Choosing a faith

If the relevant evidence in our lives and world is not physical, what are you pondering? I think the structure you "see" is the structure of your own consciousness writ large, and your tendency to interpret it religiously correlates with particular brain anatomical differences.I can pursue a discussion of my "impression" with facts and reason. You must resort to metaphors with no objective correlative.How can we have reasoned discourse about the invisible intangibles you embrace? You ponder the imponderable and form an impression. I don't. I ponder the apprehensible world, and I see that it will always explain itself to careful study, without recourse to no-see-ums.What else is there to say?

Science of the Gaps yet again. Again, how can you physically tell me by a brain scan what caused a person to act in a certain way. You might guess it was become something a parent said, something that they read, observing what someone else has done or reacted to the still small voce of God.

Science explains what can be observed. If something can't be observed directly or indirectly, we know and can know nothing about it. We are able to observe areas of the brain being activated by different stimuli - empathetic reactions are observed. 'Mirroring' is a reaction we feel when observing someone else suffer. It's a physical reaction to other's suffering, we almost literally feel their pain, we can see the same areas of our brain light up in ours as in theirs - though the actual pain is obviously missing. This is why people cry when they see others suffer. This doesn't make much sense to me. Our brains store life experiences and are conditioned by them.Are you trying to tell us that this god of yours is directly causing our thoughts and motivations minute by minute? Your mum's voice can very easily be shown to be detectable on a brain scan. It shows up in the auditory cortex of the temporal lobe, where it's also processed and stored.We also have executive functions of the brain where we make decisions about what to do with the information we've learned from our mum's words. We can watch that decision making process at work in the prefrontal cortex with a brain scan.People make moral decisions based on these (and other) functions. Morality is developmental and physical. It's both conditioned (by culture and upbringing) and biology. All humans and many other animals have instinctive empathetic behaviours. There is no evidence for, or need of, some weird, direct supernatural interventions to explain this.Not only that, the clear fact that our ability to empathise can be destroyed by drugs, illness and birth defects means that it's a physical not a supernatural effect. Just like every other emotion and human behaviour type ever seen.Why would a supernatural god need to use a natural and flawed method to influence a human? It's beyond daft.

How can you "disprove" something with no objective evidence to work with? At best you have debunked them. By definition, you have established by consensus that:

quote:

---

debunk: to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated

---

You cant establish falsity. At best you can claim pretentiousness, largely because you are an antitheist and have spirits running you also. The best word...instead of disproving is to suggest blatant exaggeration. (Which is in line with human nature.) Just sayin. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you think for a moment that Satan would want to advertise?
He wants people to dismiss his existence if anything. *slaps antitheist in the head*... If you are looking, you would do better to try and find the Creator that gave you your mind rather than some spook from a vortex in Arizona that gives you shamanistic illusions of grandeur. The quest is justifiable if and only if Justice is needed. Humans are slacking on the job. Just look at how we have botched climate change so far. All of you naughty shamans need to meet your maker and get straight.
​

In other words, mirroring is equivalent to empathy...which is a uniquely human trait.

I really don't care what kind of evidence you show to support your ideas.
All I'm looking for is anything at all that separates your ideas from pure imagination.I don't think external intelligence is included because we've looked - found that no external intelligence is necessary for the natural processes explained by natural phenomenon - and on top of that we don't even see any possible link for "an external intelligence" to reality in any way.The difference is that my "why" and my explanation are connected to reality by evidence.
Your possibility for "why" and your explanation are only in your imagination and not linked to reality by anything at all.You seem to want to re-frame this into a my opinion vs your opinion thing.
My opinion actually agrees with you - I think an external intelligence for life would be a very good answer. It has the potential to explain a lot of things.
The thing is - reality doesn't care about opinions or imagination - not mine, and not yours.
Reality is whatever it is.
And reality is telling us that no external intelligence exists.You can deny the results all you'd like - it makes no difference.
It's like you're in the passenger seat while we're driving - I look and say "there's no oncoming traffic, I'm going to turn." You then say "that's only what you think! You're not proving that oncoming traffic cannot exist! I think it does exist and you just can't see it!" I then look at you funny and make the turn anyway. You close you eyes so you don't see us turn. Then you open your eyes while we're travelling straight again and say "That was so lucky! You don't think oncoming traffic exists, and reject my conclusion that it does exist!" I just smile and nod. And we repeat at every intersection.One of us is dealing with reality and making progress down the road - the other is not and just along for the ride.
If you think that's an equal level of judging opinions - that's on you. I don't assume that - this is what reality tells us. No faith required at all. All you have to do is stop closing your eyes to reality. All you have to do is link this imaginary idea of an external intelligence to reality in any way at all - and everyone will start taking you seriously.
Without being able to do that - you can continue to close your eyes as we advance along each and every turn on the road to the truth of reality.

Historical result of Science of the Gaps - Science develops better technology to study the concept, learns more about the natural process, advances human knowledge, no external intelligence is ever found.Historical result of God of the Gaps - No one ever looks any further, nothing is ever learned, human knowledge stagnates, no external intelligence is ever found.Science of the Gaps is actually a strength of science - not a weakness.
It identifies areas of further study, and we end up learning more.God of the Gaps is, well, exactly what you think it is.The only reason you could possibly think that "not knowing something" is a weakness - is if you have a historical record of being unable to learn new things due to a personal issue of clinging to tradition regardless of it's veracity.In science - "not knowing something" is an exciting opportunity. It means we're about to learn something. And we always do. We just never find an external intelligence, is all.

Reality cannot care. Reality has no more of a capability of "caring" any more than chance could "create" or explain the origin of the universe.

You are true. No one thinks chance created or explains the origin of the universe.
That's just as bad as saying God did it - it has no link to reality.It is, however, used in a derogatory way by those who are afraid to learn of the actual ideas people think may have created the universe.

So all we have to do is not believe that the some supernatural force is affecting consciousness, and then ignore the supernatural?You seem to include or exclude subjects based on your personal whims. Some people see the Earth as being flat. Reality is not forced to conform to how we see it.

Technology of the Gaps. We are ignorant of such things only because our technology is not to the point it can discern this requirement of yours. Give us the full scope of the EM map of a living thinking brain in real time. Our tech, as wonderful as it is, is not to that point.There should be little doubt, though, that we will gain that capability in the future. There doesn't appear to be any question that human knowledge and understanding is now progressing along exponential lines and we may see your motivations written in the signal sooner than you may want.Again, everything we have ever seen in this universe is physical. Appears only the physical mind can conjure the fantasy powers and happenings you have contrived. Reality does not support their existence. As your fantasy states, yes, you are allowed any majik what-ifs you can dream up.Science, however, is restricted to reality. That includes any reasonable extrapolations from the existing data but does not include fantasy and superstition.No, you do not get to make up entities for reality. Yes, science says your gods do not exist simply because there is nothing to evidence or require such a thing in this universe.

Technology can discern nothing. It can provide humans with data in order for humans to discern. AI has no soul.We will stay ahead of AI not with our minds but with our hearts and souls. AI will never best our heart.(Spirit) Science will never have the computing power to even define the parameters of such a "thing". Science will never have the capability to gather the evidence required.

I owe a response to a number of you and I aopologise for not getting to them. There is just a lot going on right now and as of today I have family visiting.However, I stumbled on a CS Lewis quote, and who saw this coming, but he is far more able than I am to get his point of view across. So here i the quote.

quote:

---

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset

---

Stop that. There are no requirements to respond here.Respond as the spirit moves you or not. If this place is a source of discomfort and personal pressure then, to me, you're not using us right. This is supposed to be fun. If it takes so for you then I will not be offended if you ignore my ravings to follow your (religiously injured) heart.

If Eleanor Roosevelt had wings ...

quote:

---

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too.

---

Bullshit. A self-serving twist of personal ego wrapped in incredulity. The workings of the universe are only accidents to the ignorant. Besides, we are not that important that we need to justify our existence.