Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet there must be a mechanism which leads to accuracy in catching but which we are not conscious of working.

And the mechanism is mathematical, but that does not make mathematics a thing that can be sensed, it still makes it a conceptualisation with which other sensory impressions can be categorised.

O.

Are you saying it is not a sense because it is not one of the five senses?

Five? There are a range of counts between twenty and thirty-five that I found in a quick search.

I'm saying it's not a sense because a sense is the body's measurable reaction to a quantifiable external stimulus.

In the absence of a means to determine if the stimulus exists, there's no way to determine if what you have is a sensory organ being triggered or an hallucination which you are interpreting as a 'sensation' in the absence of any conceptual framework with which to categorise that particular brain activity.

O.

Well I think you are mistaking religious experience as sensory hallucination. Still how could it be different? You strike me as a materialist unable to think outside the box.

[Outrider]

We can't fully understand or define the way our conscious awareness influences our free choices until we can define what conscious awareness is actually comprised of.

Probably true.

The big question to ponder is this: Will conscious awareness ever be defined by material entities alone?

Or, to paraphrase slightly, is there any reason to think that there's something else to consciousness than the physical activity of the human body?

The atheist point of view has to rely on some future revelation as to how this can happen.

Again, to paraphrase, we say 'I don't know' and continue to investigate.

Those of us who know God know it will never happen because it is ultimately the human soul which will be held to account for the choices we make.

That would be the soul that you can give no justification for presuming actually exists, along with the equally unevidenced claims of a god, right. Just so we're clear.

Or, to paraphrase, you don't know either, but you feel better with an answer so you accept one that has no justification rather than accept that, as yet, we just don't know.

O.

[Alan Burns]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

[ippy]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

When and if you do find some evidence for something outside of the realms of scientific discovery, there would be every reason to take you seriously Alan and become one of your lot; but that's highly unlikely, so for now.

How does anyone find something/anything outside the realms of scientific discovery Alan?

If you did find something outside of scientific discovery it would need to be examined and tested.

I saw an advert for a film called "The Unknown", it's a film that couldn't possibly be made, there is a similarity between the title of this film and your mention of something outside of the realms of scientific discovery, they're both a bit weird.

ippy 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

When and if you do find some evidence for something outside of the realms of scientific discovery, there would be every reason to take you seriously Alan and become one of your lot; but that's highly unlikely, so for now.

How does anyone find something/anything outside the realms of scientific discovery Alan?

If you did find something outside of scientific discovery it would need to be examined and tested.

I saw an advert for a film called "The Unknown", it's a film that couldn't possibly be made, there is a similarity between the title of this film and your mention of something outside of the realms of scientific discovery, they're both a bit weird.

ippy

Good old Ippy absolutely oblivious to his own philosophy which cannot itself be fully explained by the realms of scientific discovery.

[ippy]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

When and if you do find some evidence for something outside of the realms of scientific discovery, there would be every reason to take you seriously Alan and become one of your lot; but that's highly unlikely, so for now.

How does anyone find something/anything outside the realms of scientific discovery Alan?

If you did find something outside of scientific discovery it would need to be examined and tested.

I saw an advert for a film called "The Unknown", it's a film that couldn't possibly be made, there is a similarity between the title of this film and your mention of something outside of the realms of scientific discovery, they're both a bit weird.

ippy

Good old Ippy absolutely oblivious to his own philosophy which cannot itself be fully explained by the realms of scientific discovery.

Arr but, there was no use of pseudo scientific words and my fingers didn't leave my hands at any point when I was typing this response.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

When and if you do find some evidence for something outside of the realms of scientific discovery, there would be every reason to take you seriously Alan and become one of your lot; but that's highly unlikely, so for now.

How does anyone find something/anything outside the realms of scientific discovery Alan?

If you did find something outside of scientific discovery it would need to be examined and tested.

I saw an advert for a film called "The Unknown", it's a film that couldn't possibly be made, there is a similarity between the title of this film and your mention of something outside of the realms of scientific discovery, they're both a bit weird.

ippy

Good old Ippy absolutely oblivious to his own philosophy which cannot itself be fully explained by the realms of scientific discovery.

Arr but, there was no use of pseudo scientific words and my fingers didn't leave my hands at any point when I was typing this response.

ippy

Your last post on what pseudoscience was seemed to include stuff not even pretending to be science as pseudoscience.

[ippy]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

When and if you do find some evidence for something outside of the realms of scientific discovery, there would be every reason to take you seriously Alan and become one of your lot; but that's highly unlikely, so for now.

How does anyone find something/anything outside the realms of scientific discovery Alan?

If you did find something outside of scientific discovery it would need to be examined and tested.

I saw an advert for a film called "The Unknown", it's a film that couldn't possibly be made, there is a similarity between the title of this film and your mention of something outside of the realms of scientific discovery, they're both a bit weird.

ippy

Good old Ippy absolutely oblivious to his own philosophy which cannot itself be fully explained by the realms of scientific discovery.

Arr but, there was no use of pseudo scientific words and my fingers didn't leave my hands at any point when I was typing this response.

ippy

Your last post on what pseudoscience was seemed to include stuff not even pretending to be science as pseudoscience.

No Big W, you've got me there, I've no idea what it is you're trying to say, have you lived in the UK long and is English your first language? 

ippy

[Shaker]

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

How would you know that you'd found something outside of the realms of scientific discovery? By what means?

[Outrider]

Well I think you are mistaking religious experience as sensory hallucination. Still how could it be different? You strike me as a materialist unable to think outside the box.

I don't need to think they're different, I'm perfectly happy thinking that they're exactly the same thing. You need to justify thinking they're different, or your claim that you've had a religious experience is just a claim that you've had an hallucination.

By what methodology do you propose to do that?

O.

[torridon]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

Who gets to define the limits of 'scientific' discovery ? It's not like when we were at school, and science meant physics/biology/chemistry; science is continually broadening its remit. If it can be studied, observed, tested, then it will come under the scrutiny of science sooner or later.

[Leonard James]

Hi you guys,

I'm afraid it's all too complicated for my old brain to cope with, so I'll leave it to you! 

[ippy]

Hi you guys,

I'm afraid it's all too complicated for my old brain to cope with, so I'll leave it to you! 

Can you prove it's to complicated for you Len, just saying so's not good enough!

ippy 

[Leonard James]

Hi you guys,

I'm afraid it's all too complicated for my old brain to cope with, so I'll leave it to you! 

Can you prove it's to complicated for you Len, just saying so's not good enough!

ippy

 

I'll let you into a secret, mate. I don't really think it's complicated at all ... what's complicated is all this highbrow language that is so fashionable nowadays. 

Have fun!

[jeremyp]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

Science is the only reliable way of determining what is true and what is not that we have.  If you have a method of finding out whether things outside scientific discovery are true or not, fine, let's hear it.

Although I warn you that we are having a very similar discussion on another thread and the theists are failing miserably to come up with a credible response.

[jjohnjil]

Hi you guys,

I'm afraid it's all too complicated for my old brain to cope with, so I'll leave it to you! 

Can you prove it's to complicated for you Len, just saying so's not good enough!

ippy

 

I'll let you into a secret, mate. I don't really think it's complicated at all ... what's complicated is all this highbrow language that is so fashionable nowadays. 

Have fun!

Len, you're just an anti-realist, pseudo-scientific, methodologist who has failed to interpret Vladspeak and has no idea what he thinks he's talking about!  Welcome to the club!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

Science is the only reliable way of determining what is true and what is not that we have.  If you have a method of finding out whether things outside scientific discovery are true or not, fine, let's hear it.

Although I warn you that we are having a very similar discussion on another thread and the theists are failing miserably to come up with a credible response.

That's funny, The philosophical naturalists are having a similar issue on another thread.

Please provide a methodology showing how science settles and concludes ontology.

[Leonard James]

Len, you're just an anti-realist, pseudo-scientific, methodologist ...

Oh my! Is that so? I had no idea I was one of those.

...who has failed to interpret Vladspeak and has no idea what he thinks he's talking about!

That, at least, I can confirm.

Welcome to the club!

If it's the "Speak English and forget the bullshit" club ... count me in! 

[Alan Burns]

Who gets to define the limits of 'scientific' discovery ? It's not like when we were at school, and science meant physics/biology/chemistry; science is continually broadening its remit. If it can be studied, observed, tested, then it will come under the scrutiny of science sooner or later.

Science is by definition limited to what human senses can perceive.  The fact that humans are able to think outside the box to imagine a spiritual dimension is in itself an indication that there is more to reality than what our basic senses perceive.  Humans have been given an appetite for delving into spiritual matters, and I believe that our creator has revealed to us the reason we have been brought into existence.

[Shaker]

The fact that humans are able to think outside the box to imagine a spiritual dimension is in itself an indication that there is more to reality than what our basic senses perceive. 

One word Alan: unicorns.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The fact that humans are able to think outside the box to imagine a spiritual dimension is in itself an indication that there is more to reality than what our basic senses perceive. 

One word Alan: unicorns.

Aren't they stallions sporting a huge horn?

[Outrider]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

Science is the only reliable way of determining what is true and what is not that we have.  If you have a method of finding out whether things outside scientific discovery are true or not, fine, let's hear it.

Although I warn you that we are having a very similar discussion on another thread and the theists are failing miserably to come up with a credible response.

That's funny, The philosophical naturalists are having a similar issue on another thread.

Please provide a methodology showing how science settles and concludes ontology.

You show us yours and we'll show you ours. You're long overdue, and we've done plenty of hoop-jumping as a part of your argument Vlad ignorum technique.

What's your methodology for establishing your 'experience of a god' is not an hallucination?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

Science is the only reliable way of determining what is true and what is not that we have.  If you have a method of finding out whether things outside scientific discovery are true or not, fine, let's hear it.

Although I warn you that we are having a very similar discussion on another thread and the theists are failing miserably to come up with a credible response.

That's funny, The philosophical naturalists are having a similar issue on another thread.

Please provide a methodology showing how science settles and concludes ontology.

You show us yours and we'll show you ours.

LOL.

[Outrider]

Science is by definition limited to what human senses can perceive.

Only in the sense that we can build equipment to establish details about things we can't naturally perceive but that can be deduced to exist. In the absence of any data, though, how do we differentiate between something we can't detect because we don't have the right machine and something we can't detect because it isn't real?

[quote[The fact that humans are able to think outside the box to imagine a spiritual dimension is in itself an indication that there is more to reality than what our basic senses perceive.[/quote]

No it isn't. It's an indication that there could conceivably be more to reality than what our basic senses perceive.

Humans have been given an appetite for delving into spiritual matters, and I believe that our creator has revealed to us the reason we have been brought into existence.

Given by whom? You're back into the realms of a circular argument. The deduction that pattern recognition (an established trait in many animals, humans amongst them) already gives us an explanation for the concept of gods that doesn't require the assumption of actual gods.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

Science is the only reliable way of determining what is true and what is not that we have.  If you have a method of finding out whether things outside scientific discovery are true or not, fine, let's hear it.

Although I warn you that we are having a very similar discussion on another thread and the theists are failing miserably to come up with a credible response.

That's funny, The philosophical naturalists are having a similar issue on another thread.

Please provide a methodology showing how science settles and concludes ontology.

You show us yours and we'll show you ours. You're long overdue, and we've done plenty of hoop-jumping as a part of your argument Vlad ignorum technique.

What's your methodology for establishing your 'experience of a god' is not an hallucination?

O.

Hallucinations are sensory though. which class of hallucination do you think?