You still do not have a control in your experiment from which to test any deviation from a "norm." To test the effects of belief, you must have a control either with belief or without, then another experiment without or with belief, respectively. You also need multiple repititions of these experiments. How would you then test belief's effect?
If I live a life that is free from belief,tenative and flexible, that can accomodate new information within a model that can be altered as the clarity increases I need have no test of belief.I am also not of the impression that belief is something other than wishful thinking and a mechanism humans implement to structure their lives in such a way as to reduce anxieties and emotional upheavals.
A belief tends to become rigid and incapable of adaptation to changing circumstances and new experiences.A belief in god is often cited as a personal relationship,yet I often find in believers I have known awile that the changes they claim it makes to their lives and interactions with others is only within the context of other believers in their particular faith.Even then the reality tends to be far less than the image they relate to me.
My experience in life is with Christians{I assume the same to be true of other beliefs} of varying sects and peculiarities and I find it odd that,just as in the general population,backstabbing and gossip and petty mind games are prevalent but with the added vehemence of social{read Church} pressures brought to bear.The reality is a far cry from the mask they present to one another.
I would say that you cannot test your hypothesis that there is no effect for the absence of belief
There is no effect that is obvious in the way that gravity is obvious.There is no denying reality since it is what remains after you allow beliefs to drop away.
Again, you give too much credit to science. Science has limitations. It cannot do everything. Science is based on assumptions, and if those assumptions are wrong, then so is science. Logic is also an assumption, and if it is wrong, then so are all logical conclusions.
But science could not advance as much as it has if the models consructed based on those assumptions themselves were not close to to being correct.We are limited to the current level of our technology and there are somethings we cannot do and there are limits we may never surpass.We do not know if there is no way beyond impasses in our knowledge since science works by teasing out the subtlties that the laws imply.
You have another knowledge base from which you can demonstrate superior understanding of the world?Let us throw logic and science out the door and YOU present to me the parts that we are missing.Remember that logic cannot enter into the arguement you implement and you cannot use the knowledge inferred by science to build your model.
I await your reply.
Why do you say that they are both non-sensical? Is Odin less-sensical as God? If not, why bring Odin up
It is non-sensical in that there is no information gained and nothing new learned.I could bring up Zeus,Quetzalcoatl,Bixia Yuanjin.
a few among many and the information gained about the real world is nadda,zero,zip.
God is just a word, and an English one at that. Not all religions use "God" to mean diety. They have their own word for it. It is not an embellishment, simply a word to denote a concept. What word would you like to use then that would be more comfortable?
As I explained above ,quite so, however I disagree that it is denoting of a concept.Try to tell me what the concept is that they are trying to convey.I will bet you cannot.
No, it means that God is everything that you sense. It does not mean that God is only what we sense.
Can you elaborate on the difference between these two sntences?
God can be the entire universe and more, and God would still be all that we sense. Unless humans can sense everything (which we can't).
Really!? How so? How can you even make the implementation of god as the entire universe{unless you wish to merely substitute god for the phrase "the entire universe" which is semantics and again no new information is obtained,rather like calling a student a pupil}without some basis for presenting the arguement.
Then you go one step further without connecting these by stating that there could be more.More what? Why would you build the roof before a foundation?Please elaborate.
This only holds for what we sense. It does not cover all that God (or Odin, or whatever you want to call it) could be.
We have no basis for assuming that there is anything beyond what we can sense {or instrument}
Let us assume that God is the universe and more (God is not entirely outside our universe, but we would have to go outside of it to find all of God). We can now access the part of God that is the universe.
We cannot access god without first showing that the assunmption of god can be supported by evidence within the universe.What can you derive from the assumption that can be verified within the universe?
What insight can we now gain about the working of the world as opposed to when part of God was not the universe?
I would maintain that there is no insight since we have not determined what the difference between a universe that
is god and a universe that is void of supernatural considerations.Please present your case.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Sat, 2005-04-23 04:26 PM
And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of
™ Version 4.2