Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-15-2024, 11:58 AM
 
29,548 posts, read 9,716,744 times
Reputation: 3471

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You do seem to forget that I WAS an atheist with no "wants, needs, wishes, or feelings about a God" (in fact, the complete opposite) when I was "smacked upside my head" with the unmistakable reality of God. I spent decades resolving that reality, NOT confirming any preexisting "wants, needs, wishes, or feelings about a God."
I am pretty well overdue to sign off now, so I'll make this my last throw before I go...

You do remind me about how I similarly point out that I WAS a believer once upon a time (never mind the reasons for now), and how I too was "smacked upside the head" with the facts, reason and logic that later had me become an atheist instead. Not only the facts, reason and logic that justified my becoming an atheist but also what I learned about how others come to believe differently. In particular with regard to beliefs about God. All over the world and over the long sordid course of human history.

Yours is a somewhat unique experience, but then again most believers consider their experience unique. No matter how similar or different they may be from yours. I suppose if God were to up and smack me upside the head so as to convince me of God's existence like you claim happened to you, I would also become a believer. Again. I have to wonder, however, whether it would take me all that time let alone any time at all to "resolve that reality." If nothing else, you apparently had a strong desire to resolve something for yourself, and I am not clear how you managed to resolve whatever you resolved over decades, but obviously you had that need for some reason.

Hard for me to understand coming from someone who is forever explaining there is no rational justification for such a thing...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2024, 12:25 PM
 
63,808 posts, read 40,077,272 times
Reputation: 7871
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
I am pretty well overdue to sign off now, so I'll make this my last throw before I go...

You do remind me about how I similarly point out that I WAS a believer once upon a time (never mind the reasons for now), and how I too was "smacked upside the head" with the facts, reason and logic that later had me become an atheist instead. Not only the facts, reason and logic that justified my becoming an atheist but also what I learned about how others come to believe differently. In particular with regard to beliefs about God. All over the world and over the long sordid course of human history.

Yours is a somewhat unique experience, but then again most believers consider their experience unique. No matter how similar or different they may be from yours. I suppose if God were to up and smack me upside the head so as to convince me of God's existence like you claim happened to you, I would also become a believer. Again. I have to wonder, however, whether it would take me all that time let alone any time at all to "resolve that reality." If nothing else, you apparently had a strong desire to resolve something for yourself, and I am not clear how you managed to resolve whatever you resolved over decades, but obviously you had that need for some reason.

Hard for me to understand coming from someone who is forever explaining there is no rational justification for such a thing...
The bold is why I spent decades "resolving it." Science was my ultimate source. I needed to learn enough to see some plausible mechanisms and explanations for how what I experienced could be possible. It is not simple and requires a depth of understanding of multiple aspects of science to see the plausibility of my extrapolated hypotheses, but it works for me. At least its rationality is explicable by legitimately derived hypotheses, not "faith."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2024, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Florida
5,493 posts, read 7,338,677 times
Reputation: 1509
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The bold is why I spent decades "resolving it." Science was my ultimate source. I needed to learn enough to see some plausible mechanisms and explanations for how what I experienced could be possible. It is not simple and requires a depth of understanding of multiple aspects of science to see the plausibility of my extrapolated hypotheses, but it works for me. At least its rationality is explicable by legitimately derived hypotheses, not "faith."
I too, was " smacked upside the head".

But not with facts, logic, or explanation.

Just Jesus.

I've spent the next 30+ years attempting to articulate that brief moment that changed my life.

My words don't work. My actions work better.

The best words, are the His words. The ones written in red.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2024, 06:37 AM
 
983 posts, read 528,228 times
Reputation: 2590
No one knows how they died. This is ancient, ancient history, and if it is history is doubtful. We aren't really sure about what happened to our own relatives in the not so distant past, much less what happened to strangers over 2,000 years ago. It's impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2024, 09:49 AM
 
29,548 posts, read 9,716,744 times
Reputation: 3471
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The bold is why I spent decades "resolving it." Science was my ultimate source. I needed to learn enough to see some plausible mechanisms and explanations for how what I experienced could be possible. It is not simple and requires a depth of understanding of multiple aspects of science to see the plausibility of my extrapolated hypotheses, but it works for me. At least its rationality is explicable by legitimately derived hypotheses, not "faith."
Have you ever found anything from other scientists in the scientific community who seem to share the same understanding? Who come close to a similar "depth of understanding of multiple aspects of science?" In order to see what you describe as a "legitimately derived hypotheses?" If so, can you share who they are and what they have provided in the way of a similar legitimately derived hypotheses?

If so, I look forward to seeing it, because I am not aware of any such hypotheses. If not, perhaps you didn't successfully "resolve it" other than in your mind.

We all know how that works by now...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2024, 10:31 AM
 
Location: NMB, SC
43,090 posts, read 18,259,632 times
Reputation: 34969
No one really knows. The majority of the New Testament was written by Luke and Paul, neither were disciples of Jesus an Luke wasn't even Jewish. So all we have is what they wrote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2024, 10:58 AM
 
63,808 posts, read 40,077,272 times
Reputation: 7871
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Have you ever found anything from other scientists in the scientific community who seem to share the same understanding? Who come close to a similar "depth of understanding of multiple aspects of science?" In order to see what you describe as a "legitimately derived hypotheses?" If so, can you share who they are and what they have provided in the way of a similar legitimately derived hypotheses?

If so, I look forward to seeing it, because I am not aware of any such hypotheses. If not, perhaps you didn't successfully "resolve it" other than in your mind.

We all know how that works by now...
Don't be disingenuous. You are well aware that scientists do NOT make hypotheses about the existence of God or how our consciousness is related to the existence of God!!! That does not mean the existing scientific facts cannot provide extrapolations that support such hypotheses. No one else seems to have had the kind of motivation to look for and discern them. What exactly is it that you THINK would have caused me to have this encounter, misunderstand it, and be motivated to spend decades trying to resolve its conflicts with my prior beliefs and understanding of Reality????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2024, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,806 posts, read 24,310,427 times
Reputation: 32940
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Don't be disingenuous. You are well aware that scientists do NOT make hypotheses about the existence of God or how our consciousness is related to the existence of God!!! That does not mean the existing scientific facts cannot provide extrapolations that support such hypotheses. No one else seems to have had the kind of motivation to look for and discern them. What exactly is it that you THINK would have caused me to have this encounter, misunderstand it, and be motivated to spend decades trying to resolve its conflicts with my prior beliefs and understanding of Reality????
And yet you do just that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2024, 11:23 AM
 
29,548 posts, read 9,716,744 times
Reputation: 3471
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Don't be disingenuous. You are well aware that scientists do NOT make hypotheses about the existence of God or how our consciousness is related to the existence of God!!! That does not mean the existing scientific facts cannot provide extrapolations that support such hypotheses. No one else seems to have had the kind of motivation to look for and discern them. What exactly is it that you THINK would have caused me to have this encounter, misunderstand it, and be motivated to spend decades trying to resolve its conflicts with my prior beliefs and understanding of Reality????
Again interesting and again it's past time for me to be getting onto other things, so again this will be my last throw before I go. Also interesting that more often than not my last throw is thanks to comments you post before I go...

Disingenuous is really not fair or close to the mark considering the comment you posted that I was responding to. You were/are the one who continues to reference science, your "ultimate source." You are the one who explains the requirement for "a depth of understanding of multiple aspects of science" no less!

So I ask where, how, who or what you discovered from a scientific standpoint that might help substantiate what you think you finally resolved, and "disingenuous" is what I get? You go back and forth about what existing scientific facts can or cannot provide. Extrapolations that support such a hypotheses you say, but offer no examples? Names? Nothing in the way of scientific corroboration? And I am the one being disingenuous? What a hoot!

I am far better able to abide by the obvious facts about what science does or does not do. Can or cannot do, and to leave extrapolations, hypothesis, and encounters such as yours outside the scope of science altogether. Fine, but if you want to insist otherwise, surely you can appreciate how more than your mere say so is appropriate. Whether it be in the form of synthesis, hypothesis or by way of "existing scientific facts," more than your mere say so would go a long way toward better understanding across the board.

Put another way, "you can't have it both ways."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2024, 11:43 AM
 
63,808 posts, read 40,077,272 times
Reputation: 7871
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Again interesting and again it's past time for me to be getting onto other things, so again this will be my last throw before I go. Also interesting that more often than not my last throw is thanks to comments you post before I go...

Disingenuous is really not fair or close to the mark considering the comment you posted that I was responding to. You were/are the one who continues to reference science, your "ultimate source." You are the one who explains the requirement for "a depth of understanding of multiple aspects of science" no less!

So I ask where, how, who or what you discovered from a scientific standpoint that might help substantiate what you think you finally resolved, and "disingenuous" is what I get? You go back and forth about what existing scientific facts can or cannot provide. Extrapolations that support such a hypotheses you say, but offer no examples? Names? Nothing in the way of scientific corroboration? And I am the one being disingenuous? What a hoot!

I am far better able to abide by the obvious facts about what science does or does not do. Can or cannot do, and to leave extrapolations, hypothesis, and encounters such as yours outside the scope of science altogether. Fine, but if you want to insist otherwise, surely you can appreciate how more than your mere say so is appropriate. Whether it be in the form of synthesis, hypothesis or by way of "existing scientific facts," more than your mere say so would go a long way toward better understanding across the board.

Put another way, "you can't have it both ways."
These lamentations just confirm to me that you have NOT read my Synthesis or any of the supporting explanations in my blogs which provide mote than enough detail for a serious questioner to explore for themselves and either agree or disagree with the hypotheses I derive therefrom. Like Harry, you can't have the Cliff's Notes version to avoid the intellectual effort otherwise necessary. That is why I have tried to encourage some ambitious Young Turks in the sciences to engage my Synthesis and extrapolations rigorously. I am not hopeful it will happen in my lifetime, however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:33 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top