Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The big problem with supernatural experiences is that none of them is actually supernatural.
All of them have perfectly natural explanation.
But it is very difficult to convince some people that neither them nor their experiences are in any way special.
You be me to it. I was just going to post the exact same thing and throw in a few examples.
I have had many experiences that many would view as supernatural but I know they are completely natural.
You are mired in the separateness and agency nonsense and I suspect have not really thought about my analogy in any great depth. IF our cells and the biota that comprise us WERE SENTIENT, by what mechanism would we ever be able to make their true purpose known to them? Clearly everything that happens in their brief cellular lives is NOT the result of our will or direct actions, merely the mandates of our continued survival and the roles they play in it. True, some pain signals (prayers??) indicating cellular problems are delivered to our consciousness and we can try to address the source of them in limited ways. But even though we ARE the very Source of everything that exists in their little cellular world, we are certainly not omnipotent nor omniscient.
So let me try to understand the dimensions and dynamics of your thinking (in case I do misunderstand or misinterpret it, which you seem to be saying):
QUESTION # 1: When you personally (MysticPhD) speak of "existence" (i.e., the universe or cosmos and everything that prevails in it and is manifesting in it and by it), do you or do you not attach any type of "mindfulness" to it at all? Or instead, do you perceive "existence" as being a mindless, faceless, nameless, impersonal "thing" or "reality"?
QUESTION # 2: If you say that you do NOT attach any type of "agency" to the cosmos or natural order (i.e., to "existence"), what does it mean to say that "God is existence and existence is God"? Does, in fact, your own definition of "God" not entail any type of mind or mindfulness at all? So "God", to you, means simply the mindless, faceless, nameless, impersonal reality we all live in (which we can otherwise just call "existence" or "the universe" or "the cosmos")?
Yet if you DO attach some type of "mindfulness (agency)" to "existence" (implying that existence has a mind and hence has a character, intentions, plans and designs, agendas, et al), then why do you say that you have never implied "agency" to existence? What exactly IS your own precise definition of what "agency" means and then doesn't mean?
QUESTION # 3: Where and how does your embracing of the Jesus character in the particular way(s) that you do fit in with this? Do you embrace a Trinity concept of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit or not? Do you think that Jesus is even the human incarnation of God himself or even has anything to do with whatever your conception of "God" is? Are God and Jesus two separate characters in your own thinking? If God and Jesus are one and the same, so Jesus is existence itself and existence itself is Jesus? But then, if so, Jesus/God represents ALL of these opposing and contradictory qualities and aspects that I detailed at length in various earlier postings in this thread (as bUU said "Yes" to all my examples of opposing qualities given . . . and you seemingly agreed with him or her). So then Jesus entails both love and hate, kindness and cruelty, honor and dishonor, honesty and lying, caringness and indifference, and on and on and on and on with a million of other opposing qualities and aspects.
In summary, if I nor anyone else doesn't understand where exactly your subscriptions lay and where you are coming from, it could be said that you haven't made it quite clear in the overall collection of your postings over time (although it could be that I just haven't seen every single one of your postings over the course of time). Then please correct me and everyone else who misunderstands you.
If the universe (existence), in your thinking, is utterly "mindless" and has no implicit "agency" inherent in it (unless I misunderstand what YOU mean what you use the word "agency", as may differ from what I and/or others may mean when using the same word), then how is that really different from the scientific materialist view that "the cosmos is all that there is, was, or ever will be" (as Carl Sagan stated it)? If that is, more or less, your view, why give it a name or label of "God" at all if it has no mind or agency inherent in it? Why not just simply call it "the universe" or "the multiverse" or "the cosmos" or just simply "existence"? Why attach a "God" label to it? So one worships and reveres "existence"? Existence (if there is no mindfulness or agency inherent in it), just is; it doesn't have a mind to care or be concerned at all about us or other life forms or anything else but just functions as it functions regardless of its pro or con impacts upon any sentient beings such as us humans. Why attach "Godness" to it? And where does your embracing of some conception of "Jesus" come into this (unless that is a separate matter . . . meaning that you do not promote that God and Jesus are of the same element but two different things)?
I'm not really here to change your thinking (I don't claim to be in possession of "the ultimate truth" nor of all truth) but just to understand the nuances and dynamics of your thinking. I thought I did understand it but you seem to have said in various postings that I do not understand what you really believe and where you are coming from with the explanations and words that you use.
You are mired in the separateness and agency nonsense and I suspect have not really thought about my analogy in any great depth. IF our cells and the biota that comprise us WERE SENTIENT, by what mechanism would we ever be able to make their true purpose known to them? Clearly everything that happens in their brief cellular lives is NOT the result of our will or direct actions, merely the mandates of our continued survival and the roles they play in it. True, some pain signals (prayers??) indicating cellular problems are delivered to our consciousness and we can try to address the source of them in limited ways. But even though we ARE the very Source of everything that exists in their little cellular world, we are certainly not omnipotent nor omniscient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll
So let me try to understand the dimensions and dynamics of your thinking (in case I do misunderstand or misinterpret it, which you seem to be saying):
QUESTION # 1: When you personally (MysticPhD) speak of "existence" (i.e., the universe or cosmos and everything that prevails in it and is manifesting in it and by it), do you or do you not attach any type of "mindfulness" to it at all? Or instead, do you perceive "existence" as being a mindless, faceless, nameless, impersonal "thing" or "reality"?
I realize that not everyone is comfortable with analogies and therefore treat them superficially without exploring all the implications they might have for the concepts being discussed. Clearly that is the case here. Here is a question for you based on my analogy: IF they were sentient, would your sentient cells be capable of inferring agency behind the things that happened to them in their little cellular existences. The answer should be "Yes, they would be capable of such inference." Since you and your existence actually ARE their God and what happens to their individual cellular lives IS mandated by the requirements of your life and existence . . . would their inference of agency be accurate??? Remember, you are NOT willfully directing what happens to each of your individual cells, or are you???
Quote:
QUESTION # 2: If you say that you do NOT attach any type of "agency" to the cosmos or natural order (i.e., to "existence"), what does it mean to say that "God is existence and existence is God"? Does, in fact, your own definition of "God" not entail any type of mind or mindfulness at all? So "God", to you, means simply the mindless, faceless, nameless, impersonal reality we all live in (which we can otherwise just call "existence" or "the universe" or "the cosmos")?
Of course not. We are "cellular" parts of everything that exists (God), are we not? We are mindful and conscious, are we not?
Quote:
Yet if you DO attach some type of "mindfulness (agency)" to "existence" (implying that existence has a mind and hence has a character, intentions, plans and designs, agendas, et al), then why do you say that you have never implied "agency" to existence? What exactly IS your own precise definition of what "agency" means and then doesn't mean?
See above.
Quote:
QUESTION # 3: Where and how does your embracing of the Jesus character in the particular way(s) that you do fit in with this? Do you embrace a Trinity concept of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit or not? Do you think that Jesus is even the human incarnation of God himself or even has anything to do with whatever your conception of "God" is? Are God and Jesus two separate characters in your own thinking? If God and Jesus are one and the same, so Jesus is existence itself and existence itself is Jesus? But then, if so, Jesus/God represents ALL of these opposing and contradictory qualities and aspects that I detailed at length in various earlier postings in this thread (as bUU said "Yes" to all my examples of opposing qualities given . . . and you seemingly agreed with him or her). So then Jesus entails both love and hate, kindness and cruelty, honor and dishonor, honesty and lying, caringness and indifference, and on and on and on and on with a million of other opposing qualities and aspects.
Everything produced in our consciousness is definitely part of our reality and that IS the problem. Prior to Christ, human consciousness was NOT producing perfect agape love, but was producing imperfect versions of it mixed with a whole lot of savagery and barbarity. The collective human consciousness was NOT compatible with the perfect agape love that God IS. The Cosmic Consciousness (unified field) that I believe establishes our reality and IS God has a specific character, ie. perfect agape love. Christ is the human consciousness that brought that perfect agape love to His human consciousness and thus to our collective human consciousness thereby connecting it with God's perfect agape love. Christ's perfect agape love (Holy Spirit) in His human consciousness is the conduit for us to reach God through love of God and each other under the guidance of Christ's perfect agape love for us all.
Quote:
In summary, if I nor anyone else doesn't understand where exactly your subscriptions lay and where you are coming from, it could be said that you haven't made it quite clear in the overall collection of your postings over time (although it could be that I just having seen every single one of your postings over the course of time). Then please correct me and everyone else who misunderstands you.
Suggesting that a thing is the source of itself seems counterintuitive and potentially contrived ...
It depends on of what it is supposed to be a source. The universe is demonstrably the source of energy for the detected entropy. (There is no evidence of an outside source of energy, so suggesting that the detected entropy is powered by something other than forces within the universe that we don't yet understand is "counterintuitive".)
I'm not sure what point you think you're making about contrivance. The system known as a democratic republic is "contrived". The choice of name your parents made for you was a contrivance. Everything made by humans is contrived - that's what the word means. In your thesis, you offer no reason for humanity, no purpose for your life or anyone else's, no basis for the morality that atheists practice. However, these things do exist, brought into existence deliberately - created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously - i.e., they are contrived. Meaning and purpose are supposed to be contrived, and are incontrovertibly a reflection of the gifts of self-awareness and self-actualization with which we have been blessed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
While I'm not saying such a thing couldn't counterintuitively be true, lacking any evidence for it, I prefer to think of the universe as merely eternal, winking in and out of existence cyclically, likely interplaying with other universes,
Yet that is just another contrivance. So the question is whether that contrivance has a greater or lesser overall impact on humanity. I think lesser. I think your contrivance results in a distinct detachment of people with one another, as compared to an equally valid conception of meaning within which people are bound together (religare in Latin) in purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
but not sentient or interested in what I eat for breakfast. That seems a lot less forced than ascribing sentience and intentionality to the universe.
Yes, but still just arbitrary, and while a mediocre conception is better than a bad conception, a superior conception is better than a mediocre conception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
But whatever float's people's boat, I guess.
That's just it: If there were no basis discernment, then why have a discussion forum? The Existentialism of City-Data.
I'm sure that calling something "evidence" which is not evidence
Stop. You're posting abject nonsense. The physical universe is absolutely evidence of its own existence. If you cannot admit that evidence of your own eyes, then nothing you're saying has any credibility. You're just engage in mental masturbation trying to seek gratification from pointless objection to concepts you simply don't want to face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hutennis
It would not be something reasonable and rational person would do.
Prove you understand what reason and rationality is, by admitting that the physical universe is absolutely evidence of its own existence, and stop working so hard to resist learning legitimate and soundly evidence-based ways to conceptualize our human existence with meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hutennis
So you are just ignoring the whole discussion and with a stone face continue to insist on calling "that specific statement"
No, not ignoring - building upon. And my building upon the discussion has led to far more interesting postings than your inane attempts to blot out that which you don't want posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hutennis
Moreover, you make it look like it is my fault that I don't see it that way, b/c "it is simply something perhaps I'm not ready to accept".
You're the one trying to defend your objections by denying that physical actuality is evidence of the claim of physical actuality.
I'm really shocked how few people on this forum are versed in the perspectives of Baruch Spinoza. I bet each and every one knows his name but it seems few understand why they know his name.
Is the above re-phrasing more palatable to you (coming across as less dogmatic or even non-dogmatic to you) and does it succeed in conveying to you that I am NOT dog-headed and insisting that I absolutely know "the truth" beforehand and push it upon everyone (even if my phrasing may, at times, be less than ideal to convey my true character and underlying motivations)?
No. Your first sentence yet again is built around a negative, "no". Again: Why do you think it smart to express a perspective in the negative? Don't based your understanding of the universe on what you believe is not - base your understanding of the universe on what you believe is. Come up with a statement of what you believe.
You claim to be a true truth seeker. Build your statement about that, convincingly stating how that is goodly. Make your statement a compelling argument for the meaning you claim to derive from intellectual honesty. State every sentence explicitly in the positive. Don't crap on anyone else in trying to explain why your conception is worthy.
This is basic stuff. It's not just religion, but part of the most basic understanding of the nature of human interaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll
Look, I was raised to be a religious (or semi-religious) Jew and was later a Protestant conservative evangelical born-again Christian.
The Kübler-Ross model postulates a series of emotional stages experienced by survivors of an intimate's death, wherein the five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. What we've found is that the model, or major portions thereof, can be found in many different kinds of human reactions to many different kinds of scenarios. I've seen it very clearly evident at church. Understand that roughly 90% of the visitors walking in our doors are members of other faiths aiming to convert. By the time the get to us, they're past the denial stage. It is, of course, the anger stage that is the impetus that finally gets them to leave their legacy faith. Then it is a matter of how soon after that they find us. Some actually traverse the entire model on their own and come to us simply looking for community, after having already established their religious beliefs and values and simply discovered that they matched ours. Most, though, arrive angry. (I regret to say that some remain angry, but that's a story for another thread.)
But the point is that that anger is just a natural aspect of coming to terms with being a victim of what I'm sure you'd agree is effectively the longest and most cynical con in history. The natural, legitimate, righteous and human feelings of victimization must be respected, but we also need to understand their impact. For many it manifests in a visceral, negative reaction to words - just the words themselves: "God", "Christ", "church", etc. (Former Jews joining our church had a double-whammy with "Christ" and "church" and even "Jesus".) We joke that we're horrible hymn singers because we're always reading ahead while singing hymns to see if we agree with the words. Over time, however, most people progress through the stages. Acceptance manifests in a reclaiming of these words, and their meanings, as part of our birthright as humans.
That's why I've implored you to state your case in the positive. Anger about what's happened to someone prompts them to think only in the negative, only from the standpoint of objection, only from the standpoint of trying to lash out and squash anything that smell like the victimization they have overcome. Acceptance of the past as the past gives one the ability to think in the positive: What did I gain from my experiences? What can I bring forward into the future? What can I build upon to make things better, for myself and for others?
Here's the difference between evidence in religion and science: Unlike religion, science can provided sensible answers to questions concerning the Universe, while religion always encourages people to "lean not on their own understanding, but to trust...with all their being".
I could never be satisfied by a biblical response. I am deeply satisfied by unfettered inquiry.
Prior to providing a "sensible explanation" or evidence in materialism there is a step where everyone lives the materialistic lifestyle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Suggesting that a thing is the source of itself seems counterintuitive and potentially contrived ... While I'm not saying such a thing couldn't counterintuitively be true, lacking any evidence for it, I prefer to think of the universe as merely eternal, winking in and out of existence cyclically, likely interplaying with other universes, but not sentient or interested in what I eat for breakfast. That seems a lot less forced than ascribing sentience and intentionality to the universe. But whatever float's people's boat, I guess.
That's why it's only according to theism that materialists believe in God while referencing things like life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist
I wish that Jeff could prove the existence of God to me. I would like to believe, but I need evidence. Real proof.
Perhaps the longer version of a materialist's "provide evidence for God" request is "provide evidence that materialism can approach the highest seat of God," which is what the request becomes in theism when God is acknowledged.
My favorite idea about religious proof are eyewitness stories.
Eyewitness stories are not proof. Logical proof is, by definition, repeatable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by earl012
Either they were liars or they really experienced God.
Was Aesop a liar?
Accepting parable as if it were truth is the Number One transgression against truth that fundamentalists commit. Presuming that there are only two explanations, i.e., that the people who wrote the Bible lied or really experienced what they claimed - is an instance of the False Dichotomy logical fallacy, given that the crafting of parable is the scenario with the fewest assumptions, and therefore by Occam's Razor is the most likely explanation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
