@shinyblurry

Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone. If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? … leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism... you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him.

Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe. You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

[me:]… it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

[you:] It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped. You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility. Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence? What is your rationale for the weighting so strongly in favour of God? Couldn't it be that we simply don’t know yet how the universe came to be the way it is? To me, that’s actually the most likely scenario, since that’s what’s happened with so many other erroneous theological claims, including by some of science’s greatest minds ever.

A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him.

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.

And NOW, with the current situation in play and we now know how Mitt feels for a vast swath of America. He most likely ALSO hated this person in a wheelchair for being disabled too.

Really there isn't a way to defend him unless you have truly given up your intelligence and given fully into opinion and ignorance, because it makes your stomach more "fuzzy".

Too many people now in America need to wake up to the reality of what this world REALLY IS! There isn't a unicorn. There isn't a mystical force stopping rape pregnancies. There isn't a magical non-person free-market that just regulates itself into pure equality and use for all. There is no Gods, which leaves you with a SERIOUS question NO MATTER WHAT FAITH you belong to, is there a God at all? The two-party setup is a mere cultural and sociological play of what is essentially a difference in people's fundamental psychology. Though we like to pretend conservative or liberal values are MORE than they really are, they are illusions created by our minds--as fake as any religion other than YOURS... That last word, really, really should mean something to somebody that doesn't quite get psychology and the absolute BLANKET and hallucinatory world it can proceed to give to our brains that is just as real as reality--so if you understand psychology is a POTENT little thing that runs our lives...

Mitt is just as lost as everyone else. Not only does he do what his idiotic psychology tells him to do, completely being an ass. But, he is fully unaware that he is FULLY inside the grip of ignorance and his own self-created ego trip. That is why it is so utterly hard to reach any of these people and talk to them about a TRUE compromise or negotiation. They just say the words and nod their heads, but you never truly got through to a person that understands themselves OR more importantly reality, even to the smallest extent.

This is why education is so vitally important, because we MUST give our kids the tools necessary to be able to make the final leap in self-consciousness that for some reason so many seem to never get there and get sidelined in the various vices of life--or more precisely the mind and your psyche.

Some people are just a record, playing in a loop. The rest are playlists, with thousands, or perhaps hundreds of songs. BUT, the people that UNDERSTAND are the people that can design the program that makes the playlists and moreover they make the music that those with the playlists or the record listen to. THAT is the difference.

They are the ones beckoning to you to LEARN, not to CHANGE, but to LEARN! Change will come when you see like they do...
----

Mitt had no reason to be like that. Something tells me if Mitt truly ever talked a mental health professional he would be diagnosed with something... Just my guess (like narcissistic personality disorder--but, I'd have to see even more of Mitt to be certain).

@ReverendTed

Sorry for the late reply. I was having email issues and didn't know this conversation was still going on. Also, I really don't have the time or energy to read all the posts right now, so apologies if I'm saying something that's already covered. Perhaps tomorrow after work I'll give it all a better look.

I agree that "at birth" is almost certainly not the best place to draw the line for omniscient lawmakers. Unfortunately, we're fresh out of those. We have to draw the line somewhere based on what we actually know. This is why I said before that we need to identify some particular quality (henceforth known as "qX") that we can agree makes a fetus a human. That way, we can say, "No, this fetus has developed qX and is no longer eligible for termination." Of course, once we define qX, then we may also need to be able to test for it, depending on what qX turns out to be, otherwise this is all pointless.

Now, I suppose we could say "qX is normally developed in week 25" and draw the line there but then we'll have those who develop sooner and those who develop later and we will inevitably terminate those that should technically not have been. I concede that this could still be a decent law even if we had to define it this way, but we've got a long way to go before we can even consider it. We haven't even defined qX, let alone identified approximately when it develops.

Defining qX alone is a nearly impossible task because most people who are trying to define it are using feelings (It's a defenseless little baby!), mysticism (The soul enters the zygote at conception!) and abstract concepts (Once the fetus has developed consciousness, it's human.) to do so.

Back to your reply, you seem to be dancing around what "illegal" means. Someone once pointed out to me that "It's not a law if it's not enforced". There has to be a penalty for having an abortion or it's pointless to make it illegal. What should be done to people who have (or perform) the procedure even after you've "[limited] their access" to it?

If we want to reduce abortions, we should be focusing efforts on reducing unwanted pregnancies; tell people what they can do rather than what they can't.

You tell me that you understand science, and were once very scientific, then you drop --excuse me-- a giant turd like this. I could as easily say, "If the Theory of Evolution is correct, then all living creatures are evidence of Theory of Evolution's correctness," and it would still be a meaningless statement because if we already know something is true (as in the premise), then evidence is redundant. It's precisely when we don't know something that evidence becomes useful. This is probably the hardest part about talking to you -- your weak grasp on how science and logic work. And don't take this as an internet ad hom. I'm being straight with you, really. It's not your strong suit. Own it.

Actually, I think that it is you who is demonstrating a weak grasp of logic here. It seems that what I was getting at went right over your head. What you've done here is rip my statement out of its context, and then claimed I was using it in a meaningless way that I never intended. It is a straw man argument, really, and yes you did use ad homs. A giant turd? Saying that its really hard to talk to me because of my weak grasp of science and logic? Come on. I had thought that our dialogue had transcended these kind of petty caricatures.

In context, the statement is designed to get you think outside the box you're in and weigh both sides of the issue equally. It's not an argument in itself. The statement that if God exists, everything that exists is empirical evidence for God is a logically valid statement. If God exists, everything you're looking at right now if proof that He exists. Obviously, this statement by itself doesn't help you determine whether God actually exists or not. You could just as easily say that if God doesn't exist, everything that does exist is proof that He doesn't exist. Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? You haven't addressed this, but simply have taken a leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism. You say, I don't see the Planner, and I didn't see the Planner make this Universe, therefore it is not designed until proven otherwise. The problem with this is that you can't even begin to justify this assumption until you can explain why either possibility is any more likely than the other. You can't say you don't see any empirical evidence because it might be staring you in the face everywhere you look. To analyze how either possibility is more likely than the other you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

Taking it a step deeper, the fact is, you would only expect to see exactly what you do see, because you are in fact a created being. A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him. The crux is though that this environment is also finely tuned. You should expect to see what you do, but you should also be surprised to find that it is finely tuned. It a bit like being taken out for execution in front of a firing squad of 100 expert marksmen 3 feet away, and finding yourself alive after all of them opened fire. You should not be surprised to find yourself alive, because obviously you would have to be alive to find yourself alive, but you should be surprised to find that 100 expert marksmen missed you from 3 feet away. In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe.

What you have on your hands is a Universe full of empirical evidence that it was or wasn't designed. There are only two possibilities; the Universe was either planned or unplanned. Again, how would you tell the difference? What would you expect to see which is different from what you do see? What would make either possibility more likely? That is the point. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Supernatural creation is easier to understand, but just about any other explanation is as or more plausible. When you consider some of the extreme coincidences that are required for us to exist, it stretches the mind. But we've had billions of years to evolve, and if we're talking about the whole universe, it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that? There is no evidence that it is less plausible, you simply assume it is. Sure, if you use your magic genie of time and chance you could imagine just about anything could happen. Scientists agree:

Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, Harvard
Physics and Chemistry of Life p.12

The odds of any of this happening by itself far exceeds the number of atoms in the Universe, and there is no actual proof that it actually could happen by itself, but you still believe it to be more plausible. Why is that? In the end, why is it plausible that anything would exist at all? Why isn't everything equally unlikely in the end? Notice what George Wald said? He said time itself performs the *miracles*. He said that because the existence of life is nothing short of a miracle, but even knowing that, you would still say God is implausible. I think these arguments are what is implausible.

Look at how these scientists come to the same conclusions as you have:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

I would take a declarative statement about him, and see what implications it had, what predictions it made, then see if they were testable, either theoretically or practically. Like theoretically if God is omniscient, it means he knows everything, and if I can find an example of something he absolutely cannot know, then I've proven he's not omniscient.

What God says is that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. He also calls the wisdom of this world, foolishness. So God has directly said that it is only by His revelation and not our understanding that we can come to know Him. A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

In any case, it's easy to think of things God doesn't know or can't do. God doesn't know what it feels like to not exist. God can't remember a time that He didn't exist. God can't make a square circle, or an acceptable sin. This doesn't prove anything. A better definition would be, omniscience is knowing everything that can be known, and omnipotence is being able to do everything that can be done.

Or practically, if God answers prayers, then I can test that statistically. Now, you say that God refuses to be tested, but that also means that if people are sincerely praying, but someone else is measuring the effects of those prayers, that God will choose not to answer those prayers, "Sorry! I'm being tested for, so I can't help you out today." This puts the power of denying God's prayers in the hands of scientists -- ridiculous. So there's two tests for God.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

This is self-fulfilling prophecy. The only reason the Jewish people came back to form a country again is because their holy book said they were entitled to do so, divine providence. Like Macbeth likely never would have become king of Scotland if he hadn't been told so by the Weird Sisters.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

I'm no biblical scholar, but I found three places where the destruction of Jerusalem is predicted. The first is in Micah 3:11-12, where it simply states that it will happen at some point. It doesn't say when, nor describe any of the circumstances. The second one I found is Daniel 9:24-26, where there's some detail that sounds kinda like Jesus, except that it was supposed to happen within 70 weeks (16 months) of when God spoke to Daniel, roughly 530 years BC. Or if you understand that the signal to begin the 70 weeks hadn't been issued yet, then Jerusalem was to have been build a mere 16 months before it was destroyed by Titus, which clearly isn't the case either. It also predicts the end will be by flood, but it was by fire, and then manual labour of soldiers, if Josephus' account is to be believed (he wasn't impartial).

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all. Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Luk 19:41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it,
Luk 19:42 saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side
Luk 19:44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

I would have to accept Jesus as messiah before I could accept this argument. And if I had already accepted him as messiah, then the argument would be meaningless, just like the one about the universe as evidence for God's existence.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is. Consider this quotation by Napoleon:

"What a conqueror!--a conqueror who controls humanity at will, and wins to himself not only one nation, but the whole human race. What a marvel! He attaches to himself the human soul with all its energies. And how? By a miracle which surpasses all others. He claims the love of men--that is to say, the most difficult thing in the world to obtain; that which the wisest of men cannot force from his truest friend, that which no father can compel from his children, no wife from her husband, no brother from his brother--the heart. He claims it ; he requires it absolutely and undividedly, and he obtains it instantly.

Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Louis XIV strove in vain to secure this. They conquered the world, yet they had not a single friend, or at all events, they have none any more. Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him; and they are joined to him much more closely than by any ties of blood and by a much more intimate, sacred and powerful communion. He kindles the flame of love which causes one's self-love to die, and triumphs over every other love. Why should we not recognize in this miracle of love the eternal Word which created the world? The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

I have filled multitudes with such passionate devotion that they went to death for me. But God forbid that I should compare the enthusiasm of my soldiers with Christian love. They are as unlike as their causes. In my case, my presence was always necessary, the electric effect of my glance, my voice, my words, to kindle fire in their hearts. And I certainly posses personally the secret of that magic power of taking by storm the sentiments of men; but I was not able to communicate that power to anyone. None of my generals ever learned it from me or found it out. Moreover, I myself do not possess the secret of perpetuating my name and a love for me in their hearts for ever, and to work miracles in them without material means.

Now that I languish here at St Helena, chained upon this rock, who fights, who conquers empires for me? Who still even thinks of me? Who interests himself for me in Europe? Who has remained true to me? That is the fate of all great men. It was the fate of Alexander and Caesar, as it is my own. We are forgotten, and the names of the mightiest conquerors and most illustrious emperors are soon only the subject of a schoolboy's taks. Our exploits come under the rod of a pedantic schoolmaster, who praises or condemns us as he likes.

What an abyss exists between my profound misery and the eternal reign of Christ, who is preached, loved, and worshipped, and live on throughout the entire world. Is this to die? Is it not rather to live eternally? The death of Christ! It is the death of a God."

Nope. Eternal means within all time. It implies that such an entity wouldn't necessarily exist outside of time. Maybe you meant a different word, but "eternal" doesn't describe whoever created time, if words have meaning.

Words do have meaning. Check any dictionary; the definition I used is there:

e·ter·nal/i't?rnl/
Adjective:

Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.
(of truths, values, or questions) Valid for all time; essentially unchanging.

What is this (especially the bits in bold) based on? It this biblical? Your intuition?

Isaiah 29:13

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men

1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart

You can give God all of the lip service you want, but He is only interested in what is in your heart.

Yes, the Lord will test your sincerity:

1 Peter 1:6-7

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

Also, if God knows everything, then what could he possibly be "testing" for? You only need to test things if you don't already know. And if he does know, the he's just messing with my head, in which case, it's not a test.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

>> ^messenger

i was tagged with that label at one time.
sensitivity often equals higher sensory ability
seeing things differently = fluidity of perceptive
both are critical to creativity
crowds of humans are upsetting because they are typically full of negative energy. it's not their fault that they pick up on this.

the human species is changing/mutating constantly, it is only upon our own biased perceptions that we give that change a label. it is really just a question of degree of perceivable difference that gives arise to a label being applied.

but labeling someone as different/special gives rise to other problems.
we then create categories of what is "normal" and what is not
this creates an inner conflict and unreachable sets of expectations for both those that are "normal" and those that are not.

and here we are as a society, raised on aggression, self-interest, and mysticism labeling others as not "normal" when it is clear that our own indoctrinations have made the species and the basis for judgment fucking retarded as it is.

>> ^CheshireSmile:

>> ^spoco2:
What's with all the talk about 'hate'?
I never said I hated her, never said anything of the sort. What I was railing against was the general issue of people ascribing good deeds/scientific breakthroughs/amazing engineering to 'miracles'. Hell, just her saying 'thank god' probably wouldn't have rankled that much as it is, as many of you have said, just a common phrase now really. But as soon as someone throws in 'it's a miracle', that usually is leaning on a stronger personal faith that quite often equals an actual belief that these things are the result of god's hand, and not lowly humans doing amazing things.
No hate, just sadness that a mystical being is still being given credit for the good being done (and yet somehow absolved for all the horror).

we have the words "ungrateful cunt" on a video comment in the happy channel. that's the hate i'm talking about.


Ahh, yeah, ok I hadn't re-read rottenseed's comment. It was harsh as hell and doesn't really have a place in civilised discourse!

>> ^spoco2:

What's with all the talk about 'hate'?
I never said I hated her, never said anything of the sort. What I was railing against was the general issue of people ascribing good deeds/scientific breakthroughs/amazing engineering to 'miracles'. Hell, just her saying 'thank god' probably wouldn't have rankled that much as it is, as many of you have said, just a common phrase now really. But as soon as someone throws in 'it's a miracle', that usually is leaning on a stronger personal faith that quite often equals an actual belief that these things are the result of god's hand, and not lowly humans doing amazing things.
No hate, just sadness that a mystical being is still being given credit for the good being done (and yet somehow absolved for all the horror).


we have the words "ungrateful cunt" on a video comment in the * happy channel. that's the hate i'm talking about.

What's with all the talk about 'hate'?

I never said I hated her, never said anything of the sort. What I was railing against was the general issue of people ascribing good deeds/scientific breakthroughs/amazing engineering to 'miracles'. Hell, just her saying 'thank god' probably wouldn't have rankled that much as it is, as many of you have said, just a common phrase now really. But as soon as someone throws in 'it's a miracle', that usually is leaning on a stronger personal faith that quite often equals an actual belief that these things are the result of god's hand, and not lowly humans doing amazing things.

No hate, just sadness that a mystical being is still being given credit for the good being done (and yet somehow absolved for all the horror).

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

The thing was an hour long, and believe it or not, I've seen lots of TV shows of people giving their stories of wacky supernatural/mystical things that happened to them, and I was pretty sure seeing one more wouldn't tip the balance, just like watching another Donald Trump stump speech would lead me to think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. My first comment was about what you had said about God having patience. My second comment was about my own theory of the link between mental trauma and mystical experience. Neither required me to spend an hour watching it. I'm sure you're probably sick of people lumping you in with all the crazy religious people we see in the world, so why do it to me? I mentioned that I hadn't watched it just in case my prediction was wrong (seems it might have been -- still haven't watched it), in which case you could ignore it or politely tell me so.

The reason young people and atheists (I'm not young, BTW) might not be interested in seeing a show like this is that it's utterly unreliable. Young people in the West are more skilled in critical thinking today than ever before, and atheists are a self-selecting group of people who require reliable evidence for things. To both groups, an anecdotal testimony recreation on TV is one of the least reliable sources of evidence. Your story, SB, as you've presented it here, is more credible than this one, and I've spent many, many hours reading, thinking and commenting about it, so cut me a little slack, will ya? No promises, but I do now intend to watch it all and comment at some time. Relatively busy the next several weeks

Sorry to lump you in, and yes I do understand that time is fleeting. I am not exactly jazzed to watch many of the videos I see here on the sift, but I will if there is potential for a good conversation. It's just a frustration that I encounter that many people are unwilling to consider what you're saying, or indeed even read it. It's probably just a cultural thing. I think more and more people have ADD and we are programmed in the culture to need instant gratification. In any case, I do not say you are like that. You have engaged me and considered what I have said, if not only to falsify it, but that's okay. I have enjoyed our conversations.

I'm not operating in any way towards any god. I don't believe in them, remember? Your specific God cannot exist as described, and I am so sceptical of any other gods that I live as if they don't exist either. You are operating under the faulty premise that I will accept something other than empirical evidence as the foundation of anything I believe. What makes you think I (or any other sceptic) would suddenly change my approach now, when it comes to arguably the single most important fact of my existence? Why would I lower the bar of acceptable evidence when the stakes are the highest? Even if I took a "just-in-case" approach, and did all the things the Bible said, I wouldn't believe in any of the things I was doing. In fact, as I consider that Christianity would make me a worse person, it would be selfish of me to choose to definitely hurt people on the off chance it might save my hide.

I agree that my God, as you currently understand Him, could not exist. Neither am I expecting you to lower your standards; I am only asking you to consider the issue rationally. If God exists, the entire Universe is empirical evidence of His existence. Is this not the case? So logically, trying to find empirical evidence of God is as easy as looking outside, or in a mirror. You happen to think its plausible that this is all happenstance, which I think requires quite a bit more faith than belief in a supernatural creation. I am sure you will disagree because you're a materialist, but your material had to come from somewhere. The main point is, trying to test for God is a fairly absurd idea. How would you do that?

I don't think you should take a "just in case" approach either. Becoming a Christian for fire insurance and nothing else is almost never a genuine conversion. You need to be born again, which is a supernatural transformation of your entire being. Anything short of that and you have no salvation.

When I was a young teen, and I was losing my faith (which had been absolute as a child). It was a bit distressing, and I used to pray that fairly often. I got no answer, and eventually forgot about God. I've always been interested in the concept of faith, but I've never again believed.

This happens to quite a number of catholics. The reason being, catholicism is very nearly a pagan religion, and it's an actual miracle if any Catholics do find God. There are more than a few that are saved, but I wouldn't hazard a guess as to percentages. Only God knows their hearts.

I am. And for me, truth is borne out by empirical evidence and personal experience, not preachers, or ancient fantasy books of dubious origin. I see exactly zero evidence for God. It's not even an interesting theory for me because it only explains, and doesn't predict.

God predicts the future. That's part of what makes the bible credible, is the literal fulfillment of prophecy. The nation of israel, for example, being reformed after 2000 years was predicted by prophecy. Such a thing has never happened before, that a people retained their racial purity and cultural heritage after being scattered all over the world, and then brought back to the same spot to form their own country again. The destruction of Jerusalem was also predicted in advance. As was the coming of the Messiah. There are many of these.

If God makes a box, he doesn't have to live inside the box. He can be eternal, but the word "eternal" itself is bound in time. Maybe you meant "omnipresent?" I'm particular about definitions.

He is omnipresent, yes. Eternal is timelessness..what it means to have no beginning and no ending.

OK. I've done it. I've put my money where my mouth is, and I actually got on my knees next to the computer, put my hands together, and prayed for God to reveal himself. I also told him that I was more interested in truth than in comfort, and if he revealed himself to be true, that I would use his guidance to find and follow the best path I could take in life. I used no biblical terms like "saviour" or "lord" because this is about me and God. If he wants to lead me to the Bible, he can do that. I asked him to be clear -- a double rainbow won't cut it. I was sincere. Any predictions?

My prediction is that God will honor your prayer if you are sincere in your desire to know Him, and the truth about Him. I think He will probably test the genuineness of your prayer. To God, talk is cheap. Anyone can say those words, but only those who mean them will find Him. He may offer you a choice that requires you to soften your heart and do something you wouldn't normally do. So be aware of that in the days to come. If you want my ultimate prediction, I believe that He will save you. God bless.

@shinyblurry

Fair enough about NDEs not being direct evidence of God.

That's fairly typical, I have to say.

The thing was an hour long, and believe it or not, I've seen lots of TV shows of people giving their stories of wacky supernatural/mystical things that happened to them, and I was pretty sure seeing one more wouldn't tip the balance, just like watching another Donald Trump stump speech would lead me to think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. My first comment was about what you had said about God having patience. My second comment was about my own theory of the link between mental trauma and mystical experience. Neither required me to spend an hour watching it. I'm sure you're probably sick of people lumping you in with all the crazy religious people we see in the world, so why do it to me? I mentioned that I hadn't watched it just in case my prediction was wrong (seems it might have been -- still haven't watched it), in which case you could ignore it or politely tell me so.

The reason young people and atheists (I'm not young, BTW) might not be interested in seeing a show like this is that it's utterly unreliable. Young people in the West are more skilled in critical thinking today than ever before, and atheists are a self-selecting group of people who require reliable evidence for things. To both groups, an anecdotal testimony recreation on TV is one of the least reliable sources of evidence. Your story, SB, as you've presented it here, is more credible than this one, and I've spent many, many hours reading, thinking and commenting about it, so cut me a little slack, will ya? No promises, but I do now intend to watch it all and comment at some time. Relatively busy the next several weeks.

You are still operating under the faulty premise that you could suss God out by pointing an instrument at Him.

I'm not operating in any way towards any god. I don't believe in them, remember? Your specific God cannot exist as described, and I am so sceptical of any other gods that I live as if they don't exist either. You are operating under the faulty premise that I will accept something other than empirical evidence as the foundation of anything I believe. What makes you think I (or any other sceptic) would suddenly change my approach now, when it comes to arguably the single most important fact of my existence? Why would I lower the bar of acceptable evidence when the stakes are the highest? Even if I took a "just-in-case" approach, and did all the things the Bible said, I wouldn't believe in any of the things I was doing. In fact, as I consider that Christianity would make me a worse person, it would be selfish of me to choose to definitely hurt people on the off chance it might save my hide.

Yet, you refuse to do the one thing which would yield any results. You could pray this prayer, for instance:

"God, I don't know if you're there or not. If you are there, I want to know you. Please let me know you are real and I will give my life to you. Please come into my life as Lord and Savior."

When I was a young teen, and I was losing my faith (which had been absolute as a child). It was a bit distressing, and I used to pray that fairly often. I got no answer, and eventually forgot about God. I've always been interested in the concept of faith, but I've never again believed.

Are you interested in the truth?

I am. And for me, truth is borne out by empirical evidence and personal experience, not preachers, or ancient fantasy books of dubious origin. I see exactly zero evidence for God. It's not even an interesting theory for me because it only explains, and doesn't predict.

God necessarily exists outside of time and space because He created them. Since He is eternal He is not bound by time. However, that isn't to say that what is happening "now" isn't real.

If God makes a box, he doesn't have to live inside the box. He can be eternal, but the word "eternal" itself is bound in time. Maybe you meant "omnipresent?" I'm particular about definitions.

OK. I've done it. I've put my money where my mouth is, and I actually got on my knees next to the computer, put my hands together, and prayed for God to reveal himself. I also told him that I was more interested in truth than in comfort, and if he revealed himself to be true, that I would use his guidance to find and follow the best path I could take in life. I used no biblical terms like "saviour" or "lord" because this is about me and God. If he wants to lead me to the Bible, he can do that. I asked him to be clear -- a double rainbow won't cut it. I was sincere. Any predictions?

Besides for the cheesy Burning Man footage this is a really great doc on psychs. A lot of docs keep true with mystical experience but the way Ann describes it is in reality the way it is and a reason they are useful experiences not to be taken lightly. The whole part where she says one must face he/her inner shadows/monster and learn to accept them by working through them. A good psychedelic experience can be like a birth, a death - the happiest or the most distraught.

The first few times I took a psychedelic it was a little nerve-wracking because I wasn't sure what I might see in myself. I think many people are afraid of taking psychedelics because of that unknown factor. For me the tranquility in what I would call ego-death is what made me embrace some form of spirituality. Before taking psychedelics - "spirituality" was a four letter word that made me cringe.

The amount of ignorance and deception out there about psychs is staggering.

Anonymity is important for a larger-scale, wide-ranging and accurate survey whether you don't mind sharing or not.

I would personally like to know which Power Ranger you identify with most. (excluding "Mystic Force")

Here's more about the mystical connection between poo and coffee

http://videosift.com/video/The-Most-Expensive-Coffee-in-the-World

*promote the majestic Zep at their finest. Mystic Jimmy, Golden God Robert, Maniac Bonham and the silent one - all legends.