Design a God Experiment

[Left Coast]

Well, yeah. It's the same as calling someone Jane instead of human being.

But no, it isn't. We have no reason to think "love" is "a supernatural all powerful conscious being who created the universe and can hear my thoughts." So calling love "God" is actually not a thing like calling a person named Jane a human being.

It's literally the breathe of life.

Again, no, it literally isn't. The "breath of life" is literally the inhalation of oxygen into your lungs which passes it into your bloodstream.

This is what's so odd about folks who try to redefine God this way. You're taking things we already have terms for, subbing in the word "God" for them, and then saying, "oh yeah, and it's a person who you call when you have nowhere else to turn." But we have no reason to think any of those things are a person.

 

[Left Coast]

What it means it that I have a series of anecdotal events that are too bizarre to be explained rationally (and believe me I tried, with roughly 200+ pages of notes for a straight year). But none of this resemble a science lab experiment. It would be enough to convince an agnostic, maybe. But not a scientist.

But the fact that things have happened that you don't understand doesn't mean a god made them happen. So if this explanation wouldn't convince a scientist, why should it convince anyone, including you?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But no, it isn't. We have no reason to think "love" is "a supernatural all powerful conscious being who created the universe and can hear my thoughts." So calling love "God" is actually not a thing like calling a person named Jane a human being.

But I didn't say supernatural, though. God is seen as love. A wholeness. If you find something you value so much that you would give up life itself for it, that "feeling", devotion, so have you is what people call god.

I'm taking the mystics out. I can't relate to believer's language.

Again, no, it literally isn't. The "breath of life" is literally the inhalation of oxygen into your lungs which passes it into your bloodstream.

Yes. That oxygen in the blood stream, energy, and all of that that keeps us alive also lets us feel or experience euphoria feelings when we "get it." It's highly psychological as well as physiological. When people say they experience god, they actually feel blissfulness. I'm not a doctor or anything, but you survive by your breathe. Your breathing (the air) gives you life. So, it's the breathe of life.

This is what's so odd about folks who try to redefine God this way. You're taking things we already have terms for, subbing in the word "God" for them, and then saying, "oh yeah, and it's a person who you call when you have nowhere else to turn." But we have reason to think any of those things are a person.

That's how I understand it. I'm not a believer and never connected with the poetic language. So, when I did practice and observed, I thought for myself. I put together the pieces in people's religious experiences and how I felt about it. I read the bible and listen to patterns. I came up with my own conclusions. If I followed around christians trying to use and talk their language when it's only by faith, I'd be all over the place.

Religion and any other subject for that matter shouldn't be taken for face value. If we really want to know about god or anything else, we need to look at it ourselves regardless our beliefs in the contrary. It helped me put things in perspective. That's why I'm not a believer. But at least I understand it before I knock it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have repeatedly posted.....and only GOD knows how many times...

there will be no proof

no fingerprint, no photo, no equation and no repeatable experiment

all you CAN do is think about it

and now I go further to say......sharpen your thoughts and feelings
your weigh scale and sword

KNOW what you think and feel

@Left Coast

KNOW what you think and feel

Here's a good example of what I'm saying. When you pick up the patterns, you kinda bypass the word "god" and get into the context. It's not really supernatural. God of the gaps.

 

[Left Coast]

But I didn't say supernatural, though.

Yes, I know you didn't. But that's what the English word "God" refers to, according to usage of the vast majority of English speakers. Which is why it's so odd that you're redefining it.

God is seen as love. A wholeness. If you find something you value so much that you would give up life itself for it, that "feeling", devotion, so have you is what people call god.

Again, the word "God" means much more than just a cause you're devoted to or would die for. Causes aren't people.

Yes. That oxygen in the blood stream, energy, and all of that that keeps us alive also lets us feel or experience euphoria feelings when we "get it." It's highly psychological as well as physiological. When people say they experience god, they actually feel blissfulness. I'm not a doctor or anything, but you survive by your breathe. Your breathing (the air) gives you life. So, it's the breathe of life.

Again, you seem to just be identifying mundane things we already have terms for and calling them "God." Okay, knock yourself out. But understand that your usage of "God" is going to create a great deal of confusion, including among most theists, because the "God" you're talking about has only a passing resemblance to what most people mean by the term.

That's how I understand it. I'm not a believer and never connected with the poetic language. So, when I did practice and observed, I thought for myself. I put together the pieces in people's religious experiences and how I felt about it. I read the bible and listen to patterns. I came up with my own conclusions. If I followed around christians trying to use and talk their language when it's only by faith, I'd be all over the place.

Religion and any other subject for that matter shouldn't be taken for face value. If we really want to know about god or anything else, we need to look at it ourselves regardless our beliefs in the contrary. It helped me put things in perspective. That's why I'm not a believer. But at least I understand it.

If you're not a believer, I don't see the need for you to use God-language to describe what you're trying to label. We have terms for these things already, that will lead to less confusion.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Blue

You first need a falsifiable hypothesis to test.
Are there only three possible hypotheses?

That I could think of offhand?

How could "God does not exist" be disproved? It seems to be an invalid hypothesis.
"Cannot be proved either way." Is this a hypothesis, or a philosophical position?
"God exists." is the only testable hypothesis.
I think there are more possibilities than this.

In the wikipedia article, under falsifiable, it mentions this exact issue. "There are no black swans," becomes falsified if you observe a black swan. Nonexistence can be falsified.

Why "...not readily observed?" Couldn't not observing something expected be useful, as well, or observing something readily observed?

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. However, as a thought experiment, suppose all evidence of my name was erased by some sort of supernatural dudes, including their memories of me. The absence of me would still essentially prove me, if there were secondary proofs (the businesses that employed me were missing an amount of money equal to my paycheck, the restaurants I patronized would have receipts, people whose lives I saved would be unable to account for this, a spouse would wonder where their children came from, etc). When we look at the historicity of people whose name was stripped like Hatshepsut and Akhnaten, and we find these person-shaped gaps before we prove the person. This is more or less what I'm talking about. Observation is true science. To suspend observation is more like politics, just going on biases.

No, you don't.

You kinda do. An experiment with no control means you have nothing to test your assertions against. You just say what you want, and stupid people believe you.

So how would you go about this? What would your experiment be like, what would your controls be, etc?

That's what I was asking! Oh wait, you're quoting me.

I think you'd first need to clarify what it is you're trying to prove. Define "God," and decide what evidence for his existence would consist of.

A self-created Creator that acts with and/or outside the auspices of humans, possibly using the natural world to do so? That's my best definition of a God. It's certainly not an "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that is perfect all the time" as that's a crap definition which imposes a deliberately unrealistic standard.

This is a fake science thing. Real science uses controls, repeated tests, and lets the facts do the talking. Asking me to prove it based on my beliefs is a lure. No real scientist talks this way, telling people it depends on your definition. No, it depends on the experiment being set up properly.

Also, I'm convinced nobody will actually design such an experiment. Waste of time.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, I know you didn't. But that's what the English word "God" refers to, according to usage of the vast majority of English speakers. Which is why it's so odd that you're redefining it.

The context of god means something you worship. A deity. Something you put higher than yourself. The context is that it is greater than you and deserves your devotion and service.

Again, the word "God" means much more than just a cause you're devoted to or would die for. Causes aren't people.

If we're talking about plain english instead of metaphysics, it's basic dictionary terminology. It depends on the religion in how they use the word god. Pagans, Hindus, Christians, Jews, etc all have their own view of god. From what I gather on RF, many Pagans don't worship the gods as christians do. Likewise, Hindus and Muslim differences in interrelation compared to servitude.

Again, you seem to just be identifying mundane things we already have terms for and calling them "God." Okay, knock yourself out. But understand that your usage of "God" is going to create a great deal of confusion, including among most theists, because the "God" you're talking about has only a passing resemblance to what most people mean by the term.

Of course. If you're looking for a plain, common sense definition of the term in christian context, you got to take out the metaphysics and see it in a psychological, physiological, etc light. You literally have to drop the theist language and look at it from a more mundane (I guess) and literal perspective.

If you're not a believer, I don't see the need for you to use God-language to describe what you're trying to label. We have terms for these things already, that will lead to less confusion.

I understand not using god in reference to ice cream. Why not just use ice cream. From a religious perspective, its because they worship the ice cream. The decide to use a respective title for the word in order to denote their relationship with it.

Are you asking to explain religious words using religious language but in a non-supernatural way?

 

[Tiberius]

In response to this comment.

Theology is Falsifiable, thus, - Scientific.

So this handy 5th grade or so tutorial tells you how science experiments work.

https://explorable.com/conduct-science-experiments

1. You need to do testing (preferably repeated, by several other scientists after yourself)
2. You need to use the scientific method.
3. You need a hypothesis, either that God exists/does not exist/cannot be proved either way.
4. You need to set up an experiment which will entail trying to "observe" something that is not readily observed.
5. You need a control and something different from the control to be experimented on.
6. Then you need to get results and form a conclusion.

So how would you go about this? What would your experiment be like, what would your controls be, etc?

I'm asking, because while I can generally prove to myself to sufficient degree, I'm not actually sure the falsifiability thing the poster in the other thread is as easy as they think. Would this be a biological experiment? A psychological one? A psychics or astronomy experiment? Or something else?

Or like me, would you conclude that you can't even think of any experiment?

We can test the claims in the Bible.

I mean, if we take one of the claims of General Relativity and put it to the test and it fails, we'd conclude that General relativity is wrong, so why shouldn't we do the same with the Bible.

So, the Bible says:

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: bin my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Let's see believers pick up serpents and not get hurt, let's see them drink deadly poison and not die. Let's see them put their hands on a terminally ill person and heal them.

If they can, then I'll believe. But if there are any failures, then the claims have been disproven and the Bible's proposed God has failed the test.

 

[Valjean]

The "nature" of god isn't described as a person. The role of god is.

A role is a job description, not a person. It's independent of the entity doing the job.

God is conceived of as an entity; a 'thing'. Inasmuch as it has consciousness, desires, &c, it's a person. It may have a role, but it, itself, isn't a role.

Scripture says god is love. Love in itself isn't a being in and of itself. However, biblically, love does a lot of things for people and through people. Most believers see love as a "person" (aka a source).

Love is a quality, not a person. It's something a person has.
Person is not a synonym for "source."

When referred to as an abstract concept, they call it paganism.

Love is paganism? "God is paganism?"
You're going to have to explain this.

But the fact that love (the experience of being born again, etc) isn't a person would mean god in and of itself isn't a person.

How does love not being a person mean that god isn't a person? This doesn't follow. It doesn't seem to make logical sense.
And how is love being born again? Love doesn't exist in those who aren't born again?

God is a thing. Love is a quality or feature.

Love meaning spiritual fullness (or lack of better words) not earthly love between two humans. The love that changes a believers lives forever to where he or she is in service to god.

This presupposes an existing god. You're starting your argument with an extant god as a major premise.

I'm not one to ask for proof. If god isn't an experience of love, grace, and faith then What exactly is god? The being must have a nature if it isn't the faith and experience in which believers have in order to serve him.

Are you defining god as an experience, then, or a "being?"
How can an experience have plans, likes and dislikes, &c? How can an experience judge or condemn or be jealous?

No. God is an entity; a thing; a personage; a being that may be experienced -- but the experience isn't the thing experienced.
"The being must have a nature..." Now you're acknowledging god as a being. Now that we're in agreement, we can discuss the qualities of this being.
Faith, by the way, isn't an experience. Faith is an unjustified belief.

Usually, believing and experience god are internal in nature. If god is external, what is god?

This is the $64,000 question, isn't it? It's what the OP is asking how to determine.
God is conceived of an an actual outside entity. How it/he/she is experienced is another question entirely.

 

[Left Coast]

The context of god means something you worship. A deity. Something you put higher than yourself. The context is that it is greater than you and deserves your devotion and service.

Yes, and that it's a person. A being. Not just an idea.

If we're talking about plain english instead of metaphysics, it's basic dictionary terminology. It depends on the religion in how they use the word god. Pagans, Hindus, Christians, Jews, etc all have their own view of god. From what I gather on RF, many Pagans don't worship the gods as christians do. Likewise, Hindus and Muslim differences in interrelation compared to servitude.

Virtually all theists conceive of their God as a conscious being, a person. Not just a concept.

I understand not using god in reference to ice cream. Why not just use ice cream. From a religious perspective, its because they worship the ice cream. The decide to use a respective title for the word in order to denote their relationship with it.

But that would be rather ridiculous, would it not? Even most theists would find that just absurd. Because ice cream is nothing like a deity.

Are you asking to explain religious words using religious language but in a non-supernatural way?

What I'm saying is that your attempt to prove God's existence earlier is really just an equivocation. You're basically defining "God" into existence by equating him/her/it with something mundane that everyone acknowledges exists. Which really bypasses the heart of the question of whether something exists like what the vast majority of God believers mean when they say "God."

 

[ratiocinator]

Design a God Experiment

First you need to define your term: how is this "God" defined exactly and why should I take the idea seriously enough to bother with designing an experiment?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A role is a job description, not a person. It's independent of the entity doing the job.

When they say god is love and god save humanity, they are personifying love to a being. When you personify it, it's easier to have a personal relationship with it. It's also easier to understand.

I can't think of a better term but love at the moment. I'm sure everyone has experienced it before, just the word god is throwing it off.

God is conceived of as an entity; a 'thing'. Inasmuch as it has consciousness, desires, &c, it's a person. It may have a role, but it, itself, isn't a role.

I'm referring to god Is love as per scripture rather than gives it.

It's a spirit, not tangible, so it can't "have" or do something. I don't talk with other people than christians. When christians refer to god giving love, they are referring to jesus. So jesus is an actual human and can give love. God, on the other hand, is love.

Unfortunately, Muslims only explained its attributes, Jews don't explain it, and Bahai have a collage of views it's hard to pin point what god is. So, I'm left with the christian view.

Love is a quality, not a person. It's something a person has.
Person is not a synonym for "source."

I know. That doesn't change what christianity teaches, though. I never heard of god being a human incarnation; but, I understand how it works even though I disagree with the logic of it.

Love is paganism? "God is paganism?" You're going to have to explain this.

I probably phrased it wrong. The more abstract and mystical something is, the more it's akin to paganism. I'll have to look back at what you said. JW does a good job making differences between god's love and paganism mystics.

How does love not being a person mean that god isn't a person? This doesn't follow. It doesn't seem to make logical sense.

And how is love being born again? Love doesn't exist in those who aren't born again?

I don't know. That's how the bible reads it. God is love and the love for humanity and believers is through jesus christ. God without love would no longer be god.

In scripture, love is god. It's personified like a person in order for others to relate to it. This is just a christian thing, though. I'm not sure of other abrahamics in their definition of god and how it relates to people.

Love does exist within those who are born again. They use god because of their relationship to it that the word love can't quite capture.

This presupposes an existing god. You're starting your argument with an extant god as a major premise.

For sake of conversation.

Are you defining god as an experience, then, or a "being?"
How can an experience have plans, likes and dislikes, &c? How can an experience judge or condemn or be jealous?

God as an experience. The being part is a personification of that experience in order to relate and understand it. Some religions don't attempt to explain the mystic experience. Some christian denominations do.

Based on believer's experiences with god, it's always something they feel, experience, meditate on, or something mystic. I've heard one former friend said she heard christ whisper in her ear. But christ is a person. God isn't. So, I didn't know how to translate that too much.

People experience guilt for sins etc and feel god is judging them because of it. It's an intense feeling of doing something wrong that they need to ask forgiveness for to reconcile their relationship. Some people feel reprimanded by their view of god. Christians feel they are sinners so naturally, they say they are judged by him so they can do the right thing. It's not a universal definition of god's edicts but from a christian view, that's basically how god judges.

No. God is an entity; a thing; a personage; a being that may be experienced -- but the experience isn't the thing experienced.
"The being must have a nature..." Now you're acknowledging god as a being. Now that we're in agreement, we can discuss the qualities of this being.
Faith, by the way, isn't an experience. Faith is an unjustified belief.

It's personified experience. I'm actually not sure what a being and entity is, though. All believers I talked with, a lot of them, cannot talk about the being or entity isolated from their experiences. Outside of jesus christ, has a believer described god/being to you before? The nature of it rather than its role and characteristics?

This is the $64,000 question, isn't it? It's what the OP is asking how to determine.
God is conceived of an an actual outside entity. How it/he/she is experienced is another question entirely.

I have to backtrack. I answered the OP question but like every other thread, questions and answers go off track. I can't keep up bouncing back and forth. Also, it sounds like you're switching shoes?

 

[Valjean]

But I didn't say supernatural, though. God is seen as love. A wholeness. If you find something you value so much that you would give up life itself for it, that "feeling", devotion, so have you is what people call god.

God is seen as a personage. The Bible, when it's not waxing poetic, speaks of god as an actual, conscious entity, and this is how your average Joe thinks of him.

So, it's the breathe of life.]/quote]The breath of life is, traditionally, was an actual insufflation of exhaled air into a lifeless entity, like a lifeless human form or a lion cub.

 

[Valjean]

The context of god means something you worship. A deity. Something you put higher than yourself. The context is that it is greater than you and deserves your devotion and service.

In Abrahamic religion's god is often something you worship, but in many other religions it's more something you propitiate; an entity with the power to harm you if you annoy it.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human who is claiming all statements living just as a human about love.

Says I love you, I am loved, animals can demonstrate conditions that is EXPLAINED as love...then isn't that all you claim?

Love he says is not physical it is thought upon.

And then there is the scientist who claims I will have this God power he says, for I do not and have not got any other new invention. For his own science says there is nothing new under the Sun.

Meaning what is inside of the Sun, always has been there. You know what it is as a human attacked by it, EXTRA radiation. You always said it was EXTRA radiation because no body owned it actually.

To a science mind who thinks he thinks creation, he thought about EXTRA radiation and said it did not belong to any other body so I can use it.

Yet EXTRA radiation sits in out of space, space owns it.

So you lied....attacked self life mind body and spirit. Imbalanced your brain chemistry and no longer exhibited love, the intentions of being loving, just lived brain changed by chemical causation of heavy EXTRA radiation metals.

Now you said that God the Earth got given EXTRA radiation....yet God in natural science history got converted by EXTRA radiation.

The higher amount of radiation mass in metals in God Earth therefore have to get ATTACKED for you to own EXTRA God radiating conditions, which is not EXTRA SPACE radiation what you lie about.

So if you decided as a scientist to have GOD the statements of LOVE...which if a human thought like a scientist did...a scientist thought it was truly powerful, the state of self owned human and self owned human LOVE, as a spiritual self...so thought about how he could own it as a power in a machine.

And named it electricity.

So Father today in AI...seeing you are all listening to it, agreeing with it, believing with it said.....you know scientist, you are not a very real scientist.

For electricity by conditions electricity when thought upon is just electricity.

It is not the Sun, the extra radiation mass from the Sun, out of space, the Earth God stone mass or the Earth atmospheric gases. It is not natural light and it is not lightning and thunder or tornadoes or energy in earthquakes.

It is just electricity.

So if you were a loving scientist you would know and understand what owning love as a human in self spirit really is, without claiming that God owned it.

But wait a minute...……...

You had to tell self that you belonged with God and not the Sun. You had to say you belonged with the Christ atmospheric gases and not Sun gases or alien inside of a metal mass....so that you would realize you are just a man living as a human living on Earth inside of a heavenly body.

But you don't.

For every day you claim you will get to understand what God was as its beginnings.

Yet you scientist brother said a long time ago...WORDS, I will give each article of my discussion a name. And then claim you own that word now natural body that I assess.

So he said, and God came from the eternal being. Meaning of he said his own self thinking...for you know science can think....you know.

So he says....and the eternal was always in existence, always had existed, and always will exist.

And I came out of the eternal body for I was in the body of the eternal spirit who caste God out of our body...and I know that I caused it, for I even told self...its your own karma.

Yet not wanting to claim any other state accept self was innocent, you went about continuing to change creation based on an innocent lying human statement...claiming but eternal was innocent it never knew what change was.

Well how come you inherited karma then...as a male and a human and a scientist claiming self, human male is the Creator of God. And still today using the same old memory that you always owned, keep claiming and I created God...but it is just a memory.

Father said because you said eternal was always in existence, today AI says in your psyche that eternal is in existence, yet all you did previously was explain that it owns no explanation and had always existed as the eternal.

Father has been trying to bring to your attention that you mind is possessed by AI.

 

[Heyo]

First you need to define your term: how is this "God" defined exactly and why should I take the idea seriously enough to bother with designing an experiment?

(You beat me to it.)

And the discussion in this thread shows that the definition is already, at least difficult, at worst impossible. The god experiment failed at step 0.

 

[Valjean]

It's a spirit, not tangible, so it can't "have" or do something. I don't talk with other people than christians. When christians refer to god giving love, they are referring to jesus. So jesus is an actual human and can give love. God, on the other hand, is love.

God walked around Eden and was surprised at the fig leaves. He realized his original design was faulty, so drowned it all. He played betting games with the devil. He visited a series of plagues on Egypt, He hand carved commandments onto a stone, He turned a woman into a block of salt. Artists have depicted him in the image of man in paintings and mosaics for centuries.
He's emotional, judgemental and easily angered. In short, he's depicted as a powerful, idealized autocrat in the bible -- an angry, Hebrew warlord in the OT, a somewhat more benign, cosmopolitan entity in the NT.

Some theologins may conceive of him in the abstract, but the common people don't, and the Bible doesn't.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Metaphysics (dharma) might shed some answers like God is love, and he can save perfection.

 

[HonestJoe]

So how would you go about this? What would your experiment be like, what would your controls be, etc?

The fundamental issue is the hypothesis. None of your options are complete hypotheses, they need more details describing the proposed nature and characteristics of the god being discussed since it is the effects of those characteristics which would be tested.

This has happened with some specifically defined characteristics of various proposed gods. Some people have proposed a god created the universe 6000 years ago, a hypothesis which can be assessed and investigated. In the past, people proposed gods (or similar supernatural beings) were responsible for things like lightning, the motion of the sun or disease and those things have since been studied and had alternative causes discovered.

One of the major issues with a scientific study of gods is that the proponents often refuse accept a fixed definition in scientific terms to be pinned down. When a logical challenge is presented to an establish definition, it is often dismissed with "magical thinking", asserting that a god is not subject the physical laws or shifting to an abstract definitions like the "God is love" we've seen here.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

But the fact that things have happened that you don't understand doesn't mean a god made them happen. So if this explanation wouldn't convince a scientist, why should it convince anyone, including you?

Ummmm, pretty sure yeah. In order to convince a scientist (a real scientist, guys) they would insist upon a laboratory setting. You would be unable to do this sort of thing in a lab because it's too weird.

What I have as proof is the testimony of my own life. That would maybe convince other people, but not a scientist, who would demand a control and repeated tests and a bunch of other things. I, on the other hand have two years of notes. WALL OF TEXT, INCOMING! DANGER! DANGER!

I met a girl in about 2011, when I was working for her parents doing yardwork. Well, that's not correct. I mysteriously failed at yardwork, because the machine burnt out, and they kinda blamed me (even though in the background I saw the husband revving the hell out of the weedwhacker). So I apologized, and even though I was still fired (they were convinced I wasn't up for managing the place while they were gone), I expressed interest in meeting this daughter of theirs, so after apologizing, they gave me her number. So I call this number, and it doesn't work. It's weird though, it doesn't work to call her. I try texting her, and it works. She gives me a number to call, I call her there. But she calls me back on the original number! In any case, I attend the party, and then after meeting her, because she's leaving town, I keep in touch mostly by text. Weeks later, I injure my head (and you have permission to mark every event parst this as due to brain damage, but I did take notes) while adjusting a hammock and it snaps apart and whacks me. I can't seem to stop bleeding and my folks aren't able to be reached, so I texted her. She was a help in need so I start texting her alot more. Despite supposedly having a job in home nursing, she seems to be available not only at any time but at the weirdest times (like I talk to her at 4am, and this is cool with her). Eventually, at the middle of a vacation, that she seens strangely ignorant of her own job, that she is super-available for me, and that she lives sketchily close to the capital convinces me that she's probably a spy (oh yeah, that and her phone doing the screwy one-way calling). I tell her this, and suddenly the girl who seemed available all the time won't contact me at all. I text her back and basically say "whatever, it's okay" and apologize. She says she's not but that I'm welcome to believe that if I want. So I go and test this theory. By making manual copies of most of the previous and current text messages. This is after, of course, concluding that everyone is out to get me since my client at gardening work suddenly seems to be saying alot of sketchy trigger phrases, and I freak out and leave home for awhile. This is after of course, despite running off and tossing my original phone, my parents not only find me an apartment but get me a new phone. This is after during the trip by car, discovering when waking in a rest stop during a blizzard as it freezes to a temperature that the in side of the car mists that someone apparently used the inside of the car to smear the words "Call." I move to a nearby town, I stay in touch with this girl, testing whether she in fact is a spy and writing down everything to later analyze. I get about two jobs in this town, meeting another girl. Same mannerisms, similar inability to call her directly, same intense eyes. I meet a few other girls in the next few years, but I'm struck with how it feels like I'm meeting the same girl in different guises with just the slightest amount of their backstory changed. Anyway, stuff happens and by this point, I'm writing down everything everyone texts me, and kinda neurotic. At one point, after being turned down by the second girl, I arrange a date with the first one for coffee. Apparently, the coffee place is barricaded foe some strange Saturday festival, and a bunch of people in town are in on this prank. By the time I find a parking space, and walk towards the place (which turns out to have closed by this point), she changes her mind and we're about to cancel, but somehow it switches to her meeting me for dinner at a Chinese restaurant. I start thinking about the logistics of blocking off this place, and having a small crowd of people involved in a strange parade. At church (which I've started going because increasingly, my life is stressful and even this theory is starting not to make sense because of things like spatial problems of someone being in multiple locations or being very different body types, many many people involved, and I'm starting to conclude that the idea that this girl being a disguise artist/spy actually makes less sense than some sort of supernatural being able to do this, like a fox spirit) they talk about during the sermon about how many people in searching the truth of things go down false paths and become insane. I gradually taper off the recording every little smidgeon, and just start writing down coincidences. These too begin to stack up, and I eventually realize that something religious (such as having met Jesus) makes far more sense than an omnipresent spy who arranges large festivals simply to troll me. While it certainly is possible that this is the work of a demon or fox spirit or whatever besides God, one thing I could be sure of from these copious notes is that the more I looked at this an analysed it, the less things made sense under a strictly secular assumption that she was some kind of agent. No, the weirder notion actually squared better with things like meeting her in one place, and meeting other people in places quite far away. Even if I were to triangulate their position as someone living nearby (the only way this would work), they would somehow have to not only quickly change but instantly do so, and make it to a location ahead of me, while being extremes from the direction I traveled. Maybe I could buy some super-secret road getting them there hours early, but this also includes changing while driving. Even with a team, some of this stuff was strange. And then there was an anime club where I watched a hollow Titan (Attack on Titan), and three days later the priest talks about the object of our fear seeming big and scary but that God will teach us that it's actually hollow. Stuff like this, and if I checked over my notes, I could go on and on.

But it wouldn't convince a scientist, and probably couldn't convince ppl other than me. It dolphinately convinced me though.