Belief... or lack thereof

[pocaracas]

I accept all this.

And not sure what your point is?

Vacuum, or space devoid of matter, is not entirely empty.
The concept of “nothing” does not necessarily apply to vacuum.

Can you point to the part which limns that God’s existence must be accepted before one can sense Him???

You must ask God in order to be granted the gift of the Holy Spirit.
How that can be done, without first assuming that God is there, is beyond me.
And, sure enough, if one does ask not really expecting an answer, he’ll never get such a gift… Many have asked… many have asked truly expecting the gift… many have not received it.
And the standard response, when these people ask believers “how come I never got it?”, is… “not enough faith”. Well, bollocks!

Feel free to present your reason to why that methodology doesn’t work for everyone.

 

[Aloysium]

Vacuum, or space devoid of matter, is not entirely empty.
The concept of “nothing” does not necessarily apply to vacuum. . . . Feel free to present your reason to why that methodology doesn’t work for everyone.

Nothing, hmm . . .

nothing = zero.
nothing is what some people understanding of what is being said.
I see nothing through the back of my head.
I have nothing against pretty much everyone
Zen tries to achieve a state of no-thingness, the realization that all is “mind”
creation is brought into being from nothing

Space is not nothing,
it is filled with light, criss-crossing every which way
Space is a distance between things, that’s something
Space is filled with dark matter and energy in addition to the less than ten percent of things that the senses and their extensions can perceive

There is no methodology.
There is a relationship between all of us and the Ground of our being.
I imagine that your relationship has to do with things, processes, the stuff one learns in school texts, something like that. Pseudoscientific, mistrustful is how I would classify it.

If you want more, go outside the box, expand your horizons, take a leap.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Oh?.. and how can those “sometimes” be discernible from some psychological condition that only happens to a few people?

Well then, why the desire to spread the faith patent in the early believers and Europeans sailors of old?
That sort of cut short the free will detail for many people.
“Believe what I say, or go to hell” is something that still to this day haunts many people into remaining in the belief side of things.

Also, God had no qualm in cutting the free will of Abraham, nor Moses, nor many other so-called prophets… and they turned out alright, apparently.
If they could handle it, why can’t I? Why can’t everyone else?

Oh… but Abraham already believed… the same with Moses… oh… so, there seems to be some sort of a pre-requisite.

No. youre missing the point. Miracles arent just miracles if they happen to one person. They have to happen over and over again.
And about moses and the other prophets: they had just as much free will as you or I, but they chose to submit to god

 

[PRmerger]

Vacuum, or space devoid of matter, is not entirely empty.
The concept of “nothing” does not necessarily apply to vacuum.

I suggest you read this blistering review, which refutes the idea that nothing can indeed produce something (as proposed by physicist Laurence Krauss)

“The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields… they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.”
nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0

 

[PRmerger]

You must ask God in order to be granted the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Well, yes. * *If you believe.

But where’s the verse that says that you HAVE to presuppose God’s existence before you can sense him?

I don’t see that anywhere in Scripture, nor in the teaching of the Church.

In fact, I see exactly the OPPOSITE in Scripture:

St. Paul states that those who don’t know God (that is, the Law) are capable of sensing Him.

“When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.”

 

[PRmerger]

In fact, I see exactly the OPPOSITE in Scripture:

St. Paul states that those who don’t know God (that is, the Law) are capable of sensing Him.

“When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.”

And here’s another one:

“Blessed are the clean of heart for they will…”

Do you know how to finish that sentence, poca?

Go look on Fr. Google for the answer.

Hint: it’s an example of someone not necessarily believing in God but simply having a clean heart who will…

wait for it…
wait for it…

SENSE God.

Even if he doesn’t have a prior belief.

 

[pocaracas]

Nothing, hmm . . .

nothing = zero.
nothing is what some people understanding of what is being said.
I see nothing through the back of my head.
I have nothing against pretty much everyone
Zen tries to achieve a state of no-thingness, the realization that all is “mind”
creation is brought into being from nothing

Space is not nothing,
it is filled with light, criss-crossing every which way
Space is a distance between things, that’s something
Space is filled with dark matter and energy in addition to the less than ten percent of things that the senses and their extensions can perceive

There is no methodology.
There is a relationship between all of us and the Ground of our being.
I imagine that your relationship has to do with things, processes, the stuff one learns in school texts, something like that. Pseudoscientific, mistrustful is how I would classify it.

If you want more, go outside the box, expand your horizons, take a leap.

A leap into the unknown and unknowable and pretend it’s the correct answer and pass it on to my children as if it’s the well known correct answer… is that what you’re suggesting?

 

[pocaracas]

No. youre missing the point. Miracles arent just miracles if they happen to one person. They have to happen over and over again.
And about moses and the other prophets: they had just as much free will as you or I, but they chose to submit to god

Psychological problems also happen over and over again… even the nastiest ones, like epilepsy, alzheimer’s and drug abuse.
If those prophets had as much free will as I do (and as much as anyone else does), then I (and everyone else) eagerly await contact. Should have no bearing on our free will and should facilitate greatly any choice for submission.

 

[pocaracas]

I suggest you read this blistering review, which refutes the idea that nothing can indeed produce something (as proposed by physicist Laurence Krauss)

“The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields… they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.”
nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0

This is fun…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albert
"In March 2012, Albert published an extremely negative review of Lawrence Krauss’ book …]In his review, Albert lamented the way in which books like Krauss’ forward critiques of religion that are “pale, small, silly, nerdy”, and expresses how “the whole business of approaching the struggle with religion as if it were a card game, or a horse race, or some kind of battle of wits, just feels all wrong.]””

“Krauss responded in an interview published in The Atlantic[6] calling Albert “moronic” and dismissing the philosophy of science as worthless. In March 2013, The New York Times reported[7] that Albert, who had previously been invited to speak at the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History, was later disinvited. Albert claimed “It sparked a suspicion that Krauss must have demanded that I not be invited. But of course I’ve got no proof.””

• That’s right Krauss… go ad-hom on that guy! pfff… puny human.

As I see it, that David Albert is just moving the goal posts. He acknowledges that Krauss is right in his physics (even if not directly), it’s just the interpretation that then escapes him.
The Universe may have come from those fields in empty space… but where did the fields come from? aha! Gotcha, Krauss!

Well… Krauss only wanted to present mechanism for a Universe arising from some space without matter and he managed it.
How that space without matter, but with fields, comes about is a different problem… a more difficult one, perhaps. We’ll see how it progresses in the next decades…

##################

Well, yes. * *If you believe.

But where’s the verse that says that you HAVE to presuppose God’s existence before you can sense him?

I don’t see that anywhere in Scripture, nor in the teaching of the Church.

In fact, I see exactly the OPPOSITE in Scripture:

St. Paul states that those who don’t know God (that is, the Law) are capable of sensing Him.

“When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.”

Aren’t you contradicting yourself a bit?
You start with “yes, if you believe” and then it works even if you don’t believe?

############

And here’s another one:

“Blessed are the clean of heart for they will…”

Do you know how to finish that sentence, poca?

Go look on Fr. Google for the answer.

Hint: it’s an example of someone not necessarily believing in God but simply having a clean heart who will…

wait for it…
wait for it…

SENSE God.

Even if he doesn’t have a prior belief.

What is a clean heart?
Low cholesterol?
With my Mediterranean diet, my cholesterol is at a nice level… still, that premonition that “I will sense God” is somewhere in the unknown future… and there are people out there who could claim the same cleanliness, but they died in the meantime, never sensing God…
It seems that’s not a reliable technique.

 

[PRmerger]

What is a clean heart?
Low cholesterol?

Again, there is proof of my new favorite saying: scratch an atheist, find a literalist.

 

[pocaracas]

Again, there is proof of my new favorite saying: scratch an atheist, find a literalist.

That didn’t answer my question.

 

[MPat]

Oh well… so google didn’t help me there. Maybe I searched in the wrong place…

It is not the fault of “Google”. The problem is that you want to prove what is false.

Although… if I remember correctly, I was going on about the evidence for God is indistinguishable from imaginary friends.
It’s all in people’s heads.
What people do with that conviction about such imaginary friends is something different.

So, your claim has been completely disproved by the evidence you offered yourself, and yet you still act as if it was true?

And yet you still think that it is religion and not atheism that leads to self-delusion?

For that matter, have you ever asked yourself, why your position in this discussion so often ends up being self-contradicting or disproved? Doesn’t that indicate that your position is simply wrong?

Just because the majority are aware of their irreality, doesn’t mean that many are not.

The whole point of that insult (for let’s face it - it’s an insult, not an argument) is that kids do know that they made their imaginary friends up themselves, and that to believe that those imaginary friends really exist would be absurd. That’s why some atheists like such comparison.

Defending… and presenting cool pearls of information like this site: islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlysaw.html
Check how absent of any miracles are the earliest three accounts of that character known as Mo.

First of all, there is no need for insults like “that character known as Mo”. Even if you think Muhammad did not exist and was a fictional character, he had a name. Or do you refer to d’Artagnan as “d’Ar”?

Second, well, I really failed to see any reports of miracles there. That does agree with my explanation that Muslim apologists do not emphasise miracles.

yep… Valuing Mo’s “miracles” more than JC’s, for he was the last prophet. No other will follow… how convenient.

First, there is no need for insults. Second, no, you haven’t actually offered any evidence to support your view. For now all evidence supports my view. And yet you keep your view anyway…

Such instances can also be used to show that belief really depends on the will (thus defeating one of objections to Pascal’s Wager). Also, it can be used to show that by now this discussion has stopped to progress…

And what would be the procedure undertaken for that experiment?

How am I supposed to know how you would look for evidence?

huh? “hard to say what Natural actually means”?!
It seems you may be stretching something I said a bit beyond its scope…

Let’s see:

Natural is a tricky concept here… I’d go the dumb way and just make it mean “things explained by science nowadays”: physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and a few others… (down deep, they’re all physics! BUHAHAHA)

I take that “tricky” to mean that it is hard to define “natural” and to explain how it differs from “supernatural”.

If I don’t reply when I read this, I forget to… and that would be rude of me.

I guess I should have answered less often in that case…

oh boy…
Finicky Psychology - because most (if not all) its findings are statistics based. Highly dependent on certain conditions of the experiments and difficult to generalize to everyone in the world. Why? Because it’s just searching for patterns in behaviors. Still, it serves its high-level purposes.

The understanding of how human psychology works (not the field of Psychology, but how brains tend to operate to produce a certain behavior… which is what the field of Psychology tries to discover) can lead one to deprecate certain philosophical arguments, due to the awareness of the reliance of such arguments on certain known psychological flaws which lead to unconditional acceptance of the arguments, provided the correct trigger.

And, well, intuition is all about trying to keep us alive, so there’s that consistency. Intuition on arguments… hehe… like someone said, if it wasn’t for that, 90% of advertising wouldn’t work (again, statistics concerning human psychology).

So… what is outranking what and how?

Frankly, I am not sure I get your point here…

What is a clean heart?
Low cholesterol?
With my Mediterranean diet, my cholesterol is at a nice level… still, that premonition that “I will sense God” is somewhere in the unknown future… and there are people out there who could claim the same cleanliness, but they died in the meantime, never sensing God…
It seems that’s not a reliable technique.

Again, there is proof of my new favorite saying: scratch an atheist, find a literalist.

That didn’t answer my question.

If you really didn’t understand what “clean heart” (or “pure heart”) means, see biblehub.com/matthew/5-8.htm or haydock1859.tripod.com/id19.html . PRmerger’s point is that is is pretty obvious that “clean heart” does not refer to lack of cholesterol, and if it not clear to you, the problem is on your side.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Psychological problems also happen over and over again… even the nastiest ones, like epilepsy, alzheimer’s and drug abuse.
If those prophets had as much free will as I do (and as much as anyone else does), then I (and everyone else) eagerly await contact. Should have no bearing on our free will and should facilitate greatly any choice for submission.

Again, the point is that many people have to experience the miracle for it to even be up for consideration as such

 

[pocaracas]

It is not the fault of “Google”. The problem is that you want to prove what is false.

So, your claim has been completely disproved by the evidence you offered yourself, and yet you still act as if it was true?

And yet you still think that it is religion and not atheism that leads to self-delusion?

For that matter, have you ever asked yourself, why your position in this discussion so often ends up being self-contradicting or disproved? Doesn’t that indicate that your position is simply wrong?

Disproved for the majority of children who have imaginary friends… not all.
It stands for those that fail to realize that their friends are imaginary.

First of all, there is no need for insults like “that character known as Mo”. Even if you think Muhammad did not exist and was a fictional character, he had a name. Or do you refer to d’Artagnan as “d’Ar”?

Insult? Not that I meant it as such, but whatever…

The character in the story need not be the same as the real life man that inspired the story.

Second, well, I really failed to see any reports of miracles there. That does agree with my explanation that Muslim apologists do not emphasise miracles.

Of course you did. That page was not about miracles, but about the actual evidence that exists. It was to point out that, at the heart of things, miracles are really absent.
But stories then crop up. It was a miracle that made Mo conquer so many cities in the Arabian Peninsula. It was a miracle that all the Qur’an survived in the memories of Mo’s followers. etc…

First, there is no need for insults. Second, no, you haven’t actually offered any evidence to support your view. For now all evidence supports my view. And yet you keep your view anyway…

What insults are you perceiving?

Such instances can also be used to show that belief really depends on the will (thus defeating one of objections to Pascal’s Wager). Also, it can be used to show that by now this discussion has stopped to progress…

Belief depends on the will… right… of course.
Just like all those Jews converted to Christianity in Portugal a few centuries ago… they just willed it and poof!
Belief restructuring is a multi-generational endeavor.

How am I supposed to know how you would look for evidence?

If there is evidence for what you believe to exist, then there must be a methodology in place to find it. I’m asking you what that methodology is.
If I were to tell you to find evidence concerning black holes, I could also provide you with some telescope time and some sky coordinates where to point it…
What is the methodology to find the evidence that you claim exists?

I take that “tricky” to mean that it is hard to define “natural” and to explain how it differs from “supernatural”.

Fair enough… although, I did provide an answer. A one liner, suitable for the forum model.
It was a bit tricky, I gave it some thought and came up with a simple and concise definition. Why don’t we work with that?
Certainly, as a “simple and concise definition” it will not encompass the whole meaning of the word being defined, but is good enough for present discussion, I think…

I guess I should have answered less often in that case…

Nah… it’s good.

Frankly, I am not sure I get your point here…

Yeah… of course… me and my big messy brain ordering…
The study of Psychology is not the same as psychology.
The study of Psychology is riddled with experimental difficulties, mostly due to poor access to the thing being studied: the brain.
Even so, it’s managed to come up with some interesting results.

Psychology is how the brain actually works, on some high level… not the neuron interactions themselves, but the high level functionality of memory storage, decision making, reflexive action, etc…
Intuition is based on some lower-level form of thinking and has evolved mainly to keep us alive.

If you really didn’t understand what “clean heart” (or “pure heart”) means, see biblehub.com/matthew/5-8.htm or haydock1859.tripod.com/id19.html . PRmerger’s point is that is is pretty obvious that “clean heart” does not refer to lack of cholesterol, and if it not clear to you, the problem is on your side.

It’s clear that it does not mean “lack of cholesterol”…
It’s also clear that it does not mean “minty fresh”…

What is not clear is what it means. Even with those two links! The second tries, but…
“according to the common exposition, signifies the humble of mind and heart. Yet some understand it of such as are truly in poverty and want, and who bear their indigent condition with patience and resignation. (Witham) — That is, the humble; and they whose spirit is not set upon riches. (Challoner)
…]
Thus the poor in spirit, i.e. the truly humble, will mourn for their transgressions, and whoever is filled with sorrow and confusion for his own sins, cannot but be just, and behave to others with meekness and clemency; when possessed of these virtues, he then becomes pure and clean of heart.”

Yeah… Meekness and clemency… I got those two and more! I think… So, where’s God for me to see as promised in the book?
How about those 60% of people all around the world who are not Christian? certainly some (albeit tiny) percentage of them would fulfill the requirements… and get to see God, but they must be hiding it (or seeing as much as me), and have been hiding it for millennia, since some extremely different beliefs have sprouted in those other places.
So, what gives?

 

[pocaracas]

Again, the point is that many people have to experience the miracle for it to even be up for consideration as such

Or many people have to believe it was a miracle.

 

[PRmerger]

What is a clean heart?
Low cholesterol?

Again, there is proof of my new favorite saying: scratch an atheist, find a literalist.

That didn’t answer my question.

Ok, then.

Buh-bye.

I don’t play these types of games.

When feigning ignorance is the modus, I say buh-bye.

I don’t dialogue with dissemblers.

 

[Aloysium]

A leap into the unknown and unknowable and pretend it’s the correct answer and pass it on to my children as if it’s the well known correct answer… is that what you’re suggesting?

The correct answer is Love.
Even if it feels wrong, live as if you are loved and that all humanity is deserving of your love.
Guide your kids to be caring human beings.
Placing love above all else will not make them weak in what can be a truly rotten world at times.
It will do the opposite, giving them the strength to face anything that life brings, since everything other than love is transient, illusory and ultimately unfulfilling.
This is what I am suggesting.

 

[pocaracas]

Ok, then.

Buh-bye.

I don’t play these types of games.

When feigning ignorance is the modus, I say buh-bye.

I don’t dialogue with dissemblers.

oh well… thanks for playing.
I was just looking for some properly accurate definition of “clean heart”… and I was only met with what it isn’t…
Clearly, you don’t know. It’s ok not to know these things… It’s also ok to admit you don’t know some things… but it’s not for all.

 

[pocaracas]

The correct answer is Love.
Even if it feels wrong, live as if you are loved and that all humanity is deserving of your love.
Guide your kids to be caring human beings.
Placing love above all else will not make them weak in what can be a truly rotten world at times.
It will do the opposite, giving them the strength to face anything that life brings, since everything other than love is transient, illusory and ultimately unfulfilling.
This is what I am suggesting.

Then we are in agreement!

 

[MPat]

Disproved for the majority of children who have imaginary friends… not all.
It stands for those that fail to realize that their friends are imaginary.

Yes, that is a good illustration for keeping the baseless beliefs against evidence, self-delusion and other things that you see in religions.

You do believe in “those that fail to realize that their friends are imaginary”, even when you have no evidence to speak of to support this belief - and lots of evidence against it. And the claim that lots of kids (“millions”, as you have said it) that are not insane somehow fail to notice that they have deliberately made something up is obviously extraordinary. Yet somehow you are not demanding extraordinary evidence for it. Nor sufficient evidence. Nor even any evidence at all. Not even lack of opposing evidence!

But of course, that is why I do not really expect you to express any doubts about existence of a great number of such kids.

What insults are you perceiving?

Insult? Not that I meant it as such, but whatever…

So, are you going to claim that you meant “Mo” to be a term of affection or something?

It is just basic courtesy (for other participants of discussion) to try to use names properly. If someone is called “Muhammad”, then one should call him so, and not “Mo”. If a book is called “Gospel of Luke” then one should call it so, and not “that book by Luke”. Just like one doesn’t call d’Artagnan “d’Ar”.

It is childish (and not in a good way) to resort to such name-calling.

The character in the story need not be the same as the real life man that inspired the story.

I will note that your answer has nothing whatsoever to do with my point.

Of course you did. That page was not about miracles, but about the actual evidence that exists. It was to point out that, at the heart of things, miracles are really absent.
But stories then crop up. It was a miracle that made Mo conquer so many cities in the Arabian Peninsula. It was a miracle that all the Qur’an survived in the memories of Mo’s followers. etc…

In other words, you once again ignored my point (that you have misrepresented the way in which Muslim apologists tend to make their case) and have answered something unrelated.

Belief depends on the will… right… of course.
Just like all those Jews converted to Christianity in Portugal a few centuries ago… they just willed it and poof!
Belief restructuring is a multi-generational endeavor.

And yet, it sure looks that you do not want to believe in God, instead wanting to believe that atheism is not a belief, that belief does not depend on will, that a great number of kids believe their imaginary friends are real - and you sure manage to do so.

If there is evidence for what you believe to exist, then there must be a methodology in place to find it. I’m asking you what that methodology is.
If I were to tell you to find evidence concerning black holes, I could also provide you with some telescope time and some sky coordinates where to point it…
What is the methodology to find the evidence that you claim exists?

Once again, your original question was not about the right ways to look for evidence, but about the ways that you would use. I have no idea what you would do.

It’s clear that it does not mean “lack of cholesterol”…
It’s also clear that it does not mean “minty fresh”…

Precisely. That’s why “PRmerger” has called your response “feigning ignorance”.

What is not clear is what it means. Even with those two links! The second tries, but…
“according to the common exposition, signifies the humble of mind and heart. Yet some understand it of such as are truly in poverty and want, and who bear their indigent condition with patience and resignation. (Witham) — That is, the humble; and they whose spirit is not set upon riches. (Challoner)
…]
Thus the poor in spirit, i.e. the truly humble, will mourn for their transgressions, and whoever is filled with sorrow and confusion for his own sins, cannot but be just, and behave to others with meekness and clemency; when possessed of these virtues, he then becomes pure and clean of heart.”

Perhaps the most clear short explanation was “The clean of heart, i.e. they who are clean from sin”, but those work too.

Yeah… Meekness and clemency… I got those two and more! I think…

I’m afraid that thinking you are humble and proudly proclaiming that is not the most reliable sign of actual humility… I hope you were joking (badly) there. Although that would mean that you have made no serious point worth answering.

So, where’s God for me to see as promised in the book?

Also, “shall see God” does not mean seeing Him now, but in Heaven. I’m pretty sure you should know that. After all, the commentaries I have linked include “None but the pure are capable of seeing God, nor would heaven be happiness to the impure.”, “Shall see God. Not in his courts (Psalm 24.) on Mount Moriah, but above; and in one complete vision fully grasped (ὄψονται).”. And the meaning here is pretty clear even without commentaries - if, of course, one actually wants to understand and not to misunderstand…

So, we have multiple responses to something unrelated to the actual point, some “feigned ignorance”, even some insults (of Muhammad, but still…)… Presumably, they were only meant to be funny - but they are not. They are only boring and somewhat annoying, tiring. And, since the discussion doesn’t seem to progress much, and that by now atheism ended up looking pretty bad anyway, I guess we might as well end this discussion…