What gives you the idea that a deity is real?

[Audie]

I don’t know of any principle. I’ve never heard of anyone being taught explicitly to distinguish between man made things and other things it’s just a reflex that evolves from our experiences and what people tell us. We think of some things as being made by humans, and some things not.

In general, that is so. But observations of / about the
obvious is not interesting. Out at the edges, that is
another matter.
And yes, part of archaeology is to study and learn
what can be formed by natural processes, and
what requires a directed effort.
The whole "ID" thing of course, centers on the
faith-belief that living things cannot be the result
of any but a directed effort by an intelligent
designer.
So the Quest is for something that (provably)
could not come to be any other way.

Of course you do not know of any principle, nobody
has worked one out. But without a general principle
you just have specific cases, The Buick, say.
That's gotta be man made.

 

[Jim]

In general, that is so. But observations of / about the
obvious is not interesting. Out at the edges, that is
another matter.
And yes, part of archaeology is to study and learn
what can be formed by natural processes, and
what requires a directed effort.
The whole "ID" thing of course, centers on the
faith-belief that living things cannot be the result
of any but a directed effort by an intelligent
designer.
So the Quest is for something that (provably)
could not come to be any other way.

Of course you do not know of any principle, nobody
has worked one out. But without a general principle
you just have specific cases, The Buick, say.
That's gotta be man made.

I was wrong about it not being taught explicitly.
Natural vs. Man Made - An Introduction

 

[Jim]

So the Quest is for something that (provably) could not come to be any other way.

I don’t think that it can ever be anything but an analogy. Then the only question is how useful it can be, how, for whom, in what circumstances and for what purposes.

 

[Jim]

you really miss my point, observation was just outward fact, there is no any proof that
"Consciousness is irrelevant to quantum effects. " from the experinent.

As I understand it from what you’ve said so far, the experience that is your reason for saying that some deity is real is some thoughts that come to you suddenly that you know are true. You think that those thoughts are a result of some of your organs sensing some energy coming from something or someone that you are calling a “deity.” Am I understanding that correctly? If so, do you think that is the same deity as the God or gods in some religious scriptures? If so, which ones?

 

[Polymath257]

you really miss my point, observation was just outward fact, there is no any proof that
"Consciousness is irrelevant to quantum effects. " from the sxperinent.

Actually, there is. The difference wasn't the presence of consciousness. The difference was the presence of a detector.

 

[Audie]

I don’t think that it can ever be anything but an analogy. Then the only question is how useful it can be, how, for whom, in what circumstances and for what purposes.

um, no idea what you mean..?

 

[Audie]

I was wrong about it not being taught explicitly.
Natural vs. Man Made - An Introduction

i know

 

[leov]

As I understand it from what you’ve said so far, the experience that is your reason for saying that some deity is real is some thoughts that come to you suddenly that you know are true. You think that those thoughts are a result of some of your organs sensing some energy coming from something or someone that you are calling a “deity.” Am I understanding that correctly? If so, do you think that is the same deity as the God or gods in some religious scriptures? If so, which ones?

It comes from OUTSIDE, not my thoughts, deity? I do not really know what form that is, I decided to call it "multiverse". What I tried to share is my experience, things that came which is not product of matter I know, I think that it just a manifestation of something real, just like one feel heat before seeing fire.

 

[leov]

Actually, there is. The difference wasn't the presence of consciousness. The difference was the presence of a detector.

What is a point to build radio receivers when there is no radio transmitter first?

 

[Polymath257]

What is a point to build radio receivers when there is no radio transmitter first?

Again, the experiment does NOT show consciousness is the relevant variable. In fact, it shows the opposite.

 

[Audie]

As I understand it from what you’ve said so far, the experience that is your reason for saying that some deity is real is some thoughts that come to you suddenly that you know are true. You think that those thoughts are a result of some of your organs sensing some energy coming from something or someone that you are calling a “deity.” Am I understanding that correctly? If so, do you think that is the same deity as the God or gods in some religious scriptures? If so, which ones?

Here we have someone taking a little and
well known aspect of how the human mind
works, and turning it into Proof of God, and
a Communication(to me, personally!!)
from the Omnipotent Creator of the Universe!!

Who has not had the experience of stewing
over something, you cant decide what to do.
It can keep you up at night! Finally, maybe
after days of this, you are not even thinking about
it and it comes to you with great force and
authority! "Yes, sell General Motors".

Now, if you do, and make money, it is
"Thanks, God, what a Pal!"

But if you are not satisfied and keep
worrying, it wont be long before it comes
again. "Keep General Motors". Again,
seemingly from outside, and with great
force of Authority.

It was like that with grad school but it
was among three, so it took longer to
cycle

I talked to a LDS missionary, asking
"How can you believe such nonsense?"

He said as a teenager he prayed (fervently
I suppose) for days, for God to tell him
if it is true. And sure enough, out of nowhere,
here it came. "Yes, it is all true."

God had spoken he was satisfied.

A thousand pities he didnt go back to
praying!

And kind of too bad so many people are
so unsophisticated that they dont understand
that it is such an ordinary thing, and it is
all in their own heads.

 

[Jim]

um, no idea what you mean..?

I mean, any idea of someone or something creating or influencing all people and all the world around us, without any conceivable way for us to experience that being directly as what we are imagining it to be. That can never be anything but an analogy. Not true or false, but only more or less useful, depending on how it is used and what it is used for.

 

[leov]

Again, the experiment does NOT show consciousness is the relevant variable. In fact, it shows the opposite.

Well, I did not say it, relevant I just project in may be zone. After all, it was not supposed to happen at all.

 

[Audie]

I mean, any idea of someone or something creating or influencing all people and all the world around us, without any conceivable way for us to experience that being directly as what we are imagining it to be. That can never be anything but an analogy. Not true or false, but only more or less useful, depending on how it is used and what it is used for.

Ok with no specifics I am still lost.

 

[Jim]

Ok with no specifics I am still lost.

For example suppose someone thinks of God as some kind of vaporous, hazy something outside of time and space, somehow making everything happen the way it does by remote control, except what people do. By definition it would be impossible for anyone ever to go outside of space and time to see or feel that being, or detect it with some instruments, or interact with it with in any other way that could identify it as the being that the person is imagining. Then Imagining such a being can only ever be an analogy, imagining us and the world around us “as if” we were created by such a being. Maybe a better word is “mental device,” Like imagining electrons as tiny beads flying in circles around the nucleus.

 

[syo]

Can you explain more. That is intriguing.

We have two objects, A and B. Object A interacts with object B. This interaction means there is something these two have in common. Let's say object A exists but has no relationship at all with object B. Then object B doesnot exist for object A. They have nothing in common. The ''something'' that could connect them doesnot exist.

But in our universe the objects all communicate with each other. We have that ''something'' that connects every little object. I am a human and i interact with a river. There is logic behind me and how i interact with the river. That logic that connects everything I call it God.

 

[nPeace]

No - it's a daft "argument". Can you tell the difference between something that has been created by a person (intelligence) and a rock or a tree? Unless there has been some deliberate attempt to mimic, the difference is obvious.

It is also an argument from personal incredulity or ignorance (a fallacy): you don't personally see how the world could have come about without a designer, so it couldn't.

Then, it's not actually an explanation for the existence of the world, it's a childish just-so story that actually leaves you with more to explain than you started with. If the world is complex, amazing, and in need of a designer, so too would anything that created and designed it. We would then have to arbitrarily decide that the designer was magically free from the need of any explanation to avoid an infinite regress.

Even if we ignore all that, it is not an argument for a god (singular), or even gods, let alone one particular god. The world could have been designed by Kevin, the extra-dimensional equivalent of a spotty teenager, who had a new physics set for his birthday.

Would it be better for me to use language more like this... The eel's eyes most likely evolved to detect small traces of light instead of full images. ... Terrestrial lineages likely evolved from such ancestors. ... Bilaterians likely evolved from an ancestor, which was radially symmetrical. There have been suggestions that the blastopore started out as the digestive surface on a radial organism, which became elongated (and thus bilaterially symmetrical) before its sides closed over to leave a mouth at the front and an anus at the rear. This matches with the "flaps-folding-over" model of gut formation, but an alternative view is that the original blastopore migrated forwards to one end of the ancestral organism, before deepening to become a blind gut.?

I can accept that if one does not know the truth, and one is clueless as to whether one's ideas are true or not, one would use such language.
Those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, do not need to use such language, because they know the truth.
The Bible uses the word truth, in relation to what is reality, countless times. We can verify its truthfulness.

Some people choose not to believe people who tell the truth, because what they say does not fit their worldview.
However, I don't think anything comes out of persons arguing back and forth about how daft the other's argument is. Which is normally the case, when both persons arrive at their conclusion by reasoning on, and interpreting the evidence. Yet one wants to declare that his argument is better, even though the best he can do is, "This likely happened".

To me, it's nothing more than wishful thinking to say, "Well true. We have never seen this happen, but it's likely it happened." Yet claiming that an argument based on what we see happen, and therefore knows to be the case, is daft.

Wishful thinking - Wikipedia
Wishful thinking describes decision-making and the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief, and desire.
...........
This concept has been examined as a fallacy.
It is related to the concept of wishful seeing.

My knowledge about who and what the intelligent designer is, who created all things, comes from the Bible.
I believe it, because I have proven for myself that all the evidence examined indicate it is true - reliable and trustworthy.
No one I have spoken to, in person, or otherwise, for the past three decades, have been able to show me that it is not the truth. So I have no reason to believe their views, or philosophies over what I see as clear truth.

Think of it this way...
You come into a world where many things and people precede you.
Do you imagine that no one preceding you could possibly know the truth? What would cause a person to imagine that?

 

[nPeace]

(edited for typos)
@nPeace We’ve learned all our lives to distinguish between man made things and other things. I think that’s where the reflex comes from, when we see a painting or a sculpture, a paved road or some litter on a beach, to imagine that that some people made them, rather than thinking that they grew on some tree or vine. I think that it would benefit anyone to learn to think of their relationship with other people and the world around them as part of personal relationship with a person who created us and the world around us for that purpose. I don’t see any of that as a reason to say that some God exists or is real. However that may, it appalls me to see the name of God being associated with vilifying people, and depreciating their character and capacities, just because they don’t agree with that.

I think we have clear evidence that an intelligent entity created the universe, as to who and what that entity is, the Bible answers that for me. I haven't seen anything to refute these.
That's my story. I'm not sure what yours is. You would have to tell me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would it be better for me to use language more like this... The eel's eyes most likely evolved to detect small traces of light instead of full images. ... Terrestrial lineages likely evolved from such ancestors. ... Bilaterians likely evolved from an ancestor, which was radially symmetrical. There have been suggestions that the blastopore started out as the digestive surface on a radial organism, which became elongated (and thus bilaterially symmetrical) before its sides closed over to leave a mouth at the front and an anus at the rear. This matches with the "flaps-folding-over" model of gut formation, but an alternative view is that the original blastopore migrated forwards to one end of the ancestral organism, before deepening to become a blind gut.?

I can accept that if one does not know the truth, and one is clueless as to whether one's ideas are true or not, one would use such language.
Those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, do not need to use such language, because they know the truth.
The Bible uses the word truth, in relation to what is reality, countless times. We can verify its truthfulness.

Some people choose not to believe people who tell the truth, because what they say does not fit their worldview.
However, I don't think anything comes out of persons arguing back and forth about how daft the other's argument is. Which is normally the case, when both persons arrive at their conclusion by reasoning on, and interpreting the evidence. Yet one wants to declare that his argument is better, even though the best he can do is, "This likely happened".

To me, it's nothing more than wishful thinking to say, "Well true. We have never seen this happen, but it's likely it happened." Yet claiming that an argument based on what we see happen, and therefore knows to be the case, is daft.

Wishful thinking - Wikipedia
Wishful thinking describes decision-making and the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief, and desire.
...........
This concept has been examined as a fallacy.
It is related to the concept of wishful seeing.

My knowledge about who and what the intelligent designer is, who created all things, comes from the Bible.
I believe it, because I have proven for myself that all the evidence examined indicate it is true - reliable and trustworthy.
No one I have spoken to, in person, or otherwise, for the past three decades, have been able to show me that it is not the truth. So I have no reason to believe their views, or philosophies over what I see as clear truth.

Think of it this way...
You come into a world where many things and people precede you.
Do you imagine that no one preceding you could possibly know the truth? What would cause a person to imagine that?

Yes, scientists use that language because the sort of dogma you believe in is not allowed. One thing to remember, they have evidence for their claims, yet they still proceed with caution. Bible believers have no reliable evidence yet they act as if they have the TRUTH.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, scientists use that language because the sort of dogma you believe in is not allowed. One thing to remember, they have evidence for their claims, yet they still proceed with caution. Bible believers have no reliable evidence yet they act as if they have the TRUTH.

They have evidence, but proceed with caution...? What does that mean?
They have evidence, but proceed with caution...