI of a meditator's brain and you can see notable differences in it, proving "something" is going on. As in your MRI it is not showing "love", but merely that "something" is going on. To know what that something is, you have to have to person tell what is going on. They have to describe it. And when you see that "something" is going on in the brain of a meditator, in order to know what that "something" is, they have to describe it to you. And what they describe are mystical states of experience. So "something" is happening. That's as much proof as your MRI is to prove love.

It means that we can reliably demonstrate love occurring within the brain. You're just making an assertion that something else must be going on because on an emotional level, it would make you unhappy to think that the consciousness is just an emergent property of the physical brain. Like it or not though, that's what the evidence shows and you have zero objective evidence that anything else is going on. And no, they don't have to have the person tell what is going on, in those particular tests, they show a series of pictures to the individual who is having the MRI done and as different portions of the brain light up, they can tell things about those pictures, even if the tester has no clue beforehand what the significance is. It's a double-blind study where researchers can tell, just by looking at the MRI, how the subject feels about the pictures. If you disagree and think something else is happening, present your evidence.

You simply have to listen to what those who have such experiences, such as mystical states of awareness, are in fact describing and piece together a map. Or you can do it one step better, and actually follow the practices and have your own direct experiences. That will tell you a lot more than just a brain scan. Don't you think?

None of which actually shows these things exist. That's like saying you can prove the existence of pink elephants by talking to drunks.

Would you consider firsthand experience assertions without evidence? Of course the experiences are real. Something is going on in the brain, showing it's not just imaginary. Something is actually happening. And add to the fact, you can also do analysis of reports using scientific methods of research and map out patterns. So there is that as well. So, firsthand personal experience, along with metadata from researchers sure makes a pretty strong case the mystical experiences are not just some fiction, as much as some may with it is for whatever personal reason.

Nope, I wouldn't, it's well known that eyewitness accounts are notoriously faulty. There is indeed something going on, but there's no reason to think that it's anything beyond brain chemistry. We know something is happening, you assert that it's something beyond what we see, where is your objective evidence for that?

What the hell are you talking about? I have giving an high-level definition of mystical (see post #20 in this thread). Have you given yours? Everything I hear you saying displays ignorance about the area, and nothing but straw man arguments against this fictional definition in your mind. Why don't you lay it out so we quit wasting time. You have mine in post 20. Where's yours?

I don't have one because I don't have any reason to think the mystical exists. I'm not the one making the claim. I'm asking how we can independently study this thing that you claim exists. All you've done is essentially say "I just have a feeling". That's not sufficient.

Once again, I think you have a funny idea of what mystical experience is. "Demonstrate that the mystical exists"?? What does that mean? Do you think it means the land of pink sky fairies? How can we have a discussion when you are working off some definition of the mystical as if it were the Land of Oz? I don't accept it as a "place" that "exists". It simply is an awareness of what exists before us in everything, except a whole lot more deep and subtle levels. If you really want to understand what mystical experience is, actually talk with someone who has such experiences and practices that sort of awareness. I don't know where you get your ideas from, but they're not even close to what we're talking about.

You don't get to just invent things out of whole cloth and pretend they exist. You have to define your terms, you have to produce a rigorous testing criteria that is objective and falsifiable. You don't get to take an unexplained experience and just declare it to be mystical, you have to show that it actually is and that means demonstrating that the mystical actually exists beyond human assertion and that it had a direct causal link with the experience itself. You have done none of this. This is all a bunch of touchy-feely emotional nonsense. All you're doing is saying "I like this idea, therefore I'm declaring it to be true." It doesn't work that way.

Of for Christ's sake! Talk about assumptions. I live this. What I am talking about is extremely well-researched and logical. And your assumptions about my motivations is just really stupid, to be honest. It says a lot about you. You have no idea what motivates me.

Nor do I care because your motivations have nothing whatsoever to do with how the world works. It's like saying you had an experience with invisible pixies. How do you know? Since you can't demonstrate that invisible pixies are real, how did you make the determination that your experience was actually with invisible pixies? Your say so is irrelevant. As I say to people around here constantly, I don't care what you say, I care what you can prove. Take an experience, go step by step through the process of determining what actually caused the experience, don't make any irrational leaps of illogic or emotional wishful thinking. You go as far as you can prove and no further. If the answer is "I don't know", that's where you stop because that is the only logical, reasonable explanation which you can reach. Whether that's emotionally satisfying or not doesn't mean a thing.

Oh, so you have think you have a handle on this enough to set us straight? It would help if you demonstrated any actually understanding of what you say isn't real.

You have yet to produce any objective evidence for this thing you claim is real. You've yet to produce a definition which is objectively quantifiable or testable. We keep going around in circles, I point out your failure to produce anything intelligible and you keep waving your arms around like you shouldn't have to put up.

"Wholly". You mean you have no conscious awareness of the experience? It doesn't tell you things, shape your views, your actions, your beliefs, you lived quality of life? It's "just the brain"? Why not just plug you into an iron lung then and manipulate your body with electrodes? Is that life to you?

Yes, it's just the brain. From every shred of evidence we have, the consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and nothing more. Everything that you experience every second of every day is nothing more than stimulus filtered through the electrochemical systems of your brain.

"Wholly the brain" is a religious assumption, not a scientific teaching. I think your religion lacks range.

It is what the evidence demonstrates. Religion requires going beyond the evidence... you know, like believing in the mystical.

Blah, blah, blah.... Does this make you feel comfortable to believe this is true?

Comfort is irrelevant.

 

[Cephus]

So where in there is your experience of love?

Right there. Your subjective experience of the electrochemical reaction in the brain is irrelevant to everyone but you.