Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What if God foreknew human reactions?
b b
Member (Idle past 6132 days)
Posts: 77
From: baton rouge, La, usa
Joined: 09-25-2005


Message 122 of 137 (247114)
09-28-2005 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by sidelined
09-26-2005 1:11 AM


Re: Objective Faith
Donna and Ethel came back to back in 1960 as did Carla and Hattie in 1961
But were they two class 5 Hurricanes about 2-3 weeks apart? In generally the same area? New Orleans got messed up twice. Before any one says anything about it, Rita was a class 5 Hurricane in the Gulf right up until it hit. I stay here so I pay attention and kinda remember the hurricanes a little better than most of you because they effect me a little more. I know from the past hurricanes in the past that class 5's are rare in Louisiana{almost never). We almost had 2. And I'm sorry but if the red sea parted, I do beleive someone would try to explain it. Honestly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by sidelined, posted 09-26-2005 1:11 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Brad McFall, posted 09-28-2005 10:35 PM b b has not replied
 Message 125 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-29-2005 4:58 AM b b has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 123 of 137 (247116)
09-28-2005 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by b b
09-28-2005 10:29 PM


Re: Objective Faith
Sure,
I walked up on the steps of the Big Gov Building in BRLA where a female jogger used these same steps to and was running up ahead of me, when I was told that I had to get off the steps or be arrested. I only wanted to read what was chipped out of the stone building. I pointed to the runner ahead of both the police and me. It didnt matter the way around the pond behind the building does not lead one to Ponchatrain despite the closness in geography.
Yes you can blame the greenhouse for the gas but you can not blame the gas for busting the bubble of the 90s membrane. Yes, it was no red sea but it might well have been one very big enigma. Compare and contrast the two herIcanes...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by b b, posted 09-28-2005 10:29 PM b b has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 124 of 137 (247188)
09-29-2005 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by New Cat's Eye
09-23-2005 1:23 AM


DS writes:
Of course. But anything which leaves no evidence is irrelevant.
Catholic Scientist writes:
irrelevant to what?
My life.
Catholic Scientist writes:
not the absolute truth.
No, but the absolute truth is quite often irrelevant.
If the absolute truth is that there are invisible, intangible faeries flying about my head, do I care? Not at all. They don't affect me in any way, so as far as I'm concerned, they're nonexistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-23-2005 1:23 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 125 of 137 (247193)
09-29-2005 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by b b
09-28-2005 10:29 PM


I lost 2 kitties in 3 weeks to coyotes. That's never happened to me before.
Doesn't mean that God killed them.
You fundies try too hard to insert purpose into things.
Shit happens. Deal with it.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-29-2005 05:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by b b, posted 09-28-2005 10:29 PM b b has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 126 of 137 (247232)
09-29-2005 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by New Cat's Eye
09-28-2005 5:40 PM


Catholic Scientist
Does the subjective experience have to be a fundamental/measureable force? Could it be of something other than a fundamental force, that we are unaware of scientifically?
I do not lnow if it has to be but it just so happens it is. Of course there could be something it just would be unable to manipulate the fundemental forces without leaving a trace.
But there could be more without science being able to detect it.
The issue though is your response earlier to the discussion between Phatboy and DominionSeraph .
Phatboy writes:
How about believing an idea? In other words, Could God be true whether or not we see the slighest bit of evidence?
Of course. But anything which leaves no evidence is irrelevant.
To this you replied
irrelevant to what? not the absolute truth.
Now science is only able to make models of that which appears to conform to the world around us.I asked you what you meant by absolute truth you said
I meant that if god does exist then he is relevant, and not having evidence of god does not make god irrelevant, assuming he does exist
A god which does not make himself known is no different than no god at all. It is just as consistent to postulate sentient slimy toadstools sprinkling fairy dust as the arbiters of the universe if we allow being existent without evidence. There is no gain in practical or theoretical knowledge nor any progression of answers or even questions from such a posiition.
Lets assume reality is what was described in The Matrix (the movie). Now the absolute truth would be that you are living in a pod being a battery but you experience tells you that you live in 'our world'.
I am sorry C.S. but this is a further step into quagmire that does not have a reasonable need. We are now going to seriously contemplate thee premise of a fictional movie? No we are having to postulate beyond the sense of it.
Of course a perfect illusion would be,by definition, undetectable but so what? An undetectable perfect illusion is reality to those within it.
However the assumption of a god in charge of a perfect illsion shatters both. If we can postulate such a god then the illusion is not perfect hence the god in charge of a perfect illusion is out of a job as well.
My subjective experience has suggested that there is more than the physical world that science has described to me. I could be crazy but I think the experiences are real.
Now we are finally on to something. If it is an experience it has to operate from within the fundemental forces. Please share with me what it is that you are experiencing and let us explore it. Perhaps we can do it in the chat room or via email as this is tending to drift off topic.

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2005 5:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2005 1:55 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 129 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-30-2005 3:16 AM sidelined has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 137 (247322)
09-29-2005 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by sidelined
09-29-2005 9:35 AM


A god which does not make himself known is no different than no god at all.
But it is different. It is not different to science or to life in 'our world', but if there is a god, and an afterlife, it does matter, even if he does not make himself known scientifically.
If a person feels that god has made himself known it would different than no god at all also.
Of course a perfect illusion would be,by definition, undetectable but so what?
The point was that the illusion is not perfect and some people did detect it, its just that you can't detect it from within the illusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by sidelined, posted 09-29-2005 9:35 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-30-2005 3:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 130 by sidelined, posted 10-01-2005 2:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 128 of 137 (247520)
09-30-2005 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2005 1:55 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
But it is different. It is not different to science or to life in 'our world', but if there is a god, and an afterlife, it does matter,
It doesn't matter now, and that's all I was talking about.
To bring up the faeries again; if they became tangible and started poking me, their existence would become very relevant. But they'd be giving me plenty of evidence that they exist, too.
Same goes for an afterlife. If I die and then find myself in a world where I have my dragon and Defiant-class starship; my afterlife, my dragon, and my starship become relevant. But that's simply because I have evidence for all 3.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2005 1:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-01-2005 3:59 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 129 of 137 (247522)
09-30-2005 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by sidelined
09-29-2005 9:35 AM


sidelined writes:
Of course a perfect illusion would be,by definition, undetectable but so what? An undetectable perfect illusion is reality to those within it.
However the assumption of a god in charge of a perfect illsion shatters both. If we can postulate such a god then the illusion is not perfect hence the god in charge of a perfect illusion is out of a job as well.
Sorry, but an assumption shatters nothing. I can assume that I'm in a holodeck all day long, but if I can't distinguish the illusion from reality, and I can't get to reality, the illusion is perfect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by sidelined, posted 09-29-2005 9:35 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by sidelined, posted 10-01-2005 2:49 AM DominionSeraph has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 130 of 137 (247874)
10-01-2005 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2005 1:55 PM


Catholic Scientist
sidelined writes:
A god which does not make himself known is no different than no god at all.
But it is different. It is not different to science or to life in 'our world', but if there is a god, and an afterlife, it does matter, even if he does not make himself known scientifically.
Why would we persue that which does not evidence itself? If you cannot know about an afterlife until you die what would be the use of wondering if such exists while you are alive? It cannot matter in the least while you are living.
Beyond this I am well aware of the need some have to seek the comfort of hoping for such things especially when life is violent or tragedy occurs. This is the common thread for all,the hurt we feel from time to time,but we are what we are,human. The need for such things does not dictate that such things are true, however it does help ease some people's existential angst.
If a person feels that god has made himself known it would different than no god at all also.
Certainly one may entertain this feeling that one has experienced god, however, this does not mean that such is the case, Again the word feeling arises and this sensation that you experience is the result of fundamental forces {electromagnetism} that allow the sensation of feeling.
sidelined writes:
Of course a perfect illusion would be,by definition, undetectable but so what?
The point was that the illusion is not perfect and some people did detect it, its just that you can't detect it from within the illusion.
Are you hinting that you have detected something that cannot be evidenced? If so please explain how this can be made aware to your senses without trace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2005 1:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-01-2005 1:45 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 131 of 137 (247876)
10-01-2005 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by DominionSeraph
09-30-2005 3:16 AM


DominionSeraph
sidelined writes:
Of course a perfect illusion would be,by definition, undetectable but so what? An undetectable perfect illusion is reality to those within it.
However the assumption of a god in charge of a perfect illsion shatters both. If we can postulate such a god then the illusion is not perfect hence the god in charge of a perfect illusion is out of a job as well.
DominionSeraph writes:
Sorry, but an assumption shatters nothing. I can assume that I'm in a holodeck all day long, but if I can't distinguish the illusion from reality, and I can't get to reality, the illusion is perfect.
If you cannot distinguish the illusion from the reality why would you assume there is a holodeck? That you can imagine such means that the effort to afford a perfect illusion can be circumvented and therefore the illusion can no longer be perfect.
Of course there are no problems in the makeup of the real world because there is no illusion being portrayed and you are able to assume such without violating some secret conspiratorial agenda designed to keep you in the dark. Nature only needs to be asked the right questions in order to see the subtleties it holds.
Our instruments ,intellect, and mathematics reveal fascinating relationships and interconnectedness, but also mystery that requires no assumptions of "background" that violates the rules that we find as we investigate the world.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Sat, 2005-10-01 12:50 AM

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-30-2005 3:16 AM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Ben!, posted 10-01-2005 2:28 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 135 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-02-2005 11:14 PM sidelined has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 137 (247936)
10-01-2005 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by sidelined
10-01-2005 2:36 AM


This is the 2nd time I've typed this post because the first one was lost. This one is shorter so if you want me to expand on something just ask away....
Why would we persue that which does not evidence itself?
Science should not pursue the existence of god. It is irrelevant.
If you cannot know about an afterlife until you die what would be the use of wondering if such exists while you are alive? It cannot matter in the least while you are living.
It matters if this life affects the next one. For instance, whether you go to heaven or hell.
The need for such things does not dictate that such things are true
Certainly one may entertain this feeling that one has experienced god, however, this does not mean that such is the case
I’ve heard this before and I admit that I could be deluding myself. I’ve witnessed reasons, considered them and concluded that god exists the same way I would for another phenomenon. If I start saying that just because I think something exists doesn’t mean it really does exist then I’m on my way to nihilism, which I think is stupid.
Are you hinting that you have detected something that cannot be evidenced?
The detection is a constant subtle sensation of a non-physical component to my existence that seems to be connected to my body through my consciousness. Now, it is a feeling and like you siad:
the word feeling arises and this sensation that you experience is the result of fundamental forces {electromagnetism}
so when you ask:
If so please explain how this can be made aware to your senses without trace.
I’d say that it has left a trace. But no one can know what I’m feeling so is there really a trace? (reminds me of ”if a tree fall in the forest and no one is there . ’) It is a subjective trace so technically it is not a trace even though a fundamental force is involved. So, there could be a cause of the feeling that is not a fundamental force, perhaps something supernatural like a soul, but the only one who can make that judgement is me. I’ve concluded that it is real and that it is not physical and that I can consider it to be a reason to believe that god exists, a reason that evidenced itself.
So .
Why would we persue that which does not evidence itself?
We shouldn’t and I’m not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by sidelined, posted 10-01-2005 2:36 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by sidelined, posted 10-05-2005 3:18 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 133 of 137 (247957)
10-01-2005 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by sidelined
10-01-2005 2:49 AM


That you can imagine such means that the effort to afford a perfect illusion can be circumvented and therefore the illusion can no longer be perfect.
That you can imagine such is a statement only about our cognitive capacities, is it not?
A perfect illusion simply need not provide any EVIDENCE which would allow you to argue for or against it. I wouldn't call "the ability to imagine an illusion" ITSELF as evidence. Would you?
If you start touting "the ability to imagine" as evidence for something, then I think you're going to get on really shaky ground fast.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by sidelined, posted 10-01-2005 2:49 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by sidelined, posted 10-05-2005 3:20 AM Ben! has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 137 (247974)
10-01-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by DominionSeraph
09-30-2005 3:11 AM


It doesn't matter now
I guess I'll just type the same thing I typed to sideline...
It matters now if this life affects the next one, like whether you go to heaven or hell.
What if you only get your Defiant-class starship if you chew over 1000 pieces of gum in your previous life. I know what ifs suck but my point is that it can matter. There's really no way to know for sure so you can just assume that it doesn't matter. Now, getting a starship for chewing bubblegum is rediculous but having a good afterlife for living a good life seems plausible to me. I trust the Bible as it says that it does matter, but I believe in god in the first place...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-30-2005 3:11 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 135 of 137 (248382)
10-02-2005 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by sidelined
10-01-2005 2:49 AM


sidelined writes:
If you cannot distinguish the illusion from the reality why would you assume there is a holodeck?
Nothing better to do.
sidelined writes:
That you can imagine such means that the effort to afford a perfect illusion can be circumvented and therefore the illusion can no longer be perfect.
Nope. In fact, if the illusion didn't present the concepts necessary to contemplate that it's possibly an illusion, the illusion would be imperfect. It would be obvious to anyone with the required concepts that it's a construct designed to keep its inhabitants in the dark. So, such an illusion is not perfect because there's the potential for an out.
The perfect illusion would be impenatrable to even those with the required concepts. You can think that it might be an illusion, but there's no way to tell if it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by sidelined, posted 10-01-2005 2:49 AM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 136 of 137 (249002)
10-05-2005 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by New Cat's Eye
10-01-2005 1:45 PM


Catholic Scientist
It matters if this life affects the next one. For instance, whether you go to heaven or hell.
But you can have no evidence of this being the case and much evidence that does not sync with a magical world such as heaven and hell. We may as well say that the men who flew the planes into the WTC and the pentagon were correct for taking that way to their reward of virgins as it is just as capable of defeding on these grounds of What if?
I’ve heard this before and I admit that I could be deluding myself. I’ve witnessed reasons, considered them and concluded that god exists the same way I would for another phenomenon
Well,fess up partner, what have you witnessed as a reason to conclude god exists?
If I start saying that just because I think something exists doesn’t mean it really does exist then I’m on my way to nihilism, which I think is stupid.
So because you think god exists means that he does exist? Do you think that because you can think of something this automatically verifies it as existing? You can tell I am confused here and need a clarification.
The detection is a constant subtle sensation of a non-physical component to my existence that seems to be connected to my body through my consciousness
I must ask how you can have a physical sensation of a non-physical component that you state is connected to you through your consciousness which itself is also physical in origin.
I’d say that it has left a trace. But no one can know what I’m feeling so is there really a trace? (reminds me of ”if a tree fall in the forest and no one is there . ’)
But a tree falling in the forest leaves evidence to show there was sound regardless of whether a human was there to be aware of it.
I must clarify what you are meaning by feelings? What occurs to you when they happen?
It is a subjective trace so technically it is not a trace even though a fundamental force is involved
But your subjectivity is also physical and a consequence of the workings of your physical brain.
So, there could be a cause of the feeling that is not a fundamental force, perhaps something supernatural like a soul, but the only one who can make that judgement is me.
Judgements are yours and yours alone. I merely walk through life debating people that I might stir their gray matter to see things in a different light. A fresh perspective from me need not affect your faith or it may indeed cause you to doubt the validity of your perspective,which is yours to deal with.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2005-10-10 03:38 PM
This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2005-10-10 03:39 PM

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-01-2005 1:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024