A little more info I came across while tootling across the web:
http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2006/10/does-brain-tap-into-future.html
This is a similar take to a concept I came across before which in a nutshell seems to suggest - using scientific methods - that our experience of reality must be caused by our brain projecting experience back in time OR our mind experiencing the future and projecting that experience backwards to our brains what we call now.
What would this tell us? Well if true ( a big if) then we have a potential mechanism for prophecy / future dreams (something I think I've experienced) / precognition / deja vu. This has profound implications for free will as it suggests either that we have none (decisions are already made in the future and we get fooled into assuming we made them now) or that we have a non-mechanical part of our being that is actively surfing ahead of 'now' creating our reality that we then get to experience. I like the idea of a 'soul' that is ahead of our consciousness creating/observing reality out of potentiality according to how we've trained it (I'll track back in a bit as I agree I'm making wild leaps of intuition here) and that we then enjoy/suffer as we chase our future.
So maybe if we train / habitualize / focus our minds in certain ways then we can surf the wave better/further in the future - let's say that we take a positive, glass half full approach to life then the more we think like this the more our life can be made sunnier and trouble free in the now. Maybe we can suffer fewer illnesses, make more friends, experience more opportunities, have deeper joys and shallower traumas etc. Maybe not though - this has one dangerous trap if its wrong - people genuinely suffering can be accused of being the cause of their own pain which can lead to judgmental cr*p from the less afflicted.
What would this have to do with evidence for God. Well it gives us a possible mechanism to move prophecy from the realms of poetic myth to the potential for being true. If we get prophetic fulfillment then we don't need to reject it out of hand as dumb luck. Mind you - I'm wary of positing any examples of positive prophetic fulfillment... that's the job of more daring minds than mine.
External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...
by Tuesday 122 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Qcmbr
-
BurnTheShips
Nearly every post I have responded with has a different postulate, take your pick.
I have. I choose God.
My latest is that the Earth is a giant land-fill of the universe, it's equally plausable.
But not equally accepted. Nor satisfying.
COULD BE is not external, observable, verifiable, evidence of.
Well thanks for the cold hammer of empiricism. But there are other ways of knowledge.
This isn't a philisophical debate, it's external, observable, verifiable proof of. If the answer could be a thousand things and the best proof that can be mustered is "It COULD BE" I don't know how else to say this. I've tried a myriad of similies, metaphors and illustrations. If you use the words "COULD BE" in your post, that's not a conclusion. "God is without a shadow of a doubt, undeniably, unequivicolly, undebatably the creator of the universe because..."
Everything we "know" COULD BE.
I don't know if that's really the case because Islam/Judaeism/Christianity may trace their ancestry back to Abraham but their Gods have radically different personalities. Christians accept the vengeful, blood-thirsty God of the Old Testiment soldering his Israelites from town to town in the middle east killing, raping, and brutally sacraficing animals along their way to the holy land, then the New Testiment has a change of heart and becomes a loving, merciful, forgiving God. Then Judaeism only worships the first half of that, Islam worships the first half and continues this same personality in the newer half of their Qu'ran. If Islam is right then Judaeism is wrong because their God asks for "exclusive devotion" and in essence they've been worshipping this YHWY cat when in actuality his name was Allah. If Judaeism is right we're all in trouble because we should be killing animals for every time we sin. If Christianity is right, God has a split personality. It's basically a pissing contest of who Abraham worshipped, assuming that he had the right guy. Even though if someone was talking to me telling me he's God then tells me to kill my only son, I might seek out some psychotic episode inhibiters instead of doing what he told me. But you know to each their own. You say showing faith to God, I say psychopath believing a voice is telling him to kill his son. To-MAY-to To-Mah-to.
Po-tay-toh, po-tah-toh.
Let's call the whole thing off.
There were six men of Hindustan,
to learning much inclined,
Who went to see an elephant,
though all of them were blind,
That each by observation
might satisfy his mind.The first approached the elephant,
and happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
at once began to bawl,
"This mystery of an elephant
is very like a wall."The second, feeling of the tusk,
cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an elephant
is very like a spear."The third approached the elephant,
and happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
thus boldly up and spake,
"I see," quoth he,
"the elephant is very like a snake."The fourth reached out an eager hand,
and felt above the knee,
"What this most wondrous beast
is like is very plain" said he,
"'Tis clear enough the elephant
is very like a tree."The fifth who chanced to touch the ear
said, "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
deny the fact who can;
This marvel of an elephant
is very like a fan."The sixth no sooner had begun
about the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
that fell within his scope;
"I see," said he, "the elephant
is very like a rope."So six blind men of Hindustan
disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
exceeding stiff and strong;
Though each was partly in the right,
they all were in the wrong!Burn
-
journey-on
I love that poem Burn. I've read and pondered it many times. And since you suggested we "call the whole thing off", I want to add
my reason for knowing there is a Divine Intelligence.
We do not know what Consciousness is (pure non-ego consciousness). It may be a state of total and complete unknowable bliss (for lack of a better word). There are some social scientists that have begun to examine the "realm" of consciousness. It has been shown that individuals have a Consciousness, families have a Consciousness, Groups have a Consciousness, Communities, Countries, Religious Organizations, etc. etc. Studies are being done examining just what this means and how it affects overall World Consciousness. But, still, Consciousness has not yet been fully comprehended nor defined, and there is not a "place" where you can physically go to examine it with any kind of scientific tool.
Now picture nothing….no thing…just Pure Consciousness in an unmanifested universe. You probably can’t, because it is so beyond our ability to comprehend it in our three-dimensional five-sense world that your mind begins to boggle at the concept. But, if you try, perhaps you can get a glimpse of this "no thing" that contains within it every thing in its pure unmanifested form.
I read somewhere that someday we may find that Consciousness itself is what began Creation, a small point of wisdom that exploded into the energy of "light" in order to "know" itself through the act of creating. We know through science that things are nothing more than "condensed" energy (E=mc ² ). But, our science is new and insufficient in its capability to understand much more than that as yet. But, we know we are all made of the same stuff.
For those of you who are atheists, my mind indeed boggles at the idea that anyone can believe that Intelligence was not behind the creation of the universe. In the step-down process of manifested creation, we have absolutely no idea what or "who" is in between this physical realm and the realm of Pure Consciousness.
Mankind was given an ego in order to have legitimate Free Will here on Earth. Our choices are made individually and in groups. We may be made of the same stuff, but through the gift of Free Will, we make our own way in this Life. What realm of consciousness we experience after this physical life is only speculation. But, all through man’s history, he has speculated, imagined, created reasons and excuses, and tried to define the Divine. Man’s inability and failure to comprehend the Creator, does not mean the Divine Intelligence does not exist.
I believe there are "keys" to the knowledge and some people search and search with diligence for those keys and some find a few along the way. When they do, they KNOW with certainty that it was a gift. Some have simply given up the search and some have decided there is nothing to search for. You can label yourself anything you choose to…. agnostic, atheist, deist, anti-deist, whatever. It changes nothing but yourself, but it is and was YOUR choice, YOUR free will at work.
We are made of the same stuff and we intuitively seek to connect with it or we CHOOSE to severe the connection or give up trying. It changes nothing but yourself. It really is your free will at work and your choice.
-
R.Crusoe
Arguing infinity and eternity are not the same is , to me, like arguing energy and matter are not the same. Each precipitates the other and so I have no desire to distinguish in the context of the causation of what is reality!
The causation of reality , to me , is also a similar notion when contemplating whether it is an intentional god or a chaotic simultaneoinfinite expression of events!
Now whether the 'causation' has intent is an whole otherness to the debate in my mind presently!
-
BurnTheShips
I love that poem Burn. I've read and pondered it many times. And since you suggested we "call the whole thing off", I want to add
It was a song reference. An appropriate one I think.
We are made of the same stuff and we intuitively seek to connect with it or we CHOOSE to severe the connection or give up trying. It changes nothing but yourself. It really is your free will at work and your choice.
Some blind men don't want to touch the elephant. Or maybe they are lame also and can't walk on the journey.
Burn
-
Tuesday
But not equally accepted. Nor satisfying.
Popularity does not make anything more correct. Satisfying is a very subjective thing, God is satisfying for you because it easily answers all of life's problems (or some other reason), God is not satisfying to me.
I got the "Let's call the whole thing off" reference, I figured you'd say that :) That's actually why I said "External" because this wasn't a debate about whose theology is the best. Which with the constant bringing up of "My God is the only monotheistic claimed creator of the universe" it is rapidly becoming. I agree, let's call the whole thing off.
Good poem. I enjoyed it.
-
lovelylil
Tuesday,
There is only one True God who created the universe and everything in it. Since all 3 of the major religions agree with this, regardless of how they choose to interpret scripture, technically they are all worshiping the same God. And since scripture interpretation is not as important as you make think for people of faith, it is not really an issue for God. Peace, Lilly
-
gymbob
Lil,
If they all worship the same god, and scripture interpretation isn't that important for people of "faith", then....WHAT DIFFERANCE DOES IT MAKE??
-
Tuesday
There is only one True God who created the universe and everything in it.
Opinion, as many people have stated here there are several different creator myths. Sirona has listed several, there was also a movement in Egypt to worship Ra alone. Look up the rule of Pharoh Akhenaten. Or Zoastrianism for that matter, the first religion with a devil in it.
Since all 3 of the major religions agree with this, regardless of how they choose to interpret scripture, technically they are all worshiping the same God.
They're not worshipping the same God, they're just all trying to lay claim to Abraham being the start of their religion. Much like the genaeolgies that try to link Jesus to David in various different ways. If interpretation isn't that important and God doesn't care how you worship him, why does he spell it out word for word in each different version of his "holy" texts? Also if interpretation isn't that important I could technically still worship God as the creator of the universe and still find him to be a cruel tyrant who enjoys the suffering of his creations and uses us as his puppet playthings to act out the ultimate destruction of our world. It's just an interpretation, at least I'm worshipping him.
And since scripture interpretation is not as important as you make think for people of faith, it is not really an issue for God.
You got to say earlier that I hadn't done the studying I claimed to have done for the bible, so I'll say here that when you point the finger three more are pointing back at you. I'm trying to figure out here if you're saying that interpretation of scripture isn't that important for people of faith, or interpretation isn't that important to God, or both. It absolutely is important to people of faith, it might not be for you personally, but go to some of the churches around your area. For JW's interpretation is everything, for alot of fundemental churches interpretation is everything. There are churches who interpret Sodom and Gomorrah's crime as worshipping other Gods, the majority of churches interpret it as homosexuality. In that one case interpretation is everything because it allows one church to allow homosexuals into their church and for the others it condems them. If interpretation wasn't that important to people of faith, there wouldn't be 33,830 distinct denominations of Christianity. That's just Christianity, there are 150 major world religions with over 1 million members that don't worship a Christian God. Then on top of that if you lower the expectation to under a million there are 10,000. I'm sidetracked though, 33,830 destinct different denominations of Christianity. If interpretation wasn't that important then they would all simply be Christian, there are many things Christians are, loving...sure...forgiving...depends...tolerant of other's beliefs.... well I'll leave that for others decide. It looks like if someone interprets something differently they're kicked out of one church and then start their own.
If the above statement is saying that interpretation isn't important to God, then you're assuming you're opinion is right here. I think I just listed 33,829 denominations of people who tend to disagree with you. So you have a 0.002% chance of being right. If you get to heaven and find out you're right, kick yourself for not playing the lottery That percentage of course is much smaller if you include the other 10,000 religions into the fray, or actually even smaller if you include the 10,000 other religion's various sects into the equation as well.
This is way off course however once again, this whole deal is a side step to the real issue at hand of supplying External, Observable, Verifiable evidence of God. I'm waiting for another Spook response since I finally found my actual dictionary and can look up half the words he uses LOL (J/K Spook, you know I love you)
-
inrainbows
BurnTheShips
It would seem that at its most fundamental state matter exists in a superposition of all possible states until observed.
You cannot apply quantum laws to non-quantum objects. Not even if it is convenient to support your religious beliefs.
We are made up of quantum objects but are not in ourselves quantum.
I am in no way a wave function, nor do I have spin UNLESS I am in the sea or on skates.
lovelylil
Everything that has a beginning needs a "first cause".
No it doesn't, at least not according to the High Priests of Cosmology. They at least have theories (check the definiton please) as distinct from their rivals in mumbo-jumbo, the other types of Priests, who only have DOGMA.
God does not have a beginning and thus needs no cause. (Alpha and Omega, he IS the beginning and the end) What this exactly means, we really do not know because no one can fully understand God.
You can believe this if you like but it is an unproven presupposition. You can't even prove that this statement applies to any form of god that may actually exist. As this is essentailly you saying 'it is so 'cause I think it so', you are excluding yourself from serious debate unless you restrict yourself to debate with those who have identical presuppostions.
But the universe definately had a beginning and that is as per science of our day. They also admit they do not know what the "cause" of the universe was. But it certainly had to be "something" or "someone" not subject to our rules of space and time. Peace, Lilly.
Lilly, you are wrong about cosmology. Doesn't mean they are right, but it does mean you are wrong.
The monotheism belief is what set Judaism apart from all the other religions of the time.
Actually monotheism was a DEVELOPMENT or transition of Judaism, not its original state. Elohim is plural. YHWH was just another tribal diety with a female counterpart whose followers were rather better at killing the surrounding tribes than average. Don't suppose for one minute the 700BC (or so) revsion of events we have in the Bible was what actually happened back in the period 2,000BC-1,000BC.
Unless insisting that some things just aredespite the fact you have no proof makes you feel secure, in which case, please do. We all have to believe something that makes our lives 'work', and as long as it doesn't harm others it doesn't matter what that is.
And this belief in one single God, creator of all things, is what is still held as true by Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
Except for the fact many Christians believe in a god which is indistinguishable in concept from other triune dieties as belived in by polytheists and would be seen by such polytheists as polytheists.