Choosing a faith

I wouldn't worry about academic schooling. It's largely inconsequential.
What matters more is how much you want to understand critical thinking - looking for the truth.For everything we discuss (I mean EVERYTHING, not just on this webpage) we all have to decide if we want to discuss it in a way that "feels right" or a way that "follows reality." Feeling right is the human default. Following reality is difficult and takes extra monitoring and effort. Different topics will produce different priorities.Example: When trying to build a house, I hope the builders will follow reality 100% as opposed to what they feel is right.
Example: When looking for a partner, I hope the following reality side and feeling right sides are more 50-50.It can become difficult when discussing something like purpose.When you or I are looking for our own purpose, I hope that the feeling right side is quite high.
However, when you and I are discussing what purpose is and which purpose is better in whatever situation... I hope we move closer to following reality.It takes constant monitoring and effort to judge each idea/situation and identify if you should be feeling right or following reality.
Once that's identified, it again takes more constant effort to ensure one follows reality to help achieve the goal (even if the goal is to feel right!)That's what critical thinking is all about.
It's more of a personal choice on following truth and learning when to apply it rather than any amount of academic learning can provide.
Besides - I always found my academically-leaning peers to be rather... too busy sticking their heads up their own asses to care about reality. This would seem to imply that the act of giving the junior the task actually sets the junior's purpose.
This is incorrect, and against reality.
Any teacher (especially those with more than 10 students) will tell you that setting a task doesn't give the student purpose.
It may very well be the teacher's purpose to have the student complete the task. But the student always decides for themselves if they want to comply or not.If the teacher providing the task actually set the student's purpose in reality... there would be no such thing as students that "act out" or "don't want to participate."It is the student's own act of willingly complying that sets the student's purpose. Not the act of the teacher providing the task.A subtle, but extremely important, distinction. If the student wants it that much... absolutely possible, yes. Just like Bad-Ass Stone Mason Stile. I wouldn't say that all the purposes in our lives form our basic nature.
All the purposes in our lives more form our day-to-day existence.
But many people's day-to-day existence is more of a struggle that they do not particularly like. This is because all those purposes go against their basic nature. That is... they do not align with their feelings on what their priorities should be... so they feel ineffective on their actual priorities... which causes feelings of wasted time, frustration and depression.Some people are lucky enough to have all the purposes in their lives form their day-to-day existence in a way that aligns with their basic nature. These are generally very happy people. They feel like many of their actions are actively working towards the goals they hold as high priorities. They feel engaged, useful and in control of their lives.So, "all the purposes in our lives" do not form our basic nature. Our basic nature is whatever it happens to be... whatever feelings each individual human may have on what priorities they hold.
Having "all the purposes in our lives" match that basic nature or not... is what causes happy people vs. unhappy people. Sure.
And some will be very happy doing such things (like GDR and Stile) because it matches our basic nature and are things we personally hold as high priorities.
And others will be very sad doing such things (like Bad-Ass Stone Mason Stile) because it doesn't match their basic nature and takes time away from them focusing on their actual high priorities. Again - Sure.
And some will be very happy doing such things (like Hitler and some Politicians/1%-people) because it matches their basic nature and are things they personally hold as high priorities.
And others will be very sad doing such things (like GDR and Stile and Bad-Ass Stone Mason Stile) because it doesn't match their basic nature and takes time away from them focusing on their actual high priorities. No - very wrong.
These things do not form our basic nature.
Our basic nature is "basic"... it isn't formed. It just "is." It's the feelings we have, the priorities we hold.
What matters is if these actions happen to match our basic nature or not. That's what will make us happy or not.Notice that Bad Ass Stone Mason Stile wasn't happy in either of those situations... because he just wants to make bad ass ornaments, and isn't allowed to in either of the scenarios you provided. Again, wrong.
It would be our ultimate purpose if it happened to match our basic nature.Stile and GDR had ultimate purpose when all the purposes in their lives aligned with their basic nature.Hitler and some politicians/1%-people had ultimate purpose when all the purposes in their lives aligned with their basic nature.Bad-Ass Stone Mason Stile will only have ultimate purpose if all the purposes in his life aligns with making bad ass ornaments.You and I can sit and judge Bad-Ass Stone Mason Stile's purpose as "lower" if we want.
We can call Hitler's and some politicians/1%-people a "terribly unfulfilling purpose" if we want....and they can say the same to us, equally so, and equally true.This is what makes none of them an "ultimate purpose" for everyone. Sure.
God can have such an ultimate purpose.
And GDR may agree with that purpose, and if GDR's basic nature aligns with that purpose then it can be GDR's ultimate purpose as well.But it will never be Bad-Ass Stone Mason's ultimate purpose - because it takes a way from him making bad ass ornaments.
To suggest that Bad-Ass Stone Mason Stile "should" take on God's ultimate purpose, is nothing short of arrogant, rude and extremely uncaring towards Bad-Ass Stone Mason Stile. Even if it's what God wants. If it works for you, I wish you all the best.Just as I wish Bad-Ass Stone Mason Stile all the best in making the most bad ass ornaments he can.You do you. I parsed your post quite a lot. I hope it's not too long or confusing.
My feeling is that you're getting closer... but still not seeing the difference between "personally judging purpose for everyone" vs. "purpose coming from within."

If you want to and have time, bump: Message 1334

I think we need to be careful here.I'm going to parse some more and discuss further because it's a pet-hobby of mine. I think this is missing a few steps/key-points.
-If the problem is objective, (like... did evolution occur? or is the earth round?) and we cannot make an objective conclusion... the correct course of action is not to make a conclusion as-best-we-can otherwise.
-The correct course of action is to acknowledge that we don't have enough information and conclude that we cannot make a conclusion... wait for more information. Identify that we should wait, and then actually wait. That's the correct course of action and what should be done. Sometimes this is the hardest decision to make.
-Of course, some conclusions are time-sensitive and need to be made before all the information is available
-For these situations, we do have to make a conclusion (or, at least, "a decision") as-best-we-can and hope for the best. In these situations our expectation/risk of being wrong should be increased dramaticallyPlease note: At no point did I use the term "subjective conclusion." I said to proceed as-best-we-can. That is: we guess. A guess can be subjective if you want to go with your 'gut feeling' on the matter. However, a guess can also be objectively-based if it's an extrapolation of applicable objective data. Both are still guesses. And which one we should go with depends on the situation, the time constraint, the availability and applicability of objective data, the experience and motives of the one making the subjective guess... all sorts of things. An analysis of the situation should be done in order to judge if one should proceed with an objective-based-guess or a subjective-based-guess.Now, that's all only if the problem is objective. What if the problem is subjective? (Ex: what is my favourite colour? am I feeling happy or sad? what are my feelings in reaction to this or that situation?)
-If the problem is subjective... then objective conclusions should not be used. No one chooses red as their favourite colour because it has the longest wavelength - unless they've already subjectively identified that "whatever the longest wavelength is" will be their favourite colour. The objective conclusion has nothing to do with the subjective question. What makes "longest-wavelength" a "better" favourite colour? It's non-sensical. Subjective conclusion always comes from within. Soul-searching, personal-reflection... whatever you want to call it. Think about your personal priorities/feelings/condition and identify your own answer. You are the be-all-and-end-all-highest-authority on getting this answer "right." Attempting to use objective data to influence a subjective decision only leads to confusion and likely incorrect identification of what your subjective answer actually is.The power of a subjective answer for a subjective problem is that you actually can be 100% correct if you truthfully reflect on your own priorities/feelings and correctly identify your answer.
Objective answers, even for objective problems, can never be 100% correct as there's always the possibility of us not objectively knowing all the information affecting the situation.The power of an objective answer, for objective problems, is that they have an incredible track-record of being vastly closer to the truth over subjective answers for objective problems.So, the process becomes:1. Identify if the problem itself is subjective vs. objective2. Based on #1, identify if you should be looking for subjective vs. objective answers.3. Based on #2, use the best-method-known for identifying the most-likely-to-be-correct answer
-if subjective, reflect and identify
-if objective, use the scientific method or any other evidence/reality based method as much as possibleMany questions become complicated as they are blurred.
Take "who do I want to marry?"
-this involves a heavy subjective side (attraction, happiness...)
-but also involves a heavy objective side (kind, stable, supportive...)
The answers become complicated as one will need to sort through all the subjective/objective sides and use correct subjective/objective methods for each individual area.
Please note: I'm using the word "complicated" and not "difficult" on purpose. Complications themselves come with a level of difficulty... but, really, it's not all that difficult. Just a bit time-consuming to review, differentiate and identify. The subject of this discussion is, basically, God's purpose for humans vs our own individual purpose and which is "better" - no?I see purpose as being a subjective problem.
That is, the answer comes from within, and the only one with the authority to answer a within-question at the highest level is: that person themselves.
Regardless of how knowledgeable or powerful a God may or may not be... His best hope would be to match the answer that the person themselves identifies.As for judging which purpose is "better" than another purpose...
This again seems extremely subjective.
Which again leads to suggestions of "objective purpose" as a default wrong-answer.This isn't a personal bias, this is just how objective vs subjective things work.
I'm open to being shown wrong... but it would take describing how "purpose" works differently than I currently think it does and showing that it's accurate in reality. Some atheists decide that, sure.
But to say this as if it implies most atheists do such a thing is pretty incorrect.In general, being an atheist means you don't believe in God.
However, evidence is usually a pretty big thing to an atheist.
Show evidence that a cosmic intelligence exists... and they'll believe it.
Show evidence that that the resurrection is historical... and they'll believe it.
Without such evidence... they likely will not believe it... but I don't see how that is a "bias" as opposed to just "being reasonable." I didn't intend to suggest that it was.
My description of our "basic nature" was about the way we are.
Of course, the "way we are" is influenced by many things. Nature (our DNA and genetics) as well as Nurture (our experiences and decisions we make.)
Our DNA doesn't really change. However, as our experiences and the decisions we make change... so will our "basic nature."
My point is that, whatever it is... our basic nature simply "is what it is" at any point in time. It is not defined by what purposes we currently have ongoing in our day-to-day lives, but more defined by the experiences (including our desires/hopes/dreams) we actually go through during our day-to-day lives.

The question of God existing or not isn't waiting more information.
That was done in the first 10 years of the question.We are... thousands of years past that?We've collected as much information as any question could ever have in order to obtain an answer.
It's analogies like this one: Message 3205 that keep re-enforcing the idea that we do, indeed, have all the information we'll ever need on God's existence. I wasn't sure how to read this one.
When you said "you" were you attempting to address me? My family and I have never had anything but good experiences with organized religion.Maybe the "you" was actually talking about yourself? It just doesn't seem to make sense with what I remember of your history, but maybe I'm just confused. I'm not honest in the hopes that some God might judge me this way or that way.
I'm honest because I took a look at myself, and the choices I have and I decided that I want to be honest because I thought it was right.
If an all-powerful God happens to agree - great. But, really, I don't care. I don't see "power" as something to respect in and of itself. I think agnosticism is more for those who think it's unknowable to believe in God or not.To say "God needs more time" to show His existence... and call that agnosticism seems like pushing the definition pretty far... in a consistent sense, anyway.
If someone is agnostic on God and "awaiting more information" they would also need to be agnostic on everything and "awaiting more information."
Even gravity.
There's always room for more information in the future.
There's something about gravity that will change in the future - it's guaranteed. Simply because we know we don't know everything about it right now. There are hints screaming at us that we don't know everything about gravity.God's existence is even worse... there isn't even a hint that we don't know everything there is to know about God's existence.
The only possibility that exists lies in "we don't know everything."
But that's not a place for agnosticism... that's just a place for, well, everything.No normal person would say that they are agnostic on gravity.

I rambled, a lot.
And in a few different directions.In hind-sight, that post was more for me than anything else... I enjoyed writing it I'm not sure how to read that.Do you mean "Stile's out to lunch... atheists hold their beliefs due to a personal conviction and would never change their thoughts."?
-in which case... I think you're wrong, for the vast majority of atheistsOr do you mean "Ah, I see now, I originally thought atheists held their beliefs the way I hold mine, but perhaps they don't..."? Yes, many atheist-bashers seem to push this really, really hard. It's easier to hate on something if you cram a bunch of negative things into the same box/idea.
I don't see many atheists actually ascribing to this, though...The closest I've seen is atheists actually saying they believe only the material exists... because nothing beyond the material has ever been shown to exist. Therefore, they tend to assume that all things have a materialistic-based answer... since those are the only answers that have ever worked for any question that's ever been answered before.But I've never heard of an atheist that would deny something "beyond the material" if it were shown to be true.This is the difference between evidence-based vs. personal-conviction-based.Personal conviction says:
1. I believe THIS.
2. Nothing can change my mind.Evidence based says:
1. I'll assume THIS based on what's previously happened.
2. I'll change my mind when you show me something different.In day-to-day life, the two are almost identical.
The differences only pop up when something new appears and that "new thing" goes against their previous beliefs/assumptions, but not even in the beginning. Only later.Evidence-based says: I wonder why that happened... what can I do to learn about it? I'm not changing my previous assumptions until I can show that something new really did happen.
Personal-Conviction-based says: I know why that happened. I'm not changing my beliefs.At this point, the two are still acting exactly the same. Neither has changed their current course of actions.
It's only the reasoning that's different.Once something's shown and identified, though... that's where the difference comes in:Evidence-based says: Oops. Guess I was wrong about that, I'll have to change and account for this new information.
Personal-Conviction-based says: I know why that happened, this explanation doesn't make sense. I'm not changing my beliefs. Evidence to support the position that there's nothing beyond materialism?
-there's the same amount of evidence for this that there is for Santa not being real
-everything we've ever learned about it says it's true
-all it takes is for one Santa to exist to overturn the assumption
-all it takes is for one thing "beyond materialism" to exist to overturn the assumption Yes, this is what I see from most atheists as well.
And, if the evidence ever supported the idea... then most atheists would no longer reject the idea.But this isn't really an "atheist" thing.
This is an evidence-based vs. personal-conviction-based belief thing.
It doesn't matter if one is atheist or not. Just turns out that way due to the nature of the question. You can find whatever you'd like.
The evidence paints a different picture.
There is nothing we know or identify about this existence that doesn't have a materialistic answer.
People have been pushing and pushing and pushing for non-material answers for thousands of years. But they're always shown to be wrong. Or else they just push to a smaller and smaller area of "we don't know yet."
At some point, if you're interested in "truth and knowledge," it's just reasonable to pick the side that's making the most progress in that field. Well, except for when things are based on evidence.
Then it's all about facts and extrapolation using our tools with the best track-record of identifying the unknown.One has a terrible track record for identifying truth and knowledge.
The other has a fantastic track record.I don't really see it as much of a competition.

They can be.
But they don't have to be.Theism must be a belief - because there is no evidence.
The idea of materialism can be a belief - if one hasn't looked at the evidence and just believes in it.
But the idea of materialism can also be an assumption based on evidence, not a belief, if one looks at the evidence and follows where it leads. Evidence is "something that can be shown to be valid."
And a collection of evidence will only ever lead to conclusions based on confidence levels... higher levels (lots of evidence) and lower levels (not very much evidence.)
When speaking non-scientific language, I like to call these conclusions "assumptions." As that's, basically, what they are... something assumed to be true based on the evidence, but if new evidence is ever identified to call the assumption into question... then the assumption must change.If you're using a different definition of evidence, I'd like to hear what it is, but it very likely has issues that means it is not actually evidence. It is evidence that we exist, that the world can be beautiful or ugly, with love and hate, with peace and war etc.What makes you think that such things are "evidence" of anything more? You "finding" something or "thinking" something isn't evidence at all.
Evidence is something that can be shown to be valid.
You "finding" something or "thinking" something cannot be shown to be valid. Or, at least, you haven't provided anything that shows it to be valid.
All you have to do is show it to be valid... and then it becomes evidence.But personal sensations, feelings, opinions, desires, needs... have all been shown to be invalid ways to decipher truth about reality.
We've known this for thousands of years.
It's very intuitive to think it is actually evidence... which is why an explicit method (like the scientific method) is usually used to ensure that it's not involved. Because it is very easy to show that these sorts of things are not and cannot be considered evidence in any way. They include too much risk and lower the confidence level of the assumption so much as to make it nothing more than a wish. What I think constitutes evidence isn't something I made up. It's not something I hold personally. It's what the human race has learned over thousands of years to be our very best method in identifying the truth about reality.If you don't agree with it, then you're not using our best available method for identifying the truth about reality... in which case... why would anyone believe you when you make a claim about what reality is like?Isn't it reasonable to expect someone that is interested in identifying the truth of reality to use the best available method we know of for identifying the truth about reality? There is evidence.
There is lots and lots and lots of evidence that shows that having an idea with no connection to reality and offering it as a possibility is almost always wrong. Wrong to a very, very high confidence level. An extremely good assumption, based on evidence, would be that it's an incorrect description of reality.I agree that you don't want there to be evidence for such a conclusion.
But it does exist. You can ignore it, but the only way to make it go away would take a lot of book-burning and (now) digital-data-destruction. Science can easily examine the plan.
Science examines the plan all the time. Usually by questionnairres in double-blind studies. This identifies "the plan" and is used in much scientific research in all sorts of fields/areas.You seem to be suggesting that "a Planner" has "a plan" and then saying "well, you can't identify a plan... so you don't know if the Planner exists or not."But this isn't valid.Science can, and does, identify plans all the time. They just ask the Planners.
Of course, if you are proposing a Planner that cannot be asked because you cannot show that the Planner even exists in the first place... well, then the problem is with you showing your Planner to exist. Not with science having issues with identifying plans. I don't think that's true.
The material is all we've found so far to be able to deal with.
But I don't have a problem dealing with anything that's non-material.
Any evidence-based scientist wouldn't have a problem dealing with anything that's non-material... it just needs to be shown to exist, to be valid. Since your first statement isn't true, your conclusion isn't true either.
Non-material answers are fine.
They just need to be shown to be valid. There's nothing limiting anyone to only examine the material.
I would love to examine something non-material. It sounds fascinating.
We can examine the material and the non-material... all it has to do is be there for us to examine.
So far, we've discovered that "the material" is the only thing there for us to examine.And, after examining "everything that we're able to examine" we do see that the evidence leads us to a high confidence assumption that we have a mindless origin, and not an intelligent origin.If you have anything you can show to be valid that should be taken into account or can alter this assumption... there's a Nobel Prize in it for you.
If you don't have anything you can show to be valid that can be taken into account to alter this assumption... what makes you think it's an "equal" decision between the two options? We don't only examine material evidence.
We examine all evidence that's possible to be examined. This includes material and non-material and philosophical thought and theological thought.
1. No non-material evidence has ever been shown to be valid, so it cannot be included. You are free to change this, if you can show non-material evidence to be a valid indicator of the truth of reality.
2. Philosophical thought has been shown to be a very low confidence indicator of the truth of reality. It's usually wrong. Why would anyone include this if they want to identify the truth about reality? You are free to change this, if you can show philosophical thought to be a valid indicator of the truth of reality.
3. Theological thought has been shown to be a very low confidence indicator of the truth of reality. It's usually wrong. Why would anyone include this if they want to identify the truth about reality? You are free to change this, if you can show theological thought to be a valid indicator of the truth of reality.
4. The only one left to use as evidence is the material evidence we have that we can show to be valid. And, yes, this leads us to a high confidence assumption that we have a mindless origin.What part of that would you like to change that you can show to be valid?
Science loves to be shown to be wrong. It means we're learning something new and getting closer to the truth about reality.You seem to be saying "you only use #4! That means you're purposefully ignoring what #1, #2 and #3 have to add to the conversation! You're biased!"
But what's actually happening is that I'm using #1, #2, #3 and #4 all together... it's just that #1, #2 and #3 don't have anything to add to identifying reality (so far.) So all I'm left with is #4. And I'm totally open to to using #1 or #2 or #3 or #5 or #117 or anything else you'd like to propose... as long as you show it to be helpful in identifying the truth of reality... as long as you show it to be valid.Why do you find that unreasonable when looking for the truth about reality?
Are you sure you actually want to identify the truth about reality? Or are you chasing something else?

Hi Phat, hope all is well. Stressed. Busy.
Looking to move from Canada to USA based on Canada's failing/troubled healthcare system and attempting to get proper care for my wife's health issues.
Luckily, wifey has very good family in Chicago-area we're close with and they're willing to sponsor me and house us for a bit upon approval. So many major hurdles are taken care of for us. However, it's still a very stressful transition, and a years-long process (I'm about 1 year into it right now.) I like to think I get along with Dredge and Kleinman, too... even if they don't want to get along with me Why do you think that is?There's lots of objective evidence by supernatural events in any form they've ever been depicted.
-werewolves leave long wolf-like hair behind, and the human-to-wolf transition can be monitored (source -> I was a Teenage Werewolf, Underworld...)
-vampires have no reflection and can grow their fangs within seconds (source -> True Blood, Blade...)
-wizards and magic can be seen and the results can be felt and measured (source -> Harry Potter, Dr. Strange...)
-miracles occur and their results can be monitored and measured (source -> Bible, Koran...)
-God interacts with humans and such interactions can be monitored and measured (source -> Bible, Koran...)So, on what grounds do you say that the Supernatural never leaves objective evidence?If, indeed, the Supernatural never leaves objective evidence:
-never makes sound-waves, so the Supernatural can never be heard
-never reflects light, so the Supernatural can never be seen
-never moves an atom, so the Supernatural can never be felt
-never adjusts brain-waves, so the Supernatural can never inject thoughts/voices into your soul...if all that is true, as you seem to claim, how do you (or anyone else) know anything about the Supernatural?
Seems like by saying "the Supernatural never leaves evidence!" you're admitting that everything we describe/understand about the Supernatural comes from our own made-up imagination.Just like this exchange from Pirates of the Caribbean - Curse of the Black Pearl:Pirate #1 - "Black Pearl? I've heard stories. She's been preying on ships and settlements for near ten years."
Pirate #2 - "Never leaves any survivors."
Captain Jack Sparrow - "No survivors. Then where do the stories come from, I wonder?"If you think the Supernatural has ever:
-made a sound
-been seen
-been felt
-injected thoughts into someone's soul
...then you're claiming that the Supernatural does, indeed, leave objective evidence. I don't think personal testimonies are worthless.
They are very worthwhile. Especially when many, many join together and the opposing side is only very few, and has great motivation for lying.But, you seem to be the one who thinks personal testimonies are worthless.For every 1000 people with a "the Supernatural did it!" testimony... there are 1000 others with a "no, it wasn't the Supernatural...." testimony.
Why do you ignore the other, equally strong testimonies? Do you ignore them simply because they don't agree with you? That doesn't seem to reflect someone looking for the truth about reality.I don't ignore any of them.
But, when there are conflicting testimonies, and one side has great motivation for wanting something to be true... it really calls it into question and creates a low-confidence, high-risk-of-being-wrong scenario.It's just, well... that takes a long time to write out and explain. It's just easier/faster to say "personal testimony isn't evidence" because, in general... there usually are conflicting personal testimonies (or everyone knows there are on the God question) and so that isn't explicitly mentioned every single time. If we're looking for the truth of reality, I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion. The evidence vastly supports the idea that human definition really is the source of belief. The assumption, based on evidence, really is very sound. It is, of course, still just an assumption. If you can identify anything at all that can be shown to be a valid part of reality and also call this assumption into question... I (and all of science) would love you to provide it.Can you imagine how amazing and fantastic it would be to have a real investigation into a world we never new existed? It's like the first submarine being able to go underwater, or the first airplane flight, or the first time discovering a new island/continent... it's fascinating! Of course, many have tried, for thousands of years, and come up with nothing but more "human definition." Which is why the current assumption is so strong. That's a pretty good summary.If we're looking for "ways for GDR to be happy" - then I think mentioning the evidence requirement is unnecessary and quite possibly verging on being rude.
If we're looking for "the truth about reality" - then why wouldn't we bring up evidence as it's our best known method to identify the truth about reality? That seems very reasonable.So, what are you after, Phat? Do you just want to be happy? Or do you want to know the truth about reality?
You don't have to answer here, it doesn't matter much to me... it's a very personal question and each and every one of us needs to answer honestly in order to sleep soundly at night. If you don't answer that honestly, and you continue to mull about in this "controversy" - it's going to be very stressful for your mental health.

I was more talking in a very pulled-back general sense.There's a time and a place for everything.If GDR is in his own home, doing his own thing, loving his own family...
And doesn't tend to bring up such topics when:
-in general public discourse where one might think he's making a claim to reality
-in any setting where claims to reality are of a very high priority...then I think his beliefs/thoughts/ideas/personal-ways/culture/subjective-feelings should be respected and I would support very strongly protecting his ability to hold such thoughts as much as he'd like.
I think it would be extremely rude, perhaps even criminal, to interject oneself into GDR's life and bombard him with alternative claims/ideas/evidence/whatever.
I think GDR has a right to live his life the way he wants... within the boundaries of where such things should be protected.Of course, "EvC Forum" is sort of a public discourse where, if one wants to discuss the pros/cons/reality of such topics, they should congregate here and say whatever they would like at any point in time (according to general levels of respect.)
-in this sense, I absolutely agree with you that EvC is not the place to hold back from interjecting with another thought on the topic, no matter how GDR may feel about it.Otherwise known as: "Gotta pick your battles."

So are you. This argument seems to be saying that if you have a religious experience, it can make you believe in that religion.This implies that before people have these religious experiences... then they are "secular" as well.
This is what I mean what I say that you, too, are making secularism the default option.If you think a religious experience demonstrates a valid position for belief - that's great, have fun with that.As a whole, though, our collective best-ways-of-identifying-the-truth-of-reality have shown time and time again that "religious experience" is an awful way to identify the truth of reality, and is almost always very, very wrong in it's conclusions.Which brings most of us back to the position we both agree is the default and if you'd like to convince others that your religious experience should be persuasive to them... well, that seems like a steep cliff to climb. All we ask for is actual evidence... actually show us that what you're saying is true. Actually engage in what's been proven over and over again to be our best methods to identify the truth of reality.If you don't want to, or can't do that that... why do you begrudge us not believing you? How overpowering is your arrogance?

Quite possibly in contradiction to popular belief, I did attempt to trim this post down and remove duplicate-ish stuffs. I also moved some quotes around to make my own flow for this post, so it's not all in chronological order of your post. Just let me know if I trimmed something you really wanted me to focus on. The ones supported by the evidence.
The ones that are shown to be valid.
The ones that match ALL the things we experience, not just a personally-chosen subset.Please note the word "experience."
Seeing can be an experience, but it is not the only one.
Touching can be an experience, but it is not the only one.
Feeling can be an experience, but it is not the only one.
Material things can be an experience, but they are not the only ones.
Non-material things can be an experience, but they are not the only ones. Let's assume this is true.Why jump to a conclusion that God influenced you to make your decision?
Why not Satan, playing the long-con, pretending to be God in order to gain your trust your entire life so that your children will follow Satan, and he will have you and all your children be wonderful, nice people (following the good influence of Satan-that-you-think-is-God) so that he can actually do something evil with your great-great-great-grandchildren? After all, what's a few hundred years to the devil?
Why not something that's not God at all but has this God-like ability to help you reach such a conclusion?
Why not a Goddess you've never heard of?
Why not the God from another planet or universe?
Why not magic?
Why not Santa?
Why not leprechauns?
Why not nothing at all?
Why not "this is just how humans work"?We don't seem to have any evidence at all for most of those options.
We do seem to have some evidence for "this is just how humans work" - after all, for every other aspect of humanity we thought "came from God" - after some studies, we find that it was just "how humans work."If you want to identify the truth about reality - why not follow our best method for identifying the truth about reality?
If you want to follow one of the other options that's actually likely to be wrong (as we know is the case for other non-evidenced ideas) - perhaps you don't actually want to identify the truth about reality, and you actually want... something else? I would rather look at what we can find. Which would include looking at what we don't know.
If all we did was look at what we know - growth would be incredibly slow, and quite likely incorrect.
Correctness is measured by testing against reality (ie - evidence.)
Correctness is not measured by sitting around doing logical thinking and making logical conclusions. Science actually does use philosophical thought. There's even a subset focused on The Philosophy of Science
A few points of note:

• There was a time where philosophy was thought to be the best method of identifying truth (before our current understanding of science evolved)
  -the issues that arose are exactly why the current understanding of science evolved the way it did
  -the issues are, mainly, that it is quite possible for one to "logic" themselves into thinking certain things are true, when they are not
• The Philosophy of Science was actually used in order to stop relying on philosophy alone, and only incorporate it
  -use philosophy (and other logical thinking) to guide/lead scientific study into likely avenues of knowledge growth
  -ensure that philosophical (or other logical thinking) is not used to "identify conclusion"
  -ensure that all conclusions are tested against reality (ie - shown to be valid) in order to be a confident conclusion

It seems like you do not approve of this and that you think "the proper manner" should include more reliance on philosophical (or other logical thinking) in coming to actual conclusions about reality.
However, if you look into the history on this, this has been tried in history, and many times since then... and leads to simply being wrong way, way too often.-philosophical/logical thinking is known to often lead to being wrong about reality
-philosophical/logical thinking cannot confirm anything
-evidence is never wrong about reality, because evidence IS observations of reality... and is only known to lead to more knowledge about reality
-evidence can tell us when we're wrong about previous assumptions about reality, and evidence can confirm when previous assumptions are right about reality
-the only time we know when philosophical/logical thinking is correct, is when it is confirmed with evidenceScience has learned this, and this is exactly why science is the way it is.
Science does not ignore philosophical/logical thinking... this is a big part of science. It's used immensely in identifying areas of study (hypothesis) and methods of study (observations.) Just not the part used to confirm conclusions. Because it's known that it can't confirm or deny... only evidence can do that (as far we know right now.)This doesn't mean evidence is the only way to confirm/deny conclusions... it's just the only way we currently know of.
If you're able to identify another way, science is always looking to grow. You just have to show it to be valid.Example:Let's say we had a book.
A book from thousands of years ago.
This book contains many things - history, predictions, how to be a good person, why the world is the way it is.
Let's call this book The Vible.
If we were to study this book, and it was always verified... every historical account was accurate. Every prediction fulfilled perfectly. No one argued over its methods on how to be a good person (except for bad people) and the world actually was the way it said it was.
...The Vible would then become an extremely important part of Science.
Science would look to the Vible for answers... because it's always correct... the Vible has been shown to be valid.
Then, one day, Science realized that if they asked questions around the Vible in a certain way... the Vible would grow a new page with answers to those questions.
And those answers were always correct.
This would be even more evidence in the non-material aspects of the Vible and how it's always right.
And Science would depend more and more on the knowledge gained from reading the Vible.The point is:
Science doesn't care about material vs. non-material.
Science only wants to know about the truth about reality, by any means at all - any way that's shown to be valid.
This could be through evidence, or the Vible, or aliens, or GDR's opinion, or mob mentality, or non-material sources, or thoughts-being-injected-into-our-brains.
Science doesn't care - it just needs to be shown to be valid.The second it's shown to be invalid... then science dumps it and picks up the next best thing.
If you were to show that GDR's opinions are better than evidence for identifying the truth about reality - Science would scrap evidence in favour of talking to you. Science would only use evidence if GDR was too busy on other matters.
If you were to show The Vible actually existed - science would dump evidence completely and only use The Vible to make advancements and learn more about reality.Science doesn't care about the method. Only learning more about the truth of reality.
Science has merely developed "our best currently known method" for learning about the truth of reality.
And a big part of that method is philosophy! Just not the "measuring-correctness" part.

Are you sure?I think GDR indicates a similar idea.
I actually had a response for it in my post to GDR, but it didn't make the cut (which was still really long...) so you get it! I think you're actually talking about justification, and not evidence. Justification: The reason why we accept a conclusion, regardless of it's veracity.
Evidence: The validated observations of reality around a certain idea.Evidence can be used as justification to accept a conclusion - as is the case required by the current scientific method.
Some people ignore evidence and use other ideas as justification to accept a conclusion.The thing is, all evidence-based conclusions always match reality. Because evidence is simply observations/experiences of reality that have been shown to be valid.Examples of things currently shown to be valid:
-objective results
-repeated results (by anyone/everyone)
-anything that always matches realityA few examples, because I want to ramble: Idea: Green shoes allow the person to run faster than red shoes.
-I wore red shoes once, and I was slow
-I wore green shoes once, and I was fast
-if this is the only data we have, then it is evidence
-this is also justification that green shoes are faster than red shoes-but if we gain the following additional data, then the evidence changes:
-many others are faster while wearing red shoes
-studies show that neither colour is faster
-I'm also known to be faster when eating vegetables, and I had beer and wings for lunch the day I ran slow in red shoes
-me, personally, being faster in green shoes is no longer evidence that green shoes are faster than red shoes
-I can still use my personal experience to justify to myself that green shoes are faster - I'm just wrong about reality Idea: Dead people need coins to cross the river Styx
-studies have been done and this is shown to be false
-but what if the studies didn't show this to be false?
-what is the underworld was actually found?
-what if the river Styx was actually found?
-what if it was discovered that dead people really did need coins to cross the river Styx?
-then this is evidence of the supernatural
-then this is evidence of the non-material
-this is justification to believe in Charon (the one who carries souls over the river)
-this is not evidence to believe in CharonCharon would need his own evidence for those following the scientific method to conclude he exists, things like:
-talking to Charon
-finding his robe with the name "Charon" engraved on it, or other records, and they're not faked
-having the book that describes the river Styx and Charon also describe a lot of other things and every other thing in that book has been accurate, with no reasonable arguments to the contrary Idea: Evidence that God exists
-no one has ever been able to offer any evidence that God exists
-all offered ideas/items/situations/experiences can all be explained by other non-God thingsUsing evidence as the justification on if God exists or not leads to the conclusion that God does not exist.
Using "other ideas" as the justification on if God exists or not can lead to the conclusion that God does exist. You have your own experiences and ideas that give you justification that God exists.
There is no arguing over evidence... that's a part of what makes it evidence... it's been shown to be valid and there is no arguing over it.

No worries, mate. Yes, this is a very natural and normal thing to do.
Then comes the question: what do you want to prioritize out of "things that are shown to be valid?"

1. Do you want the truth about reality above how you feel or want things to be?
2. Do you want an answer quickly?
3. Do you want confirmation that what you "feel is right" actually is right?
4. Do you want a comforting feeling, regardless of how much the feeling matches reality?

I want all 4.However, I prioritize #1 over the others - because I want to know how things actually are and deal with other issues from there.If you really do want to prioritize #1... then you have to go beyond what's natural and normal to do. You have to put in more work. You have to make the effort to analyze and search for all results... not just the ones that confirm your feelings or give you comfort. Really? We have in the balance one of the most important (I'm guessing?) things in this existence - your immortal soul - and that's it? You're fine just waiting around until you just happen to find something that maybe points to the contrary?To me, when I'm interested in the truth of reality - I do the work.
I talk to other people who are experts in the subject.
I do Google searches.
I read things that make parts of my brain recoil in disgust as they are not traditional or "normal" to me.
I take the time to go and look and search because I want to know if it's real or not - regardless of how uncomfortable or uneasy it makes me feel.If you don't do those things - I suggest, again, that #1 isn't your priority. And something more like #2 or #3 or #4 is your priority.
This is not necessarily a "bad thing" - there are times I do not prioritize #1. Like if I'm in a hurry... then I'll jump to a conclusion I feel is right to move on quickly. And sometimes it turns out I'm right. And other times I end up losing more time then if I simply stopped and put in the work to figure it out in the first place...But, it is nice to know what you're doing and why you're doing it.When I want to know the truth about reality - I do everything in my power to chase that goal. And here we see one of your priorities coming to the surface..
Perhaps this is a #3 or a #4.
But, really, there's no way for you tell if God is influencing your decision or if Satan is tricking you.
And, yet... you seem confident enough to create a rationalization (with no connection to reality) that matches your existing, comforting beliefs on the matter.Clearly you are not prioritizing "getting to the truth" of this matter... but more prioritizing something like "that makes my brain feel better..." as the rationalization matches your past experiences.And, as long as you're not hurting anyone, I don't care if you want to prioritize feeling comfortable with your rationalization over looking at reality. It doesn't really matter. But, it does clearly show the difference between "looking for the truth of reality" vs. "believing in something that feels right to me." What are you talking about? I mean that seriously - what, specifically, are you talking about? Can you give me an example?There are some very, very non-important things that I will come to non-evidenced conclusions about knowing full well that others will come to entirely different conclusions..." Like "where do I want the family to go to dinner tonight?" I don't really care. I like spending time with the family - so I make damn sure that this happens... but I don't care where we actually go for food. I might pick one (not based on evidence, but based on how I'm feeling at the time...) to move things along... and it's fine if others come to different conclusions - who cares?Can you suggest an important example, though? Something you're actually talking about here?Something like "does God exist?"-I do not come to a non-evidenced conclusion about this.
I come to a very evidenced conclusion that "God does not exist."Yes, many others come to non-evidenced conclusions that God does exist... with (extremely) varying, and contradictory concepts of what "God" actually is.But that has no issues on my evidenced conclusion that God does not exist. If there is no scientific way of proving a point to be valid.. what makes you think the point is worth investigating at all?
Examples of points that cannot be scientifically proven to be valid:
-making a 4-sided triangle
-colliding an unstoppable object into an immovable wallNotice how they are illogical imaginary things. They are unevidenced to even exist.
They sound an awful lot like:
-God influences the decisions we make
-God wants us to be good
-God existsAll these things have no connection to reality in any way. They are all just imagined, made-up ideas.
What makes you think they are worth investigating?Now, these things are worth investigating:
-how many sides does a triangle have?
-how many objects can we make with 4 sides?
-is it possible to have an unstoppable movement?
-is it possible to have an immovable object?
-what influences our decisions?
-why should we be good?
-do we have to be good?These are all excellent questions, and they all have evidenced answers.
Some of those answers do not "feel very good" as they do not match our pre-conceived notions of what those answers "should feel like."
Some of those answers are "here's what we know so far... but please stay tuned as we are still working on the research..." Which goes back to prioritizing quick-answers (#2) over reality-connected-answers (#1)It all depends on your priorities - to you want to be as close as possible to reality with your answers?
-you may need to sacrifice your desire to want an answer "right now"
-you may need to sacrifice your desire to confirm your pet theory
-you may need to sacrifice feeling comfortable with your own conclusionsSome of us follow our best-way-of-knowing-things (evidenced answers) and use those conclusions (making the above sacrifices.)
Others will use non-evidenced imagination to create their own answers that confirm their feelings or are comfortable for them... and they've been shown to be ignorant of reality. Such people make other sacrifices... one if which is "ensuring the answer is connected to reality!" What makes you think that all questions deserve an answer?Is it because you want an answer? That you feel you need one?
I don't think those are good reasons. Not even philosophically.

It seems like your first idea is to make sure that people understand "there is a spiritual war going on!"
It seems like science's first idea is "how to we help society be better?"One doesn't really do anything.
The other is always attempting to improve, regardless of whether or not a war is going on.Which do you think will help more? The thing is, God has been investigated.When we investigate "how does the body work?"
-we don't have to find only natural processes
-it's quite possible for us to "find God" or other supernatural processes... we just didn't find theseWhen we investigate "how to be a good person?"
-it's quite possible for the answer to be "follow God."
-but the results of the investigation show that following God does not accelerate one's ability to be a good person over a normal, natural, human desire to be a good personWhen we investigate "how was the earth formed?"
-it's quite possible for the answer to be "God created it."
-but the results didn't show that, the results show that the earth formed due to normal, natural processesWhen we investigate "why are we here?"
-it's quite possible for the answer to be "because God put us here."
-but the results do not show that, the results show only normal, natural processesSo, in many, many ways... science does investigate God quite a lot.
It's just that God doesn't happen to be involved in, well, pretty much anything and everything people said He was "definitely" involved in. If you want to understand the truth of reality - there is a method that humans have developed that is extremely good at identifying the truth of reality.
If you want to "feel better" - then feel free to use any other method.I just don't understand why someone would proclaim to "want to know the truth" but then ignore the results of our best-known-method for "knowing the truth."It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Unless, of course, they are mistaken that their highest priority is "identification of the truth."

I can conceive of that.
I meant - people disagree on almost everything.But, when looking for the truth of reality - there's "the method that provides our best-known-way to identify the truth of reality" and their are "other methods."And, the thing is, everyone who uses an evidence-based-method-that's-shown-to-be-connected-to-reality all come to the same answer.
And everyone who has "a different conclusion" uses a different method and ignores certain aspects of our best-known-method.I don't see how you can profess that you "want to know the truth above anything" and then ignore our best-known-method for identifying the truth and come to conclusions based on different methods that are known to cause a high degree of being wrong. This is correct.
There is no way for me to tell the difference between God influencing my decision or if Satan is tricking me.
Which is why, according to an evidence-based process, I include neither in my conclusions on how our decisions are made.When you discuss "how our decisions are made" you include "God" when we're both well aware that God has never been shown to have any connection to reality. Just stories and imagination.Here, I'm following #1, while you're following #3 or #4 as higher than #1. Actually, I wish dearly that we had a God or something taking care of us and caring for us and making sure things turned out "right."
It would be nicer. I am now, yes - but I certainly didn't start that way.
Before, it was extremely uncomfortable for me to "not have an answer" and I was devoted to God because God was "an answer."
Now, after prioritizing #1 for so long that it's become my #3 and my #4... I think it's more amazing for something to develop from natural processes then it is for something with the power to create it to... exercise that power and create it.
One seems mysterious and amazing, the other... well... it doesn't seem very special as I do it every day (for the things I have the power to create, anyway.)But I already agreed that I was #1, #2, #3 and #4.
The idea is not to avoid #3 and #4 at all costs.
The idea is to not let #3 or #4 become a higher priority than #1, when looking for the truth of reality.And my acceptance of natural processes does not overcome my willingness to accept another explanation, if that explanation can be shown to be "closer to the truth of reality." The scientific method is one evidence-connected-to-reality based method.
But, so it checking my pocket to see if my car keys are in my pocket (and that's not the scientific method.)As well, the scientific method has no problems whatsoever examining the non-material.
It just so happens that we have yet to find any non-material anything in order to examine it.
But that's not science's fault. The current evidenced conclusion is that no pre-existing intelligence is required in order to have humans be the way humans are today.
We understand many, many natural processes that explain why humans are the way humans are today (including explanations for having large brains, and consciousness and laws/society and morality.)
There is much to learn, and much to grow in this area of study, and it is ongoing.Maybe tomorrow we will learn that God is necessary and included.
Maybe next week we will learn that Satan is necessary and included.
...but there is no indication from any evidence that is currently pointing in either of these directions.So, if anyone is following #1, the current conclusion must be "mindless."
If anyone happens to "come to a different conclusion" then they are obviously not holding #1 as a priority and are holding #2, #3 or #4 as a priority to come to conclusions that are, really, likely wrong - as they are not based on evidence-that-is-connected-to-reality.This is to not say that "mindless" is the "known-to-be-correct" answer... as the area of study is ongoing, and things therefore have a higher chance to identify new directions and head down other paths. But, if that's going to happen, then it needs to happen because it-can-be-shown-to-be-a-part-of-reality, and not because it makes anyone feel better. Why wouldn't it answer the question?If we examine and test all the evolutionary, chemical or any other processes... and we are able to evidentially show that humans are the way we are due to those evolutionary, chemical or any other processes... and those evolutionary, chemical or any other processes are all also shown to be "mindless" - why wouldn't this answer the question?
...because we're about 80% of the way down this path, and this is exactly what it's showing so far.If you follow #1, you have to accept that this is an answer to the question. There's no reason for it not to be an answer.The only reason it "can't answer the question" would be if you didn't want it to answer the question (for whatever reason.) And this would be #3 or #4 taking priority over #1. How do you investigate something, in an attempt to see if it is "connected to reality," without being able to show that your investigation is connected to reality?It seems like you're stringing "science-y" words together in order to say something like "I think that it is worthwhile to focus time on the existence of God regardless of whether or not God is known to be a part of reality."And, if one wants to know how reality actually is, the next question is - WHY? To this... I completely 100% agree. We all do prioritize what is important to us.#1 - Knowing the truth of reality is important
#2 - Doing things quickly is important
#3 - Confirming traditions is important
#4 - Feeling comfortable is important Fair enough.If your priority is #1 - then there's only 1 conclusion to come to: God does not exist.
-you will have to sacrifice traditions and comfortIf your priority is #2, or #3 or #4 - then you may very well come to another conclusion on whether or not God exists.
-you will have to sacrifice knowing that your conclusion is connected to realityThe choice is yours.

No.
Evidence that He doesn't exist is evidence that He doesn't exist.
If I look at an empty table, this is evidence that my keys do not exist on that table.
Evidence that my keys exist at all... is validated evidence such as a vehicle I own that requires keys... that keys are shown to exist for other vehicles...We've looked in many, many places. A lot of those looks have been done where people have said "look! God must be there!"
And yet... God is never found. Anywhere.We've looked... for thousands of years... and not found God.That is evidence that He doesn't exist. Because we've looked.
There is no evidenced reason to consider God as a requirement for anything. Evidence that the resurrection wasn't historical:

• In any study ever done, humans have never been identified as capable of being resurrected
• Many people claim that they (or their uncle...) have been resurrected. If looked into, the result is always the same - they were mistaken of the situation, or over-stating what actually happened
• The Bible is known to be wrong about a great many things
• There is no indication that any of the "miracles" included in the Bible ever happened
• Verbal stories are known for being embellished to include "entertainment", even within days of the experience they're based on
• The Bible stories were passed verbally for years... decades... before being written down
• The Biblical story of Jesus includes many things that are included in other myths that are "before" Jesus:
  • The idea of coming back from the dead
  • Walking/travelling on water
  • Attempts at being killed as an infant
  • Virgin births
  • Spiritual healings
  • Moral leadership

This is all evidence that "accepting the resurrection as an historical event" is a bad place to start. If you were seeking the "truth" or #1 just as much as me... you would look for "a good place" to start from.
Our best known method for identifying truth says that when we want to identify reality - we should start from validated evidence.Since you are starting with "accepting the resurrection as an historical event" and I am not (because it is not validated evidence...) then you are quite clearly not seeking the "truth" as much as I am. You seem to be seeking something that requires accepting the resurrection as an historical event. Actually, they scream "natural processes!"Vast intelligent systems are complex, yes - but they are not overly complex.
Evolution is incredibly, ridiculously, insanely overly complex.
To the point that it's very obvious that no intelligence created it. In fact, if it was purposefully created, it certainly was not created by "intelligence" and was actually created by "absolute stupidity." It's that overly complex. It's not the discovery of processes that implies natural processes.
It's the discovery of natural processes that implies natural processes.When we look at how a whale evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes.When we look at how eyes evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes.When we look at how wings evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes.When we look at how society evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes.When we look at how morality evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes. Fair enough.
You drive up in your F1 Pick-up Truck... and I say "hey... nice truck."
You can disagree with me all you want and insist that you're driving a car.
...but the F1 Pick-up Truck... is a truck.Actions must match words.The reason of "I can't bare to think of a contrary reason!" simply isn't good enough to say intelligent design has occurred.
Especially not when we've investigated, deeply, and all we find are natural processes.The idea of "I accept the resurrection as an historical event" simply isn't good enough to show you're after the truth.
It, quite directly, shows that you're after something that grows from accepting the resurrection as an historical event... regardless of whether or not it's actually true.I'm still not exactly sure what your highest priority is... but it's certainly not "identification of the truth."
It could be something extremely similar... like "identification of the truth as long as it includes the resurrection as an historical event." ...but that's still not "identification of the truth" as a highest priority.This also isn't "wrong."
You're allowed to have whatever priorities you'd like.
Just like you can have whatever car or truck you'd like.But if you pull up in your F1 Pick-up Truck...
I see that it's a truck.
And I'll continue to recommend that you stop calling it a car.