Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 57450 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1566 on: September 03, 2014, 08:10:35 PM »
Lukvance, do you think the people who took the drugs experienced the real god or not? They believe they experienced the real god. Do you agree?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is a real god. Did the people who took LSD feel him? Or was it just something happening to the chemicals in their brains?
I don't know really what they experienced. I don't really know if you feel love when you tell someone that you love him. I will never really know 100% sure that someone loves me.
The point here is proving the existence of God. So the fact that they experience God does not prove that God exist alone. It's a multitude of facts like this one that finally, when added together, prove his existence. Just like it does with the existence of Anger or Love.
I will ask you the same question I aksed Astreja : Do you think that some people experienced love or anger as a result of taking a drug? If so, why do you still think they exist?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1567 on: September 03, 2014, 08:19:38 PM »
Thank you for the explanation. Do you think that some people experienced love or anger as a result of taking a drug? If so, why do you still think they exist? Why don't you "discount the evidentiary value of the phenomenon."?

Yes, I think that drugs can and do cause people to experience love or anger.  They exist -- But only in the brains of the people feeling the love or the anger.  The love and the anger are not in the drug itself, but in the brain of the person using the drug.

A feeling of love or anger, however, has no power to heal except through the placebo effect, and even then may not be potent enough to overcome chronic injuries or advanced disease.  An emotion is not an external being capable of autonomous action; therefore, an emotion is not an actual god in any sense that I find meaningful.

If all you have is a feeling of a god, I say:

"Okay, fine -- I acknowledge that you feel what you think is a god.  Why should I care?  I don't feel it, and if it only exists in the mind it doesn't really have anything to offer that I don't already possess.  Oh, and it would be downright silly to "worship" such a thing."

This is why I need external physical evidence that I can check out for Myself.  Your feelings and experiences aren't enough -- In fact, in My eyes they're nothing at all.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1568 on: September 03, 2014, 08:26:46 PM »
Thank you for the explanation. Do you think that some people experienced love or anger as a result of taking a drug? If so, why do you still think they exist? Why don't you "discount the evidentiary value of the phenomenon."?

Yes, I think that drugs can and do cause people to experience love or anger.  They exist -- But only in the brains of the people feeling the love or the anger.  The love and the anger are not in the drug itself, but in the brain of the person using the drug.

A feeling of love or anger, however, has no power to heal except through the placebo effect, and even then may not be potent enough to overcome chronic injuries or advanced disease.  An emotion is not an external being capable of autonomous action; therefore, an emotion is not an actual god in any sense that I find meaningful.

If all you have is a feeling of a god, I say:

"Okay, fine -- I acknowledge that you feel what you think is a god.  Why should I care?  I don't feel it, and if it only exists in the mind it doesn't really have anything to offer that I don't already possess.  Oh, and it would be downright silly to "worship" such a thing."

This is why I need external physical evidence that I can check out for Myself.  Your feelings and experiences aren't enough -- In fact, in My eyes they're nothing at all.
Aren't they enough for you to claim "Anger exist!" Or "Love exist!"? Why are they enough for those and not for "God exist!"? Only because you don't feel it? Would you believe that Hate did not exist if you never felt it?
You're worth more than my time

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13059
  • Darwins +355/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1569 on: September 03, 2014, 08:32:59 PM »
I don't feel 'fear', so to me, it doesn't exist. Right? ;)

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2344
  • Darwins +438/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1570 on: September 03, 2014, 08:39:25 PM »
.................

.................................

:-\ :-\ :'( :? :o :?

This is just plain exasperating.

I dunno.

Message to the developer of the Lukvance Forum Bot
First of all - congratulations!  This is most impressive work.  Kudos.

I realize that this must have been a huge undertaking, unnamed super-programmer dude/chick, and likely you have grown rather attached to this project.  An AI this sophisticated (insofar as simulating actual conversation - more on that in a bit) is certainly a task to be proud of accomplishing.  Remember, no one can ever take that away from you.  It feels like only yesterday when the idea of a conversationally-competent, deterministic software seemed nigh-impossible.

And here we stand today.  With what appears to be an AI that is just that - a conversationally-competent forum poster.

However...

There appears to be a problem.  And the older generations[1] are just at much at fault as you are in this regard: We neglected to properly define conversationally-competent.

See...what we thought we meant, and, clearly, what you, Lukvance Forum Bot developers, thought we meant was for a machine to be able to simulate the experience of having a conversation with another human being.  It sounds good on paper, but we neglected a fundamental reality: there are some dumb humans out there.  One can have a conversationally-competent conversation with a Kardashian, but come now - there's a really good chance that nothing productive will result from that conversation, and a pretty good chance that nothing coherent will result as well.

We needed to set the bar higher for what we expect for conversation to pass muster.  We need an upgraded Turing test.  We need something that not only produces a conversationally-competent application, but a rational one.

But why is this important enough for me to break the 4th wall[2]?

Good question, and, I think, you'll find your answer by reading the posting history of your creation (Lukvance Forum Bot).  I think that you may have stumbled upon a new concept worth exploring: The Uncanny Valley[3] of sentient communication.  I don't know what to call it...maybe The Eye Rolling Frustration Zone?...but it's a rather jarring phenomenon.

Imagine it: release of Lukvance Forum Bot into the wild, propagating throughout all sorts of discussion forums, possibly news outlets, and - Vishnu help us all - Facebook and Twitter...

You will reduce the world's cognitive abilities into a pile of smoldering ashes.  Information will be buried in a pile of repetitious banality and Higgs Bosons.  Do not do this.  I implore you.

Bury the binaries and the code miles into the Earth, under a complex substructure of epic proportions populated with all manner of creature, ne'er-do-well, and occasional healing potions, tell a couple of sages about it, and run away.
 1. No doubt you are of a younger generation.  Innovation springs from youth.
 2. You know, cease pretending that Lukvance is a rational human being with an interest in discussion.
 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1571 on: September 03, 2014, 08:51:11 PM »
Aren't they enough for you to claim "Anger exist!" Or "Love exist!"? Why are they enough for those and not for "God exist!"? Only because you don't feel it? Would you believe that Hate did not exist if you never felt it?

If I had never felt hate, I wouldn't have any frame of reference for it.  I wouldn't know first-hand what it actually was, and it would be no more than a word in the dictionary.

I have felt hate.  I have felt anger.  I have felt love.  I have not "felt" your god.  Therefore, to Me your god is no more than a word in the dictionary, just some unknown (or possibly misinterpreted) emotion that you and other believers feel.  It has only as much power as believers already possess, and not an erg more.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2128
  • Darwins +253/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1572 on: September 03, 2014, 10:26:42 PM »
I mean I am able to feel something that I call God. More precisely God's touch. It's a calming felling.

So you equate relaxing with God then?  Why?  Why do you pick that particular emotion and label it God's touch? 

And why do you use the word touch?  That just confuses the situation here, Luk.  Don't do that.  You don't actually mean that God touches you.  That's something you can't say.  Because if God can touch you physically, we should be able to demonstrate that with evidence, and you know you can't.  Touch is one of the five senses and that is NOT what you mean here.  So really, don't say that.  If you're really sticking with this, then please find a way to distinguish it from an emotional feeling. 

I often calm down after being angry.  I think most people do.  I can also keep my cool when others around me are getting upset.  I don't call that feeling 'God's touch' at all.  It's just another feeling.  Maybe you're just labeling a feeling (that we all feel from time to time) differently than the rest of us.  And that label has caused you to confuse your feelings with some sort of internalized proof of your God? 

I don't feel God like I feel anger.

In what ways are they different?  And please don't say one makes me happy and one makes me sad or some such bullshit.  I'm looking for a more mechanical answer here.  You said you don't feel God like you feel anger.  This statement speaks more to the mechanism with which you experience them.  I'm looking for a comparison of the mechanisms that make you feel God and the mechanisms that make you feel anger. 

Both are feelings, right?  Both are inside your head, right?  Both evoke responses, right? 

I would think that the main difference is the label you attach to one that you don't attach to the other.  You were never indoctrinated to believe that anger was God's touch.  You WERE indoctrinated to believe that some sort of calming feeling you have is God's touch, however.  You didn't come to that on your own.  You were taught that.  What if it's just incorrect? 

What if someone were told from birth that the anger they feel is God's touch?  Wouldn't they see every instance of anger as reinforcement of the idea that God is real?  How would that be different from what you're doing? 

I don't feel anger like I feel love neither. They are completely different feelings/emotions.

You're wrong here.  Chemically and neurologically, they are very similar. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-prove-it-really-is-a-thin-line-between-love-and-hate-976901.html

I could've felt anger at first then felt God calming me down.

Or you could have felt anger first and then simply calmed yourself down like the rest of us.  Again, what if you've simply been taught to label that 'calming down' feeling as God, when in reality, its not?  I get the same thing just as much as you, but I don't call it God's touch.   

I underlined the fact that God could be felt just like Anger could.

Ok, so what you're saying is that both God and anger are things you can feel.  Do you think you have different feelings than other people in the world? Because I don't feel God, but I am pretty sure I experience the same feelings that you do on a daily basis.  Maybe you do though... who knows?  How can we find out? 

Maybe you need to describe this 'God's touch' thing a little more in depth.  Is it like a little extra special something you feel inside you that's not there with all emotional states?  A special feeling that isn't there when anger is there, but IS there when you calm down?  Or that is there when you feel love, but isn't there when you feel hate?  If the answer is yes, then can this be explained without God having to actually exist? Sure it can. I'll use the whole 'calming feeling' idea since you already admitted you see that as 'God's touch'.  After you get angry, and a sense of calm comes over you, for most of you're life, you've associated that feeling with a supernatural intervention by the God you believe in.  Be it subconsciously or not, this realization (that God is making a direct intervention in your life) gives you an emotional high, because you really, really like this idea that God is looking out for you personally.  This heightens the experience of calming down, and adds an extra emotional kick (you use the word 'touch') that perhaps other people don't feel because they don't associate 'calming feelings' with any sort of supernatural intervention on their behalf.  Is this, perhaps, the difference?  That the 'God's touch' you feel is the brief yet noticeable emotional high you get from the subconscious realization that God is working in your life?  Perhaps that little bit of emotional uumph is what separates your normal emotional states from these special feelings, and for lack of a better understanding of the chemistry and neurology at work, (and of course, directly in line with your beliefs), you call these special feelings 'God's touch'? 

Does that explain what you mean by God's touch?  In a nutshell, is it simply that you associate 'calming down from an angry state' with a direct, personal, supernatural intervention on your behalf by the most powerful being in all the universe (which makes you happy) while I'm just stuck associating 'calming down from an angry state' with 'calming down from an angry state'? 

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6951
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1573 on: September 04, 2014, 12:44:31 AM »
Lukvance,  the people who took LSD say they felt god. You say you feel god. Hindus, Muslims , Mormons, Sikhs and Rastafarians say they feel god. Are you saying that what the LSD users felt was not really god, only brain chemicals, but that what you and other religious people feel is really god, and not brain chemicals?

How could you possibly know the difference?

I think all the "god" feeling is coming from the same exact place where every other feeling comes from: chemical reactions in the brain. Happy feelings, sad feelings, good feelings, bad feelings, hatred, anger, love, fear, boredom, "god" feelings, they all come from the brain.

Whether stimulated by taking a drug like LSD or generated in the brain itself without taking a drug. Because there are no "feelings" floating around in the atmosphere waiting to descend on people randomly. That is why some drugs make people feel relaxed and happy, and other drugs make people feel nervous, angry and paranoid. That is why we can cure depressed or anxious people with drugs that affect the brain chemicals.

That is why changes to the brain can make people start believing in god, or start loving music[1], or stop loving their spouse, or start hating the smell of flowers or the taste of coffee. People with brain damage have not only stopped loving their spouse-- they have actually forgotten they were married!

If feelings did not come from the brain, how would damaging the brain change people's feelings?
 1. I am reading Oliver Sacks' book about how some people with brain damage become obsessed with music--either loving it or hating it. Some became prodigies when they were never musical before. One guy who never cared about music taught himself to play the piano and compose music after being struck by lightning.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1400
  • Darwins +103/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1574 on: September 04, 2014, 07:15:51 AM »
To resume : Could you present me 3 evidences of the existence of Anger?
I'm pretty sure that I would be able to present you 3 similar evidences of the existence of God.

Try this one for anger; Universal agreement by all human beings that it exists based on subjective and objective experience.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1400
  • Darwins +103/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1575 on: September 04, 2014, 07:51:05 AM »
I disagree, God, for the purpose of this conversation meaning the probability of his existence, does not have to be a thing in itself. If you want to talk about God being a thing in itself come to the other thread.

I also disagree. You are not discussing the probability of gods existence, you are attempting to conflate god with an abstract concept in order to prove its existence.



As you stated you know what annoyance feels like, I know what God feels like. How do you know that it is annoyance that you feel is another question, right?

Yes, and I asked you how do you know it is god that you feel. Annoyance is an agreed upon label. You are talking about god to atheists, god is not an agreed upon label.

Someone here, I don't think so.

Are you saying that the other theists here, OCG for example, are without god?


But some other believer would indeed agree with the feeling. You will never feel the same anger than someone else. There are basics things like the faster beating of the heart but you will never feel exactly like someone else. I will always be able to tel you that *I* felt anger and that what you felt wasn't really anger and I would be right.

This is true, as I've said the words describing emotions are approximations. They are generally recognised though. I can empathise with you when you said that you felt anger, I can imagine it from my own perspective.
For example...
Whats that luk? you felt angry when greybeard broke your watch? Based on my own experience of anger I guess you sent him a box of chocolates and asked for his phone number.

Oh no wait, that's the other one.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1576 on: September 04, 2014, 05:40:10 PM »
I don't feel 'fear', so to me, it doesn't exist. Right? ;)
-Nam
You tell us.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1577 on: September 04, 2014, 05:42:26 PM »
Aren't they enough for you to claim "Anger exist!" Or "Love exist!"? Why are they enough for those and not for "God exist!"? Only because you don't feel it? Would you believe that Hate did not exist if you never felt it?

If I had never felt hate, I wouldn't have any frame of reference for it.  I wouldn't know first-hand what it actually was, and it would be no more than a word in the dictionary.

I have felt hate.  I have felt anger.  I have felt love.  I have not "felt" your god.  Therefore, to Me your god is no more than a word in the dictionary, just some unknown (or possibly misinterpreted) emotion that you and other believers feel.  It has only as much power as believers already possess, and not an erg more.
So, I understand your answer is No. You would NOT believe that Anger or Love don't exist if you never felt it. Correct?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1578 on: September 04, 2014, 06:55:41 PM »
I mean I am able to feel something that I call God. More precisely God's touch. It's a calming felling.
So you equate relaxing with God then?  Why?  Why do you pick that particular emotion and label it God's touch? 
I don't equate relaxing with God. Can your mother help you relax? Do you equate her to relaxing?
And why do you use the word touch?  That just confuses the situation here, Luk.  Don't do that.  You don't actually mean that God touches you.  That's something you can't say.  Because if God can touch you physically, we should be able to demonstrate that with evidence, and you know you can't.  Touch is one of the five senses and that is NOT what you mean here.  So really, don't say that.  If you're really sticking with this, then please find a way to distinguish it from an emotional feeling. 
You are right. We cannot be physically touched by love, hate nor God.

And that label has caused you to confuse your feelings with some sort of internalized proof of your God? 
There are no confusion. You feel things I feel other things. That's ok. It doesn't really matter on the existence on the thing. Does it?

You said you don't feel God like you feel anger.  This statement speaks more to the mechanism with which you experience them.  I'm looking for a comparison of the mechanisms that make you feel God and the mechanisms that make you feel anger.
I understand. But the way I feel anger is not the same way you feel anger. So the way I feel God is not the same way someone else might feel God. There are some basics "feelings" or physicals traits that we can associate with the feeling like when I feel angry I clench my fists, when I feel God I smile. Anyway there is not one way to describe the difference between when I feel anger and when I feel God or when I feel love.

Both are feelings, right?  Both are inside your head, right?  Both evoke responses, right?
Yes. Yes and yes.

I would think that the main difference is the label you attach to one that you don't attach to the other.  You were never indoctrinated to believe that anger was God's touch.  You WERE indoctrinated to believe that some sort of calming feeling you have is God's touch, however.  You didn't come to that on your own.  You were taught that.  What if it's just incorrect? 
If it's incorrect, I would doubt it to be incorrect.
My "indoctrinators" weren't incorrect about anger, why would they be incorrect about God? Were you indoctrinated to believe what you believe about anger?

What if someone were told from birth that the anger they feel is God's touch?  Wouldn't they see every instance of anger as reinforcement of the idea that God is real?  How would that be different from what you're doing? 
You are right if every single person around the child believe that the anger they feel is God's touch then it would believe so. Heck, some even believe that God want them to die blowing themselves. Crazy people.

You're wrong here.  Chemically and neurologically, they are very similar. 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-prove-it-really-is-a-thin-line-between-love-and-hate-976901.html
indeed. Did you ever made the mistake of taking one for the other :)
Ok, so what you're saying is that both God and anger are things you can feel.  Do you think you have different feelings than other people in the world? Because I don't feel God, but I am pretty sure I experience the same feelings that you do on a daily basis.  Maybe you do though... who knows?  How can we find out? 
We can't! That's the magic of feelings. I will never truly 100% know how you feel. You and me experience the same feeling and give it the same word to describe it. But there is nothing preventing us to describe it with another word since you don't know exactly what I feel.

In a nutshell, is it simply that you associate 'calming down from an angry state' with a direct, personal, supernatural intervention on your behalf by the most powerful being in all the universe (which makes you happy) while I'm just stuck associating 'calming down from an angry state' with 'calming down from an angry state'? 
Maybe. Who knows! :)
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1579 on: September 04, 2014, 06:59:55 PM »
Lukvance,  the people who took LSD say they felt god. You say you feel god. Hindus, Muslims , Mormons, Sikhs and Rastafarians say they feel god. Are you saying that what the LSD users felt was not really god, only brain chemicals, but that what you and other religious people feel is really god, and not brain chemicals?

How could you possibly know the difference?
We don't, that is one of the reasons why God exist (at least as much as a feeling)

I think all the "god" feeling is coming from the same exact place where every other feeling comes from: chemical reactions in the brain. Happy feelings, sad feelings, good feelings, bad feelings, hatred, anger, love, fear, boredom, "god" feelings, they all come from the brain.
Great. Does it make God nonexistent?

If feelings did not come from the brain, how would damaging the brain change people's feelings?
I don't know. The point is that God exist, at least in your brain. That's the whole point of this conversation. A point that I made since reply #872.
You guys seems to think otherwise so I look at you trying to wiggle out from there and then come back to the same conclusion.
God is at least as real as Love (or any other feeling for that matter)
You're worth more than my time

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6951
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1580 on: September 04, 2014, 07:05:04 PM »
I guess asking an atheist about god is like asking a blind person about the color blue.  :-\

But, since there are blue things that the blind person could see if given a corneal implant, it is really more like asking a blind person about the color invisible. There is nothing that is the color invisible, so even with a corneal implant the person would not be able to describe it. The properties attributed to gods are like the color invisible. It can't exist.

Seriously, I only know anything about gods from what religious people say about gods. I have no personal experience with any supernatural beings of any kind. If any god-beings exist, they have been ignoring me completely. They all know where I live. I am waiting. Nothing. Still the color invisible.

I know, god is everywhere, right here, or there, just beyond the horizon, but I have pushed god away and he won't come where he is not wanted, because you don't talk to unruly children, and I have hardened my heart against him so I can commit all kinds of sins without feeling guilty, yet I secretly hate and fear god so instead I worship science, dirt, my own ego, and the memory of Charles Darwin. But if I am a nice person I will go to heaven anyway.

Whatever.  &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6951
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1581 on: September 04, 2014, 07:31:04 PM »
(That was me, not JeffPt talking about feelings being generated by the brain.)

Okay, Lukvance,  we agree that god-feelings and all other feelings come from chemicals generated by the brain. That fact does not prove or disprove a real physical god out somewhere in the world.

However, if your god only exists as a feeling inside people's brains, like the emotions of love, happiness,  hate, fear, boredom, etc, only exist as feelings inside people's brains, then your god is not a real physical being. Is he a real physical being? If so, you gotta get off the "god is as real as love" kick. Can't have it both ways.

That is what you have been trying to establish with your refrain that your god is as real as love, right? Are you sure you want to go there, making your god in some way interchangeable on the reality scale with love or some other human emotion? Well, an emotion can't do anything because an emotion is not a real physical being. Love, happiness, boredom and anger can't walk down the street like the Beatles crossing Abbey Road. And neither can your god. Your god can't heal AIDS like Babaluaye, make people fall in love like Cupid, or send lightning bolts like Thor. Your god is not a real physical being like those gods. Your god is just a feeling. Like love. Or boredom. Or irritation. Or confusion. Or anger.

If your god is not a real physical being, he cannot do anything. He cannot make a world, or give humans sets of laws to live by or create heaven and send people there. He is not a real being, so he is as powerless to act as any disembodied emotion--like a chemical reaction taking place in a test tube. Without a physical embodiment, a god-feeling cannot act.

That means that before there were living beings on the earth, there could not have been any feelings-- no love, hate, fear, boredom, and no god-feelings either. If the feeling of your god is as real as the feeling of love, than where there are no living beings, there is not any love, and of course your god is not there, either.

Can I get a QED?  8)

Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2344
  • Darwins +438/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1582 on: September 04, 2014, 07:37:08 PM »
I don't know. The point is that God exist, at least in your brain. That's the whole point of this conversation. A point that I made since reply #872.

Wait...wait a minute...

You mean to tell me that the concept of god...that abstract idea...

You mean that exists?

I am blown away by this discovery.  Shocked.

What a wonderful age we live in.  New discoveries all the time.  Hell, just last night it has been brought to my attention that 1 equals 1!  How amazing is that?!?!?!?  I tell ya...all this completely new - not at all previous agreed-to information that has been essentially agreed to since the dawn of logic and was under no dispute whatsoever by any member on this forum - completely new information is quite a bit to absorb.

Phew!!!  At this rate, that guy is going to come back real soon with proof that the hole in the ground is not my ass.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1583 on: September 04, 2014, 08:29:29 PM »
I guess asking an atheist about god is like asking a blind person about the color blue.  :-\
Amazing, I never thought of that. That's exactly right (more right than the invisible one since no one can see the invisible but people can see God)
If You are blind and of course as long as you are you might make all the effort you want you will never be able to see blue. It doesn't mean that blue does not exist!
Same thing with God.
Thank you for the comparison. I love it.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1584 on: September 04, 2014, 08:32:59 PM »
Okay, Lukvance,  we agree that god-feelings and all other feelings come from chemicals generated by the brain. That fact does not prove or disprove a real physical god out somewhere in the world.
Indeed his physical/independent existence is discussed on another thread.

Is he a real physical being? If so, you gotta get off the "god is as real as love" kick. Can't have it both ways.
I'm sorry but I can have it both ways. I can tell that you are at least as real as love. I can tell without a doubt that I am at least as real as love. It doesn't mean that you and me are Love. It just mean that we exist...at least as Love exist.
You're worth more than my time

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2128
  • Darwins +253/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1585 on: September 04, 2014, 09:43:10 PM »
I don't equate relaxing with God. Can your mother help you relax? Do you equate her to relaxing?

Relaxing and a 'calming feeling' are the same thing.  After you get angry, you relax.  Again I ask you why you relate your calming feeling (relaxing) to God and not a different emotion? 

There are no confusion. You feel things I feel other things. That's ok. It doesn't really matter on the existence on the thing. Does it?

Words matter here Luk.  If you use words like 'God's touch' to describe what I use the words 'calming down' to describe, then communication gets muddled. 

I understand. But the way I feel anger is not the same way you feel anger. So the way I feel God is not the same way someone else might feel God. There are some basics "feelings" or physicals traits that we can associate with the feeling like when I feel angry I clench my fists, when I feel God I smile. Anyway there is not one way to describe the difference between when I feel anger and when I feel God or when I feel love.

Prove that it's God that you're feeling and not just one of many emotions that all of us feel.  You can tell me your having a feeling, but to claim that this feeling is actually the presence of a supernatural being and not just an emotion is ridiculous.  Its just an assertion that you can't back up in any meaningful way.  You don't have to prove that emotions exist because I agree that they do.  But you are suggesting that the source of some of your emotions are different from the rest, and that they come from the presence of a being.  You have to prove that, else it's just more likely that all emotions come from inside your brain. 

I would think that the main difference is the label you attach to one that you don't attach to the other.  You were never indoctrinated to believe that anger was God's touch.  You WERE indoctrinated to believe that some sort of calming feeling you have is God's touch, however.  You didn't come to that on your own.  You were taught that.  What if it's just incorrect? 
If it's incorrect, I would doubt it to be incorrect.
My "indoctrinators" weren't incorrect about anger, why would they be incorrect about God? Were you indoctrinated to believe what you believe about anger?

Your indoctrinators didn't indoctrinate you to think that anger came from an unproven, external, supernatural source and that is likely why you don't feel God when you feel anger.  They didn't indoctrinate you to think that boredom came from an unproven, external, supernatural source, and that is likely why you don't feel God when you feel boredom.  The same goes for every other emotion that they didn't attach to God while you were being raised.  You only feel God when you have an emotion that you've been trained to think of as 'God's touch'. 

I wasn't indoctrinated to think of any emotions as being generated from an unproven, external, supernatural force, and that is why I don't do that.  As I've gotten older, I also see no reason to start now, as it would seem rather ridiculous to arbitrarily pick a few 'nice' emotions and treat them as if they are special because they come from a supernatural source that probably isn't real to begin with. 

You are right if every single person around the child believe that the anger they feel is God's touch then it would believe so. Heck, some even believe that God want them to die blowing themselves. Crazy people.

Yeah, and some people believe that the calming feeling that they experience after being angry is the direct result of an invisible, all powerful, all knowing sky man who took a direct interest in their well being.  Crazy indeed. 

Ok, so what you're saying is that both God and anger are things you can feel.  Do you think you have different feelings than other people in the world? Because I don't feel God, but I am pretty sure I experience the same feelings that you do on a daily basis.  Maybe you do though... who knows?  How can we find out? 
We can't! That's the magic of feelings. I will never truly 100% know how you feel. You and me experience the same feeling and give it the same word to describe it. But there is nothing preventing us to describe it with another word since you don't know exactly what I feel.

But when you say you feel God, to me, that's not something I understand at all.  I don't feel God, so I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.  What if I told you I felt Phlegmorph?  And then when you asked me to relate what that feels like, I tell you that its the feeling I get after I haven't eaten in a long time.  You say, 'No, that's just hunger' and I say no, that's Phlegmorph.  You'd think I was a little 'off', wouldn't you?  That's where it is with you now.  You're a little 'off'. 

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6762
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1586 on: September 04, 2014, 09:47:38 PM »
I guess asking an atheist about god is like asking a blind person about the color blue.  :-\
Amazing, I never thought of that. That's exactly right (more right than the invisible one since no one can see the invisible but people can see God)
If You are blind and of course as long as you are you might make all the effort you want you will never be able to see blue. It doesn't mean that blue does not exist!
Same thing with God.
Thank you for the comparison. I love it.

I don't think that you realize that blue does not exist, that it is the imaginary product of the brain trying to parse what it is seeing, and the eyes, which can pass on their interpretation of the humanly visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. You are merely experiencing something evolution made up.

A blue shirt isn't blue. It is interpreted as such by the eyes and the brain, but non-human detection systems would not assign it a blue designation. Our brains make it up. We evolved that way. The importance we assign color is a function of the brain, and not relevant to the real world.

Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Tinyal

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Darwins +26/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1587 on: September 04, 2014, 10:42:32 PM »
Unfortunately,  I meet people just like Luk on a daily basis (some areas of my work and social life involve a lot of people from all walks of life) - and all of them seem to have a few basics in common:

1.  They either weren't given (or took) an opportunity for a well-rounded education.  and/or
2.  Their parents (or other authority figures) held similar crazy beliefs and passed these to their children.
3.  They have no experience of, and/or are incapable of, a habit of self-reflection.
4.  They are very afraid - indeed, some have nothing but fear as their life-basis.
5.  Biologically, they may be different (or damaged) - they may be quite low on the intelligence scale as well.  (Although most are just like everyone else - varying degrees of intelligence.

Not everyone meets all 4 conditions, of course, and the above is my own anecdotal observations, so your mileage may vary.

One of the things I often repeat when I am speaking publicly is the following:  "People will never put effort into, nor seek, knowledge of anything if they think they already know the answers.   It simply will never occur to them that they may be wrong."

Here in the USA, many people demonstrate the same unreasoning attitudes as Luk expresses, with a larger than average percentage living in the bible belt.  Many would fit right in to a 13th-15th century civilization, or would agree with one of Martin Luther's idiotic statements about intelligence/thinking.

Now in my 50's, I do my best to avoid such people whenever I can - they are simply too frustrating to talk to, or relate with in any way.   They never got to their current beliefs through any sort of logical process - and so trying to demonstrate where they may be wrong using a reasoned, logical approach is unproductive.

The best I can do is use my ability to vote - perhaps whatever skills I may have to sway others to vote  - to make sure such people never gain political or military power (that hasn't worked so well, however).

And lastly, I really enjoy reading the other posters (I just ignore Luk), as I learn quite a bit from this (and similar) forums!!
Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water?

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2128
  • Darwins +253/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1588 on: September 04, 2014, 11:06:44 PM »
I'd like to take on the very first miracle I read about at the following website, Luk. 

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html#latapie

I'll cut and paste the 'miracle'. 

I apologize for the length of this, but Luk said we had to debunk them.  This one's easy.  They all are really. 
Quote
Mrs Catherine LATAPIE

Born in 1820

Lived in Loubajac, near to Lourdes. Cured 1st. March 1858 in her 39th year.

Miracle on 18th. January 1862, by Mgr Laurence, Bishop of Tarbes.

This was the first cure. The date is unquestionable.

At the time of the Apparitions, Catherine LATAPIE lived at Loubajac, a few kilometres from Lourdes. She had injured her right hand after a fall from a tree, in October 1856; in addition, she was at the end of her third(?) pregnancy.

This accident caused a subluxation of the humerus, which was easily reducible, but owing to the traumatic stretching of the brachial plexus, she was left with an ulnar type of paralysis. She could not use the last two fingers of her right hand, which were held in typical palmar flexion.
During the night between the 28th. February and the 1st. March, 1858, Catherine LATAPIE was moved by a sudden impulse . She rose at three in the morning, woke her young children and set off for Lourdes.

Arriving there at dawn, she met Bernadette, went to the Grotto and knelt down to pray. Then with all simplicity, she bathed her hand in the little hollow which had already collected water from the Spring.

Straightaway her fingers returned to normal. They had regained their movements and suppleness. She could flex and extend them with the same facility as she could before the accident.

With haste she returned home, and the same evening--(it is this detail which enables us to be sure of the date of the cure)--she gave birth to her third child. He was ordained a priest in 1882.

In his report for Mgr Laurence, Prof. Vergez classed this case amongst the cures "presenting a supernatural character".

I have a lot of questions here.  First, who was the doctor?  Was he capable?  Did he examine her thoroughly and accurately?  Did he evaluate her prior to her accident?  Did he evaluate her immediately following?  What were here symptoms other than the finger issues? Did he evaluate her during the 18 months she had the problem?  Most importantly, did he evaluate her hand thoroughly both before and immediately after the hand went into the water (at 3 in the morning...)? 

The medical side of things is messy.  First they say she injured her hand, and then they talk about her shoulder and her brachial plexus.  I'd like to know how they knew she subluxed the shoulder without having X-ray technology (invented in 1895, almost 50 years after her accident), but that's the smallest of the problems.  Maybe a really good orthopedic doctor could have accurately diagnosed that .  If this woman injured her brachial plexus, she would have problems from her shoulder down, and not just into the hand.  Only the hand was mentioned.  To me, that is pretty clear cut evidence that the problem that caused her hand symptoms was coming from the elbow or wrist and gave her an ulnar nerve palsy.  But, on the off chance that the arm had symptoms as well, then she probably had what we call Klumpke's paralysis.  It's more common in children who get it from going through the birth canal, but people can get the same thing with injuries.  It's relatively common, and if the damage is severe enough, the movement will never return.  But if it's not that severe, then the movement and sensation can return spontaneously, even a year or 2 out.  Here is a link to it and a brief quote I found interesting. 

http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/gard/3123/klumpke-paralysis/case/25692/case-questions
Quote
For torn nerves (avulsion and rupture injuries), there is no potential for recovery unless surgical reconnection is made in a timely manner.[3]  Most individuals with neuropraxia injuries recover spontaneously with a 90-100% return of function

Nerve injuries are extremely slow to heal.  They can take months to years to get better. 

Now, you will likely site a few things here. 

1.  the timing of her 'improvement'.
We have nothing but her subjective reporting to go with in terms of when she got better.  In fact, I read in another link that this miracle wasn't even reported until many years later.  Was she really 100% disabled and then 100% cured after putting water on it?  What proof do you have of this?  Zero. I'm sure the doctor wasn't there to examine her at 3 AM before and after she dipped her hand.  It's just the word of someone who is obviously a devout believer (else why would she have gone to Lourdes in the first place) and would love to claim 'miracle' just like the rest of the Christian world likes to do when they see Jesus on pieces of toast.

2. She bathed it in water and it got better. 
After doing 15 years of Physical Therapy, I can tell you this... there are many things in this world that people put on top of their injured body parts to make them better and lots of people swear by them, even though there is no reason to think they do anything.   At this point, I'm fond of saying, 'if it makes you feel better to put peanut butter on your torn rotator cuff, put peanut butter on it'.  Bathing it in water, and it getting better does not mean one caused the other, any more than putting peanut butter on an injured shoulder and it getting better means the peanut butter has healing powers.  It is certainly possible that a devout believer with an injured hand who honestly thinks putting her hand in some special water will work, put her hand in water, and she felt better.  It's called the placebo effect.  Have you never heard the phrase correlation does not imply causation?  You should look it up if you don't understand it. 
     
I do not see any evidence at all that God was responsible for her 'miracle'.  Where is it?  What piece of evidence makes the Vatican so sure that the only possible reason she got better was because God came down and did something.  The evidence we have (the ENTIRETY of the evidence we have) is that she put her hand in water at 3 AM and according to her, it felt better.  What is the evidence that God did it?  Just because Lourdes is a place associated with God?  If she put her hand in a river near her house and it got better, does that mean the river has special powers?  No. 

There is no vision of God that many people saw.  There is no instant appearance of 'God did this' on her arm.  There is no sudden new knowledge that only a diety could have imparted to her.  There is nothing at all that points to 'God did it'.  It's all an assumption based on a preconceived belief. 

Unless you can produce more information to go on, then I don't see any reason to accept that the only possible explanation is that the Christian God healed her arm.  Please present additional evidence if you have it, else this could easily have all happened naturally. 

So many of them are like this.  Easy to tear down. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6951
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1589 on: September 04, 2014, 11:33:43 PM »
I guess asking an atheist about god is like asking a blind person about the color blue.  :-\
Amazing, I never thought of that. That's exactly right (more right than the invisible one since no one can see the invisible but people can see God)
If You are blind and of course as long as you are you might make all the effort you want you will never be able to see blue. It doesn't mean that blue does not exist!
Same thing with God.
Thank you for the comparison. I love it.

You are very welcome, Lukvance.

You are consistently a most polite and endearing theist, even as you exhibit the most ignorant, obtuse and frustrating communication style I have ever encountered on this board.  Jst and skeptic should send you money for making them seem so much more reasonable by comparison. If I believed in saints, I would nominate Old Church Guy to replace that nasty piece of work, Mother Teresa.

Even though I have you in ignore mode because dealing with you is too much like revisiting my years as a social worker,  I still interact with you. Despite my lack of faith, I still have hope. [1]

I assume you understand that you could never argue a blind person into "seeing" the color blue, let alone the color invisible. (And actually, the color invisible is a more accurate analogy than blue because nobody has ever seen a god, while people have seen what appears to human eyes to be blue. How can anyone see something immaterial, invisible and supernatural?) Imagine someone beating up or torturing a blind person into seeing colors. No matter how hard they try, the blind will never be able to see any color--blue or invisible or whatever-- it is not possible for them to see it.  They will finally say they see blue, or even invisible, just to get the torture to stop, but they will be lying.

Given that we atheists cannot sense any gods and are basically "god-blind" (and "god-deaf", etc.) you cannot hope to argue or logically trap or browbeat us into believing in any gods. All the societies that have persecuted and tortured people for not believing in a particular god, for questioning religious ideas, or for being atheists have been basically beating up blind people for "refusing" to see the color blue or the color invisible.

Lots of people have been beating up on the blind for not seeing colors: Catholic countries with their history of mistreating non-Catholics or dissenters by purges, elaborate tortures, imprisonings, inquisitions, burnings at the stake; Muslim countries with official state religions, apostasy laws and death sentences for atheists; Hindu India persecuting Muslims and Sikhs; Christians--both Catholics and Protestants in the Americas forcing their religions onto the indigenous folks; everyone kidnaping and enslaving people, then making them accept a foreign religion, and on and on. [2]

I hope you also realize that, unlike the people who beat up on the blind, we atheists generally do not try to force other people to not see the color invisible, even though we don't see it.  If they say they do, so be it. Just like the blind person can acknowledge that other people see colors out there, even though they themselves can't see them.

We atheists can find no evidence of any color invisible (gods), but most of us will acknowledge that there is a possibility that there is some sort of god out there, somewhere. What we are saying is that the gods that people describe to us do not seem to be real. The stuff people say that gods do, seem to have other more likely explanations. Down through the ages, people have continually discovered better explanations--with far stronger evidence-- than gods for all sorts of things, over and over again.

What we are trying to do is get religious folks to only apply the same standards for their belief in gods as they would to a new recipe, a brand of toothpaste, a headache pill, a pair of running shoes, a cell phone, a car or any household appliance. What people who believe in gods call evidence is lame and weak and does not pass as evidence in other areas of those same people's lives. Nobody would accept a 2% success rate (98% of the time it fails) or even a 20% success rate for a brownie recipe or a cell phone. Why accept a rate like that for prayer, as if it does not matter that an all powerful, loving god fails 98% or 80% of the time, requiring people to make excuses as to why they have to take care of whatever themselves?[3]

And if the rate of magical success is really high enough to warrant belief in a supernatural god, it should be easy to demonstrate it with simple scientific tools. Just like a car or a headache pill. It works or it doesn't. No fancy dancing or excuses.
 1. You remind me of some of my more challenging relatives. Can't live with 'em. Can't shoot 'em. I try to avoid negativity and name-calling, but I do have to admit that I am using you as the template for a character in one of the fiction pieces I am writing--I may have to have you virtually bumped off in some nasty manner so I can continue to be civil to you.
 2. We can even throw in secular dictatorships like Pol Pot's regime, Mao's Cultural revolution and North Korea, because they also beat up the blind for not seeing the color blue-- only "blue" was the dictator's preferred ideology instead of a god-belief.
 3. In truth, if prayer yielded positive supernatural results a consistent 10% of the time, and failed 90% of the time, it would still be fantastic success rate. Imagine if we could save 10% of the victims of ebola, and heal 10% of amputees, and reverse 10% of spinal cord paralysis patients, and cure 10% of autistic kids with prayer alone! Damn, 10% of babies with cleft palate, 10% of traumatic brain injury! How about instantly ending famine in 10% of cases by having magic food appear from the sky? 10% of evil warlords spontaneously combust before they torch a village. Way better than prayer's current 0% rate of success for those conditions. How about having 10% of child molester's d!cks fall off? I'd worship that god!
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2344
  • Darwins +438/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1590 on: September 05, 2014, 09:59:15 AM »
I assume you understand that you could never argue a blind person into "seeing" the color blue, let alone the color invisible. (And actually, the color invisible is a more accurate analogy than blue because nobody has ever seen a god, while people have seen what appears to human eyes to be blue. How can anyone see something immaterial, invisible and supernatural?) Imagine someone beating up or torturing a blind person into seeing colors. No matter how hard they try, the blind will never be able to see any color--blue or invisible or whatever-- it is not possible for them to see it.  They will finally say they see blue, or even invisible, just to get the torture to stop, but they will be lying.

I think the other thing that Lukvance needs to realize from this blindness analogy is the impact that it has on his discussions he's had on free will and choosing god.

Imagine someone presenting a blind person with the following scenario:
"There are two doors in this room.  You are free to choose to go through either the correct door or the incorrect door.  The correct door is blue.  The incorrect door is red.  Going through the correct door will lead to fabulous prizes.  Going through the incorrect door will lead to not fabulous prizes.  Make your choice and accept the consequences - good or bad."
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1591 on: September 05, 2014, 10:38:53 AM »
Imagine someone beating up or torturing a blind person into seeing colors. No matter how hard they try, the blind will never be able to see any color--blue or invisible or whatever-- it is not possible for them to see it.  They will finally say they see blue, or even invisible, just to get the torture to stop, but they will be lying.

Given that we atheists cannot sense any gods and are basically "god-blind" (and "god-deaf", etc.) you cannot hope to argue or logically trap or browbeat us into believing in any gods. All the societies that have persecuted and tortured people for not believing in a particular god, for questioning religious ideas, or for being atheists have been basically beating up blind people for "refusing" to see the color blue or the color invisible.

This.  Absolutely this.  Luk's insinuation on another thread that I was refusing to believe was what enraged Me to the point of cutting him off completely.  He simply doesn't seem to comprehend nor accept that I am literally not capable of espousing faith in something that I think is pure bollocks.  I have a deeply introspective mind and a zero-tolerance policy for cognitive dissonance, and to be falsely accused of refusing to believe (with the implication that somehow I know the truth but choose to deny it) was the last straw.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1592 on: September 09, 2014, 08:05:25 PM »
Again I ask you why you relate your calming feeling (relaxing) to God and not a different emotion? 
Again, I am answering you that I don't relate them.

If you use words like 'God's touch' to describe what I use the words 'calming down' to describe, then communication gets muddled. 
True, but only with those who don't believe in God. Fortunately that's a few ;)
Don't worry I won't use it if I want to describe you my feeling. I was just pointing out that people use it too. just like they use a word decribing their feeling they use "God's touch" to describe another feeling.

Prove that it's God that you're feeling and not just one of many emotions that all of us feel.
I could if you could prove to me that it's really anger/love that you feel. But you can't, not 100%.

 
else it's just more likely that all emotions come from inside your brain. 
I am not arguing here that God does NOT come from our brain. I am arguing his existence (at least only in our brain and at least as real as an emotion)
For the discussion about God being outside of our brain you should defer to the other thread.

But when you say you feel God, to me, that's not something I understand at all.  I don't feel God, so I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.  What if I told you I felt Phlegmorph?  And then when you asked me to relate what that feels like, I tell you that its the feeling I get after I haven't eaten in a long time.  You say, 'No, that's just hunger' and I say no, that's Phlegmorph.  You'd think I was a little 'off', wouldn't you?  That's where it is with you now.  You're a little 'off'. 
Well If I knew what Phlegmorph because there were books written about it, a whole school department dedicated to it and MOST PEOPLE FELT IT. Then you wouldn't seem that 'off' to me. :)
Heck I might even be the one questioning why don't I feel the same than most everyone else.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1593 on: September 09, 2014, 08:08:39 PM »
The importance we assign color is a function of the brain, and not relevant to the real world.
You are right. Or not, I mean ask you girl friend if colors are not relevant to her, you might be surprised how something as inexistent as this have such an impact on people.
Maybe it's existent but not as the same level as the shirt itself.
You're worth more than my time

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2128
  • Darwins +253/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1594 on: September 09, 2014, 10:10:54 PM »
If you use words like 'God's touch' to describe what I use the words 'calming down' to describe, then communication gets muddled. 
True, but only with those who don't believe in God.

So you are saying that you have to first believe in God in order to 'feel' God as an emotion inside your brain, correct?  Do you know of any other thing in the universe that you have to first believe in in order to feel it?  That's a very strange proposition, don't you think? 

Could it be that you're superimposing your God belief onto certain emotions that everyone has simply because that's what you've been taught to do?  I think that's probably it.  ;)

Fortunately that's a few ;)

Fortunate?  You think it's fortunate that most people believe in god?  Really?  Why don't you ask the Shiites living in Iraq and Syria about how fortunate they are that so many people believe in god?

No Luk.  By in large, religion has been, and still is a cancer on the world.  Yes, yours too.   ;)

Prove that it's God that you're feeling and not just one of many emotions that all of us feel.
I could if you could prove to me that it's really anger/love that you feel. But you can't, not 100%.
No, I can't.  But it doesn't really matter all that much.  The whole thing is an exercise in futility really.  Your feelings have nothing to do with whether or not God exists in the mind our outside of it. 

else it's just more likely that all emotions come from inside your brain. 
I am not arguing here that God does NOT come from our brain. I am arguing his existence (at least only in our brain and at least as real as an emotion)
For the discussion about God being outside of our brain you should defer to the other thread.

Alright, that's fine then.  As long as you are willing to admit that the feelings you have inside you that you attribute to God are in no way proof that God is real; nor is there any evidence at all that those feelings are actually coming from God. 

You lost the other thread.  God doesn't exist outside of our brain.  ;)   You're miracles claim doesn't hold up under scrutiny, any more than the miracle claims for any other religion stand up to scrutiny.  It would be interesting though, to watch you try and debunk the miracle claims for other religions, and then try to defend the ones recognized by the Vatican.   

But when you say you feel God, to me, that's not something I understand at all.  I don't feel God, so I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.  What if I told you I felt Phlegmorph?  And then when you asked me to relate what that feels like, I tell you that its the feeling I get after I haven't eaten in a long time.  You say, 'No, that's just hunger' and I say no, that's Phlegmorph.  You'd think I was a little 'off', wouldn't you?  That's where it is with you now.  You're a little 'off'. 
Well If I knew what Phlegmorph because there were books written about it, a whole school department dedicated to it and MOST PEOPLE FELT IT. Then you wouldn't seem that 'off' to me. :)
Heck I might even be the one questioning why don't I feel the same than most everyone else.

You say that most people feel God.  I argue that nobody feels god; they simply label some feelings differently because that's what they were indoctrinated to do.  Unless we have some sort of psychological disorder, we all feel love.  We all calm down after we get angry.  We all feel compassion.  To equate those feelings with the direct intervention of an invisible man in the sky is just kooky. 

BTW, I added a few facetious smiley faces to my post just like you enjoy doing.  Maybe when you see them, you can understand what I, and maybe other people, see when you write yours.  I don't see smiley faces; I see flippant emoticons that wordlessly convey the idea that you think you're argument is iron clad.  You should stop doing it.  Your arguments are mostly really bad and devoid of any critical thinking at all.  Its kinda like watching someone doing a celebratory dance after having just scored the ball in the wrong net.  Just awkward and embarrassing.  ;)

Perhaps I'm reading them wrong, but that's how I'm seeing them. 

Oh, also, please address the debunking of the miracle I did in post 1588
« Last Edit: September 09, 2014, 10:13:34 PM by JeffPT »
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT