Atheism and sanctity of life

[Russell_SA]

Well, I think you would act a lot differently. If there was purpose in the ever-after for you, and that purpose came from God, it would mean you would live with God after your life, and that your life came from God.
The first huge difference would be for you to show gratitude. You would thank God for the opportunity to live forever.
Secondly, you would wonder and seek what it is that God wants for you.
To do this, you would use time to communicate with God.
Thirdly, you would make much different choices about what you do because you would realize that God wants some things that are different than what you would want on your own.

My humanity and self-worth is not for sale. I perform my ethical actions because I have been convinced they are ethical. The positive reward is from the benefit I see that it has in the people around me. If this deity rewards me or sends me a punishment, then that’s on it for not convincing me that my actions were unethical. I am not a trained pet to perform actions without knowing if they are ethical or not. I will stand up and fight against a celestial North Korea regardless if it actually makes a difference or not in the end because I value bravery and see that as a virtue. But since there’s no difference than that deity’s existence and an empty sack at this point, I can’t even have a conversation with it to see what it’s standards are or not. I have to be able to have something that I can point to, to see if there is something there at all or not.

The difference here is that both views have to make changes now and apologize now. … One last though, you may think what you’re doing for your children is the best for their future. But do you really know? …

We all know the loop holes in the religion that allows people to be as selfish as they want and still walk through the gates in the end. Religion presents their deity as basically a computer program that they are trying to hack so that they can find the line to be as selfish as they want and still get through the gates in the end. I’ll be as decent a human as I have the ability to do and let the chips fall where they may, regardless of some eternal reward or punishment. If I don’t know that my actions may have bad results, that’s not my problem because I could not know that was a problem. If I knew that was a problem and didn’t mitigate the process, then it becomes my problem. There is a problem about how I want to be remembered and what legacy I want tied to my children. Ex: some of the germans that were part of the SS refused to have children because of their legacy and the fear that their practices were somehow genetic and did not want that to be passed on, regardless of their belief or disbelief in the supernatural.

That does seem to be right about how the evolutionary view works. However, there are a lot of problems.

Sure, but that’s what you would expect from evolutionary processes though.

I would say that faith is required even to know the truth about things, to use logic, to argue and use reasoning, to decide what to do, to establish a purpose. In fact, using methodological naturalism is an act of faith.
To say that the New Testament is not true is an act of faith.
You don’t know if God exists or not. But by faith, you choose to believe that God does not exist. By faith, you trust your own judgement about many things that you cannot know about.

Sounds like you are discussing Hard Solipsism, which no one has an answer to, even the solipsism people as well. To claim that you can not know something without absolute knowledge argument. But that’s not how we live our lives, use science, etc. If knowledge is soo loose about what is true or not, why not go to work tomorrow by walking out your 5th story window and fly to work? Science works, the process for understanding our reality works. It is repeatable, independently verifiable, falsifiable, etc. So is solving a problem with pi to the 4th decimal place and having ~100% repeatably repeated accurate results not solving the problem because we didn’t use the infinite value of pi? If problem A was solved with solution A and then with solution B, but there was no change in the answer, are we justified in claiming that solution A was better than solution B? No, no we are not. We have to have a way to tell the difference between which was better. So since we are not having a measurably different result by not using Hard Solipsism as the path to truth, that does not seem to be an actual problem for living our lives.

God made life on earth an adventure. It’s a drama and a search. It is a love story.
It says a lot about God and why He created us. Yes, there is hiding and seeking. As we seek, we grow. We stretch ourselves. We learn virtue. We practice goodness.

How is that not the exact practice and application of “credulous”? To keep acting in the world for an idea of something that has yet to present itself as any different than a wished for reality, instead of actual reality? People follow all kinds of myths that lead them to be better people based on the idea of that thing, but is it actually there or not is what needs to be established to me first. Right now I can’t tell the difference between the imagined idea of the deity and the deity not being there at all. We have to actually be able to tell the difference between the two.

 

[Russell_SA]

In the Catholic view, faith has a higher value than “seeing”. We walk by faith, not by sight. … We have to practice virtue. Patience, trust, loyalty, understanding, faith, humility.

Can’t you justify any belief based on faith? How do you see faith used and it’s definition? To me I see people describing faith as, belief of things unjustified. This is different from hope. Hope, as I see it being used, is the desire for the best possible outcome from all the possible outcomes. Such as the hope to win the lottery. It is actually possible to win the lottery, but it’s a rare event. Is there any evidence for the deity actually manifesting in reality that is any different than random chance? So hope doesn’t apply to the deity here in how I see people using Hope. So Faith comes across as the excuse people give for believing in things that are unjustified to believe. There is a justification to hope in winning the lottery, but where is the justification for believing the deity actually exists and manifests in the way the theists claims that it does? That is why I don’t see having faith as a virtue. If you have a justified belief in something, it’s just called belief. To become justified, it needs to be independently verified and falsifiable and independent from your feelings about the event. Such as gravity, it’s there regardless of your world view, it can be independently verified every time someone experiences an event of gravity, explanations about how gravity works can be falsified.

Why not take a chance on God?

Can you take a chance on the literary figure of Peter Pan as well? Because that’s all that the deity comes across as, a cultural literary character; not something that actually exists in reality.

 

[reggieM]

So for example, if you present me all the arguments for why there’s something in an empty sack, and I try all the things you are using to see something in that sack, but I keep seeing an empty sack, isn’t that your deity choosing to still not reveal itself?

Well, we would still have a problem to solve - I see the deity and you don’t. I can’t fully understand why you don’t see what is very clear to me, but I’m sure its the same for you when you think about my beliefs. My suggestion was that the search for God requires some things to do. And there is a reason for that. When we find God, it changes us.

Do you really think atheists have not tried what the theists suggested to discover the deity?

I usually suggest that an atheist would pray and try some immersion in Catholic liturgy, teaching and overall experience. It’s important also to really want to find God. It takes that desire.

Do you really think the entire scientific community hasn’t tried what the theists suggested?

First, it’s not correct that the entire scientific community is atheistic.
But aside from that, let’s imagine a researcher trying to find mutations in bacteria. Like Richard Lenski’s experiment studying genetic changes. Lenski spent 30 years trying to find out what mutations were doing, etc.

Now, what if I said - you don’t have to take 30 years, but give it just one year. In that one year, do your best to find God. This means, praying every day. It means spending time in Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. It means going to Mass. It means learning Catholic teaching. Listening to the best sermons and apologetcs (podcasts etc). It means ranking the arguments - what are the best arguments for the existence of God? What are the worst arguments for atheism?
Then, being clear with yourself - what is preventing me from seeing what so many other people can see?

 

[Russell_SA]

Well, we would still have a problem to solve - I see the deity and you don’t. I can’t fully understand why you don’t see what is very clear to me, but I’m sure its the same for you when you think about my beliefs. My suggestion was that the search for God requires some things to do. And there is a reason for that. When we find God, it changes us.

Exploring reality for what reality actually is, is independent of how badly we want it or not want it to be there. I just want to be able to find the metaphorical door, knock on it, and say hi to this deity. “Oh ok, you do exist. Now do you have time to sit down and have a conversation about who you are as a deity in relation to your impact on me?”

Scientists are constantly trying to break what they think they know to be the case. That is how you become more firmly justified in this tentative position and how you succeed at science. To discover more accurate truths about this reality, not to hold a position and then only look for information that backs up their starting assumptions of what they would like the case to be.

First, it’s not correct that the entire scientific community is atheistic.
But aside from that, let’s imagine a researcher trying to find mutations in bacteria. Like Richard Lenski’s experiment studying genetic changes. Lenski spent 30 years trying to find out what mutations were doing, etc.

Let me clarify here, science reveals new understandings about reality, regardless of personal beliefs about reality. You can be christian, atheist, etc and still demonstrate that gravity is an actual force in this reality. My statement there was about the fact that the scientific community has yet to use the pathway that the deists are claiming they use as a way to access the supernatural realm and reveal the existence of a deity there. That deity being there is independent of someone’s personal world view and beliefs about reality. See what I’m getting to here?

Now, what if I said - you don’t have to take 30 years, but give it just one year. In that one year, do your best to find God. This means, praying every day. It means spending time in Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. It means going to Mass. It means learning Catholic teaching. Listening to the best sermons and apologetcs (podcasts etc). It means ranking the arguments - what are the best arguments for the existence of God? What are the worst arguments for atheism?
Then, being clear with yourself - what is preventing me from seeing what so many other people can see?

How is this not the exact same psychological process of indoctrination and cult practice? I don’t have to do any of that to run into people in this reality to know that they exist. What I think about them as a person and what kind of relationship I want to have with them is completely independent from just knowing they actually exist. I just want to get to the point of that, actual existence of a deity.

 

[reggieM]

How is this not the exact same psychological process of indoctrination and cult practice?

Learning things is not indoctrination. Taking the effort to do spiritual activity is not cult practice either.

I don’t have to do any of that to run into people in this reality to know that they exist.

Ok, but you don’t know that. You asked if atheists would do what is suggested to find God and I gave you suggestions. Now, if you say you don’t want to do what I suggested, how can you say you’ve really searched for God? You’re asking me about this, and I see that God exists.

I just want to get to the point of that, actual existence of a deity.

Out of what I recommended, perhaps the best place to start is with ranking the arguments for God. Which do you think are the best?

 

[Russell_SA]

Learning things is not indoctrination. Taking the effort to do spiritual activity is not cult practice either.

Learning cultural practices is learning, but learning about something actually existing in reality is independent of cultural influence. My existence is true regardless if it is filtered through a muslim scientist or atheist scientist or any other cultural scientist or anyone that is not a scientist. The process produces the exact same data every time. The James Randy foundation offers a million dollar prize for anyone that can produce evidence of the supernatural, parascience, alien evidence, etc. for the past 40 years, I believe, and it still has not been collected. I really doubt that any religious person has been ignoring this prize the whole time out of spite alone.

Ok, but you don’t know that. You asked if atheists would do what is suggested to find God and I gave you suggestions. Now, if you say you don’t want to do what I suggested, how can you say you’ve really searched for God? You’re asking me about this, and I see that God exists.

There are atheists that were sincere true believers for decades that are now atheists. Not every atheist is brought up atheist. Some come to this conclusion later in life. I’ll let their experience supplement my own for the experiment you present. I have better things to do on a sunday than attending church.

Out of what I recommended, perhaps the best place to start is with ranking the arguments for God. Which do you think are the best?

Side note: There is no magic bullet argument to go from theist to atheist and vice versa.
To the point: The supernatural comes across as no different than a harry potter story, so what would be the best argument for harry potter’s existence of the world of wizardy? That amount of reality paradigm shift would require quite a lot of evidence upon evidence. I’m fine with this being part of reality, once the evidence points to this being an actual part of reality. Until then, I’ll hold off on believing until its justified for me to believe this. Again though, I don’t know what it would take for me to believe this, but your god should and has either chosen not to do so or is not actually there at all. Since I can’t tell the difference, not my problem that I currently hold this belief because that’s how I understand what reality has actually presented to me. My disbelief in the supernatural is not a choice I can make; anymore than my choice to believe I am sitting in a chair right now.

 

[reggieM]

The supernatural comes across as no different than a harry potter story, so what would be the best argument for harry potter’s existence of the world of wizardy?

You’re not being honest here. I know you can tell the difference between arguments for the existence of God and any supposed arguments that Harry Potter is a real person.
The fact that you’re comparing the two tells me a lot though. I’d say, at least, you don’t understand what you’re denying exists. Or perhaps you don’t have any respect at all for people who do believe in God.

 

[Russell_SA]

You’re not being honest here. I know you can tell the difference between arguments for the existence of God and any supposed arguments that Harry Potter is a real person.
The fact that you’re comparing the two tells me a lot though. I’d say, at least, you don’t understand what you’re denying exists. Or perhaps you don’t have any respect at all for people who do believe in God.

I use the Harry Potter example because it fits very well in the paradigm shift of our reality, not to be flippant or anything. Harry Potter was exposed to the evidence that he would need to shift his belief of a world that did not have magic in it to a world where magic actually exists. He met people that could actually demonstrate that magic works, learned about how to manifest magic himself, etc. The religious are making the same type of claim about that level of change in this reality to me. They claim that they can manifest the power of deity to alter this reality through prayer, they claim that spirits are in battle with each other over our eternal invisible manifestations of ourselves for the remaining time of forever, they claim that there are artifacts that have supernatural powers, etc. See how this fits into the story of the Harry Potter story as well? Show me the evidence that this stuff the religious are claiming actually takes place and that will be a good start to justifying there is something there, but at this point, it’s still an empty sack to me.

 

[reggieM]

They claim that they can manifest the power of deity to alter this reality through prayer, they claim that spirits are in battle with each other over our eternal invisible manifestations of ourselves for the remaining time of forever, they claim that there are artifacts that have supernatural powers, etc. See how this fits into the story of the Harry Potter story as well? Show me the evidence that this stuff the religious are claiming actually takes place and that will be a good start to justifying there is something there, but at this point, it’s still an empty sack to me.

Another good starting point for you might be to look at your own moral development - your growth in virtue. Some ancient philosophers, atheists, did this and developed certain systems for improving their moral behavior. But what happens eventually is that you run into a dead-end. That’s where, yes, you will see supernatural power manifesting in your own life - with prayer.
So, if you try to overcome one bad habit or one area of sinful behavior in your life - for example, vanity, selfishness, pride, self-idolatry – you’ll begin to notice the challenge. For example, how can you really show gratitude for life? How can you repair the damage you’ve done by your own sins?
It’s in these areas where prayer to God can show amazing results.

 

[Russell_SA]

Another good starting point for you might be to look at your own moral development - your growth in virtue. Some ancient philosophers, atheists, did this and developed certain systems for improving their moral behavior. But what happens eventually is that you run into a dead-end. That’s where, yes, you will see supernatural power manifesting in your own life - with prayer.
So, if you try to overcome one bad habit or one area of sinful behavior in your life - for example, vanity, selfishness, pride, self-idolatry – you’ll begin to notice the challenge. For example, how can you really show gratitude for life? How can you repair the damage you’ve done by your own sins?
It’s in these areas where prayer to God can show amazing results.

I don’t fault people for what they use for leading the “good life”, I’m looking for the evidence of the idea that there is actually a deity there that people are praying to. Because I can do the same thing with the memory of a loved one and get the same results, it seems to me. I remember who they were and the standard of person they were wanting me to become and it confirms that I am that person they wanted me to be. Same results but different motivator. Since those produce the same results, to me, that is why people’s motivations for living a good life are irrelevant to me. But the claim about reality that a deity is actually there and we can interact with it, is still a claim that can not be actually investigated yet it seems. I want to know if it is actually there.

Hope your day goes well, off to the shelter to pick up my new rescue.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t fault people for what they use for leading the “good life”, I’m looking for the evidence of the idea that there is actually a deity there that people are praying to. Because I can do the same thing with the memory of a loved one and get the same results, it seems to me. I remember who they were and the standard of person they were wanting me to become and it confirms that I am that person they wanted me to be. Same results but different motivator. Since those produce the same results, to me, that is why people’s motivations for living a good life are irrelevant to me. But the claim about reality that a deity is actually there and we can interact with it, is still a claim that can not be actually investigated yet it seems. I want to know if it is actually there.

Yes, but don’t forget that God empowers us to do more than we can by ourselves. In fact, as you read the lives of the Catholic saints, you notice that they were able to become close to God and through that, supernatural events were able to help those around them. We all have that same capability - and what a good goal in life!

Hope your day goes well, off to the shelter to pick up my new rescue.

Thanks Russell - hope you have a great evening also!

 

[Russell_SA]

Yes, but don’t forget that God empowers us to do more than we can by ourselves. In fact, as you read the lives of the Catholic saints, you notice that they were able to become close to God and through that, supernatural events were able to help those around them. We all have that same capability - and what a good goal in life!

How is this any different than someone using a different motivating factor of say a new parent working harder for their kids? They can actually point to their children as an existing motivating factor. How is the idea of a deity as a motivating factor actual evidence of it’s existence? I want to know if it is actually there instead of just an imagined idea. Such as imagining the best version of yourself to hold yourself accountable to, so you know when you’ve wasted time playing games longer than you should have instead of practicing a skill or some training for work. Your response implies that there is a god there for these people to reference or to come close to, but how can you possibly know that to actually be the case or not? I’m fine with the imagined concept as a motivating factor, but it’s being presented as something as real as you and I. I want to know if it is actually there, not just wishing that it is there.

 

[reggieM]

How is this any different than someone using a different motivating factor of say a new parent working harder for their kids? They can actually point to their children as an existing motivating factor. How is the idea of a deity as a motivating factor actual evidence of it’s existence? I want to know if it is actually there instead of just an imagined idea. Such as imagining the best version of yourself to hold yourself accountable to, so you know when you’ve wasted time playing games longer than you should have instead of practicing a skill or some training for work. Your response implies that there is a god there for these people to reference or to come close to, but how can you possibly know that to actually be the case or not? I’m fine with the imagined concept as a motivating factor, but it’s being presented as something as real as you and I. I want to know if it is actually there, not just wishing that it is there.

The difference is that in one case, you are the motivator for yourself. You can only give yourself what you have. You can only see what you are able to look at on your own. Often we are blinded to our own flaws. Also, you have limited resources in helping others. You don’t really know what they need. You can’t be with them every day. You don’t know their inner struggles - and you can’t give them additional strength.
In the other case, with God, we have a partner who created us, who knows us, and who provides us with additional strength and insight that we cannot gain on our own.
If we ask God to show us our flaws - He will show them.
If we then ask God for the strength and understanding to overcome our flaws, he will provide it.
This we can’t do on our own. At best, we see some of our flaws. But we can’t increase our own strength at will.
And then, most importantly - we can ask God to help others. He can give them the very best gifts that they need. He gives them strength that we could never give them.
So, it’s a totally different scenario.

The reason I point this out is to show why a person should do everything possible to find God.

You have evidence that God exists. You see me. I believe God has touched my life, changed me, listened and answered my prayers, made my life so much better.

That’s evidence. I could be lying. I could be deceived. Or I could be fully understanding the truth that God exists.

You don’t know.

But to say, without knowing more, that you are certain I am either lying or deceived is unjust and moreso - it would mean you really don’t want to pursue the evidence.

All I’m saying is that you have one data point (and many other people like me) – you’d have to reconcile that somehow. Are all these people just kidding themselves? They’ve never seen evidence of God’s presence in their own lives?

That’s the challenge and I don’t think you can answer that with complete certainty.

 

[Russell_SA]

The difference is that in one case, you are the motivator for yourself. You can only give yourself what you have. You can only see what you are able to look at on your own. Often we are blinded to our own flaws. Also, you have limited resources in helping others. You don’t really know what they need. You can’t be with them every day. You don’t know their inner struggles - and you can’t give them additional strength.

That might be the case, so they can tell me what they are needing through continued interaction and looking at the results. The process can continued to be refined. We’re both fine with making mistakes as long as we keep working at it. At some point we may have to conclude that it’s the person as much as the situation. Are we getting in each other’s way for the goal? Bringing more people into the equation will bring more analytics, which is what we all do anyways. But if no one can tell a difference for the resulted good and the ideal good, then the ideal good becomes good enough; which is a win for everyone. It’s like if your husband loves you and you compare it to perfect love. Since we are limited beings, we can’t tell the difference between human flawed love and perfect love. To us, there is no measurable or detectable difference to us. Think this is addressing your point here. If not, let me know.

In the other case, with God, we have a partner who created us, who knows us, and who provides us with additional strength and insight that we cannot gain on our own.
If we ask God to show us our flaws - He will show them.
If we then ask God for the strength and understanding to overcome our flaws, he will provide it.
This we can’t do on our own. At best, we see some of our flaws. But we can’t increase our own strength at will.
And then, most importantly - we can ask God to help others. He can give them the very best gifts that they need. He gives them strength that we could never give them.
So, it’s a totally different scenario.

The idea of this deity would be this case, but how do people know that deity is actually there? How can we tell the difference between someone acting as if their imagined idea of this deity is different than them having an actual relationship with this deity? We have to be able to tell the difference correct? There was a study done where scientists studied people’s brain patterns when asked questions. They were to imagine a scenario and then asked what they would do and then what someone else, like a friend, would do. The brain lit up in different regions. Then when they were asked what they thought their deity would do, the same part of the brain for the self lit up instead of the part of the brain for the other. That’s giving me an indication that the idea of the deity is the same as the idea of our ideal self that we hold ourselves up to. What’s your take on that?

You have evidence that God exists. You see me. I believe God has touched my life, changed me, listened and answered my prayers, made my life so much better.

That’s evidence. I could be lying. I could be deceived. Or I could be fully understanding the truth that God exists.

You don’t know.

Exactly, I don’t know. I can’t tell the difference between you believing that to be the case, it actually being the case, the event not being the case and you believing that was the case, you lying to me, etc. How do we tell the difference?

But to say, without knowing more, that you are certain I am either lying or deceived is unjust and moreso - it would mean you really don’t want to pursue the evidence.

All I’m saying is that you have one data point (and many other people like me) – you’d have to reconcile that somehow. Are all these people just kidding themselves? They’ve never seen evidence of God’s presence in their own lives?

That’s the challenge and I don’t think you can answer that with complete certainty.

We have evidence of how people act in a group under psychological conditioning though. Look at all the faith healers out there where people are falling over themselves as a result of the channeled healing spirit. Never seems to work in the children’s hospitals though. It needs to work consistently regardless of the social situation. That’s the problem I’m running into. There’s competing social science that illustrates how easy it is to indoctrinate people, to teach confirmation bias, etc. So how do you run this experiment and remove those issues? When someone has a personal experience with the divine, isn’t that necessarily hearsay to everyone else? We know we can help remove personal bias by independent confirmation about the event. If I experience event A, and I conclude X about it, then my friend comes along and was able to recreate event A and concludes Y about it, how do we know who’s right?

 

[reggieM]

It’s like if your husband loves you and you compare it to perfect love. Since we are limited beings, we can’t tell the difference between human flawed love and perfect love. To us, there is no measurable or detectable difference to us.

Can you tell the difference between a very poor kind of love and a very excellent kind? Can you see areas where you could improve the love you give your own spouse? Can you see where unkindness, selfishness and manipulation of a person would hurt love and make it imperfect? I know you can, but please respond anyway.

Think this is addressing your point here. If not, let me know.

Well, no - in fact, what you said was so far away from my point I had no idea how you arrived at it. We probably should repeat it and go through it again because we were not on the same page at all this time.

The idea of this deity would be this case, but how do people know that deity is actually there?

Good question, but you’re not dealing with what I said. But anyway, there are people who had 100% certainty that the deity was there. We know it just the way we know other things. We experience, encounter, test, and are convinced.

How can we tell the difference between someone acting as if their imagined idea of this deity is different than them having an actual relationship with this deity?

Because we encounter things, events and occurrences that cannot be something we imagined. St. Pio of Pietralcina would be one case. St. Juan Diego of Guadalupe would be another. St. Bernadette, Sts. Franciso and Jacinta – they could not have imagined what happened. No amount of imagination can make a person rise from the dead, for example.

There was a study done where scientists studied people’s brain patterns when asked questions. They were to imagine a scenario and then asked what they would do and then what someone else, like a friend, would do. The brain lit up in different regions. Then when they were asked what they thought their deity would do, the same part of the brain for the self lit up instead of the part of the brain for the other. That’s giving me an indication that the idea of the deity is the same as the idea of our ideal self that we hold ourselves up to. What’s your take on that?

It could be that when people think of God then that thought lights up a part of the brain that is the same as self-awareness. It could also be that there is an overlap between God and self. Or it could be that, in many cases, people refer to themselves alone without God. But there is so much more you should research. Science can only barely touch the surface. Science is restricted to physical phenomena. We have to look at things that are inexplicable to science and are yet real.

Exactly, I don’t know. I can’t tell the difference between you believing that to be the case, it actually being the case, the event not being the case and you believing that was the case, you lying to me, etc. How do we tell the difference?

This is what research and discernment and inference would have to tell you.
You observe evidence. You correctly presented the four scenarios that could explain the evidence. Additionally, you cannot know for certain which is correct. This is true in many scientific studies. Nobody can know for certain what actually happened at the beginning of life on earth because none of us was there.
So, we have to say “this is the most likely thing”.
You start by eliminating the weakest explanation and looking for the easiest thing to dismiss.
I would start with lying.
There are two aspects to that - one, I could be lying to you, knowing the truth.
two, I could be lying to myself.
The second one, is harder. But the first one – I am deliberately lying to you.
This just takes a little textual and historical analysis.
What kind of explantion does the counterpoint have for it?
I am lying to you because … what?
First, I would have to gain something. Right?
Or, let’s just say I’m insane or irrational and just lie to people for no reason.
Ok on that - do you think it is difficult to eliminate that explanation?
Seriously – it’s hard for you do decide that I am not insane or irrational?
If yes - you can’t tell if I am sane or not – then I would have to question you very seriously. You could not tell if any scientist is lying. You could not trust anything you read. I would even wonder if you could trust your own experiments.
Actually – I would question if you knew if you, yourself was insane or not.
If that’s the case - then forget it. You will never be able to draw any conclusions. You wouldn’t know if you’re totally insane.
So - let’s eliminate that one. I’m not insane. I don’t just lie to people for no reason.
Now - what if I have a good reason to lie to you?
What would it be? Someone at CAF is paying me to lie? I’m getting money through some other means? Maybe I’m lying so you will join my church?
If you can’t eliminate these, then I don’t think you can trust anything people say here. No, CA doesn’t pay people to lie. They don’t have the money even to support their programs. How are they going to get a profit by paying people to tell lies? As for any other money - nobody is going to give me money to lie to you.
Maybe I get some prestige by lying about belief in God?
Really - I don’t. I’ve been active on CAF since 2008. I don’t have any prestige here at all. Lying did me no good if that was the case.

But I’ll give it to you before we go further-- what motive could I have for lying, not only to you, but to everybody I encounter on CAF? Can you think of a good motive for me to do that?

 

[reggieM]

So how do you run this experiment and remove those issues? When someone has a personal experience with the divine, isn’t that necessarily hearsay to everyone else?

Run the experiment yourself. That’s the best way. God communicates to the person, not often to the science team looking to pigeon hole Him. We are talking about God who is a person - not a physical force that we study under a microscope. Do you know that it is very possible to offend and insult God? Do you think God will comply with your experiments if you are sinning against him and insulting Him? Can science measure precisely how much love you have for your spouse? No - because you are persons, not molecules that can be measured that way.

We know we can help remove personal bias by independent confirmation about the event. If I experience event A, and I conclude X about it, then my friend comes along and was able to recreate event A and concludes Y about it, how do we know who’s right?

You have to use intuition. Not everything is reducible to physical science.

 

[Russell_SA]

Can you tell the difference between a very poor kind of love and a very excellent kind? Can you see areas where you could improve the love you give your own spouse? Can you see where unkindness, selfishness and manipulation of a person would hurt love and make it imperfect? I know you can, but please respond anyway.

Yes I can tell the difference between levels of love as used by humans. I’ll use my pi reference again. If humans only have the ability to understand pi to be 14 decimal places but the deity understands that it goes on for infinity, how can we tell the difference between any amount of pi beyond the 14th decimal place and the infinite value of it? We can tell the difference as we understand pi if someone uses it to any value from the 14th decimal place and up, but not beyond the 14th place. So we know that pi the 2nd decimal place is not as good as the 7th, 10th, or, for us, the ultimate value of pi at the 14th place. So to the love, I can see that love in the value of the 2nd decimal place is not a good as love to the 5th decimal place. That’s my point there. The deity is ascribed a value of love that is the perfect version of love, but we can only understand a “good enough” version of love since we are limited creatures. Also, Person A’s version of love to the 2nd decimal place may be Person B’s version of love to the 7th decimal place. So that indicates that the idea of “perfect” love is subjective to each individual. Also Person A may think they are acting in a loving way to Person B but Person B views that action as something other than love. May be they see it as psychological abuse. Each person seems to have a personal, tentative, understanding of what the ideal version of love would be based on their individual experience in the world. So is the idea of “love” subjective and can not have an overall perfect version?

Good question, but you’re not dealing with what I said. But anyway, there are people who had 100% certainty that the deity was there. We know it just the way we know other things. We experience, encounter, test, and are convinced.

I can go talk to people that are 100% certain that aliens have visited them as well. How can we tell that they interpreted that event that they experienced was actually what happened? Independent verification is a way we can be certain that what we experienced and how we interpreted it was probably correct. So how can we do this with a deity that seems to only reveal itself by mental telepathy to individual people? No one else can independently verify this. That is why it is necessarily hearsay to everyone else for that person’s experience. That person may be justified to themselves for having evidence of a deity, but no one else is necessarily justified to believe that person’s conclusions or that the event actually happened since we can’t tell the difference if they were mistaken or not. Or do you see something wrong with that line of thought?

Because we encounter things, events and occurrences that cannot be something we imagined. St. Pio of Pietralcina would be one case. St. Juan Diego of Guadalupe would be another. St. Bernadette, Sts. Franciso and Jacinta – they could not have imagined what happened. No amount of imagination can make a person rise from the dead, for example.

We do experience things all the time and we can get the explanation for what actually happened wrong all the time too. We have to be able to test that experience to see if we can try to break someone’s conclusion. If we can’t then it reinforces that their conclusion may be the best explanation so far. Also we have to be able to falsify their conclusion as well. If we can’t falsify it, it’s not valid as being the only possible solution since there could be other solutions as well. Or do you see something wrong with that line of thought?

It could be that when people think of God then that thought lights up a part of the brain that is the same as self-awareness. It could also be that there is an overlap between God and self. Or it could be that, in many cases, people refer to themselves alone without God. But there is so much more you should research. Science can only barely touch the surface. Science is restricted to physical phenomena. We have to look at things that are inexplicable to science and are yet real.

Science is restricted to our experienced reality. As I understand it, science is just the best current philosophical process of examining our reality as we experience it. Science works by methodological naturalism. That being said, it only includes things as a possible solution based on information that we can currently investigate as a possible solution. Since we can not investigate the supernatural in any way yet, it is not part of the possible solution. That is because the supernatural is, currently, unable to be distinguished between it actually being there and it not actually being there. And if it is there, we also don’t know how it can and does interact with this reality. We can not tell the difference between an event caused by supernatural intervention and the idea that we don’t know what happened to cause that event naturally. We can not tell the difference between the two, so we leave it to an unknown about the reality we currently experience. We have a long track record of us finding natural answers to events that we previous didn’t know what caused those events. But we still have zero events that we can point to the supernatural causing those events as I understand it. So it goes to reason to continue down the path that seems most likely. We can still investigate to see if it was supernatural, but I don’t know anyone that knows how we can do this though.

 

[Russell_SA]

This is what research and discernment and inference would have to tell you.You observe evidence. You correctly presented the four scenarios that could explain the evidence. Additionally, you cannot know for certain which is correct. This is true in many scientific studies. Nobody can know for certain what actually happened at the beginning of life on earth because none of us was there.

Science doesn’t look for “knowing things for certain”, just looking for the most predictive model that recreates the event. Only mathematics looks for “certainty” or 'proofs". 1+2=3 for example is a certainty. Gravity is observed and repeated. The explanation is currently called, the Theory of Gravity. It’s the most predictive model that recreates the event most of the time. If you can find a more accurate model, then we’ll use that. But science never goes to 100% certainty on anything, just most predictive. That’s what everyone does in their lives as well. We know we could probably cross the street as midnight without getting hit by a car, but we still look anyways. That’s why I don’t step out my 2nd floor window to get to work since I know that gravity probably hasn’t changed on my mass interacting with it.

But I’ll give it to you before we go further-- what motive could I have for lying, not only to you, but to everybody I encounter on CAF? Can you think of a good motive for me to do that?

I don’t think you’re lying, but you can be mistaken for the explanation you have for the event you experienced. How can we tell if we can not recreate the event under testable conditions or investigate the supernatural realm at all to see if it can actually interact in the way that would cause that event as well?

 

[reggieM]

Science doesn’t look for “knowing things for certain”, just looking for the most predictive model that recreates the event. Only mathematics looks for “certainty” or 'proofs". 1+2=3 for example is a certainty. Gravity is observed and repeated. The explanation is currently called, the Theory of Gravity. It’s the most predictive model that recreates the event most of the time. If you can find a more accurate model, then we’ll use that. But science never goes to 100% certainty on anything, just most predictive. That’s what everyone does in their lives as well. We know we could probably cross the street as midnight without getting hit by a car, but we still look anyways. That’s why I don’t step out my 2nd floor window to get to work since I know that gravity probably hasn’t changed on my mass interacting with it.

All of that is very nice, Russell – you repeated what I said and added even more! Great to know we fully agree on this. Now if you would kindly address the points I raised it would be even better.

I don’t think you’re lying, but you can be mistaken for the explanation you have for the event you experienced.

The good news is, you removed one of the options you had for explanation. Now there are just three. So, the method you used to eliminate my deliberate lying, should be used on the next options. You decided (thank you) that I am not deliberately lying to you. I guess you’ve read enough of my posts to determine that. I showed you in detail what you would need to do to choose, instead, to say that you thought I was lying.

Now the next point, yes - I could be mistaken. Or, I could be not-mistaken and actually fully understanding the truth.

How can we tell if we can not recreate the event under testable conditions or investigate the supernatural realm at all to see if it can actually interact in the way that would cause that event as well?

You did not need any laboratory testing to determine that I am not lying, right?

 

[Russell_SA]

Run the experiment yourself. That’s the best way. God communicates to the person, not often to the science team looking to pigeon hole Him. We are talking about God who is a person - not a physical force that we study under a microscope. Do you know that it is very possible to offend and insult God? Do you think God will comply with your experiments if you are sinning against him and insulting Him? Can science measure precisely how much love you have for your spouse? No - because you are persons, not molecules that can be measured that way.

We can study brain patterns to see level of psychological response to stimulus. Such as fear, love, etc. Also, we can study someone’s brain response that shows indications of the emotion of love, but the person they are acting out that love to may be looking at those events as abuse.
As to trying to reach out to the diety to see if it is there, I just want to knock on it’s door to see if anyone is home. But that seems to offend the deity because it won’t answer it until I am ready to start the process of having a good relationship with it. I don’t know if I want this entity in my life or not yet. I just want to know if it even exists, then we’ll have a conversation, then I’ll decide what type of relationship I want with it. this is what we all do with each other as human beings. I can’t help but have relationships this way since this is how all humans do this it seems to me. If you believe in the devil, it was given all the data it needed to know that this deity exists and then decided what type of relationship it wanted with it. I am just asking for the same thing. I want to know that it exists at all first, then find out what type of relationship I would have with it, once I learn how it makes my life positive or negative. At this point, the deity is still coming across as white noise at this point every time I try the experiments that the religious ask me to do. So either the deity doesn’t want to reveal itself or can’t or doesn’t exist. I can’t tell a difference and since I can’t reach the supernatural realm to check myself, it’s not a problem I can solve it seems.

You have to use intuition. Not everything is reducible to physical science.

Would you take medicine on “intuition”? I wouldn’t. Would you go skydiving on “intuition”? The only consequence of getting that wrong is that you may die. What’s the consequence of intuiting the wrong religion or the wrong deity, if it exists? I want to remove as much human bias and error as possible before going down that road if the consequences are what this religion says it is.