Evidence for God

Ruv Draba · Mar 27, 2010

This doggerel dedicated to Diana and Bigb:

I dropped a trip the other day,
(For me, that's rather odd).
I wasn't trying to rebel,
But have a chat with God.

Cos meditation didn’t work
-- it's dumb as one hand clapping,
And pray'r just gave me creaky knees --
But drugs might catch Him napping.

I got my square of blotting-wad
And sucked it like a bub,
I hoped to see some cherubim --
Or 'least a burning shrub.

At first it made me sweat and pace,
My pulse went to the moon.
My mouth took on a metal taste --
Like sucking on a spoon.

I tasted blue and smelled a sneeze,
And thought that I could fly.
I stared so long right at the sun,
It burned out half my eye.

I felt my skin was sloughing off,
And hair grow from my ears.
I learned the earth is really flat --
The curve's in our corneas.

And all the trees are upside-down --
Their roots are in the sky.
And dogs and cats and birds and rats
All dream of pecan pie.

And while my friends were chasing me,
I’d run and rave and chortle --
If that is what God’s mind is like,
I’d rather someone mortal.

Diana Hignutt · Mar 27, 2010

Priene said:
Predicting the end of the world is one of the few occasions when religious people come up with a testable hypothesis. So far, each one has proved wrong.

I think we can all agree to hope that keeps up. Nobody wants me to be wrong more than me. I'm not religious though, that's definitely not the right word for me. Perhaps, whackjob would be better.

Give me three years, and you all can scoff, and if all goes well, I'll breathe the biggest sigh of relief in history. I know I might be wrong. I'm human. I don't think I'm wrong, sadly. Time will tell. I'm done here now.

bigb · Mar 27, 2010

Ruv Draba said:
I think that the issue here is really your defence of the proposition 'truth while it suits me'. To keep that seeming reasonable, we have to undermine truth that works just fine without us. But despite elaborate rhetoric, if we leave our shoes under the couch and nobody touches them, that's where we'll find them -- or we can direct someone else to find them.

Under the couch, setee, or love seat. Some people see them all as the same object even though there not. If I sent some one to get my shoes under the couch, and they looked under the love seat, and they were there, then we'd be talkin.

I think I said people, truth while it suits me. Not truth that works just fine without us. People have the the personal filter that creates our interpratation of what we see, hear, taste, smell, feel.

Doubt for doubt sake, seems extreme, doubt for argument sake, seems to be what most people who like to argue practice. I doubt for my own protection, question everything for the simple fact that somebody else might not.

I'm pretty sure some one tried to poison my wife and I years ago, she was ready to drink what was given and I said no way. When we got to the car she said, "I'm glad you told me not to drink that, it was gettin like Jonestown in there". Me and doubt are good friends when people are involed in the transaction.

Else they wouldn't argue creation vs evolution of man.

Well I hope they get paid for those arguements, cause present time awareness seems a bit more important to daily life.

bigb · Mar 27, 2010

Your poem was awesome, anytime you can get pecan pie in a poem it's a winner.

All the athiest I know meditate(at least that call themselves athiest), but I think it's because some athiest accept Buddhas basic teachings. We've never really talked about it directly, the whole no god thing, i guess cause we would be in agreement. Buddha or silence were normally the subject

Great poem though, I'm going to save it if that's ok with you.

Ruv Draba · Mar 27, 2010

bigb said:
People have the the personal filter that creates our interpratation of what we see, hear, taste, smell, feel.

While that's born out by experiment, the implication that the world is entirely subjective and arbitrary is not. That we are able to communicate and cooperate so well, that objects are so reliably constant, and that people without object constancy are deeply dysfunctional are all strong evidence for an objective, common world.

That's not to say that our world is entirely knowable, or that our knowledge isn't sometimes prone to systematic error. But one thing we know for dead sure (because nature keeps rubbing our noses in it) is that subjective knowledge, and knowledge formed from imagination and guesswork are far less reliable than knowledge we validate against other perception of our shared world.

Doubt for doubt sake, seems extreme, doubt for argument sake, seems to be what most people who like to argue practice.

Sure; it's paranoia vs. skepticism and I'm not really suggesting that you're being paranoid.

But the Buddhist/Hindu/Jainist belief that our world is illusory is a dogmatic one, and not born out by evidence. To hold to dogmatic belief against experiential evidence requires a retreat into rhetoric. Depending on who's arguing and how, the rhetoric can either get poetical or paranoid-looking. Whenever we see that, it's a sign that we're using dogma rather than evidence to reason with. When you started arguing in principle for scientific corruption leading to systematic error without being able to demonstrate the corruption or the error, I felt I was in tinfoil hat territory.

All the athiest I know meditate(at least that call themselves athiest), but I think it's because some athiest accept Buddhas basic teachings. We've never really talked about it directly, the whole no god thing, i guess cause we would be in agreement. Buddha or silence were normally the subject

Despite my silly poem I have no objection at all to meditation (or prayer as meditation and autosuggestion either), but the transcendentiality and mysticism of some meditative philosophies do make me twitch.

Great poem though, I'm going to save it if that's ok with you.

Fill ya boots.

Dommo · Mar 27, 2010

Meditation is a good thing in my book. Just sitting for a moment, and really giving some thought to something. I figure if we did that more often, we'd probably be a bit better off than we are now.

RainyDayNinja · Mar 27, 2010

Ruv Draba said:
To the extent that belief in 'god' generates creation and intervention hypotheses we can certainly test for them. Indeed, we've done so and know that by every sensible test, the world is not 6,000 years old, and prayer alone does not normally cure leprosy, for instance. Those tests are in fact based on real world experience.

I have to disagree with your assessment here. There has been research done into the variability of nuclear decay rates, which undermines radiometric dating. The following paper explains how zircon crystals which were radiometrically dated as 1.5 billion years showed only a few thousand years worth of helium leakage from the decay products:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium_lo_res.pdf

Also, in 1984, a creationist published a prediction of the magnetic field of Neptune (based on a hypothesis that all matter was originally created as magnetically aligned water molecules, and later transformed to other atoms), which turned out to be more accurate than the old-earth secular prediction:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

In general, any science that pre-supposes purely naturalistic causes (according to Methodological Naturalism, which is SOP for science) cannot be used as evidence against the existence of God, because it would commit the logical fallacy of begging the question.

bigb · Mar 27, 2010

Ruv Draba;4789292 But the Buddhist/Hindu/Jainist belief that our world is illusory is a dogmatic one said:
It's actually getting harder to debate with you, cause I actually agree with you mostly. There is always room for debate, but I'm sure you understand what I mean.

I will always be a skeptic of any process that has profit attached. Just my way, and actually my experience.

The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama to be specific, held no dogmatic belief, did believe that the universe was one, and everything was interconnected. Hard to wrap my mind around, but not at all rhetoric. The reason I try to practice an amatuer Buddhist lifestyle, aside from the fact that he taught his students to question everything because even he was subjective, and the present time awareness really helps cut down on subjectivity, is that there is no god or spirit needed. Since I don't have any, it works out pretty good.

Ruv Draba · Mar 27, 2010

RainyDayNinja said:
I have to disagree with your assessment here. There has been research done into the variability of nuclear decay rates, which undermines radiometric dating.

And we'll fiddle with dating techniques indefinitely, I expect, but no amount of fiddling across all the evidence will give us a credible story for the world being 6,000 years old. The continents would have to scoot around the planet like dodgem-cars, volcanoes would have to spatter like paintballs and species would have to bubble and mutate like a witch's cauldron just to fit the geological and biological evidence.

Also, in 1984, a creationist published a prediction

Many scientists are also religious, so 'creationism' in its broadest sense clearly isn't incompatible with science. The issue here is the creationist hypotheses of specific religions -- e.g. origins of the world, and its species including humanity.

In general, any science that pre-supposes purely naturalistic causes (according to Methodological Naturalism, which is SOP for science) cannot be used as evidence against the existence of God, because it would commit the logical fallacy of begging the question.

You may have missed my earlier comments -- the evidence runs against the dogma, not divinity. But when religious dogma goes, it's usually not just in tiny correctable particulars; it's shredded like a moth-eaten curtain. Which makes its other claims hard to entertain, much less credit.

My thought: religions should claim less, admit more ignorance, and admit error.

Ruv Draba · Mar 27, 2010

bigb said:
I will always be a skeptic of any process that has profit attached. Just my way, and actually my experience.

It might depend on what you mean by profit. The difference between your income doing research and your income providing specialist services to industry is a factor of three or more (I know 'cos I've done both). Most scientists don't do science with dreams of getting rich from it. Some do have dreams of fame, but they're not exactly rock-stars and if fame motivated them they'd be much less shy about talking to the media than they really are. Really, what keeps scientists doing science is they love the challenge and are fascinated by their discipline.

If you want to peg a blind-spot on a scientist, the most common one is that all they can see is their discipline. I sometimes joke that you could ask a scientist to design a death-camp and they'd have the problem half-solved before they thought to ask why you wanted it.

Siddhartha Gautama to be specific, held no dogmatic belief, did believe that the universe was one, and everything was interconnected.

I don't really object to that, if we define 'universe' to mean 'everything that connects' -- which is not a bad definition. Scientists suspect that there are parts of 'the universe' that don't connect though -- they're so far from us that they have no causal interaction at all -- light won't reach them, gravity can't touch them... but to me that's theoretical. If you can't affect it, you don't really know it's there.

But that's physical connection. Less convicing to me is moral connection. I feel morally connected with just about everything, but that's in my head and it's only because of how I care about stuff. Expecting the world to hold our moral connections for us doesn't seem realistic; especially when many humans don't feel morally connected to much at all, and the world works exactly the same way for them as for me. My conclusions: objects have constancy; cause and effects persist but morality lives inside our heads. So Gautama and I have a difference of opinion there. His world-view seems a bit inside-out to me.

Buddhism seems to run a spectrum from theism (some Buddhists also believe in gods) through to nontheistic mysticism (the ones who believe in karma and reincarnation, but not gods and spirits) through to secular humanism (the ones who just take the world as it comes and try to be kind). In my part of the world, Buddhism is fairly popular (Australia has more Buddhists than Baptists; there's a Buddhist monastery a stone's throw from my home, and a Buddhist study centre near my office). I tend to pay attention to the humanism and the relaxation and mindfulness exercises, but as it gets a bit hoomygoomier -- prostrations and so forth -- I lose interest.

bigb · Mar 27, 2010

Buddhas interconnectedness(is that even a word) is compared to dropping a pebble in water, so physical. I have'nt given much thought to moral connection.

My practice is basic soto zen style meditation, which you do with no expectation. It's about clearing your mind, concentrating on the breath. This I have found helps with present time awareness. I am going to start a thread on present time awareness, when I figure out a way to make it sustainable in the sense for debate.

I try to stick to what the buddha actually said. How, well it actually takes a bit of faith. Hopefully when the pali canon, or pali suttas as they are also called were written, they reflect what he taught, several hundred years after his death. Who knows really, but I don't think disease or death have come to anyone trying to follow. Unless you count persecution, which hopefully in America we won't have.

It's never been clear, to me at least, if the buddha believed in any kind of afterlife. It really depends on who you ask, I mean Tibetan's have a list of hells and deitys, all of which makes for some great tatoo's.

But one thing would be clear, Buddha would have encouraged others to question afterlife even if he believed in it.

Paul · Mar 27, 2010

Oh, I thought someone just posted the evidence.

oh well

Ruv Draba · Mar 27, 2010

It was posted, Paul, but they had to take it down because of copyright infringements.

Ruv Draba · Mar 27, 2010

bigb said:
My practice is basic soto zen style meditation, which you do with no expectation. It's about clearing your mind, concentrating on the breath. This I have found helps with present time awareness.

No arguments here. I've done it in Aikido, in boxing, running, weight-training... even in singing. Breathing is handy.

Is it magic? I don't think so, except in the same way that hugs are. I think it's possible to get caught up in anything too seriously... make it too ritualised, expect too much of it. But I think that awareness is useful as long as we're living our lives too.

bigb · Mar 27, 2010

Hugs are Magic!

Paul · Mar 27, 2010

Ruv Draba said:
It was posted, Paul, but they had to take it down because of copyright infringements.

Gehanna · Mar 28, 2010

Based on the information I have, Buddha left his wife and child for 7 years. Provided my information is accurate, I will not support the following of his teachings. This is because I am not inclined to justify the abandonment of parental responsibility in favor of seeking enlightenment. If there is any relevant information I lack, please let me know. I admit that my opinion comes from my values and it is doubtful that any additional information would cause me to change my mind. Despite the doubt, I would still be interested in the information and your powers of persuasion.

Gehanna

Diana Hignutt · Mar 29, 2010

Ruv Draba said:
No arguments here. I've done it in Aikido, in boxing, running, weight-training... even in singing. Breathing is handy.

Is it magic? I don't think so, except in the same way that hugs are. I think it's possible to get caught up in anything too seriously... make it too ritualised, expect too much of it. But I think that awareness is useful as long as we're living our lives too.

It's also possible to get too caught up in your worldview to expect too little of life and the universe.

For all you know you could be one of the inhabitants of Plato's cave, measuring shadows and thinking you understand the world.

For all you know, I could be some sort of occult intelligence, a spirit or god. And here we are having this nice conversation. Your sense of objective reality will deny this out of hand, but you have no way to know whether I'm real. Sure, there's a picture. It could be anybody. You could wiki this person I'm claiming to be (and no, I didn't list myself there), or google, but that won't prove anything. You can't know. I might have entered this account info here on AW, borrowing this person's name. You don't know. And for all I know, you're some Mormon school girl from Montreal, yanking our chains, for the sake of debate. We know nothing about each other in reality. We work on the reasonable assumptions you like to call science and reality. They are modes of perception. But, in the end, unless, you come to wherever I am and watch me enter these words, you can't be sure I'm doing it. And, maybe, even if you did see me doing it, if i were possessed by some non-human intelligence, you still won't know. Or, if i had multiple personality disorder, you won't know which personality was writing. Assumptions of a rational, scientific universe are wonderfully useful things, but they may not be the end all be all.

Is that evidence for God? Of course, not. But being a slave of logic and reason imprisons you, and disconnects you from the other possibilities of a universe far beyond your level of reality.

bigb · Mar 29, 2010

Diana Hignutt said:
It's also possible to get too caught up in your worldview to expect too little of life and the universe.

For all you know you could be one of the inhabitants of Plato's cave, measuring shadows and thinking you understand the world.

For all you know, I could be some sort of occult intelligence, a spirit or god. And here we are having this nice conversation. Your sense of objective reality will deny this out of hand, but you have no way to know whether I'm real. Sure, there's a picture. It could be anybody. You could wiki this person I'm claiming to be (and no, I didn't list myself there), or google, but that won't prove anything. You can't know. I might have entered this account info here on AW, borrowing this person's name. You don't know. And for all I know, you're some Mormon school girl from Montreal, yanking our chains, for the sake of debate. We know nothing about each other in reality. We work on the reasonable assumptions you like to call science and reality. They are modes of perception. But, in the end, unless, you come to wherever I am and watch me enter these words, you can't be sure I'm doing it. And, maybe, even if you did see me doing it, if i were possessed by some non-human intelligence, you still won't know. Or, if i had multiple personality disorder, you won't know which personality was writing. Assumptions of a rational, scientific universe are wonderfully useful things, but they may not be the end all be all.

Is that evidence for God? Of course, not. But being a slave of logic and reason imprisons you, and disconnects you from the other possibilities of a universe far beyond your level of reality.

If any of that were true this conversaion would get interesting real quik. As long as the mormon school girl was over 18.

In all seriousness, that's how I don't believe in god, but don't argue against it. I doubt both sides equally. And it's certainly a more interesting existence looking at the two sides as you go through life and see what changes have happened in your own perspective. Mine have changed, or evolved if you will over the years.

Diana Hignutt · Mar 29, 2010

bigb said:
If any of that were true this conversaion would get interesting real quik. As long as the mormon school girl was over 18.

In all seriousness, that's how I don't believe in god, but don't argue against it. I doubt both sides equally. And it's certainly a more interesting existence looking at the two sides as you go through life and see what changes have happened in your own perspective. Mine have changed, or evolved if you will over the years.

What more could a person ask for? The perfect blend of open-mindedness and skepticism. You, my friend, rock.

ETA: Actually, evidence is being given to me (which none of you would understand without at least 5 years of very intense magickal training) that my joking quip may hold some truth. Here on page twenty-three of this thread. The whisperings of the universe have called me hence, mighty Ozymandias has ripped a whole in the fabric of reality, and willed me into existence. My coming has been foretold. 1918. 1946. 1964. 2012. My name is the secret of hope, the forces of darkness gather, but I fear them not. They have been called to summon me. TIME IS. And, my word, my will, I say to the world, in quiet lust. KNow all who I am.

bigb · Mar 29, 2010

Gehanna said:
Based on the information I have, Buddha left his wife and child for 7 years. Provided my information is accurate, I will not support the following of his teachings. This is because I am not inclined to justify the abandonment of parental responsibility in favor of seeking enlightenment. If there is any relevant information I lack, please let me know. I admit that my opinion comes from my values and it is doubtful that any additional information would cause me to change my mind. Despite the doubt, I would still be interested in the information and your powers of persuasion.Gehanna

I'm not a buddha salesman and apalogize if I came off that way. Siddhartha Gautama did leave his wife and child, in the lap of luxury, but did it none the less. They became two of his most loyal followers upon his return.

I mean Abraham was going to do some pretty interesting things for a voice in the sky, I guess by todays standards Buddha's choice wasn't so bad.

peace

bigb · Mar 29, 2010

Diana Hignutt said:
What more could a person ask for? The perfect blend of open-mindedness and skepticism. You, my friend, rock.
.

It also allows me to play devils advocate and keep my hypocrisy to a minimum. Which does actually offend some people, so I got that going for me, which is nice.

Diana Hignutt · Mar 29, 2010

Here is the most important statement in the history of humanity, soon all will be revealed (it's in Enochian--which is nothing to trifle with--DO NOT READ OR REPEAT THESE WORDS ALOUD--they are not for your mouths, but noursihment for the spirit). Hear my Call:

LAP ZIRDO BABALON!

To the ends of the Earth may my Call be heard. Let those who are waiting hope and fear. TIME IS.

Diana Hignutt · Mar 29, 2010

bigb said:
I mean Abraham was going to do some pretty interesting things for a voice in the sky...

And then the voice said: "Psych."

bigb · Mar 29, 2010

Diana Hignutt said:
Here is the most important statement in the history of humanity, soon all will be revealed (it's in Enochian--which is nothing to trifle with--DO NOT READ OR REPEAT THESE WORDS ALOUD--they are not for your mouths, but noursihment for the spirit). Hear my Call:
.

Am I allowed to make Bruce Campbell jokes?

Evidence for God

Very Tired

Gun in Mouth Blues

Gun in Mouth Blues

On Mac's double secret probation.

Gun in Mouth Blues

Gun in Mouth Blues

Gun in Mouth Blues

Introvert

Very Tired

Gun in Mouth Blues

Very Tired

Gun in Mouth Blues

Gun in Mouth Blues

Very Tired

Very Tired

Gun in Mouth Blues