?????Ridiculous Belief????? vs ?????Ridiculous to Believe?????

[_Hughes]

Knowledge based on experience. The same way I know my wife exists, even though she's 30 miles away at the moment. The same way I know my heart is beating.

How do I know? God created us to be able to communicate with him, via the spirit he's put inside us. This is primarily how he has set up our connection with him. I sense it. I feel it. I experience this connection everyday.

So I assume you've never actually seen your wife, but just felt her spirit in you.

Why do you suppose your god happened to give you a spirit radio but not everyone else?

Is it at all possible that you're attributing to god a basic, natural feeling, or does it have to be this god you've assumed?

Like I said before, do you think it's logical that a creator would create us and not also create a way for us to communicate with him?

I think it would be very short sighted to not to. So, given that, I believe that everyone can communicate with the Creator, but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

Is it possible that I'm just feeling something 'natural'? Now, here's where you'll likely be offended. Because I see a relationship with the Creator as the most natural state of man. So, my answer to that is yes. It's completely natural.

You see, it's my experience that man isn't simply physical, but is also non-physical. The non-physical part of man is equally natural, as the physical parts.

Your contention is that because science can't detect this non-physical part of man, therefore it must not exist. To which I say, you don't have enough imagination! Just because our limited scientific instruments and technologies haven't detected it yet doesn't mean it's not there.

[_Some Schmo]

Like I said before, do you think it's logical that a creator would create us and not also create a way for us to communicate with him?

I think it would be very short sighted to not to.

I was serious the when I answered this question before. It depends on what the creator in question wanted. If the creator didn't want to communicate with us, it's also logical to assume he wouldn't create a way to do so.

The point here is that you've endowed this creator of yours with the attribute "someone who wants to communicate with his creations." This is an arbitrary endowment.

So, given that, I believe that everyone can communicate with the Creator, but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

That's fair to assume, but how do you explain the great number of people who have tried for years and never made contact (like me)? At what point is it reasonable to give up?

Is it possible that I'm just feeling something 'natural'? Now, here's where you'll likely be offended. Because I see a relationship with the Creator as the most natural state of man. So, my answer to that is yes. It's completely natural.

First off, nothing you've said has offended me. As frustrating as this conversation has been for me at times, I still find you to be one of the more reasonable theists I've met on these boards. Also, any offense I take is on me, so I try to avoid that feeling like the plague.

As for this comment, I wonder how far off from each other we really are. It seems to me you've got a little pantheism thing going on, and I can relate to that feeling.

You see, it's my experience that man isn't simply physical, but is also non-physical. The non-physical part of man is equally natural, as the physical parts.

Aaaaaand then you say this. Did you see the shark as you were soaring over it?

;)

Your contention is that because science can't detect this non-physical part of man, therefore it must not exist. To which I say, you don't have enough imagination! Just because our limited scientific instruments and technologies haven't detected it yet doesn't mean it's not there.

That's not my contention at all and it verifies that you still don't understand where I'm coming from.

My contention isn't "therefore it must not exist." It's "therefore there's no reason to assume it." That's a big difference there; namely, that if someone were to come up with verifiable empirical evidence that there is a non-physical part of man (or a god, for that matter), I'd be all over it. For now, however, it's in the same column as unicorns, fairies, Santa, ghosts and goblins as fun but unverified myths.

[_Sethbag]

Like I said before, do you think it's logical that a creator would create us and not also create a way for us to communicate with him?

Do you think it's logical that a creator would create us and then appear, in secret, to specific individuals and tell them that they had the right and authority to stand up before the rest of the world and tell them all to obey them and do what they are commanded by this person? And this in full knowledge of the fact that this very modus operandi is historically used by frauds and mountebanks all over the world to usurp power over their fellow man?

So it's logical to you that the Creator's method of communicating with and leading his creations on Earth is to use the same technique beloved of conmen and scam artists throughout all history? And with no reliable, repeatable, dependable means of telling the "real" prophets from the conmen?

Or are you just talking about the feelings you have inside you, which you attribute to the Holy Ghost? Is it really logical to you that the Creator would use feelings to communicate with you, when you also experience powerful emotions and feelings just through everyday, normal human activities and events? And without providing any reliable, dependable, repeatable method of telling the human-induced emotional response or feeling from the "spiritual communication"?

Now, I know that this whole problem with confusion of spiritual communication with normal human emotions and feelings is just something everyone else in the world suffers from, and not you. Be that as it may, is it really logical to you that the Creator has created many billions and billions of people on Earth, and yet vanishingly few of these, namely you and a few people who happen to agree with you, are able to reliably differentiate the real Spirit from their feelings, emotions, and other biological mental phenomena?

I think it would be very short sighted to not to. So, given that, I believe that everyone can communicate with the Creator, but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

So everyone can communicate with the Creator, but when people do it and get different answers than you do, they're all just doing it wrong I suppose. Right?

Your contention is that because science can't detect this non-physical part of man, therefore it must not exist. To which I say, you don't have enough imagination! Just because our limited scientific instruments and technologies haven't detected it yet doesn't mean it's not there.

It's not just that science can't detect the spirit you think is sitting at the controls in your brain. It's that science pretty much has shown that there isn't a single mental activity or state that humans experience that isn't explained by chemical/hormonal/electrical stimuli and states. Feelings of deep religious experience the test subjects rank up with the most powerful in their entire lives have even been induced just by taking psylocybin.

So it's not that science proves that spirits don't exist by failing to measure or detect one. It's that science measures and detects what's actually going on inside our brains - and no spirit seems to be involved.

[_Hughes]

Like I said before, do you think it's logical that a creator would create us and not also create a way for us to communicate with him?

I think it would be very short sighted to not to.

I was serious the when I answered this question before. It depends on what the creator in question wanted. If the creator didn't want to communicate with us, it's also logical to assume he wouldn't create a way to do so.

The point here is that you've endowed this creator of yours with the attribute "someone who wants to communicate with his creations." This is an arbitrary endowment.

I agree it's arbitrary either way, without the evidence of creation and our existence in general to tip the scales. What do I mean by that?
You state that it depends on what the creator wanted. And I think that man's personal and communicative nature is a clue. In other words, the creator logically couldn't be less than we are, and given our nature, that we communicate with our children, friends, family, etc.., it seems to me that the creator wouldn't do less than we do. So, at the very least, if viewed as a scale, the balance is tipped toward the communicate side.

So, given that, I believe that everyone can communicate with the Creator, but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

That's fair to assume, but how do you explain the great number of people who have tried for years and never made contact (like me)? At what point is it reasonable to give up?

I honestly don't think we can ever give up (even if we wanted to, which gives rise to the question why is that?). The people who saw Jesus resurrected wrote that they were simply passing on what they had seen and heard. They may have been more primitive than us, but they knew that dead people don't rise, and they argued that there really was a resurrection, and many of them were skeptics.

First off, nothing you've said has offended me. As frustrating as this conversation has been for me at times, I still find you to be one of the more reasonable theists I've met on these boards. Also, any offense I take is on me, so I try to avoid that feeling like the plague.

As for this comment, I wonder how far off from each other we really are. It seems to me you've got a little pantheism thing going on, and I can relate to that feeling.

You see, it's my experience that man isn't simply physical, but is also non-physical. The non-physical part of man is equally natural, as the physical parts.

Aaaaaand then you say this. Did you see the shark as you were soaring over it?

;)

Your contention is that because science can't detect this non-physical part of man, therefore it must not exist. To which I say, you don't have enough imagination! Just because our limited scientific instruments and technologies haven't detected it yet doesn't mean it's not there.

That's not my contention at all and it verifies that you still don't understand where I'm coming from.

My contention isn't "therefore it must not exist." It's "therefore there's no reason to assume it." That's a big difference there; namely, that if someone were to come up with verifiable empirical evidence that there is a non-physical part of man (or a god, for that matter), I'd be all over it. For now, however, it's in the same column as unicorns, fairies, Santa, ghosts and goblins as fun but unverified myths.

Well, that's good you're not offended, no offense is intended either.

As to the non-physical part of man, I don't think there will ever be verifiable empirical evidence (or scientific evidence) for it. At least I'm not holding my breath. But, as to your contention that it is therefore the same as a myth, let's think about it for a second.

What is a myth? A story, made up by man to explain or for entertainment of some sort, right?

How do you categorize stories like Colton's NDE? He was only 4 years old, and yet he described in detail what heaven was like, and what his grandfather looked like (though never having met him on earth), that his mom had a miscarriage (not knowing this before), and describing exactly what his father and mother were doing in different rooms when he died.

[_Hughes]

Like I said before, do you think it's logical that a creator would create us and not also create a way for us to communicate with him?

Do you think it's logical that a creator would create us and then appear, in secret, to specific individuals and tell them that they had the right and authority to stand up before the rest of the world and tell them all to obey them and do what they are commanded by this person? And this in full knowledge of the fact that this very modus operandi is historically used by frauds and mountebanks all over the world to usurp power over their fellow man?

So it's logical to you that the Creator's method of communicating with and leading his creations on Earth is to use the same technique beloved of conmen and scam artists throughout all history? And with no reliable, repeatable, dependable means of telling the "real" prophets from the conmen?

Or are you just talking about the feelings you have inside you, which you attribute to the Holy Ghost? Is it really logical to you that the Creator would use feelings to communicate with you, when you also experience powerful emotions and feelings just through everyday, normal human activities and events? And without providing any reliable, dependable, repeatable method of telling the human-induced emotional response or feeling from the "spiritual communication"?

Now, I know that this whole problem with confusion of spiritual communication with normal human emotions and feelings is just something everyone else in the world suffers from, and not you. Be that as it may, is it really logical to you that the Creator has created many billions and billions of people on Earth, and yet vanishingly few of these, namely you and a few people who happen to agree with you, are able to reliably differentiate the real Spirit from their feelings, emotions, and other biological mental phenomena?

I think it would be very short sighted to not to. So, given that, I believe that everyone can communicate with the Creator, but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

So everyone can communicate with the Creator, but when people do it and get different answers than you do, they're all just doing it wrong I suppose. Right?

Your contention is that because science can't detect this non-physical part of man, therefore it must not exist. To which I say, you don't have enough imagination! Just because our limited scientific instruments and technologies haven't detected it yet doesn't mean it's not there.

It's not just that science can't detect the spirit you think is sitting at the controls in your brain. It's that science pretty much has shown that there isn't a single mental activity or state that humans experience that isn't explained by chemical/hormonal/electrical stimuli and states. Feelings of deep religious experience the test subjects rank up with the most powerful in their entire lives have even been induced just by taking psylocybin.

So it's not that science proves that spirits don't exist by failing to measure or detect one. It's that science measures and detects what's actually going on inside our brains - and no spirit seems to be involved.

Sometimes I don't have time to respond to everything, so I'll try and respond to points not responded to in my previous post.

In speaking about the creator, and his creation (us) and his communication with us, I'm speaking very generally. I'm not LDS, so I don't hold that Joseph Smith was a prophet of any sort. Further, I do see many ways to discern who is and who isn't a prophet. However, beyond all that, I don't think that today, there is any person who hold authority over anyone else, the way the LDS view authority. So, no I don't see any of that logical.

I do think it's logical for the creator to use, not only feelings, but thoughts and logic to communicate to us. I do agree that many can be deceived by others and by their own feelings, which is why it is important to learn to be discerning.

As for science explaining everything that goes on in our brains. I think it's extremely fascinating what science can do, but I think that it has serious limits, and chalk me up as a skeptic on many scientific conclusions. Can it read minds yet?

[_Some Schmo]

I agree it's arbitrary either way, without the evidence of creation and our existence in general to tip the scales. What do I mean by that?
You state that it depends on what the creator wanted. And I think that man's personal and communicative nature is a clue. In other words, the creator logically couldn't be less than we are, and given our nature, that we communicate with our children, friends, family, etc.., it seems to me that the creator wouldn't do less than we do. So, at the very least, if viewed as a scale, the balance is tipped toward the communicate side.

I find this interesting mostly because if you go down the road of "the creator logically couldn't be less than we are" then you really have to wonder about the problem of evil. We, as humans, more times than not try to protect the innocent. One would think that if a god could intervene and really is at least as much as we are, he'd protect the innocent too. But he doesn't.

...but how do you explain the great number of people who have tried for years and never made contact (like me)? At what point is it reasonable to give up?

I honestly don't think we can ever give up (even if we wanted to, which gives rise to the question why is that?). The people who saw Jesus resurrected wrote that they were simply passing on what they had seen and heard. They may have been more primitive than us, but they knew that dead people don't rise, and they argued that there really was a resurrection, and many of them were skeptics.

I have given up, though. I don't pray anymore, and I don't think it's reasonable to keep seeking him. Basically, if he's going to hide from me, it's akin to him crying wolf. I can't trust him to communicate with me. And it's important to remember that he's the one with all the control in this situation. I've made myself available to him. He has not returned the favor. Not much I can do about that. I'm not going to keep hanging on and bugging him like a desperate school boy.

You didn't answer the question I was really interested in, which was "how do you explain the great number of people who have tried for years and never made contact (like me)?"

What is a myth? A story, made up by man to explain or for entertainment of some sort, right?

How do you categorize stories like Colton's NDE? He was only 4 years old, and yet he described in detail what heaven was like, and what his grandfather looked like (though never having met him on earth), that his mom had a miscarriage (not knowing this before), and describing exactly what his father and mother were doing in different rooms when he died.

I categorize stuff like that as a lot of wishful thinking and selective memory.

I've said it before a million times: people underestimate the power of the computer they're sporting in their heads; not just the power to think, but the power to deceive ourselves when we subconsciously think it will help us.

Just because nobody remembers telling the boy about his sister or grandfather doesn't mean he hasn't heard about them. What if he overheard conversations from another room? What if he was just around playing on the floor not really listening but hearing about it just the same? I mean, the kid is the son of a pastor. Obviously, he's growing up in a religious, supernaturally themed home. The kind of stuff from his dream is just the sort of stuff he would say as a product of that environment. And let's not forget, it's not just what the kid is purported to have said; it's also what the pastor father (who writes the book) said he heard. It would be difficult to imagine him not superimposing his own religious bias over his son's story. Religious folks have an endless thirst for faith promoting stories.

What's objectively more likely and reasonable, what I just said, or that the kid actually took a trip to heaven? I think if we're honest with ourselves, given what we understand about the subconscious mind, the answer is obvious. You have to want to believe in heaven to choose the non-obvious explanation.

[_Hughes]

I agree it's arbitrary either way, without the evidence of creation and our existence in general to tip the scales. What do I mean by that?
You state that it depends on what the creator wanted. And I think that man's personal and communicative nature is a clue. In other words, the creator logically couldn't be less than we are, and given our nature, that we communicate with our children, friends, family, etc.., it seems to me that the creator wouldn't do less than we do. So, at the very least, if viewed as a scale, the balance is tipped toward the communicate side.

I find this interesting mostly because if you go down the road of "the creator logically couldn't be less than we are" then you really have to wonder about the problem of evil. We, as humans, more times than not try to protect the innocent. One would think that if a god could intervene and really is at least as much as we are, he'd protect the innocent too. But he doesn't.

I find the problem of evil/pain to be interesting as well.
The solution it seems to me is tied to the desire to create a love based on freedom. Let me explain. Take any hypothetical all powerful creator, who wants to share his joy and power and love, and there's a conundrum. True love is freely chosen. All other forms of love are robotic and controlled. And there's no real satisfaction in creating a robot to love you, because it's only doing what you pre-programed it to do.
So the conundrum is, once you create a free will, that person can choose to not love you, or do as they will, or do evil. But, in order to actually create a love based on freedom, free will has to be created in man. Which inevitably will cause pain due to the available choice of evil.
So, as the hypothetical all powerful creator what do you do? Allow for some pain and suffering in order reach your ultimate goal? It seems to me the small cost of causing some pain is worth the greater reward of gaining a true love based on freedom.

I have given up, though. I don't pray anymore, and I don't think it's reasonable to keep seeking him. Basically, if he's going to hide from me, it's akin to him crying wolf. I can't trust him to communicate with me. And it's important to remember that he's the one with all the control in this situation. I've made myself available to him. He has not returned the favor. Not much I can do about that. I'm not going to keep hanging on and bugging him like a desperate school boy.

You didn't answer the question I was really interested in, which was "how do you explain the great number of people who have tried for years and never made contact (like me)?"

When people seek the creator, it's interesting that the Bible describes God as being close to the broken hearted, why is that? And he gives grace to the humble? It seems to me that the only way to connect to the creator is to understand our place in his creation. It's one of humility.

Let's say for example (and I know analogies don't communicate all the dynamics, but here goes), that a person is trying to see and communicate to another person, on the other side of a door. For all they are worth, they try but can't see or hear through the door. However, the door has a small space between the bottom of the door, and the floor, where one could see and hear if they would simply lay down on the floor. This only occurs to this person, when they become desperate and are already on the floor weeping.

Often times, this is how I see communication with the creator playing out. He comforts those in need, and who are hurting and humble.

What is a myth? A story, made up by man to explain or for entertainment of some sort, right?

How do you categorize stories like Colton's NDE? He was only 4 years old, and yet he described in detail what heaven was like, and what his grandfather looked like (though never having met him on earth), that his mom had a miscarriage (not knowing this before), and describing exactly what his father and mother were doing in different rooms when he died.

I categorize stuff like that as a lot of wishful thinking and selective memory.

I've said it before a million times: people underestimate the power of the computer they're sporting in their heads; not just the power to think, but the power to deceive ourselves when we subconsciously think it will help us.

Just because nobody remembers telling the boy about his sister or grandfather doesn't mean he hasn't heard about them. What if he overheard conversations from another room? What if he was just around playing on the floor not really listening but hearing about it just the same? I mean, the kid is the son of a pastor. Obviously, he's growing up in a religious, supernaturally themed home. The kind of stuff from his dream is just the sort of stuff he would say as a product of that environment. And let's not forget, it's not just what the kid is purported to have said; it's also what the pastor father (who writes the book) said he heard. It would be difficult to imagine him not superimposing his own religious bias over his son's story. Religious folks have an endless thirst for faith promoting stories.

What's objectively more likely and reasonable, what I just said, or that the kid actually took a trip to heaven? I think if we're honest with ourselves, given what we understand about the subconscious mind, the answer is obvious. You have to want to believe in heaven to choose the non-obvious explanation.

It's an easy book to read, and the pastor goes out of his way to do just the opposite. He actually tries to trick Colton into saying things that many believe, it didn't work.

There are many interesting things about Colton's story that doesn't match your theory. For example, his grandpa died before Colton was born. The only photos in the house are ones where grandpa was old and grey. Colton said that he met this guy name "Pa", so his dad showed him a photo of grandpa. Colton said, nope that's not him. His dad was frustrated and called his mom to ask if she had any other photos of Grandpa. She did, and dug up some old photos and brought them over. And it wasn't until they got to a photo of Grandpa when he was in his twenties, that Colton pointed at the photo and said, "That him!"

[_Some Schmo]

I find the problem of evil/pain to be interesting as well.
The solution it seems to me is tied to the desire to create a love based on freedom. Let me explain. Take any hypothetical all powerful creator, who wants to share his joy and power and love, and there's a conundrum. True love is freely chosen. All other forms of love are robotic and controlled. And there's no real satisfaction in creating a robot to love you, because it's only doing what you pre-programed it to do.
So the conundrum is, once you create a free will, that person can choose to not love you, or do as they will, or do evil. But, in order to actually create a love based on freedom, free will has to be created in man. Which inevitably will cause pain due to the available choice of evil.
So, as the hypothetical all powerful creator what do you do? Allow for some pain and suffering in order reach your ultimate goal? It seems to me the small cost of causing some pain is worth the greater reward of gaining a true love based on freedom.

That's fine for humans, but what about all the unnecessary pain caused by natural disasters? The planet doesn't need the freedom to do needlessly painful stuff too, does it? It's like god just wants to heap it on.

When people seek the creator, it's interesting that the Bible describes God as being close to the broken hearted, why is that? And he gives grace to the humble? It seems to me that the only way to connect to the creator is to understand our place in his creation. It's one of humility.

Let's say for example (and I know analogies don't communicate all the dynamics, but here goes), that a person is trying to see and communicate to another person, on the other side of a door. For all they are worth, they try but can't see or hear through the door. However, the door has a small space between the bottom of the door, and the floor, where one could see and hear if they would simply lay down on the floor. This only occurs to this person, when they become desperate and are already on the floor weeping.

Often times, this is how I see communication with the creator playing out. He comforts those in need, and who are hurting and humble.

So you're going with, "It's my fault. I didn't do it right."

Just checking.

It's an easy book to read, and the pastor goes out of his way to do just the opposite. He actually tries to trick Colton into saying things that many believe, it didn't work.

There are many interesting things about Colton's story that doesn't match your theory. For example, his grandpa died before Colton was born. The only photos in the house are ones where grandpa was old and grey. Colton said that he met this guy name "Pa", so his dad showed him a photo of grandpa. Colton said, nope that's not him. His dad was frustrated and called his mom to ask if she had any other photos of Grandpa. She did, and dug up some old photos and brought them over. And it wasn't until they got to a photo of Grandpa when he was in his twenties, that Colton pointed at the photo and said, "That him!"

You're not accounting for this religious family's bias and memory, and how people see what they want to. Who knows how this story evolved in the process of crafting a faith promoting book?

Watch this video and tell me, is this guy magic or does he just understand certain things about the way the human mind works?

[_Hughes]

That's fine for humans, but what about all the unnecessary pain caused by natural disasters? The planet doesn't need the freedom to do needlessly painful stuff too, does it? It's like god just wants to heap it on.

We all will die one day. We all live in the same boat (universe), and it is wracked with death which was the direct result of the first man and his rebellion from the creator. We can complain that we are his offspring, and have to live in this situation, where natural disasters kill people, but it doesn't change the fact that this life, as we now know it, is only temporary.

So you're going with, "It's my fault. I didn't do it right."

Just checking.

I'm not the Creator. I only know what he's taught us. I don't know why many people don't hear from God. It doesn't always make sense to me. But, the longer I'm on this journey, I'm amazed at how large the role of humility plays in it.

You're not accounting for this religious family's bias and memory, and how people see what they want to. Who knows how this story evolved in the process of crafting a faith promoting book?

Watch this video and tell me, is this guy magic or does he just understand certain things about the way the human mind works?

Seems to me that he set them up. What they thought was just a simple cab ride, he had completely planned out everything.

As for the family's religious bias, you are correct, they have a bias.
The way they found out that Colton had this experience, they were driving by the Hospital, and the dad said, "hey, remember what happened there?" And his parents were floored when he said, "Yeah, that's where I was really scared and the angels sang to me...." So, they asked him further. And he said, yeah, I wanted them to sing, "We will, We will rock you..." But they wouldn't.

So, of course they have a bias, but what fascinates me about the story is that it's from a 4 year old boy.

[_Scottie]

I firmly believe that the only reason theists interpret feelings as communication from God is that an authority figure in their life told them exactly how to interpret "good feelings". Probably because this authority figure had been taught the same thing.

This is exactly how Mormons do it.

"Read this Book of Mormon and then pray to see if you get a good feeling"
"Okay"
... several days later
"Did you read it?"
"Yes"
"And how did you feel?"
"Good, I guess?"
"SEE!! That's the Holy Ghost telling you that it's true!"
"It is? WOW! I spoke to God through the Holy Ghost!"

From this point forward, a "good feeling" is now associated with communication with God. Why? Because 2 19 year old boys told this person that it was. You could also replace this conversation with a child and a primary teacher.

Good enough reason to continue to believe good feelings are conversations with God?