Smart Kid

[KingMerv00]

Ryokan - I guess if the body showed signs of life, it would have a spirit and if it didn't show signs of life, it wouldn't have a spirit.

You are cheating by defining life and spirit as the same thing. That is the very notion you are trying to prove.

 

[rcronk]

Tony - we'll agree to disagree then. I've given you a way to find out about these things and so it's up to you to chose to try it out or not.

KingMerv00 - I really like Carl Sagan - especially when he would say "billions and billions" on "Cosmos". And you took my quote out of context by leaving the smiley face off of it that showed that I was being a smarty pants.

 

[Jon.]

Jon. - Yes, I think open minded skepticism with a willingness to accept the truth you find will work. Emotion is just an example of something you experience outside of the five senses.

It's certainly an experience, but it's not knowledge or a source of knowledge, other than "I just felt [emotion]"

I have discovered that Knowledge can also come from outside my five senses - not through emotion but some other way that I don't yet understand - I just know it can happen because it happened to me.

How can you be sure that that knowledge is true?

Objective/Subjective - fair enough. Those books can have truth in them and it's good to gather truth wherever you can find it. If one of them says that Christ was not the Son of God, for example, then based on the knowledge I have received, I would have to say that those specific words in that specific book are in error - it doesn't mean that there isn't any truth in the book - in fact the whole rest of the book may be full of truth. Each person must find these things out for themselves.

Here is the problem faced by an impartial observer. On the one hand, we have the books that say Christ was the son of God, and the people telling us they have experienced some form of personal experience or revelation telling them that those books are true. On the other hand, we have the books that say Christ was just one in a long line of prophets to the Israelites, and the people with equally compelling experiences and revelations telling them that those books are true. On the gripping hand, we have the skeptics like Dennett and Shermer saying - often with hard scientific data backing them up -that those experiences and revelations come from within us, from a need to believe in stories that say "everything is going to be ok." Who should the impartial observer believe?

I think it's a stretch to claim that Matt 4:8 says the world is flat. I think you meant 1 Sam 2:8 and the phrasing of that verse sounds more symbolic than literal.

Matt 4:8 says that Jesus and Satan went to the top of a high mountain from which they could see "all the kingdoms of the world." That would not work on a globe, but it would work on a flat earth.

If you say it's symbolic, how do you determine which parts of the Bible are literal and which are symbolic? Doesn't that mean putting yourself in a position that is superior to the text, thereby removing or at least diminishing its status as "holy"?

I'm not saying the Bible is perfect, it has its flaws, but it also has truth in it. As for contradictions between people saying that two things are true that contradict each other - either one or both of the people are wrong. Truth sits there waiting to be discovered - nobody owns it, no religion owns it - it exists independently of all of us. If there's an orange on the table and one person says there's an orange on the table and another person says there's not an orange on the table, one of them is just wrong and that's ok - it's not the end of the world and it doesn't mean that the person who said the orange is there is prideful or better than the other person either. I call meteorites "falling" or "shooting" stars sometimes - it doesn't mean I think that they're literally falling. Again, I'm not going to get into "defend the perfection of the bible" mode because it's not perfect, but I think it has some crucially important truths in it that make these other flaws irrelevant.

How do you decide which parts of the Bible are true and which are not? Again, doesn't that mean putting yourself above the text?

I will accept your data point as being equally valid as mine. I cannot accept the idea that I was delusional or wrong about my answer though because of the nature of the answer.

If I get a different result, then one of us was wrong. If you cannot accept that it might be you, then why would you expect me to accept that it might be me?

If you run the experiment correctly, you'll understand me. Until then, you probably won't. But that's ok. We can still hang out, right?

I'll be here, on and off.

I'll PM you and Ryokan and anyone else who wants to run the experiment. Thanks for your willingness.

I look forward to it.

 

[rcronk]

Jon. - Actually I have posted a link in this thread to another thread called "Religious Book Exchange" where we can do the experiment. I'm reading the Dhammapada already and I really like it so far. Try the experiment out for yourself and see what you find out. Actually, according to Monty Python, the earth is Banana-shaped. Apparently, a person is supposed to let the Holy Spirit help them to interpret and apply truth in scripture to themselves and understand it as it truly is. That's what I do and it works really well so far.

 

[Jon.]

Jon. - Actually I have posted a link in this thread to another thread called "Religious Book Exchange" where we can do the experiment. I'm reading the Dhammapada already and I really like it so far. Try the experiment out for yourself and see what you find out. Actually, according to Monty Python, the earth is Banana-shaped. Apparently, a person is supposed to let the Holy Spirit help them to interpret and apply truth in scripture to themselves and understand it as it truly is. That's what I do and it works really well so far.

I saw that thread and was considering what to ask you to read. However, I think I'll wait until you and Ryokan finish.

Remember - Monty Python also thought a witch and a duck would weigh the same!

 

[cyborg]

Since your analogy missed the point of the discussion,

Whatever.

 

[KingMerv00]

KingMerv00 - I really like Carl Sagan - especially when he would say "billions and billions" on "Cosmos".

Carl Sagan never said "Billions and Billions". I believe his good friend Johnny Carson said it when he parodied him on TV. If you don't believe me read "Billions and Billions".

And you took my quote out of context by leaving the smiley face off of it that showed that I was being a smarty pants.

Sorry bout that but I did try your experiment twice. I tried talking to God for that sort of advice and I got no response. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Tony]

Tony - we'll agree to disagree then.

Then you admit you can't demonstrate that the spirit exists and that it animates life?

I've given you a way to find out about these things and so it's up to you to chose to try it out or not.

No, you haven't. Furthermore, I was once a believer so whatever you did tell me, which was your subjective experience, was nothing I haven't heard before.

 

[rcronk]

Jon. - I love the parody of human logic of the Monty Python witch skit - brilliant! Sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes too. Feel free to jump into the other thread - I'm sure we can run one more test in parallel and save some time.

KingMerv00 - Thanks for the correction - ok he just said "Billions" a lot - I still like him though. Only you can answer the question of why you didn't get an answer. I could only make random guesses at it and it's not really my job to do that anyway.

Tony - Correct. I cannot prove to you that spirits exist and animate life. I can try to convince you not to shut the possibility out of your mind though. The experiment will always be there if you ever want to try it and I hope you do. It has really changed me in so many good ways.

All - In the course of this thread I have come to understand that "salvation" or learning the truth about God is a personal journey. Don't rely on me or anyone else to prove these things to you - go do it yourself, if you want to. I don't think I ever realized just how important it is for each of us to do it on our own and not be dependent upon someone else to do it for us.

 

[cyborg]

It has really changed me in so many good ways.

Your emotional state due your beliefs is irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant to the truth of them.

If you think anyone will be persuaded by emotional appeals here then you are wrong plain and simple.

 

[rcronk]

Stop beating around the bush and just say what you really think.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone - just extending an invitation for people to find out for themselves if they want to. If not, that's fine.

 

[cyborg]

I'm not trying to persuade anyone

Rubbish - of course you are. Simply by engaging in discourse with people you know do not share your beliefs you are attempting to persuade them implicitly.

just extending an invitation for people to find out for themselves if they want to. If not, that's fine.

You should know perfectly well it's not about people finding out for themselves; and if not you are coming from a most naive position of assuming that the reason why the people here think differently must be due to ignorance of the alternatives.

 

[jimlintott]

All - In the course of this thread I have come to understand that "salvation" or learning the truth about God is a personal journey. Don't rely on me or anyone else to prove these things to you - go do it yourself, if you want to. I don't think I ever realized just how important it is for each of us to do it on our own and not be dependent upon someone else to do it for us.

In other words it's all in your head. If you believe it, it will be true. I think you'd find that many atheists also believe they know the truth about god (all gods not just a select one).

Do plants have a spirit?

 

[BillyJoe]

A species can evolve without environmental change. Even if the environment remains static mutations can occur which give certain individuals a greater chance of reproductive success than others.

I think evolutionists use the term "enviromment" in the broader sense that includes changes in competitors of the index case.

And even species that have barely changed their form at all in millions of years are accumulating mutations in their genome.

Mutations are not sufficient for evolution to occur, there must be natural selection as well.

 

[Tony]

Tony - Correct. I cannot prove to you that spirits exist and animate life.

Ok.

I can try to convince you not to shut the possibility out of your mind though.

There is no need to convince me. My mind is open to any possibility, you just have to provide some empirical evidence for me to accept it's veracity. Indeed, I want there to be a soul, I want some part of me to continue living on after I've died, but me wanting it to exist doesn't mean that it does. And no amount of religious belief is going to change that. I don't want to believe, I want to know.

The experiment will always be there if you ever want to try it and I hope you do.

Did you not see where I said I was once a believer? I lived the first 21 years of my life conducting your "experiement" and I saw not a shred of evidence.

It has really changed me in so many good ways.

I submit that it didn't change you. You changed yourself, the beliefs were merely the inspiration.

 

[rcronk]

cyborg - I'm glad you and I can think and believe differently.

jimlintott - My experience is that it's not all inside my head. Try it and see what I mean. I think plants do have spirits. God allegedly made plants and animals in spirit first and then physically after that.

tony - I know - instead of me providing empirical evidence, you could provide it for yourself! You can not just believe, but know it for a fact based on an experience that is more powerful than physical evidence. You know where the other thread is if you want to try it out. Hey - I tried the experiment for the first half of my life and saw no shred of evidence either! When I came back later with more sincerity, then I found the evidence I was looking for. That's just my experience though. Your submission that it didn't change me is based on nothing, but you still have the right to submit it and that's fine.

 

[cyborg]

cyborg - I'm glad you and I can think and believe differently.

Gladness is irrelevant.

My experience is that it's not all inside my head.

Everything is all inside your head. First you need to realise this.

You can not just believe, but know it for a fact based on an experience that is more powerful than physical evidence.

Personal experience is flawed. See above.

 

[volatile]

Hey - I tried the experiment for the first half of my life and saw no shred of evidence either! When I came back later with more sincerity, then I found the evidence I was looking for. That's just my experience though. Your submission that it didn't change me is based on nothing, but you still have the right to submit it and that's fine.

If God doesn't work hard enough to convince us to believe, it's *our* fault for not trying hard enough?

What kind of person wants to worship such a twisted deity - one who condemns us to hell for not believing in him, only to go out of his way to move in mysterious ways? Even if he does exist, he's certainly not worthy of any kind of devotion if he's as sadistic as you're making him out to be, Cronk...

 

[KingMerv00]

Hey - I tried the experiment for the first half of my life and saw no shred of evidence either! When I came back later with more sincerity, then I found the evidence I was looking for. That's just my experience though. Your submission that it didn't change me is based on nothing, but you still have the right to submit it and that's fine.

So you ignore the times it doesn't happen?

I did your experiment and did not feel a thing. I was perfectly sincere. So I conclude that:

1) God likes you more than me.

and/or

2) God acts arbitrarily.

or

3) There is no God and the experience you had was caused by self-induced suggestion.

 

[Tony]

I know

No you don't.

instead of me providing empirical evidence, you could provide it for yourself!

I'm not the one claiming spirits exist.

You can not just believe, but know it for a fact based on an experience that is more powerful than physical evidence.

You're wrong. Physical evidence is always more powerful than experience. Would you believe me if I told you I spent 12 years on Pluto simply because of my experiences, or would you require physical evidence of my having lived there?

You know where the other thread is if you want to try it out.

Try what out?

When I came back later with more sincerity, then I found the evidence I was looking for.

Evidence isn't predicated on sincerity, it is either there or it isn't.

Your submission that it didn't change me is based on nothing

Yes, it is. It's based on psychology and the power of the human mind to fool itself, which is what's happened to you.