Claiming you know Vs. actually Knowing

[_Gadianton]

I think ALiTd means that accounting for belief with a neurological structure would not preclude the existence of God. It might, however, offend a few Chapel Mormons who think that spiritual feelings were confined to the actual spiritual realm.

ALiTd,

Why don't you flip off the light and give your God a big middle finger? It's a lot more fun here on the other side. And when you die, you'll get to view the respective state of the elect and watch how bored they are playing their harps in heaven and stuff like that. Let's get the party started, what do you say?

[_harmony]

The notion of God contradicts many aspects of such logic and sense.

If we had reason to believe that our perceptions violated logic and sense, that would be good reason to distrust them. Unfortunately, for you at least, perception of God does not have these defeaters as it is not illogical or nonsensical.

This is not a convincing argument. These aren't even convincing assertions. Surely you can do better? Anyone with a basic class in history of religion could offer a more convincing argument than these assertions. Trinity is correct, as far as he/she goes. Please try again to refute what is said about early man's relationship with deity (or what he thought was deity), and this time, actually put some thought into it, instead of just blind assertions (they make you look like you've never opened a book on the subject). And if you can't, please sit quietly and learn, because right now, you're just making yourself look foolish and it's embarrassing to watch.

[_Trinity]

The notion of God contradicts many aspects of such logic and sense.

If we had reason to believe that our perceptions violated logic and sense, that would be good reason to distrust them. Unfortunately, for you at least, perception of God does not have these defeaters as it is not illogical or nonsensical.

I said notion of God contradicts many aspects of logic and sense, not our perceptions. Our senses are smelling, hearing, seeing, touching and taste. Can you use any of these to ascertain the existence of God? When was the last time you literally smelled, heard, saw, touched or tasted God? Literally. Not what you interpret to be God (i.e. I spy a rainbow, I spy a mountain, I spy God). If we know by logic that we experience life through our senses, then why would we suspend these elements in order to gain a knowledge of the supernatural?

For the person who believes that God is created from chemicals in the brain, they have a much stronger argument. It is an argument that can be supported by logic and senses. It put God on a level such as love. We know what is within us that causes those bodily responses of euphoria, of giddiness. Those monoamines such as adrinalin that makes us sweat and causes our heart to race, or that serotonin that actually causes moments of temporary insanity.
Like love, we create God by utilizing known chemical reactions that can be duplicated in a controlled setting. Of course, knowing what causes both God and love tends to take some of the romanticism or mystique out of it, but it certainly does help the more scientific minded to wrap both notions in a more structured, logical, sense-able package.

As far as man's perception of God being individual, you name me two people who have identical beliefs about God. You can't. Not even within the same organized religion can you find this. Not even within the same religion within the same family can you find this. So if you can find someone who believes EXACTLY like you, name them.

[_Trinity]

I think ALiTd means that accounting for belief with a neurological structure would not preclude the existence of God. It might, however, offend a few Chapel Mormons who think that spiritual feelings were confined to the actual spiritual realm.

ALiTd,

Why don't you flip off the light and give your God a big middle finger? It's a lot more fun here on the other side. And when you die, you'll get to view the respective state of the elect and watch how bored they are playing their harps in heaven and stuff like that. Let's get the party started, what do you say?

It doesn't preclude or eliminate a God. There are some who might suggest this is how God really works. How he really communicates. The less orthodox believer might really embrace this idea. Some have felt this is the only way to marry science with religion, as it enables the human to employ his intellect in a microcosmic way towards God (as opposed to the macrocosmic mystery of some benevolent creature controlling the universe in untestable, unproveable ways.) It also falls perfectly into line with the concept that we are God and God is us, and idea not entirely contradictory with religious concepts and scripture.

I think an open-minded (get it?) individual can connect the physical brain with a larger spiritual reality without getting too bent out of shape. It's a broad spectrum, however, and doesn't always help when scientists like Hamer use this type of research to substantiate the idea that man is nothing but an animal of nature, a "bunch of chemical reactions running around in a bag."

The more advanced man becomes in his thinking, the more often we are going to see the clash between the religion and the science. So the believer in God is, at some point, going to have to say "Does God want us to use our intellect to its potential, or does God want us to suspend the intellect and dummy ourselves down in order to experience Him? Most reasonable people are going to reject both notions, and the intellect will start trying to find solutions that can accomodate that warm cuddly feel of spirituality without sacrificing intellectual integrity.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

The notion of God contradicts many aspects of such logic and sense.

If we had reason to believe that our perceptions violated logic and sense, that would be good reason to distrust them. Unfortunately, for you at least, perception of God does not have these defeaters as it is not illogical or nonsensical.

This is not a convincing argument. These aren't even convincing assertions. Surely you can do better? Anyone with a basic class in history of religion could offer a more convincing argument than these assertions. Trinity is correct, as far as he/she goes. Please try again to refute what is said about early man's relationship with deity (or what he thought was deity), and this time, actually put some thought into it, instead of just blind assertions (they make you look like you've never opened a book on the subject). And if you can't, please sit quietly and learn, because right now, you're just making yourself look foolish and it's embarrassing to watch.

Trinity asserted that God violates logic and sense (or "aspects" of it, even though that means the same thing). This assertion was not backed up in any meaningful sense. I responded that no God doesn't, as a more elaborate reply isn't appropriate for a bald assertion.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

I said notion of God contradicts many aspects of logic and sense, not our perceptions. Our senses are smelling, hearing, seeing, touching and taste. Can you use any of these to ascertain the existence of God? When was the last time you literally smelled, heard, saw, touched or tasted God? Literally. Not what you interpret to be God (I.e. I spy a rainbow, I spy a mountain, I spy God). If we know by logic that we experience life through our senses, then why would we suspend these elements in order to gain a knowledge of the supernatural?

I said "perceptions" because we were talking about perceiving God. If our peceptions, any of them, contradicted logic and sense, we have good reason to disbelieve what we perceive. If not, then not. God does not contradict logic and sense.

Only things that can be heard, seen, touched, smelled, or tasted are sensical or logical? Ok.

Tell me if any of the following propositions are sensical and logical.

Killing and eating 2 year olds is immoral.
My senses are a reliable guide to reality.
The air feels like it is going to rain because I sense a drop in pressure.
Other minds exist and love me.

Please justify them using hearing, sight, touch, smell, or taste. I don't think you can. Regardless, eliminating perceptions of God because it involves a spiritual sense rather than a visual sense at best is not understanding the range of human cognition and at worst is just begging the question. "Seeing" God is part of our cognitive equipment. This is well known enough that people like Mercury have to label the vast majority of people as defective (because his pride prevents him from contemplating the notion that the defect might be with him.)

For the person who believes that God is created from chemicals in the brain, they have a much stronger argument. It is an argument that can be supported by logic and senses. It put God on a level such as love.

And trees, and people, and water, and anything else you perceive, as it all has brain state correlates. That does not mean they are not real. Like those aforementioned things, we haven't actually explained perceptions of those objects in terms of brain states yet, but that doesn't stop you from asserting that we have a material explanation. From very vague knowledge of what goes on during certain kinds of religious experiences, you all of a sudden feel comfortable saying "we create God with chemicals X, Y, and Z." You are the one willing to believe in what you are biased towards on the flimsiest pretext. If not, by all means reference some papers where a perception of God is described in lush detail. That, so far, doesn't exist for any perception.

As far as man's perception of God being individual, you name me two people who have identical beliefs about God.

Name me two people who have identical beliefs about the Earth. Yet we all accept that believing in the Earth is rational, that our preceptions of it justify our belief in it, and that those who fail to perceive Earth have something defective with their perceiving equipment. Why don't you?

Because people err enough and have different enough information (I'm reminded of the story of different people sensing different parts of an elephant). people can vary in their opinion on the details while broadly agreeing they are pointing to the same thing.

In your frantic effort to deny God you end up creating arguments that eliminate morality, any senses but the "big 5," propositions not justified by empiricism, and perceptions where there isn't 100% agreement. Why not just get it over and be a solipsist?

[_Trinity]

OK. I'll play, just because I have a few extra minutes online to waste today. ;)

Tell me if any of the following propositions are sensical and logical.

Killing and eating 2 year olds is immoral.

Immoral? Killing and eating 2 year old is not logical because consistent killing and eating will ultimately result in extinction of the species. Man is hard-wired to preserve the species. Any attempts to define morality are directly stemming from this logical need to preserve the species.

My senses are a reliable guide to reality.

Your senses are your only guide to reality as they feed directly to the brain. That makes it both logical and sensible to utilize them.

The air feels like it is going to rain because I sense a drop in pressure.

Is your skin capable of acting as a barometer? Even if it does, such a drop is not going to create a "feel" of rain. If you can smell rain in the air, you can say it smells like it is going to rain. That would be an effective use of your senses. When it is raining, you can feel, smell, taste, touch and hear it. Again, an effective use of your senses.

Other minds exist and love me.

We use all of our senses to observe other humans in an alive, aware state, an indication they too have a brain that is functional. Whether or not these minds love you would depend on your interpretation of brain chemicals after an interaction with these other humans. Did they touch you, hug you, kiss you, tell you they love you?

Regardless, eliminating perceptions of God because it involves a spiritual sense rather than a visual sense at best is not understanding the range of human cognition and at worst is just begging the question. "Seeing" God is part of our cognitive equipment. This is well known enough that people like Mercury have to label the vast majority of people as defective (because his pride prevents him from contemplating the notion that the defect might be with him.)

There is absolutely no way to prove that there is a spiritual sense independent of your other senses. It creates a double bind, however, to suggest that God created our senses and our logic to interpret the world around us and then asks you to frame Him outside of those senses. I cannot tell you that I have "seen" God. Can you tell me you have seen God outside of your senses? What did he look like? How did he feel? Did you hear him?

For the person who believes that God is created from chemicals in the brain, they have a much stronger argument. It is an argument that can be supported by logic and senses. It put God on a level such as love.

And trees, and people, and water, and anything else you perceive, as it all has brain state correlates. That does not mean they are not real. Like those aforementioned things, we haven't actually explained perceptions of those objects in terms of brain states yet, but that doesn't stop you from asserting that we have a material explanation. From very vague knowledge of what goes on during certain kinds of religious experiences, you all of a sudden feel comfortable saying "we create God with chemicals X, Y, and Z." You are the one willing to believe in what you are biased towards on the flimsiest pretext. If not, by all means reference some papers where a perception of God is described in lush detail. That, so far, doesn't exist for any perception.

Yet when the temporal lobe is manipulated by spectral imaging techniques or heightened electrical activity, such "godlike" elements such as heightened sense of self (being one with the universe), both audio-visual visions, hallucinations, vivid memory recall, loss of spacial awareness, etc. can be replicated. Such studies (some have termed it neurotheology) continue to provide material explanation for these so-called spiritual activities. Here are some links if you are truly interested in seeing what kind of work is being done:

http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/The_Paranormal/temporal_lobe_and_religious_experience.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_67/ai_104657310

http://www.religionlink.org/tip_050425.php

Name me two people who have identical beliefs about the Earth. Yet we all accept that believing in the Earth is rational, that our preceptions of it justify our belief in it, and that those who fail to perceive Earth have something defective with their perceiving equipment. Why don't you?

Because people err enough and have different enough information (I'm reminded of the story of different people sensing different parts of an elephant). people can vary in their opinion on the details while broadly agreeing they are pointing to the same thing.

I can't. That is my point. Everyone's perception of everything is individual. That means that God either doesn't communicate his identity well enough that everyone gets his identity muddled or confused, or that God morphs into each individual mind to forge a relationship. The former suggests that God is not a perfect communicator, which makes him imperfect -- and idea most believers have a hard time wrapping their mind around. The latter suggests that God is in the mind. We are God. God is us. It is a better explanation, at least to me. NEITHER is proof of an external God.

In your frantic effort to deny God you end up creating arguments that eliminate morality, any senses but the "big 5," propositions not justified by empiricism, and perceptions where there isn't 100% agreement. Why not just get it over and be a solipsist?

And here I was thinking that I was all sorts of generous to suggest that rather than deny God, one can simply recreate him within our physical faculties. And make no mistake about it, I am a solipsist.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Killing and eating 2 year olds is immoral.

Immoral? Killing and eating 2 year old is not logical because consistent killing and eating will ultimately result in extinction of the species. Man is hard-wired to preserve the species. Any attempts to define morality are directly stemming from this logical need to preserve the species

If the mere fact that killing and eating all two year olds will result in the extinction of the species is your justification for showing how sensory experience can justify this proposition, then this is a simple example of an is/ought fallacy. You haven't established via the senses that it is morally wrong to extinguish the human race.

Your senses are your only guide to reality as they feed directly to the brain. That makes it both logical and sensible to utilize them.

This begs the question.

Is your skin capable of acting as a barometer? Even if it does, such a drop is not going to create a "feel" of rain. If you can smell rain in the air, you can say it smells like it is going to rain. That would be an effective use of your senses. When it is raining, you can feel, smell, taste, touch and hear it. Again, an effective use of your senses.

The principle sense behind feeling that it is going to rain is our ability to detect that air pressure is lowering. It isn't done by the 5 senses you listed. The point is simply that our cognition and sense is more rich than your limited portrayal. I could've picked "hunger" as a detection of low blood-glucose levels. That's also not part of the senses you listed.

We use all of our senses to observe other humans in an alive, aware state, an indication they too have a brain that is functional. Whether or not these minds love you would depend on your interpretation of brain chemicals after an interaction with these other humans. Did they touch you, hug you, kiss you, tell you they love you?

First of all, we had knowledge of other minds and their love towards us before we had any awareness that brains are the thinking organ. Second of all, the mere fact someone has a brain doesn't establish they have a mind. Third of all, the you don't see, touch, taste, hear, of smell love. It is an emotional state you experience and based upon testimony and behavioral cues presume others experience as well.

There is absolutely no way to prove that there is a spiritual sense independent of your other senses.

It's provable in the same sense that vision or love is provable. It is independently corroborated between subjects who experience it.

It creates a double bind, however, to suggest that God created our senses and our logic to interpret the world around us and then asks you to frame Him outside of those senses. I cannot tell you that I have "seen" God. Can you tell me you have seen God outside of your senses? What did he look like? How did he feel? Did you hear him

You are begging the question again. It is under dispute whether these are the only valid senses and it is under dispute if only senses can justify the truth of a proposition. All you are saying is that if spiritual sense isn't vision, hearing, touch, or smell, then it isn't those. Yeah, so? That doesn't make it invalid.

Yet when the temporal lobe is manipulated by spectral imaging techniques or heightened electrical activity, such "godlike" elements such as heightened sense of self (being one with the universe), both audio-visual visions, hallucinations, vivid memory recall, loss of spacial awareness, etc. can be replicated. Such studies (some have termed it neurotheology) continue to provide material explanation for these so-called spiritual activities. Here are some links if you are truly interested in seeing what kind of work is being done:

http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/The_Paranormal/temporal_lobe_and_religious_experience.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_67/ai_104657310

http://www.religionlink.org/tip_050425.php

Again, this only establishes that in one kind of religious experience, we have a very vague picture of what is happening in the brain. This does not in any way translate into the stronger assertion you are making.

I can't. That is my point. Everyone's perception of everything is individual. That means that God either doesn't communicate his identity well enough that everyone gets his identity muddled or confused, or that God morphs into each individual mind to forge a relationship.

Again, people have disagreements over the nature of the Earth while being able to broadly agree that the Earth exists well enough to know they are at least roughly talking about the same phenomenon. Further, some people clearly have better understanding of the nature of the Earth than others.

The former suggests that God is not a perfect communicator, which makes him imperfect

Or people are not perfect listeners. Which do you think is more likely, given the truth of God?

And make no mistake about it, I am a solipsist.

Ah atheism. There you go.

[_Mercury]

I think the case against Mercury is stronger than Kevin stated. Why would predisposition to belief in God be a defect? Is genetic predisposition to belief in trees a defect? Do we regard the blind as the enlightened ones? If Mecury truly cannot see God, if Mecury is truly spirtually blind, then why not regard Mecury as the defective one?

When did I say it was a defect?

Wow, that was easy.

[_Mercury]

Eventually we'll be able to describe what is going on in the brain in intoxicating detail when we see a tree. That does not mean the tree isn't real.

So by your logic the fact that we cannot see God totally invalidates the idea of Gods existence.

1) We can see God. Most of us anyway. If you are being hyper-literal, then no I don't mean visually. I mean most of us have perceptions of God. If you say you don't, then you say you don't. Perhaps you've corrupted your noetic faculties with sin, perhaps not. But calling everyone else defective is a lot like a schizophrenic thinking everyone else is crazy because they don't see the thought-stealers.

2) My logic is that simply describing the brain states when one perceives or thinks they perceive some aspect of reality doesn't mean the object of that brain state isn't real. It isn't enough to just show that when someone thinks they perceive something X, Y, and Z happen in the brain. That is true of any perception, many of which you likely think are real.

Why didn't you just say yes and drop your silly analogies?

1) You are comparing the visual experience with a process that THRIVES because of interpretation. I find your argument silly and a bit childish.

2) I can imagine the FSM. Kiss my ass, theres your invalidating test. Remember, don't imagine Godzilla or he might come crashing through your neighborhood. Your argument is so reaching its kind of sad. With that kind of logic im starting to think you are a Raelian.