You haven't described this well. It isn't clear what happened (indeed if anything at all happened) that requires the supernatural to explain it. Perhaps you could expand, or clarify.
The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer
- Thread starter MikeG
- Start date
You haven't described this well. It isn't clear what happened (indeed if anything at all happened) that requires the supernatural to explain it. Perhaps you could expand, or clarify.
The phenomenon that exists and which is in this category, is that of the interpersonal environment. Relationship bring with it an amount of mental entanglement and depending on the closeness of the relationship the entanglement may be strong, medium or weak.
So for instance the entanglement that exists with a long term intimate partner is far greater than the entanglement with a shop assistant, who you see from time to time, when you have your groceries packed and you pay at the supermarket. Many close couples can at times tell what their partner is thinking. These are not guesses based on how well they know the other person but because of mental entanglement.
The interpersonal environment is not open to all and sundries. You have to be a member of an interpersonal group to be a participant and /or observer of that environment. This is particularly true of a family.
This is where psychiatry make false assumptions about their patients when they have no evidence because they can never be privy to the patient's interpersonal environment, For example the claim that a person is delusional or paranoid, are illegitimate claims. They talk about "loss touch with reality" as if there is only the one common PHYSICAL reality and nothing else. It is because they make assessment outside of the other person's interpersonal environment and of course the belief in materialism as all that there is.
No this is not true. Nirvana is not about nihilism. Those who claim Buddhism is Godless do not understand Buddhism. And I know several, who have risen to the position of Roshi (teacher) and who are imposters, without any enlightenment.
The reality is that the Buddha did not talk about God. He was once asked about God and he refused to respond. That does not mean his teaching was Godless. Jesus was also asked what is Truth? and he did not respond. That doesn't say there is no Truth.
I agree with PartSkeptic that "We all live in the same universe. Same physical laws, same supernatural laws, and same God. So what if the rituals are different."
Each tribe of people have tried to understand and worship in their own way but that does not make for many gods.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
It is interesting how in science, one does the best to answer a question even if the answer is "I don't have an answer to that question?"
Why does God need a starship . . . .Why would worship matter to a being who created the universe.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Talking about observables and the mind.
Here is a recent article on how complex the "real" world is, and how difficult it is to "observe" it.
The layers just get more and more complex, and never-ending, and somewhat more confusing. And people think they know what "reality" is?
Science recognises its limitations. Realism can be defined as one where the best scientific theories give true or approximately true descriptions of observable and unobservable aspects of a mind-independent world. (We observe both with our human senses and with observation devices.)
While they mean that the real world exists independent of flaws in human senses or what the mind might think it sees, it also sets aside mind-dependent as something that might be outside realism (another term for the physical universe).
Here is a recent article on how complex the "real" world is, and how difficult it is to "observe" it.
The layers just get more and more complex, and never-ending, and somewhat more confusing. And people think they know what "reality" is?
Science recognises its limitations. Realism can be defined as one where the best scientific theories give true or approximately true descriptions of observable and unobservable aspects of a mind-independent world. (We observe both with our human senses and with observation devices.)
While they mean that the real world exists independent of flaws in human senses or what the mind might think it sees, it also sets aside mind-dependent as something that might be outside realism (another term for the physical universe).
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
I looked up the term that was used by the leader of the group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Constellations
When I read the article I would dismiss it as nonsense.
Taking part in a few, and seeing the results is a different matter.
In one session, I was given a part silently and stood there. I smelled gunpowder and felt chaos and fear. Afterwards I was told I represented "war", a major influence in the life of the seekers father.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
God does not need worship. But he has rules for the way the supernatural works. Believe and respect and/or do good things, and one MAY get a reward.
BTW - Loved the Starship video - Star Trek is awesome.
Thor 2
Philosopher
But he, the Abrahamic one, demands it, if you read the commandments!
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Oh I know exactly what you are getting at. You're defining god as some sort of universal entity that all religions are sort of indirectly getting at.
you said:
"We all live in the same universe. Same physical laws, same supernatural laws, and same God. So what if the rituals are different."
The Buddhist 'rituals' have nothing to do with a supreme "god".
If a buddhist supposedly achieves a miracle, like the supposed fasting buddha boy, you seem to treat that as evidence of something magical out there that is a supreme universal god. yet buddha boy does this without the help of your god, otherwise he would not be buddah boy. either he is lying about is fasting, or lying about being a buddhist.
I just can't stand when people try to imply how close buddhism and christianity are. They are not.
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
That's exactly what I meant when I said "Of course it felt real. That's part of the definition of the experience." If the paranormal parts were defined and investigated, they would disappear, but in context they seem real.
Believers have to make up an excuse, which is usually along the lines of god or the supernatural can't be tested, but every supernatural claim needs it. Psychics have to have a ready explanation why they don't win the lottery. Christians have to explain why all things really aren't possible with god. Over the years, the excuse gets honed so it satisfies enough of the believers, and the belief continues, because it really does feel real.
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
No.
Of course it does. It's the definition.
They're reporting that they've made an observation, found evidence of something they don't know how to explain.
You're starting with old established evidence (the fact that mind-altering experiences alter minds), insisting on a made-up nonsense explanation that doesn't fit the rest of the known evidence, and declaring it innately right and untouchable while concocting excuses for why no evidence for it can be found, all while pretending that the perfectly adequate and test-verified mundane explanations don't exist or must have been somehow flawed because they didn't point to the conclusion you wanted.
These two things have nothing at all in common. Your self-glorifying, science-deriding attempt to equate them is like a pot calling fresh snow black in an attempt to make itself appear white.
Donn
Philosopher
I particularly enjoy the parts where he speaks for god and gives the this-and-that of his fact.
Shoulder to the boulder, once more unto the hill Sisyphus.
Shoulder to the boulder, once more unto the hill Sisyphus.
AdamSK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,952
If you're referring to the Ten Commandments, they actually don't mandate worship. They simply prohibit worshiping anything else.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
They are not close at all. Where did I say that? Basic Buddhism is about suffering and the cycle of rebirth. Buddha was a Hindu and he left God to the Hindu religion.
Assume that a Buddhist does somethings that flouts the laws of physics using a Buddhist ritual.
What is the Buddhist explanation for why it cannot be observed by science and why it cannot be taught to others?
For those who believe in the supernatural and say these things cannot be observed, it is either understood, or is logically implied, that there is a governing intelligence who has a set of rules - one being that the supernatural cannot be proven.
Define it how you like. Most accept that supreme authority is God.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Yes.
But according to Matthew {4:10} Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Dictionary meaning: show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites.
This means acceptance, following what is right and good, and acknowledging the power of God. God does not get his ego stoked because someone loves him and expresses that admiration.
This "worship" issue by atheists is a negative slant meant to cast scorn on the concept of God. Do they think God will forgive such a sin? Or mete out punishment?
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Self-glorifying? Rubbish. Nothing but an attempt at derision.
I have never derided science in any way. I have only said that science does not have all the answers, and the more that they find, the more there is to find.
And that leaves the door open for the mysteries of the mind. For now, and probably for a long time yet.
Do they think God will forgive such a sin? Or mete out punishment?
Based on the above quote, God may (or may not) forgive or, mete out punishment.
50/50 chance.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Where do I speak for God? I give my experiences, and my hypotheses as to why apparently supernatural events happen without science being able to explain them.
Atheists think they have the answers, but they do not realize that they do not accept that the events happened the way I said they do. I am accused of lies, mistake and delusion. Same for any one else that may have mystical experiences.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Donn
Philosopher
Here:
While that's sentence is tough to parse, I have to say I realize quite well that I don't accept your explanations.
Sure, for all of these are far more likely than the least peek of a god.