What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

  • Thread starter Dave
  • Start date
  • #201
2,225
0
Originally posted by hypnagogue
no offense, but I don't see how what you said is relevant at all to the post of mine you quoted. :wink: I wasn't telling anyone how to think.. if anything the opposite.
Just a general statement that seemed to coincide with what your'e saying. Except that you're right, I probably could have said it without quoting you. I was just trying to reiterate that the idea of concsciousness is much more personal than what any scientific observation could describe it to be. Sorry. :smile:
 
  • #202
1,648
0
Originally posted by Zero
I would sort of disagree with you on this. I think science is the only possible way to discover all there is to know, even if some things are unknowable. If someone can show that a 'metaphysical' event exists, and can be repeated in laboratory conditions, then it becames science, even if we never quite figure out the explanation for HOW it happens.
Uhmmmm.

So quantum-mechanics and Big Bang cosmology are fields of pure metaphysics, since we can't know causes there?
 
  • #203
740
3
Originally posted by Royce
ZanTra, that absolute indisputable proof is what happened to me. I cannot and will never attempt to prove anything to you or anyone else.
The proof must come to you or you will not accept it. If and when it comes it will be internal and personel. Try to keep and open mind. I am merely speculating, questioning and presenting another view point. I am also having fun.
Ok so you're saying God came to you personally and said "hey I'm real"? Because that's what it would take for me. I don't mean any kind of abstract esoteric,internal experience. I mean something that can be verified by the 5 senses. Elsewise it's jut a dream.

I've heard the same schpiel time and time again. And those same people swore christ was coming in 2000, and that I should be prepared
*looks at watch* Still waiting..I guess no one said he was a "punction God eh?:wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #204
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,244
2
Originally posted by Zantra
Ok so you're saying God came to you personally and said "hey I'm real"? Because that's what it would take for me. I don't mean any kind of abstract esoteric,internal experience. I mean something that can be verified by the 5 senses. Elsewise it's jut a dream.
What makes your 5 senses such an authority on judging reality?
 
  • #205
Zero
Originally posted by hypnagogue
What makes your 5 senses such an authority on judging reality?
Because his 5 senses are more or less analogous to mine and yours, and anything he can see, hear, etc., he can show us, or have us listen to as well.
 
  • #206
1,481
0
But our 5 senses are known to be limited and fallable as well qs our interpetation of what our senses are showing us.

I am not predicting that Jesus or God will come back to this world anytime soon. Nor will it be a dream if he comes to you internally. You will know it and know the truth of it or what would be the point.

Strictly speaking, these phenomena are not evidence of the subjecive having a causative effect on the physical. They are only evidence that the things we experience subjectively are highly correlated with the physical events and phenomena of our body. For instance, it is said that depressed people are more susceptible to illness. Why? Is it the subjective experience that causes the susceptibility to illness, or is it that the subjective experience is indicative of a disorder in the physical organization of the brain that propogates throughout the body and winds up somehow suppressing the immune system?
This sound very much like the typical dodge that science takes when something happens that they cannot explain and will not admit that they can never explain with their physical science.

An emotional or psychololigal trauma with no physical trauma present can and does have physical effects on the body. People have become crippled ,blind, deaf, dumb for various lengths of time and recovered just as fast and mysteriously as they became effected. This is obvious and clinical evidence of the subjective effecting the physical. I am surprised that you refuse to admit this phenomina is real.

I am of a either or mind set about this topic. Either the chemical activitiy is random or it is not random.

If it is pure random with out cause, control or direction by us, our thoughts then we have no control over our thoughts and actions. This is what is meant as being robots with out will or choice. To me this is absurd.
If these chemical reactions are not random this implys and necessates control and direction. This is what thought, will, purpose, and intention does, control the direction of the reactions or nerve impulses.

It is or it isn't. I see no room for a third alternative at this time. We are either in control of our thoughts and actions or we are not. Either we are intelligent humans with free will or we are not and are controled by random chemical reactions. This makes us robots.
What possible third possiblity could there be?
 
  • #207
Zero
Originally posted by Royce

It is or it isn't. I see no room for a third alternative at this time. We are either in control of our thoughts and actions or we are not. Either we are intelligent humans with free will or we are not and are controled by random chemical reactions. This makes us robots.
What possible third possiblity could there be?
That's your fault, not ours. You continuously say 'random', we continuously explain that it is not, and you continue to say random. How is that possible? Did you forget what I posted, did you just not understand it, or is a reality-based explanation son frightening that you block it out?
 
  • #208
1,481
0
Originally posted by Zero
It isn't either/or. The third option is that the physical structure of the brain, in combination with the known laws of physics and chemistry, combine to form a framework for how thought works. Not random, but not controlled by a conscious force either. It is the same way that a river flows along the channel it exists in. It doesn't flow randomly, but there is no conscious design either.
The third option is still deterministic and not within our human control. Unless the physical structure of our brain changes as we think in response to or along with creating new thoughts there is no room for new creative thoughts because the physical structure of our brain is hardwired and the know laws of physics and chemistry cannot change.
If the structure of our brain does change with each thought then what drives this change.
Your third alternative is just a rewording of the first alternative. The result is the same.

Either the physical and chemical activity is drive by our thoughts or it drives our thoughts. Since the physical and chemical properties of our brains cannot be willfully changed then our thoughts are determined by physics and chemistry on not by our will. Thus our thoughts are determined and we are robots of physics and chemistry.

We are at the very basic, deepest level of philosophy here. We are debating or discussing consciousness and thought itself and how it may or may not come about. Right along with it and inseperable with it is freewill vs determinism. This has been debated for centuries by greater minds than you or me.

Whether the action is random or controled and directed by the physical structure of our brains and the laws of physics and chemistry, or whether the action is controlled and directed by our will and our thoughts is the basic question here. Either we are controlled or we control is the secondary issue.
 
  • #209
740
3
Originally posted by hypnagogue
What makes your 5 senses such an authority on judging reality?
Well unles you're psychic, those are the only senses nature has afforded to you:wink: Are we about to sidetrack into some discussion on everything as we know it being a dreamworld concocted by our minds to escape the true reality? Because I saw the Matrix-been there, done that. I mean I deal strictly in reality. While it's not absolutely impossible for this to be, it's about as likely as the explanation that we are all actually robots controlled by aliens and Elvis is/was thier leader...

We can only go by what our mind registers from our external sense about the surrounding world. Nothing else can be considered "real" as it is not something that can be verified through trial and error, or confirmed by a 2nd source, IE someone else. Real is what the electtrical impulses transmitted to our brain via our senses percieve it to be. And until it's proven otherwise, I'm prepared to accept that.
 
  • #210
Zero
Originally posted by Royce
The third option is still deterministic and not within our human control. Unless the physical structure of our brain changes as we think in response to or along with creating new thoughts there is no room for new creative thoughts because the physical structure of our brain is hardwired and the know laws of physics and chemistry cannot change.
If the structure of our brain does change with each thought then what drives this change.
Your third alternative is just a rewording of the first alternative. The result is the same.

Either the physical and chemical activity is drive by our thoughts or it drives our thoughts. Since the physical and chemical properties of our brains cannot be willfully changed then our thoughts are determined by physics and chemistry on not by our will. Thus our thoughts are determined and we are robots of physics and chemistry.

We are at the very basic, deepest level of philosophy here. We are debating or discussing consciousness and thought itself and how it may or may not come about. Right along with it and inseperable with it is freewill vs determinism. This has been debated for centuries by greater minds than you or me.

Whether the action is random or controled and directed by the physical structure of our brains and the laws of physics and chemistry, or whether the action is controlled and directed by our will and our thoughts is the basic question here. Either we are controlled or we control is the secondary issue.
First off, what's wrong with determinism? We are sort of stuck with it. Your problem with it strikes me as very emotional.("Oh no, I'm not gonna be a robot, no SIR!')

Ok, call the third option 'restricted free will', and go from there. It is what all evidence suggests on every level, anyways. Consciousness is not a completely random process, because it is created by the physical workings of the brain. However, there is a semi-random 'wiggle-room' or different pathways a thought can take in the brain. It is like bring forced to stay on the road in your car, but having a few different roads to choose from.

And this 'basic question' doesn't have anything to do with much except what appears to me to be fear and control issues for you, and nothing external or based on logic.
 
  • #211
1,481
0
You presume too much, Zero. I am not responding in an emotional way but only on and intellectual, philisophic way.
I have no fear or determinism or control. I just don't believe it. Think how free of guilt, indicision and responsibility we would all be if it were a deterministic world. Instead of saying; "The Devil made me do it we could say; "Physics and Chemistry made me do it."

Restricted free will sound more near the truth. None of us are really free. We all have buttons that can be and are pushed to make us respond in set patterns. In at least that sense we are hardwired.
Every once in a while one of us jumps out of the box and does some really creative thinking or performs some really beautiful creative
act. We can't account for that happening yet.

I am as stubborn and convinced that I am closer to the truth as you are. I see no way out of the dilemma other than calling a truce or cease fire. I know there is no way either of us will agree that it is a draw but maybe a stalemate?
 
  • #212
Zero
Originally posted by Royce
You presume too much, Zero. I am not responding in an emotional way but only on and intellectual, philisophic way.
I have no fear or determinism or control. I just don't believe it. Think how free of guilt, indicision and responsibility we would all be if it were a deterministic world. Instead of saying; "The Devil made me do it we could say; "Physics and Chemistry made me do it."

Restricted free will sound more near the truth. None of us are really free. We all have buttons that can be and are pushed to make us respond in set patterns. In at least that sense we are hardwired.
Every once in a while one of us jumps out of the box and does some really creative thinking or performs some really beautiful creative
act. We can't account for that happening yet.

I am as stubborn and convinced that I am closer to the truth as you are. I see no way out of the dilemma other than calling a truce or cease fire. I know there is no way either of us will agree that it is a draw but maybe a stalemate?
I think we have found all the common ground we're gonna get in this statement: " Restricted free will sound more near the truth. None of us are really free. We all have buttons that can be and are pushed to make us respond in set patterns. In at least that sense we are hardwired."

Otherwise, I think we are done, don't you?
 
  • #213
megashawn
Science Advisor
435
0
wow, I thought I was never gonna get to the end of this thing.

Royce, I think this was said on page 6 or 7:

Mind if I step in and ask a few questions?
What constitutes "Good Evidence"? Does the thinking and experience of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for 10,000 years or so not count as evidence? Is it just the speculations of a select few for a few hundred years all that can count as evidence and only because it is "science"?
Ok, these millions of peoples had 10,000 years or so to improve life. Up until just a few started making miraculous breakthroughs, did life actually start to improve.

Tell me something, whats more important to mankind, having a religous belief or a refrigerator?
 
  • #214
740
3
Originally posted by megashawn
wow, I thought I was never gonna get to the end of this thing.

Royce, I think this was said on page 6 or 7:



Ok, these millions of peoples had 10,000 years or so to improve life. Up until just a few started making miraculous breakthroughs, did life actually start to improve.

Tell me something, whats more important to mankind, having a religous belief or a refrigerator?
fridge
 
  • #215
1,481
0
Absolutely! Fridge, car maybe house. Man cannot live on beer alone. (thus the prime imporance of fridge.) He must have wheels.

Yeah, Zero, I think we have exhausted the subject, at least ourselves of the subject. Thanks. Good game.
 
  • #216
megashawn
Science Advisor
435
0
Absolutely! Fridge, car maybe house. Man cannot live on beer alone.
Thats not completly true. There are enough essential vitamins and nuttrients in a beer to supply the human body with its daily needs.

Why do you think alcoholics develop a beer belly?

Of course, you'd die eventually if you drank beer to live.


But do you not see my point? You stated that for thousands of years many people have believed in God. What has it done for us? Where has it taken us? How has it improved life on earth?

Nothing, nowhere and notta. Although I have to give credit to these foundations which try to feed and school children in foriegn countrys. But even without advances made in a very short amount of time, it would not be possible.

I mean, if your trying to build a dog house, the same way your daddy and his daddy built them, and it takes you 15 hours to get the frame together, well, that would suck.

But then, you notice your neighbor who is doing it in 10 minutes. Would it not be sensible to learn the method which, although is nothing like the old method, is so much better, and has proven this, in just a short amount of time?

I mean, think about those millions of believers over time, how many of them died from something simple, like the Flu, or chicken pox, a cavity, etc. Life expectancies were half(being conservative) what they are now, and the general comfort of life was not comfortable at all.

We don't know how good we got it now if you ask me. And I actually know people who thank god for a new piece of technology. Not knowing that the principles that go into developing that technology could offer evidence of non-existance of a god. Think about before we had refridgeration, we kept ice chests to store our meat. If the ice melted, you was out of dinner. Also the ice would not keep the meat cold enough, allowing bacteria and such to infect the food, also leading to more deaths.
 
  • #217
2,225
0
Originally posted by megashawn
But do you not see my point? You stated that for thousands of years many people have believed in God. What has it done for us? Where has it taken us? How has it improved life on earth?
What is the point in believing in God? I understand that the Ancients who, communicated directly with the angels -- before passing on and becoming angels themselves -- live in the highest heavens and are therefore most "innocent." :wink:
 
  • #218
2,225
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is the point in believing in God? I understand that the Ancients who, communicated directly with the angels -- before passing on and becoming angels themselves -- live in the highest heavens and are therefore most "innocent."
And if you don't believe I have the means by which to ascertain this for myself, guess again. :wink:
 
  • #219
1,648
0
And since there seems to be nobody around anymore that takes Iachhus32 ideas serious, he defaults now to talking to himself....
 
  • #220
2,225
0
Originally posted by heusdens
And since there seems to be nobody around anymore that takes Iachhus32 ideas serious, he defaults now to talking to himself....
Yes, what is the point in believing in God?
 
  • #221
1,648
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, what is the point in believing in God?
Is that a rethorical question or an actual question? Do you ask this in general, or are you just asking yourself?

If you want or need my opinion on that:

There is no point in believing outside believing itself. The belief is purpose in and for itself, and has no relationship to any outside objective reality. Believing in God does not make any practical real life any better, it does not improof any one's life.

But if you belief in God, actually the fact that that is untrue is not acknowledged by the believer, since it is believed that it actually does have some meaning.
 
  • #222
7
0
I used to beleive in god, but then I just stopped, t'was a few years ago, woke up one morning, not beleiving. And its not helping that some of my religious neighbors are very very nosey and I sometimes wish to destroy them, one by one, by cutting off their fingers, replacing them with razors, then throw them in a large tub of salt and itching powder. Anyway, I probably never will beleive in god again. Its ok though.
 
  • #223
2,225
0
Originally posted by heusdens
Is that a rethorical question or an actual question? Do you ask this in general, or are you just asking yourself?
Am just reiterating the general question posed by megashawn which was included in my "first reply" above ... just to be sure you knew "who" I was talking to, that is. :wink:
 

Related Threads on What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

  • Last Post
11
Replies
270
Views
25K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
83
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • Last Post
18
Replies
444
Views
32K
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
100
Views
10K
Top