Personal relationship with God

[Resha Caner]

We are largely talking about "try/fail/adjust" type of method.

No, it's more than that. First of all, it requires rigor. Second, it requires an explicit model. Third, it requires a defined & documented method. If one of my engineers came to me with an attitude like this, we would begin the process of finding him a different job.

Experience is subject to interpretation of that experience, and interpretation can be wrong. That's why we are having this discussion to begin with.

Indeed.

I'm not attempting to define God. Again, you are defining God , and I merely attempt to see if you are wrong or not based on what I observe.

Nope. My youngest son is a clothes horse. He changes his clothes many times a day. He's also very energetic. So if you asked me to "define" my son, what you would get is a description of what you might observe. When I saw him last he was wearing his Iowa State T-shirt and talking with friends in the front yard. You might then go looking and walk right by him wearing his plain black t-shirt and playing with our dog in the back yard.

But if you come back and tell me I was wrong and my son doesn't exist ... well, people do say silly things.

Of course I want to encounter God, and so do most skeptics. And I've actually been Christian and "encountered" God, but I now recognize that such encounter is clearly a projection of my presuppositions.

Maybe so. I don't know your experiences. Do you now insist that every time you have a similar experience, it must have the same cause?

If you want my recommendation, find an LCMS church and request to speak to the pastor about Baptism (1 Peter 3:21).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is an obfuscation of what professionals mean when they speak of scientific method. By this argument everything is science. Animals do science. Plants do science. Creation "science" is science.

I understand your scepticism, but science is just an efficient means of acquiring knowledge through learning by experience via observation and prediction. It's true that some animals do it too - it's not necessarily a conscious process. Human 'scientific method' has been developed over time to apply the basic principles in procedures designed to maximise efficiency and reliability and minimise the influence of biases. YMMV.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... if you asked me to "define" my son, what you would get is a description of what you might observe.

That wouldn't be a definition of your son, it would be a description of his appearance at some particular time; and, as you suggest, it wouldn't define your son.

 

[Resha Caner]

That wouldn't be a definition of your son, it would be a description of his appearance at some particular time; and, as you suggest, it wouldn't define your son.

And? If I told you he likes swimming, film making, and Dr. Who - that he is assertive and strong-willed - would that help you find him?

If you didn't see it, there are 2 replies floating out there: posts #58 & #59.

 

[devolved]

No, it's more than that. First of all, it requires rigor. Second, it requires an explicit model. Third, it requires a defined & documented method. If one of my engineers came to me with an attitude like this, we would begin the process of finding him a different job.

Why would you only quote a partial reply of mine in this case? I've indicated that I'm well aware of the complexities of the modern scientific method and research and that it's something we further developed to eliminate unnecessary trial and error. When we get to testing, we actually get a lot more constrains on methodology which is different for various scientific fields.

My point was that we use the core of the method, and it's actually the basis for evolutionary development... not only of our biology, but also of our knowledge and understanding.

Hence, the models you are talking about already exist in our brain even prior we get to the paper.

Since I'm talking to engineer, for you brain to be able to direct walking process, it requires real-time application of scientific process by building real-time models that take into account the "OpenCV" processing along with motor sensory feedback, evaluating the data, feeding it into the pre-existing model, and then recording and adjusting if failures happen. Without such process, visual coordination of walking would not be possible.

The high level "algorithms" of modern scientific method would still break down into the methods that our brain uses at the "machine level". You can't detach the two.

Nope. My youngest son is a clothes horse. He changes his clothes many times a day. He's also very energetic. So if you asked me to "define" my son, what you would get is a description of what you might observe. When I saw him last he was wearing his Iowa State T-shirt and talking with friends in the front yard. You might then go looking and walk right by him wearing his plain black t-shirt and playing with our dog in the back yard.

But if you come back and tell me I was wrong and my son doesn't exist ... well, people do say silly things.

Definition is a kind of description, we simply use it for a more specialized and formal cases. It's form of descriptive representation when all is said and done. It's not the same as describing... it tends to be more precise and not at all inconclusive. Otherwise there wouldn't be any point to define anything.

You have to describe your experience. By describing experience, you essentially informally defining what you mean by such experience. That's what definition is. If you claim to experience God, and you say that you know that because you experienced X as an example that you interpret as God doing something... you are essentially defining one possible way that God acts (although so far you haven't really provided any specifics).

I'm not quite sure what the point is from the above, since we are not discussing this in any nearly viable analogous scenario. You could just introduce me to your son. You could show me a picture. If we lived in a world limited by vague descriptions that you gave above, then it would be a very difficult and confusing social experience for all of us.

Maybe so. I don't know your experiences. Do you now insist that every time you have a similar experience, it must have the same cause?

If you want my recommendation, find an LCMS church and request to speak to the pastor about Baptism (1 Peter 3:21).

I've been baptized, and went on to receive a minor degree in Biblical theology along with my other degree, where I've studied the issue of belief fairly extensively. I highly doubt that a Lutheran pastor would tell me to do what I haven't already done , wrestled with, or experienced.

It's not that I deny the possibility, but it would be exhausting going through the same motions again, and seemingly unnecessary. If God was anywhere remotely real, I don't really see the need to jump through all of these hoops. I think knowledge that God was real would lead in that direction towards some systematic theology, but I really don't see how it's possible in an a religious setting, largely driven by dogma and ignorance.

 

[Resha Caner]

Since I'm talking to engineer, for you brain to be able to direct walking process, it requires real-time application of scientific process by building real-time models that take into account the "OpenCV" processing along with motor sensory feedback, evaluating the data, feeding it into the pre-existing model, and then recording and adjusting if failures happen.

Sorry, but no. That's the scientific description (a human mental construct) you're attempting to use to explain how I walk, but it has nothing to do with actually walking. I can walk, breath, etc. with no conscious effort. I really don't like it when people try to win debates by appropriating words to shift meaning. The harder you try to defend this position, the less I respect your argument.

Try this one: 2 worms are contained within a cube of soil 50 cm on a side. Do the numbers 2 and 50 have to exist before the worms can occupy the soil?

I'm not quite sure what the point is ...

I don't control God any more than I control where my son is at the moment. If I describe my son and you can't find him, he still exists. So, just because I suggest something to you doesn't guarantee an encounter with God.

I've been baptized, and went on to receive a minor degree in Biblical theology along with my other degree, where I've studied the issue of belief fairly extensively. I highly doubt that a Lutheran pastor would tell me to do what I haven't already done , wrestled with, or experienced.

This isn't about intellectual credentials. Have you spoken with an LCMS pastor about Baptism?

It's not that I deny the possibility, but it would be exhausting going through the same motions again, and seemingly unnecessary.

I didn't say it would be easy. Would you please answer my question: Do you insist that every time you have a similar experience, it must have the same cause?

 

[devolved]

Sorry, but no. That's the scientific description (a human mental construct) you're attempting to use to explain how I walk, but it has nothing to do with actually walking. I can walk, breath, etc. with no conscious effort. I really don't like it when people try to win debates by appropriating words to shift meaning. The harder you try to defend this position, the less I respect your argument.

Try this one: 2 worms are contained within a cube of soil 50 cm on a side. Do the numbers 2 and 50 have to exist before the worms can occupy the soil?

Can you explain which meaning specifically I'm attempting to shift?

Numbers 2 and 50 have to exist as concepts in order for you to communicate specifics, but no these don't have to exist before worms can occupy the soil. I'm not quite sure why it's relevant? Perhaps you can explain or give a better example?

I've talked about the basics of scientific method as the "machine code" of our brain as it applies to the mechanical reality of walking, and you seemingly attempt to detach the word walking from the mechanical reality of that word. Is it really possible?

Sure, we can say "he walked in the park", and we generally know what it means, but we know because we label a very specific process.

I don't control God any more than I control where my son is at the moment. If I describe my son and you can't find him, he still exists. So, just because I suggest something to you doesn't guarantee an encounter with God.

Sure, but that's exactly the point. When something is very unpredictable and not very reproducible, how else would you invite for anyone to experience it if there doesn't seem any consistency of perception? It then seems rather subjective in interpretation as to what you'd attribute to God and what you don't. How can you tell a difference?

If your son would show up with a different face and gender every day, would you accept that as a normal experience and would you even call that your son without certain consistent attributes that would result in consistent experience?

This isn't about intellectual credentials. Have you spoken with an LCMS pastor about Baptism?

No, I've spoken to SDA pastor about baptism, and I've spoken to Baptist pastor about baptism. What makes LCMS pastor substantially different when it comes to the core of the theological concept? I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't say anything different in that reguard:

http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=537

Just a quick read tells me that it's not that substantially different from other denominations, with an exception of infant baptism. Do I need to try every baptism there is before I get to experience God?

Likewise, why would I need to speak to the pastor as opposed to reading about what a pastor would say?

I didn't say it would be easy. Would you please answer my question: Do you insist that every time you have a similar experience, it must have the same cause?

It depends on the experience.

If I take the needle and poke my arm and experience pain, I think that it's reasonable to assume that if I poke the needle and experience pain that the cause is the needle. When we consider all of the alternative explanations, the most plausible and likely would be that one.

Perhaps you can give a better example of experience that you would attribute to God than my experience with a needle?

 

[Resha Caner]

Can you explain which meaning specifically I'm attempting to shift?

The adjective "scientific". By your definition, everything is scientific. As such, we don't even need the adjective. We can just say everything follows a method ... unless you can explain a method to me that isn't scientific.

Numbers 2 and 50 have to exist as concepts in order for you to communicate specifics, but no these don't have to exist before worms can occupy the soil.

Yep. They don't need your numbers. Numbers are a way of thinking and a way of communicating. They are not a "thing" that exists apart from mind. Likewise, science is a way of thinking and communicating (and is tightly coupled to number concepts). It is not a "thing" that exists apart from mind. Just as worms don't need your numbers to do their thing, they don't need your science to do their thing.

Sure, but that's exactly the point. When something is very unpredictable and not very reproducible, how else would you invite for anyone to experience it if there doesn't seem any consistency of perception?

Yes. Without shared experience it's very difficult, if not impossible.

No, I've spoken to SDA pastor about baptism, and I've spoken to Baptist pastor about baptism. What makes LCMS pastor substantially different when it comes to the core of the theological concept? I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't say anything different in that reguard

I didn't tell you to get baptized again. I suggested you talk to him about it. Maybe I need to personalize the statement more. Talk to him about your baptism. The fact that you couldn't see the difference between what Baptists think of Baptism and what Lutherans thing of Baptism is exactly the reason you need to talk to him. You're not getting it by reading on your own, nor did you get it from your Biblical studies courses. And the 5 minutes you spent reading an Internet link is hardly an investment in understanding. It took me 30 years to grasp Baptism.

No, I'm not telling you to try everything. You're asking what I think. Why would I recommend you do something I don't believe?

When we consider all of the alternative explanations, the most plausible and likely would be that one.

You need to read this wiki section on Occam's Razor. It is not always and absolutely true. Your comparison of the simple (a needle) to the complex (God) brings with it the issue of levels of confidence. You have higher confidence in the causal effect of the needle than you do in God. I have no doubt of that.

Perhaps you can give a better example of experience that you would attribute to God than my experience with a needle?

Let's stick with Baptism. I still suggest you talk to an LCMS pastor, but maybe to encourage that you would be willing to talk to me a little. What is Baptism?

 

[devolved]

The adjective "scientific". By your definition, everything is scientific. As such, we don't even need the adjective. We can just say everything follows a method ... unless you can explain a method to me that isn't scientific.

I really didn't call everything scientific. I'm not sure where you get that idea. I've implied that our brain, and other complex functionality of living matter function based on a reduced version of scientific method that we've improved over the years by setting up constrains in order to minimize all of the possibilities we'd have to test to make sure.

It's far from saying that everything is scientific. And it's far from saying that it's the same as conducting a proper scientific study. I didn't say either of these things.

Yes. Without shared experience it's very difficult, if not impossible.

Ok.

Talk to him about your baptism. The fact that you couldn't see the difference between what Baptists think of Baptism and what Lutherans thing of Baptism is exactly the reason you need to talk to him. You're not getting it by reading on your own, nor did you get it from your Biblical studies courses. And the 5 minutes you spent reading an Internet link is hardly an investment in understanding. It took me 30 years to grasp Baptism.

I don't understand as to why it would be important in context of this conversation. You are essentially doing the "check in with my pastor" type of routine that I've seen a lot of people do.

In context of conversation being a transfer of information, how much different would it be than reading when it comes to our ability to understand something?

You need to read this wiki section on Occam's Razor. It is not always and absolutely true. Your comparison of the simple (a needle) to the complex (God) brings with it the issue of levels of confidence. You have higher confidence in the causal effect of the needle than you do in God. I have no doubt of that.

I didn't make any comparisons. You've asked me whether I can be certain about the causes behind my experiences and I said that it depends. I gave you an example where I can be. I've asked you for a better example.

Occam's Razor would actually work against you in this case when we are talking about likely explanations that make the least amount of unnecessary assumptions. That's what Occam's razor argument is - the "simplest explanation" (and by that, we mean the one that makes the least unnecessary assumptions) for the same exact phenomenon is the generally the best one.

Let's stick with Baptism. I still suggest you talk to an LCMS pastor, but maybe to encourage that you would be willing to talk to me a little. What is Baptism?

Ok, we can talk, but you'd need to specify which perspective you'd like to hear? Would you like to hear it from a Biblical claims perspective, or would you like to hear it from atheistic perspective that would reject such claims due to insufficient evidence when it comes to any viable "before/after" picture? I can present either or both.

But, prior, I'd like you to answer as to how it is relevant to this discussion? Are you suggesting that God only manifests in people who are Baptized "properly"?

 

[Resha Caner]

I really didn't call everything scientific. I'm not sure where you get that idea. I've implied that our brain, and other complex functionality of living matter function based on a reduced version of scientific method that we've improved over the years by setting up constrains in order to minimize all of the possibilities we'd have to test to make sure.

Fine. You think every complex living function uses a scientific process (however it is you are distinguishing the complex from other living functions). Why are complex living functions unique? You still need to show me how those processes are positively defined as scientific whereas other processes aren't.

I don't understand as to why it would be important in context of this conversation. You are essentially doing the "check in with my pastor" type of routine that I've seen a lot of people do.

In context of conversation being a transfer of information, how much different would it be than reading when it comes to our ability to understand something?

You said you saw no difference between Baptist and Lutheran views on Baptism. There is a difference. Reading didn't do it for you. You need more. What else can I say?

If you can prove teachers have no impact on how students learn, there are a lot of school administrators who would be willing to make you rich. We can just shut down the schools.

Occam's Razor would actually work against you in this case when we are talking about likely explanations that make the least amount of unnecessary assumptions. That's what Occam's razor argument is - the "simplest explanation" (and by that, we mean the one that makes the least unnecessary assumptions) for the same exact phenomenon is the generally the best one.

You didn't read the link, did you. By "plausible explanation" I assumed you meant "simplest explanation". It was hasty on my part, and potentially wrong. But since you're now confirming a simplest explanation, my point was that Occam's Razor is not a universal truth. The link better explains how and when it applies.

But, prior, I'd like you to answer as to how it is relevant to this discussion? Are you suggesting that God only manifests in people who are Baptized "properly"?

No. You asked for an example. I gave it.

Ok, we can talk, but you'd need to specify which perspective you'd like to hear?

I want your perspective. Not something you've read or heard. Your perspective. Your experience.

 

[devolved]

Fine. You think every complex living function uses a scientific process (however it is you are distinguishing the complex from other living functions).

I specify that so that you don't think that I'm saying that individual atoms are doing science.

Why are complex living functions unique?

These are able to perform complex tasks and retain certain amount of information about the experience and performance.

In simple stages, organisms delegate "try/fail" method via duplication of these organisms. Thus, the failures die off.

A different evolutionary pathway is epigenetic and memetic when it comes to retention and reuse of certain experience, and that's what I'm talking about.

You still need to show me how those processes are positively defined as scientific whereas other processes aren't.

The core of scientific method is evaluating any given experience based on pre-existing information about similar things (a working model), and improving that model given certain experimental data that becomes available.

In our case, the genetic and epigenetic paths of such information transfer and retention is inadequate, hence we've developed a memetic one for more complex concepts.

You said you saw no difference between Baptist and Lutheran views on Baptism. There is a difference. Reading didn't do it for you. You need more. What else can I say?

At the core of the concept, I didn't see the essential difference when it comes to the overlap between SDA/Baptist/Lutheran theology from what I've read, although there are degrees in Baptists and SDA churches. SDA will probably come closer when it comes to the concept of Bible study and profession of faith prior to one's baptism, and treating it as a sacrament.

Hence, you have the idea that for the "spiritual work" to occur, you need to go though this sacrament, already believing and accepting certain reality.

Again, my problem with all of this is that it seems to be a rather strange way to approach belief. First you must believe and have faith, and the evidence comes later. And I personally think that it's rather problematic when it comes to something as universal as claim that God exists and manifests in reality, but such manifestation seems to be limited to people who already believe.

If you already believe, then how else should I expect you to interpret any given causal factors that you may be talking about? Of course you are going to interpret these based on the pre-existing beliefs.

Do you understand the problem with all of the above? Do you understand that talking with a Lutheran pastor will not help to alleviate this problem? Do I really need to understand all of the "insider info" about the Baptism in order so see that one already has to believe prior to being Baptized? In such, all three denominations are not different.

If you can prove teachers have no impact on how students learn, there are a lot of school administrators who would be willing to make you rich. We can just shut down the schools.

See the above. Again, it doesn't remedy the paradox I'm addressing.

No. You asked for an example. I gave it.

Ok. Thank you for clarifying.

You didn't read the link, did you. By "plausible explanation" I assumed you meant "simplest explanation". It was hasty on my part, and potentially wrong. But since you're now confirming a simplest explanation, my point was that Occam's Razor is not a universal truth. The link better explains how and when it applies.

Resha, I can assure you that I understand Occam's Razor principle and the history of it without need to resort to wikipedia. If I seem like I don't, then feel free to correct me.

I've specified the "simplest" in quotes, and gave constrains necessary for Occam's principle:

1) That we are talking about two different solutions to the same problem
2) That, all of the other things being equal, the one that makes the least number of necessary assumptions will be better one

Occam's principle is largely a scientific efficiency principle. To make it simple, there's no need to take detours into unnecessary turns of unnecessary assumptions if we can have similar solution without these assumptions. That's all it does. If you ask two people for directions, and one gives you longer one with more turns, and the other one gives you a more efficient one... both directions are correct. One of them is better. That's what Occam razor does.

Hence, I'm not really sure why you brought it up in context of this discussion. We are not talking about the different pathways to the same conclusion or solution. We have different "solutions". Occam's principle doesn't apply.

I want your perspective. Not something you've read or heard. Your perspective. Your experience.

Perhaps a separate post for that one, and a bit more time. I'll try to write it today in a semi-concise form.

 

[devolved]

I want your perspective. Not something you've read or heard. Your perspective. Your experience.

I grew up in a mixed setting of Jewish/Muslim/Christian/Atheistic ideologies, although the place where I grew up had largely atheistic predisposition.

When I moved to the US as a young kid, I was introduced to Christianity through a school church,and Christian church curriculum, which was largely Calvinist when it comes to theology. Hence, the predestination works out through soft determinism, and we are merely playing out the plan of God for our life, but still responsible for our choices.

I've changed my view on that particular concept later during my college educational experience, but thus has been my bases. I didn't really believe in God initially, but given the reality of community that church would build in such environment, the concept of God was real as a cultural mindset that seemed to permeate everything, from the way people acted, to the way people related with each other, the way they treated Bible, etc, etc.

In such environment, the line between real and imaginary begins to blur, because we as a kids tend to develop certain expectations and cast these expectations on reality. Hence, being an academically-oriented student, I'd read the Bible cover to cover and try to absorb as much Christian theology as I could. Eventually, for me it became real, since I believed and interpreted everything as God working through my life. Every time I'd get some guilty feeling, I'd attribute it to the work of the Holy Spirit. Every time I'd glean something "theologically deep" I'd attribute it to Holy Spirit. Any time something would go my way or wouldn't go my way, I'd attribute it to God closing and opening doors. The language of the church would be conducive to such interpretation.

I got serious about my walk. Prayed a lot. Studied morning and evening. And asked to be Baptized. My pastor took Baptism concept fairly seriously. He explained the importance of it, along with importance of understanding what it meant. I first did a profession of faith and was Baptized.

I would do street evangelism. I would do mission trips and charity work. I'd see "miracles of God" in any coincidence that I would interpret as unlikely otherwise.

Hence, "God was leading me" to a Christian school to study theology to be a pastor, which I did. I double-majored, since I had other academic interests. I took fundamentalism seriously. I didn't date till I was a senior in college. I saw "God moving me" in all sorts of directions and doing all sorts of "amazing things". I discussed "relationship with God" with my study partners often and shared my own experiences that I found fitting and enlightening to other people. Overall, it was a good social experience.

But, the Junior year came, and we got to study textual criticism and in depth history of both OT and the NT (separate classes). I think that's when the breakdown began, since I generally was never invited to read the Bible from the objective POV of a skeptic. The supernatural veil of the Biblical narrative was virtually gone. I found out that OT narrative is very likely a composite work, although it was still said that God worked through such writers. The NT is even more problematic in a way that we arrived with it. Of course, it was likewise God's plan to make sure that the whole fullness of the story was expressed through various authors and scribes. These concepts never directly taught that "Bible is not what you think it is", but these would give the hint of scholarly perspective, and it was enough for me to investigate further.

Inerrancy of the the Bible is something that I really didn't question with my fundamentalist background, and that came crushing down fairly fast at the higher academic level. Hence, at that point, my Christianity devolved from "I know, because I've experienced" to "It's obviously a better way to live". When I've investigated further, it devolved from "It's obviously a better way to live" to "Well, no one is perfect, but that's why we need salvation to begin with. It's not about the grand works of faith, or betterment of society. It's about the relationship with God, and such relationship will set us on the right path eventually".

The irony is that eventually it became quite obvious that I've had conversations with myself. I merely told myself what I should and shouldn't do. I told myself my own fears, my own wishes... all while thinking I was speaking to God. Hence, when I no longer imagined that God was there, the question began to settle as to "how do I know He is there to begin with?". So, I ran back to hardcore apologetics. I've studied books. I debated atheists. And it made things worse. It exposed the problems. It exposed false assumptions. It did the opposite what I was trying to do.

Eventually, I saw that I have no clue at all, although I claimed to know. Hence, I pressed for some answers from my professors, and to my astonishment they would give me the "Well, if there is no God, you don't lose anything, and if there is ... then you gain everything" type of argument. I couldn't believe that any of them would resort to that.

Hence, I rethought what happened over the past 10 years, although I did hold on to pragmatic Christianity a bit longer, it simply didn't seem real anymore. It became even more obvious when I got out of the rigor of College Christianity and into the mediocrity of the church-based twice a week type of Christianity, which was a very different dynamics than my original church school.

Hence, it eventually killed any false perceptions that there's seemingly anything there that directs all of that mess and disaster, as most would claim to be the reality, when it clearly wasn't. People attributed all sorts of nonsense to God without thinking twice, and come to think of it... I remembered doing exactly the same thing. Hence it would seem to me that God was a mere projection of my own mindset at that time.

Once the faith/belief goggles were off, event took a more natural explanation and it didn't necessitate anything else. People prayed for recovery of church members, and only those who were likely to recover did. The only seeming promise of reality of God, was a promise of God coming back anytime now, and all the terrible things happening at "increasing rate" in the world indicate that it's anytime now .

The point being is that I've learned to approach these things with a more detached mindset, and when I did, there didn't see to be anything special about anything that was claimed. It all seemed ordinary, or even less than ordinary.

Hence, 5 year down the road, it brings me here to now. Where I'm still trying to see if there's any substance to these claims at all.

 

[devolved]

You didn't read the link, did you. By "plausible explanation" I assumed you meant "simplest explanation". It was hasty on my part, and potentially wrong. But since you're now confirming a simplest explanation, my point was that Occam's Razor is not a universal truth. The link better explains how and when it applies.

Feel free to ignore the my first responce. It seems like you were aware of the miscommunication.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is more than commonality. They would be confounding variables.

I don't understand how they'd be confounding. They could test any number of categories and perhaps find that only someone's beliefs about what their image of an average American would believe are not heavily self-referential. That wouldn't change the results that beliefs about the beliefs of the other categories (including non-physical agents and/or God) were self-referential. I've pretty much exhausted my interest in research that they didn't actually do, but just for completeness maybe you can spell out for me exactly which variables would be confounded by which other variable and in what way (i.e. the confounding relationship).

From my perspective, what we know of God is physical. We can't know the non-physical.

OK; if God is physical, in the sense of interacting with the particles, fields, & forces of this world, and not just an idea or conceptual abstraction, then it's amenable to scientific inquiry - we can ask what interactions it participates in, what physical properties it has, how we know about them (what physical evidence is there), what predictions we can make about it, etc.

So how do you know God is physical, what evidence supports this claim?

Is this how we're going to do it, or do you get my point? You said you agreed not all things are science. Neither do all things depend upon applied science.

I'm not really sure quite what your point is; not everything is science, but all things physical (and many abstractions, like concepts and beliefs) are amenable to scientific enquiry, and that is the best way we have to gain reliable knowledge of the physical world and our abstractions of it.

Sometimes I don't measure, but only perceive.

As I mentioned before, to perceive is, in a sense, to measure. Measurement doesn't have to involve explicit unitary quantification. Distinguishing differences and making unquantified comparisons of scale, intensity, etc., is measuring. But this is just semantics...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

These are able to perform complex tasks and retain certain amount of information about the experience and performance.

In simple stages, organisms delegate "try/fail" method via duplication of these organisms. Thus, the failures die off.

A different evolutionary pathway is epigenetic and memetic when it comes to retention and reuse of certain experience, and that's what I'm talking about.

The core of scientific method is evaluating any given experience based on pre-existing information about similar things (a working model), and improving that model given certain experimental data that becomes available.

In our case, the genetic and epigenetic paths of such information transfer and retention is inadequate, hence we've developed a memetic one for more complex concepts.

Yes, it's basically the concept of learning from experience. Living systems can do this because they are information processors; they have information comparison and storage capabilities. They can store information about the results of interactions in one context and use it when responding to similar contexts in future. There's plausible evidence that the process of evolution itself has 'learnt' how to be more efficient over time.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't understand how they'd be confounding.

And I'm convinced the reason you can't see it is because you're holding on to a specific god concept even though you don't believe in it.

Confounding Variable: "The incorrect estimation suffers from omitted-variable bias."

The true relationship is y = a + bx + cz + u, but z is omitted from the study, thereby attributing effects of z to x.

Supernatural agent, variable x - The question: What does God believe?
Historical agent, variable z - The question: What does Jesus believe?
Jesus is God (Jesus = God), therefore both variables x and z must be studied. to determine the effect of x.

So how do you know God is physical, what evidence supports this claim?

Though I'm wary of your phrasing, it's what I've been discussing with devolved - "Word and Sacrament" is the more generic Lutheran theological term. There are other personal experiences, but it is the sacramental that grounds it all.

As I mentioned before, to perceive is, in a sense, to measure. Measurement doesn't have to involve explicit unitary quantification. Distinguishing differences and making unquantified comparisons of scale, intensity, etc., is measuring. But this is just semantics...

This only works in a colloquial sense. It remains an obfuscation of the scientific sense of "measurement" even for qualitative observations. No credible scientific journal would publish the musings of a poet about flowers as science, and therefore those observations should not be called scientific.

Yes, it's basically the concept of learning from experience. Living systems can do this because they are information processors; they have information comparison and storage capabilities. They can store information about the results of interactions in one context and use it when responding to similar contexts in future. There's plausible evidence that the process of evolution itself has 'learnt' how to be more efficient over time.

Another appropriation. "Learn" implies consciousness. There are better ways to describe proposed evolutionary processes that don't necessitate such invocations. However, I suppose that only puts you one small step away from pantheism. If it's got you headed in the right direction, maybe it's not bad for you to think in those terms. Just one more small step from pantheism to panentheism and we're almost there.

 

[Resha Caner]

The core of scientific method is evaluating any given experience based on pre-existing information about similar things (a working model), and improving that model given certain experimental data that becomes available.

In our case, the genetic and epigenetic paths of such information transfer and retention is inadequate, hence we've developed a memetic one for more complex concepts.

No. Not rigorous enough. Simply calling something an information transfer that improves a model doesn't suddenly make it scientific. All you've done is apply the term "information transfer" to a process of material transfer. It is your anthropomorphic action and nothing inherent in the process itself. "Improving" implies a goal, which implies a conscious will to achieve that goal. By what you've given me so far, I could call the formation of stalagmites an information transfer that improved the model.

Do I really need to understand all of the "insider info" about the Baptism in order so see that one already has to believe prior to being Baptized? In such, all three denominations are not different.

Well, they are. According to Lutherans, belief is not necessary for Baptism. So, again, what your discussion indicates to me is that you don't get it. Maybe you take it as an insult when I say that, but it's not meant to be. As I said, it took me 30 years. You're probably smarter than me, so maybe you'll get it in 10 years.

 

[Resha Caner]

I got serious about my walk. Prayed a lot. Studied morning and evening. And asked to be Baptized. My pastor took Baptism concept fairly seriously. He explained the importance of it, along with importance of understanding what it meant. I first did a profession of faith and was Baptized.

Thanks. Giving me all the background does help. So, don't take what I say as dismissive. I could say a lot, but I'm being brief to avoid losing the point. What you've experienced is that odd combination of Calvinism, gnosticism, and mystical divination that permeates most American churches. Lutheran Confessionalism is very different from all of it, but it can take a long time to grasp those differences.

In all of that you never really told me what you think about Baptism. It appears you view it as an event that professes your faith to the church after you believe. That's not an uncommon view, but it's not a Lutheran view.

 

[devolved]

No. Not rigorous enough. Simply calling something an information transfer that improves a model doesn't suddenly make it scientific.

1) I'm not sure why you keep casting my view to an "information transfer" as a process, when I'm pointing you to an interpretive mechanism that does that. Science is a mechanism first and foremost. Without physical mechanism to do the process there would be no science.

2) When you set rigor standards, you essentially have a continuum fallacy going on where it's not "true science" unless we hit the modern marks of scientific rigor. Of course, but high bench marks of science we do today it's not rigorous enough when we are talking about progressive development of a simplicity of a single neuron to a billion neurons functioning in tandem. The tasks would shift. The environmental context would be different.

Scientific method is always limited by resources and facilities available to any given mechanism. For example, if none of us could see, does it mean that science as we know it would cease to exist? Not at all. The context of us doing science would simply shift in a different direction. We'd still build models that describe reality. The models would be different and described differently in context of these model.

Hence, your rigor demand is contextualized in functionality of human brain as we have it right now and the present development of our methods that we carried through memetically (as information external to our brain). But, billions of individual processes that make brain functioning the way it does all follow oversimplified version of the same exact method. These merely specialize in smaller chunks of it.

3) Scientific method as far as ,rigor concerned, didn't just pop into our science overnight. The expectations were very little initially. That's why we have innumerable religions historically, because these were among our first attempts at science. It gradually improved to what we have today, but it's very difficult to set a precise demarcation in what is "science" and what is not apart from evaluating what would be a "better methodology", and better methodology was a progressive development in human history.

A 100 years from now our view of scientific rigor may be discounted as more primitive and outdated.

Hence, it's a long explanation for a rather short point, the rigor has to be contextualized in capacity of any given mechanism to be as thorough as possible in its own context.

It is your anthropomorphic action and nothing inherent in the process itself.

Again, it would be true if we didn't undergo evolutionary development in both biological functionality and memetic information that we pass on. If we just popped into existence with ability to speak and reason as we are now (or better according to some) 6-10k years ago, that would be absolutely the case.

The problem is that the evidence points in the other direction.

"Improving" implies a goal, which implies a conscious will to achieve that goal.

Sure, that's how we as humans define "improvement" in semantics of human experience. But, the problem that you are failing to address is the continuum problem. We as humans are built of parts that are not conscious of each other.

My finger doesn't know the full extend of what I'm thinking when it's ordered to press a button and move in a certain direction. My conscious part of the brain isn't aware of all of the functionality that happens in the background to move that finger. In fact, it's so automated that what you perceive as "conscious experience" is actually a rather reduced facility that merely informs what we experience. I could leave some room for "will" in all of this, but there's very little room for it when we really break everything down into parts and observe how these parts work. It can be disturbing, but it's eye-opening, especially in context of certain religious claims.

Hence your interpretation of "improvement" as a needing a "goal" is demonstrably incorrect in context of a functional environment and scientific method. The only goal of scientific method is to describe reality as accurately as possible (model/theory), and adequately inform the rest of the mechanism that such process is a part of in terms of what would be adequate and inadequate way to navigate or operate in such environment.

Hence, it's not a surprise at all that we find organisms that fit their environment, given the above.

Thus describing the process as the goal of what it already does is a bit repetitive. At higher level of complexity all of that can be abstracted, but that's exactly what we do. We have the ability to "try things out" using imaginary models. And that's what a goal largely is, in human context, an imaginary model.

In terms of scientific process, the "goal" performing the process itself as it will adopt to the environment that we place it in.

Well, they are. According to Lutherans, belief is not necessary for Baptism. So, again, what your discussion indicates to me is that you don't get it.

Sure, I think in case of infant baptism that would be the case, hence I've pointed that out as a difference.

In my case, belief would be a prerequisite.

http://www.firstlutherancr.org/baptism.html

Do I have to be a member?
No. Baptism is open to all who believe and wish to be baptized in the name of God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit, whether you are a member of First Lutheran Church or not.

What if I was raised in another faith tradition?
We believe there is only one lifelong Christian baptism in the triune God (In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). There is no need to “re-baptize” when someone comes to the Lutheran church from another Christian faith, or if someone who has been baptized feels they have fallen away from the faith. God’s word at baptism holds firm!


http://steadfastlutherans.org/2012/10/qa-the-necessity-of-holy-baptism/

"The sacraments are not for unbelievers but for believers. They are not for those who do not believe for those who do believe. Baptism is not for the one who denies Christ but for the one who believes in and is brought to Christ. In this we see that Jesus’ miracles of healing are really commentaries on holy baptism."


It's possible that there are enough opinions on the subject withing Lutheran church itself and yours is the right one .

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And I'm convinced the reason you can't see it is because you're holding on to a specific god concept even though you don't believe in it.

Quite likely.

Supernatural agent, variable x - The question: What does God believe?
Historical agent, variable z - The question: What does Jesus believe?
Jesus is God (Jesus = God), therefore both variables x and z must be studied. to determine the effect of x.

Ah OK. Now you've explained, I can see what you're getting at. But - as I understand it - to Christians, Jesus is not so much an historical agent (isn't he supposed to be 'still with us', and will return in person at some point?) than a divine agent (both God and man). In any case, it seems to me that, for believers, Jesus isn't just another historical agent, he's very much a unique case.

But if they had explicitly included Jesus as a target, and the results had shown that, while the subject's views of God's beliefs were self-referential, their views of Jesus' beliefs were not, despite them being aspects of the same entity, the researchers would need to explain the discrepancy and formulate more experiments to test their explanation. I would expect they'd hypothesise that the subjects thought about God and Jesus in different ways (the divine aspect and the human aspect?) and find ways to test that. On the other hand, they might have found that subjects views on Jesus' beliefs were also self-referential and so consistent with the declared identification of Jesus as God.

But they didn't include that target, and they didn't get those results, so it remains interesting speculation.

The results they did get were significant enough to show that the subjects did think differently about the beliefs of their God and those of their image of the average American, which suggests that, even if some - or all - of them were thinking about what Jesus would have thought, those thoughts were self-referential.

Though I'm wary of your phrasing, it's what I've been discussing with devolved - "Word and Sacrament" is the more generic Lutheran theological term. There are other personal experiences, but it is the sacramental that grounds it all.

If you say something is physical, that has a clear and specific meaning - my phrasing reflects that.

So what, exactly about the sacramental is evidence of the physicality of God? (if you've already explained it to devolved, just point me to the post ).

This only works in a colloquial sense. It remains an obfuscation of the scientific sense of "measurement" even for qualitative observations.

On the contrary, it is at the core of physics - any interaction with a quantum system is a measurement or observation (the two are synonymous in this context) potentially providing information about that system. Our universe is a quantum one, constructed from quantum interactions.

Oddly, it's 'observation' that usually causes the confusion, when an observer is (wrongly) thought to necessarily be a conscious intelligence.

No credible scientific journal would publish the musings of a poet about flowers as science, and therefore those observations should not be called scientific.

Indeed, that would be poetry. But the perceptions that ultimately led to the poetry involved observations, assessments, measurements of the environment. But again, I guess it's just semantics...

Another appropriation. "Learn" implies consciousness.

No; any system that modifies its responses according to the results of previous responses has learnt. Such systems can be extremely simple - single-cell creatures (slime moulds, for example); and we have built learning systems far simpler than single cells, and to my mind, neither they nor unicellular life can usefully be thought of as conscious.

There are better ways to describe proposed evolutionary processes that don't necessitate such invocations.

Not when it's an appropriate description - Bacteria Learn through Evolution.

However, I suppose that only puts you one small step away from pantheism.

Nope; it's just simple science.