Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 41692 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6313
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1537 on: August 28, 2014, 05:19:08 PM »
To Luk, emotions and god feel the same so both must be equally real.

Why didn't you say that in your very first post. Then we could have all put you on ignore and avoided this kerfuffle.


Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10855
  • Darwins +280/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1538 on: August 28, 2014, 05:25:56 PM »
Then we could have all put you on ignore and avoided this kerfuffle.

You mean you guys haven't yet? :S
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1866
  • Darwins +13/-244
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1539 on: August 28, 2014, 06:17:44 PM »
Why would I try to prove that anger is not real when there is evidence that what we describe as “anger” is indeed real.
You seem to disagree with Mrjason. The quote I was responding to wasn't one of yours.
You make a good point by saying that "there is evidence that what we describe as “anger” is indeed real."
What I am asking for is what are those reason? Why do they apply to Anger and cannot apply to god.
You understand that I am not saying that Anger is as real as God but that God is at least as real as Anger. The difference being that Anger and God are not the same thing. We just have enough evidence for their existence.

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.

Oh and if you wish to know more about the existence of God outside our bodies should go to that thread : http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.0.html

:)
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6412
  • Darwins +829/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1540 on: August 28, 2014, 06:23:16 PM »
Seriously, Lukvance is the strange, annoying kid you only play with because your mom promised you an ice cream cone if you were nice to him. However, the annoying kid will never be happy, because, even though people play with him, he knows nobody really wants to be his friend and he can't figure out why.

Lukvance cannot fathom how patient, accepting and understanding people on this forum have tried to be in spite of his ignorance, his obtuseness, his inability to learn from information presented, and his refusal to accept anyone else's point of view.

Then, when folks finally run out of patience, he can ignore all the respectful interactions, all the long, intelligent, detailed posts, all the well-researched responses people have written. He will ignore the times people agreed with him, said something encouraging or gave him Darwin points. He can instead fixate on the snarky and angry things people have said after they have finally given up trying to communicate with him as a reasonable person.

Once he has succeeded in pissing off everyone, he is vindicated-- it is just as he knew all along. We hate him like we hate all religious people, because he believes in god, because his prayers are answered and he is going to heaven. Meanwhile, we are all going to hell.

And he can feel happy and secure in the certainty that atheists deserve hell, because we are angry, miserable, hateful, bitter, narrow-minded, confused people with sinful, terrible lives. :P

Because we [along with about 6 billion of the 7 billion non-Catholic people on the planet] have turned away from [the obviously true Catholic] god. And oh yes, love, heart-shaped moon rocks, and parallel universes where everyone goes to heaven.  &)
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 nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6412
  • Darwins +829/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1541 on: August 28, 2014, 08:35:28 PM »
Lukvance gave me a spite smite.  :?

Like the kid on the playground who throws rocks at you, and then wonders why you don't like to play with him. :P

Oh well. Some people.  :angel:

Maybe it's time for that ice cream?  :D
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: 1203
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1542 on: August 29, 2014, 04:37:10 AM »
You are stating two things
One :  Anger isn't actually something that is real
Two : God [...] is used to describe something different
These two things are not opposite to each other.

Anger is a description of something not a thing in itself.
God is (purportedly) a thing in itself, it is supposed to have created the universe then humans.
They are not linked concepts.
 
If you want to prove to me that anger and God are not real you should compare 2 comprable things.
For example
I know that Anger exist because I feel it in my chest. Even if there are people out there who do not feel Anger in their chest.
Just like I know that God exist because I feel it in my chest.
I know what annoyance feels like, it is a rapidly beating heart.

How do you know that is is god that you feel in your chest. What does it feel like?

All humans are physiologically the same, if you can describe the feeling maybe someone here has felt the same or can tell you what your feeling actually is.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1543 on: August 29, 2014, 06:58:13 AM »
Proof that Luk is from ancient goat herding times.

He still thinks feelings come from your chest.

Explains the quality of logic.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6583
  • Darwins +516/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1544 on: August 29, 2014, 07:08:56 AM »
I say that " If God is at least as real as anger, then God is at least as real as anger." Or in other words "If anger exist then God exist."
- It can be proven that anger is real and exists.
- It can be proven that something exist using "proofs" of it's existence. For example "Anger exist because I felt it"
- God is at least as real as anger because God gives as much proof of his existence as Anger does.
- If anger exist then God exist.

If we are to talk about the reality of God as an independent being we should move to another thread. Like this one for example : http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.0.html

Your argument fails as you have failed to distinguish between an emotion as a mental concept and the mental concept of an imaginary being.

You have not yet explained, "If a unicorn is at least as real as anger, then a unicorn is at least as real as anger." Or in other words "If anger exists then unicorns exist."

A unicorn may be said to exist only in the mind and you have not distinguished between the reality of your god and the reality of a unicorn.

You will see that
(i) an emotion exists as a mental condition and is dependent upon chemicals that are involuntarily expressed in the brain.
(ii) a unicorn exists as a mental image and is dependent upon chemicals that are voluntarily expressed in the brain.

"Anger exist because I felt it"
This is an important philosophical linguistic point. A lot of people are mislead, so read this carefully:

The words, in French and in English, that we give to emotions (and other abstract concepts – as opposed to imaginary concepts – e.g. unicorns, dragons, deities) are a shorthand form of language. The words exist so that we can express a complex idea in one word. We say the word “anger”, and that brings images into the mind to the listener.

This use of abstract nouns as a shorthand form of language can be show because we do not say,

“You have broken my watch and various involuntarily released chemical are impairing the transmission of energy along the normal neural pathways of my brain. These neural pathways are used for regular occurrences but now there is a diversion to other pathways such that my judgement is clouded by obsessive thoughts of violence and revenge.”

We say, “You have broken my watch and I am angry.”

Thus your argument[1] is invalid. You have confused two ideas: you thought that it was the same to be angry and to think of a unicorn.

An emotion is a mental condition and dependent upon chemicals expressed in the brain.

All emotions appear to exist only within the mind of the persons experiencing them.

We can see that “When he broke my watch I became angry but he became happy.” is also valid and that one event can trigger different emotions.

We cannot say “When he broke my watch I became god/unicorn.”

To the person enduring an emotion, an emotion is a description of a mental state.

To the person observing an emotion that is being experienced by someone else, the emotion is characterised by facial and bodily expressions and, often, subsequent actions. The person observing an emotion does not experience that emotion; he experiences the effects of that emotion and this causes another, different emotion in him.

On God
The only accepted description of God that exists is in the Bible (including, in some cases, the Apocrypha) Other holy books, with equal authority, describe different gods.

Everything has a probability of existence. Sometimes, that probability is nil, zero.

 1. It can be proven that anger is real and exists.
- It can be proven that something exist using "proofs" of it's existence. For example "Anger exist because I felt it"
- God is at least as real as anger because God gives as much proof of his existence as Anger does.
- If anger exist then God exist.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 07:11:16 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2091
  • Darwins +127/-2
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1545 on: August 29, 2014, 11:58:54 AM »
Speak for yourself, Graybeard. When he broke my watch I became god of the unicorns.

Jokes aside, if Luk isn't able to recognize this as one of the problems with his argument after reading your post, I'm not sure how it can be explained in a way he'll understand.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1546 on: August 29, 2014, 04:16:16 PM »
Why would I try to prove that anger is not real when there is evidence that what we describe as “anger” is indeed real.
You seem to disagree with Mrjason.

Actually, no, I don’t disagree with Mrjason.  He was responding to my post agreeing with me, and I agree with him.  You apparently, don’t comprehend what we are writing and thus don’t realize that Mrjason and I agree.

The quote I was responding to wasn't one of yours.

No Shit, REALLY?!?!?!  Oh wait, yeah I knew that.  Did you know that Mrjason was responding to one of mine, not one of yours?  Pretty mind blowing eh, that we can reply to what other people write?  That crazy internet stuff is just off the charts!

You make a good point by saying that "there is evidence that what we describe as “anger” is indeed real."
What I am asking for is what are those reason?

Here are some websites that you can investigate to learn about the research regarding emotions:

http://www.unige.ch/cisa/gerg.html

http://www.bostonanxiety.org/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/emotion/

http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/emotion.html

I’m not sure why you are asking about emotions in a thread regarding the probabilities of the existence of a god or gods, as that seems to be off topic.  Why not start a new thread in the Science sub-forum section?

Why do they apply to Anger and cannot apply to god.

I don’t see any reason why they cannot be applied to a god if that god is described as an abstract emotion.  Do you believe that your god is an abstract emotion?  Although I thought you believed that your god created the universe, which then would imply that you think an abstract emotion created the universe.

You understand that I am not saying that Anger is as real as God but that God is at least as real as Anger.

Okay, I understand that you think “that God is at least as real as Anger” but just because you think something doesn’t mean that it is true.  In order for “God” to be at least as real as anger, you or someone would have to demonstrate that “God” actually exists.

The difference being that Anger and God are not the same thing.

I know.  That is what I and others are trying to explain to you.

We just have enough evidence for their existence.

Which is not supported by any evidence.  In order to support your claim that you have evidence for the existence of your god, you have to you know, actually provide evidence for the existence of your god.

To resume : Could you present me 3 evidences of the existence of Anger?

I could, but I will not.  I gave you some links to some sites where you can research emotions such as anger and I’m sure there is a wealth of knowledge out there in the world regarding this subject.  What you believe regarding anger doesn’t really concern me.

I'm pretty sure that I would be able to present you 3 similar evidences of the existence of God.

Now, that I would be very interested in, hopefully it is better than what you’ve presented so far.

Oh and if you wish to know more about the existence of God outside our bodies should go to that thread : http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.0.html

:)

You mean the thread where you assert things without providing sufficient supporting evidence?  Yeah, the only thing I learned is that you like to play games and make empty baseless assertions.   I’m still waiting for you to start supporting your assertions with sufficient evidence, instead of doing that you decided to play more games.

EDIT:  This thread might be of interest to you - http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,27240.0.html
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 04:21:42 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6412
  • Darwins +829/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1547 on: August 29, 2014, 08:03:14 PM »
Next time Lukvance tries to tell us that his god healed a paralyzed hand at Lourdes, all we have to do is respond that we will accept that as a true fact.  As long as he accepts that unicorns, anger, love and everything else in the universe, imaginary and real, also healed the paralyzed hand.

At Lourdes.

Can he prove us wrong? I think not.

So everyone at Lourdes should pray to unicorns, anger, love, and everything else in the universe, imaginary and real. And guess what? The exact same amount of miracle healings of paralyzed hands at Lourdes will occur as when people only pray to his god.

Amazing.
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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11922
  • Darwins +299/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1548 on: August 30, 2014, 12:05:16 AM »
Next time Lukvance tries to tell us that his god healed a paralyzed hand at Lourdes, all we have to do is respond that we will accept that as a true fact.  As long as he accepts that unicorns, anger, love and everything else in the universe, imaginary and real, also healed the paralyzed hand.

At Lourdes.

Can he prove us wrong? I think not.

So everyone at Lourdes should pray to unicorns, anger, love, and everything else in the universe, imaginary and real. And guess what? The exact same amount of miracle healings of paralyzed hands at Lourdes will occur as when people only pray to his god.

Amazing.


I did it.

Bow to me.

Or not.

Your choice.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1866
  • Darwins +13/-244
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1549 on: Yesterday at 05:33:17 PM »
Anger is a description of something not a thing in itself.
God is (purportedly) a thing in itself, it is supposed to have created the universe then humans.
They are not linked concepts.
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 know what annoyance feels like, it is a rapidly beating heart.
How do you know that is is god that you feel in your chest. What does it feel like?
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?

All humans are physiologically the same, if you can describe the feeling maybe someone here has felt the same or can tell you what your feeling actually is.
Someone here, I don't think so. 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.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1866
  • Darwins +13/-244
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1550 on: Yesterday at 07:24:52 PM »
I don’t see any reason why they cannot be applied to a god if that god is described as an abstract emotion.  Do you believe that your god is an abstract emotion?  Although I thought you believed that your god created the universe, which then would imply that you think an abstract emotion created the universe.
Haha you are saying that God is Anger. I am saying that God is at least as real as Anger.
The difference being that Anger and God are not the same thing.
I know.  That is what I and others are trying to explain to you.
You are trying to explain something that I already understand. Doesn't that mean that you misunderstood me? and that you are trying to explain something that I understand is futile?

To resume : Could you present me 3 evidences of the existence of Anger?
I could, but I will not.  I gave you some links to some sites where you can research emotions such as anger and I’m sure there is a wealth of knowledge out there in the world regarding this subject.  What you believe regarding anger doesn’t really concern me.
That's too bad.

This thread might be of interest to you - http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,27240.0.html
I already participated on that thread. I'm waiting for sevenpatch's answers :)
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1866
  • Darwins +13/-244
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1551 on: Yesterday at 07:26:35 PM »
Next time Lukvance tries to tell us that his god healed a paralyzed hand at Lourdes, all we have to do is respond that we will accept that as a true fact.  As long as he accepts that unicorns, anger, love and everything else in the universe, imaginary and real, also healed the paralyzed hand.

At Lourdes.

Can he prove us wrong? I think not.

So everyone at Lourdes should pray to unicorns, anger, love, and everything else in the universe, imaginary and real. And guess what? The exact same amount of miracle healings of paralyzed hands at Lourdes will occur as when people only pray to his god.

Amazing.
Are you ready to argue that Unicorn are as real as Anger?
You're worth more than my time

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4357
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1552 on: Yesterday at 07:42:50 PM »
Are you ready to argue that Unicorn are as real as Anger?

This post has been reported by another member, and I agree it needs to be addressed, but it's hard to figure out how to do so.

Lukvance, do you realize that you are making absolutely no sense whatsoever?
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1942
  • Darwins +347/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1553 on: Yesterday at 07:58:25 PM »
Next time Lukvance tries to tell us that his god healed a paralyzed hand at Lourdes, all we have to do is respond that we will accept that as a true fact.  As long as he accepts that unicorns, anger, love and everything else in the universe, imaginary and real, also healed the paralyzed hand.

At Lourdes.

Can he prove us wrong? I think not.

So everyone at Lourdes should pray to unicorns, anger, love, and everything else in the universe, imaginary and real. And guess what? The exact same amount of miracle healings of paralyzed hands at Lourdes will occur as when people only pray to his god.

Amazing.
Are you ready to argue that Unicorn are as real as Anger?

Lukvance.

Seriously.

What is wrong with you?

Look...I'm being absolutely serious here.  I am not intending this post as any kind of insult, but your posting really, really, really seems to be the result of some kind of actual mental defect.  I mean, the result of some kind of neurological disorder, possibly stemming from a physiological defect of some kind.  I don't know how to express this question without it sounding like an insult.  I really don't.  But it hasn't been clicking with you...you've been completely unable to recognize just how poorly thought out your arguments, questions, and answers have been.

I mean...dude.  Your posts are really, really bad.  They do not reflect the working of a rational mind.  You have exceptionally poor understanding of logic, poor understanding of science, little-to-no regard for consistency, very little interest in establishing common ground for communication, and, perhaps absolute worst of all - a hardcore deadset attitude that you are right.  You seem unable to even entertain the notion that, maybe, just maybe, what you understand about what is true is incorrect.  And that translates to looking like massive arrogance.

But this...this has got to stop somehow.  You can't constantly be not getting it so atrociously poorly.  You can't.  And I don't really know how to help that brain of yours work in a more rational way.

I don't know man.  I really don't know.

You're really not seeing it???
"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

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1866
  • Darwins +13/-244
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1554 on: Yesterday at 08:01:48 PM »
Your argument fails as you have failed to distinguish between an emotion as a mental concept and the mental concept of an imaginary being.

You have not yet explained, "If a unicorn is at least as real as anger, then a unicorn is at least as real as anger." Or in other words "If anger exists then unicorns exist."
There is nothing to explain. Unicorns are not at least as real as Anger.

A unicorn may be said to exist only in the mind and you have not distinguished between the reality of your god and the reality of a unicorn.
I didn't say that God was more real than a Unicorn I said that God was at least as real as Love :) You might want to bring in the unicorn if you want but you have to be ready to argue about Unicorns.

"Anger exist because I felt it"
This is an important philosophical linguistic point. A lot of people are mislead, so read this carefully:

The words, in French and in English, that we give to emotions (and other abstract concepts – as opposed to imaginary concepts – e.g. unicorns, dragons, deities) are a shorthand form of language. The words exist so that we can express a complex idea in one word. We say the word “anger”, and that brings images into the mind to the listener.

This use of abstract nouns as a shorthand form of language can be show because we do not say,

“You have broken my watch and various involuntarily released chemical are impairing the transmission of energy along the normal neural pathways of my brain. These neural pathways are used for regular occurrences but now there is a diversion to other pathways such that my judgement is clouded by obsessive thoughts of violence and revenge.”

We say, “You have broken my watch and I am angry.”
I know! That's is also what we do when we talk about God. We use God as a shorthand form of language.
"God exist because I felt Him"

An emotion is a mental condition and dependent upon chemicals expressed in the brain.
All emotions appear to exist only within the mind of the persons experiencing them.
We can see that “When he broke my watch I became angry but he became happy.” is also valid and that one event can trigger different emotions.
We cannot say “When he broke my watch I became god/unicorn.”
I agree with you We cannot say “When he broke my watch I became god/unicorn.” But we can say "When he broke my watch I felt God calming me down.”

To the person enduring an emotion, an emotion is a description of a mental state.

To the person observing an emotion that is being experienced by someone else, the emotion is characterised by facial and bodily expressions and, often, subsequent actions. The person observing an emotion does not experience that emotion; he experiences the effects of that emotion and this causes another, different emotion in him.
Same thing happens with prayer.

On God
The only accepted description of God that exists is in the Bible (including, in some cases, the Apocrypha) Other holy books, with equal authority, describe different gods.
So what? The bible is not made to describe God. It's made to teach you how to live your relation with him.

Could you present me 3 evidences of the existence of Anger? (or Love)
You're worth more than my time

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1995
  • Darwins +194/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1555 on: Yesterday at 10:18:42 PM »
I know! That's is also what we do when we talk about God. We use God as a shorthand form of language.
"God exist because I felt Him"

When you say you 'felt' God, what do you mean?  Do you feel him the same way you feel anger?  If so, how do you distinguish an emotion from 'God'?  Or are they one and the same?  Are all emotions simply 'feeling God' to you? 

I agree with you We cannot say “When he broke my watch I became god/unicorn.” But we can say "When he broke my watch I felt God calming me down.”

This is an interesting choice you made here.  Earlier in his post, Graybeard was talking about watches and said  “When he broke my watch I became angry", but you said "When he broke my watch, I felt God calming me down"... Yet to be fair, if someone broke your watch, you'd feel anger.  If you were feeling anger, which you do feel from time to time I'm sure, wouldn't it be more to the point to have said "When he broke my watch, I felt God making me angry"?  Why did you make that choice to change the emotion from negative to positive?  Do only emotional states that you deem positive evoke a feeling of God for you?  Are all other emotions just simply... emotions? 

To the person enduring an emotion, an emotion is a description of a mental state.

It seems to me that you're making a case that for you, an emotion is far more than a description of a mental state.  An emotion is how you experience God.  If that's the case, then I don't know what to tell you.  That's stupid.  Emotions are emotions.  We all have them.  They are neurological and chemical states of your brain which we can induce synthetically. To say an emotional experience you had is 'feeling God' is nothing more than an uninformed, ignorant statement.  It was popular during the times when human beings knew nothing about the brain, but to say it now is just... I don't even know.  It's ancient thinking.  This is 2014 you know, right? 

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

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6412
  • Darwins +829/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1556 on: Today at 12:11:15 AM »
There have been research studies (not many and not well-structured, of course) that show lots of people who use hallucinogenic drugs have feelings of being in touch with transcendent "godlike" powers or beings.

Got that? People who use drugs like LSD report experiencing god.

Even years after using the drug, they report that they know that what they felt was the presence of god and nothing else was ever like that, before or since. Not meditation, not prayer, nothing else was like the god-experience of LSD.

Now, given this, we can conclude that, yes, a god-being (Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, whatever) really does exist.  This god allows lots of people to contact it, but only while they are using LSD type drugs. But this same being does not let the people have access to it when not using the drugs. And people who pray or meditate without LSD are only experiencing a fake version of the real god experience.

Or we can conclude that LSD activates something in people's brains that feels like what people think god would feel like. So people interpret that feeling as the presence of god.  But the studies do not prove the existence of a real god at all. Just that people's brains, when under the influence of LSD, make people think that there is a god.[1]

Which is more likely to be true?

Oh, yeah, there has been no specific message, text or religion from the god-LSD experience. There has been no consensus coming out of it whereby everyone says, "BTW, the god I experienced said the Catholics (or JW's, Mormons, Rastas, Muslims ) are on the right track." Everyone does not come out of the LSD and say  this new god from Alpha Centauri is the real deal. Whatever people's past religious experience was, that is how they try to interpret the god that LSD sends them.

More evidence that it is from people's own brains and not from a real god out there somewhere trying to get a message across.
 1. Of course, there may still be a real god. Or there may not be. The LSD studies only show what goes on in people's brains and don't give any evidence about whether there is a god or not.
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.