Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
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 01-23-2024, 10:55 AM
 
29,554 posts, read 9,748,458 times
Reputation: 3473

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I agree there is no simplistic or easily acquired "litmus test," but I spent decades acquiring the knowledge to intelligently explain how the reality of what I experienced is conceivable. That is not mere "speculation," your opinion notwithstanding.
Nor is your experience and say so any sort of litmus test anyone else can apply in any meaningful way...

Makes me wonder why you go to the effort you do anyway. Have you a notion that repeating your experience to others in this forum or anywhere else is going to somehow accomplish something? Or is your effort entirely self-serving? Self-gratifying? Self-validating?

All the above?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-23-2024, 01:47 PM
 
63,885 posts, read 40,157,333 times
Reputation: 7883
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Nor is your experience and say so any sort of litmus test anyone else can apply in any meaningful way...

Makes me wonder why you go to the effort you do anyway. Have you a notion that repeating your experience to others in this forum or anywhere else is going to somehow accomplish something? Or is your effort entirely self-serving? Self-gratifying? Self-validating?

All the above?
It was requested by a friend and it did seem to have some benefit for some here. Most of my efforts here are clarification for those believers or fence-sitters for whom it might confirm their own experiences of the presence of God. You seem to have dismissed your own experiences as illusory or misguided for reasons expressed in your pragmatic Ten Truths. But they summarize a very shallow knowledge of the relevant science that impinges on belief in God, IMO. The typical religious BELIEFS ABOUT God in the extant religions seem to have skewed your concept of God beyond your ability to conceptualize any other concept of God reconcilable with science (or more likely, you just don't see the value of the intellectual effort necessary). In any case, most of the believers here do not seem able to abandon their indoctrinated conceptions of God, anyway. It is an enigma.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2024, 10:37 AM
 
29,554 posts, read 9,748,458 times
Reputation: 3473
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It was requested by a friend and it did seem to have some benefit for some here. Most of my efforts here are clarification for those believers or fence-sitters for whom it might confirm their own experiences of the presence of God. You seem to have dismissed your own experiences as illusory or misguided for reasons expressed in your pragmatic Ten Truths. But they summarize a very shallow knowledge of the relevant science that impinges on belief in God, IMO. The typical religious BELIEFS ABOUT God in the extant religions seem to have skewed your concept of God beyond your ability to conceptualize any other concept of God reconcilable with science (or more likely, you just don't see the value of the intellectual effort necessary). In any case, most of the believers here do not seem able to abandon their indoctrinated conceptions of God, anyway. It is an enigma.
Perhaps, and if a benefit to anyone else, good for them and good for you, but your ongoing long-time efforts are obviously inspired by other than a request of a friend. Again you love to suggest I am dismissing one thing or another, but on the contrary I am taking everything into account; my experiences, yours, others, and all the learning I have been able to manage all along the way in order to make sense of it all.

Accordingly, I will admit to a "shallow knowledge of the relevant science" that actually supports god theories, but this is because knowledge is one thing. Theory is another, and all I'm ever trying to do is properly distinguish between the two. I also have a shallow knowledge of astrology, flat earth theory, the Loch Ness Monster and a good many other subjects in much the same way. Perhaps even guilty of dismissing some "knowledge" about those things too, but that's what critical thinking helps us to do when it comes to a great many subjects such as these.

As for a "shallow knowledge of the relevant science that impinges on belief in God," with all due respect to your opinion, I am at least somewhat knowledgeable about that. Yes. More than you seem wanting to give me credit for or recognize yourself.

Of course we tend to be "at odds" about all this sort of thing and how we continue to beat this poor dead horse, I have to wonder, but it's hard for me not to think it is you who dismisses a good deal of "relevant science that impinges on belief in God." Relevant science, history, psychology and a good many other sources of knowledge and/or "impingements" that should give anyone good reason to "think twice" about god theories. At least twice before coming to believe in them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2024, 01:33 PM
 
63,885 posts, read 40,157,333 times
Reputation: 7883
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Perhaps, and if a benefit to anyone else, good for them and good for you, but your ongoing long-time efforts are obviously inspired by other than a request of a friend. Again you love to suggest I am dismissing one thing or another, but on the contrary I am taking everything into account; my experiences, yours, others, and all the learning I have been able to manage all along the way in order to make sense of it all.

Accordingly, I will admit to a "shallow knowledge of the relevant science" that actually supports god theories, but this is because knowledge is one thing. Theory is another, and all I'm ever trying to do is properly distinguish between the two. I also have a shallow knowledge of astrology, flat earth theory, the Loch Ness Monster and a good many other subjects in much the same way. Perhaps even guilty of dismissing some "knowledge" about those things too, but that's what critical thinking helps us to do when it comes to a great many subjects such as these.

As for a "shallow knowledge of the relevant science that impinges on belief in God," with all due respect to your opinion, I am at least somewhat knowledgeable about that. Yes. More than you seem wanting to give me credit for or recognize yourself.

Of course we tend to be "at odds" about all this sort of thing and how we continue to beat this poor dead horse, I have to wonder, but it's hard for me not to think it is you who dismisses a good deal of "relevant science that impinges on belief in God." Relevant science, history, psychology and a good many other sources of knowledge and/or "impingements" that should give anyone good reason to "think twice" about god theories. At least twice before coming to believe in them.
It is the "shallow knowledge of the relevant science" that accounts for the generic dismissal of any efforts in science to find plausible hypotheses for how the existence of God could conceivably be true. The personal subjective nature of any detection of the presence of God-as-consciousness by our consciousness precludes the normal second-hand validation science requires. I put the effort in because I knew no other scientist ever would without a similar "smack upside the head."

Who knows, LearnMe, the fact that a polymath scientist derived legitimate plausible hypotheses from the extant "relevant science that impinges on God-belief" might provoke someone else to at least reexamine the suggested linkages for their plausibility. I would hope that my neural synaptic resonance theory of consciousness and the mathematical modeling of resonance in the EEG and speech signals using the stochastic differential equation might lead to the "calculus-level" breakthrough necessary to merge relativity and quantum theories. Of curse, I am sure to be long dead by then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2024, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,903 posts, read 24,404,506 times
Reputation: 32996
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It is the "shallow knowledge of the relevant science" that accounts for the generic dismissal of any efforts in science to find plausible hypotheses for how the existence of God could conceivably be true. The personal subjective nature of any detection of the presence of God-as-consciousness by our consciousness precludes the normal second-hand validation science requires. I put the effort in because I knew no other scientist ever would without a similar "smack upside the head."

Who knows, LearnMe, the fact that a polymath scientist derived legitimate plausible hypotheses from the extant "relevant science that impinges on God-belief" might provoke someone else to at least reexamine the suggested linkages for their plausibility. I would hope that my neural synaptic resonance theory of consciousness and the mathematical modeling of resonance in the EEG and speech signals using the stochastic differential equation might lead to the "calculus-level" breakthrough necessary to merge relativity and quantum theories. Of curse, I am sure to be long dead by then.
Shallow is the key word.

Let's go back to junior high science.

The scientific method is designed so that any experimenter would develop the same results given the same variables.

Who are the other scientists who have replicated your "event"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2024, 03:14 PM
 
63,885 posts, read 40,157,333 times
Reputation: 7883
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It is the "shallow knowledge of the relevant science" that accounts for the generic dismissal of any efforts in science to find plausible hypotheses for how the existence of God could conceivably be true. The personal subjective nature of any detection of the presence of God-as-consciousness by our consciousness precludes the normal second-hand validation science requires. I put the effort in because I knew no other scientist ever would without a similar "smack upside the head."

Who knows, LearnMe, the fact that a polymath scientist derived legitimate plausible hypotheses from the extant "relevant science that impinges on God-belief" might provoke someone else to at least reexamine the suggested linkages for their plausibility. I would hope that my neural synaptic resonance theory of consciousness and the mathematical modeling of resonance in the EEG and speech signals using the stochastic differential equation might lead to the "calculus-level" breakthrough necessary to merge relativity and quantum theories. Of course, I am sure to be long dead by then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
Shallow is the key word.

Let's go back to junior high science.

The scientific method is designed so that any experimenter would develop the same results given the same variables.

Who are the other scientists who have replicated your "event"?
Do you even read my posts before responding, Phet? The bold in my posts is your answer. As to the experience, many, many, many, mystics have had similar (not identical) experiences over the centuries and millennia. I doubt many of them were scientists, but I cannot be certain. Try using Ph.D.-level science instead of junior high for your future posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2024, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,903 posts, read 24,404,506 times
Reputation: 32996
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Do you even read my posts before responding, Phet? The bold in my posts is your answer. As to the experience, many, many, many, mystics have had similar (not identical) experiences over the centuries and millennia. I doubt many of them were scientists, but I cannot be certain. Try using Ph.D.-level science instead of junior high for your future posts.
I've read so many of your posts that I am considering once again putting you on ignore.

Ah, you're a mystic now. How very scientific. And all these other mystics came up with the same thing you dreamed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2024, 05:19 PM
 
63,885 posts, read 40,157,333 times
Reputation: 7883
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
I've read so many of your posts that I am considering once again putting you on ignore.

Ah, you're a mystic now. How very scientific. And all these other mystics came up with the same thing you dreamed?
Are you under the impression that mystics cannot be scientists or vice versa??? BTW, similar does not mean the same and just because you are not familiar with any altered states other than dreams does not mean they do not exist or that I was not "awake and sober" during it.

Last edited by MysticPhD; 01-24-2024 at 05:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2024, 05:49 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,903 posts, read 24,404,506 times
Reputation: 32996
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Are you under the impression that mystics cannot be scientists or vice versa??? BTW, similar does not mean the same and just because you are not familiar with any altered states other than dreams does not mean they do not exist or that I was not "awake and sober" during it.
Goodbye, Mystic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2024, 06:14 PM
 
63,885 posts, read 40,157,333 times
Reputation: 7883
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
Goodbye, Mystic
Goodbye, Phet. Be well.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 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