Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Michael, a God is not an atheistic belief. How would you expect an atheist to reasonably define what one is?
At best Christians would only say that is not their definition of God.
How would you objectively measure the level of contentment and peace within one's self?In spiritual matters it is not so much a matter of “method” as repeated or similar personal experience. For example, in genuine Buddhism, it is said that if one follows the eightfold path (a specific set of protocols) one will achieve a level of contentment and peace within one’s self and with the universe generally unobtainable by natural persons in their struggle for existence.
The scientific method includes processes and procedures as an attempt to remove personal bias and subjective opinion. It seems given what you have said above, the "spiritual method" relies entirely on subjective opinion and looks for patterns e.g. are there multiple people with similar subjective opinions. Then tries to derive conclusions from these patterns.The fact is that millions of people throughout history (in many cultures and times from both genders all ages with differing levels of intelligence and education from various social strata) have done this and found the approach to not only be sound, but the prediction true.
What you have described isn't empirical evidence.How can you argue against, or be in denial of, what ACTUALLY happened to you, that you actually experienced? After millions of people have derived the same result, this is empirical evidence.
With regards to evolution, there is a preponderance of evidence.There isn't direct observation because speciation of kinds happened a very long time ago and is a very slow process.I think for science it is about the data, the evidence, and not about the authority of people presenting the hypothesis/claim.
This is not true, otherwise no one would believe in speciation as a means of lower order creatures becoming different higher order creatures (like fish becoming reptiles over time or reptiles becoming mammals over millions of years, or non-living matter becoming alive at some one time unconfirmable spontaneous generation event or process, and so on). These things (and others) ARE believed hypothetically but not based on confirmable fact and have never been observed to be true.
It depends on your epistemology and the method of discovery that you are using.Continuing on....
Evidence is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
Indeed! A valid point that I address continually regarding some hypothesis based interpretations of data that many scientists conjecture to be true. Hypothesis based interpretation is faulty because it assumes an already convinced of conclusion before it analyzes the experience or results and then interprets the data through that lens (we see the same thing in competing theologies).
In the scientific method they try to remove the idea of personal experience, because in the personal frame we have personal biases, preconceived beliefs. So they get people to document experiments, they get others to recreate those experiments, they use tools that come up with objective measurements rather than asking the scientist how they personally feel about their experiment.My personal experience and intent is the ONLY (and most valid) evidence of an actual fact.
In your belief system, what is god made of? Atoms?I'd be comfortable with your incredible powers idea for instance, but I also tend to lack belief in a "supernatural" definition of God. I'd assume I'm in the minority position however so there's nothing "wrong" with your definition.
In your belief system, what is god made of? Atoms?
Do you believe that your god created all matter and energy within the universe?
How does your god manipulate the universe? Does god exert the known forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear) or does god use some other force?
Do you assert that consciousness is personalized?
So you think that consciousness can create all these things, but suddenly has lost the power of creating matter and stuff?
You needn't tell me that - I didn't doubt consciousness. You are implying that consciousness sometimes can create things, and sometimes it can´t. I find that curious.
It depends on your epistemology and the method of discovery that you are using.
The scientific method means that evidence is assessed in an objective manner.
But we can't always employ the scientific method. Sometimes we just trust people. For example, if my wife tells me show just watched a certain tv show, I would believe her. I would take her spoken testimony as evidence because I would have no reason to not believe her mundain claim.
In the scientific method they try to remove the idea of personal experience, because in the personal frame we have personal biases, preconceived beliefs. So they get people to document experiments, they get others to recreate those experiments, they use tools that come up with objective measurements rather than asking the scientist how they personally feel about their experiment.
You may be interested in a TED talk given by neuroscientist Mariano Sigman, in which he describes, not only how associative semantic analysis of speech and text can accurately predict future mental problems, but also how the same kind of analysis on ancient texts shows that concepts associated with introspection hardly appeared until around 500 years BC, when they increased dramatically (see 6':45" for a graph) : Your Words May Predict Your Future Mental Health.... All I hear in your words are the echos of a human mind.
You may be interested in a TED talk given by neuroscientist Mariano Sigman, in which he describes, not only how associative semantic analysis of speech and text can accurately predict future mental problems, but also how the same kind of analysis on ancient texts shows that concepts associated with introspection hardly appeared until around 500 years BC, when they increased dramatically (see 6':45" for a graph) : Your Words May Predict Your Future Mental Health.
All of which provides surprising support for the suggestion that, until that time (the start of the Classical period of Ancient Greece), the ideas and thoughts that pop into the mind (joining the internal monologue) were generally interpreted, not as internally generated, but as the voices (comments, suggestions) of the spirits or gods; and the subsequent growth of rationalist natural philosophy led to an introspective reinterpretation based on the relation between conscious and subconscious mental processes.
This has a remarkable correspondence with the description of the origins of modern consciousness in the controversial theory of 'Bicameralism' - and your post suggested to me the possibility that many religious traditions and practices are aimed at reactivating this early dichotomous interpretation (so the celebrant hears parts of his internal monologue as the voices of spirits, angels, or god).
All pretty speculative, of course, but interesting speculation...
InterestingYes, specifically all the atoms , and all the known forms of energy.
Panentheism - Wikipedia
I would describe myself as a Christian Panentheist.
If your god is made of atoms then that god can not be the creator of all atoms."Created"? Hmmm. "Sculpted" would be a better term from my perspective. He may have created it, but he may simply shape it to his liking over eternity. It's possible that God 'created' every form of matter and energy that we know about. I really can't be sure.
Yes, I think he's found the measure of that disturbing intuitive sense of someone being 'on the edge', or something 'not being quite right' in their thinking.I found it interesting that he didn't seem to find a direct link between how introspective their writings seemed to be and future mental health problems, but rather how much/quickly they moved around from one range of topics (semantic neighborhood) to another. I've experienced that sense of 'disjointedness' from people with mental health problems.
Yes, I think he's found the measure of that disturbing intuitive sense of someone being 'on the edge', or something 'not being quite right' in their thinking.
If your god is made of atoms then that god can not be the creator of all atoms.
If your god is a complex structure, then without the process of evolution, how did such a complex entity come to be?
What is 'pure' energy ?... you might make a case that pure energy existed before God...
You think God might be a Boltzmann brain ??I can't really say how God came to exist, but God's has enjoyed the whole of eternity to come into being. Checkout Boltzmann brain ideas.
What is 'pure' energy ?
You think God might be a Boltzmann brain ??
No, I'm suggesting that given the whole of eternity, intelligence might arise and begin to manipulate the environment. I have no idea how or if God "started", but there are theoretical models to explain how intelligence could form over time.
So you're suggesting that a case can be made for the electromagnetic field (and so, presumably, the other quantum fields and spacetime) preceding God?That's a good question. The 'purest' form of energy seems to be a photon. It doesn't contain any rest mass, but it does contain momentum and energy.
We already know that, given a few tens of billions of years, intelligence can arise and manipulate the environment - life on Earth is a case in point!No, I'm suggesting that given the whole of eternity, intelligence might arise and begin to manipulate the environment. I have no idea how or if God "started", but there are theoretical models to explain how intelligence could form over time.
Can't say, but I assume he would know.I'm curious to know what type of 'evidence' of God that the resident atheists around here might accept, and find compelling? At the present moment, do you believe that there is "no" evidence of God, little evidence of God or just not convincing enough evidence of God for your personal tastes? Do you believe that the topic of God can be studied scientifically? Must all cause/effect relationship be demonstrated empirically in controlled experimentation to your personal satisfaction, or would you accept simple uncontrolled observations as a form of "evidence", even if it's less than convincing evidence?
If there was ever a point where there is no energy, no matter, then there was no time, so no eternity.
But I doubt such a point ever existed otherwise we would never get to the now. Not even if god existed.
With evolution (I assume you are well aware of the theory as you seem very smart to me).
We had structures and life forms competing for limited resources. Those more successful became prolific and those less sucessful died off. The process was very simple but over great time created very complex life forms.
I've not heard about this being applied to the history of a god.
I certainly haven't heard anyone claim that god is a fluke given almost infinite time that matter just happened to find itself (randomly) in the configuration of a god.
But anyway, I'm not here to challenge your beliefs, I just found the idea of a Christian pantheist as interesting. I'm also interested to understand how Jesus fits into this pantheist belief, was Jesus a god, was Jesus anymore godly than any other human?
Can't say, but I assume he would know.
What type of evidence you would accept to believe in Thor?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?