Blind

[Michael]

We are talking past each other because you initially compared "the experience of God" to "the experience of pain".
However, no you are submitting that pain is the experience of something external.

Huh? No. Actually it was you that compared the two, not me. I'm happy to answer you question, but it was you the asked me to compare them. It seemed like random comparison frankly.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7763255-13/#post63834165

Now, if the experience "pain" is the way to experience an external cause for the pain, what is - in analogy - the external cause for the experience "God"?

The external cause would "most likely" be an external EM field interaction between the surrounding electromagnetic universe and human brainwave activity which also happens to be electromagnetic in nature.

I am just hoping for a consistent use of your terminology so I can understand what you are trying to say. To this point it seems you are using "God" for the experience itself as well as its cause. In which case your analogy "pain" doesn´t apply.

The "external stimulus" would be an external EM field. The internal effect is what humans describe as "God".

 

[Michael]

You missed my point. The causes of pain are a natural part of the environment, and produce a natural response.

Likewise the causes of EM fields are a 'natural' part of the environment.

Deliberately contrived insults to the workings of the brain produce unnatural responses.

Even if you *assumed* that your handwave explains away the accounts and content of all near death experiences, it still doesn't explain people's experiences of God, in their daily lives, during prayer and meditation.

You're still right back to holding up your own (presumed lack) of experiences of God as the authority, much like *assuming* if you've never seen a kangaroo, nobody must ever have seen one.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Likewise the causes of EM fields are a 'natural' part of the environment.



Even if you *assumed* that your handwave explains away the accounts and content of all near death experiences, it still doesn't explain people's experiences of God, in their daily lives, during prayer and meditation.

You're still right back to holding up your own (presumed lack) of experiences of God as the authority, much like *assuming* if you've never seen a kangaroo, nobody must ever have seen one.

You can also artificially excite the optic nerve or the visual cortex, but it doesn't mean you are seeing anything real.

 

[quatona]

Huh? No. Actually it was you that compared the two, not me. I'm happy to answer you question, but it was you the asked me to compare them. It seemed like random comparison frankly.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7763255-13/#post63834165

Yes, sorry, you are correct. I asked you to compare them since your wording "the experience of the presence of God" suggested to me that - unlike you are explaining now - by "God" you meant the external cause for the experience.

The external cause would "most likely" be an external EM field interaction between the surrounding electromagnetic universe and human brainwave activity which also happens to be electromagnetic in nature.



The "external stimulus" would be an external EM field. The internal effect is what humans describe as "God".

I see.
So what I understand you saying is: What people experience is not an internal representation of "the presence of God" (as you said earlier), but the feeling "God" is an internal representation of the existence of an EM field.

 

[quatona]

You're still right back to holding up your own (presumed lack) of experiences of God as the authority,

Just when I felt I had understood what you mean when saying "God" (an internal representation of an external EM field), you here imply the opposite:
"God" being an external entity that people can have an experience of, and an "authority", at that.

much like *assuming* if you've never seen a kangaroo, nobody must ever have seen one.

Now you compare "God" to the kangoroo (the external cause of their experience", whereas you just explained to me that "God" is the way some people experience an external EM field.

That´s very confusing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You can also artificially excite the optic nerve or the visual cortex, but it doesn't mean you are seeing anything real.

And how does one go about artificially exciting the optic nerve or the visual cortex? Wouldn't happen to use EM fields to do that would you? Just curious.

 

[BarryDesborough]

And how does one go about artificially exciting the optic nerve or the visual cortex? Wouldn't happen to use EM fields to do that would you? Just curious.

What does it matter? The effects are not perceptions of anything outside of the brain.

 

[Heissonear]

What does it matter? The effects are not perceptions of anything outside of the brain.

You have "internalized" the Spiritual World. That is hard to do but you've done it. I guess a Nobel Prize awaits you.

Meanwhile, the deminsions of the Spiritual realm does not fit into and only exist in the brain. How rudimentary. This blindness reveals the error Naturalists have of the Spiritual.

 

[Michael]

You can also artificially excite the optic nerve or the visual cortex, but it doesn't mean you are seeing anything real.

An external influence from the universe around us, say an ordinary EM field can also be "intelligently directed" in a way causes people to have what they call "spiritual experiences". If it's possible for humans to direct EM fields into a brain in a way that influences the thought processes of that brain, then a living electric universe could certainly do that as well.

 

[Heissonear]

An external influence from the universe around us, say an ordinary EM field can also be "intelligently directed" in a way causes people to have what they call "spiritual experiences". If it's possible for humans to direct EM fields into a brain in a way that influences the thought processes of that brain, then a living electric universe could certainly do that as well.

Michael, you present something interesting here. Something that Spiritual Beings may have influence over, since EM is so much of of physical being, fundamentally.

 

[Michael]

Yes, sorry, you are correct. I asked you to compare them since your wording "the experience of the presence of God" suggested to me that - unlike you are explaining now - by "God" you meant the external cause for the experience.

Let's be clear about *my* meaning for a moment. When I say "God", I mean every atom, electron, neutrino, photon, and various forms of matter and energy in the universe.

I am assuming the cause of any "wireless communication" between the universe and humans is likely to take place via the ordinary EM field. It's the common denominator in spacetime, and the common denominator inside of intelligent living organisms.

God is physically everything, but the EM field is the likely communication "device" IMO.

I see.
So what I understand you saying is: What people experience is not an internal representation of "the presence of God" (as you said earlier), but the feeling "God" is an internal representation of the existence of an EM field.

Hmmm. The feeling of the presence of God is simply an external input to awareness, just like sight or sound. It's *caused* by the fact that we live inside of a living organism that can communicate with us via the EM field.

I'm ascribing *awareness* and intent to the universe to explain the experiences that various human have of something they call God, and I'm assuming it's the EM field that does the actual transfer of information from the intelligent universe to the human thought processes in the brain.

 

[Michael]

What does it matter? The effects are not perceptions of anything outside of the brain.

Just because that *can* occur in a few isolated cases does not mean it occurs in *each and every instance, in each and every human experience*. That's basically the flaw in your argument. Yes, internally generated experiences *may* occur in some cases, but not *all* cases. In some cases it *may be* an internally generated event, but in other cases it may be a real external input that generates the event. Your argument amounts to "Just because our sense of sight or smell can be untrustworthy in some cases, it must necessarily be untrustworthy in all cases."

 

[BarryDesborough]

Just because that *can* occur in a few isolated cases does not mean it occurs in *each and every instance, in each and every human experience*. That's basically the flaw in your argument. Yes, internally generated experiences *may* occur in some cases, but not *all* cases. In some cases it *may be* an internally generated event, but in other cases it may be a real external input that generates the event. Your argument amounts to "Just because our sense of sight or smell can be untrustworthy in some cases, it must necessarily be untrustworthy in all cases."

I think that a reminder of the OP is called for.

I can envisage experiments that would convince a blind person that there is such a thing as vision - proof that some people, "the sighted" can gather correct information from the environment without using touch, smell, taste or hearing.

Is there any comparable way of convincing a "spiritually blind" person of the existence of a spiritual dimension?

 

[Michael]

I think that a reminder of the OP is called for.

Apparently however we're going in circles because you're *insisting* the stimulus *must* be internal in all cases. It's a bit like the blind person insisting that nobody can 'see' because all the accounts of sight from other humans could all be internalized events.

I've handed you a perfectly *empirical* definition of an external source of EM fields (God). I've even shown you "God helmet" experiments that demonstrate that external EM fields can and do have an impact on the thought patterns of humans. I've also provided you with examples like Helen Keller where the "God experience" apparently predates any concept of language. I'm not sure what more I could hand you on a silver platter.

 

[Heissonear]

That doesn't really match up with what you say here:



When you wrote that you were clearly carried away in ecstasies with your own marvellousness at your god choosing you to reveal himself to, so you may have forgotten exactly what you wrote. Read it again and then compare it with the quotes you have just given. Do you see a shift in emphasis from "you don't conjure him up", "he reveals himself" and "what he wants to reveal" to "call to me and I will answer"? Did you notice the shift in emphasis?

Now many people seek god, but very few have the personal visitation that you imagine you received. So there must be some difference between the many who don't have your experience and those, like you, who are, apparently, given a personal guided tour of the spiritual realm. What do you think that difference might be?

Still looking for faults - a fault finder than God seeker? Do you see yourself?

You read the "shift in emphasis" again - with the emphasis on a "Covenant" for Who states the revealing and relationship conditions.

We can request. We can call upon Him to reveal Himself. OK, that is one side of the "Covenant" process . That is our part.

But Who does the revealing? Who sets up the "Covenant" arrangement. "Covenant" words are "I will if you will". It is throughout the Bible - the Old and New Covenants. You do not conjure up a Covenant with Him. You are thinking voodoo. You enter into His Covenant by doing what He requests are the conditions. Do you think there might be more conditions to His Covenant than in this one location?

Meanwhile, you're interested in lookIing for faults than a Supernatural and Lasting Covenant with Him through Grace. Wake up, no?

 

[Loudmouth]

Still looking for faults - a fault finder than God seeker? Do you see yourself?

You read the "shift in emphasis" again - with the emphasis on a "Covenant" for Who states the revealing and relationship conditions.

We can request. We can call upon Him to reveal Himself. OK, that is one side of the "Covenant" process . That is our part.

But Who does the revealing? Who sets up the "Covenant" arrangement. "Covenant" words are "I will if you will". It is throughout the Bible - the Old and New Covenants. You do not conjure up a Covenant with Him. You are thinking voodoo. You enter into His Covenant by doing what He requests are the conditions. Do you think there might be more conditions to His Covenant than in this one location?

Meanwhile, you're interested in lookIing for faults than a Supernatural and Lasting Covenant with Him through Grace. Wake up, no?

All you are offering are empty claims. There is nothing to wake up to.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Still looking for faults - a fault finder than God seeker? Do you see yourself?

I am pointing out where what you say differs rom the quote you gave from the bible. That is not my fault, it is yours.

You read the "shift in emphasis" again - with the emphasis on a "Covenant" for Who states the revealing and relationship conditions.

We can request. We can call upon Him to reveal Himself. OK, that is one side of the "Covenant" process . That is our part.

But Who does the revealing? Who sets up the "Covenant" arrangement. "Covenant" words are "I will if you will". It is throughout the Bible - the Old and New Covenants. You do not conjure up a Covenant with Him. You are thinking voodoo. You enter into His Covenant by doing what He requests are the conditions. Do you think there might be more conditions to His Covenant than in this one location?

So "call and I will answer" is actually subject to a number of sub-clauses is it?

Meanwhile, you're interested in lookIing for faults than a Supernatural and Lasting Covenant with Him through Grace. Wake up, no?

Actually, no. I was more interested in you answering my question that you ignored. This one:

Me:
Many people seek god, but very few have the personal visitation that you imagine you received. So there must be some difference between the many who don't have your experience and those, like you, who are, apparently, given a personal guided tour of the spiritual realm. What do you think that difference might be?

Still waiting for a reply.

 

[Cearbhall]

My obligation ends once this "spiritually blind" person is convinced.

And we could just as easily say that you would be convinced of the opposite if you died.

 

[Coelo]

I am assuming the cause of any "wireless communication" between the universe and humans is likely to take place via the ordinary EM field.

They got a cure for that now. Just put a little bit of aluminum foil in your hat. That should take care of it.

 

[Michael]

They got a cure for that now. Just put a little bit of aluminum foil in your hat. That should take care of it.

Cute.