What are the pros and cons of being a Believer?

What, in your opinon, is the difference between believing something and knowing something.

Because God can let me know. Are you going to debate Gods ability to do this? Considering all he has made, that would be a relative trifle (if the word relative difficulty could be applied to God)This message has been edited by iano, 24-Feb-2006 03:29 PM

In changing 'I know my mother exists' with 'I know I exist' I attempted to bring knowing into the realm of unprovable whilst not affecting its existance by merely by showing it to be unprovable.I cannot prove I exist to anyone, least of all me. I cannot refer to the data provided by others, whose existance is equally unprovable, to prove my own existance. That would be a bootstrap argument. But I know I exist. Thus knowing something oneself doesn't have to be provable to oneself. Knowing it is sufficient - proof is unnecessary. All proof does, is verify for others what I know. Now, it would be great if I could prove what I know to others. It means I could prove God. But I see his reason for there being fat chance of that!Nevertheless, lack of proof for you doesn't interfere in the least with my knowing for certain he exists. And I don't need to prove it to myself if I already know it either.Edited to tidy and clarifyThis message has been edited by iano, 24-Feb-2006 04:48 PM

quote:

---

Because God can let me know. Are you going to debate Gods ability to do this?

---

What God?

quote:

---

What, in your opinon, is the difference between believing something and knowing something.

---

Belief does not require any sort of rational thought or physical evidence. It requires no logic, and need not be amenable to any testing or attempts at verification. It need never change.Knowing something requires all of those things. It also must be able to be changed.

quote:

---

I cannot prove I exist to anyone, least of all me. I cannot refer to the data provided by others, whose existance is equally unprovable, to prove my own existance. That would be a bootstrap argument. But I know I exist.

---

...and this, yet again, brings us back to what I said about things being probable.

The one who let me know he existed of course.

How do you tell the difference between God telling you he exists and your brain inventing God and telling you he exists?

Which brings us back the the question of how probable is it that you exist and from which non-circular reasoned foundations do you push off from in order to calculate this.I suggest that without some (assumption) of definitive knowing you can only push against thin air.I'm willing to throw you a bone on this Schraf. We could be the plaything of some advanced teenage alien. My knowing God exists and you knowing you exist are irrelevant except for whatever enjoyment spotty faced Zognifor jnr. is getting out of us.

How do you know that its not your brain which is simply inventing the lovely food you will eat this evening. I suggest you're brain is simply informing you of what exists. That it is both the interface with that which exists and the screen on which that which exists is viewed.We must start with an assumption in order for either of us to talk about anything. And that is that there is an objective reality and that what we perceive can well be the case.The ways in which we decide what is true can be scientific observation communicating with our assumption of objective reality. Or it can be something else communicating with our assumption of objective reality. For my own part, I know God exists because if he were merely a figment of my imagination then I cannot trust my imagination to tell me anything accurate about anything else. My imagination will have exited the realm of objective reality (in opening myself up for a wisecrack retort here I would point you to my buddy AdminJar )But if you want to know what its like in evidence-speakOne gets used to the humdrum of life Schraf. After a number of years of plotting points on the graph one gets used to what it is to experience things. The excitement of ones first motorcycle ride is paralelled in order, if not type with the excitement of ones first scuba dive. Falling in love one time has parallels in order, if not type with the second time one falls in love. The bereavement one feels losing a beloved parent parallel the bereavement one feels losing another beloved parent.The dots of our experience will form patterns and clusters: good/bad excited/bored fearful/peaceful etc. Each experience adds more dots but they fall within the bounds of the sheet on which life is being plotted.The the plot pen shoots off the sheet. There is nothing at all to compare it to, no drugs taken, no excitement one has sought, no peace one has experienced, no joy beheld, no awe inspired. A veriftable feast of off-the-graph points, not in a damaging unmanageable sense but just everywhere you look its off the graph.You find if you try and describe it that everyone looks at you funny 9or argues the pants off you). But then you look into a 3500 year old book, considered by so many to be a fairytale, and you find that the writers, different writers at different times describes exactly what is indescribable. And whose plotting all those points.It may be argued that this could all the result of some kind of explosion in the brain, the kicking in of a God-gene or the like. But if the brain is capable of generating the false impression of an objective reality God in millions of otherwise well functioning people over thousands of years, then to talk of trusting our brains to supply any objective reality is pointless. It could well have caused an explosion in millions of others which makes them think the concept of probability has an objective reality.

Oh, right. I mean it's not like anybody that was convinced that God exists ever tried to force people to live the way his God told him to, or tried to kill people who refused to see what to him was completely obvious.I mean, since that never happens, ever, I guess you're right. It pretty much is irrelevant whether or not gods actually exist.

quote:

---

How do you know that its not your brain which is simply inventing the lovely food you will eat this evening.

---

I can show the food to others, and they can see, smell, touch, taste, and hear it, just like I can.We can all come to the conclusion that the food, in fact, is there.You can't do that with any supernatural thing, including God.So, the probability that something like food (that many people can independently experience) exists is much, much higher than the probability that something that only you can experience exists.

quote:

---

One gets used to the humdrum of life Schraf. After a number of years of plotting points on the graph one gets used to what it is to experience things.

---

Please speak for yourself. I don't feel this way at all. I personally take great delight in many events that other people don't even notice anymore. I've always been that way.

quote:

---

It may be argued that this could all the result of some kind of explosion in the brain, the kicking in of a God-gene or the like.

---

Yes, because we have observed this to happen in people with, for example, certain kinds of epilepsy, or in people with very specific brain injury.We see people having extatic religious-type experiences all over the world, and not only as a result of religion. We can stick an electrode into people's brains and make them feel it.

quote:

---

But if the brain is capable of generating the false impression of an objective reality God in millions of otherwise well functioning people over thousands of years, then to talk of trusting our brains to supply any objective reality is pointless.

---

Not true.Just because at one point many millions of people believed that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks does not mean that our brains are useless at supplying us with reliable information.It simply means that people were wrong and deluded. They weren't insane or mentally ill; just very wrong and not too interested in doubting themselves or their sources. That state of affairs can be remedied, but it is difficult. People like feeling right, and they like feeling good. They generally don't care about actually being right and will resist even the consideration that they might be wrong about something that is fundamental to their sense of rightness and emotional comfort.However, I would say that never can our brains supply us with objective information. We can use various techniques (such as critical thinking skills and the scientific method) to come closer to objective knowledge, but we will never be 100% objective.So, I ask again...How do you tell the difference between someone who is really, truly being spoken to by God, and someone who only believes they are being spoken to by God?

Hearing food? "Well Clarissa, do you hear the screaming of the lobsters in the pot?"When wondering whether what our brains are screening is objectively real or not, there is little profit in turning to the musing of same-order beings who could be wondering the same thing were they not focussed on the delights of tucking into vitual Roundstone seafood chowder and virtually dense farmhouse brown bread and butter washed down with a virtual pint of Guinness.Your basis for applying probability needs to be established before you can begin to apply it If you have always been that way then you'll know what I mean. have you had an experience in the latter half of your life so far that has significantly exceeded the joy/excitement/pleasure/grief that couldn't be experienced in the former. Is the pain of losing a parent less or more in the former or latter half of your life? Is the excitement of getting that job promotion more or less exciting than getting that shiny bicycle for Christmas when you were 9? Plot them on the graph or life and you might see that they form a cluster - excitment/pain/peace/wonder all form in clusters of intensity irrespective of age. To put it another way. Can you imagine that you will, between now and the day you die, experience a situation that causes excitement 1000-fold that which you have experienced to date?I doubt it. "Ecstatic religious type experience" C'mon Schraf will ya?! "Herr Doktor, deezse Kristians zeem to zalk of ze xperienze of ze religious xtasy. Zo, vee haf organized dis xperiment und vee find if vee poke ze brain wiz zis uberneedle und inzect zem vit zis drug zat zey haf zis tremzbling und shiffring und vee konklude vee hf found ze zenter of ze religous funktion"I can't but help smile as I type Schraf...at the propensity of one adherant of a Religion (Scientism) to downplay the validiy of Religion. It seems to me to be another bootstrap argument you've got going there...Will be back. Time for bed. G'night.

quote:

---

Your basis for applying probability needs to be established before you can begin to apply it

---

Look, you are going off into unnecessary esoterica and making things much more complicated, I suspect, because it is easier to do that than to stick to the basic questions I raise. Avoidant, if you will.If you want to believe that the big, exciting feelings you have had are the result of God, and that these feelings connote the exact same level of reality to you of God as the existence of your mother, then don't let me stop you.Just realize that now you are forced to accept the reality of invisible pink unicorns, 500 foot tall dragons that live on the dark side of the moon, and any other supernatural, unverifiable idea that's ever been proposed.If you can see no difference at all, this is the only consistent position you can take. Of course, I think you do see a difference and are avoiding the discussion of it.I operate by using a practical method; accepting what is repeatable and able to be experienced [/b]by more people than just me[/i]. I contend that you do as well; you just choose to not apply any of your rational thinking in this one area out of fear that you might stop feeling right.

quote:

---

have you had an experience in the latter half of your life so far that has significantly exceeded the joy/excitement/pleasure/grief that couldn't be experienced in the former.

---

Oh my yes. All of the above.

quote:

---

Is the pain of losing a parent less or more in the former or latter half of your life?

---

I doubt it can be quantified like that. I suspect that it is not less or more, just different during different life stages.

quote:

---

Is the excitement of getting that job promotion more or less exciting than getting that shiny bicycle for Christmas when you were 9?

---

Much more exciting, actually.

quote:

---

Can you imagine that you will, between now and the day you die, experience a situation that causes excitement 1000-fold that which you have experienced to date?

---

Sure. Can't you? Too bad.And anyway, why does this matter?

quote:

---

Ecstatic religious type experience" C'mon Schraf will ya?! "Herr Doktor, deezse Kristians zeem to zalk of ze xperienze of ze religious xtasy. Zo, vee haf organized dis xperiment und vee find if vee poke ze brain wiz zis uberneedle und inzect zem vit zis drug zat zey haf zis tremzbling und shiffring und vee konklude vee hf found ze zenter of ze religous funktion"

---

I see that this information makes you uncomfortable, which is why you didn't addess it and instead tried to deflect and ignore it's very real implications to your position it by turning it into a joke. That is perhaps also why you didn't address my counter to your claim that large numbers of people don't have to be crazy to believe something that is wrong and contrary to the evidence.My question remains...How do you tell the difference between someone who is really, truly being spoken to by God and someone who only believes that God is speaking to them but isn't?According to your method of determining this, you must be able to tell.