Topic: The God Hypothesis | |
---|---|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 03/28/11 06:33 PM
|
|
Ah yes... OBE. Of course that assumes that "we" are "inside" the body. I'm not sure that the phrasing does, necessarily - only that all of our 'normal', waking experiences occur from the vantage point 'within' the body. waking, but what about the part where you are looking down at your body from outside of it....and still carrying on thought and emotion? The very fact that OBE proves (for us who experience it) that our vantage point is not always confined to the human body raises the question of what our true observation point might actually be. |
|
|
|
well it is not confined to the brain---
|
|
|
|
Parking spaces! What if you got twenty people to look for parking spaces downtown of a Saturday evening? Ten could pray and the others not. Or fishing. Do people that pray for fish catch more than those that don't? If god helps people in their daily lives, these should be workable experiments. And simple to measure. Your assuming that God would say "Yes" to all the prayers and therefor give the spaces. If it's not God's will to give them the spaces then your experiment would not be measured properly. On the other hand, If you go to the right church, at the right time you could as I have witnessed a few miracles. You would then form your own opinion based on what you saw. |
|
|
|
I have a large ant hill. The ants are my slaves. They provide a pile of gravel that I take away a bucket at a time and use it for my driveway. Eventually my driveway will be covered with a real nice layer of gravel. I feed the ants so they will keep working. I am their god.
|
|
|
|
Ah yes... OBE. Of course that assumes that "we" are "inside" the body. I'm not sure that the phrasing does, necessarily - only that all of our 'normal', waking experiences occur from the vantage point 'within' the body. waking, but what about the part where you are looking down at your body from outside of it....and still carrying on thought and emotion? The point that I was trying to make is unrelated to whether or not OBEs actually involve leaving the body. I was only suggesting that the phrase OBE does not assume that 'we' are 'inside' the body. It assumes only that the out of body perspective is rare enough to warrant a phrase characterized by the location of the point of view. The noun is 'experience', and 'out of body' is a phrase that acts as an adjective modifying the noun. What kind of experience? An 'out of body' one. Most of our waking experiences, obviously, occur from a *perspective* within the body. In an OBE, your perspective on the experience is outside the body - hence the name. |
|
|
|
Ah yes... OBE. Of course that assumes that "we" are "inside" the body. I'm not sure that the phrasing does, necessarily - only that all of our 'normal', waking experiences occur from the vantage point 'within' the body. waking, but what about the part where you are looking down at your body from outside of it....and still carrying on thought and emotion? The very fact that OBE proves (for us who experience it) that our vantage point is not always confined to the human body raises the question of what our true observation point might actually be. I don't believe we have a 'true observation point'. We have senses, and we have the ability to have experiences (dreams, hallucinations, OBEs, and more) not limited by our senses. |
|
|
|
I don't believe we have a 'true observation point'. We have senses, and we have the ability to have experiences (dreams, hallucinations, OBEs, and more) not limited by our senses.
Well it would sure be difficult enough to 'locate' and observation point that seems to keep moving and is not dependent on five senses. I once popped out of my body and found my observation point in the sky above the clouds. It was so vivid and real I was certain that my entire body was up there and I was about to fall to my death. Then I realized it was an OBE. My observation point changed in a split second and then it was on the ground in the grass. Then the next instant I was back in my body. This was not astral travel as it was instantaneousness, clear and vivid. |
|
|
|
Enough with OBE! If anyone can really do it get in touch with James Randi and he'll pay you $1,000,000.00.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html BTW in over 20 years not a single person has been able to demonstrate any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event under proper observing conditions. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 03/29/11 09:32 AM
|
|
Enough with OBE! If anyone can really do it get in touch with James Randi and he'll pay you $1,000,000.00. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html BTW in over 20 years not a single person has been able to demonstrate any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event under proper observing conditions. James Randi is a bunch of B.S. "Proper observing conditions?" I'm so sick of hearing people talk about James Randi and his stupid offer. He has an agenda and he has no intention of ever giving anyone any money. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 03/29/11 09:35 AM
|
|
I'm of the opinion that the question of God's existence is ultimately a scientific one. If God is real and has an effect on the universe we ought to be able to measure it. That's what science does. It measures everything. Until you define what you are referring to when you say "God" your question is not clear. I say that God is everything. Science then, is all about measuring God. For example, prayer (if it is real) is a transfer of energy from one's own mind to God. Something must move out of the prayer's brain and go out into the universe in order to communicate with God. This assumes that "God" (if he/It exists) is out there in the universe somewhere. If so why couldn't we find a way to measure it or at least measure it's effects? Prayer's are thoughts. You can certainly observe their effects. Scientist's are even working on reading minds, so I'm going to assume they can already 'measure' and detect thoughts. This isn't a debate about whether or not God is real. It's about whether or not God's existence is a scientific question. There was a real scientific study of prayer done in 2006. The results can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html I look forward to reading your thoughts. First I'm a bit confused what your subject is about. Is it about God or Prayer?? Make up your mind. |
|
|
|
James Randi is a bunch of B.S. "Proper observing conditions?" I'm so sick of hearing people talk about James Randi and his stupid offer. I'm sick of hearing about BS psychic bologna. Put up or shut up. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 03/29/11 09:52 AM
|
|
James Randi is a bunch of B.S. "Proper observing conditions?" I'm so sick of hearing people talk about James Randi and his stupid offer. I'm sick of hearing about BS psychic bologna. Put up or shut up. Believe what you want, when you actually experience it, then and only then will you know. I have no need to prove squat to you. (Or jerks like Randi.) P.S. so now your true agenda is clear. You said: This isn't a debate about whether or not God is real. It's about whether or not God's existence is a scientific question.
You clearly want a debate. But you still have to define what you mean by "GOD" before anyone can know what it is you actually want. |
|
|
|
If prayer is the way to communicate with god we should be able to measure that energy transfer. If god hears and answers prayers (miracles) then we should that effect.
|
|
|
|
If prayer is the way to communicate with god we should be able to measure that energy transfer. If god hears and answers prayers (miracles) then we should that effect. The question is a mote point if you don't believe in God. So why would you even ask? |
|
|
|
If prayer is the way to communicate with god we should be able to measure that energy transfer. If god hears and answers prayers (miracles) then we should that effect. The question is a mote point if you don't believe in God. So why would you even ask? Not everybody is equally closed-minded. Some people actively, openly explore possibilities that they don't currently 'believe' in. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 03/29/11 11:59 AM
|
|
If prayer is the way to communicate with god we should be able to measure that energy transfer. If god hears and answers prayers (miracles) then we should that effect. The question is a mote point if you don't believe in God. So why would you even ask? Not everybody is equally closed-minded. Some people actively, openly explore possibilities that they don't currently 'believe' in. True. But after he said this: "I'm sick of hearing about BS psychic bologna. Put up or shut up." It seems kind of obvious he is just asking people to put up or shut up. |
|
|
|
Not everybody is equally closed-minded. Some people actively, openly explore possibilities that they don't currently 'believe' in.
True. But after he said this: "I'm sick of hearing about BS psychic bologna. Put up or shut up." It seems kind of obvious he is just asking people to put up or shut up. I took that to be "with respect to the nature of OBE's", which is a different topic than prayer and God. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 03/29/11 12:29 PM
|
|
Not everybody is equally closed-minded. Some people actively, openly explore possibilities that they don't currently 'believe' in.
True. But after he said this: "I'm sick of hearing about BS psychic bologna. Put up or shut up." It seems kind of obvious he is just asking people to put up or shut up. I took that to be "with respect to the nature of OBE's", which is a different topic than prayer and God. I didn't. If he would call OBE's "psychic bologna" there is no reason for me to assume or believe that he has any intention of even considering the existence of God or prayer. He's a pretender. (Also he seems to be a fan of Randi, who is a rabid atheist.) |
|
|
|
The basic premise of a god is extremely simplistic in nature. Its the same kind of single solution that lazy thinkers today use.
Think about it, marketers of miracle cures are super successful? Why? Its a simple, single thing anyone can do, and its so compelling. I mean who wants to spend all this time figuring out what wrong with this incredible complex system when instead they can pretend to have the answer and its magic water? or god. Nature is complex. Its hard to understand, but its rational, and can be understood. The lazy minded cannot not have an answer, and they also do not desire the effort that is Science, so instead opt for the path of least resistance to the feeling of satisfaction that is achieved when one convinces themselves they know something. God is the easy answer to why things are the way they are, the problem is that it doesn't really explain ANYTHING. Anyone who is honest knows this, and the honest people of the religious do not try, they always accept that there fate is not to know, in this way God as a concept is the enemy to knowledge, it allows the complexity of life to be disregarded and the person doing the disregarding to feel good about that. |
|
|
|
Wasn't there a poll done recently where many scientists believe in a God? I thought I read that somewhere in the not so distant past. Just wondering.
|
|
|