Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Tiberius]

no..... but how would you apply this new analogy to the FT argument?

By saying this...

The conditions were not fine tuned to suit the life that would later come.

Life evolved to cope with the conditions that already existed.

Douglas Adams' puddle analogy, for example, is quite well known.

 

[Tiberius]

Gonna borrow your post, Tiberius, as it gives me a good springboard. First, I do agree that it's often foolish to take the unknown and ascribe "God Did It" to it.

But what is a "Higher Power"? Often taken as "Mysterious Sky Daddy" a la Modern Christianity, it's really nothing more than things that are greater than us. For myself, and in my beliefs, I recognize and give offering to the landvættir (wights or spirits of the land) as without the land I would have nowhere to live, and nowhere to grow crops or gather water for sustenance. They are greater than me. I honor my ancestors, because I am a reflection of my ancestors. I am the current sum of all that they were, and they are greater than me. And, when the time is proper for it, I honor my gods. I hail to Thor, Loki and Odin as the thunderstorm passes over, I honor Freyr and Sif in the harvest season. These forces and these events are greater than me, in both strength and importance for all.

But a lot of other things are of my own making and skill, and often require no thanks given to anything or anyone. My skill in artwork, my intelligence, my wisdom through experience. For these things I have only myself to credit, and those who have taught me various skills. I needn't thank a god for every breath I take or meal that I cook, or worse still for the skills and services of others (such as doctors). I find it insufferable when others will demean the works of others and thank their god for what human hands gave them...

I get that. But apart from where you said you worship Thor and Loki and the other gods (which I would argue are just representations of the natural processes that are occurring at the time), I see nothing there that is supernatural. So your situation is not the same as that of someone who believes the voice they can hear inside their head is God.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, they are. If you disagree, explain why.

Because those terms only ever tell us what something ISN'T. They do not tell us what it is.

If I am describing something to you, I must tell you some property that the thing has or you aren't going to get any useful information.

Can you imagine how a conversation would go if I was trying to tell you about something and only did so by telling you about things that DON'T apply?"

Me: Hey, Phi, I just brought something.
Φ: Oh, cool, what is it?
Me: It's not a rabbit.
Φ: Okay, but what DID you buy?
Me: It's not a car.
Φ: Yeah, that's not really helping me. I still have no idea what you bought.
Me: It's not a yacht either.

 

[Tiberius]

My understanding is that I have said 'not unverifiable' = verifiable.
That is, your own experiences are real to yourself - and often difficult or impossible to transmit to another person.

If the experience is real only to yourself, and no one else can experience them, how do you verify them?

AND wholly subjective.
But subjective isn't necessarily a bad word - I don't have to transmit a romantic attachment to everyone else, they
can believe solely upon the basis of their own experiences. My feelings would be private, not corporate.

Okay, I have to ask you: What exactly do you mean by "corporate"?

The bible
states that spiritual things are something to be experienced - and cannot be transmitted to another. But a view
about the natural world can be transmitted, ie "It's cold, and it's such and such a temperature, which you can verify
on your own thermometer."

I would say that the things people experience that they regard as spiritual are not spiritual, they simply interpret them as being spiritual.

 

[PruePhillip]

If the experience is real only to yourself, and no one else can experience them, how do you verify them?
Okay, I have to ask you: What exactly do you mean by "corporate"?
I would say that the things people experience that they regard as spiritual are not spiritual, they simply interpret them as being spiritual.

Q - how do you verify them?
A - you don't, they are personal to you. You not only can't 'prove' them for another, but
you can't argue or reason them.

Q - What exactly do you mean by "corporate"?
A - the crowd, a group, the world, even simply another person.

Q - they regard as spiritual are not spiritual, they simply interpret them as being spiritual
A - Absolutely. Two types - those who don't understand religous spirituality and seek to
mimic it (ie cathedral ceilings, incense, white garments etc..) and others who use the term
in a non-religious way (ie sunsets, nice feelings, wilderness, even wind turbines...)

 

[Spirit of Light]

At least we are agreed in that, that beliefs are inherently unverifiable.

I would say belief is very clear to the person who believe. And a belief in a God are always a personal relationship between the beliver and God.

 

[Tiberius]

Q - how do you verify them?
A - you don't, they are personal to you. You not only can't 'prove' them for another, but
you can't argue or reason them.

Q - What exactly do you mean by "corporate"?
A - the crowd, a group, the world, even simply another person.

Q - they regard as spiritual are not spiritual, they simply interpret them as being spiritual
A - Absolutely. Two types - those who don't understand religous spirituality and seek to
mimic it (ie cathedral ceilings, incense, white garments etc..) and others who use the term
in a non-religious way (ie sunsets, nice feelings, wilderness, even wind turbines...)

So then you agree that you can never be sure that what you experience isn't just a hallucination or something like that, yes?

 

[Tiberius]

I would say belief is very clear to the person who believe.

But that's not what I was saying, was it?

I was saying that a person who holds a belief can never be sure that his belief is correct. He may be utterly convinced that it is correct, but that is still just an opinion, no matter how hard he believes it to be a fact.

And a belief in a God are always a personal relationship between the beliver and God.

What they interpret to be God, I think you mean.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But that's not what I was saying, was it?

I was saying that a person who holds a belief can never be sure that his belief is correct. He may be utterly convinced that it is correct, but that is still just an opinion, no matter how hard he believes it to be a fact.



What they interpret to be God, I think you mean.

The believers will gain wisdom when practice the teaching as it ahould be done.
But knowledge is a human term.

As a practitioner the Main part of the practice is to undo our negatives in life. And to leave ego, hate, greed and so on. And Gods teuth are shown the more of the vail of ignorance that is lifted.

 

[PruePhillip]

So then you agree that you can never be sure that what you experience isn't just a hallucination or something like that, yes?

Certainly. But if someone tells me of their personal feelings I have no way of knowing
if they are hallucinating or not. That's the trick, isn't it?

 

[Tiberius]

The believers will gain wisdom when practice the teaching as it ahould be done.
But knowledge is a human term.

As a practitioner the Main part of the practice is to undo our negatives in life. And to leave ego, hate, greed and so on. And Gods teuth are shown the more of the vail of ignorance that is lifted.

That sounds like you're reading the brochure to me. It doesn't actually have any connection to the topic we were discussing, which was that the experiences that people have where they feel the influence of God in their lives could be nothing more than something that stems from themselves and they just attribute it to God.

 

[Tiberius]

Certainly. But if someone tells me of their personal feelings I have no way of knowing
if they are hallucinating or not. That's the trick, isn't it?

That's true. We have no way of knowing if the only thing is somebody's feelings.

That's why we use science. Because it goes to the effort to not be based on feelings, but on measurable things from the real world, so the next person can come along, take their own measurements and see that what you got was correct.

 

[rational experiences]

If anyone cared to pay attention to what a human science theist claims that their consciousness human only owns the reasoning for instant creation of every state that already exists.

I was psychic warned by human lived shared memories as a form of over conscious data advice visionary voice AI status as humans invented science statements to build design invent and control changes forced upon natural pre existing energy bodies.

Claiming by human group status I am allowed to do anything I want.

Natural conditions continuing to exist does not support a human status if I will and want to do whatever I want. I therefore reason why I should involving coercion only involving self presence.

Not the actual thesis no presence whatsoever.

A human pre lived life experience warning.

Humans confess in word use what they believe in self righteousness.

Claiming their human conscious identifications had created all creation.

Couldn't be any higher in your self destructive human egotism if you tried. Yet a whole human community of egotists have tried.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That sounds like you're reading the brochure to me. It doesn't actually have any connection to the topic we were discussing, which was that the experiences that people have where they feel the influence of God in their lives could be nothing more than something that stems from themselves and they just attribute it to God.

The reason my answer do not look logical to you, is that no answer can show you what I experience in spiritual practice, you have to practice it your self to gain the wisdom to unveil the truth that is right there.

I can not give you answers to what you need to hear

 

[PruePhillip]

That's true. We have no way of knowing if the only thing is somebody's feelings.

That's why we use science. Because it goes to the effort to not be based on feelings, but on measurable things from the real world, so the next person can come along, take their own measurements and see that what you got was correct.

Good luck trying that with someone's experience and feelings.
And then you hit the twin problems of our existence
1 - why are we here?
2 - how did something appear from nothing?

 

[Tiberius]

Good luck trying that with someone's experience and feelings.
And then you hit the twin problems of our existence
1 - why are we here?
2 - how did something appear from nothing?

The why has no answer, since it presupposes some purpose when there is no evidnce that such a purpose exists.

As for the second question, the HOW is a scientific question and will, in all likelihood, have a scientific answer. We just don't know the answer yet.

 

[PruePhillip]

The why has no answer, since it presupposes some purpose when there is no evidnce that such a purpose exists.

As for the second question, the HOW is a scientific question and will, in all likelihood, have a scientific answer. We just don't know the answer yet.

It's interesting how this 'no evidence' crops up always in such discussions.
I am old enoug to remember people saying, 'There's no evidence for any King David of the bible.'
Meaning there's no King David.
Only, evidence did emerge. But the naysayers have moved on to other figures without acknowledgement.

All physical interactions are based upon reason. Everything from the spin or electrons around atoms
to the expansion of the universe. Nothing happens by magic. And yet the universe burst into being by
magic apparantly - without space, time, energy, physical laws or even the underpinning mathematics.
This is an article of faith - something which can never be tested.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So then you agree that you can never be sure that what you experience isn't just a hallucination or something like that, yes?

You doubt what you are experiencing, and think it may be hallucination or illusion?

 

[ratiocinator]

And do you think black holes can exist without singularities?

I don't know, but is seems entirely possible, because we are dealing with the limitations of our theories.

My understanding is that the event horizon indicates that the escape velocity within the event horizon is greater than the speed of light. In such a case, the forces that govern the make up of atoms and subatomic particles can't possibly apply, because the forces that, say, keep electrons in particular orbital shells will be overcome by the gravity.

Atoms don't survive even in neutron stars. It is the case in black holes that general relativity predicts gravity will overcome everything else and therefore the collapse cannot be halted at all. But when we get to those kind of scales quantum effects are likely to be significant and we run out a theories to cope.

And hence we have a singularity.

Only by extrapolating using GR. There is no direct evidence of what happens and we know our theories are in trouble.

It might be helpful if you would actually present an alternative explanation rather than just saying, "You can't prove it!"

I'm not trying to promote an alternative here, I'm just pointing out that certainly is misplaced. The two major hypotheses about quantum gravity are Sting Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. If you're interested just search for them and black holes. Here are a few articles:

Planck star - Wikipedia
Physics - Black Hole Evolution Traced Out with Loop Quantum Gravity
Fuzzball (string theory) - Wikipedia

As the subject was really cosmology, you might be interested (or not) in these about string theory and loop quantum gravity applied to that subject:

(the second one is missing sound for the first minute or so)

 

[Tiberius]

It's interesting how this 'no evidence' crops up always in such discussions.
I am old enoug to remember people saying, 'There's no evidence for any King David of the bible.'
Meaning there's no King David.
Only, evidence did emerge. But the naysayers have moved on to other figures with acknowledgement.

All physical interactions are based upon reason. Everything from the spin or electrons around atoms
to the expansion of the universe. Nothing happens by magic. And yet the universe burst into being by
magic apparantly - without space, time, energy, physical laws or even the underpinning mathematics.
This is an article of faith - something which can never be tested.

Of course, the existence of a specific figure is quite difference to the presence of intent.

I mean, if I drop a cup and break it and then claim it was an accident, could you ever prove I really intended to break it? Even if I really did have the intent to drop it and break it, even if there is video footage of me dropping it, proving that the intent was there is near impossible.