Not following you. What does mind reading have to do with this? peace axeman ___________________________________________ Not sure I follow myself. Just thinking out loud about things that we know exist but can't measure or prove. Outside of the appearances discribed ( if they were fact) in the bible there never has been concrete touchable, hearable, seeable proof of God. To the believer the evidentiary evidence is sufficient to go forward with that knowledge. If you reject the evidence then for you the case fails. I have sat on juries and had to decide on the strength of the evidence, some of it was circumstantial and some was from witnesses, on whether a certain event took place. Not all of the juries were unanimous in their opinions but each juror came to their own conclusion based on their weighing of the evidence, as was their right. It is much like that in these discussions we each have to weigh the evidence and make our own decision and that decision is heavily clouded by personal opinion as to what constitutes and qualifies as evidence. Since God is not now sitting on some corner somewhere and most of the events giving evidence of His existence are in the past the best we can hope for is circumstantial and witness evidence. As with a court case. To tie this back to mind reading we know there is evidence of thoughts, circumstantial and witnesses, but to be able to see, touch or feel anothers thoughts is just not possible yet. I can testify that I have thoughts and I believe others do as well but to point to absolute quantifiable proof of anothers thoughts I just can't say for sure the they have any, other than their testimony.
First of all, if you wrote a book about "Ziblopix," then I would definitely read it (mainly to get more insight into your mind). However, there is a huge difference between the bible, which is a collection of events witnessed by many people and also things (such as Genesis) that have had story after story throughout history reflect exactly what was written. However, I don't claim to say that the bible is the end all and be all of my belief in god. The bible has a lot of good things contained within it, but my relationship with god transcends anything from a single book or writing (be it the bible, torah, koran, etc). My beliefs do not need justifications. I realize that my beliefs are beyond science. If you do not like my beliefs, nobody is forcing you to believe what I believe. You can take science to an end and then realize that you'll never get to the root of reality. It gets closer and closer but its never going to get to the end or source of reality. Also, you can apply logic to many things, but there is a large difference between faith and logic. Once you understand what "faith" really is, then you start to understand why logic cannot cover everything. Faith is a tough thing to grasp. It is human nature to want to be clued in on everything. Everyone wants to know what everyone else is thinking, doing and wearing. Everyone wants to know why this and why that. At some point you just have to accept that there are some things you cannot know in this reality and then you must discover for yourself what faith is and how to apply it to your circumstances. I love science a lot. I believe science is awesome. However, I am also a man of faith and I do understand how the two can coexist harmoniously within the same framework.
"You seem to be in a position to say the others are wrong in their beliefs. In order to do so, you must have some criteria to do so." Yes...reason. "Seems to me, that your criteria is material, relativistic logic, based on physical perception." It's logic and reason and science. "Please explain why this is a valid criteria when it comes to discussing the existence of God?" Because I am not aware of any better system to determine truth. It is verifiable, it has a track record. Your computer that you used to post this message is evidence of the fact that logic works. In fact... your whole computer is based on boolean logic. "You continue to claim there is no proof of God, but what you are really saying is that no proof meets your definition and/or criteria of proof." False. I claim that YOU have not provided any proof of your god. On other occasions, I have claimed that *I* have never seen evidence of a god. "Is it possible, that the criteria you are using is not valid as relates to the concept of God?" So reason and logic suddenly become invalid when applied to god? Is that what your saying? Is it possible?? Anything is POSSIBLE. But is this the case? I have no rational reason to believe so. "Somehow, you have this framework that all must accept is the valid framework, and I still haven't seen a proof of why that framework is valid and necessarily applicable to the existence of God." If you wish to reject humans faculty of reason, then we are no longer even capable of communicating. In fact... your are being completely self contradictory because you are in fact reasoning right this very moment. So for me to even CONSIDER anything you are saying, you must figure out a way to do it WITHOUT reason, since that is the very thing you are really arguing against. But if you tried to do this, you would not be able to communicate any ideas at all. Because without logical constructs, your language would not make any sense to anyone. This poses a serious problem for you. "Can something exist, yet be unprovable? Indeed." Sure. "Intent exists, yet can never be proved objectively. " Then HOW do you know it exists?? You just KNOW? Information magically popped into you head? Of course not. You know intent exists because you CAN in fact identify it. "So, why is is that when we talk about God, some people hold to the fallacy that God must necessarily conform to their narrow definitions of proof?" Fallacy? And what fallacy would that be? Can you name it? Can you name the logical flaw? Oh wait a second... your not using reason are you? Thats a no no. Why is that you can use reason/logic to make your case but suddenly I am not allowed to use it when discussing god? Total contradiction. I am holding some very delicious chocolate in front of you, do you know it to be perfectly sweet? You say you can measure the ingredients, but can sweetness be measured? Sure it can. I can taste it and then rate it 1 to 10. My measuring device ( my sense of taste ) may be a bit different than yours, but I can still tell the difference between bitter and sweet. "There is a big difference between being able to measure ingredients and the experience of tasting sweetness. The order in which the ingredients are combined and cooked determine the final product. You can never know by just examination of the parts what the experience of the whole is. What is sweet to one may be too sweet or not sweet enough to another. There is a tremendous area of human experience that is beyond measurement and quantification, yet does in fact exist. " Nonsense. Ever hear of polling? That is a form of measure. "Lots of things exist that are beyond proof, we all know it. " Now thats funny. If you cant prove it, how in the world do you know it exists? Contradiction. ...continued....
" We know them via direct experience, or come to know them via faith." Direct experience is not always evidence. Ive seen people fly and be cut in half at magic shows. Logic , reason, experience, evidence, repeatability, all may be required depending on how extraordinary the claim is. If I claimed I witnessed a three headed unicorn, personally, would you believe me? Is that enough for you to believe? Shouldnt be. "As mentioned in another thread, love is immeasurable." False again. Care to back up that assertion? You are confusing the issue by taking the most subjective term you can think of, and then label is immeasurable without even giving a proper definition. Its EASY to come up with a definition of love which is then measurable. Start with a definition, and everything becomes clear. Leave it undefined, and it is not measurable. Thats obvious. Pretending love is not measurable simply because you refuse to define it, is dishonest. " We can record actions, but how much someone loves, or if they truly love, or if they are acting like they love, are never known by observation of the actions alone. Yet ask a woman who is just married if her husband loves her, and she will say she knows, and she will tell you because her heart says so. " Yes by her definition. So she said YES, she loves him. There you go, you just measured her love by her definition. Not so hard is it? "Is this knowledge? Depends on definitions of what constitutes knowledge and knowing. " You love to muddy the waters with nebulous definitions. " The term "know it in my heart" may have no meaning or reality for you, but most human beings know exactly what that means." Notice you said MOST humans? Thats because you cant get them to agree on this. So in fact, they DONT know EXACTLY what this means. In fact, I would wager, you would have a hard time getting people to agree what this means. "God exists, I know that in my heart, but can I prove to you what is in my heart?" I dont care if god exists in your heart or mind, etc... I care if he exists a true separate entity apart from your existence. The tooth fairy exists in childrens hearts, and that does not make him real either. "How would you ever know, how would you ever really know." Who cares. I am only interested in things which REALLY exist outside and separate of a person. "If you somehow could conclude you were right to renounce faith, there must have been some other criteria besides faith you decided to adopt, yet you did so without proof before hand that renouncing faith was in fact the correct approach to knowing God. Do you know that you made the correct choice? No, you have faith that you did, and each day you practice that faith." False. It is easy to detect when a belief system does not work. It is INCONSISTENT. Faith is VERY inconsistent and I therefore rejected it. Want proof??? Pay attention here.... I am looking deep inside me and drawing on my power of faith.... the answer is coming...coming... WALA!! I HAVE FAITH THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. And yet...you have FAITH that he DOES exist. Wow.... 2 people that "faithed" completely different things. A complete contradiction. The fact that a million people can have FAITH that everyone else is wrong, is proof that faith completely FAILS as a mechanism for determining proof. "You had faith that faith was wrong, you had no proof or evidence that it was not the right path to God, yet you continue to have faith that your choice was correct for you." Lol.... you just proved how impotent faith is!! If FAITH actually WORKED, it would not produce such glaring inconsistencies! "A reasonable man might renounce faith, but he would never really know if he made the correct decision, as he is renouncing that which he doesn't know, therefore cannot speak definitively that he was correct in his decision." Again.... you confuse actuality with possibility. Sure...I dont KNOW that faith DOESNT work because I can prove a negative. But here is the catch.... there is NO rational reason to believe it DOES work. As there is no rational reason to believe that reading tea leaves works. "Most people who renounce faith cannot remain in doubt of their decision, it tears them up inside if they do, so they swing to a polar opposite position of anti-faith." An unsupported hypothesis. Did it ever occur to you that maybe they dropped their faith because they discovered how incredibly unreliable and contradictory it is??? "It is common, and observable to watch these people clutch so strongly onto anti-faith, typically with the same force and underlying emotionalism as they claim they blindly practiced faith. " What does this have to do with anything? Your just saying that when people switch from believing to non-believing, that they then dont believe. Obvious. Basically..... your long drawn out post basically rejects reason as mans tool to KNOW. But what you fail to realize is that you USED REASON in an attempt to make your points. Therefore you have automatically CONTRADICTED yourself by rejecting the very method you used to convince me that the method (Reason) is wrong. As long as you continue to use REASON, you are automatically wrong, since that is exactly what you are trying to reject. Your trapped in a catch 22. If you wish to convince anyone that faith is better than reason, then you better stop using reason in your posts If you claim that reason is OK, **EXCEPT** when applied to god only, as if he is some "special" case, then you have a LOT of explaining to do as to WHY we should just turn off the logic switch in our brains and just blind accept what you tell us concerning god. Doesnt work that way. Be consistent. peace axeman
Quote from axeman: "You seem to be in a position to say the others are wrong in their beliefs. In order to do so, you must have some criteria to do so." "Yes...reason." Your concept of reason. Provide a proof that your concept of reason is the right concept to embrace...and of course you can't use reason in the proof, that would be circular. "Seems to me, that your criteria is material, relativistic logic, based on physical perception." "It's logic and reason and science." Science is a human invention. Logic is a human invention, and reason has changed in meaning throughout history. What was considered reason at one point in time was concluded folly in other times. Reason is relative, not absolute. "Please explain why this is a valid criteria when it comes to discussing the existence of God?" "Because I am not aware of any better system to determine truth." So you have embraced a philosophy, without knowing there is a better philosophy available? Sounds like practice of faith to me. You lack objective proof that your method is the best method. "It is verifiable, it has a track record. Your computer that you used to post this message is evidence of the fact that logic works. In fact... your whole computer is based on boolean logic." It is verifiable as to what can be measured and tracked. Many things that exist are not verifiable through measurements. Logic works? This is a concept, not a fact that exists independently of man's concepts. "You continue to claim there is no proof of God, but what you are really saying is that no proof meets your definition and/or criteria of proof." "False. I claim that YOU have not provided any proof of your god." Untrue, I have not met your requirements, but not meeting someone else's requirements is not a lack of proof. We would first have to agree on what constitutes a proof of God. I don't agree with your requirements of a proof of the existence of God. "On other occasions, I have claimed that *I* have never seen evidence of a god." Your inability to perceive evidence has no bearing on the reality of God's existence. "Is it possible, that the criteria you are using is not valid as relates to the concept of God?" "So reason and logic suddenly become invalid when applied to god?" When the reason and logic you are applying are limited to relativistic logic, and physical perceptions, yes. This idea that God must necessary conform to your sense of reason and logic is in itself illogical. You have no basis to even make such a claim when discussing God as God is commonly understood. "Is that what your saying? Is it possible?? Anything is POSSIBLE." So it is possible that you failed in the practice of faith, and it is possible that your conclusions based on empiricism and relativistic logic are faulty regarding God. Finally, an honest admission. "But is this the case? I have no rational reason to believe so." Having a reason to believe is your requirement based on your own concept of what God must conform to. We have different concepts of what is reasonable where the concept of God is involved. "Somehow, you have this framework that all must accept is the valid framework, and I still haven't seen a proof of why that framework is valid and necessarily applicable to the existence of God." "If you wish to reject humans faculty of reason, then we are no longer even capable of communicating." I don't reject human's faculty of reason, I think it is great and should be applied to the fields where it is functional. Applying it to love, art, God, is foolish. Nearly every man who is married knows that the faculty of reason is worthless when it comes to having a long term relationship with a woman. "In fact... your are being completely self contradictory because you are in fact reasoning right this very moment." It is not self contradictory for an astro physicist to play in a sandbox with his children. He brings himself to the level of his child, as the child is unable to rise to his level. I attempt to speak to your mind, because you heart is not open. "So for me to even CONSIDER anything you are saying, you must figure out a way to do it WITHOUT reason, since that is the very thing you are really arguing against." Again, I am not arguing against reason, I am arguing reasonable that relativistic logic has its limits, and does not encompass the entirety of human experience, human understanding, or human knowledge. There is a famous quote from Star Trek, which I will paraphrase, where Spock says to the man who intends to marry Spock's former arranged marriage bride: "Having a thing, is not so nearly as pleasing as wanting a thing. It is not logical, but it if often true." "But if you tried to do this, you would not be able to communicate any ideas at all. Because without logical constructs, your language would not make any sense to anyone." Communicating color to a blind man is difficult, true. "This poses a serious problem for you." It is not a problem, it is a situation. Some are inclined to take off the blinders and open their heart, others are not so inclined. I have no investment either way. A river overflows, and cares not where it flows. "Can something exist, yet be unprovable? Indeed." Sure. "Intent exists, yet can never be proved objectively. " "Then HOW do you know it exists?? You just KNOW? Information magically popped into you head? Of course not. You know intent exists because you CAN in fact identify it." I can identify it within myself, and I can guess that it exists in others based on observation and their comments, but I can never know what someone's else's real intent is. It exists, but I cannot know it, or identify it with 100% certainty. "So, why is is that when we talk about God, some people hold to the fallacy that God must necessarily conform to their narrow definitions of proof?" "Fallacy? And what fallacy would that be? Can you name it? Can you name the logical flaw?" You use the term fallacy only in the context of logical argumentation. I use fallacy as a term something that is not true. Things can be logically correct within the context of a logical argument, assuming some facts not in evidence, yet the conclusion may not be true, if the assumptions are not true. "Oh wait a second... your not using reason are you? Thats a no no. Why is that you can use reason/logic to make your case but suddenly I am not allowed to use it when discussing god? Total contradiction." You are allowed to do whatever you want, who would stop you. Now you are practicing equivocation to stray from the heart of my comments. Those tricks don't work. I am holding some very delicious chocolate in front of you, do you know it to be perfectly sweet? You say you can measure the ingredients, but can sweetness be measured? "Sure it can. I can taste it and then rate it 1 to 10. My measuring device ( my sense of taste ) may be a bit different than yours, but I can still tell the difference between bitter and sweet." Oh, so you can apply the your senses. Quite right. Man has senses, and intellect. Man also has heart. Man has many avenues at his disposal to gain knowledge, one of those abilities is faith. If man were purely sense and reason we would have come to agreement long ago on all topics, but man is more than physical senses and relativistic logic. We all know this by our own personal experiences. "There is a big difference between being able to measure ingredients and the experience of tasting sweetness. The order in which the ingredients are combined and cooked determine the final product. You can never know by just examination of the parts what the experience of the whole is. What is sweet to one may be too sweet or not sweet enough to another. There is a tremendous area of human experience that is beyond measurement and quantification, yet does in fact exist. " "Nonsense. Ever hear of polling? That is a form of measure." Current polling reveals God exists in the minds and hearts of the majority of people. "Lots of things exist that are beyond proof, we all know it. " "Now thats funny. If you cant prove it, how in the world do you know it exists? Contradiction. Not contradiction at all. Many things exist without proof, and are known prior to proof. Examine history, and you will see people who claimed things to exist, which were not proven at the time, and over time they were shown to exist. How did they know that it existed? They knew, they also knew that they couldn't prove it to others. ...continued....
You are right to say that direct experience is not always evidence. I've been saying all along that reality is more than just what your senses tells you it is. How can we trust our senses? And if we can't trust our senses, how much less can we trust our science? When we see things, our faith in our senses allows us to construct a certain conception of reality.
Earlier Don said he might suggest that some of his traders start praying. Suggestion. It is better to pray before you trade than after you open the trade. At least according to our local saturday morning talk show broker guru who is calling to broadcast from some cruise. Something like prevention is more effective than healing at least in regards to trades.
When I was younger, I wondered what scientists and psychologists meant when they stated that man used only a very small percentage of his mental capacity. Some say man uses only 5% of his mental potential, and they call it the 95% rule. Then I met someone who explained it to me this way: "There are people who you could remove 95% of their brain, and it would not influence their normal functioning. They constitute 95% of the population." Reading your response to Aphie's reasonable request reminded me of the 95% rule. That is probably why lots of people can continually kill brain cells though constant passout drinking, and never miss a beat.