The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Rlu9rWTwI

Great video.

Unicellular to multicellular witnessed in the lab.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

No, they aren't equally moral if universal morality doesn't exist. That is an oxymoron, the concept doesn't even apply. If there is no universal morality you can't compare the two to any universal standard, so how do you determine they are "equally" moral?

The universal standard in your concept is the premise that every morality is free-standing. Morality A derives its existence from an individual just like Morality B. There is no universal moral standard to compare them with, and their meaning is self-contained.

They are therefore equal, not in specific content, but in totality. One is a morality, so is the other, and so are all other moralities. Objectively there is no difference in their value. Subjectively, each can condemn each of the rest as being more or less moral, viewing itself as the morality.

So the paedophile's moral system is not objectively lesser than the philanthrophist's. Your revulsion at the paedophile's morality is only proof of your opinion, not that paedophilia is actually wicked/wrong/immoral.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I appreciate that clear confession. Yes, if your premise is right, both of us are in the same position.

However, if my premise is right, you are fatally mistaken and I'm on the road to eternal life. Completely opposite positions.
Sure, but similarly we could both be wrong about Zeus. On what basis do you think we can establish whether that is a serious risk? We can't directly disprove his existence, so how do you and I get ourselves to a position in which we can logically dismiss his existence?

I'm glad we have established that our positions are not intrinsically equal.

Now as to us being wrong about Zeus, I have an advantage on you here. We both have an inner witness that God is the one, true God and therefore Zeus is false, but I have also the clearer revelation of God the Holy Spirit in my heart who makes it totally clear.

There is no way to materially test the case, but even without the witness of the Spirit you have enough to go on. God has given you a conscience and a mind to seek Him, and the promise that if you earnestly do so you will find Him. Finding Him, you will know Zeus is a fiction.

wolfsbane

MatthewVII said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

I agree with that.

But that still leaves you at the top of the pile, the author of the only morality you recognise as valid. That is God's place, you're in it, so that makes you God. You have reasoned yourself to Deity.

The bad news is, it's all a delusion. Though you are gods, you will die like mere men.
No, to be in God's place would be to try and force your view on others, to proclaim yourself as the one authority on everything and deplore those who do not follow you. Independent thought is just a personal code which is relevant to you.

That presupposes a false god must have the same character as God. But when a man imagines himself as the source of morality he may well care nothing what others do, as long as it does not adversely effect him. He will (usually) be fully aware that he is not sovereign of the universe in reality, and be content to be a god unto himself. Morally answerable to none, but sadly - in the material world -answerable to any powerful enough to insist on it.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Now as to us being wrong about Zeus, I have an advantage on you here. We both have an inner witness that God is the one, true God and therefore Zeus is false, but I have also the clearer revelation of God the Holy Spirit in my heart who makes it totally clear.

There is no way to materially test the case, but even without the witness of the Spirit you have enough to go on. God has given you a conscience and a mind to seek Him, and the promise that if you earnestly do so you will find Him. Finding Him, you will know Zeus is a fiction.

If you look for evidence of anything supernatural - god, ghosts, fairies or prophecies - expecting to find it, then your brain will give it to you.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

I'm glad we have established that our positions are not intrinsically equal.

Now as to us being wrong about Zeus, I have an advantage on you here. We both have an inner witness that God is the one, true God and therefore Zeus is false, but I have also the clearer revelation of God the Holy Spirit in my heart who makes it totally clear.

There is no way to materially test the case, but even without the witness of the Spirit you have enough to go on. God has given you a conscience and a mind to seek Him, and the promise that if you earnestly do so you will find Him. Finding Him, you will know Zeus is a fiction.

Your revelation tells you that the Bible is correct (and thus the assertions about your God) but your only means of verifying that your revelation is not a delusion is the Bible or the word of others who are basing their conviction upon it. You can see many clear examples of this happening. We can agree that the millions of devout muslims in the world are deluded. Their revelation, as certain and definite as yours, happens to be a trick of the mind. So how do you test the veracity of your subjective knowledge (that God is real and that Zeus is fiction) in this matter?

Another question: What was your initial position on God? Scepticism or belief? How about Zeus? How about the greater than 1000 or so gods that feature in ancient texts from across the world? Have you treated all of them in the same manner?

I can say that my position on all of them is scepticism pending verifiable evidence.

Yet another question: How far do you trust subjective revelation in others? If I give you a brand new car which I know is safe because God revealed it to me, will you drive it on the motorway?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I can see how a reckless disposal of all but our tribe would expose us to eventual genetic failure. But there is a difference between that and culling just enough to ensure the promotion of our tribe and those whom we can happily integrate with.
But you need to appreciate the difference between that and evolution.

The "promotion of our tribe" is not evolution, it is prosperity in terms of economics. If I kill you I can eat your food and live in your house, but that isn't going to make me evolve.

You can't evolve yourself. You can't even evolve your children. The most you could do is try to mutate your children, in the hope that one of the mutations provides an adaptation that benefits them.

It is part of the process of evolution that supposedly brought us here. There is no material difference between men culling a nation in genocide, or their own sub-normal members, and that of an asteroid-hit leading to mass extinctions. Whether the genes are taken out by culling or by climate change, the result is the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If we allow the mentally and physically genetically damaged to breed, we may be ensuring the survival of an essential gene in a future crisis. But is it not more likely that the weakness passed on with be a greater burden than the risk is worth?
Possibly, but "burden" has little to do with evolution.

You carrying for your disabled sister has little to do with how adapted you are to your environment. You carrying for your disabled sister isn't going to cause a virus to strike you down and you not caring for your disabled sister isn't going to stop that happening.

It is going to make you less efficient in productivity. That feeds into how fit one is compared to a competitor.

Also an important point is that the instinct to care for your disabled sister is one that has proven to be helpful, evolutionarially speaking, hence its existence in the first place.

So all instincts be helpful rather than harmful in evolutionary terms? The 'kill all but those who serve us' instinct; the sexual predator instinct? The thieving instinct?

If you say so - but surely they compete with other instincts, like love, compassion, pity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The rational atheist ( if he ignores the fact that nothing has a purpose anyway) will not leave it all to evolution to sort out.
Sort what out exactly?

Who survives/dominates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The rational Christian seeks to run things as God has commanded him, and knows that God will sort it all out. I see little evidence of that. All you have is the promise that after we all die we will all go to a happy magical place where we will live in peace and contentment. But one could just as easily say everyone should shoot themselves in the head now, they will wake up some where better.

Except that the One who admits to, or bars from, that happy place has forbidden us to unnecessarily end our lives.

It is some what nonsensical to believe that all problems are solved some where that no one has ever been and no one has ever seen.

Only nonsensical if one refuses to listen to one's conscience and the evidence of an unseen Creator which the universe displays.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

If you look for evidence of anything supernatural - god, ghosts, fairies or prophecies - expecting to find it, then your brain will give it to you.

Generally speaking, I agree with you.

But if you start out asking God to reveal Himself to you if He is there, that is a safer course. If He has already shown you He is there, of course you need not be so qualified.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Generally speaking, I agree with you.

But if you start out asking God to reveal Himself to you if He is there, that is a safer course. If He has already shown you He is there, of course you need not be so qualified.

Huh?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Your revelation tells you that the Bible is correct (and thus the assertions about your God) but your only means of verifying that your revelation is not a delusion is the Bible or the word of others who are basing their conviction upon it. You can see many clear examples of this happening. We can agree that the millions of devout muslims in the world are deluded. Their revelation, as certain and definite as yours, happens to be a trick of the mind. So how do you test the veracity of your subjective knowledge (that God is real and that Zeus is fiction) in this matter?

God has confirmed His reality many times by answered prayer, as we have discussed before.

Another question: What was your initial position on God? Scepticism or belief?

Scepticism.

How about Zeus? How about the greater than 1000 or so gods that feature in ancient texts from across the world? Have you treated all of them in the same manner?

I would once have treated God and all the false gods with scepticism - though not equally, for some seemed naturally outlandish.

I can say that my position on all of them is scepticism pending verifiable evidence.

OK. It's a start. Now you have to assess what is reasonable for verifiable evidence. Can a Spirit and a spirit dimension be measured by lab instruments? Matter cannot test the immaterial. That leaves evidence of the Creator in His work - the nature of the universe (its splendour and complexity); and the nature of ourselves as self-aware beings - our thinking and behaviour. Does this fit in with the account God has given us in the Bible? Does it fit in with what our conscience tells us?

Yet another question: How far do you trust subjective revelation in others? If I give you a brand new car which I know is safe because God revealed it to me, will you drive it on the motorway?

I don't trust it at all. I compare it to what God has revealed. That is the only safe course for you and me. You can't be saved by depending on what someone says about God, even if it true. You must come to God Himself in repentance and faith. We can only point you to Him.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Huh?

Some people encounter God through desperate circumstances and are convinced by them that He exists. When they seek to find out more, they don't need to qualify their query by saying if You are there.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some people encounter God through desperate circumstances and are convinced by them that He exists. When they seek to find out more, they don't need to qualify their query by saying if You are there.

How does that counter my point, though? Why should the Christian god be an exception?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My point is that the paedophile and the philantrophist are equally moral if morality derives from one's emotional makeup. They are just different in their natures, none more moral than the other.
In way, but only from their own respective perspectives and only if they do not consider any other moral views than their own. Some people don't value the values of other, but this not common.

Logically, if they say morality is self-derived by each person, then they will value other's morality by how it matches their own. An identical morality will be praised as proof of one's one god-like wisdom; a very different one with be seen as proof that evolution produces misfits as well as gods.:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not common to all - just more prevalent. Like heterosexuality. Or right-handedness.
But hardly so trivial as either. The moral majority, if based upon evidence and understanding, has value even if it is not universal.

You are saying a morality that is shared by many is objectively of more value than that possessed by a minority, if it is based upon evidence and understanding. But what evidence can inform morality? You have said evolution has nothing to say to morality. That the universe has no objective meaning. To what evidence do we apply our understanding that we can derive a morality more valuable than the next man's?

Can you point to repoducible examples of unambiguous prescience? It appears immune to testing.

There are examples in many times and places, many not relating to religious people - but it is difficult to prove their integrity. The possessor will know, but unless he/she has widely annonced the fact before it happens it is difficult to prove there is no conspiracy to deceive. And of course the prescience is usually not designed to offer public proof.

I'm thinking of things like intimations of impending deaths/disasters, and knowledge of such before they have been announced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm not criticising them for being unable to do so, for it is not something that occurs in a laboratory.
Science is not restricted to the lab. Its only limit is the observable.

Certainly - but it is just as difficult to observe what has already occurred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Materialism can account for many things in the material realm, and it shares that ability with theism. Theists work in both realms.
Theism does not explain anything. It offers reasons that invite no further enquirey.

Science belongs to theism just as much as it does to atheism or any other ism that seeks to expound on reality. God made the laws of physics. Theism invites full discovery of the material world. It invites discovery of the spiritual world only as far as God has revealed it. It is not to be investigated further. No spiritism/occult practices, like fortune-telling or communicating with the spirits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Moral personhood. Not inanimate, nor non-moral animal.
But what are the characteristics of that and how do I test it? Because there seems to be practically no measurable feature of humans that is not also found in some other species. Only extent and combination of those features appears unique to us.

The extent and combination may then define the unbridgeable gulf between us and the animals, rather than being just a variation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Molded by God from the dust of the ground into human flesh and implanted by Him with a spirit. But how did He do that? What was the composition of the dust? What means did He use to mold the dust? What is the spirit and how was it implanted into the human? How is that trait inherited? By what means can we test these questions?

God doesn't tell us, and there is no way to find out. In which case we should mind our own business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Spirit, but since Christ's incarnation, the God the Son has also a human body and nature.
What is spirit composed of?

Nothing material. Spirit seems to be self-defining.

How does fit into what we know of reality or does it demand another model?

It fits well with our observation of the behaviour of man and is much more satisfactory than the materialist model.

How exactly has the composition of that spirit been altered by the introduction of the Son into the mix?

The Son was always 'in the mix' - He in fact created all things, including the spirits. But if you mean His atoning death, then we can say many millions of spirits have been freed from sin's power and penalty, and those who have gone to heaven are also free from sin's presence.

How did God go about incarnating Himself into a corporeal form?

He doesn't say, other than Deity took on humanity in the womb of a woman.

For that matter, how does a being extant outside of time interact with a spacetime continuum? being timeless ought to mean all of his actions occur simultaneously in His own frame of reference. Is this the case? How do we test these questions?

We can speculate as to whether it is that time does not exist in heaven or it is that it has no effect on God. But for our sakes He reveals His purposes in order of time. We cannot test them, for they are not in our world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
In Heaven, a place in the spiritual dimension.
Where is that dimension located?

It is its own dimension.

Is it a dimension of the percievable spacetime continuum, a fourth spatial dimension, and thus causally linked to the observable universe?

No.

Or is it isolated from the observable universe? Is this isolation only an observational isolation or is it also a causal isolation?

It is isolated so that it cannot be observed by non-spiritual eyes; it is not touched/effected by the material universe; but the decisions made there have sovereign control over the material universe - indeed, this universe depends for its moment by moment existence on the Divine will in heaven.

Does this dimension itself have other dimesion which allow location in spatial and chronological senses?

I'm not sure what you mean, but Heaven has our lenght/breadth/height locations and sense of time. It is not a point and the persons in it are conscious of chronological events.

How to we test these ideas?

As I said, it is the spirit world, so beyond testing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Infinite in power, wisdom, goodness.
How can that be established?

By being experienced, when we stand before Him.

How does a thing of infinite complexity come to exist?

By always existing.

Also, what about His observational capacity? Causal capacity?

He knows all; He controls all.

Again, by what means can these things be tested?

They can only be experienced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I haven't found it vague at all on His capabilities or nature. Maybe you would be more specific?
If it answers even half of the questions I've just asked above in an unambiguous manner, I revise my opinion of it as being vague.

If you mean it is vague because it does not tell you many things about the spirit world, they you are correct. But that is not its purpose. Same if I said 'Origin of the Species' was vague about the construction of the pyramids. The Bible intends to tell you what you need to know to get to Heaven, and it leaves many historical examples of man's folly/God's mercy and justice, etc. to encourage us to get there. It is not intended to be an encyclopedia of the spirit world.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

So the paedophile's moral system is not objectively lesser than the philanthrophist's.

Nor is it objectively greater or even equal.

You are using two versions of "equal" here, which is a bit confusing.

Yes a moral concept is "equal" to another moral concept if by equal they are both moral concepts, in the same way a car is equal to a car in that they are both cars.

But you flip that to a different concept of equality here when you say one moral system is not objectively lesser than another. In this instance you are not talking about equality of concept, but equality of value.

A paedophiles moral system is equal to a philanthropists only in that they are both moral systems, ie the concepts are the same. But to talk of one being lesser or greater or equal in value to each other is nonsensical without objective moral standard.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your revulsion at the paedophile's morality is only proof of your opinion, not that paedophilia is actually wicked/wrong/immoral.

That is the point.

Again, without objective morality there is no actually wicked/wrong/immoral or actually good/correct/moral in the first place

There is only opinion (including God's) of something.

Being wicked is not a state something finds itself in independently of any judgement of that. It is a view in the mind of someone judging the person. "Wicked" is not a state of nature. It is an assessment someone makes about something.

And again this holds equally true if it is God making the assessment.

A paedophile is no more actually wicked if God decides he is than if I decide he is. The physical nature of the paedophile doesn't change. He doesn't get taller or shorter or thinner or fatter. His atoms don't spin slower or faster or upside down.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Generally speaking, I agree with you.

But if you start out asking God to reveal Himself to you if He is there, that is a safer course.

No, that is Hatters point.

If you have a desire to seek God, or a god, or simply a pleasing answer, you shouldn't be surprised if you find it, because your mind will invent it if necessary.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

How does that counter my point, though? Why should the Christian god be an exception?

There is only one reality. All other manifestations of gods are delusions - and the one experiencing them should know better. Those experiencing God's revelation will know it to be real, and be able to find out all God wants them to know.

An outsider cannot prove spiritual experiences one way of the other - but one who experiences them has no excuse for not knowing the difference. God is recognised in the heart of everyman, but that knowledge is suppressed to various extents. We are all responsible to seek after and find the One we instinctively know is there.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

No, that is Hatters point.

If you have a desire to seek God, or a god, or simply a pleasing answer, you shouldn't be surprised if you find it, because your mind will invent it if necessary.

You missed the IF. The IF means one is open to decide there is no God.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You missed the IF. The IF means one is open to decide there is no God.

Well yeah, but if you have a strong reason for believing there is one (you are down on your luck, feel pointless and aimless, seeking comfort) and your mind starts filling in the blanks, connecting random patterns that don't mean anything, then you are much more likely to come out the other side believing something that isn't true

This doesn't just happen with God, or even religion. We know the human brain does this. Studies have shown it to be the case, humans invent patterns and significance in things that have none when they are feeling depressed, or out of control, or seeking comfort and solutions.

This applies to the person convinced that "fate" is going to make him win the Lotto, to people who believe in God.

We know this happens. It is not a huge jump to suppose it is the most likely explanation for what happens with people who come round the idea, simply through their own head, that God exists and loves them.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

There is only one reality. All other manifestations of gods are delusions - and the one experiencing them should know better. Those experiencing God's revelation will know it to be real, and be able to find out all God wants them to know.

An outsider cannot prove spiritual experiences one way of the other - but one who experiences them has no excuse for not knowing the difference. God is recognised in the heart of everyman, but that knowledge is suppressed to various extents. We are all responsible to seek after and find the One we instinctively know is there.

You have never really explained how someone knows the difference, beyond vague idea that you match it against the Bible (which leads to the question why you accept the Bible as an authority in the first place).

If your mind is inventing this feeling of "knowing", how would you tell?

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

There is only one reality. All other manifestations of gods are delusions - and the one experiencing them should know better. Those experiencing God's revelation will know it to be real, and be able to find out all God wants them to know.

Members of other religions say the same thing. How do you know they're not right?

Mickeroo

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Members of other religions say the same thing. How do you know they're not right?

Because he JUST KNOWS.....right?

Flamed Diving

Mickeroo wrote: »

Because he JUST KNOWS.....right?

More appropriate in the religious humour thread.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You have never really explained how someone knows the difference, beyond vague idea that you match it against the Bible (which leads to the question why you accept the Bible as an authority in the first place).

If your mind is inventing this feeling of "knowing", how would you tell?

I grant you the concept that there is no way we can prove reality is real - it all might be an illusion. I might be imagining I'm writing this, you that you are reading it. But when I see my understanding of reality working daily, I'm content to go along with the 'illusion'.

wolfsbane

Mickeroo wrote: »

Because he JUST KNOWS.....right?

Correct. And the reality is: either I do know (God having revealed it to me) or I don't (and only think I do).

As an unbiased observer, I would expect you to be open to both possibilities concerning my 'knowledge'. But I get the impression you are nearly as certain of the latter possibility as I am of the former.

Am I mistaken?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But when I see my understanding of reality working daily, I'm content to go along with the 'illusion'.

Fair enough.

But the point is that we know the brain will fake specifically that (the illusion of significant patterns in what are actually random unconnected events).

Does that not bother you?

I mean you can actually cause this to happen in someone and watch it happen before your eyes, like a Derren Brown special. Studies have shown this to a startling point.

Knowing this I would be less inclined to trust my assessment of reality based around this pattern matching than more inclined.

It is like being shown how an optical illusion works.

You don't keep thinking the two lines are different lengths after you have been shown that they aren't, even if your brain says so. And when you see the effect again you know that the lines are the same, even if your eyes are telling you differently.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yeah, but if you have a strong reason for believing there is one (you are down on your luck, feel pointless and aimless, seeking comfort) and your mind starts filling in the blanks, connecting random patterns that don't mean anything, then you are much more likely to come out the other side believing something that isn't true

This doesn't just happen with God, or even religion. We know the human brain does this. Studies have shown it to be the case, humans invent patterns and significance in things that have none when they are feeling depressed, or out of control, or seeking comfort and solutions.

This applies to the person convinced that "fate" is going to make him win the Lotto, to people who believe in God.

We know this happens. It is not a huge jump to suppose it is the most likely explanation for what happens with people who come round the idea, simply through their own head, that God exists and loves them.

Yes, there are spurious reasons why some people 'believe' in God. The Parable of the Soils puts it well:
Matthew 13:3 Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. 5 Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. 6 But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. 7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. 8 But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”...

18 “Therefore hear the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. 20 But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. 22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. 23 But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”

Your reasons - down on your luck, feel pointless and aimless, seeking comfort - cause some to genuinely seek after God, but others merely to seek Him to relieve their problems. They are happy to have their troubles eased, but not when other troubles arise. They do not love God, only the benefits He provides. True Christians remain true when trouble comes, and are willing to forsake all to follow Him.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Correct. And the reality is: either I do know (God having revealed it to me) or I don't (and only think I do).

As an unbiased observer, I would expect you to be open to both possibilities concerning my 'knowledge'. But I get the impression you are nearly as certain of the latter possibility as I am of the former.

Am I mistaken?

You make it sound like there is no reason to think that you don't actually know.

In fact there is only reasons to think you don't actually know. Again, what you are describing is pretty much exactly the time of illusion we know the brain can cause in people.

On the other hand there is no reason so far given to think you are actually are touched by God.

You cannot demonstrate this effect at all. You just have your own personal assessment that this is what has happened, which doesn't mean very much.

Mickeroo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Correct. And the reality is: either I do know (God having revealed it to me) or I don't (and only think I do).

As an unbiased observer, I would expect you to be open to both possibilities concerning my 'knowledge'. But I get the impression you are nearly as certain of the latter possibility as I am of the former.

Am I mistaken?

No you're not mistaken, and neither am i, because you posses no powers that I do not. The fact that you genuinely think god has told you christianity is the right one and that it's all true blinds you to the fact that you only think it. I am intelligent enough to know how the human mind works.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Fair enough.

But the point is that we know the brain will fake specifically that (the illusion of significant patterns in what are actually random unconnected events).

Does that not bother you?

I mean you can actually cause this to happen in someone and watch it happen before your eyes, like a Derren Brown special. Studies have shown this to a startling point.

Knowing this I would be less inclined to trust my assessment of reality based around this pattern matching than more inclined.

It is like being shown how an optical illusion works.

You don't keep thinking the two lines are different lengths after you have been shown that they aren't, even if your brain says so. And when you see the effect again you know that the lines are the same, even if your eyes are telling you differently.

No, it doesn't bother me. With due care one can avoid spurious patterns. I know folk who see signs in all sorts of circumstances - they pray for guidance on finding a wife, and imagine the first girl who smiles at them is a direct answer from God. I would insist on several more criteria before even considering something as an answer.

On the other hand, if one saw several criteria fulfilled each time one asked, insisting there wasn't a pattern would indicate one was holding on to an illusion. As it happens, I have seen it on sufficient occasions to warrant the recognition of a pattern.

Mickeroo

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, it doesn't bother me. With due care one can avoid spurious patterns. I know folk who see signs in all sorts of circumstances - they pray for guidance on finding a wife, and imagine the first girl who smiles at them is a direct answer from God. I would insist on several more criteria before even considering something as an answer.

On the other hand, if one saw several criteria fulfilled each time one asked, insisting there wasn't a pattern would indicate one was holding on to an illusion. As it happens, I have seen it on sufficient occasions to warrant the recognition of a pattern.

If you look for a pattern in anything you'll find it because you want it to be there. I dont deny there could be a 'god',but anyone who says they know for sure is either delusional or talking out of their ass. fact.