What role did you play in the submarine? (My knowledge consist of the movie ‘Crimson Tide’)
x2
Our planet is very amazing to me. The scientific approach to explaining how this planet formed does not diminish it’s significance to me at all. It’s an approach that starts from, what we can justify to know and understand and then presenting an explanation from that point. Does understanding the physics of reality diminish that at all? It doesn’t to me.
Yes hearing voices is studied by science. Its a part of psychology I believe. But how could you tell the difference between just hearing something that sounded like voices, to actually hearing voices, to believing you heard voices while no one else did, to knowing that the source of those voices was supernatural instead of what I would conclude as, I heard voices with no reference to supernatural sources as an explanation. We have to be able to determine what actually happened. We have the ability to record sounds even beyond our audible range, so that would be a start. If it’s something only you or I “heard”, then how could we tell the difference between something we imagined vs any other explanation? If we can’t then why use the idea that it was supernatural when we have no way of determining the difference between event A with supernatural involvement and event B. If they appear exactly the same, then there is no reason to suggest that it was supernatural at all. We have to be able to determine the difference between the two events in some way.
I do not fully understand what you mean by this question. Please feel free to expand on my response if I didn’t address it in the way you asked.
I’ll appeal to the fair-mindedness of the readers. Have I ever “poo-poo’d” anyone’s claim to their experiences of it being supernatural? No, No I haven’t. I have only ever responded that I have not been the direct witness of any event that implied supernatural involvement. So when an event happened that someone claimed was supernatural, I believe that they experienced something. But I still do not see how they concluded that it was supernatural involvement instead of any other reality based possibility. Every single time we’ve attempted to look at an event to see if it was supernatural or not, the experiment never shows any indication of evidence of supernatural.
Could you explain how my example did not address your point? When you subjectively assign your reference point of moral codes to the “betterment of humanity”, you can come to objective truths within that restriction. Poison for nutrition is objectively bad then. Eating apples or pears is subjectively true since both promote nutrition. I don’t see how you’re disagreeing with my example if you didn’t address it.Yes, I’ve had sociology, psychology and philosophy courses.
When not grounded in an objective morality, the subjectivity is by nature lacking in morals and ethics to me, and I think it actually makes people mad to not be grounded in an objective morality. Mad as in causing mental health issues.
I stopped trying to keep up with what American society views as ethical and moral as it changes every time someone starts a new “movement”.
Well many religious communities here in the US would fall under that. Physically they can all leave the religion, but the social push back is devastating. The disowning of the individual from the family and complete shut out of any future family involvement. Only being allowed to discuss why they are not coming back to the organization as the topic to discuss.Hi Russell
I always thought a cult was a religion or some other group that once someone joined, they were not allowed to leave.
Thank you for reading
Josh
Ok I’ll appeal to the fair-mindedness of the readers. Did I say, “every animal has all these properties”? No, no I did not. Please quote me correctly. You have time to read what I said and address what I actually wrote, so please do. If you can not, then concede my point or find a fault with it to address. You clearly did not absorb what was discussed but only skimmed over the idea of the topic and didn’t actually want to hear what the points were. You’re coming across as someone who already want’s to hear what you already agree with instead of learning and listening to the conversation for it’s sake.The problem of consciousness and its unique properties (not traceable to any other animals) is so hard to atheists that they found a very “simple” argument.
They don’t only say that God does not exist but the very consciousness does not exist too!
That’s called eliminative materialism.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
But to our atheist friend here every animal has all the properties of human mind.
The submarine experience was great for someone that gets sea sick.What role did you play in the submarine? (My knowledge consist of the movie ‘Crimson Tide’)
I think I would hate being in a submarine. I have never experienced and don’t really want to but would be interested to hear of someones take on it who has experienced it.
x2
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
Underwater it’s as calm as an office build. We had 18 hour days. 6 hours on shift, 6 hours maintenance or drills, 6 hours in the bunk, and back again. I went through the Nuclear Power training program and was a glorified Homer Simpson. We’d spend 6 hours on watch sitting next to three people, throttle-man, reactor operator (me), Electrician, and Engineering-Officer-of-the-watch (EOOW). We’d learn more about each other than our own mates, and keep trying to get the EOOW to say, “Main Steam fornicates open” instead of “Main Steam 4 indicates open.” Its was the isolation valve that split the steam plant in half when we ran steam drills.What point does “intelligence” come into being for a creature? It appears to me that is the issue I would assume to this point. Same as, at what point does an event observed in reality illustrate that supernaturalism was part of the outcome. Since we do not have a tool that allows us to investigate the supernatural we are left with interpreting the affects of an event. Every time someone has claimed that X within the experiment of A was the part that is supernatural, it’s always been determined as just another “god of the gaps” argument. Because once we learned how the experiment of A is recreated, we never needed X to make it happen. As such, evidence of X keeps getting moved back and back to a point again to where we currently do not know yet. But is that the case you really want to put forth? Because we will keep learning more and more about reality and how many times is that goal post going to have to be moved before you reconsider your position on understand reality? I’m fine with there being a realm of the supernatural, just that we cant tell the difference between its involvement and non-involvement at this point, so it’s the equivalent as just not there at this point.
Consciousness is an emergent property of brain development. Just as wetness is an emergent property of water. Its a descriptive idea of evidence that an individual manifests to the rest of us observing it. That’s how I understand it. You can find higher functioning animals that all display qualities of consciousness. It’s not that hard to find. I recommend more Wikipedia and Animal Planet for references.The problem of consciousness and its unique properties (not traceable to any other animals) is so hard to atheists that they found a very “simple” argument.
They don’t only say that God does not exist but the very consciousness does not exist too!
That’s called eliminative materialism.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
But to our atheist friend here every animal has all the properties of human mind.
Russell, I missed a bunch of posts and I apologize for getting responses out of line but I went back and read this one where you want to know if you could recreate experience A without supernatural involvement… what would that look like in my situation at visiting Eucharistic Adoration? It was a late night event. No one knew I was coming… there were only two other people there, praying and they didn’t move a muscle when the voice said to move on up… why didn’t those other folks move up, too? What would someone have had to do to recreate the experience. Have speakers and a recording set up behind the altar for my ears only? Be watching from behind to see my reaction? Maybe make a youtube video? Sometimes you just can’t recreate the experience. If it could be done that way I would try it all the time…
What is poison and what is not, is usually where the subjectivity lies.
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” John 6:63
I don’t know yet, what is the full context of the quote that is referencing? Taking one line out of someone’s conversation wouldn’t let you fully understand what someone was talking or referencing when they replied that way. What is it in it’s entirety?
Lets say a poison that has no medical or healthful benefits. Like battery acid or any level of toxin that kills a normally sane, non-suffering, wanting an end of life assistance issue. That type of poison is objectively bad in the reference of human well-being.
I don’t throw away the story. I’ll appeal to the readers if I came across that way at all. I was stating that I acknowledge that people have had their experiences. Their experience is inherently first hand. But when trying to tell other people about the experience, they can tell them what they believe happened, but they may not convince them as to the explanation of what happened. Everyone has different criteria for being convinced of an explanation for what caused the event. Some people are already socially conditioned to conclude that the reason was supernatural. I’m fine with it being supernatural, but I’ll need further information to convince me. Look at the case of a trial and all 12 members of the jury. They call come in with their own reasons for what would convince them of the event. They can all agree on the facts of the case but not all agree as to the cause of those facts. That’s why the scientific process of testability, repeatability, and falsifiability are needed to help address those issues. For example, I know gravity waves exist in reality now. But I couldn’t feel justified in believing that until we ran the test for them this year even though we’ve mathematically concluded that they should be there. See we can be logically correct for an explanation about reality, but still factually wrong until we’re able to run these tests to look at our logical conclusions. That’s my criteria for feeling justified about adjusting my understanding of reality. Imagine if someone was attempting to illustrate that magic actually existed in a world where no one could produce magic. What would it take you to finally believe that level of paradigm shift? That Hogwarts and diagon alley, quidditch, etc all exist.
