Do you believe in God?

Mousewar

AllForIt wrote: »

People who say they saw a flying saucer is evidence that there exists a person who says they think they saw a flying saucer and noting else.

That would be proof.

AllForIt

Mousewar wrote: »

That would be proof.

What if they were lying?

NoviGlitzko

Question to people in here. Why does the Universe exist?

Mousewar

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is exactly where....

Jesus Christ, I'd have to quit my job to answer all that. I think we actually agree on everything except that if *thousands* of people say they saw something that is evidence that that something exists. It may not exist as there is no proof. But there is evidence of it.
You talk of UFOs but that's just the people who talk of unspecific objects in the sky and not people who talk to direct interaction with aliens and conversations where they identify themselves as aliens, etc. You make the language vague to suit your argument.

Mousewar

AllForIt wrote: »

What if they were lying?

You said: "People who say they saw a flying saucer is evidence that there exists a person who says they think they saw a flying saucer and noting else."

If they were lying, they were lying but them saying they had seen a flying saucer would be proof "that there exists a person who says they think they saw a flying saucer", not just evidence. You didn't say anything about the truth behind the claim.

Zubeneschamali

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

Question to people in here. Why does the Universe exist?

I am a militant agnostic on this question: I don't know and nor do you, nor does anyone.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mousewar wrote: »

I think we actually agree on everything except that if *thousands* of people say they saw something that is evidence that that something exists. It may not exist as there is no proof. But there is evidence of it.

And again I see it just as evidence something is worth of investigation. If 1000 people in a field see something in the air, I would want to find out what that something was. If the 1000 people decide to declare it was aliens.... that does not make it so.

The fact many people on their death bed, like really many, report the sensation and experience of leaving their body..... is evidence something is going on there. It is not AT ALL evidence they actually left their body.

I believe 1000s, maybe millions, of people hear voices. To a degree I think 100% of us hear voices actually, but I grant 1000s report it more explicitly. That is evidence they heard voices. It is NOT evidence that it was a god.

Mousewar wrote: »

You make the language vague to suit your argument.

Nope I do so to reduce the length of my already long posts, given people tend to use their length as a reason not to reply to them. Which, seemingly, is exactly what just happened. When called on any part of it, I am happy to expand with specifics to fill in what you felt was vague.

So you need to go a little pot-kettle on this. You are being multitudes more vague than I am. Talking about "millions" of testimony without citation or reference to content or the diversity of contexts and content inherent in the testimonies that exist. You are diluting a wealth of diversity down into a vague tiny soundbite in order to make it sound like more than it is. And when asked for citations or expansion you do the opposite of what I would. You offer none and hand wave away from it.

The actual testimony out there is quite diverse if not all that numerous, contextually and in terms of content, and is likely evidence of a great many things rather than one single thing as you suggest.

So not only do I not see such testimony as evidence for a god at all, I am not even getting to see the testimony either. I am receiving a near demand to take it as evidence, without being let see it at all. And I am the one being vague to suit an agenda? That is funny.

NoviGlitzko

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am a militant agnostic on this question: I don't know and nor do you, nor does anyone.

Could say the same about God. No one has an idea.

Zubeneschamali

Mousewar wrote: »

You talk of UFOs but that's just the people who talk of unspecific objects in the sky and not people who talk to direct interaction with aliens and conversations where they identify themselves as aliens, etc. You make the language vague to suit your argument.

Yes, but consider that reports of UFOs, simple unidentified objects without saying anything about aliens, have plummeted since everyone started carrying a video camera in their pockets everywhere.

Hmmm.

Zubeneschamali

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

Could say the same about God. No one has an idea.

That is true for some sorts of god, yes, the kinds which have no interactions with anything in the Universe after the Big Bang.

But I've never met a religious person who believes in a god like that, most seem to believe in a personal god that communicates with people, or does some sort of punishment/reward for moral actions, or at least appears on a tortilla from time to time.

Mousewar

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, but consider that reports of UFOs, simple unidentified objects without saying anything about aliens, have plummeted since everyone started carrying a video camera in their pockets everywhere.

Hmmm.

No argument there!

nthclare

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And again I see it just as evidence something is worth of investigation. If 1000 people in a field see something in the air, I would want to find out what that something was. If the 1000 people decide to declare it was aliens.... that does not make it so.

The fact many people on their death bed, like really many, report the sensation and experience of leaving their body..... is evidence something is going on there. It is not AT ALL evidence they actually left their body.

I believe 1000s, maybe millions, of people hear voices. To a degree I think 100% of us hear voices actually, but I grant 1000s report it more explicitly. That is evidence they heard voices. It is NOT evidence that it was a god.



Nope I do so to reduce the length of my already long posts, given people tend to use their length as a reason not to reply to them. Which, seemingly, is exactly what just happened. When called on any part of it, I am happy to expand with specifics to fill in what you felt was vague.

So you need to go a little pot-kettle on this. You are being multitudes more vague than I am. Talking about "millions" of testimony without citation or reference to content or the diversity of contexts and content inherent in the testimonies that exist. You are diluting a wealth of diversity down into a vague tiny soundbite in order to make it sound like more than it is. And when asked for citations or expansion you do the opposite of what I would. You offer none and hand wave away from it.

The actual testimony out there is quite diverse if not all that numerous, contextually and in terms of content, and is likely evidence of a great many things rather than one single thing as you suggest.

So not only do I not see such testimony as evidence for a god at all, I am not even getting to see the testimony either. I am receiving a near demand to take it as evidence, without being let see it at all. And I am the one being vague to suit an agenda? That is funny.

Wouldn't it be cool though if someone had that sensation of leaving the body and couldn't get back in.
Then become some sort of energy which could traverse the universe, be conscious and basically be free of a body.
Maybe travel back in time, and have all these senses without any solid form or be able to interfere with the living or anything solid.
Now and again you'd come across similar entity's and have conversations etc

If this was the after life it would be very interesting.

nozzferrahhtoo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, but consider that reports of UFOs, simple unidentified objects without saying anything about aliens, have plummeted since everyone started carrying a video camera in their pockets everywhere.

Indeed. Just like reports of OBE in medical settings appear to fall away when unmissable incogruant objects are placed in locations people would ONLY see them if they were in fact floating over their body.

nthclare wrote: »

Wouldn't it be cool though if someone had that sensation of leaving the body and couldn't get back in.

Some drug trips can do that to you until the drug trip passes. Sometimes for long periods. Sometimes just for short periods that just FELT long.

I have even heard reports of people meditating who lost the sense of "I".... which is what a lot of meditation seeks.... but then could not get it back for awhile and it panicked them.

What panic feels like when it is not centred on or at least around a self... I can not even begin to imagine and they found it difficult to describe.

nthclare wrote: »

If this was the after life it would be very interesting.

Indeed it would. I am told often that the reason I do not believe a lot of this stuff is because I am biased against it. The opposite is in fact true. Much of it would be seriously brilliant and cool were it to be true and I genuinely wish much of it was.

railer201

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

Could say the same about God. No one has an idea.

Lorna Byrne has, and actually met God, the apostles and the arch-angel Michael. She recounts this meeting in chapter 6 - 'God's Library' in her book 'Stairways to Heaven'.

For those who are not acquainted with the name, Lorna sees angels continuously in real life and has written several books on the issue, along with many appearances on tv, including our own Late Late show.

nozzferrahhtoo

railer201 wrote: »

For those who are not acquainted with the name, Lorna sees angels continuously in real life and has written several books on the issue, along with many appearances on tv, including our own Late Late show.

I referred to her just above in my post to Mousewar. I just could not remember her name.

To be honest I think the Late Late Show and The Bible are both very inconsiderate in their content in this regard.

There are genuinely people in our society, mentally unwell, who "hear voices". Some such people are led by those voices to carry out horrific acts up to and including murder. These people are sick and need help.

So the RTE, like the Bible, rather than sending out a message to such people that they might need help..... gives precedence to a story legitimising the hearing of voices. Giving them divine angelic origin. An origin many of these sick people may already suspect they have anyway.

So we have RTE showing this woman claiming the voices she hears are angelic and godly.

We have a presenting as godly a man who was happy to murder his own son at the behest of voices he was hearing.

Some of the blood resulting from the actions of people hearing such voices HAS to be on their hands.

railer201

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I referred to her just above in my post to Mousewar. I just could not remember her name.

To be honest I think the Late Late Show and The Bible are both very inconsiderate in their content in this regard.

There are genuinely people in our society, mentally unwell, who "hear voices". Some such people are led by those voices to carry out horrific acts up to and including murder. These people are sick and need help.

So the RTE, like the Bible, rather than sending out a message to such people that they might need help..... gives precedence to a story legitimising the hearing of voices. Giving them divine angelic origin. An origin many of these sick people may already suspect they have anyway.

So we have RTE showing this woman claiming the voices she hears are angelic and godly.

We have a presenting as godly a man who was happy to murder his own son at the behest of voices he was hearing.

Some of the blood resulting from the actions of people hearing such voices HAS to be on their hands.

There you go, more evidence readily dismissed, or should I say anecdote ?

nozzferrahhtoo

railer201 wrote: »

There you go, more evidence readily dismissed, or should I say anecdote ?

As I explained to Mousewar, at some length, such testimony or anecdote is not evidence for the conclusion it comes packaged with.

That said however.... I did not dismiss OR accept the "evidence" in your post as you call it. So I am not sure what post you are replying to, but it is certainly not mine. What you refer to simply did not happen anywhere in my post.

No, what I was saying was that given the manifestation of mental illness related to hearing voices can be so horrific.... to actively laud praise and positive attention on the hearing of voices and to give them divine and angelic origin.... is massively irresponsible a thing to do.

Had the Late Late presenter turned around at the end of the piece and said......

"Look, we here at the Late Late think this woman is hearing angels but generally speaking there are many mental illnesses that manifest in this way. If you the viewer are having similar experiences.... especially ones that are compelling you to commit any kind of crime.... please by all means consult your priest or relevant clergy.... but please also consult with a medical professional just to be sure"

....... I would withhold my critique of the segment entirely.

railer201

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I explained to Mousewar, at some length, such testimony or anecdote is not evidence for the conclusion it comes packaged with.

That said however.... I did not dismiss OR accept the "evidence" in your post as you call it. So I am not sure what post you are replying to, but it is certainly not mine. What you refer to simply did not happen anywhere in my post.

No, what I was saying was that given the manifestation of mental illness related to hearing voices can be so horrific.... to actively laud praise and positive attention on the hearing of voices and to give them divine and angelic origin.... is massively irresponsible a thing to do.

Had the Late Late presenter turned around at the end of the piece and said......

"Look, we here at the Late Late think this woman is hearing angels but generally speaking there are many mental illnesses that manifest in this way. If you the viewer are having similar experiences.... especially ones that are compelling you to commit any kind of crime.... please by all means consult your priest or relevant clergy.... but please also consult with a medical professional just to be sure"

....... I would withhold my critique of the segment entirely.

You jumped to the possibility of 'mental illness' straight away, and you don't seem to know a lot about her if you keep repeating that she is 'hearing voices'. Might I suggest you do a little research on her first by perhaps reading one of her books.

Seanachai

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think most of them are very credible too. I genuinely think they had an experience and I genuinely think it felt like what they claim it felt like.

What I do NOT see any evidence for is that what it felt like is what it actually was. Just because they felt like they left their body..... an experience anyone can have using the right meditation practices, drugs, or physical perturbations..... is not remotely evidence that they actually did.



I have read a lot about such dreams and I doubt there is much going on there but a mix of factors related to memory and facial recognition. Such as:

1) Thinking you have not seen a person or place before when you actually did.
2) The brain finding a face or street familiar because it is similar to ones seen before.
3) Retrospective modification of the memory of a dream to fit with an experience AFTER the dream in question.

And so on. These are all things we know happen in other contexts. Well documented. So I see little reason to expect it is not also what is happening there.



I can not speak for them, not being one of them. If I meet such a person I will be sure to ask them for you though.

I've read those explanations too, it can explain some instances of the phenomenon, but it's not my experience. I've seen clear scenes and events, I don't think I'm exceptional because of this, I believe it's a function that most people have access to.

http://www.theeternities.com/philip-k-dick-the-man-who-remembered-the-future/

This guy has some very interesting hypotheses on the brain and consciousness.

https://www.anthonypeake.com

I wasn't implying that you're an advocate for settled science btw, I've just ran into a few of them lately and it's pretty exasperating.

Marhay70

Mousewar wrote: »

The bit about him being the one true Christ is certainly an interpolation. The previous bit, mentioning his crucifixion is not generally dismissed. Could you dismiss it? Yes, but you can dismiss most history from this time like this. History was constantly being recorded with some political or religious slant. Historians see that and on balance, it generally the view that someone named Jesus, around whom a following grew and was cast in the role of Messiah as many were, probably, on balance existed.

Well the effects would be the world and existence itself, according to the believers. But that's off the point. Testimony is and always has been considered evidence.

I take what is allegedly written by Josephus with a pinch of salt. As far as I know what we have are copies of his works written by, you guessed it, churchmen and I think that those same churchmen did what has always been the case, they wrote what suited their agenda.

victor8600

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

Question to people in here. Why does the Universe exist?

Question is incorrect.

nozzferrahhtoo

railer201 wrote: »

You jumped to the possibility of 'mental illness' straight away

No. I did not. You are inventing positions for me. Please do not lie about what I said, or why I said it, thanks.

What I "jumped to straight away" was that OTHER people, not the one on the Late Late have mental illnesses. We know this to be true.

Whether Lorna has a mental illness or not, or whether Abraham had one or not in the bible.... was not at all my point. I never said it. You put that in my mouth.

My point was that OTHER people do, and that places a responsibility on people like the RTE or priests on the pulpit that I think they do not meet at all.

There is, alas, a massive difference between what I am saying and what you are hearing and responding to.

nozzferrahhtoo

Seanachai wrote: »

I've read those explanations too, it can explain some instances of the phenomenon, but it's not my experience.

It never is. I hear the "That might explain THEM but not ME" more than you know. Without independent access to your case, or further data, I am in no position to comment either way. So I won't.

I can only tell you what I do know. And what I do know is that the brain thinks "clear" what is not at all clear or what it in fact wholly invented in the moment or even retrospectively.

Random example. You play static to groups of people similar to what ghost hunters call EVP and ask them to write down what they heard... you will get very diverse results.

If however you tell them "we here think there is a voice saying 'I am here' please let us know what you hear however!" you get most of the people writing down "I am here". Meanwhile the group down the hall hearing the same static but being told the voice said "I like beer" will mostly write that. And they will each tell you, with equal good faith, that that was clearly what the voice was saying.

I have no doubt many people think back on their dreams as having been very clear when the event that they retrospectively think the dream predicted comes to pass. No doubt at all. I entirely grant that I fully believe that is your experience and you recall it.

The problem is I have A) Zero evidence that is true while I have plenty of evidence of the brain acting in ways that would make them THINK that is true.

And when that is literally all I have to work with, then only one conclusion is really afforded to me until new data comes in.

Marhay70

Seanachai wrote: »

I've never had an NDE, I've spoken to people who have though and they seem very credible. I experience pre-cognition in dreams from time to time myself, not vague scenarios that are just likely to happen, but things like images of streets in places I've never been before and the faces of people I've never met before as well as things like a specific piercing and clothing they have etc.

I realise that this phenomenon or life beyond death isn't dependent on god existing though, our ability to measure our reality is dependent on the technology we currently have available to us. Maybe some are just more attuned in this regard, this is a good sci-fi film on the subject.

https://www.netflix.com/ie/title/80115857

I can understand agnostics and atheists who are still open-minded to non-ordinary reality. I can't understand the 'settled-science' brigade who just take an absolute position that god in any form or consciousness beyond physical death could not exist.

There have been several theories on near death experiences from a release of endorphins in the brain to the effects of drugs used in treatment, so while I don't dismiss the fact they might happen I don't necessarily connect them to the supernatural.
I also don't dismiss the possibility of a higher lifeform, my own miniscule brain and limited intellect won't allow me to do that. What I do dismiss is the Abrahamic faiths that are peddled to us from early childhood, I believe that if "God" exists then he, she, it has a practical purpose not a divine one.

Tired Gardener

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

Question to people in here. Why does the Universe exist?

Does it have to have a reason to exist? This constant need to assign or look for a reason for things to exist is baffling. Our brain is simply not evolved with the universe in mind.

The Human brain evolved as a result of our ancient ancestors having to deal with the political interactions within a small group (150-/+), while living on the African Savannah, and also avoiding animals that would prey upon our species. Those conditions helped to shape how our brains formed and function. It didn't evolve with any aim in mind, never mind unlocking the universe... the fact that we have managed to piece together so much of how things work is truly amazing. Especially when we factor in that evolution is a blind process... it doesn't have an end product or aim in mind.

As is apparent from this, I am an Atheist. I am not a fan of religion, as for me it is a means of control, and suppression. It keeps people in a state of mental servitude. That being said, I understand that some people need it in order to function, they (for what ever reason) need the sense of a higher power directing their lives and dishing out rewards and punishment. That I am fine with, what I don't like is when religion over steps it's boundary and dictates to the masses what they can and can't do, say, believe. Church and state should never be joined

nozzferrahhtoo

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

Question to people in here. Why does the Universe exist?

That question seems to assume non-existence as default though, by demanding the existence be explained.

An equally valid question could be, why would or should or could a universe NOT exist?

It is a very human way of thinking to assume non-existence to be default and existence to require explanation. For a while just try and flip it in your brain and think of it from the opposite way.

Marhay70 wrote: »

I believe that if "God" exists then he, she, it has a practical purpose not a divine one.

It is interesting that people think the universe with all its billions of galaxies each which billions of starts was made for us. Despite us being a miniscule part of it.

Looking at what the universe does most, and does best, if it was created with any purpose by an intentional agent.... it seems it was to do something like produce stars or black holes.

Did mankind know about bacteria when it created cheese or yoghurt or bread? If not.... maybe if there is a "god" it created our universe and is entirely oblivious to us being in it in much the same way as people were oblivious to the life within the projects they built.

Maybe we are an unnoticed infection inside a power station core run by some other being for all we know.

Maybe in CERN or a place like it we will do the same. Produce some nice little event for our study, entirely oblivious to the fact that although it only existed for less than a second for us.... whole civilisations rose, feel, lived and died wondering about their creator. Imagining him to be wonderful and all knowing and divine when in fact he was just nerd boy Trevor sitting with doughnut jam dripping down the front of his lab coat.

railer201

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No. I did not. You are inventing positions for me. Please do not lie about what I said, or why I said it, thanks.

What I "jumped to straight away" was that OTHER people, not the one on the Late Late have mental illnesses. We know this to be true.

Whether Lorna has a mental illness or not, or whether Abraham had one or not in the bible.... was not at all my point. I never said it. You put that in my mouth.

My point was that OTHER people do, and that places a responsibility on people like the RTE or priests on the pulpit that I think they do not meet at all.

There is, alas, a massive difference between what I am saying and what you are hearing and responding to.

Read your posts ffs.

Seanachai

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It never is. I hear the "That might explain THEM but not ME" more than you know. Without independent access to your case, or further data, I am in no position to comment either way. So I won't.

I can only tell you what I do know. And what I do know is that the brain thinks "clear" what is not at all clear or what it in fact wholly invented in the moment or even retrospectively.

Random example. You play static to groups of people similar to what ghost hunters call EVP and ask them to write down what they heard... you will get very diverse results.

If however you tell them "we here think there is a voice saying 'I am here' please let us know what you hear however!" you get most of the people writing down "I am here". Meanwhile the group down the hall hearing the same static but being told the voice said "I like beer" will mostly write that. And they will each tell you, with equal good faith, that that was clearly what the voice was saying.

I have no doubt many people think back on their dreams as having been very clear when the event that they retrospectively think the dream predicted comes to pass. No doubt at all. I entirely grant that I fully believe that is your experience and you recall it.

The problem is I have A) Zero evidence that is true while I have plenty of evidence of the brain acting in ways that would make them THINK that is true.

And when that is literally all I have to work with, then only one conclusion is really afforded to me until new data comes in.

That's fair enough, have you ever visited a psychic out of curiousity?, even just for scientific purposes. I know it could end up being an expensive experiment , most I've went to have been pretty vague and could be explained away with cold-reading, two of them I can't dismiss so easily though and one was quite specific.

Zubeneschamali

Mousewar wrote: »

The bit about him being the one true Christ is certainly an interpolation. The previous bit, mentioning his crucifixion is not generally dismissed.

But then it is entirely unremarkable. The Romans crucifed people by the dozens all the time. At the end of the 3rd Servile War, the one with Spartacus, they crucified 6000 rebel slaves along the the Appian way from Rome to Capua: imagine a cross every 30 yards of the motorway from Dublin to Galway.

So a sect claiming to be descended from a crucified leader in Palestine is not really very interesting.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But then it is entirely unremarkable. The Romans crucifed people by the dozens all the time. At the end of the 3rd Servile War, the one with Spartacus, they crucified 6000 rebel slaves along the the Appian way from Rome to Capua: imagine a cross every 30 yards of the motorway from Dublin to Galway.

So a sect claiming to be descended from a crucified leader in Palestine is not really very interesting.

As a tourist, I've visited very many churches and cathedrals throughout Europe and beyond. Universally, the decoration in those churches depicts torture and murder.