My Epiphany

[Halbhh]

There is overwhelming evidence for this, and exactly *zip* for 'a something', which 'preexists' independently from the mind perceiving and articulating those models.

Ah! I remember. I used to have this exact same theory.

I remember the moments I realized it may be wrong and then finally became sure.

It was from hard knocks at times. Literally. Such as bumping my head into a joist to my shock, which I had been sure was higher. My mind didn't control where the joist was. Instead, reality existed independently of my perception and awareness.

 

[SelfSim]

Ah! I remember. I used to have this exact same theory.

I remember the moments I realized it may be wrong and then finally became sure.

It was from hard knocks at times. Literally. Such as bumping my head into a joist to my shock, which I had been sure was higher. My mind didn't control where the joist was. Instead, reality existed independently of my perception and awareness.

You need to form a proper, objectively testable hypothesis. Fortunately, I have already .. here for your consideration.

In particular, you should note this part of it:

It is worth noting what the Mind Dependent Reality perspective is not saying:

1) no claim is made that reality is "only in the mind", or that mind-dependent reality "is what reality actually is". Instead, the point is that the word "reality" means different things in different contexts, and in science, it means how our minds make sense of objective perceptions.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You can find something about him on https://en.wikipedia.org/wik/Michael_S._Heiser . Although I agree with Heiser in rejecting ideas about ancient astronauts, I find the rest of the article disquieting.

Looks like you missed an 'i' in wiki. Here's a fixed link: Michael S. Heiser - Wikipedia

 

[Halbhh]

You need to form a proper, objectively testable hypothesis. Fortunately, I have already .. here for your consideration.

In particular, you should note this part of it:

It is worth noting what the Mind Dependent Reality perspective is not saying:

1) no claim is made that reality is "only in the mind", or that mind-dependent reality "is what reality actually is". Instead, the point is that the word "reality" means different things in different contexts, and in science, it means how our minds make sense of objective perceptions.

We probably already long agree if you mean simply that our minds can only vaguely make inaccurate representations of external reality.... I kinda take that for granted, but it's a good point to make to people often in an internet forum!
Physics is very unlike that of course. We measure repeatedly repeatable aspects of external reality.

 

[Astrophile]

Looks like you missed an 'i' in wiki. Here's a fixed link: Michael S. Heiser - Wikipedia

Sorry, my mistake. Thank-you for the correction.

 

[Astrophile]

I lived in Texas when comet Hale-Bopp came around. I made my dad take me to several dark-out events where I took my telescope to see the comet away from the city lights. Would often go to science museums and had a massive rock collection. I could go on and on.

Your account of having to ask your father to take you to dark-out events to see Comet Hale-Bopp (in 1996 or 1997) leads me to think that you are in your thirties.

I am a studied bible student myself nearly on my way to becoming a pastor. I've studied the bible for almost 20 years and sat under many great teachers and pastors.

If so, and if you have studied the Bible for almost 20 years, you must have experienced your epiphany when you were in your teens or your early 20s. I hope that you will not be offended by my suggestion that you were not old enough to evaluate the evidence for and against such complex matters as the existence of God, the reliability of the Bible, the reality of evolution and the age of the Earth. Since you were interested in science, and particularly in astronomy, before your epiphany, may I ask whether you have continued to study these subjects since that event?

It puzzles me that people who claim to have been staunch atheists and lovers of science who have been converted to Christianity are those who have adopted a religion of Biblical literalism and denial of science. There are many branches of Christianity that do not require their followers to reject the findings of science, and, with your upbringing and convictions you might have found one of these more congenial.

 

[SelfSim]

We probably already long agree if you mean simply that our minds can only vaguely make inaccurate representations of external reality.... I kinda take that for granted, but it's a good point to make to people often in an internet forum!

Why is that a good point to make, when you cannot objectively demonstrate the accuracy, (or otherwise), of the comparitive results of a human mind's perceptions vs the (undemonstrable) 'external reality', (meaning: mind independent reality), you refer to there?
Can you even just cite the test which might lead others to form a consistent conclusion there?
(Good luck with that .. btw).

Physics is very unlike that of course. We measure repeatedly repeatable aspects of external reality.

That is demonstrably your belief there .. However its also demonstrable that Physics only ever tests its models and never tests 'the ('external') thing itself'. Wherever you might read that's what a Physicist thinks (s)he's doing there, you can observe that she's using her mind to think that's what she's doing and when you see that, there is instantly *zero* evidence for any mind independent claims she might be making about reality. (Namely because that's what 'mind independence' (or your 'external reality') means!)

 

[Halbhh]

However its also demonstrable that Physics only ever tests its models and never tests 'the ('external') thing itself'.

A measurement is an interaction.

Also, interesting and key side note: There isn't another type of event/happening in the Universe except interactions.

A measurement is an interaction, and therefore as real as anything else that exists.

Put another way, the electrons landing here in a physicist's detector are just as real as those over there in a flower outside, and as real as anything that exists.

There isn't something more real than these interactions we call measurements, like detecting the electrons, etc.


Of course we only measure some things we can, stuff we have devices designed to react to.

Less than the whole that is there.

But that doesn't make what we do measure unreal.

Metaphor: the blind man touches the elephant's tail, and that's all he knows, far less than the whole animal. It's not the whole elephant, but nevertheless the tail is quite real.

It's as real and valid as anything of any kind, including water, or the sun, etc.

 

[Astrid]

Your account of having to ask your father to take you to dark-out events to see Comet Hale-Bopp (in 1996 or 1997) leads me to think that you are in your thirties.



If so, and if you have studied the Bible for almost 20 years, you must have experienced your epiphany when you were in your teens or your early 20s. I hope that you will not be offended by my suggestion that you were not old enough to evaluate the evidence for and against such complex matters as the existence of God, the reliability of the Bible, the reality of evolution and the age of the Earth. Since you were interested in science, and particularly in astronomy, before your epiphany, may I ask whether you have continued to study these subjects since that event?

It puzzles me that people who claim to have been staunch atheists and lovers of science who have been converted to Christianity are those who have adopted a religion of Biblical literalism and denial of science. There are many branches of Christianity that do not require their followers to reject the findings of science, and, with your upbringing and convictions you might have found one of these more congenial.

The vagaries of human psychology seem to
me to be particularly poor evidence of "God".

If they all epiphanized to the same thing, that
would be noteworthy.
As it is though-

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are plenty of people on the side of science who say science can never be doubted or disputed.

This simply shows that people can be wrong about things they support.

"Trust the science!" they scream.

This simply shows that, unless it's an emergency, you should take what people scream with a large pinch of salt - whatever it's about.

Anyone with the science background you claim to have should understand these things...

 

[Astrid]

Yes, they are. They are written by people who literally witnessed these events. They are written as such. Like John mentioning how he outran Peter to the tomb. That's a personal touch. In 1st John and 2nd Peter, they identify themselves as eyewitnesses to the events. While Mark's writings were not from Mark, he recorded first-hand accounts from Peter. So, even if some of them did not actually do the writing, they provided first-hand knowledge of their experiences.

The people who witnessed the Book of Mormon on gold tablets
provided first hand knowledge of their experience. Signed and
sworn to, invoking God.

Why don't you believe them

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't you believe them.

Because I believe in diabolical mimicry.

Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

God has His books, Satan has his.

 

[Gottservant]

Thought experiment:

Could a moth transition back to a caterpillar, with one mutation?

[...] Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free.[...]

But who sets the mind free? The Son of God or the Slave of God? "If the Son sets you free, you are free indeed" (Jesus, from memory). The aim is not to be "free" but "free indeed".

 

[doubtingmerle]

Thought experiment:


But who sets the mind free? The Son of God or the Slave of God? "If the Son sets you free, you are free indeed" (Jesus, from memory). The aim is not to be "free" but "free indeed".

Ah, but I once tried what you suggest here.

And then I underwent a transition, and my mind was set free. The story in the OP was one part of that transition.

This section of the forum is meant for discussing creation and evolution. If you would rather discuss my story, and whether that transition indeed set my mind free, I invite you to leave your comments at my site where I tell the story -- How My Mind Was Set Free.

 

[Kylie]

Thought experiment:

Could a moth transition back to a caterpillar, with one mutation?

No, because it's not a mutation that makes it change to a moth in the first place.

 

[Gottservant]

No, because it's not a mutation that makes it change to a moth in the first place.

You're contradicting everything Evolution has been claimed to say, to this date?

Mutation. Adaptation. Survival - isn't that the Evolutionist creed?

 

[Gottservant]

No, because it's not a mutation that makes it change to a moth in the first place.

You know, thinking about it, it dawned on me that it doesn't even necessarily matter what starts the change.

The fact is it still cannot change back, with a single mutation.

 

[Kylie]

The fact is it still cannot change back, with a single mutation.

That is not an argument against evolution.

 

[Kylie]

You're contradicting everything Evolution has been claimed to say, to this date?

Mutation. Adaptation. Survival - isn't that the Evolutionist creed?

No. Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand evolution.

A caterpillar does not mutate in order to become a moth. Becoming a moth is something that was genetically encoded in it from the beginning. A caterpillar turning into a moth isn't mutating in the same way that a child going through puberty isn't mutating.

 

[Gottservant]

That is not an argument against evolution.

Yes it is! That shows the power of Evolution is moderated (not absolute).

You will have to try harder than that, to elide the relevance of God (who is beyond need of being moderated)?