0
gonzalesna

Question for those who don't believe in a higher power.

Recommended Posts

Quote

Man you're stubborn.;)

Who's talking about 'evidence'? I simply asked a hypothetical question as to whether a private revelation from God to an individual may exist. The answer should be 'yes' or 'no'. if 'no', where's the proof?



The answer would be neither. As there would be no way to verify whether it is actually a revelation from god or a halucination, but it's most likely to be a halucination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The believer's only evidence of such an event is his own claim.



Yeah, so? I'm talking about 'private revelations'. Notice the word 'private'?

Does the fact that it is private and experienced by a particular person make it impossible to be truthful?



Nope, not at all, and at no point have I said such "revelations" are impossible or that people claiming to have experienced them are lying.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

> If you believe in one god you should believe in them all since they
> all have the same amount of evidence of their existence.

That's like saying you should believe simultaneously that a coin hidden inside a box is a quarter, a penny, a nickel and a dime all at the same time, since there is no visible evidence of its denomination. It's probably more intelligent to assume that it is one of several possibilities, perhaps even make a guess, subject to later revision. Odds are, though, that it is not every coin simultaneously.




I agree with your point made here, but what makes Christianity so unreasonable is that they can guarantee you what the demonination is merely by faith. The scientific crowd at least gives it a shake, takes other boxes and places each coin in there 1 at a time and shakes them, records data from the sound noted and then draws a conclusion. There is still a chance of fallatability, but some real attempt is made other than a string of people making the same "guess" and all followers blindly doing so after them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The scientific crowd at least gives it a shake, takes other boxes and places
>each coin in there 1 at a time and shakes them, records data from the
>sound noted and then draws a conclusion.

No argument there, but if you can "shake the box" so to speak, it's science - not religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

> If you believe in one god you should believe in them all since they
> all have the same amount of evidence of their existence.

That's like saying you should believe simultaneously that a coin hidden inside a box is a quarter, a penny, a nickel and a dime all at the same time, since there is no visible evidence of its denomination. It's probably more intelligent to assume that it is one of several possibilities, perhaps even make a guess, subject to later revision. Odds are, though, that it is not every coin simultaneously.




I agree with your point made here, but what makes Christianity so unreasonable is that they can guarantee you what the demonination is merely by faith. The scientific crowd at least gives it a shake, takes other boxes and places each coin in there 1 at a time and shakes them, records data from the sound noted and then draws a conclusion. There is still a chance of fallatability, but some real attempt is made other than a string of people making the same "guess" and all followers blindly doing so after them.



"Chance of fallatability"? Maybe a 1 in 1000 chance if you ONLY "shake the box", but if you're doing real science, the "puzzle" should be solvable to damn near certainty.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

> If you believe in one god you should believe in them all since they
> all have the same amount of evidence of their existence.

That's like saying you should believe simultaneously that a coin hidden inside a box is a quarter, a penny, a nickel and a dime all at the same time, since there is no visible evidence of its denomination. It's probably more intelligent to assume that it is one of several possibilities, perhaps even make a guess, subject to later revision. Odds are, though, that it is not every coin simultaneously.




I agree with your point made here, but what makes Christianity so unreasonable is that they can guarantee you what the demonination is merely by faith. The scientific crowd at least gives it a shake, takes other boxes and places each coin in there 1 at a time and shakes them, records data from the sound noted and then draws a conclusion. There is still a chance of fallatability, but some real attempt is made other than a string of people making the same "guess" and all followers blindly doing so after them.



"Chance of fallatability"? Maybe a 1 in 1000 chance if you ONLY "shake the box", but if you're doing real science, the "puzzle" should be solvable to damn near certainty.



Yea, I agree, but I hate to get near absolute certainty, cause then I bring myself closer to what the other side (the Christians) does; they guarantee. I like science, it observes and makes theories, I despise religion, it makes absolutes based upon what their predecessors believe w/o question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yea, I agree, but I hate to get near absolute certainty, cause then I bring myself closer to what the other side (the Christians) does; they guarantee. I like science, it observes and makes theories, I despise religion, it makes absolutes based upon what their predecessors believe w/o question.



See but that's the thing, I NEVER need to open the box to know with nearly 100% certainty what is inside of it. In fact, I don't have to shake the box, nor do I have to even open the box. I don't have to even look at the box with my own eyes. Science has given me tools that allow me to "know" the nature of a lot of things I can't perceive with my own senses and to do it in repeatable and testable ways.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Yea, I agree, but I hate to get near absolute certainty, cause then I bring myself closer to what the other side (the Christians) does; they guarantee. I like science, it observes and makes theories, I despise religion, it makes absolutes based upon what their predecessors believe w/o question.



See but that's the thing, I NEVER need to open the box to know with nearly 100% certainty what is inside of it. In fact, I don't have to shake the box, nor do I have to even open the box. I don't have to even look at the box with my own eyes. Science has given me tools that allow me to "know" the nature of a lot of things I can't perceive with my own senses and to do it in repeatable and testable ways.



Right, I was describing the scientific model, regardless of who does it, that's how it's done. And science dislikes the approach where we are always and forever certain of anything, as the entire mess is dynamic, always changing. UNlike religion that never even pick up the box and excommunicates anyone that dares to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I would expect a gifted scientific thinker (which I am definitely not), would respond to my hypothetical in the following way: "Although I have not personally seen scientific proof of a true private revelation from God, I have also not seen scientific proof of the absence of a true private revelation from God; therefore I could not claim that either theory is correct."



As I have said before, it does not fix the problem. It only makes it worse.
Using exactly the same theory you now need to accept the possibility of existence of Odin, Zeus and zillions of other Gods. Now if you accept it, you need to guess the relationship they have with each other, the hierarchy between them, who wants what and all other stuff.

However this is useless from the scientific point of view, and provides no benefits for humankind. Just imagine the plague some time ago. You ask for cure. Such a "scientist" might guess there is God, he punishes those who sins or prays little, and we all need to pray more. But a real scientist would study the bacteria, the immune system, and it will lead to antibiotics.

And another thing is that you now should extend this theory to anything and everything, and say that although you have not personally seen scientific proof that praying the Ikea chair will bring your soul to Heaven, you have not seen scientific proof that praying the Ikea chair will NOT bring your soul to Heaven. Therefore I could not claim that either theory is correct, and if someone wants to Heaven, they might need to pray Ikea chair as well.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Using exactly the same theory you now need to accept the possibility
>of existence of Odin, Zeus and zillions of other Gods.

Correct.

>Now if you accept it, you need to guess the relationship they have with
>each other, the hierarchy between them, who wants what and all other
>stuff.

No, you don't.

>Just imagine the plague some time ago. You ask for cure. Such a
>"scientist" might guess there is God, he punishes those who sins or prays
>little, and we all need to pray more. But a real scientist would study the
>bacteria, the immune system, and it will lead to antibiotics.

That would not be a scientist; that would be a cleric, or a priest, or a theologian.

Alternative - a guy comes into counseling with some really serious problems. A scientist might take blood samples and analyze what his problem is, and why he killed himself after he left. A priest might talk to him, use his religious training to do what he can for the man, and just maybe keep him alive.

Does that demonstrate any kind of scientific superiority? No. But it is a better outcome? Definitely. Human beings live in a physical world, but sometimes require more than science to live well in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[reply
Human beings live in a physical world, but sometimes require more than science to live well in it.

Only the nut jobs.
Psychology, and Psychiatry are both sciences
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stand on the sidelines, watching all the fun! Seriously, though I'm still in the souls market. Though don't get any inflated notions of value - there's a huge oversupply issue at present.
S.Atan

"Live a little, don't just love. So the world may know the Devil, and not just god is an Englishman"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I would expect a gifted scientific thinker (which I am definitely not), would respond to my hypothetical in the following way: "Although I have not personally seen scientific proof of a true private revelation from God, I have also not seen scientific proof of the absence of a true private revelation from God; therefore I could not claim that either theory is correct."



I'm not a gifted scientist either, but this argument fails in so many ways it's laughable - on scientific and logical grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Freud and Jung were certainly not scientific.



Not sure I agree with that. Science is observation and correlation. Observations need to be reproducible independent of the observer to be valid in science. I think they managed to do that to a reasonable extent. Maybe their correlations weren't too good, but they're observations weren't too bad.
We are all engines of karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Mmmm...not too sure about pyschiatry....Freud and Jung were certainly not scientific.


They are not psychiatry. (they merely had some input into it) here in OZ you need a medical degree before you can enter into psychiatry
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, I was describing the scientific model, regardless of who does it, that's how it's done. And science dislikes the approach where we are always and forever certain of anything, as the entire mess is dynamic, always changing. UNlike religion that never even pick up the box and excommunicates anyone that dares to do so.
Quote



Maybe according to your "Pop Religion" books. The true Spiritual seekers tries to learn and apply God's Wisdom to their daily life. God's Wisdom is universally true. Universal Truth produces insightful understanding of the intangible reality that surrounds us. The reality that science totally ignores. Spiritual Wisdom is tested by a trial and error method. What works is kept, what doesn't is rejected or held out for more study. The Bible is a textbook of Spiritual Truth. When correctly understood, produces profound results in the life of the believer. A spiritually powerful, successful life is evidence of Universal Truth.

_______________________________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm..I think the defining characteristic of the scientific method is making testable hypotheses. If it can't be tested, it ain't science.

Freudian and Jungian 'theory' is based on their own, subjective experience. Any predictability (and I'm not sure there was any) could be negated by placebo or observer bias.

I'm also pretty sure their observations were not reproducible..

In reply to:
They are not psychiatry. (they merely had some input into it) here in OZ you need a medical degree before you can enter into psychiatry

In all fairness, Freud was an MD....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



In reply to:
They are not psychiatry. (they merely had some input into it) here in OZ you need a medical degree before you can enter into psychiatry

In all fairness, Freud was an MD....

That has nothing to do with my assertion. I said that THEY (Jung & Freud) are not psychiatry, but merely early players in the game
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they were more than early players in the game. Freud is widely considered the founder of the modern psychoanalytic method - despite whatever you may think of it...

And BTW the reply was to your assertion a medical degree is needed before entering psychiatry in OZ. as if OZ was exceptional...it's the same with the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


>Now if you accept it, you need to guess the relationship they have with
>each other, the hierarchy between them, who wants what and all other
>stuff.
No, you don't.



Technically you don't. But the next obvious step is - if we assume there is God, could we prove he doesn't want us to do something? No. This means the God wants us to do something. However another God might want us to do something else; thus we need to understand who is the boss there.

Quote


Alternative - a guy comes into counseling with some really serious problems. A scientist might take blood samples and analyze what his problem is, and why he killed himself after he left.



Looks like he kinda went to a wrong scientist. If someone has a psychological problem, he should go to a psychologist, not to a serologyst.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>if we assume there is God, could we prove he doesn't want us to do
>something? No.

Correct.

>This means the God wants us to do something.

An unsupportable assumption. Lack of proof in one aspect of a theory does not prove the converse.

>However another God might want us to do something else; thus we need
>to understand who is the boss there.

No, you don't. No one said anything about a boss, or anyone wanting you to do anything.

>Looks like he kinda went to a wrong scientist. If someone has a
>psychological problem, he should go to a psychologist, not to a serologyst.

You are exactly correct. Not every scientist can solve every problem; indeed, there are some problems that are actually better solved by non-scientists. That does not invalidate science. Likewise, the fact that scientists cannot validate religion does not invalidate religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think they were more than early players in the game. Freud is widely considered the founder of the modern psychoanalytic method - despite whatever you may think of it...

And BTW the reply was to your assertion a medical degree is needed before entering psychiatry in OZ. as if OZ was exceptional...it's the same with the rest of the world.


Considered ONE of the founders, but still only an early player. the science of Psychiatric medicine has progressed just a little since his time.

I also know that most place also require an MD qual, it was used to illustrate psychiatry as part of the sciences,
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0