Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting God
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 151 of 271 (572681)
08-07-2010 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by sac51495
08-07-2010 12:57 AM


sac51495 writes:
You have ignored the spiritual realm, which is no more subjective, nor any less important, than the scientific method.
Nonsense. The scientific method deliberately weeds out subjectivity by way of repeatability and peer review. The "spiritual realm" is entirely subjective. Otherwise, why would there be so many mutually exclusive interpretations of the same spiritual realm?

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by sac51495, posted 08-07-2010 12:57 AM sac51495 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 11:06 AM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 152 of 271 (572986)
08-09-2010 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by riVeRraT
08-06-2010 11:43 PM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
riVeRraT writes:
Lack of being able to detect it, is not proof of it's non existence.
Yes, I know. I agreed with you in that previous post. My point is that "lack of being able to detect it" also doesn't provide a rational or reasonable basis to think it actually exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 11:43 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 11:26 AM Stile has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 153 of 271 (572996)
08-09-2010 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by ringo
08-07-2010 12:29 AM


"ringo" writes:
That's all I asked you.
Pretty sure I said that already earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by ringo, posted 08-07-2010 12:29 AM ringo has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 154 of 271 (572997)
08-09-2010 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by ringo
08-07-2010 1:09 AM


"ringo writes:
Nonsense. The scientific method deliberately weeds out subjectivity by way of repeatability and peer review. The "spiritual realm" is entirely subjective. Otherwise, why would there be so many mutually exclusive interpretations of the same spiritual realm?
Yes, but the scientific method is limited to the current crop of toys we have, and our limited knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 08-07-2010 1:09 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by ringo, posted 08-09-2010 11:10 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 155 of 271 (572998)
08-09-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by riVeRraT
08-09-2010 11:06 AM


riVeRraT writes:
ringo writes:
The scientific method deliberately weeds out subjectivity by way of repeatability and peer review. The "spiritual realm" is entirely subjective. Otherwise, why would there be so many mutually exclusive interpretations of the same spiritual realm?
Yes, but the scientific method is limited to the current crop of toys we have, and our limited knowledge
That still puts it miles ahead of any investigation into the "spiritual realm", for which we have no toys at all and no objective knowledge.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 11:06 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by sac51495, posted 08-12-2010 7:10 AM ringo has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 156 of 271 (573000)
08-09-2010 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Stile
08-09-2010 10:30 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
"Stile writes:
Yes, I know. I agreed with you in that previous post. My point is that "lack of being able to detect it" also doesn't provide a rational or reasonable basis to think it actually exists.
Now we are making a second circle. The basis to think it(God) exists is the bible, and all that was taught before it was even written. It's Jesus's words to us, that make you think, and get you started. It is Love.
Almost everything in the bible is subjective, that is why faith is required. I believe there is only two places in the bible where God says how to test Him.One way is this:
Malachi 3:10
Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.
The second is this:
Romans 12:2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will ishis good, pleasing and perfect will.
Gideon tested what he was hearing from God:
Judges 6
36 Gideon said to God, "If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised- 37 look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said." 38 And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dewa bowlful of water.
39 Then Gideon said to God, "Do not be angry with me. Let me make just one more request. Allow me one more test with the fleece. This time make the fleece dry and the ground covered with dew." 40 That night God did so. Only the fleece was dry; all the ground was covered with dew.
But then there are several places in the bible that it tells us not to test God, but in these places it is part of a specific lesson, not a global statement. So the bible would appear to contradict itself, if you take things out of context.
Gideons test was pretty objective, but not a double blind controlled experiment. The other tests, are subjective also. So no where in the bible are we told to objectively test God's existence. It is all subjective. We are to have faith. If God exists, and He is the creator of the universe we live in, I would think that He could hide Himself from all objective tests for Him. So not being able to "objectively" find God, does not make me lose faith. Sometimes personal subjectivity is all you need. Personal subjectivity is the basis for many things in your life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Stile, posted 08-09-2010 10:30 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Stile, posted 08-09-2010 12:02 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 157 of 271 (573004)
08-09-2010 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by riVeRraT
08-09-2010 11:26 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
riVeRraT writes:
Gideons test was pretty objective, but not a double blind controlled experiment.
Objective within the confines of the Bible... and the Bible is far from being objectively true. Therefore, Gideon's test does nothing to give us anything objective currently.
The other tests are subjective also. So no where in the bible are we told to objectively test God's existence. It is all subjective. We are to have faith. If God exists, and He is the creator of the universe we live in, I would think that He could hide Himself from all objective tests for Him. So not being able to "objectively" find God, does not make me lose faith. Sometimes personal subjectivity is all you need. Personal subjectivity is the basis for many things in your life.
I agree. All I'm saying is that all these subjective things (including the things based on personal subjectivity in my life) are irrational and unreasonable reasons to believe that something actually exists in reality. I agree that you "are to have faith". I'm just pointing out that such faith is irrational and unreasonable simply because "He could hide Himself from all objective tests for Him". If we can't detect anything, then there's nothing to base any rational and reasonable judgements upon.
Let me state it this way:
It is irrational and unreasonable for me to claim that my wife loves me because of the personally subjective feelings of love I get when I think of her.
It is rational and reasonable for me to claim that my wife loves me because:
-she doesn't cheat on me
-she smiles and laughs and appears to enjoy my company
-she says she loves me
-she goes out of her way to help build our lives together
However, NONE of these rational and reasonable reasons PROVE that my wife loves me (equivalent to the "science doesn't prove things" stuff you always hear about)
They are only rational and reasonable reasons to build a theory that my wife loves me.
This theory can (potentially) be falsified by many things:
-my wife cheating on me
-my wife saying she doesn't love me anymore and serving me with divorce papers
-my wife sabotaging our lives and purposefully making things difficult for me
And again with God:
It is irrational and unreasonable for me to claim that God exists because of the personally subjective feelings I get when I think of Him.
It is rational and reasonable for me to claim that God exists because:
-???
-there are no points here because God is not detectable
Because we don't have any rational and reasonable points to use, we cannot create a "God really does exist" theory. Without any of those points, any theory is unfalsifiable as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 11:26 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 5:52 PM Stile has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 158 of 271 (573084)
08-09-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Stile
08-09-2010 12:02 PM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
"Stile" writes:
Objective within the confines of the Bible... and the Bible is far from being objectively true. Therefore, Gideon's test does nothing to give us anything objective currently.
That's what you see when you look at that? What that story tells me is that we can ask God questions like that. I have had a few similar experiences similar to that story. So I don't have to believe the story itself, but take comfort in knowing that stories like that can still happen today.
If we can't detect anything, then there's nothing to base any rational and reasonable judgements upon.
If we can't detect anything objectively is what you meant?
You know, sometimes a thing can happen only once in your lifetime, and you know it happened, it cannot be objectively tested. Does that mean it didn't happen?
It is rational and reasonable for me to claim that my wife loves me because:
-she doesn't cheat on me
-she smiles and laughs and appears to enjoy my company
-she says she loves me
-she goes out of her way to help build our lives together
But that does not objectively prove that she really loves you.
This theory can (potentially) be falsified by many things:
-my wife cheating on me
-my wife saying she doesn't love me anymore and serving me with divorce papers
-my wife sabotaging our lives and purposefully making things difficult for me
This proves nothing either. She may actually still love you, just have problems.
It is rational and reasonable for me to claim that God exists because:
-???
-there are no points here because God is not detectable
There are plenty of points, you just choose to ignore them, and explain them away to more rational(earthly) things.
Don't make the mistake of thinking we have to "claim" God exists. We shouldn't do that imo. I have found the only way to show people that God exists, is to love them, the way He loves me. That is the only way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Stile, posted 08-09-2010 12:02 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by bluescat48, posted 08-09-2010 6:00 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 160 by Stile, posted 08-09-2010 8:56 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 159 of 271 (573089)
08-09-2010 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by riVeRraT
08-09-2010 5:52 PM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
There are plenty of points, you just choose to ignore them, and explain them away to more rational(earthly) things.
Please show some of these points.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 5:52 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2010 9:16 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 160 of 271 (573111)
08-09-2010 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by riVeRraT
08-09-2010 5:52 PM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
riVeRraT writes:
That's what you see when you look at that?
No. We weren't talking about what I see when I look at that in the general sense. We were talking about how I see that applying to our topic. And yes, that's how I see it applying to our topic about detecting God.
If we can't detect anything objectively is what you meant?
Yes, that's what this topic is about. Did you read the opening post? I'll quote it for you here:
killinghurts writes:
By 'detect' I mean "to discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of".
Sounds pretty objective to me.
riVeRraT writes:
But that does not objectively prove that she really loves you.
I agree. That's why I said none of that proves she loves me.
This proves nothing either. She may actually still love you, just have problems.
I think it's more likely that her concept of "love" isn't the same as my concept of "love"... in which case, as far as I'm concerned... she doesn't love me.
There are plenty of points, you just choose to ignore them, and explain them away to more rational(earthly) things.
If you have any points on how to detect God, objectively (as this topic is about), please go ahead and let everyone know.
Don't make the mistake of thinking we have to "claim" God exists. We shouldn't do that imo. I have found the only way to show people that God exists, is to love them, the way He loves me. That is the only way.
An excellent plan. Although that really wouldn't "show me" that God exists. It would just show me that you're a nice person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 5:52 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2010 9:22 AM Stile has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 161 of 271 (573175)
08-10-2010 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by bluescat48
08-09-2010 6:00 PM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
bluescat48" writes:
Please show some of these points.
Well I expressed some of them in this thread, and throughout this forum. Not trying to be a wise guy, but you could read the bible, and not take it out of context by going to a reputable bible study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by bluescat48, posted 08-09-2010 6:00 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by bluescat48, posted 08-10-2010 11:43 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 162 of 271 (573176)
08-10-2010 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Stile
08-09-2010 8:56 PM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
"Stile" writes:
No. We weren't talking about what I see when I look at that in the general sense. We were talking about how I see that applying to our topic. And yes, that's how I see it applying to our topic about detecting God.
Then you are just as guilty as a televangelist who takes things of the bible our of context, and use the words for whatever he wants.
I showed you that because of all the subjective stuff in the bible, that was pretty objective.
Yes, that's what this topic is about. Did you read the opening post? I'll quote it for you here:
Don't get testy, I was just asking.
I think it's more likely that her concept of "love" isn't the same as my concept of "love"... in which case, as far as I'm concerned... she doesn't love me.
Which proves one of my points. Love is subjective, but it exists. There is no fail safe "love detector".
If you have any points on how to detect God, objectively (as this topic is about), please go ahead and let everyone know.
I've been trying to tell you for the last bunch of posts, that there is no objective test for God. That is not the point I am trying to make, so stop trying to refute it.
An excellent plan. Although that really wouldn't "show me" that God exists. It would just show me that you're a nice person.
Yep, and God would do the rest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Stile, posted 08-09-2010 8:56 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Stile, posted 08-11-2010 2:05 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 163 of 271 (573205)
08-10-2010 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by riVeRraT
08-10-2010 9:16 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
Well I expressed some of them in this thread, and throughout this forum. Not trying to be a wise guy, but you could read the bible, and not take it out of context by going to a reputable bible study.
That is one of the problems. If one goes to a Bible study from church A and then to one from Church B, one gets to different interpretations of a Biblical story, totally subjective. Back when I was still theist, I had gone to six different Christian denomination churches and that was like going to six different universes.
Edited by bluescat48, : clarity

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2010 9:16 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by riVeRraT, posted 08-12-2010 7:34 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 164 of 271 (573470)
08-11-2010 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by riVeRraT
08-10-2010 9:22 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
riVeRraT writes:
Then you are just as guilty as a televangelist who takes things of the bible out of context, and uses the words for whatever he wants.
I showed you that because of all the subjective stuff in the bible, that was pretty objective.
...but it's not objective at all. There's nothing about it that can be shown to be objectively true. It's just a unverified claim that is claimed to be shown in an objective way. That's not objective in the sense of being any help in detecting God, objective things can be verified.
Don't get testy, I was just asking.
Don't get sensitive, I was just saying.
Which proves one of my points. Love is subjective, but it exists. There is no fail safe "love detector".
But that wasn't the point. The point was that there is a fail-safe "love detector" for me to identify if my wife loves me. Based upon the rational and reasonable indications that my wife loves me. The additional point was that there is not any rational and reasonable indications that can be used to detect God.
I've been trying to tell you for the last bunch of posts, that there is no objective test for God. That is not the point I am trying to make, so stop trying to refute it.
Then perhaps we agree and there is no futher point in discussion. It is currently irrational and unreasonable to assert that God can be detected... because He can't.
Yep, and God would do the rest.
Or not. It's quite possible that the reason God cannot be detected is because God does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2010 9:22 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by riVeRraT, posted 08-12-2010 7:47 AM Stile has replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 165 of 271 (573608)
08-12-2010 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by ringo
08-09-2010 11:10 AM


Science: objective? Nah.
Ringo,
Yes, but the scientific method is limited to the current crop of toys we have, and our limited knowledge
That still puts it miles ahead of any investigation into the "spiritual realm", for which we have no toys at all and no objective knowledge.
Give me an example of a scientific proof for the existence of something. For example: gravity, the sun, etc...We'll see just how objective that proof really is...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by ringo, posted 08-09-2010 11:10 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 7:15 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 171 by jar, posted 08-12-2010 10:37 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 08-12-2010 11:59 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024