[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So if I give you and John a bunch of textures, you would both choose the same one as the most "God-like"? Colors? Smells? Tastes?

I could show people colors and they could pretty much all match purple. I could show people a satilite photo, and most could ID New Zealand. I can tell someone how to find New Zealand and they can follow the insturctions and findit and agree they found it.

None of these can be done for God. You say you smell him, but what does he smell like? I can identify a rose smell, and so can John, and so can you.

Yes but your definition of what a rose smells like is gained by smelling one, and having someone tell you that that is what you are smelling. The same goes for all of our sensations. There is absolutely no evidence that we smell the same things, only that our definition for what we smell has been labeled by someone else as 'rose'.

And as for the first bit, I can tell you how to find God, it is through study and belief in his word. Your abilites to follow those directions are just the same as my abilities to follow yours to New Zealand.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Actually, Hisenberg uncertanty says quite matter-of-factly that it has no speed and no position until you check for it. You can accept or reject the principle as a whole, please don't pick only parts of it.

I'm all about the accepting, big fan of it in fact! MY bringing up of the uncertainty principle is simply to point out that many many things are unprovable, AND believed in by science. After all, the word Theory doesn't preceed things like gravity and evolution for no reason.

Jake

[JerryLove]

Yes but your definition of what a rose smells like is gained by smelling one, and having someone tell you that that is what you are smelling. The same goes for all of our sensations. There is absolutely no evidence that we smell the same things, only that our definition for what we smell has been labeled by someone else as 'rose'.

Irrellevent. If I gave you a bunch of fragrences, you could identify the "most roselike"... similarly, John should pick the same one.

Same test, just "most Godlike" instead of "most roselike"; do you assert that you would both pick the same one?

And as for the first bit, I can tell you how to find God, it is through study and belief in his word. Your abilites to follow those directions are just the same as my abilities to follow yours to New Zealand.

I've read the Bible twice, I've been a believing theist, I've been in religious discussion here for years and thoroughout my life. I followed your "directions" and found no God.

Further "believe" is not a direction... "Go west 2000 miles and south 1000 miles" is.

I'm all about the accepting, big fan of it in fact! MY bringing up of the uncertainty principle is simply to point out that many many things are unprovable, AND believed in by science.

But your asserted belief is untrue. We do not hold that a particle in question has a fixed position when we check for speed... Heisenberg asserts that it doesn't... you have the whole thing backwards... you also equivocate "suspect", "consider likely", and "believe".

After all, the word Theory doesn't preceed things like gravity and evolution for no reason.

I swear if I get one more person incapable of understanding what the **** a "theory" is in scientific terms [http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...ad.php?t=30548 and http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...ad.php?t=22894], I'm gonna go postal and start tracking people down. You have no idea what the word means... look it up befor you comment on it again.

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Irrellevent. If I gave you a bunch of fragrences, you could identify the "most roselike"... similarly, John should pick the same one.

Same test, just "most Godlike" instead of "most roselike"; do you assert that you would both pick the same one?

Absolutely not irrelevant. It's the filter through which all things are judged, and its calibrated by other people. Other people therefore have to have considerations when dealing with truth. After all, you are judgeing rose-like with the definition of what a rose smells like defined to you by other people. If I raised a child by telling him that lilies were called roses he would undoubtedly fail that little test.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I've read the Bible twice, I've been a believing theist, I've been in religious discussion here for years and thoroughout my life. I followed your "directions" and found no God.

This is no more convincing than if I failed to find New Zealand.....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Further "believe" is not a direction... "Go west 2000 miles and south 1000 miles" is.

Dictionary.com and I disagree
di·rec·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-rkshn, d-)
n.
1The act or function of directing.
2Management, supervision, or guidance of an action or operation.
3The art or action of musical or theatrical directing.
4Music. A word or phrase in a score indicating how a passage is to be played or sung.
5An instruction or series of instructions for doing or finding something. Often used in the plural.
6An authoritative indication; an order or command.
....
there were more, but "believe" falls into 6.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But your asserted belief is untrue. We do not hold that a particle in question has a fixed position when we check for speed... Heisenberg asserts that it doesn't... you have the whole thing backwards... you also equivocate "suspect", "consider likely", and "believe".

Nope, Heisenberg stated (Delta)p > h / 4 (pi) (Delta)q , where (delta)q is the unceratainty of the position, (Delta)p is the uncertainty of the momentum, and h is Plank's constant. This holds that once you're increasingly accuratley measuring position that the momentum measurement has a depreciatingly accurate momentum measure, not that it has no momentum till you look.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I swear if I get one more person incapable of understanding what the **** a "theory" is in scientific terms [http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...ad.php?t=30548 and http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...ad.php?t=22894], I'm gonna go postal and start tracking people down. You have no idea what the word means... look it up befor you comment on it again.

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
6.An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Happy? I thought that might help out your blood pressure. It's not good for ya to get so worked up. I know exactly what a theory is my friend, I ALSO know why those same THEORIES aren't yet LAWS... perhaps the difference means nothing to you, but I find it highly relevant.

Jake

[JerryLove]

Absolutely not irrelevant. It's the filter through which all things are judged, and its calibrated by other people. Other people therefore have to have considerations when dealing with truth. After all, you are judgeing rose-like with the definition of what a rose smells like defined to you by other people. If I raised a child by telling him that lilies were called roses he would undoubtedly fail that little test.

You seem to be ignoring the issue to argue some odd symantic tryst.

John and you are not using different definitions of God, so this argument about weather you think a lillac is a rose is hardly useful. If I asked you to pick out the rose smell, you could do it (confusingly similar smells aside). If I asked John to pick out the rose smell, he could do it as well. Now I repeat with God...

Or are you claiming that you can smell God, but no one but you knows which smell that is?

This is no more convincing than if I failed to find New Zealand.....

I can take you through the directions myself. If you fail to find New Zealand you are going quite blind.... meanwhile the other 6 billion or so of us *can* emperically find New Zealand.

there were more, but "believe" falls into 6.

This is what I mean. You must fully understand the distinction at hand, but your more interested in the symantic... were this a symantic argument, or at least one based on vocabulary, we could have this sub-argument... but it's not. I know what I mean, you know what I mean, and everyone else knows what I mean when I make a distinction between "believe this true and you'll feel it" and "turn left and you'll bump into it".

Nope, Heisenberg stated (Delta)p > h / 4 (pi) (Delta)q , where (delta)q is the unceratainty of the position, (Delta)p is the uncertainty of the momentum, and h is Plank's constant. This holds that once you're increasingly accuratley measuring position that the momentum measurement has a depreciatingly accurate momentum measure, not that it has no momentum till you look.

You are ignoring the fact that, in quanta, shrodinger is right. It has no exact position nor exact speed until you observe it... that's *why* you can't know both.

"I believe that the existence of the classical "path" can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The "path" comes into existence only when we observe it." --Heisenberg, "uncertainty principle paper", 1927

Happy? I thought that might help out your blood pressure. It's not good for ya to get so worked up. I know exactly what a theory is my friend

You concieted moron! You have no ****** clue with the **** a theory is. I went through all the trouble of writing not one, but two descriptive and explicit definition of the word on two of the tree sticky thread on this forum. I even put links in case you were too lazy to go to them manually.

I ALSO know why those same THEORIES aren't yet LAWS

Law: a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

Welcome to the wonderful world of equivocation!

"Theory", like "law" has more than one meaning. You are using the wrong one, which I pointed out, and like a lemming you simply ignored and trotted on off the cliff.

The word "theory", as used in "theory of gravity" and "theory of evolution" (your two examples), is "an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers."

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You seem to be ignoring the issue to argue some odd symantic tryst.

John and you are not using different definitions of God, so this argument about weather you think a lillac is a rose is hardly useful. If I asked you to pick out the rose smell, you could do it (confusingly similar smells aside). If I asked John to pick out the rose smell, he could do it as well. Now I repeat with God...

Or are you claiming that you can smell God, but no one but you knows which smell that is?

No, I'm claiming that my feelings of God are just as valid as your feelings of cold. That is they are purely internal, and only justified as reality by trying to figure if other people feel the same thing. They do. Both for your cold sensation and my God sensation.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I can take you through the directions myself. If you fail to find New Zealand you are going quite blind.... meanwhile the other 6 billion or so of us *can* emperically find New Zealand.

And if someone couldn't what do you do? SO many people can, it MUST be simple huh? That's how I feel about God. I found Him.... millions of people throughout history have too.... If you haven't I don't see what that has to do with the fact that millions have succeeded.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

This is what I mean. You must fully understand the distinction at hand, but your more interested in the symantic... were this a symantic argument, or at least one based on vocabulary, we could have this sub-argument... but it's not. I know what I mean, you know what I mean, and everyone else knows what I mean when I make a distinction between "believe this true and you'll feel it" and "turn left and you'll bump into it".

If by interested in the semantic you are implying that I am interested in pointing out the meaning of the word I used as I meant it then heck yeah I'm interested! When I used the word believe, I meant believe #6 as I posted above. Frankly, I don't think we're gonna settle this one. I have a pretty firm belief that if you followed that direction when you were a theist, you wouldn't be an atheist now..... true belief doesn't fall away that is.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You are ignoring the fact that, in quanta, shrodinger is right. It has no exact position nor exact speed until you observe it... that's *why* you can't know both.

Good, and my point is that there are some things you cannot know. Both the exact speed and position of Quantum particles is one. The nature of God is another.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

"I believe that the existence of the classical "path" can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The "path" comes into existence only when we observe it." --Heisenberg, "uncertainty principle paper", 1927

fine, fine.... no objections here....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You concieted moron! You have no ****** clue with the **** a theory is.

Here it gets a little rougher though

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I went through all the trouble of writing not one, but two descriptive and explicit definition of the word on two of the tree sticky thread on this forum. I even put links in case you were too lazy to go to them manually.

I like the way you get all condescending in this next part....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Law: a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

Welcome to the wonderful world of equivocation!

Right THERE!!! downright forceful! That's impressive coming through such an impersonal medium.....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

"Theory", like "law" has more than one meaning. You are using the wrong ****** one... which I pointed out, and like a ******* lemming you simply ignored and trotted on off the cliff.

...ahhh lemmings.... I loved those games....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The word "theory", as used in "theory of gravity" and "theory of evolution" (your two examples), is "an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers."

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

Thanks Jerry! I'll take that one home with me tonight. And I'll definitly not misuse these words again. At least not knowingly....

However, that doesn't change the fact that Laws and Theories (being careful here ) are unproven. This is in the mathematical sense of the word, that is that its proven with 100 percent accuracy. As for as the provability of a Theory of nature, the best you can do is say it is a highly probable explanation because our understanding of the theory is based on our understanding of our observations, which are ever increasing in number, but not yet infinite. That is, the behaviours we are observing (and getting our theories from) may change at any time (however unlikely this may be). Frankly you're a smart guy so I think you know all this, but I went ahead and wrote down my sources in case you want to discuss this point any.

Jake

Oh, yeah.... We should work on that anger man. I swear it can't be good for you, blood pressure and all. I'll pray for you.

[pixnaps]

No, I'm claiming that my feelings of God are just as valid as your feelings of cold. That is they are purely internal, and only justified as reality by trying to figure if other people feel the same thing. They do. Both for your cold sensation and my God sensation.

what stimuli elicit feelings of "God", may i ask?
There is an obvious difference here, and it's disturbing that despite all the discussion so far, you still seem oblivious to it. That difference is to do with whether "other people feel the same thing" (your own words). You think they do. But you are ignoring the stimulus!

If i walk into a refridgerator, i will feel cold. If i pull you (or ANYBODY else who doubts this) into said refridgerator, you will also feel cold.

If you feel God... then what? If you pull me over and plonk me down in the exact same place you were sitting when you felt God, will i now feel God? of course not.

It's like Jerry was saying, with the roses, and which smell "God-like". There is no consistent God-eliciting stimuli (well, actually, there is a certain region of the brain which with electrical stimulation can bring feelings of religious awe. But that just suggests that religious experiences may be purely internal, essentially hallucinations. So i'm guessing you'd rather ignore this particular bit of evidence!).

And if someone couldn't what do you do? SO many people can, it MUST be simple huh? That's how I feel about God. I found Him.... millions of people throughout history have too.... If you haven't I don't see what that has to do with the fact that millions have succeeded.

millions are also Muslim, or Hindu, (or atheistic for that matter) so i hope you're not advancing mere popularity of an experience as evidence that it is a TRUE experience?

Some experiences can be verified by ANYBODY, and those are the ones which we take as being reliable... i can put you on a plane to NZ, if you can't find it yourself. Can you put me on a plane to God?
(and no, "believe" is not a direction! otherwise i'll tell you to "believe" in magical faeries... ooh, someone believes in them, they must be real then!)

I like the way you get all condescending in this next part....

not that jerry needs defending, but you do realise you deserved every bit of what he said, right?

"I know exactly what a theory is my friend"... rrrriiiiiigggghhhhttt.

This is in the mathematical sense of the word, that is that its proven with 100 percent accuracy.

do you have a point here? reality is messier than maths, we all know that. It doesn't change the fact that we can be reasonably sure of things. Only an idiot would doubt a scientific theory (which you should read as "fact") because we can't be 100% sure of it. There's nothing wrong with 99.9%

[JerryLove]

No, I'm claiming that my feelings of God are just as valid as your feelings of cold. That is they are purely internal, and only justified as reality by trying to figure if other people feel the same thing. They do. Both for your cold sensation and my God sensation.

They are not demonstrateable, they are not testable. I can test for cold, I can test for NewZealand, the tests I can come up with for an emperical proof of God (based on your asseratations) keep establishing that your "sensory input" in this regard is false (the inability for 2 people to agree on what the sensory input is, for example).

And if someone couldn't what do you do? SO many people can, it MUST be simple huh? That's how I feel about God. I found Him.... millions of people throughout history have too.... If you haven't I don't see what that has to do with the fact that millions have succeeded.

You are taking my critique of your deliberate obstinance and trying to from an appeal to popularity.

If by interested in the semantic you are implying that I am interested in pointing out the meaning of the word I used as I meant it then heck yeah I'm interested!

A symantic argument over symantic arguments. Try looking up "red herring".

When I used the word believe, I meant believe #6 as I posted above. Frankly, I don't think we're gonna settle this one. I have a pretty firm belief that if you followed that direction when you were a theist, you wouldn't be an atheist now..... true belief doesn't fall away that is.

An appeal to igorance then?

Good, and my point is that there are some things you cannot know. Both the exact speed and position of Quantum particles is one. The nature of God is another.

And there are some things you can know, the location ot NewZealand for example.

Thanks Jerry! I'll take that one home with me tonight. And I'll definitly not misuse these words again. At least not knowingly....

So, when I pointed out *the first time* that you were isuing then and provided *two* links to proper definitions, you simply ignored that why?

However, that doesn't change the fact that Laws and Theories (being careful here ) are unproven. This is in the mathematical sense of the word, that is that its proven with 100 percent accuracy.

Give me an example of where (for example) the theory of Bouyancy has ever been inaccurate.

As for as the provability of a Theory of nature, the best you can do is say it is a highly probable explanation because our understanding of the theory is based on our understanding of our observations, which are ever increasing in number, but not yet infinite.

You are back to proving that your belief in God is unproven; which seems stark contrast to your thesis that God is emperically evidenced.

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by pixnaps

...
It's like Jerry was saying, with the roses, and which smell "God-like". There is no consistent God-eliciting stimuli (well, actually, there is a certain region of the brain which with electrical stimulation can bring feelings of religious awe. But that just suggests that religious experiences may be purely internal, essentially hallucinations. So i'm guessing you'd rather ignore this particular bit of evidence!).
...

Quite far from being some incredible relevation to me, this is my entire point! I don't want to ignore little bits of evidence like my positions are based on ignorance, rather I would say that you can ALSO track 'cold' sensations to electrical stimuli in the brain! WHOA!!! Crazy Talk!!! That's right, JUST like your incredible religious experience evidence, it also suggests that cold, and blue are purely internal experiences. That being said, my purely internal experience of blue is just as valid as my purely internal experience of God. And other people who are not inside of me, not experienceing either, doesn't invalidate them!

In fact, as I was trying to say, the only validation of these stimuli is to ask other people if they internally sense the same things. If most everyone agree's, we call it truth, if most people disagree we call it a cold flash, or a hot flash, or prysmatic light hallucination, whatever! Other people though also can feel God. Why should I invalidate my feeling because some people don't fell Him. After all some do... so the choice is I'm crazy and the skeptics are right, or I'm sane and the skeptics are wrong.

I'm SURE you know which I choose.

Originally Posted by pixnaps

Only an idiot would doubt a scientific theory (which you should read as "fact") because we can't be 100% sure of it. There's nothing wrong with 99.9%

See, I learned recently, from good ole Jerry, that a Theory is very dynamic. This seem to me to indicate that only an idiot would fully believe a reasoning that by its very own definition is unfinished and changeing. Not that I don't love them mind you. Gravity is cool. But 100% faith should be reserved for things that at least claim that they will continue to be the same in the next 5 seconds.

Please restrain your self as much as you can from the "Jake doesn't believe in Scientific Theories" lines. I am talking about 100% faith here. Because that's what a complete lack of doubt is, which you claim only and idiot wouldn't possess.

Jake

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

They are not demonstrateable, they are not testable. I can test for cold, I can test for NewZealand, the tests I can come up with for an emperical proof of God (based on your asseratations) keep establishing that your "sensory input" in this regard is false (the inability for 2 people to agree on what the sensory input is, for example).

The point I am trying to make is that sensory input is what we all us to interperate everything, and there is absolutely no evidence that that input is objective truth. Therefore, my God feelings are just as valid as your cold feeling.

Originally Posted by JakeW

And if someone couldn't what do you do? SO many people can, it MUST be simple huh? That's how I feel about God. I found Him.... millions of people throughout history have too.... If you haven't I don't see what that has to do with the fact that millions have succeeded.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You are taking my critique of your deliberate obstinance and trying to from an appeal to popularity.

Absolutely wrong. I could care less of your critique. My entire point is that our only evidence of truth is the comparison of our internal stimulation with other peoples. If they agree it's reality, if they don't its hallucination. You are claiming (I think...) that you don't sense God therefore its hallucination, and I am claiming that millions of people DO sense God, so it's reality as defined by the only measure that we have.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

A symantic argument over symantic arguments. Try looking up "red herring".

A beautifuly witty dodge, touche`

Originally Posted by Jerrlove

And there are some things you can know, the location ot NewZealand for example.

This, in no way, confirm or denies that there are some things you can't know. Subject changing?

Originally Posted by Jerrlove

So, when I pointed out *the first time* that you were isuing then and provided *two* links to proper definitions, you simply ignored that why?

I do believe in apologizeing for things I have done wrong. I also believe I already did apologize. Instead of writing another, I figure you can scroll back to it and read it as many times as it takes for you to feel better. This way we both save time.

Originally Posted by Jerylove

Give me an example of where (for example) the theory of Bouyancy has ever been inaccurate.

I am sure you would agree that the originally offered equations on most law of physics have needed revision in order to be more accurate. I submit the original Theory of Gravity, as compared to the one proposed by String Theorists in order to more accuratly provide for gravitons and multi-dimensional gravity effects. It seems to me that if I theory is revised (as they all are under the dynamic definition) that they must have started out with inaccuracy in order to NEED revision.

Originally Posted by jerrylove

You are back to proving that your belief in God is unproven; which seems stark contrast to your thesis that God is emperically evidenced.

Wrong again, I am going back to asserting that God has as much proof as blue does. Not much in either case, but people seem to like blue and cold a lot...

Jake

[JerryLove]

The point I am trying to make is that sensory input is what we all us to interperate everything, and there is absolutely no evidence that that input is objective truth. Therefore, my God feelings are just as valid as your cold feeling.

No, they are not. They are not demonstrateable, they are not testable. I can test for cold, I can test for NewZealand, the tests I can come up with for an emperical proof of God (based on your asseratations) keep establishing that your "sensory input" in this regard is false.

Their failure to be consistant across observers, or testable makes them inferior in the extreme.

Absolutely wrong. I could care less of your critique. My entire point is that our only evidence of truth is the comparison of our internal stimulation with other peoples. If they agree it's reality, if they don't its hallucination. You are claiming (I think...) that you don't sense God therefore its hallucination, and I am claiming that millions of people DO sense God, so it's reality as defined by the only measure that we have.

But you can't agree on what that sense is. You "smell God" but can't point to a fragrance that is "Godlike". This is the tell-tale mark of subjective "feelings" rather than objective perceptions.

This, in no way, confirm or denies that there are some things you can't know. Subject changing?

No, and it was not intended to. You claim that God cannot be known hurts, rather than helps, your argument that he is real.

I am sure you would agree that the originally offered equations on most law of physics have needed revision in order to be more accurate. I submit the original Theory of Gravity, as compared to the one proposed by String Theorists in order to more accuratly provide for gravitons and multi-dimensional gravity effects. It seems to me that if I theory is revised (as they all are under the dynamic definition) that they must have started out with inaccuracy in order to NEED revision.

I think few theories have undergone change (some have) that devalidates any existing part of the theory... many hypothesis and ideas have.

Wrong again, I am going back to asserting that God has as much proof as blue does. Not much in either case, but people seem to like blue and cold a lot...

And yet you cannot support that claim. You can appeal back to the transendental argument; but you might as well go go read that thread then as post here. You, I, John, and everyone else can pick "blue" out of the spectrum. There is no [real] ambiguity or [real] subjectivism. You can't establish anything consistant about your "feeling" of God.

[pixnaps]

I don't want to ignore little bits of evidence like my positions are based on ignorance, rather I would say that you can ALSO track 'cold' sensations to electrical stimuli in the brain! WHOA!!! Crazy Talk!!! That's right, JUST like your incredible religious experience evidence, it also suggests that cold, and blue are purely internal experiences.

Dear God. You truly are ignorant aren't you?
feeling cold is a purely internal experience, of course, but it is elicted from a consistent external stimuli, that is, exposure to cold temperatures.

Moreover, the fact that religious feelings can be induced (not "tracked", but actually produced!) by electrical stimulation suggests that they are natural, not supernatural, in origin. In other words, they could easily just be an emotional response to non-specific stimuli, like feeling sad is (i will discuss this more below). Even more damaging, is the very real possibility that religious feelings are on a par with hallucinations and other sensory mis-perceptions.

You, I, John, and everyone else can pick "blue" out of the spectrum. There is no [real] ambiguity or [real] subjectivism. You can't establish anything consistant about your "feeling" of God

exactly! Like i was saying before about stimuli (which Jake conveniently ignored)... People will generally feel cold when they are exposed to a particular, specific stimuli (say, a temperature of less than 10 degrees celsius, perhaps). People will see "blue" when light of a particular wavelength is detected by their eyes.

in contrast, when do people sense God? There is no consistent stimuli for it, it's purely internal, based on no external truth (stimuli). It's more like feeling "sad" than feeling "cold". (Except less universal). Everyone feels sad at times, that doesn't mean that there is some real "God of Sadness" floating about.

Many people feel religious awe. This doesn't prove God is real, any more than feeling sad proves that "Sadness", as an objective entity, is somehow 'real'. All that's real is your feeling. It doesn't correspond to anything outside of you.

TO SUMMARISE: There is a difference between feeling God (as an emotional experience), and feeling God (as a sensory experience).

I think realistically, the "feelings" in question would be purely emotional, not sensory. In which case your whole argument falls apart, as my analogy with sadness shows. Emotions do not perceive external reality.

IF, however, you insist that they are sensory, then the fact that they are not elicited from any consistent stimulus (unlike, say, "cold" and "blue" are), strongly suggests that they are MIS-perceptions. i.e. hallucinations.

Many people think they've been abducted by aliens too, you know. I don't consider their "experiences" to be good evidence of the truth of the matter though. Do you?

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No, they are not. They are not demonstrateable, they are not testable. I can test for cold, I can test for NewZealand, the tests I can come up with for an emperical proof of God (based on your asseratations) keep establishing that your "sensory input" in this regard is false.

Their failure to be consistant across observers, or testable makes them inferior in the extreme.

I believe I see a distinction that you are trying to make, but I just don't think its there. For instance, take menopausal hot flashes. Test for those. Or feeling of Deja-vu. How is there a name for Deja-vu. How do you know what that feels like. What empiricle evidence supports deja-vu. What does it 'feel' like. How can two people who both feel deja-vu be confident that they feel the same thing? It is easy to say, oh I can't think of a test, deja-vu must not exist. But then you have to ignore the claims of millions of people who know they have felt deja-vu and know what it feels like.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But you can't agree on what that sense is. You "smell God" but can't point to a fragrance that is "Godlike". This is the tell-tale mark of subjective "feelings" rather than objective perceptions.

I disagree that we can't agree on what that sense is. There is a substantial difference between not agreeing and not being able to explain it to someone who has not felt it. It's like explaining color to the blind. Two seeing people can agree quite easily on what 'red' looks like, but explaining it to a color blind man is harder.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No, and it was not intended to. You claim that God cannot be known hurts, rather than helps, your argument that he is real.

Only if you're assuming that the human mind is capable of 'knowing' all things. I don't believe that frankly. And the fact that there is something that a human mind can't grasp doesn't bother me a bit. After all, I know a few people that can't grasp differential equations. It stands to reason that there are somethings each person is incapable of knowing. And further that there are some things that no one is capable of knowing.... like God.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I think few theories have undergone change (some have) that devalidates any existing part of the theory... many hypothesis and ideas have.

I agree.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And yet you cannot support that claim. You can appeal back to the transendental argument; but you might as well go go read that thread then as post here. You, I, John, and everyone else can pick "blue" out of the spectrum. There is no [real] ambiguity or [real] subjectivism. You can't establish anything consistant about your "feeling" of God.

First of all not everyone can pick every color out of a spectrum. I realize that this is just one example, but its not a very good one. And seems to me to support my claim more than yours. That just because everyone cannot agree or sense something doesn't invalidate it. A color blind man cannot sense red/green. How is color consistant to him? What is his evidence that red exists? My God feeling is no more ambiguous because you don't have it than color is because the colorblind don't have it.

Jake

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by pixnaps

......[helpful comments edited].......
feeling cold is a purely internal experience, of course, but it is elicted from a consistent external stimuli, that is, exposure to cold temperatures.

Moreover, the fact that religious feelings can be induced (not "tracked", but actually produced!) by electrical stimulation suggests that they are natural, not supernatural, in origin. In other words, they could easily just be an emotional response to non-specific stimuli, like feeling sad is (i will discuss this more below). Even more damaging, is the very real possibility that religious feelings are on a par with hallucinations and other sensory mis-perceptions.

This is just stupid. ALL feeling can be 'produced' by electrical stimulation. For the love all of our thoughts are electrical impulses in our brains. Introducing electricity into the brain produces all sorts of fun things. Your contention that a feeling (of God in this case) is interpreted by the brain as an eletrical stimuli somehow refutes or discourages disbelief in the supernatural is absurd. It only proves that our brains act consistently regardless of the the stimulation. Be it physical or supernatural.

As for the damaging possibilities, I think those are pretty silly too. Most everything has that 'very real' possibility.

Originally Posted by pixnaps

exactly! Like i was saying before about stimuli (which Jake conveniently ignored)... People will generally feel cold when they are exposed to a particular, specific stimuli (say, a temperature of less than 10 degrees celsius, perhaps). People will see "blue" when light of a particular wavelength is detected by their eyes.

You're convieniently ignoreing the fact that I feel 'cold' (in Texas) when people from Alaska don't.... where;s the objective truth of feeling there? How is that particular and specific stimuli that signifies object truths about 'cold'? I see 'red' colorblind men don't..... Same wavelengths and everything, it seems like your contention that these things are all caused by specific stimuli is pretty weak, and didn't really warrent a response.

Originally Posted by pixnaps

in contrast, when do people sense God? There is no consistent stimuli for it, it's purely internal, based on no external truth (stimuli). It's more like feeling "sad" than feeling "cold". (Except less universal). Everyone feels sad at times, that doesn't mean that there is some real "God of Sadness" floating about.

This doesn't mean alot until you can prove that external truth can be proved by stimuli. As the eskimo to me example, we can feel the same wind and not both feel cold.

Originally Posted by pixnaps

Many people feel religious awe. This doesn't prove God is real, any more than feeling sad proves that "Sadness", as an objective entity, is somehow 'real'. All that's real is your feeling. It doesn't correspond to anything outside of you.

Just like eveything else we call reality. And frankly, all this proves is that nothing is 'real' or that God is at least as real as 'red' which is ALSO purely based on internal feelings, or eletrical impulses in your brain.

Originally Posted by pixnaps

TO SUMMARISE: There is a difference between feeling God (as an emotional experience), and feeling God (as a sensory experience).

I think realistically, the "feelings" in question would be purely emotional, not sensory. In which case your whole argument falls apart, as my analogy with sadness shows. Emotions do not perceive external reality.

This is not the case.

Originally Posted by pixnaps

IF, however, you insist that they are sensory, then the fact that they are not elicited from any consistent stimulus (unlike, say, "cold" and "blue" are)

Not true....

Originally Posted by pixnaps

strongly suggests that they are MIS-perceptions. i.e. hallucinations.

Many people think they've been abducted by aliens too, you know. I don't consider their "experiences" to be good evidence of the truth of the matter though. Do you?

At least as good as anyone else's. After all if a majority of people having similar experiences was all the proof you needed, you'd believe in God.

Jake

[pixnaps]

Or feeling of Deja-vu. How is there a name for Deja-vu. How do you know what that feels like. What empiricle evidence supports deja-vu. What does it 'feel' like. How can two people who both feel deja-vu be confident that they feel the same thing? It is easy to say, oh I can't think of a test, deja-vu must not exist.

deja-vu doesn't exist externally, it's a purely internal feeling, which does not relate to external truths.
What exists, is a "feeling of deja-vu", just like there exist "feelings of religious awe". Neither of these is evidence for any external truths though. Perhaps you should re-read my summary about emotional feelings compared to sensory feelings.

(which, by the way, you sound like you're in denial about... i mean, seriously, "this is not the case" and "not true"... huh... real convincing replies. *rolls eyes*)

there are some things that no one is capable of knowing.... like God.

so, to clarify, you are trying to argue against atheism by asserting that the existence of God is unknowable?
oh boy, we sure do have a master debater on our hands here!

This is just stupid. ALL feeling can be 'produced' by electrical stimulation

i'm well aware of that. I explained the consequences of those findings... i never claimed it proved there was no supernatural... rather, it shows that religious feelings CAN be purely natural in origin.

As for the damaging possibilities, I think those are pretty silly too. Most everything has that 'very real' possibility.

i was just preparing the way for my later reasoning which demonstrates why the possibility is in fact plausible, as opposed to merely "possible".

You're convieniently ignoreing the fact that I feel 'cold' (in Texas) when people from Alaska don't.... where;s the objective truth of feeling there?

the stimulus is still temperature, you dolt, just because some people are more sensitive to it than others doesn't change the fact that a consistent stimulus in involved.

I see 'red' colorblind men don't

Irrelevant. It happens because their visual perceptions are impaired. But that doesn't change the fact that anyone who DOES see red, usually does so in response to a specific stimulus (the 'red' wavelength of light).

There are of course other nit-picky exceptions, such as hallucinations, and dreams, etc. But they don't impact on my point, that there is a GENERAL CONSISTENCY and RELIABILITY between properly-working sensory perceptions and the stimuli which elicit them.

it seems like your contention that these things are all caused by specific stimuli is pretty weak, and didn't really warrent a response.

if, despite my explanations, you still cannot see any difference between the general consistency of sensory perceptions, and the utter lack thereof of "godly feelings", then you are not worth the bother of talking to.

The rest of your post is nonsense. See if you can explain WHY what i wrote is "not the case" or "not true". I don't find your mere assertions too convincing.

and the alien thing... ___? are you saying you DO think it is good evidence? crikey. *rolls eyes*.

[MusicOnTheMove]

Heck, this conversation could go on and on, but where is it leading us to?