Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting God
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 136 of 271 (571104)
07-30-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by sac51495
07-30-2010 10:03 AM


sac51495 writes:
So what implications do these passages have?
None beyond being assertions in stories.
Why would they have any more validity then Lord Vishnu's sleep being interrupted by a great Humming?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 10:03 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 137 of 271 (571117)
07-30-2010 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by sac51495
07-30-2010 10:03 AM


sac51495 writes:
But suppose you have other mechanisms or standards for proving the veracity of such metaphysical claims (e.g. "I can make observations")?
I'm not interested in metaphysical claims. The OP says:
quote:
By 'detect' I mean "to discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of".
As an example, I cannot 'see' gravity but I can 'detect' it by dropping a ball and watching it hit the ground.
Yes, I am making the assumption and the OP seems to be making the assumption that we can make observations. As far as I'm concerned, detection by physical observation is a given in this topic.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 10:03 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 138 of 271 (571128)
07-30-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by riVeRraT
07-28-2010 9:39 AM


Re: Name these things please
I would not say everything I feel, and have experienced is subjective.
Hmm, it would seem as though there really is no way around the fact that "things you feel" are 100% subjective.
There are differences in religion that lead me to believe that what I feel is the God of the NT.
But that then falls back on what other people wrote and how accurate they were. Add to that roughly 2000 years of separation and you get a lot of possibility for interpretation.
In the end, you have to hope that the original writers were being honest, and that for the next 2000 years people were honest in their interpretations and translations. Yicks!
There may be a need for the different belief systems, and it may all be from the same God.
Or it can simply be human make-believe and no such thing that can be described as a god exists.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by riVeRraT, posted 07-28-2010 9:39 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 7:51 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 139 of 271 (571134)
07-30-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by sac51495
07-30-2010 10:03 AM


One way to prove the truth of 'standard A' is to show the impossibility of the opposing standard: 'standard B'.
Not at all. All you do is show the limits of Standard B, you make no case for Standard A. Standard A must proves itself on its own without having anything to do with Standard B.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 10:03 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 140 of 271 (572495)
08-06-2010 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by onifre
07-30-2010 12:31 PM


Re: Name these things please
"onifire" writes:
Hmm, it would seem as though there really is no way around the fact that "things you feel" are 100% subjective.
Disagree. A couple examples. If after "hearing from God" for the first time, I feel ten years younger, and 5 random people tell me I look ten years younger (not 5, not 2, not 7, 10) I think that is more than subjective. If I pray to God, and ask him to remove my fear of playing keyboards in front of people, because I am now playing for Him, then in an instance, 38 years of fear are gone, that's pretty objective.
But that then falls back on what other people wrote and how accurate they were. Add to that roughly 2000 years of separation and you get a lot of possibility for interpretation.
In the end, you have to hope that the original writers were being honest, and that for the next 2000 years people were honest in their interpretations and translations. Yicks!
All I can say is after experiencing what I believe to be the Holy Spirit, immediately the whole NT took on a new meaning, and made much more sense to me. You know when people talk about an experience, and you sort of understand, but then when it actually happens to you, you understand much better?
Or it can simply be human make-believe and no such thing that can be described as a god exists.
Of course, only God can change that point of view for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by onifre, posted 07-30-2010 12:31 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by onifre, posted 08-06-2010 12:10 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 141 of 271 (572496)
08-06-2010 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by ringo
07-29-2010 12:06 PM


"Ringo" writes:
You're making my point. We detected "something" - a perturbation in the orbit of Uranus, I think. The next step was to try to figure out what caused that perturbation. In the case of Pluto, we found a planetoid - which can also be detected by other means. e.g. telescopes. And in the case of your feelings, we found physical evidence that those same feelings can be caused by various measureable physical and/or psychological phenomena.
Long story short, we can confirm the existence of Pluto by more than one method. We can't confirm the existence of God at all.
Don't circle jerk me please. It was there before we detected anything. Before we were able to detect anything. Long before we had the science or tools to detect it, back when Isaac Newton was creating his Newtonian telescope, it was there. Currently we look at stars and may not be able to detect wobbles from stars billions of light years away, but there could be planets there, we just can't detect it.
It's simple logic, and I am correct in saying for the inth time that just because we cannot detect something, does not mean, it is not there.
(is there a better way of saying this since my English sucks?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ringo, posted 07-29-2010 12:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Huntard, posted 08-06-2010 8:14 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 144 by ringo, posted 08-06-2010 1:24 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 145 by Stile, posted 08-06-2010 2:57 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 142 of 271 (572502)
08-06-2010 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by riVeRraT
08-06-2010 7:59 AM


riVeRraT writes:
(is there a better way of saying this since my English sucks?)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 7:59 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 143 of 271 (572540)
08-06-2010 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by riVeRraT
08-06-2010 7:51 AM


Re: Name these things please
If after "hearing from God" for the first time, I feel ten years younger, and 5 random people tell me I look ten years younger (not 5, not 2, not 7, 10) I think that is more than subjective.
Sorry dude but that's purely subjective. You heard from what you believe to be a god - that's subjective. You "feel" 5 years younger - that's subjective. And people who see you feel you're years younger - that is subjective too.
If I pray to God, and ask him to remove my fear of playing keyboards in front of people, because I am now playing for Him, then in an instance, 38 years of fear are gone, that's pretty objective.
Here again you have your subjective interpretation of a particular circumstance. Objective would mean that you can empirically show that god had a hand in it, rather than feel he did.
All I can say is after experiencing what I believe to be the Holy Spirit, immediately the whole NT took on a new meaning, and made much more sense to me.
I have no doubt about that. But note that your subjective interpretation of a given situation (feeling what you believe to be a holy spirit) must come before the scriptures making sense to you. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense.
Of course, only God can change that point of view for you.
But if he's make-believe then no such thing can ever happen. What can happen is one subjectively convincing themselves, through interpretation, that such a god exists and has direct communication with them. In any other circumstance, that would be considered insanity, but throw the word "god" into it and for some reason that's supposed to make a difference?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 7:51 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 11:29 PM onifre has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 144 of 271 (572550)
08-06-2010 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by riVeRraT
08-06-2010 7:59 AM


riVeRraT writes:
It's simple logic, and I am correct in saying for the inth time that just because we cannot detect something, does not mean, it is not there.
We're not talking about the possibility that something might be there that we can't detect. Nobody is saying that God can't exist because we haven't detected Him yet.
The topic is about detecting God.
We knew long before we detected Pluto that it was possible to detect something like Pluto. We had the technology to detect something like Pluto. We've known for a long time that we'll eventually detect other planets in the universe because we have the technology to detect planets.
We do not have the technology to detect gods.
The real question here, for those who believe in gods, is: How do we go about developing that technology? How would a God Detector work? What kind of God Waves would we look for?

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 7:59 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 11:37 PM ringo has replied
 Message 150 by sac51495, posted 08-07-2010 12:57 AM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 145 of 271 (572561)
08-06-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by riVeRraT
08-06-2010 7:59 AM


Correct, but uselessly so
riVeRraT writes:
[Pluto] was there before we detected anything. Before we were able to detect anything. Long before we had the science or tools to detect it, back when Isaac Newton was creating his Newtonian telescope, it was there. Currently we look at stars and may not be able to detect wobbles from stars billions of light years away, but there could be planets there, we just can't detect it.
That's not the point, though. The point is that while we cannot detect it, it is irrational and unreasonable to claim that it is there. There are an infinite number of things we can claim to exist prior to their detection. Only a finite number of them will actually exist. Therefore, claiming something exists "before we are able to detect anything" is incredibly irrational and unreasonable.
It's simple logic, and I am correct in saying for the inth time that just because we cannot detect something, does not mean, it is not there.
(is there a better way of saying this since my English sucks?)
In naively taking this statement as it is... you are absolutely correct.
It also absolutely lowers the status of God or The Supernatural or whatever else is being discussed to the same level as ghosts, goblins and golden-golfing-gophers.
In taking this statement as an indication of the possiblity for existance for something... we must consider all the other infinite, ridiculous ideas that come along for the ride. Therefore, it is useless. Therefore, it is irrational and unreasonable to use such a statement in order to persuade anyone in thinking the possibility of existance of that something has increased above 0.00%

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 7:59 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 11:43 PM Stile has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 146 of 271 (572663)
08-06-2010 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by onifre
08-06-2010 12:10 PM


Re: Name these things please
[qs"onifire"]Sorry dude but that's purely subjective. You heard from what you believe to be a god - that's subjective. You "feel" 5 years younger - that's subjective. And people who see you feel you're years younger - that is subjective too. [/qs]
No, they said I look ten years younger. Before I told them anything.
Here again you have your subjective interpretation of a particular circumstance. Objective would mean that you can empirically show that god had a hand in it, rather than feel he did.
Sometimes objective evidence goes over the falls, and you don't have a chance to replicate it. That does not make it subjective.
The evidence is objective. Objective of what remains to be seen. There is plenty of objective evidence that supports lots of theory's, but nothing is ever proven. That does not diminish the value of the evidence. Keep collecting evidence, and you can come to a conclusion. Since we are so inferior with our detection methods, there is no CURRENT way to prove it. But what is the difference? Nothing is ever proven anyway.
I have no doubt about that. But note that your subjective interpretation of a given situation (feeling what you believe to be a holy spirit) must come before the scriptures making sense to you. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense.
That is totally understandable. If I told you how a particular roller coaster felt, you would not fully understand until you subjectively felt it yourself. Is it not real just because it happened that way?
But if he's make-believe then no such thing can ever happen. What can happen is one subjectively convincing themselves, through interpretation, that such a god exists and has direct communication with them. In any other circumstance, that would be considered insanity, but throw the word "god" into it and for some reason that's supposed to make a difference?
No, what makes a difference is experiencing His love, and that changes you, so you can change others. Love wins.
Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by onifre, posted 08-06-2010 12:10 PM onifre has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 147 of 271 (572665)
08-06-2010 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by ringo
08-06-2010 1:24 PM


"Ringo" writes:
We're not talking about the possibility that something might be there that we can't detect. Nobody is saying that God can't exist because we haven't detected Him yet.
The topic is about detecting God.
We knew long before we detected Pluto that it was possible to detect something like Pluto. We had the technology to detect something like Pluto. We've known for a long time that we'll eventually detect other planets in the universe because we have the technology to detect planets.
We do not have the technology to detect gods.
The real question here, for those who believe in gods, is: How do we go about developing that technology? How would a God Detector work? What kind of God Waves would we look for?
No, you twisted the whole thing around again. The logic was, if you can't detect something, it doesn't exist. That is illogical, and therefor not submittable.
To answer you question (which I already did) about how do we detect God, I don't have a concrete answer for you. All I can tell is you is God said believe by faith. faith is subjective, and not part of the scientific method. We as humans do not live solely by the scientific method anyway, so don't be a hypocrite, and throw God out the window because He is subjective to us in our detection methods. I would expect the creator of the universe to be able to hide Himself from us anyway He chooses. I see people who think they can detect God as people who think they are above God, which would clearly not be the case if He existed. It's a total foolish notion.
It is never up to us to prove something doesn't exist anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ringo, posted 08-06-2010 1:24 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by ringo, posted 08-07-2010 12:29 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 148 of 271 (572667)
08-06-2010 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Stile
08-06-2010 2:57 PM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
"Stile writes:
That's not the point, though. The point is that while we cannot detect it, it is irrational and unreasonable to claim that it is there. There are an infinite number of things we can claim to exist prior to their detection. Only a finite number of them will actually exist. Therefore, claiming something exists "before we are able to detect anything" is incredibly irrational and unreasonable.
We don't claim He exists out of the imaginations of our mind. He came and did miracles, and taught us of a way of living that makes a lot of sense. that was the beginning of our subjective detection. Other Gods of the past where used to control people, where as this God told us we are the ones in control, and that love is the way.
can you detect love?
In taking this statement as an indication of the possiblity for existance for something... we must consider all the other infinite, ridiculous ideas that come along for the ride. Therefore, it is useless. Therefore, it is irrational and unreasonable to use such a statement in order to persuade anyone in thinking the possibility of existance of that something has increased above 0.00%
What was taught to us in the bible, is not totally irrational.
Anything in life that we can think of is possible. Lack of being able to detect it, is not proof of it's none existence. That was the premise and foundation of the OT, and a bunch of shit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Stile, posted 08-06-2010 2:57 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Stile, posted 08-09-2010 10:30 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 149 of 271 (572677)
08-07-2010 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by riVeRraT
08-06-2010 11:37 PM


riVeRraT writes:
The logic was, if you can't detect something, it doesn't exist.
That logic may or may not be implied in the OP. It's not the logic that I've been using. If you're going to reply to me, reply to what I say, not a strawman.
riVeRraT writes:
To answer you question (which I already did) about how do we detect God, I don't have a concrete answer for you.
That's all I asked you.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 11:37 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 11:03 AM ringo has not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 150 of 271 (572680)
08-07-2010 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by ringo
08-06-2010 1:24 PM


How would a God Detector work? What kind of God Waves would we look for?
"Jesus answered, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.' (John 3:5-8); "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?" (Matt. 7:16); "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law." (Gal. 5:22).
You have placed your ultimate importance and hope in matter. You have ignored the spiritual realm, which is no more subjective, nor any less important, than the scientific method. And, in fact, since the spiritual created the material, the spiritual is far more important...
There are no brute facts. Everything has some form or another of subjectivity. But, unfortunately for you, subjectivity does not affect the fact that God exists, and if men are so foolish as to twist and contort God into something which He isn't, then God is not to blame, but man.
Edited by sac51495, : diddly-doo-doo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ringo, posted 08-06-2010 1:24 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 08-07-2010 1:09 AM sac51495 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