How can you know if God is within you? (salvation, after-life, Jacob)

[MysticPhD]

This thread was prompted by a series of questions (actually badgering) of jimmiej in another thread. I will use quotes by way of introducing the topic in the title.

Originally Posted by jimmiej

What you're proposing requires that, at one time, goodness did not exist in any form.

Originally Posted by NoCapo

For example, if the existence of love raises a questio, the next step you be to formalize that questions. Maybe it would be what is love, or why do we experience love. Then formulate a hypothesis, maybe we experience love because we are made in the image of God and God is love. And then proceed to show evidence of that hypothesis. What about humanity makes you believe we are made in the image of a God, why do you believe there is a God, and why do you believe that God epitomizes love? What empirical evidence can you use to support the hypothesis? Trying to use the original question as evidence of the answer is just begging the question or circular reasoning.
-NoCapo

Because you are using the very capability (consciousness) that defines our humanity and our likeness to God to ask these questions, NoCapo . . . the answer eludes you. There is something it is like to be a human and experience our reality in unique ways (love) that can not be captured in the naturalistic materialistic rationale that seems so superior to you. We can point to the existence of a "love hormone" (Oxytocin) and fool ourselves that we have an answer. But we need a more abstract reaction to distance ourselves from such hormonal responses. We can each test just how much of God (real agape love) exists within us by our reactions to things that are far less personal. I recently saw a commercial that would illustrate what I am talking about very well. I hesitate to use it because the reactions will be so varied across individuals that it could seem like a criticism if you do NOT have the reaction I claim would indicate what makes us uniquely God. (I found it.)

Please realize that the reaction I will claim you SHOULD have to indicate the presence of God's agape love is entirely my opinion. But it is the variety of reactions and the uniqueness of the existence of such reactions that is the main point of presenting it. The reactions will illustrate the characteristic uniqueness that makes us prototypically human . . . and that cannot be explained by reductionist theory.
What is your reaction to this commercial? I will not state my opinion until you have all had a chance to react to it.

[Vizio]

I thought the commercial was hilarious. But then, you probably think I'm a rude jerk.

Moderator cut: off topic

[TroutDude]

Funny. (Even though I saw it coming.)

[rifleman]

The clergy are mean. On a weekly basis! As in: purposefully keeping the truth from their úber-dependent congregation. Those who go home, briefly feeling safe against a non-salvation death yet again, having paid their tithe as after-life insurance. By week's end though they are getting antsy and in need of a psychological (but fantasy..) "fix".

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2026/...fa13d89e_m.jpg

So clergy or intellectual dope dealers, starting with the youngest kids they can possibly corrupt, are indeed "mean", by definition. Lying to little kids is NOT good!

I loved the commercial, but oh btw: there have been numerous cases of dolphins, some of the smaller hales and so on, coming to the rescue of humans about to drown, or who have been gravely injured. Whats' that word again? Oh yeah: altruism in "the lesser animals".

[Breezease]

It could be considered, if there is a ride to be had it wouldn't be for free or welcome on an otherwise understood, begrudging interaction.

[NoCapo]

So first the video... It is pretty funny! It is a sort of dark humor, but funny none the less. I chuckled, and thought it was a clever ad for a week of shark attack movies.

I suppose if it was a real news story and not an ad for killer shark movies, I might have a different reaction. I think I would feel sorry for the disappointment and helplessness that the folk who pured their time and compassion into the seal would feel, but also a bit of respect for the clever shark who saw the free lunch. I also would not go swim at that beach.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This thread was prompted by a series of questions (actually badgering) of jimmiej in another thread. I will use quotes by way of introducing the topic in the title.
Because you are using the very capability (consciousness) that defines our humanity and our likeness to God to ask these questions, NoCapo . . . the answer eludes you. There is something it is like to be a human and experience our reality in unique ways (love) that can not be captured in the naturalistic materialistic rationale that seems so superior to you. We can point to the existence of a "love hormone" (Oxytocin) and fool ourselves that we have an answer. But we need a more abstract reaction to distance ourselves from such hormonal responses. We can each test just how much of God (real agape love) exists within us by our reactions to things that are far less personal.

Secondly, I think you are doing the same thing jimmiej, assuming that which you are trying to prove. All we know about consciousness is that we have a fuzzy idea about how we experience the world and we label that consciousness. The first step would be to define this characteristic. Is it communication? Is it the ability to reason about actions and consequences? is the the ability to learn abstract ideas? language? How can we know if something is conscious? Is it, as you have asserted, uniquely human? As far as I know we don't know any of these things! Beyond this the assertion that conscious necessarily implies a God is without basis. The best we can say is that if we define consciousness in some externally observable ways, it appears that having a nervous system of a particular type and complexity is required for certain behaviors that may correlate with consciousness. We don't assume a rock is conscious, because it doesn't act conscious. It is difficult to assume that Koko the gorilla is not conscious becasue she does act conscious, even appearing to have rudimentary ideas about good and bad and emotions like sadness.

Furthermore, you are assuming that other animals are somehow excluded from love. Why do you make this assumption? Animals appear to be able to show compassion, even empathy, to protect and care for injured herd or pack mates, to grieve, in some cases to form lifelong pair bonds (in the case of penguins sometimes even lifelong homosexual pair bonds). In what ways is this different from human love?

Third, what does any of this have to do with a God? There still is no empirical evidence that such a thing exists. You see consciousness and postulate a God to explain it, but you have not completed the step and tested the hypothesis. What test can you perform that with demonstrate to you that your postulated God does not exist? If there isn't one then you simply have an untested and untestable hypothesis that you are asserting simply on the strength of your own belief.

MY point is here that there is a lot wqe don't know, and to fill it in with speculation and pretend it is knowledge is just foolishness. I feel the same way about those who religiously adhere to naturalistic theories that are in the same boat, like M theory. It has mathematics going for it, but it at this point is simply an idea that has not been and currently cannot be tested. It is silly to pretend that we know it to be true.

-NoCapo

[Miss Hepburn]

How can u know God is within u?

Seeing is believing.
This will bore intellectuals because it is so simple.
Having the patience, desire and resolution to actually do it...bores
the ego and mind.

Only a true seeker will be still and know. Sorry, but true.
So the intellectual pursuits will end with nothing...and continue on fruitlessly.

Meditate.
When the Third Eye is opened...you will see "the face of God".

I have seen the face of God and yet I survived....I will call this place Penuel.
Jacob


"If thine eye be single thy whole body will be full of light." Jesus

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Because you are using the very capability (consciousness) that defines our humanity and our likeness to God to ask these questions

But it defines no such thing. It is you declaring your definition of god - a definition tailored to fit and match the fact we are concious. It is your definition that you have tailored to liken it to us - not that we were made to be like this god of yours.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

There is something it is like to be a human and experience our reality in unique ways (love) that can not be captured in the naturalistic materialistic rationale that seems so superior to you.

This is just the usual - if we can not explain something yet then there must be a god - rhetoric that has failed miserably so often in the past. Actually we have perfectly workable models and definitions of things like love - but your ignoring them does not evidence a god. Even if we did not have ANY idea what love is it still would not evidence a god.

Love is just a subjective response and experience. Nothing more. The existence of subjective experience is only evidence for "god" because you want it to be. No other reason. "Love" no more evidences god than seeing "yellow" does.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

We can point to the existence of a "love hormone" (Oxytocin) and fool ourselves that we have an answer.

You can fool yourself if you like. No one else is. Oxytocin is not love and more than wavelengths of light are color. It is our subjective response to that hormone - or that light - which we label with words like "love" and "green".

You are just twisting those labels into the assumption that these things exist in and of themselves and need to be explained by a god. They do not. And they do not.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by NoCapo

So first the video... It is pretty funny! It is a sort of dark humor, but funny none the less. I chuckled, and thought it was a clever ad for a week of shark attack movies.

I suppose if it was a real news story and not an ad for killer shark movies, I might have a different reaction. I think I would feel sorry for the disappointment and helplessness that the folk who poured their time and compassion into the seal would feel, but also a bit of respect for the clever shark who saw the free lunch. I also would not go swim at that beach.

Thank you for your response, NoCapo. You have encapsulated several of the myriad reactions possible.

Secondly, I think you are doing the same thing jimmiej, assuming that which you are trying to prove.

This thread has more than one purpose, NoCapo. There are those who have asked what the inner feeling is for those who believe. This thread will evoke the diversity of internal response even within a single individual . . . and reveal the difficulty in answering the question for someone else

All we know about consciousness is that we have a fuzzy idea about how we experience the world and we label that consciousness. The first step would be to define this characteristic. Is it communication? Is it the ability to reason about actions and consequences? is the the ability to learn abstract ideas? language? How can we know if something is conscious? Is it, as you have asserted, uniquely human? As far as I know we don't know any of these things!

Consciousness has been variously defined largely driven by the intent of the researcher. Many scientists seek to encompass as much of the phenomenon of awareness as possible to include as many forms of life as possible. (The not too hidden agenda being to remove the uniqueness of human consciousness.) Since we ARE members of the animal community . . . that we share features of awareness with them is not dispositive. But to ignore the uniqueness of human consciousness because we share similar features at base is just silly. When we have achieved a philosophical discussion with any other animal . . . I will be convinced our consciousness is not unique.

Beyond this the assertion that conscious necessarily implies a God is without basis. The best we can say is that if we define consciousness in some externally observable ways, it appears that having a nervous system of a particular type and complexity is required for certain behaviors that may correlate with consciousness.

The God issue is one of structure regarding the locus of consciousness and cannot be dealt with simplistically or quickly. Suffice to say that as long as we continue to operate on the assumption that our brain produces nothing tangible (as that word is used about our material reality) . . . consciousness and God will continue to be misunderstood.

We don't assume a rock is conscious, because it doesn't act conscious. It is difficult to assume that Koko the gorilla is not conscious because she does act conscious, even appearing to have rudimentary ideas about good and bad and emotions like sadness.

All of our emotions stem from the reptilian brain which we share with most vertebrate life. All animal life responds to pleasure or pain consequences. Human emotion adds a separate component that alters and complicates the responses (as the video in this thread is designed to evoke).

Furthermore, you are assuming that other animals are somehow excluded from love. Why do you make this assumption? Animals appear to be able to show compassion, even empathy, to protect and care for injured herd or pack mates, to grieve, in some cases to form lifelong pair bonds (in the case of penguins sometimes even lifelong homosexual pair bonds). In what ways is this different from human love?

No. I assume no such thing . . . especially for those animals that have shared our lives with love . . . like my beloved (and departed) toy poodle, Dinky. Agape love is love for all life. The difference lies in what is produced in consciousness . . . not simply what emotional response is evoked. Agape love is a blend (a merger) of emotion and consciousness.

Third, what does any of this have to do with a God? There still is no empirical evidence that such a thing exists. You see consciousness and postulate a God to explain it, but you have not completed the step and tested the hypothesis. What test can you perform that with demonstrate to you that your postulated God does not exist? If there isn't one then you simply have an untested and untestable hypothesis that you are asserting simply on the strength of your own belief.

This has been broached before many times and I have explained that I have completed the steps and tested my hypotheses internally. What you seek is second hand validation without having to achieve the discipline to experience it for yourself and perform the same internal tests. I have repeatedly said my certainty applies to me only. I am witnessing to it and explaining it for those who are interested. This thread is designed to get people to pay attention to internal cues and responses in a more disciplined way. Without such discrimination . . . confusion about the source of what we experience will reign.

MY point is here that there is a lot we don't know, and to fill it in with speculation and pretend it is knowledge is just foolishness. I feel the same way about those who religiously adhere to naturalistic theories that are in the same boat, like M theory. It has mathematics going for it, but it at this point is simply an idea that has not been and currently cannot be tested. It is silly to pretend that we know it to be true.
-NoCapo

I agree, NoCapo . . . but FOR ME it is more than speculation . . . it IS knowledge. I accept the skepticism of others as unavoidable.

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Thank you for your response, NoCapo. You have encapsulated several of the myriad reactions possible.This thread has more than one purpose, NoCapo. There are those who have asked what the inner feeling is for those who believe. This thread will evoke the diversity of internal response even within a single individual . . . and reveal the difficulty in answering the question for someone else

To be honest, I am not really sure what you were trying to illustrate there. We all have different reactions to external stimuli based on a myriad of factors including genetics, social environment, education, current emotional state, hormone levels, and what we had for breakfast. I totally agree with that. In my opinion, it actually illustrates my point, that our subjective experience should never be taken at face value, but rather measured against our external reality as best we can. We are subjective beings, and as far as I can tell we have no reason to believe that we can directly perceive any portion of objective reality ( an assumption that it exists but one I am willing to make).

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Consciousness has been variously defined largely driven by the intent of the researcher. Many scientists seek to encompass as much of the phenomenon of awareness as possible to include as many forms of life as possible. (The not too hidden agenda being to remove the uniqueness of human consciousness.) Since we ARE members of the animal community . . . that we share features of awareness with them is not dispositive. But to ignore the uniqueness of human consciousness because we share similar features at base is just silly. When we have achieved a philosophical discussion with any other animal . . . I will be convinced our consciousness is not unique.

I have a problem with this idea. You are certainly not being rigorous here. If a philosophical discussion is the test for being human, then a language barrier would remove what makes one uniquely human? What about children? Are infants not conscious and therefor not "uniquely human"? Do we graduate from an animal to a human once we gain language and reasoning skills?

Rather I would argue that there appears to be a continuum of behaviors that suggest some sort of consciousness (decision making, forward planning, language, emotion, loyalty, etc...) shown in the animal kingdom, and it seems to have some correlation to the size, type and complexity of the central nervous system. Based on such things as the Koko research, it seems that the difference in cognition between a young human and a Gorilla is not that great. If a 2 year old has that magic consciousness, why not Koko?

I would posit that this is an open question, and while you may have a belief or hypothesis that we are somehow special, it is simply that a belief. We just quite frankly don't know enough to say one way or the other.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I have repeatedly said my certainty applies to me only. I am witnessing to it and explaining it for those who are interested. This thread is designed to get people to pay attention to internal cues and responses in a more disciplined way. Without such discrimination . . . confusion about the source of what we experience will reign.I agree, NoCapo . . . but FOR ME it is more than speculation . . . it IS knowledge. I accept the skepticism of others as unavoidable.

And this is what i was trying to point out to jimmiej, so I am glad you agree. When you base a belief on data no one else can obtain, "experiments" that are not falsifiable, and assuming that which is attempting to be proven, "bearing witness to your own experience" is all you can do. When and if you try to defend your position as an evidence based, rational, logical position it invariably falls apart at whatever point you have abandoned the idea of objectivity.

There is nothing wrong with holding the belief, nothing wrong with trying to outline how things make more sense if one will embrace the same leap of faith you took, but when proponents of a position try to pretend that there is no leap of faith and that others are somehow lacking in integrity or intelligence if they don't embrace the same position is, IMO, pretty shameful.

I appreciate that you at least are willing to admit that you came to your conclusion based on a subjective, unverifiable experience and that you understand why there is no reason for anyone else who has not had the same experience to accept your position as true, or even logical and reasonable. To me this is an honest disagreement, and one that can be respected.

I would be curious about your ideas on cultivating this discipline to evaluate responses. I am pretty skeptical that I would have an experience such as the one you had, but it seems to me that analysing one's own emotions and responses is part and parcel of living an "examined life". The mechanics of what you are talking about might be interesting, if for nothing else than comparing the internal and external viewpoints of a given reaction or situation.

-NoCapo