The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

[Pixel42]

The tendency to vastly underestimate the frequency with which coincidences can be expected to occur is universal and natural. Making a huge deal out of them is less common and a bit silly.

 

[Thor 2]

It would indeed be impressive - but seasons are good.

How about making the year exactly, say, 360 days?

Yes well the seasons would be infinitesimally different if our orbit was a perfect circle.

Making the year exactly 360 days would have a very slight effect also. Might even be an improvement.

 

[Darat]

Or why not have the earth at the centre of the universe

 

[Thor 2]

Or why not have the earth at the centre of the universe

Yes good point, (wish I had thought of that .... drat), this used to be the case before science came along and put a screw in the works.

 

[Rincewind]

Yes good point, (wish I had thought of that .... drat), this used to be the case before science came along and put a screw in the works.

And provided a screwdriver...

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)

Spotting patterns in random sounds or sights is something I am not good at. I do not "see" shapes in clouds, or trees, or even in pictures that are hiding some subliminal image. I am good at analyzing problems to find solutions, but that is logic.

Coincidentally, I just heard a program on the radio about kids with autism, and the spread of behaviors.

I have thought for a while that as a child I was somewhat autistic. A couple of traits.
- If some-one gave me a block of wood and told me to pretend it was a car, I would have said it is a block of wood.
- My father gave me a fancy gold watch. I told him I had a watch. He threw it away in disgust.
- I am hyper-sensitive to sound and touch.
- I took people and statements at face value. (It took me a long time to become wary and cynical.)
- I did not understand why people got emotional about death and injury - to me it just was.
- I am excellent at programming and coding.
- "Feelings" were not my strong point. I was coldly logical.

It is unlikely I would be "imagining" things that were not there.

If one wanted a non-woo observer, I guess I would fit the requirements.

 

[Pixel42]

There is no such thing as a non-woo observer.

There are people who understand the necessity to use the scientific method to carefully and methodically eliminate the effect of their own cognitive biases on their observations, and people who don't understand that necessity and consequently assign unwarranted significance to them.

 

[Donn]

There is no such thing as a non-woo observer.

There are people who understand the necessity to use the scientific method to carefully and methodically eliminate the effect of their own cognitive biases on their observations, and people who don't understand that necessity and consequently assign unwarranted significance to them.

And to claim, as PS does, that one is innately free of these imperfections is to declare oneself non human.

 

[Delvo]

How about making the year exactly, say, 360 days?

It will be, in several million years. He's preparing that sign for our replacements as the technological species on the planet. Right now they're still marmosets. You should have seen the pelycosaur civilization that got to be around when the ratio hit 400 (back when total solar eclipses were really total, not even a ring of light getting past).

I am not subject to them with regard to anything that was not connected to spirit in some way.

It's in the nature of such experiences to tend to feel surreal/not-natural.

{{I suppose I will get told that that is only because of confirmation bias - that I forget the "ordinary" events - to which I reply "tish-tosh", you do not know me}}

We know you're human and this is what happens to humans.

The majority of my events were when I was wide awake, thinking normally, and not in strange circumstances. No drugs, no meditation, no lack of sleep, and I am very healthy.

1. I'm not buying it. Your stories have all involved you going out of your way to find ways to make your mind not work right, and you only pulled out this claim, that all of the stories you've given so far were exceptions to the rule and you were holding back the others, after having it pointed out to you that such mind-alterations have known mundane explanations.

2. Even if true, it wouldn't matter, for at least two reasons. First, a mind that has practiced at getting into a particular altered state before can get into it more easily again later with less inducement; someone with a temper problem who practices self-calming techniques eventually finds it easy to remain calm as the default, drunks act drunk even with low-or-0 alcohol level... I myself can enter a partially-asleep-but-in-control state quickly and almost at will, after first discovering it under circumstances that took a long time and were hard to replicate at first. Second, while "hallucinations" and "delusions" aren't really common, sensory inputs that could be misinterpreted are, and interpreting things according to preconceptions is the normal natural ground state for human minds, so someone who thinks supernatural stuff happens is predisposed to apply that "explanation" to whatever (s)he's experiencing at any given moment, and the stronger the expectation is, the more routine the situations it will get applied to.

My mental functioning used to be way above average, and while now lower, still is.

Irrelevant even if true. Misinterpretable sensory inputs, unexpected products of the subconscious mind, and altered states of mind do not preferentially happen to the unintelligent, and someone who was not born with a lot of neurological talent will get more rational and accurate results than someone who was if the former applies mental discipline & logical procedures while the latter does not. Even accepting this claim as true, all it does is put you in the latter category: having the ability but choosing not to use it.

Spotting patterns in random sounds or sights is something I am not good at. I do not "see" shapes in clouds, or trees, or even in pictures that are hiding some subliminal image.

Well, "spotting" a supernatural entity to connect various separate events is one that you can do. Congratulations.

I have thought for a while that as a child I was somewhat autistic. A couple of traits...

...It is unlikely I would be "imagining" things that were not there.

None of the symptoms you listed lead to this conclusion in any way. In fact, they all sound like they might make you more prone to making certain kinds of mistakes, like trusting your immediate impression of a confusing sensory input or your own mind's subconscious output as "the facts", coming to think of yourself as unemotional and logical and objective even when you weren't and having no way to tell the difference, and thinking that because you seem logical in some cases then everything you think of in all cases must also be logical.

If one wanted a non-woo observer, I guess I would fit the requirements.

Everybody who buys woo-woo (other than institutionalized ones like religions) thinks there's some special thing about him/her that makes him/her the most reliable person around for his/her favorite woo-woo subject.

 

[abaddon]

Coincidentally, I just heard a program on the radio about kids with autism, and the spread of behaviors.

I have thought for a while that as a child I was somewhat autistic. A couple of traits.
- If some-one gave me a block of wood and told me to pretend it was a car, I would have said it is a block of wood.
- My father gave me a fancy gold watch. I told him I had a watch. He threw it away in disgust.
- I am hyper-sensitive to sound and touch.
- I took people and statements at face value. (It took me a long time to become wary and cynical.)
- I did not understand why people got emotional about death and injury - to me it just was.
- I am excellent at programming and coding.
- "Feelings" were not my strong point. I was coldly logical.

It is unlikely I would be "imagining" things that were not there.

If one wanted a non-woo observer, I guess I would fit the requirements.

Umm, do you realise you have self described not with autism but with something else?

 

[kyrani99]

Feverish searches result in feverish answers- sincerity of the question is no guarantee of the answer's accuracy. I recommend science's cooler, more empirical and objective approach.

The inquirer in science is the personal self and the object of inquiry is the physical universe. The experience I am talking about is that of conscious being (true self). It is rather like "waking up" out of a computer game. While you are immersed you identify with your avatar. And through your avatar you can inquire and discover the computer game environment . This is at the level of science.

But if say your phone rings.. you are jolted back to recollecting your true self. You are not the avatar in the computer game. You exist outside of the simulation, outside of the universe and are only wearing a physical body to have physical experiences.

 

[kyrani99]

What exactly are mind-altering experiences evidence of?

That mind-altering conditions alter minds.

I am already aware of that, so no, an individual doesn't need to have one to know that. But also, that fact is not in dispute and among the subjects here. The issue here is what causes these mind alterations. And having one yourself does not impart any knowledge on that subject to you. It isn't evidence of anything about that question at all.

I am not talking about mind altering experiences. Mind altering experiences can be very different and most often a function of how the brain is affected.

I am talking about experiencing true self or conscious being, who is outside of the physical universe, but having physical experience. The experience is self realization.

As true self, you don't gain knowledge but a realization of what you have always known. The one who gains knowledge is the personal self. Personal self arises from the identification with the activities of mind and the bodily reactivity. And the knowledge gained is ongoing.

 

[kyrani99]

No; however, you need nourishment.

I got nourishment.

That would lead to evidence of an experience. Now you stand exposed; do you seek answers or comfort? The way of answers is the hard road; the narrow way of doubt repeated unto essence by filters of effort.

No the experience leads to evidence. You wake up and realize that you are not the body, not the effervescent mind but conscious being, eternal.

The same road.. seeking comfort or freedom from suffering IS THE SAME ROAD as inquiry, seeking answers.

Seeking intellectual understanding and knowledge is noble but it will never give you any evidence or understanding of the imperishable.

You take the easy way, up the navel into delusion. It is no surprise that you feel a fever; it's damp and warm in the bowels of faith.

The physical reality is only a simulation and a belief that it is reality, (i.e., the Ultimate Reality), is where delusion lies.

 

[Donn]

I am talking about experiencing true self or conscious being, who is outside of the physical universe, but having physical experience. The experience is self realization.

As true self, you don't gain knowledge but a realization of what you have always known. The one who gains knowledge is the personal self. Personal self arises from the identification with the activities of mind and the bodily reactivity. And the knowledge gained is ongoing.

You are extruding warm pap in a soothing flow of magical peristalsis. It may seem you gain knowledge thereby, but how can you gain what you abjure?

 

[jimbob]

You asked me to respond.

First - Navigator and I are two different people. He seems to be a tolerant agnostic.

I have spent a lot of time trying to find natural explanations for what seem to me to be supernatural events. While I cannot rule out the fact that every one of them may have had some natural explanation, there are a lot that do not fit any of the categories.

People can try to do so, but to me it is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. To do so, they shave and distort the facts.

The most common dismissal I read of is the one stating that my experiences are nothing unusual, and give a personal counter-example. I know of such examples, and they are not equivalent. There is an assumption that all people are the same, and that delusions and hallucinations can happen anywhere at any time.

What I find strange is that, although members claim delusions and hallucinations are commonplace, I am not subject to them with regard to anything that was not connected to spirit in some way. {{I suppose I will get told that that is only because of confirmation bias - that I forget the "ordinary" events - to which I reply "tish-tosh", you do not know me}}

The majority of my events were when I was wide awake, thinking normally, and not in strange circumstances. No drugs, no meditation, no lack of sleep, and I am very healthy. My mental functioning used to be way above average, and while now lower, still is.

Spotting patterns in random sounds or sights is something I am not good at. I do not "see" shapes in clouds, or trees, or even in pictures that are hiding some subliminal image. I am good at analyzing problems to find solutions, but that is logic.

Thanks for the reply, regardless of where you sit in the human population, the primate brain has evolved high sensitivity to patterns both real and spurious. The consequences of not spotting something are far worse than the consequences of spotting something spurious that could be corrected later - if one is still alive.

It is not pretending that all people are the same, but accepting that people are prone to misremember or misidentify. The more an observation is at variance with our body of knowledge, the more we need to check for sources of error.

 

[Humots]

Coincidentally, I just heard a program on the radio about kids with autism, and the spread of behaviors.

I have thought for a while that as a child I was somewhat autistic. A couple of traits.
- If some-one gave me a block of wood and told me to pretend it was a car, I would have said it is a block of wood.
- My father gave me a fancy gold watch. I told him I had a watch. He threw it away in disgust.
- I am hyper-sensitive to sound and touch.
- I took people and statements at face value. (It took me a long time to become wary and cynical.)
- I did not understand why people got emotional about death and injury - to me it just was.
- I am excellent at programming and coding.
- "Feelings" were not my strong point. I was coldly logical.

It is unlikely I would be "imagining" things that were not there.

If one wanted a non-woo observer, I guess I would fit the requirements.

Do you?

This site, card trick, performs an online card trick that takes advantage of a simple characteristic of the human mind.

Try it, and see if you are able to determine how it is done.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Do you?

This site, card trick, performs an online card trick that takes advantage of a simple characteristic of the human mind.

Try it, and see if you are able to determine how it is done.

The only logical answer is that they removed ALL the cards.

BTW - I learned some card tricks when I was young. Was put in the same tent as a magician when in the army. I spotted his tricks and at first he was worried because I interfered. Until he realized I was a "shill" who was helping him by making the tricks more amazing.

 

[Tale]

Do you?

This site, card trick, performs an online card trick that takes advantage of a simple characteristic of the human mind.

Try it, and see if you are able to determine how it is done.

They changed all the cards, counting on the player to only focus on their chosen card.

I cheated, I chose two cards at the end.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Umm, do you realise you have self described not with autism but with something else?

Do tell, Doc.

 

[IanS]

You want me to have your lunch for you!

To get the evidence, you have to have the experience. The way is easy but not everyone is interested.
The way is to sincerely ask "who am I? and feverishly search for the answer.

If you are talking about so-called religious "personal experience" as evidence of God's existence, i.e. religious people saying that they had some personal "revelation" (they heard a voice or saw a spirit, or a prayer was answered, or whatever), then what you are talking about are not in fact actual experiences at all. Instead they are only un-evidenced claims of such "experiences".

That is - the person claims to have heard a message from God, or claims that a prayer was truly answered by God. All that exists is their claim. Afaik, no such claim has ever withstood even the slightest objective scientific-type investigation such as to show that a God did any answering or communicating at all.

Claims like that are completely useless. Anyone can make un-evidenced amazing claims all day long, about absolutely anything.

To have any value, you have to present credible evidence of how your claimed religious "personal experience" is actually true. Do you have any genuine evidence?