What Benefits Are Only Available Through God?

Is it? Or is it just the part of your reason that you're conscious of? It is. And most of what you call "conscious" reasoning is likely post facto rationalization. That's a dishonest analogy. We can all imagine an experiment to run a combustion engine without toothpaste. But is an experiment to run thought without unconscious inputs even possible? Isn't it in the same realm as running an experiment to find God?

When the science gets down to being able to determine this, you'll have your answer.
For now, though, we can only go on what we perceive.I perceive what's going on in my head to be the way I'm describing.Can I be wrong? Of course.
Can I be right? That too, is a valid possibility. No, it's not. It's basic conscious decision making. Ha ha. You're absolutely right. Those two lines alone are a dishonest analogy.One should rightly note that the science hasn't reached the point where we can say this definitively yet.
However, one should also note that such a thing definitely is theoretically possible, as long as the science doesn't run into any psychological "dark matter"-ish issues. And, even then, science can make progress, it just may require a paradigm shift and some more time.Oh, wait... what did I write in that post again, directly above the part you're quoting and calling dishonest? Let's see: I added the bolding and italics this time to make it a bit more obvious Possibly.But, again, the science isn't there yet.
Of course, with God, the indication is that the science will never get there. As there's nothing to test, and no progress is currently being made.
However, with consciousness... the science IS making current progress with much to test and attempt to understand. So, no... it does not seem to be in the same realm.

And it seems to be going in the opposite direction from what you claim. The unconscious mind seems to have a lot more influence than we used to think.Of course its possible that science will eventually disprove evolution and germ theory and the Big Bang....

How so?I think conscious decisions are possible.
I also think most decisions are unconscious.This seems to be exactly what the science is saying right now... and exactly where it is leading.So, which part is opposite to the direction I'm claiming?

You said that FULLY conscious decisions are possible. Show us where science is leading in that direction.On the other hand, we have science showing us that what we thought was conscious has a lot of unconscious influences:Subliminal advertising. All advertising, for that matter. We don't decide fully consciously to buy the beer that promises us chicks in bikinis.Blondes are more likely to be acquitted by juries too.Polygraph. Your body betrays what your mind is really thinking.Body language in general.Can you decide fully consciously who you fall in love with?Can you choose fully consciously to believe in Zeus?

I don't think you understand.I stopped using the FULLY because it is redundant and therefore unnecessary. Not because conscious decisions are coerced by some-level-of unconscious desires.Here's the basic definitions from the scientific/academic side of things: Conscious MotivationBook Definition: Having the desire to engage in an activity and being aware of the desire.

• Knowing that you are motivated to do something.
• Choosing to do something and knowing exactly why you want to.
• Deciding to take part in an activity and recognizing your interest in it.
• Doing something you like and know you are doing it because you want to.

That's exactly what I was talking about when I used the term "FULLY conscious."For reference, here's the other one, too: Unconscious MotivationBook Definition: Having a desire to engage in an activity but being consciously unaware of the desire.

• Wanting to do something but being unaware why you want to do it.
• Not knowing why you are motivated to do something.
• May not be aware of the drives or motives underlying their behavior.
• Preforming an action and not knowing that you are doing it.
• Engaging in an activity and not knowing why you partcipated in it.

The idea that people used to think they made 80% conscious decisions and 20% unconscious... but not we know it's much closer to the other way around (or so... anyway... I just made up those numbers)... This shift doesn't indicate that conscious decision are going to disappear completely.It's like living in the mid-continent plains before you new much about world geography. Maybe you thought the world was 70% land and 30% water... but it's actually more accurately the opposite direction.This idea by no means indicates that science will one day find that "FULLY land" areas do not exist...
Quite the contrary, the science pretty much accepts that "FULLY land" areas exist... just not as much as water-covered areas.Same with conscious motivations.
The science accepts that "FULLY conscious choices" (aka "conscious motivations") exist... just not as much as unconscious motivations.Science is only heading "in the direction" of the vague ideas I've discussed on why we have conscious motivations....
But on the topic of the existence of conscious motivation (what I've been calling "FULLY conscious" decisions..) the science is already there.Unless you can provide some reviewed literature to the contrary? I'm not able to find any.

And I thought you dropped it because the position was untenable. That's what I'm saying doesn't happen. As long as there are unconscious inputs, you can't claim to know "exactly" why you want something. I'm saying the opposite - that the UNconscious component isn't going to disappear completely. Another bad analogy. Of course "fully land" areas DO NOT exist. They all have a water table. It's just that sometimes you're not conscious of it. Only if "fully" doesn't mean fully.

I think we've been over this many times already.And this is as far as I'm willing to continue along these lines for this thread.
I think I've explained why I do good things, and also shown how the science of modern psychology supports my position.
You seem to disagree.There is a discussion to be had here... but it would be more fitting under a topic of "where does morality come from" or a new topic on the understanding of modern psychology where decision making is concerned... or maybe even a thread about whether or not reality is strictly determined on the level of physics. But, regardless of where it should be... it's getting too far off the topic to be here.Getting back on topic, where this stream of thought stemmed from, my original question is still unanswered.
If anyone has any comment or explanation for the following question, please feel free to respond: Or continue to discuss anything else that relates to some sort of specific difference only available through God or a particular religion.

Riggamortis answered your question and I ran with the ball.

Perhaps I can be of help. Allow me to refocus our topic. For one thing, we read that Jesus healed people. Can we claim the same ability?Psychology and physics are not appropriate in Faith & Belief. This conversation should be limited to Faith (In Jesus) or I suppose...for you, Stile...faith in yourself. ...keep Faith & Belief as the focus, however...not science and human logic.

Of course we can and heal more people than Jesus ever even saw.

Well, in the context of the above quote - no, I cannot.
But I must question as to the appropriate-ness of your question.What are you attempting to say?My answer is, "No - I cannot do miraculous healing such as depicted by Jesus in the Bible."Now, what do we do with this?
Does this mean I shouldn't even try to help people?I can see how miraculous healing would make Jesus' helping "better" than mine... in a faster, more efficient sense.
But I don't see how it makes Jesus' helping "better" than my helping in a 'trying-to-better-our-shared-existence' kind of sense.
...which is really what I'm talking about.In context to the questions asked, I simply don't see how your answer applies, or the point you're trying to make.Now, we can change context...We can imagine you didn't quote my "me helping vs. Jesus helping" question and your statement seems to make more sense when applied to "What Benefits Are Only Available Through God?" in a more general sense.And, I would agree with you.
Yes, miraculous healing such as depicted by Jesus in the Bible does seem to be something that is only available through God.
Or, at least, "not-available-to-anything-that-I-can-find-on-my-own."But then we move into the next logical step down this line:
Can you show us that Jesus/God actually does this miraculous healing?And, well, the short answer is "no, you cannot."
There is no religious sect that has all it's members in prime physical condition because their God keeps them that way.
There is no group of Christians that never has a cold because Jesus heals them all.
There is no set of believers that is immune to cancer.Which brings us to an obvious issue in regards to your statement and the reality we live in.Does Jesus simply no longer do miracles?
Does no one currently existing "deserve" such miracles? If so, what are the necessary qualifications and how could you possibly know them?
Is it possible that such miracles do not exist, and the Biblical depictions of the past are simply... stories? In which case, Jesus' miraculous healing power are not only available through God... as they are simply not available at all.

yeah, but you can't spit on dirt and rub mud in their eye...you gotta resort to technology in most cases...

That's why this is a Faith&Belief Forum...scientific proof is not needed. My argument is that Jesus had many ways of healing depicted in the stories that men of that generation or this generation we now live in would simply be unable to duplicate.

Thank God. Yup, we do it much better than Jesus did.