Conversations with God

That's the power of evidence, though.If Reality does actually show us... then at that moment it will become "evidence." Because that's what evidence is: Reality showing us what's real.And then the "evidence" will show us we've been wrong...
...and those of us who follow the evidence will change and adapt.
...and those of us who do not follow the evidence but "believe" in the old-ways, will become just as ostracized as you're feeling right now.Following the evidence will always lead to the correct answer.
It just may take some time.Following beliefs will almost never lead to the correct answer.
It's just a lot faster.When trying to identify reality... each situation will have it's own priorities on when we can be wrong, and when we need to take a reckless-chance and be fast.
It's up to our personal judgment abilities to pick and choose when we should use each one.But that requires knowing the difference, and attempting to honestly judge when we should and should not use each method.

Scenario #1: Think of a man in a cell who has lived his entire life in this cell.
There are no windows, but there is a door, and there's no lock.
Food is delivered, and all the man's needs are met.Scientifically, how does the man leave the cell?
-there could be wonderful things to learn outside the cell
-there could be terrible danger awaiting outside the cell
-but, there is no need to leave the cell.Without any data, the man can never, scientifically, learn or guess of "a need" for him to leave the cell.
Therefore, scientifically, the man awaits "more data."
Maybe this never comes.But, using a belief-based method - the man could leave the cell at any time, for almost any imagined reason, even - believing it's "for the better."
Maybe he'll die.
Maybe not.But - it is a much faster decision then waiting around for "more data."I don't find this to be as mundane as "what's for lunch?"
To me - this is the decision for the man to be free - a very important, and life-changing choice (for me.)We all judge things differently.
I find it better to make some decisions based on feelings (unscientifically.)
I find it better to make some decisions based on data and experience (scientifically.)Many of my decisions based on feelings are more important than "what's for lunch?"
Some of the most important decisions in my life are based on my feelings -> like who I chose to pursue for a wife.
Other, very important decisions in my life, are based on science -> like who I get my mortgage for my house from, and what kind of rate I select.

No.I am saying there is no scientific reason for him to leave the cell.
There are, however, belief-based reasons (if he is so inclined.) Not for everyone. Some people prefer to be alone.
For the purposes of this thought-experiment, consider that he has no "need" to leave the cell.He may "want" to - but this is not scientific.
He may not want to - which is fine, too.But if he did want to - then it would not be scientific to do so.He may find wonders beyond his imagination outside.
Or he may die immediately.The point isn't that "belief is better."
The point is that "choices based on belief can be for things more profound than 'what's for lunch?'" He does not need to leave the cell.But, if he wanted to - that decision would not be scientific. That's the point. I'm at least saying I can't think of another way.If the pros and cons are relatively unknown - how can you make a rational decision?
My point is that this is an irrational decision, and it is for something (according to me) more profound than "what's for lunch?" There is none.
But, if he wants to go outside, and waits for a rational reason to do so - then he will be waiting for a very, very long time.
If he wants to go outside, and does so because he feels like it - then he can leave immediately, it's just not a scientific decision. In an objective sense - I tried not to suggest it at all.
In my own personal sense (that I would not want to be in a cell) - I find it very important to choose to leave, unscientifically.My point isn't that belief-based-decisions are important.
My point is that belief-based-decisions can be for important things.Just as scientific-based-decisions can be for stupid things.

I completely agree.
And this completely proves my point.If all belief-based decisions are no more important than "what should I have for lunch?" then the expansion of our knowledge cannot begin from "curiosity's sake."
Because curiosity is belief-based (a feeling.) It is not scientific. 1. Perhaps not.
Some people would not be curious or bored in such a situation. Some people would be perfectly content, perhaps even happy, and never-ever even want to go through the door.2. I do agree with this statement.
Which leads me to believe we are both dealing with a false dichotomy.Boredom and curiosity are not faith-based ("religious") ideas.
Neither are they scientific.They are feelings.
Some of us will have them, others will not. And there will be a spectrum of them occurring at varying degrees.My main point was the issue of saying "decisions are scientific or they are unimportant!" This is, easily, not true.
I will happily concede that "religious" decisions are not the other-side of this coin.
But perhaps the other-side is decisions based on feelings/instincts? Which I think "religious-decisions" could easily fit into the "based on feelings" pile.And there are, certainly, decisions based on feelings that are very, very important.Of course "importance" is in the eye of the beholder - but, in general, it should be fairly easy for someone to identify a decision-based-on-feelings (for most people) that would be very important. Like who to choose to spend time with during leisure-hours. I'm not saying such decisions "must be" based on feelings and "must be" important... but it should be easy to see how they "can be" based on feelings and "can be" important.Which is enough to show that "decisions are scientific or they are unimportant!" is a silly position to hold on to. Maybe.
Maybe he will decide whether to stay or go based on a feeling of panic or insecurity.But, it doesn't matter... even if all the decisions he makes after opening the door are scientific... the decision to open the door itself is not scientific. And it's important (or, at least, I think it is.) Decisions-based-on-feelings can coincidentally agree with a decision-based-on-factual-evidence.However, they are two different things.
The decision-based-on-factual-evidence is always the same - for everyone.
The decision-based-on-feelings is (possibly) different for each person.It is possible to determine what kind of decision we are making.I think there are important decisions that should be made scientifically.
I think there are important decisions that should be made based-on-feelings.
Therefore, I think it's important to be able to determine the difference and identify what we're doing, and when.Personal mileage may vary. My wife is also female.
Although, I assure you, for me, I did not choose my wife because she is female.
I chose my wife because of how I feel when I'm around her. Her being female was not part of the decision.
If a male made me feel the way my wife makes me feel... and my wife happened to make me feel the way most males make me feel... then I would not have chosen to pursue my wife.My choice was based on my feelings.
Not the scientific fact that I'm a male and she's a female.Is there a scientific reason for me to have those feelings?
Of course there is.
But there's no scientific reason for me to choose to make my decision based on those scientifically-derived feelings rather than going with the scientific decision.This idea is muddy when talking about my wife - but clear when talking about the man-in-the-cell.Let's say the man-in-the-cell feels boredom.Is there a scientific reason for the man-in-the-cell to feel boredom?
Of course there is.Is there a scientific reason for the man-in-the-cell to open the door based on his scientifically-derived-feeling-of-boredom?
No, there is not.1. Scientifically, the man will not have been bored the entire time he's in the cell.
Therefore - boredom has left him before.
Therefore, scientifically, he should do the same thing and the boredom will pass.2. How is the man to know, scientifically, that opening the door will release his boredom?
It's just as likely that the door leads to a boredom-inducing-wall as it is that the door leads to a paradise of wonders.Just because the feeling can be explained scientifically does not mean that deciding to do something based on the feeling makes it a scientific decision.If that were true.. then all decisions would be "scientific" and you just made "licking your shoe" a very scientific thing to do when attempting to fly an airplane.

Curiosity is not a need.
It's a feeling.It can be fulfilled in many ways.
One is, yes, opening the door.
Another would be using your imagination to fill your time wisely otherwise.I am curious as to what life-sustaining planets beyond the Milky Way look like.
This need will never be filled - and it's certainly not scientific. That's curiosity, and it's a feeling.
It's not scientific.A scientific phrase would be more like "If I flip the switch, the light turns on... what happens if I flip the switch back?"
To be scientific, you need data and to move your thoughts ahead.
There is no scientific way to say "What happens if I flip this switch?" It is simply a feeling of curiosity.
Curiosity can lead to scientific discovery - absolutely (which is one reason why I think feelings and decisions-based-on-feelings are so important.)
But that doesn't make "curiosity" scientific.If you think "curiosity" is scientific "just because" - then you just turned "I want to cure cancer with research in this lab - I'm curious as to how rubbing dog-shit on my face will help?" into a very scientific plan.Curiosity can be scientific, if it's based on data.
But curiosity in and of itself (when it's not based on data) is not scientific. The urge is not mysterious.
It's a feeling - of curiosity, or a desire for something more, or to possibly expand his knowledge.
Feelings are very well understood (even scientifically understood) aspects of being human.
But - the fact is that opening the door could easily lead to these things... or it could lead to instant death.
He doesn't know - because there's no data - therefore, there's no scientific reason to attempt to open the door.
Only irrational reasons, based on feelings. Maybe, maybe not.
The point is - there's no scientific reason for him to do so. It's a thought experiment to show the difference between scientific decisions and decisions-based-on-feelings, and how decisions-based-on-feelings can also be "important."For the purposes of the thought experiment - "all his needs are met."
It doesn't really matter how. They do not.
Not at all.
You just want them to.If they did - you'd be able to point it out. I understand that the idea may be difficult to understand if you, personally, would have an extremely hard time being in an isolated cell.
All I can say is that people are different - and many people would like (even prefer) to be in a situation like this.This is, actually, partially proving my point. Decisions based on feelings are different than decisions based on evidence - because evidence is "the same for everyone" while feelings are "different for everyone" (or, at least, exist on a spectrum-scale.) 1. The man has no scientific reason to leave the room.
2. The man may have a feelings-based ("belief-based") reason to leave the room.
3. If the man does have a feelings-based reasons to leave the room, and he decides to do so - then this decision was very important (according to my personal value-scale of freedom being "important.")But, if you don't like this example - we can use another.Like me choosing to pursue my wife based on feelings:1. There are scientific reasons for me to pursue a mate.
-but I did not follow these reasons to make my decision.
-like: someone who is financially sound, someone who I find attractive, someone with similar interests, someone who is about-my-height
2. I followed feeling-based-reasons for me to pursue my wife.
-how I felt while being around her
-how I felt while not being around her
3. The person I'm going to spend most-of-my-time-with for the rest of my life is, to me, a very important decision. I am not implying that one ever "should" in some sort of "all-around" sense of keeping balance or something.
I'm implying that we should judge each situation on it's own merit and make our own decisions on which kind of method we should use for which situation.
Some situations will be better used for scientific-methods (like identifying "reality.")
Some situations will be better used for feelings-based-methods (this, inherently, only applies if your feelings on the matter are very strong.)For example: Many people actually want a completely scientifically-approached method for finding a wife.
-there's nothing wrong with this
-it can be extremely successful
-it just wasn't the path for me, personally It may not be important to him at all.
That's precisely the point.If it isn't important to him, but he decides to leave the cell anyway - then it was not for scientific reasons.
If it is important to him, and he decides to leave the cell - then it's still "not for scientific reasons."
-either way, if he decides to leave, I (personally) find such a decision of freedom to be very important. -we don't know either
-perhaps he immediately dies.
-if he decides to leave, and immediately dies... I still (personally) find the decision to be a very important one to make (although, in this case, possibly wrong,) and it was still "not for scientific reasons." Ah - yes.
I agree.
I find this fun to discuss, though - which gets me carried away quite easily

Your entire post is not something I disagree with.The change is summarized here: I completely agree that all decisions are based on "facts."If the decision is scientifically based - there are (obviously) scientific facts involved.
If the decision is feelings-based - then it is a fact that the feelings exist and are being felt.Therefore - all decisions are "based on facts."And there is no "other side to this coin" and nothing to debate or discuss.
Therefore - your entire post is something I agree with. It is, however, entirely irrelevant to the point I'm making.Regardless of "facts" being involved... there is a difference between "decisions based on a scientific-method" and "decisions based on a feelings-method."Do you agree?
Or do you think that all decisions are science-based and feelings-based at the same time?I am attempting to differentiate decisions that "follow the evidence" vs. decisions that "come from personal inspiration."Like the difference between "deciding to cross the river because I see food on the other side and I'm hungry" vs. "deciding to cross the river because I think it will be fun."One is scientific.
The other is based on feelings.I see a very, very big difference between these types of decisions - do you?
I see that both kinds of decisions can be for important things - do you?

I see ringo as someone who follows the evidence for identifying reality.
And if that evidence leads to God - then ringo will accept God as being real.
And if that evidence does not lead to God - then ringo will not accept God as being real.
This will always lead ringo to being able to identify reality correctly - he cannot possibly be wrong (in the end.) I see you as a man like every other man - trying his best to figure his way through life. If that gives you needed-comfort, I will defend your wishes as best I can.
If you attempt to suggest that others should also see themselves in the house of God - I will defend them and their wishes as best I can. I don't see a need of getting a "final answer."
In fact, I don't understand how any answer could ever actually be "final" in any way.
Sounds too simplistic for how complicated we know this existence is (at a minimum, from what we know at this time.) Although it irks me (because I'm human and don't like negative things projected at me in any way) - I don't really care how you see me.
I care how I see me.
I'm the one who has to go to sleep with my own thoughts every night.

Again. All decisions are fact-based.History is only on the side for evidence-based decision making for things like "identifying reality."
History is on the side of feelings-based decisions for things like "finding your spouse." But you haven't shown this, and you're wrong.1. I'm not saying that emotions are important in looking for who to marry.
-I'm saying that if you find them to be important for such a decision - then you need to acknowledge that and make your decision based on it.
-For many, emotions are not that important for finding someone to marry, and they would much rather focus on evidentially-prosperous things like wealth, health and future.
-but if your emotions are really important to you for this decision, and you then make the decision based on wealth, health and future instead - then you will not find happiness.
-and if your emotions are really important to you for this decision and you follow your emotions regardless of wealth, health and future - then you will find happiness.History shows all of this. Wealthy People More Likely to Cheat
-people born workaholics tend to chase money, and are not happy in their "married" relationship choice
-even though they married for wealth, this important decision was not made well
-the ones who are not happy with their married relationship choice should have listened to their feelings more
-they should have identified that they were after the wrong spouse, or perhaps monogamy isn't something that's good for them and they should be single or in a polyamorous relationship
-these are feelings-based-facts the unhappy wealth-chasers should have taken into account and their lives would be better off. For one, they wouldn't have to get divorced... which is very expensive.There's nothing "wrong" with chasing money.
But, if that's the feeling you have - then it should be acknowledged and put into your decision making process instead of simply looking at evidential-based goals that will not necessarily make you happy.
And if chasing-money makes you sad - then again, such a feeling should be acknowledged and put into your decision making process instead of simply looking at the evidentially-based "best way to find a spouse" as described by averages and historical trends.

This is a big part of why the divorcer rate is so high.People do have "emotional feelings for each other" while you like it or not.Even if you can "negotiate the future path of life together and that involves finances, homes, personalities and dozens of other factors..." it doesn't matter.
If you spend all your time and energy in a relationship where you do not have emotional feelings for each other... you'll be unhappy.
Unhappy people get divorces, eventually... which cost a lot of money, and end up wasting all that "negotiation of future life..." stuff. Usually decades of wasted investment.Marriage is an incredibly long-term decision that needs to take both sides into account.
It needs to consider all the evidence-based items you list, but if it ignores the "wishy-washy feelings" - then it will be a failure. This is exactly what I said:

quote:

---

Again. All decisions are fact-based.

​

History is only on the side for evidence-based decision making for things like "identifying reality."
History is on the side of feelings-based decisions for things like "finding your spouse."

---

The idea is you need to identify if the wishy-washy feelings are going to be important or not.If you're deciding on a fixed vs. variable rate mortgage - you should be ignoring your wishy-washy feelings and work out the math for your situation.
(What I've described as an "evidence-based" decision.)If you're deciding on a spouse - you should take into account your wishy-washy feelings along with all the other facts and give them a much higher priority than normal... or else you'll end up very, very un-happy, regardless of how well you "negotiate the future path together."
(What I've described as a "feelings-based" decision.)You seem to argue with me... and then agree with me.This is a sign that you think I'm saying something that I'm actually not... and you're arguing against that made-up-thing-in-your-head.
The other sign is me constantly telling you that that I'm not saying what you keep insisting I'm wrong about.

Fully agreed.Both methods are "fact based."An evidence-based fact takes into account objective evidence (here, one should ensure it is "objective" and not their own opinion.)
A feelings-based fact takes into account subjective feelings (here, one should ensure it is their own opinion of their own feelings and not objective evidence of other people's feelings - even if those others are a majority)They are both facts, but they use different methodology to obtain them.Evidence facts - obtained through peer-reviewed scientific method, if possible.
Feelings facts - obtained through personal opinion of your own feelings, if possible.Two extremely different (even opposite?) methods... which is why I'm making the distinction between "evidence-facts" and "feelings-facts" instead of just saying they are both "fact-based" methods. If I feel happy, and I tell you I'm happy - it is a fact that I'm happy (as long as I'm not lying.)
Regardless of however many endorphins you may or may not be able to accurately measure in my system.(Number of endorphins is made up because I don't know the proper measurement to use or how much anyway.)
If "the average person" requires 100 endorphins to call themselves happy - it does not mean someone is not happy if they only have 5 endorphins.
If the person with 5 endorphins says they are sad - then they can possibly be classified as "an average person."
If the person with 5 endorphins says they are happy - then they are happy, and simply classified as "not an average person."Feelings are feelings.
And the person holding them, and judging them is the be-all and end-all judge.
The result of that personal judgement is a fact.
-taking into account that they are a reasonable, honest person.Anything less ends up with people telling other people how they feel.
Which is, simply, ridiculous.Edited by Stile, : Added final two sentences