Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8961 total)
35 online now:
Dr Adequate, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (6 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,272 Year: 1,020/23,288 Month: 1,020/1,851 Week: 143/321 Day: 2/56 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting God
ringo
Member
Posts: 17825
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 110 of 271 (569769)
07-23-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by riVeRraT
07-23-2010 8:09 AM


riVeRraT writes:

My argument about it all is that nothing is ever objective. It is only universally subjective. They say nothing is ever ultimately proven in science, so then how can anything ever be ultimately objective?


Objectivity isn't about ultimate proof or perfect answers. It's about looking at the object itself and trying to make observations that aren't clouded by your own subjective assumptions. Comparing your observations with other people's observations tends to cancel out the subjectivity. It comes down to:
  • "Did you see that?"
  • "Yup."
  • "Okay then."
or
  • "Did you see that?"
  • "Nope."
  • "Hmmm...."
The guy who thinks he's Napoleon might be right but chances are that isn't going to help him function in what the rest of us think is the real world.

riVeRraT writes:

The bible tells us how we should seek for God, and it is a subjective method. Also God's way of letting us test Him, is subjective also.


For what it's worth, I think "seeking God" means seeking Him in the real world, seeking ways to improve the real world and improve your interaction with the real world. I think of seeking His Almighty Spookiness in the woo-woo world as escapism.


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 105 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 8:09 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 11:38 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17825
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 114 of 271 (569845)
07-24-2010 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by riVeRraT
07-23-2010 11:38 PM


riVeRraT writes:

Everyone went to a magic show. They all saw the subway car disappear right before their eyes. They all saw it, so it must have disappeared? Or did it? This is the universal subjectivity I am talking about.


No, that's objectivity. Nobody guaranteed that objectivity would give you the right answer. You still have to work at it to understand how that subway car disappeared.

riVeRraT writes:

I've been in a room where everybody in it felt the same thing from God. Was it objective? No.


It wasn't objective because there was no object. You can only be objective when there's something tangible to be objective about.


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 113 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 11:38 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by riVeRraT, posted 07-27-2010 9:38 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17825
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 123 of 271 (570456)
07-27-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by riVeRraT
07-27-2010 9:38 AM


riVeRraT writes:

Tangible meaning something you can measure.

I'd say "observe" rather than "measure". Meaurement implies comparing quantity A to quantity B. Observation just acknowledges that A and/or B actually exist. We can see a cloud even if we can't figure out how to measure it. In this conversation, we're still trying to decide whether we see God at all.

riVeRraT writes:

So how to you measure a chill, or a feeling of love? These things exist and are not really measurable.


A physical chill can be measured with a thermometer. A chill in the sense of "a chill went down my spine" is a psychological phenomenon that's likely to be accompanied by physical reactions that would show up on a polygraph. There would probably be a detectable change in brain waves too.

A "feeling of love" is readily observable in a person's behaviour.

It's possible that belief in God could produce similar observable reactions in a person but how do you connect the evidence with a real "god"? The same reactions would be produced by a fear of ghosts or a love of ice cream.

Edited by Ringo, : Fixed spellling: "tiVeRraT" --> "riVeRraT".


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 118 by riVeRraT, posted 07-27-2010 9:38 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by riVeRraT, posted 07-28-2010 9:41 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17825
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 130 of 271 (570709)
07-28-2010 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by riVeRraT
07-28-2010 9:41 AM


riVeRraT writes:

Ringo writes:

It's possible that belief in God could produce similar observable reactions in a person but how do you connect the evidence with a real "god"? The same reactions would be produced by a fear of ghosts or a love of ice cream.


Doesn't matter. My point was that the things I feel and experience are measurable.

Of course it matters. The topic is about detecting God, not detecting "something". Nobody's disputing that reactions to something can be detected in you. The question is: Can you detect a god which is causing those reactions?


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 128 by riVeRraT, posted 07-28-2010 9:41 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by riVeRraT, posted 07-29-2010 10:13 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17825
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 133 of 271 (570922)
07-29-2010 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by riVeRraT
07-29-2010 10:13 AM


riVeRraT writes:

Ringo writes:

The question is: Can you detect a god which is causing those reactions?


That is not the question.
The question is, just because we haven't detected something yet, does it mean it does not exist?

Did Pluto exist before we detected it? Yes it did.


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.


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 131 by riVeRraT, posted 07-29-2010 10:13 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 10:03 AM ringo has responded
 Message 141 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 7:59 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17825
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


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 yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17825
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


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 responded

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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17825
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


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 responded

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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17825
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 151 of 271 (572681)
08-07-2010 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by sac51495
08-07-2010 12:57 AM


sac51495 writes:

You have ignored the spiritual realm, which is no more subjective, nor any less important, than the scientific method.


Nonsense. The scientific method deliberately weeds out subjectivity by way of repeatability and peer review. The "spiritual realm" is entirely subjective. Otherwise, why would there be so many mutually exclusive interpretations of the same spiritual realm?


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 150 by sac51495, posted 08-07-2010 12:57 AM sac51495 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 11:06 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17825
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 155 of 271 (572998)
08-09-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by riVeRraT
08-09-2010 11:06 AM


riVeRraT writes:

ringo writes:

The scientific method deliberately weeds out subjectivity by way of repeatability and peer review. The "spiritual realm" is entirely subjective. Otherwise, why would there be so many mutually exclusive interpretations of the same spiritual realm?


Yes, but the scientific method is limited to the current crop of toys we have, and our limited knowledge

That still puts it miles ahead of any investigation into the "spiritual realm", for which we have no toys at all and no objective knowledge.


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 154 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 11:06 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by sac51495, posted 08-12-2010 7:10 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17825
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 174 of 271 (573678)
08-12-2010 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by sac51495
08-12-2010 7:10 AM


Re: Science: objective? Nah.
sac51495 writes:

Give me an example of a scientific proof for the existence of something. For example: gravity, the sun, etc...We'll see just how objective that proof really is...


The point of the thread is to show a method of detecting God that's as good as the methods we have for detecting gravity and the sun.

As the OP suggests, we can detect gravity by dropping a ball and watching it hit the ground. Anybody can do that, whether he's a Sikh or a Mormon or an agnostic, and make the same observation. That's the level of detection that we're asking from you. Please devise an experiment to detect God to that same level.


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 165 by sac51495, posted 08-12-2010 7:10 AM sac51495 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17825
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 183 of 271 (574734)
08-17-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by sac51495
08-17-2010 11:36 AM


sac51495 writes:

but, oftentimes, the text of the Word of God will conflict with a man's anthropocentric ideology, so he will interpret the text in such a way that it does not condemn his anthropocentric actions and ideology.


Does it occur to you that the misanthropic interpretations might be the ones that are wrong? Who's supposed to benefit from the "Word of God" after all? God or man?


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 181 by sac51495, posted 08-17-2010 11:36 AM sac51495 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by sac51495, posted 08-18-2010 10:04 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17825
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 194 of 271 (575136)
08-18-2010 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by sac51495
08-18-2010 10:04 PM


sac51495 writes:

ringo writes:

Does it occur to you that the misanthropic interpretations might be the ones that are wrong?

No, because that was not my interpretation. My interpretation is that the universe is "theocentric", by virtue of the fact that God created it.


That's my point. A theocentric universe makes little sense. (Some might argue that God isn't "in" the universe at all, much less at its center.) Why would God bother to create a universe at all if He was so self-centered? More to the point of the thread, why would He create it and then hide from it?


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 188 by sac51495, posted 08-18-2010 10:04 PM sac51495 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020