JAK,
Your posts are well taken, at this time proof of God (creator) revolves completely on personal experience and observation.
As a builder, I know it takes plans, design, effort and vision in order to build the most simple of structures. The evidence is overwhelming to me. I cannot convince nor prove to another anything, even some would deny everything they see, taste and smell as an illusion.
To me God is no assumption, but a real power that has proven to me He exists. I believe the system is set up this way purposefully. Every one must do His own seeking and finding. Or not. We have free-doom.
The quest is real to me. There is purpose in seeking attributes greater than I currently have. When i am still, there are benefits. When I am greatfull there are blessings. When I seek, I do find. Just like a scientist seeks and finds. The principles are the same.
I cannot prove God to anyone, they cannot disprove God to me. It is awesome.
All we have are assertions, even science holds partial truths, that build upon eachother with every new discovery.
One day the scientists will discover the cohesive bond of all things is called love. Even the very love of God substance.
As to the parameters of proof.
Prove love exists. Try to handle it. Prove love is not, and you will see a world that is not.
Prove Joy exists. You may see effects of joy in a smile, but that is not the joy.
Just like the sunset is not God, but God is in the sunset.
Just like the Rainbow is not God, but God is in the rainbow.
Prove Hate does not exist. You see its results, but where does hate sleep. Where does it rise, and fall? Can you hold it, touch it, taste it, smell it.
All of the unseen things can not be proven to another, but yet to deny them is ignorance.
All of the unseen, hidden emotions and powers within man are the the very things that bring pain, suffering, poverty, death. Joy, love, kindness, patience and life to each and every one of us.
Prove the root power of all of these entities of energy and you will have your answer of God or no God.
There are no assumptions, there is belief, or unbelief.
son
The Nature of the Holy Spirit
JAK,
Your posts are well taken, at this time proof of God (creator) revolves completely on personal experience and observation.
As a builder, I know it takes plans, design, effort and vision in order to build the most simple of structures. The evidence is overwhelming to me. I cannot convince nor prove to another anything, even some would deny everything they see, taste and smell as an illusion.
To me God is no assumption, but a real power that has proven to me He exists. I believe the system is set up this way purposefully. Every one must do His own seeking and finding. Or not. We have free-doom.
The quest is real to me. There is purpose in seeking attributes greater than I currently have. When i am still, there are benefits. When I am greatfull there are blessings. When I seek, I do find. Just like a scientist seeks and finds. The principles are the same.
I cannot prove God to anyone, they cannot disprove God to me. It is awesome.
All we have are assertions, even science holds partial truths, that build upon eachother with every new discovery.
One day the scientists will discover the cohesive bond of all things is called love. Even the very love of God substance.
As to the parameters of proof.
Prove love exists. Try to handle it. Prove love is not, and you will see a world that is not.
Prove Joy exists. You may see effects of joy in a smile, but that is not the joy.
Just like the sunset is not God, but God is in the sunset.
Just like the Rainbow is not God, but God is in the rainbow.
Prove Hate does not exist. You see its results, but where does hate sleep. Where does it rise, and fall? Can you hold it, touch it, taste it, smell it.
All of the unseen things can not be proven to another, but yet to deny them is ignorance.
All of the unseen, hidden emotions and powers within man are the the very things that bring pain, suffering, poverty, death. Joy, love, kindness, patience and life to each and every one of us.
Prove the root power of all of these entities of energy and you will have your answer of God or no God.
There are no assumptions, there is belief, or unbelief.
son
Your posts are well taken, at this time proof of God (creator) revolves completely on personal experience and observation.
As a builder, I know it takes plans, design, effort and vision in order to build the most simple of structures. The evidence is overwhelming to me. I cannot convince nor prove to another anything, even some would deny everything they see, taste and smell as an illusion.
To me God is no assumption, but a real power that has proven to me He exists. I believe the system is set up this way purposefully. Every one must do His own seeking and finding. Or not. We have free-doom.
The quest is real to me. There is purpose in seeking attributes greater than I currently have. When i am still, there are benefits. When I am greatfull there are blessings. When I seek, I do find. Just like a scientist seeks and finds. The principles are the same.
I cannot prove God to anyone, they cannot disprove God to me. It is awesome.
All we have are assertions, even science holds partial truths, that build upon eachother with every new discovery.
One day the scientists will discover the cohesive bond of all things is called love. Even the very love of God substance.
As to the parameters of proof.
Prove love exists. Try to handle it. Prove love is not, and you will see a world that is not.
Prove Joy exists. You may see effects of joy in a smile, but that is not the joy.
Just like the sunset is not God, but God is in the sunset.
Just like the Rainbow is not God, but God is in the rainbow.
Prove Hate does not exist. You see its results, but where does hate sleep. Where does it rise, and fall? Can you hold it, touch it, taste it, smell it.
All of the unseen things can not be proven to another, but yet to deny them is ignorance.
All of the unseen, hidden emotions and powers within man are the the very things that bring pain, suffering, poverty, death. Joy, love, kindness, patience and life to each and every one of us.
Prove the root power of all of these entities of energy and you will have your answer of God or no God.
There are no assumptions, there is belief, or unbelief.
son
Be ye therefore Perfect, or go through the back door of death.
-
_Roger Morrison
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1831
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am
JAK, "brief" i like. :-) No question about the effects of "instant communication"... Fore warned...fore armed, et al. However, i think there is more 'good' attached to that than 'bad'.
How folks react to that information/knowledge/warning will very likely depend on personal IQ/EQ/education levels as much as anything...rational/irrational. Taking us back to individual, and groups thereof, conditioned approach to reality and challenge. Run away or towards???
Not skeptical. Well aware of the reality of wealth and power dynamics defying gravity :-) It appears that NA Democracy and its supportive middle-class is following the pattern set centuries ago as power & wealth are 'lost' by one nation they are 'found' by another... I suggest because the have-at-the-moment guys have not studied history??? Nor do they understand the principle of fair resource allocation as opposed to unfair accumulation, and depletion/waste. However, education seems to be making some head-way to rectify that ignorance...
"Having-it-all" is a colloquialism, similar to the "golden streets of America"... Cliches?? (Can't get the accent to work?:-) But, with whatever they have, there is a growing tendency (or is there) of dissatisfaction with many. Consumerism... The American way, may not be THE way!? But illusionists that many tend to be they often dream beyond their personal achiecement levels into despair and crisis.
I think there is a difference between impulse-to-achieve and aspiration-to-discover, and to improve technologically?? "Impulse" seems 'self', "discover" more 'other'??? Different motivation of individuals for whatever reason?? All of course moving humanity one way or another: towards, or away from, truth...
"...needs that some might describe as Spiritual..."
Might it be while speaking the same language, their is confusion in the jargons between believers and none believers :-)?? Warm regards, Roger
How folks react to that information/knowledge/warning will very likely depend on personal IQ/EQ/education levels as much as anything...rational/irrational. Taking us back to individual, and groups thereof, conditioned approach to reality and challenge. Run away or towards???
The transfer of wealth tends to be up. (I realize that requires documentation if you are skeptical.) That is, those with the greater wealth use a variety of devices and mechanisms which transfer wealth (and all the benefits which that entails). I don’t know if I need to support this principle for you, Roger. It would take space. But, I’ll be happy to do that should you ask or be skeptical of that.
We have in the USA to a worrisome degree a shrinking middle-class. Democracy (as a governing force) is threatened by that shrinking middle class. Why? Laws tend to be made by the wealthy for the wealthy. As a result, wealth is transferred up.
Not skeptical. Well aware of the reality of wealth and power dynamics defying gravity :-) It appears that NA Democracy and its supportive middle-class is following the pattern set centuries ago as power & wealth are 'lost' by one nation they are 'found' by another... I suggest because the have-at-the-moment guys have not studied history??? Nor do they understand the principle of fair resource allocation as opposed to unfair accumulation, and depletion/waste. However, education seems to be making some head-way to rectify that ignorance...
Well, I wouldn’t agree with your conclusion. We don’t have it all. To be sure some have more than others. No one escapes threats to health and to life. Both tend to produce some/much fear. Fear of death produces a variety of phantom ways out. There is little doubt that some are “surrounded in goods-&-services...” As they are human, emotions tend to make people want emotional comfort level. They devise various ways to achieve that.
For children, it’s often the parent(s) who provide emotional comfort level. Certainly, we can observe that an infant demonstrates both emotional and physical desire for a comfort level. An infant is satisfied but only for a short time. Then that infant needs another fix of something to be satisfied.
But adults too are consistently looking for a better mouse trap (as the cliché describes).
I think there is an error to conclude that no one is satisfied. (You didn’t say that directly.) Perhaps many are not. The human impulse to achieve more or to acquire more is stronger in some individuals than in others. The successful business man who works many hours to be come even more successful might be illustrative of one for whom satisfaction is always ahead of where he is.
"Having-it-all" is a colloquialism, similar to the "golden streets of America"... Cliches?? (Can't get the accent to work?:-) But, with whatever they have, there is a growing tendency (or is there) of dissatisfaction with many. Consumerism... The American way, may not be THE way!? But illusionists that many tend to be they often dream beyond their personal achiecement levels into despair and crisis.
I think there is a difference between impulse-to-achieve and aspiration-to-discover, and to improve technologically?? "Impulse" seems 'self', "discover" more 'other'??? Different motivation of individuals for whatever reason?? All of course moving humanity one way or another: towards, or away from, truth...
"...needs that some might describe as Spiritual..."
“Spiritual” phantoms don’t satisfy either. People who pursue such have to keep pursuing. They also keep changing their perceptions of “spirit” inventions. They argue about and challenge one another as to whose phantom is correct. Some people attend religious services multiple times a week. Some people feel compelled to thank God every time they eat. The compulsion appears not to satisfy. (Of course, I recognize these people don’t consider that they pursue an illusion. But whatever they consider, it does not satisfy.) (Bold added) JAK, do you deny them their satisfaction?
RM: I think there might be a difference of interpretation of the term "Spiritual" as inferred by me above. I think you might better understand my meaning if i said, "psyche" needs?? Another might be when saying, "XYZ has a sweet, or mean, spirit..." is to use the word "disposition"??? Nothing relating to "phantom", mystical or religion...
Might it be while speaking the same language, their is confusion in the jargons between believers and none believers :-)?? Warm regards, Roger
Evidence, Consensus, & Reliability (son)
son,
The most effective indoctrination from religion, politics, and nationalism is that indoctrination which is undetected by those who have been indoctrinated. It begins early from cradle up. Of course, I don’t know your history and recognize that in my response.
We humans are both resistant to new ideas and at the same time embrace discovery -- particularly as it has clear benefit to us. The Wright brothers were seen as crazy by many as they experimented with “flying machines.” We have a different view today. The same might be said for countless discoveries and inventions as they first were an idea and as they later became a reality.
The evolution of acceptance for innovation in thinking and invention is often slow and occurs over generations. Sometimes it occurs rapidly (relatively speaking).
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
Your posts are well taken, at this time proof of God (creator) revolves completely on personal experience and observation.
God claims vary even within the same religion and in religious myths generally. Had you said perception “revolves ... on personal experience and observation,” I would agree. In addition, perceptions differ and change even in the same people over time.
Evidence demonstrates that “personal experience and observation” as it is confined to an individual is unreliable. How do we know that? We know if from intellectual inquiry into various claims of God which disagree with one another. Evidence for something is not equal to proof for something. However, evidence is the starting point which moves intellectually honest exploration toward reliable conclusion. Gravity works. “As a builder,” you know that and rely upon it.
Early superstition was the forerunner of religion. Today, we appear to be well past the religious debates over multiple gods. But once, from a perspective long ago, “personal experience and observation,” it seemed certain that “gods” were in control and to be worshipped, given sacrifice (both animal an human), etc. Gradually, over time, the number of gods was reduced to few. The invention of one God was a major doctrinal shift in religious construction.
Today, most people who are religious debate a variety of myths concerning one God claims. And most such debates are directly linked to “personal experience and observation.”
The same questions exist. Which God myth is correct? The rational answer is that none is correct. Different claims by different pundits result from different “personal experience and observation.”
(As always, I am open to direct quotation and question regarding the analysis, son.)
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
As a builder, I know it takes plans, design, effort and vision in order to build the most simple of structures. The evidence is overwhelming to me. I cannot convince nor prove to another anything, even some would deny everything they see, taste and smell as an illusion.
Yes, evidence regarding building and structure can be seen with much clarity today as indeed it was by the ancient civilizations which also built quite elaborate structures. That’s not evidence for God. It is evidence for science and the reliability which we enjoy in structural engineering.
The number of individuals who “deny everything they see, taste and smell as illusion” is so small as to be difficult to document. There are “some” who claim the earth is flat. Evidence does not support their position. You along with a consensus of civil engineers would understand “structures.” God claims are irrelevant.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
To me God is no assumption, but a real power that has proven to me He exists. I believe the system is set up this way purposefully. Every one must do His own seeking and finding. Or not. We have free-doom.
To people who believed in many gods, it was “no assumption” either. But, of course it was. They could no more provide clear, transparent evidence open to skeptical review than someone today can provide for their one God claims.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
“..but a real power that has proven to me He exists.”
Well, in that case and if true, you can show us clear, transparent evidence open to skeptical review.. You say you are a builder. What do you build? If you build buildings, you can show us the evidence for your craft. You have consensus with other builders regarding the principles of building. (I realize I am presuming what you may build. But, you said you were “a builder.”) You may build computers or something else.
Whatever you “build,” (unless you are using a tricking with a word), you can demonstrate how you build, the principles of your craft, AND consensus on rules and construction techniques which make your product work or last or serve a purpose for which it was built. God claims are irrelevant.
Absent that clear, transparent evidence for any God claim such a claim should be dismissed as phantom. You can make-it-up, claim its correct, and claim you cannot show anyone. Such illusion carries no reliability. (I’ll assume you are not a Muslim.) If you were a Muslim, you would have a dramatically different God myth and believe with equal irrationality in that religious myth. (Or it could be belief in the Hindu religion, the Buddhist religion or some other). Religious myths are unreliable.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
I believe the system is set up this way purposefully. Every one must do His own seeking and finding. Or not. We have free-doom.
Phantom is a substitute for fact. You can believe what your indoctrination has instilled in you to believe. It does not make it valid. And for “everyone” to make up his own belief is a most obvious failed method for arrival at reliable. Your last sentence is applicable in the USA at least. Everyone does have the freedom to his own phantom. However, that begs the question of reliable conclusion. In the building trades, reason is employed. In reason, accumulation of information and knowledge, we find reliable consensus. Fact is relevant not fiction.
Even so, you are not prevented by any law from belief which is irrational. Of course if you kill your neighbor and claim: “God told me to do it,” you become at odds with the law. And the legal system will likely put you in jail or in life-time psychiatric care for acting on your beliefs.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
The quest is real to me.
It may be. And you are likely to revise your conclusions along the way. You are likely to have different “personal experience and observation” which will modify your perspective.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
There is purpose in seeking attributes greater than I currently have. When I am still, there are benefits. When I am grateful there are blessings. When I seek, I do find.
It’s a nice statement of emotional comfort level. And perceptions of comfort tend to feel good. Some religious dogma makes people feel good.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
Just like a scientist seeks and finds. The principles are the same.
An incorrect assertion. A scientist looks for facts, evidence, and principles which both he and other scientists examine with critical analysis. The “principles” are not the same.
Often the medical scientist does not find what he hopes to find as he researches a potential cure or treatment for illness. Other scientists as well are open, truthful, transparent, and skeptical about their discoveries.
It may make you feel good to imagine that you are like a scientist, but your descriptions of your own belief regardless of transparent fact place your views as believing in truth by assertion.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
I cannot prove God to anyone, they cannot disprove God to me. It is awesome.
A clear and enormous difference between you and science and the science of building. Not only can you not establish evidence for any God claim, such evidence has not been established.
The burden of proof lies with the person(s) making a claim. So if you claim God, the responsibility is yours to present extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim.
There is nothing “awesome” about religious myths except perhaps the fact the humans with a brain to think opt instead to revert to ancient myth based on superstition, ignorance, misinformation, and fiction. Even so, “awesome” is the wrong word to describe such incongruity.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
All we have are assertions, even science holds partial truths, that build upon each other with every new discovery.
A false first five words. We have information, knowledge, and conclusions which are reliable from honest intellectual inquiry.
Of course science continues to gain knowledge as the past two centuries of rather well recorded scientific history can demonstrate. That science is continuing to make discovery is a result of truthful, honest investigation of fact.
It does not result from truth by assertion as are religious claims. It is correct that science builds upon genuine, honest, transparent discoveries previously made.
Religious myth does nothing of the kind. Science is not secretive by calculation or by deception or by claiming (absent evidence). Anyone (especially other scientists) is invited to see the data and test the experiments over and over. That’s how incorrect conclusion is discovered and amended. Religion is secretive, cloaked in ambiguous language, and not open to honest intellectual study.
The analysis you present is misstated and inaccurate.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
One day the scientists will discover the cohesive bond of all things is called love. Even the very love of God substance.
Wishful thinking (emotional feel-good sentiment) for which you present no evidence. No evidence has been presented for any of the many conflicting God claims. A study of the many God claims which pundits of those claims set forward today reveals them to be inconsistent, contradictory, and unreliable.
Only by playing the ostriage can one delude one’s self into one of the many God myths found today in religion.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
As to the parameters of proof.
Prove love exists. Try to handle it. Prove love is not, and you will see a world that is not.
We have overwhelming evidence for the emotion love. We can observe behavior which demonstrates that emotion. Observe the interaction of parents with children, care given to the sick or dying, wives and husbands as they interact.
I don’t know what attempt you make to preclude evidence in the statement here. Whatever it is, it’s flawed with regard to the many evidences we have for “love” in a variety of behavioral manifestations.
It appears you’re into a straw man argument -- attacking some claim never made.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
Prove Joy exists. You may see effects of joy in a smile, but that is not the joy.
Just like the sunset is not God, but God is in the sunset.
Just like the Rainbow is not God, but God is in the rainbow.
Prove Hate does not exist. You see its results, but where does hate sleep. Where does it rise, and fall? Can you hold it, touch it, taste it, smell it.
All of the unseen things can not be proven to another, but yet to deny them is ignorance.
All of the unseen, hidden emotions and powers within man are the very things that bring pain, suffering, poverty, death. Joy, love, kindness, patience and life to each and every one of us.
Prove the root power of all of these entities of energy and you will have your answer of God or no God.
son, you are engaged in the fallacy of piling on of claims or multiple assertions. You appear to believe that claim upon claim upon claim upon claim will establish credibility for you. The tactic fails and each claim absent evidence can be addressed rationally and with specificity.
Regarding human emotions we have ample evidence from psychology and psychiatry for human emotions including those you mention. Much research has been done on the emotions you mention and evidence confirms those emotions.
No evidence has been established for God claims. You engage in double-talk absent meaning, and you continue to make God assertions for which you establish no evidence.
We have clear evidence for human emotions. We even have evidence for emotions in certain animals as we observe their behavior.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
There are no assumptions, there is belief, or unbelief.
False claim, son. You do little else in the last part of your post here but make assumptions. Belief in the absurd and belief absent evidence should be dismissed. It’s unreasoned, and fails to be established as reliable. It’s the trademark of religious myth. It is irrational and hides from honest intellectual inquiry.
JAK
The most effective indoctrination from religion, politics, and nationalism is that indoctrination which is undetected by those who have been indoctrinated. It begins early from cradle up. Of course, I don’t know your history and recognize that in my response.
We humans are both resistant to new ideas and at the same time embrace discovery -- particularly as it has clear benefit to us. The Wright brothers were seen as crazy by many as they experimented with “flying machines.” We have a different view today. The same might be said for countless discoveries and inventions as they first were an idea and as they later became a reality.
The evolution of acceptance for innovation in thinking and invention is often slow and occurs over generations. Sometimes it occurs rapidly (relatively speaking).
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
Your posts are well taken, at this time proof of God (creator) revolves completely on personal experience and observation.
God claims vary even within the same religion and in religious myths generally. Had you said perception “revolves ... on personal experience and observation,” I would agree. In addition, perceptions differ and change even in the same people over time.
Evidence demonstrates that “personal experience and observation” as it is confined to an individual is unreliable. How do we know that? We know if from intellectual inquiry into various claims of God which disagree with one another. Evidence for something is not equal to proof for something. However, evidence is the starting point which moves intellectually honest exploration toward reliable conclusion. Gravity works. “As a builder,” you know that and rely upon it.
Early superstition was the forerunner of religion. Today, we appear to be well past the religious debates over multiple gods. But once, from a perspective long ago, “personal experience and observation,” it seemed certain that “gods” were in control and to be worshipped, given sacrifice (both animal an human), etc. Gradually, over time, the number of gods was reduced to few. The invention of one God was a major doctrinal shift in religious construction.
Today, most people who are religious debate a variety of myths concerning one God claims. And most such debates are directly linked to “personal experience and observation.”
The same questions exist. Which God myth is correct? The rational answer is that none is correct. Different claims by different pundits result from different “personal experience and observation.”
(As always, I am open to direct quotation and question regarding the analysis, son.)
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
As a builder, I know it takes plans, design, effort and vision in order to build the most simple of structures. The evidence is overwhelming to me. I cannot convince nor prove to another anything, even some would deny everything they see, taste and smell as an illusion.
Yes, evidence regarding building and structure can be seen with much clarity today as indeed it was by the ancient civilizations which also built quite elaborate structures. That’s not evidence for God. It is evidence for science and the reliability which we enjoy in structural engineering.
The number of individuals who “deny everything they see, taste and smell as illusion” is so small as to be difficult to document. There are “some” who claim the earth is flat. Evidence does not support their position. You along with a consensus of civil engineers would understand “structures.” God claims are irrelevant.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
To me God is no assumption, but a real power that has proven to me He exists. I believe the system is set up this way purposefully. Every one must do His own seeking and finding. Or not. We have free-doom.
To people who believed in many gods, it was “no assumption” either. But, of course it was. They could no more provide clear, transparent evidence open to skeptical review than someone today can provide for their one God claims.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
“..but a real power that has proven to me He exists.”
Well, in that case and if true, you can show us clear, transparent evidence open to skeptical review.. You say you are a builder. What do you build? If you build buildings, you can show us the evidence for your craft. You have consensus with other builders regarding the principles of building. (I realize I am presuming what you may build. But, you said you were “a builder.”) You may build computers or something else.
Whatever you “build,” (unless you are using a tricking with a word), you can demonstrate how you build, the principles of your craft, AND consensus on rules and construction techniques which make your product work or last or serve a purpose for which it was built. God claims are irrelevant.
Absent that clear, transparent evidence for any God claim such a claim should be dismissed as phantom. You can make-it-up, claim its correct, and claim you cannot show anyone. Such illusion carries no reliability. (I’ll assume you are not a Muslim.) If you were a Muslim, you would have a dramatically different God myth and believe with equal irrationality in that religious myth. (Or it could be belief in the Hindu religion, the Buddhist religion or some other). Religious myths are unreliable.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
I believe the system is set up this way purposefully. Every one must do His own seeking and finding. Or not. We have free-doom.
Phantom is a substitute for fact. You can believe what your indoctrination has instilled in you to believe. It does not make it valid. And for “everyone” to make up his own belief is a most obvious failed method for arrival at reliable. Your last sentence is applicable in the USA at least. Everyone does have the freedom to his own phantom. However, that begs the question of reliable conclusion. In the building trades, reason is employed. In reason, accumulation of information and knowledge, we find reliable consensus. Fact is relevant not fiction.
Even so, you are not prevented by any law from belief which is irrational. Of course if you kill your neighbor and claim: “God told me to do it,” you become at odds with the law. And the legal system will likely put you in jail or in life-time psychiatric care for acting on your beliefs.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
The quest is real to me.
It may be. And you are likely to revise your conclusions along the way. You are likely to have different “personal experience and observation” which will modify your perspective.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
There is purpose in seeking attributes greater than I currently have. When I am still, there are benefits. When I am grateful there are blessings. When I seek, I do find.
It’s a nice statement of emotional comfort level. And perceptions of comfort tend to feel good. Some religious dogma makes people feel good.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
Just like a scientist seeks and finds. The principles are the same.
An incorrect assertion. A scientist looks for facts, evidence, and principles which both he and other scientists examine with critical analysis. The “principles” are not the same.
Often the medical scientist does not find what he hopes to find as he researches a potential cure or treatment for illness. Other scientists as well are open, truthful, transparent, and skeptical about their discoveries.
It may make you feel good to imagine that you are like a scientist, but your descriptions of your own belief regardless of transparent fact place your views as believing in truth by assertion.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
I cannot prove God to anyone, they cannot disprove God to me. It is awesome.
A clear and enormous difference between you and science and the science of building. Not only can you not establish evidence for any God claim, such evidence has not been established.
The burden of proof lies with the person(s) making a claim. So if you claim God, the responsibility is yours to present extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim.
There is nothing “awesome” about religious myths except perhaps the fact the humans with a brain to think opt instead to revert to ancient myth based on superstition, ignorance, misinformation, and fiction. Even so, “awesome” is the wrong word to describe such incongruity.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
All we have are assertions, even science holds partial truths, that build upon each other with every new discovery.
A false first five words. We have information, knowledge, and conclusions which are reliable from honest intellectual inquiry.
Of course science continues to gain knowledge as the past two centuries of rather well recorded scientific history can demonstrate. That science is continuing to make discovery is a result of truthful, honest investigation of fact.
It does not result from truth by assertion as are religious claims. It is correct that science builds upon genuine, honest, transparent discoveries previously made.
Religious myth does nothing of the kind. Science is not secretive by calculation or by deception or by claiming (absent evidence). Anyone (especially other scientists) is invited to see the data and test the experiments over and over. That’s how incorrect conclusion is discovered and amended. Religion is secretive, cloaked in ambiguous language, and not open to honest intellectual study.
The analysis you present is misstated and inaccurate.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
One day the scientists will discover the cohesive bond of all things is called love. Even the very love of God substance.
Wishful thinking (emotional feel-good sentiment) for which you present no evidence. No evidence has been presented for any of the many conflicting God claims. A study of the many God claims which pundits of those claims set forward today reveals them to be inconsistent, contradictory, and unreliable.
Only by playing the ostriage can one delude one’s self into one of the many God myths found today in religion.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
As to the parameters of proof.
Prove love exists. Try to handle it. Prove love is not, and you will see a world that is not.
We have overwhelming evidence for the emotion love. We can observe behavior which demonstrates that emotion. Observe the interaction of parents with children, care given to the sick or dying, wives and husbands as they interact.
I don’t know what attempt you make to preclude evidence in the statement here. Whatever it is, it’s flawed with regard to the many evidences we have for “love” in a variety of behavioral manifestations.
It appears you’re into a straw man argument -- attacking some claim never made.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
Prove Joy exists. You may see effects of joy in a smile, but that is not the joy.
Just like the sunset is not God, but God is in the sunset.
Just like the Rainbow is not God, but God is in the rainbow.
Prove Hate does not exist. You see its results, but where does hate sleep. Where does it rise, and fall? Can you hold it, touch it, taste it, smell it.
All of the unseen things can not be proven to another, but yet to deny them is ignorance.
All of the unseen, hidden emotions and powers within man are the very things that bring pain, suffering, poverty, death. Joy, love, kindness, patience and life to each and every one of us.
Prove the root power of all of these entities of energy and you will have your answer of God or no God.
son, you are engaged in the fallacy of piling on of claims or multiple assertions. You appear to believe that claim upon claim upon claim upon claim will establish credibility for you. The tactic fails and each claim absent evidence can be addressed rationally and with specificity.
Regarding human emotions we have ample evidence from psychology and psychiatry for human emotions including those you mention. Much research has been done on the emotions you mention and evidence confirms those emotions.
No evidence has been established for God claims. You engage in double-talk absent meaning, and you continue to make God assertions for which you establish no evidence.
We have clear evidence for human emotions. We even have evidence for emotions in certain animals as we observe their behavior.
son stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:08 pm:
There are no assumptions, there is belief, or unbelief.
False claim, son. You do little else in the last part of your post here but make assumptions. Belief in the absurd and belief absent evidence should be dismissed. It’s unreasoned, and fails to be established as reliable. It’s the trademark of religious myth. It is irrational and hides from honest intellectual inquiry.
JAK
Re: Evidence, Consensus, & Reliability (son)
oops
Be ye therefore Perfect, or go through the back door of death.
Roger’s post Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am
Fine rejoinder, Roger.
You make thoughtful points. Let me focus on some without full quotation of all you say.
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
But, with whatever they have, there is a growing tendency (or is there) of dissatisfaction with many.
“Dissatisfaction” is exacerbated by information among the have nots as they gain authentic information about their status (television). Even the relatively poor in the USA have some access to TV. Even if they don’t read newspapers or magazines, they do have access to some information which is a revelation to them about their status comparatively. “Dissatisfaction” is possible only as people are able to have information regarding their comparative status.
Your conclusion is correct for the reason here. The “tendency” for “dissatisfaction” comes as a result of genuine recognition of the differences between classes. Given the various means of communication today, information (regarding cultural/class differences) tends to permeate.
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
The American way, may not be THE way!?
Cultural/informational evolution is not at an end. I suggest there is an evolving “way” (American or any other). Often changes are subtle, but not always.
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
But illusionists that many tend to be they often dream beyond their personal achiecement (achievement) levels into despair and crisis.
Well, yes, but some are able to elevate themselves through luck, education, or connections. Yet, “despair and crisis” are clearly present. A shrinking middle class and the transfer of wealth up contribute to that “despair and crisis.”
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
I think there is a difference between impulse-to-achieve and aspiration-to-discover, and to improve technologically?? "Impulse" seems 'self', "discover" more 'other'??? Different motivation of individuals for whatever reason??
Yes, the distinction is well made.
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
All of course moving humanity one way or another: towards, or away from, truth... "...needs that some might describe as Spiritual..."
I don’t think I understand the statement.
JAK previously:
The compulsion appears not to satisfy. (Of course, I recognize these people don’t consider that they pursue an illusion. But whatever they consider, it does not satisfy.)
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
JAK, do you deny them their satisfaction?
As I stated, the pursuit of “spiritual” illusion does not satisfy. If it did, there would not be the need to repeat creeds weekly or other forms of religious doctrine/myth. (We don’t need to repeat tests for gravity because it’s reliable.)
But in answer to your question, we have, in the USA, freedom of religion, and we respect it. That it may present a danger or threat is irrelevant. People are free to substitute prayer for modern medical care in the event of a heart attack, etc.
To some extent in the case of minors, the law does intervene when a parent with a child who had an appendicitis chooses “spiritual healing” over modern medicine. The area is murky and varies from one location to another throughout the USA and likely in some other countries as well. There are cases in which “child abuse” charges have prevailed when children died as a result of parental denial of medical care in favor of prayer and appeals to God.
Should parents have the right the freedom of religion to deny their minor children life-saving medical care in favor of freedom of religion?
The issue comes before the courts periodically. Often, however, it never comes before the court. A child dies from an entirely treatable condition as parents of some religious group practice freedom of religion. It’s often below the “radar” of the legal system.
Even in a nation of laws, there are many “crimes” which go unaddressed just as there are those who are imprisoned who are innocent. (Some are later are found innocent as a result of DNA evidence, for example). Only recently in the news was a man spent 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit and was finally found innocent as a result of new evidence. Justice delayed is justice denied. But he expressed joy at being released from prison.
There is no question that some who are imprisoned remain there because they lack sufficient funds for the best lawyer. There are also those who go free who are guilty as a result of sufficient funds for the best lawyer.
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
I think there might be a difference of interpretation of the term "Spiritual" as inferred by me above. I think you might better understand my meaning if I said, "psyche" needs?? Another might be when saying, "XYZ has a sweet, or mean, spirit..." is to use the word "disposition"??? Nothing relating to "phantom", mystical or religion...
Certainly, that’s an applicable use and meaning of “spirit.” I’m not sure it’s applicable to the word “spiritual.” When people speak of a “spiritual” experience, they are not talking about “sweet” vs. “mean.” But if the sentence is: He has a mean spirit, or of a five-year old girl that: She has a sweet spirit, the speaker is likely not making reference to religion (directly). The flexibility of language is good, but it can make for mis-communication without clarification.
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
Might it be while speaking the same language, their is confusion in the jargons between believers and none believers :-)??
Of course.
JAK
You make thoughtful points. Let me focus on some without full quotation of all you say.
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
But, with whatever they have, there is a growing tendency (or is there) of dissatisfaction with many.
“Dissatisfaction” is exacerbated by information among the have nots as they gain authentic information about their status (television). Even the relatively poor in the USA have some access to TV. Even if they don’t read newspapers or magazines, they do have access to some information which is a revelation to them about their status comparatively. “Dissatisfaction” is possible only as people are able to have information regarding their comparative status.
Your conclusion is correct for the reason here. The “tendency” for “dissatisfaction” comes as a result of genuine recognition of the differences between classes. Given the various means of communication today, information (regarding cultural/class differences) tends to permeate.
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
The American way, may not be THE way!?
Cultural/informational evolution is not at an end. I suggest there is an evolving “way” (American or any other). Often changes are subtle, but not always.
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
But illusionists that many tend to be they often dream beyond their personal achiecement (achievement) levels into despair and crisis.
Well, yes, but some are able to elevate themselves through luck, education, or connections. Yet, “despair and crisis” are clearly present. A shrinking middle class and the transfer of wealth up contribute to that “despair and crisis.”
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
I think there is a difference between impulse-to-achieve and aspiration-to-discover, and to improve technologically?? "Impulse" seems 'self', "discover" more 'other'??? Different motivation of individuals for whatever reason??
Yes, the distinction is well made.
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
All of course moving humanity one way or another: towards, or away from, truth... "...needs that some might describe as Spiritual..."
I don’t think I understand the statement.
JAK previously:
The compulsion appears not to satisfy. (Of course, I recognize these people don’t consider that they pursue an illusion. But whatever they consider, it does not satisfy.)
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
JAK, do you deny them their satisfaction?
As I stated, the pursuit of “spiritual” illusion does not satisfy. If it did, there would not be the need to repeat creeds weekly or other forms of religious doctrine/myth. (We don’t need to repeat tests for gravity because it’s reliable.)
But in answer to your question, we have, in the USA, freedom of religion, and we respect it. That it may present a danger or threat is irrelevant. People are free to substitute prayer for modern medical care in the event of a heart attack, etc.
To some extent in the case of minors, the law does intervene when a parent with a child who had an appendicitis chooses “spiritual healing” over modern medicine. The area is murky and varies from one location to another throughout the USA and likely in some other countries as well. There are cases in which “child abuse” charges have prevailed when children died as a result of parental denial of medical care in favor of prayer and appeals to God.
Should parents have the right the freedom of religion to deny their minor children life-saving medical care in favor of freedom of religion?
The issue comes before the courts periodically. Often, however, it never comes before the court. A child dies from an entirely treatable condition as parents of some religious group practice freedom of religion. It’s often below the “radar” of the legal system.
Even in a nation of laws, there are many “crimes” which go unaddressed just as there are those who are imprisoned who are innocent. (Some are later are found innocent as a result of DNA evidence, for example). Only recently in the news was a man spent 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit and was finally found innocent as a result of new evidence. Justice delayed is justice denied. But he expressed joy at being released from prison.
There is no question that some who are imprisoned remain there because they lack sufficient funds for the best lawyer. There are also those who go free who are guilty as a result of sufficient funds for the best lawyer.
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
I think there might be a difference of interpretation of the term "Spiritual" as inferred by me above. I think you might better understand my meaning if I said, "psyche" needs?? Another might be when saying, "XYZ has a sweet, or mean, spirit..." is to use the word "disposition"??? Nothing relating to "phantom", mystical or religion...
Certainly, that’s an applicable use and meaning of “spirit.” I’m not sure it’s applicable to the word “spiritual.” When people speak of a “spiritual” experience, they are not talking about “sweet” vs. “mean.” But if the sentence is: He has a mean spirit, or of a five-year old girl that: She has a sweet spirit, the speaker is likely not making reference to religion (directly). The flexibility of language is good, but it can make for mis-communication without clarification.
Roger wrote Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am:
Might it be while speaking the same language, their is confusion in the jargons between believers and none believers :-)??
Of course.
JAK
-
_The Nehor
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11832
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am
Re: Roger’s post Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:30 am
JAK wrote:But if the sentence is: He has a mean spirit, or of a five-year old girl that: She has a sweet spirit, the speaker is likely not making reference to religion (directly).
You shouldn't tell five-year old girls that they're fat ;)
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
-
_Roger Morrison
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1831
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am
Hi JAK, nice to exchange with you... I would like to carry forward with your above post. But, i'll have to wait to get back on home-base. I'm currently at a small, wonderful library adjacent to my boat, where my wife and me are spending the weekend. Life IS beautiful, and full of joy for me; one of the VERY lucky ones :-)
I'll pick up seriously Sun./Mon?? Warm regards, Roger
PS: Nehor, or skinny ;-)
I'll pick up seriously Sun./Mon?? Warm regards, Roger
PS: Nehor, or skinny ;-)
-
_Roger Morrison
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1831
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am
JAK, back home after a beautiful "Labour Day" weekend. Hmm, that celebration of "Labour" could open a whole new topic :-)
What you said about "Dissatisfaction...exacerbation..."
...can also be said about "Satisfaction". That is, being communicated--even idoctrinated/brain-washed--in the same way... It seems to me that the forming--nurturing, through the broad range of influences--of an individual, and groups of similars, IF/WHEN positive, and not phantom/fantasized, THEN those folks are better equipped to differentiate between propoganda/myth/legend/misinfo/lies, and facts/truth to choose 'truth'.
This could turn the tables, so to speak, and the falsely-satisfied might become "dissatisfied", while the falsely-dissatisfied could become "satified"??? Thwarting the traditional socio-political system; including the economic & religious planks on which much of the worlds material & psyche disparity is based...
Agreed. It's a process, not often painless; sometimes VERY painful, none the less, ongoing... Over the week end we watched two DVDs: "The Dark Ages" & "China Revealed" that make those points quite clear. Highly recommended...
I think i meant :-), that some might be in states of depression/anxiety, rather than in material-need, with sagging spirits--to them... A "jargon" thing???
JAK, might that 'compulsiveness' be better considered as "gratify-ing" rather than "satisfy-ing"? The former, as i understand the term, is never permanently/completely "satisfied". A continuous search of more, maybe better??
One such 'need' might be 'oral-gratification' that was not really satified in infancy/childhood (pop psych ?? :-) Making the mouth the ortifice of much human 'satisfaction': Thumb-sucking, nail-bitting, smoking, gluttony, boozing, love-making... The latter of course not to be compared to any of the others... although... to each their own, eh??
When folks return for more-of-the-same, in a rigid habit form (fanatically?) are they not simply attending to a "need" that is personal and as such deserving of respect and understanding, whether or not with agreement? I sense this begs a question of harmlessness. But, edicting in these cases??? Do you not think "evolving" will eventually solve the "problem" as you, i, and others might see it??
A person's "spiritual experience" might be "sweet" to them--i can imagine they would described it that way. Hardly ever "mean"... To the UL'd: I completely agree. OTOH, since we all are, generally speaking, from different levels of education et al, i think it incumbent on 'all' to give 'each' some lee-way in their attempt to communicate. Especially when 'talking' religion, a very emotionally ladden subject; making it by definition: subjective ;-) Waddaya think? Warm regards, Roger
What you said about "Dissatisfaction...exacerbation..."
“Dissatisfaction” is exacerbated by information among the have nots as they gain authentic information about their status (television). Even the relatively poor in the USA have some access to TV. Even if they don’t read newspapers or magazines, they do have access to some information which is a revelation to them about their status comparatively. “Dissatisfaction” is possible only as people are able to have information regarding their comparative status.
Your conclusion is correct for the reason here. The “tendency” for “dissatisfaction” comes as a result of genuine recognition of the differences between classes. Given the various means of communication today, information (regarding cultural/class differences) tends to permeate
...can also be said about "Satisfaction". That is, being communicated--even idoctrinated/brain-washed--in the same way... It seems to me that the forming--nurturing, through the broad range of influences--of an individual, and groups of similars, IF/WHEN positive, and not phantom/fantasized, THEN those folks are better equipped to differentiate between propoganda/myth/legend/misinfo/lies, and facts/truth to choose 'truth'.
This could turn the tables, so to speak, and the falsely-satisfied might become "dissatisfied", while the falsely-dissatisfied could become "satified"??? Thwarting the traditional socio-political system; including the economic & religious planks on which much of the worlds material & psyche disparity is based...
Cultural/informational evolution is not at an end. I suggest there is an evolving “way” (American or any other). Often changes are subtle, but not always.
Agreed. It's a process, not often painless; sometimes VERY painful, none the less, ongoing... Over the week end we watched two DVDs: "The Dark Ages" & "China Revealed" that make those points quite clear. Highly recommended...
"...needs that some might describe as Spiritual..."
I think i meant :-), that some might be in states of depression/anxiety, rather than in material-need, with sagging spirits--to them... A "jargon" thing???
As I stated, the pursuit of “spiritual” illusion does not satisfy. If it did, there would not be the need to repeat creeds weekly or other forms of religious doctrine/myth. (We don’t need to repeat tests for gravity because it’s reliable.)
JAK, might that 'compulsiveness' be better considered as "gratify-ing" rather than "satisfy-ing"? The former, as i understand the term, is never permanently/completely "satisfied". A continuous search of more, maybe better??
One such 'need' might be 'oral-gratification' that was not really satified in infancy/childhood (pop psych ?? :-) Making the mouth the ortifice of much human 'satisfaction': Thumb-sucking, nail-bitting, smoking, gluttony, boozing, love-making... The latter of course not to be compared to any of the others... although... to each their own, eh??
When folks return for more-of-the-same, in a rigid habit form (fanatically?) are they not simply attending to a "need" that is personal and as such deserving of respect and understanding, whether or not with agreement? I sense this begs a question of harmlessness. But, edicting in these cases??? Do you not think "evolving" will eventually solve the "problem" as you, i, and others might see it??
Certainly, that’s an applicable use and meaning of “spirit.” I’m not sure it’s applicable to the word “spiritual.” When people speak of a “spiritual” experience, they are not talking about “sweet” vs. “mean.” But if the sentence is: He has a mean spirit, or of a five-year old girl that: She has a sweet spirit, the speaker is likely not making reference to religion (directly). The flexibility of language is good, but it can make for mis-communication without clarification. (UL added)
A person's "spiritual experience" might be "sweet" to them--i can imagine they would described it that way. Hardly ever "mean"... To the UL'd: I completely agree. OTOH, since we all are, generally speaking, from different levels of education et al, i think it incumbent on 'all' to give 'each' some lee-way in their attempt to communicate. Especially when 'talking' religion, a very emotionally ladden subject; making it by definition: subjective ;-) Waddaya think? Warm regards, Roger