Re: RELIGION God and Empirical Evidence (was Religious and political sig li

June 25, 2007

>

> That leads to the question of what will is responsible for the

forces

> that we see in nature that we as humans did not directly will. To

me,

> those forces are from the will of the universal consciousness or

> divinity, or Whatever you want to call it. I believe that the

human

> aspect of our consciousness, by it's nature constrains and narrows

our

> perception of the universe, such that we are not aware of the basic

> underlying will, other than it's effects. But it is this will that

> directs the universe to work the way that it does. And there is

very

> clear physical evidence of these forces at work. Take something,

> throw it in the air, and watch it fall. You have just demonstrated

> one of these forces.

>

This discussion has come up as I'm reading " Life After Death: The

Burden of Proof " by Deepak Chopra which unexpectedly bid me from the

library shelf the other day (summer reading . Excerpts that seem

pertinent to your comments:

" The fact that chaos doesn't totally dominate remains a huge mystery…

[Like the rishis]Physics also needs to know how the universe holds

itself together and organizes into coherent forms. Otherwise, the

inconceivable fireball that appeared at the instant of the Big Bang

would have blown itself apart, the way dynamite blows itself apart,

without bothering to create forms along the way…Physics was drawn

step-by-step into the void because nothing in the visible world was

adequate to explain what had to be explained…

" Thinking, the basic operation of the mind, organizes reality to

make sense. The universe does this physically. It forms complex

systems. DNA is one example, but genes didn't create life simply by

stringing simple molecules along a double helix. There are spaces

between each genetic bit, and this sequencing is all-important. An

amoeba differs from a human being in the sequence of carbon, oxygen,

hydrogen and nitrogen along its genes, not in the atoms themselves.

The fact that empty spaces, or gaps, between genetic material are so

important brings us back to the void, where *something* is arranging

random events so they are meaningful…

" I've been speaking as if the universe consciously knows what it is

doing when DNA creates an amoeba, for example, instead of a

chimpanzee or a human being. This implies self-awareness on the part

of molecules, and that in turn requires the Zero Point Field to act

like a mind as it organizes every possible fluctuation in the

cosmos. No matter how closely one draws the parallels, this premise

can't be proven- or disproven- because the Zero Point Field, by

containing everything, contains us. We cannot step outside it, and

so we are in the same position as a fish trying to prove that the

ocean is wet. Unless the fish jumps out of the ocean, water is

everywhere; there is no contrast, and therefore no dryness that

makes wetness possible.

We cannot prove that the universe has a mind, because we aren't

mindless. The Vedic rishis were fortunate that they started out

believing that consciousness was real and needed no proof. Physics

doesn't hold that consciousness is a given. To speak of a self-aware

universe puts one at the fringes of speculative thinking in physics. "

I'm not really qualified to critique or otherwise analyze much of

that, but my thoughts about evidence for or against God usually come

down not to the unanswered but the empirically unanswerable sort of

questions.

June 25, 2007

On 6/25/07, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> You're starting to exhaust me again. I suppose you will emerge victorious.

No, I'll let you have it this time.

Chris

June 25, 2007

--- wrote:

> > I guess my reasons for viewing force as the result of will are

> > very simple. When Gene willed to put the pig's head in the oven,

> > he had to us force to accomplish the task. Therefore, the force

> > that he used was the result of his will. In this generic sense,

> > all forces can be viewed as the result of will power. It's just

> > semantics in my view.

>

--- Gene, implode7@... wrote:

> Actually, I just put the pig's head in the freakin' oven. There was

> not a separate thing called 'will' and then one of 'force' that

> accomplished this. It may be 'just semantics' but you're using them

> to create a structure that doesn't exist, really.

Gene, are you saying you have no free will - that you did not

consciously decide to put that pig's head in the oven? I find that

hard to believe, considering that you posted on this list asking about

what to do with the pig's head. That tells me you gave it thought and

then made a decision to put it in the oven. That decision was your

will. No?

Force is an acceleration of mass and must be used to move an object

like a pig's head. Your body and muscles provided that force. This

is basic physics. I would call putting the pig's head in the oven

will power in action using force.

Did you not decide of you own free will to put the pig's head in the

oven? Did you not decide of your own free will to move your muscles

to pick up the pig's head and put it in the oven? You had to

consciously make those choices. If it was not your own free will,

then what drove you to make those choices?

Do you believe in fatalism?

That would beg the question: who or what chose your fate?

(in this case the fate of putting the pig's head in the oven)

BTW, I hope the pig's head came out well

> > That leads to the question of what will is responsible for the

> > forces that we see in nature that we as humans did not directly

> > will. To me, those forces are from the will of the universal

> > consciousness or divinity, or Whatever you want to call it.

>

> And this isn't evidence at all in the usual sense. You may take it

> as 'evidence' that there is a god, but others may not. You may count

> it as evidence for your FAITH, but not of any kind of knowedge, or

> it is a misuse of the term. The problem with semantics is that

> sometimes they are important, and sometimes they are abused.

Observing or measuring a force like gravity is empirical evidence.

Interpreting what causes the force is open to opinion.

What do you believe causes gravity to work the way it works and not

somehow differently?

The anthropic principle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

As far as a definition for God, I like the pantheistic definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Pantheism (Greek: & #960; & #940; & #957; ( 'pan' ) = all and

& #952; & #949; & #972; & #962; ( 'theos' ) = God)

literally means " God is All " and " All is God " . It is the view that

everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that

the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed

definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence,

and the universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is

represented or personified in the theological principle of an abstract

'god'.

May the force be with you

June 25, 2007

>

>> >

>> > --- wrote:

>>>> >>> I guess my reasons for viewing force as the result of will are

>>>> >>> very simple. When Gene willed to put the pig's head in the oven,

>>>> >>> he had to us force to accomplish the task. Therefore, the force

>>>> >>> that he used was the result of his will. In this generic sense,

>>>> >>> all forces can be viewed as the result of will power. It's just

>>>> >>> semantics in my view.

>>> >>

>> > --- Gene, implode7@... wrote:

>>> >> Actually, I just put the pig's head in the freakin' oven. There was

>>> >> not a separate thing called 'will' and then one of 'force' that

>>> >> accomplished this. It may be 'just semantics' but you're using them

>>> >> to create a structure that doesn't exist, really.

>> >

>> > Gene, are you saying you have no free will - that you did not

>> > consciously decide to put that pig's head in the oven?

>

> Aren¹t those really 2 different questions? Of course we have free will in the

> sense that the question is meant.

>

> What I¹m saying is that you are separating out this Œwilling myself to put the

> pig¹s head in the oven¹ and then Œapplying force to actually do so as 2

> separate events, when in actuality I¹m just putting the pig¹s head in the

> oven. That¹s not to imply that it wasn¹t conscious, or that I hadn¹t decided

> to do so. But deciding to do it isn¹t Œwilling¹ it. And, to tell you the

> truth, when one talks about Œfree will¹ one really isn¹t talking about this

> abstraction either.

>

> When I walk, am I willing each leg to move, each in turn, or am I just

> walking? Can the latter be true, and can it still be a matter of my free will?

>

> Of course.

>

> But you¹re abstracting out these 2 things that have become parts of our

> conceptual framework, force and will, and then using that to form a facile

> connection to the universe, forces in the universe, and them being willed. I

> think that it¹s terribly unconvincing, but then again, I just don¹t think that

> belief in a higher power is the result of this kind of philosophizing, and I

> would doubt that it is in your case.

>

>> > I find that

>> > hard to believe, considering that you posted on this list asking about

>> > what to do with the pig's head. That tells me you gave it thought and

>> > then made a decision to put it in the oven. That decision was your

>> > will. No?

>

> NO!!!!! I have just made a decision to do x tomorrow. I have decided it NOW.

> In what sense am I willing it to happen?

>

>> >

>> > Force is an acceleration of mass and must be used to move an object

>> > like a pig's head. Your body and muscles provided that force. This

>> > is basic physics. I would call putting the pig's head in the oven

>> > will power in action using force.

>

> As you have incorrectly inferred that I was denying free will, you are

> incorrectly inferring that force needn¹t be applied to the pig¹s head to put

> it into the oven. I cannot do that. I hear that can.

>

>> >

>> > Did you not decide of you own free will to put the pig's head in the

>> > oven? Did you not decide of your own free will to move your muscles

>> > to pick up the pig's head and put it in the oven? You had to

>> > consciously make those choices. If it was not your own free will,

>> > then what drove you to make those choices?

>

> You are confused.

>

>> >

>> > Do you believe in fatalism?

>> > That would beg the question: who or what chose your fate?

>

> fyi, begging the question is really a term for assuming the conclusion in the

> premise. Because it kind of sounds like what you¹re saying above, people have

> come to use it that way incorrectly. Of course, in time, that will then become

> correct because of usage.

>

> No, I don¹t believe in fatalism, but I am destined to one day.

>

>> > (in this case the fate of putting the pig's head in the oven)

>> >

>> > BTW, I hope the pig's head came out well

>

> Excruciatingly so.

>

>> >

>>>> >>> That leads to the question of what will is responsible for the

>>>> >>> forces that we see in nature that we as humans did not directly

>>>> >>> will. To me, those forces are from the will of the universal

>>>> >>> consciousness or divinity, or Whatever you want to call it.

>>> >>

>>> >> And this isn't evidence at all in the usual sense. You may take it

>>> >> as 'evidence' that there is a god, but others may not. You may count

>>> >> it as evidence for your FAITH, but not of any kind of knowedge, or

>>> >> it is a misuse of the term. The problem with semantics is that

>>> >> sometimes they are important, and sometimes they are abused.

>> >

>> > Observing or measuring a force like gravity is empirical evidence.

>

> ? Observing or measuring something is empirical evidence of the ability of

> humans to observe or measure. I¹m not sure what you would mean by saying that

> gravity is empirical evidence without saying what it is empirical evidence

> for. If we¹re back to that God thing again, I would say that no, it isn¹t

> empirical evidence of God¹s existence unless this is objective evidence. It

> just makes you feel good about the universe, and that¹s a good thing, as did

> my pig¹s head, but I only viewed it as evidence for the fact that Marin Sun

> Farms sells me some mighty fine meat.

>

>> > Interpreting what causes the force is open to opinion.

>> >

>> > What do you believe causes gravity to work the way it works and not

>> > somehow differently?

>

> I believe that there are many, many things that I do not know, and do not

> automatically assume that therefore they are being willed. I do believe, as

> Wittgenstein put it, that ³explanation has to end somewhere² but he did draw a

> distinction between a Œreligious point of view¹ and ascribing God to

> everything that one couldn¹t explain.

>

> In other words, yeah the way that the universe works, and that so much of it

> is such a mystery to us is wondrous...but people used to be baffled by things

> that are now explained by science. You can always go one more level down and

> ask why things work the way that they do....

>

> But I think that it¹s a bad mistake to call this evidence in the sense that

> was talking about evidence. And that, after all, is what the discussion

> is about, isn¹t it?

>

>> >

>> > The anthropic principle?

>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

>> >

>> > As far as a definition for God, I like the pantheistic definition:

>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

>> > Pantheism (Greek: & #960; & #940; & #957; ( 'pan' ) = all and

>> > & #952; & #949; & #972; & #962; ( 'theos' ) = God)

>> > literally means " God is All " and " All is God " . It is the view that

>> > everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that

>> > the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed

>> > definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence,

>> > and the universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is

>> > represented or personified in the theological principle of an abstract

>> > 'god'.

>> >

>> > May the force be with you

>> >

June 26, 2007

--- Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> What I¹m saying is that you are separating out this Œwilling

> myself to put the pig¹s head in the oven¹ and then Œapplying force

> to actually do so as 2 separate events, when in actuality I¹m just

> putting the pig¹s head in the oven. That¹s not to imply that it

> wasn¹t conscious, or that I hadn¹t decided to do so. But deciding

> to do it isn¹t " willing " it. And, to tell you the truth, when one

> talks about " free will " one really isn¹t talking about this

> abstraction either.

Gene,

Yes, I am separating it into thought and then action. Unless it is an

instinctive reaction or an involutary action (as if someone pushed

you), it was premeditated and then acted on directly because of your

thought and will. It doesn't matter when the premeditation occurred.

It occurred before the action was taken.

> When I walk, am I willing each leg to move, each in turn, or am I

> just walking? Can the latter be true, and can it still be a matter

> of my free will?

I would say that you are willing to walk. If you are not willing to

walk, but you walk anyway, then there must be some involuntary force

causing you to walk against your own free will.

> But you¹re abstracting out these 2 things that have become parts of

> our conceptual framework, force and will, and then using that to

> form a facile connection to the universe, forces in the universe,

> and them being willed.

Yes, exactly.

> I think that it¹s terribly unconvincing, but then again, I just

> don¹t think that belief in a higher power is the result of this kind

> of philosophizing, and I would doubt that it is in your case.

I don't know that I would call it a " higher " power, just a power that

I perceive as beyond my control.

> As you have incorrectly inferred that I was denying free will, you

> are incorrectly inferring that force needn¹t be applied to the pig¹s

> head to put it into the oven. I cannot do that. I hear that Chris

> can.

LOL! Maybe can walk on water too? Only if it's frozen!

No, I was not inferring that force needn't be applied. To the

contrary, I believe force MUST be applied to move the pig's head.

> You are confused.

I'm always confused

> No, I don¹t believe in fatalism, but I am destined to one day.

I like your sense of humor.

> > BTW, I hope the pig's head came out well

>

> Excruciatingly so.

That's my fault, right?

> Observing or measuring something is empirical evidence of the

> ability of humans to observe or measure. I¹m not sure what you would

> mean by saying that gravity is empirical evidence without saying

> what it is empirical evidence for.

Measuring or observing a force is empirical evidence that the force

exists.

> If we¹re back to that God thing again, I would say that no, it isn¹t

> empirical evidence of God¹s existence unless this is objective

> evidence.

Measuring or observing the force that pulls us to the ground is

empirical evidence of a force that we call " gravity " . Something has

to cause this force. Do you want to call gravity a force of " nature " ?

> It just makes you feel good about the universe, and that¹s

> a good thing, as did my pig¹s head, but I only viewed it as evidence

> for the fact that Marin Sun Farms sells me some mighty fine meat.

And that is a good thing

> > Interpreting what causes the force is open to opinion.

> > What do you believe causes gravity to work the way it works and

> > not somehow differently?

>

> I believe that there are many, many things that I do not know, and

> do not automatically assume that therefore they are being willed. I

> do believe, as Wittgenstein put it, that " explanation has to end

> somewhere " but he did draw a distinction between a " religious point

> of view " and ascribing God to everything that one couldn¹t explain.

>

> In other words, yeah the way that the universe works, and that so

> much of it is such a mystery to us is wondrous...but people used to

> be baffled by things that are now explained by science. You can

> always go one more level down and ask why things work the way that

> they do....

>

> But I think that it¹s a bad mistake to call this evidence in the

> sense that was talking about evidence. And that, after all, is

> what the discussion is about, isn¹t it?

This discussion IS relevant to 's asking for evidence for " God " .

I think it boils down to explaining the cause of the " forces " of

" nature " or the " unknown " or Whatever you want to call it.

June 26, 2007

On 6/25/07, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> > fyi, begging the question is really a term for assuming the conclusion in

> the

> > premise. Because it kind of sounds like what you¹re saying above, people

> have

> > come to use it that way incorrectly. Of course, in time, that will then

> become

> > correct because of usage.

Thank you Gene. I never use this expression because I've never been

sure what the correct usage is. If people are using it rightly and

wrongly that's probably why!

Chris

June 26, 2007

On 6/26/07, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> LOL! Maybe can walk on water too? Only if it's frozen!

> No, I was not inferring that force needn't be applied. To the

> contrary, I believe force MUST be applied to move the pig's head.

Actually I walked across a large pond in the town wear I grew up from

one side to the other. It was rather dangerous, and there were

snapping turtles below us, and when our faith faltered it was as if

the water cracked beneath our feet. But we made it across by the

power of God.

I swam across the same pond in the summer, too.

Chris

June 26, 2007

>> >

>> > --- Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>>> >> What I¹m saying is that you are separating out this Œwilling

>>> >> myself to put the pig¹s head in the oven¹ and then Œapplying force

>>> >> to actually do so as 2 separate events, when in actuality I¹m just

>>> >> putting the pig¹s head in the oven. That¹s not to imply that it

>>> >> wasn¹t conscious, or that I hadn¹t decided to do so. But deciding

>>> >> to do it isn¹t " willing " it. And, to tell you the truth, when one

>>> >> talks about " free will " one really isn¹t talking about this

>>> >> abstraction either.

>> >

>> > Gene,

>> >

>> > Yes, I am separating it into thought and then action. Unless it is an

>> > instinctive reaction or an involutary action (as if someone pushed

>> > you), it was premeditated and then acted on directly because of your

>> > thought and will. It doesn't matter when the premeditation occurred.

>> > It occurred before the action was taken.

>> >

>

> I¹m sure you¹ll agree that thought and will are 2 different concepts. That

> doesn¹t need much elaboration. I can think about the moon rotating the earth

> without willing it to do so.

>

> We can also will something to happen to no possible affect. I can will the

> moon to stop rotating the earth, and of course, nothing will happen.

>

> You are pointing to the fact that when we act, we are not mindless, and that

> in most cases, we are thinking about some aspect of what we are doing. Of

> course, putting a pig¹s head into the oven has many components. I am moving my

> body just so, I am fitting the tray into the oven just so, I am bending

> down...do all of these actions have individual wills preceding them, or is it

> one big hairy will?

>

> Don¹t you see that there is this myth of will and action, which has been

> passed down, and that you¹re not only accepting without critique, but also

> using as an analogy that somehow is evidence for the existence of God? Why not

> just believe? Why do you need this incredibly forced analogy and

> justification? If you were to realize that the reasoning is faulty, would you

> then stop believing in God? I don¹t think so.

>

>>> >> When I walk, am I willing each leg to move, each in turn, or am I

>>> >> just walking? Can the latter be true, and can it still be a matter

>>> >> of my free will?

>> >

>> > I would say that you are willing to walk. If you are not willing to

>> > walk, but you walk anyway, then there must be some involuntary force

>> > causing you to walk against your own free will.

>> > <the devil made me do it>

>

> So, then, since I can break down my walking motion even finer, am I willing my

> leg to move just this little bit, then this little bit, ... Can you really be

> suggesting that each and every step requires some thought component that can

> be ascribed by you as will? At what point does this break down for you? A

> step? A half a step? A thousandth of an inch? Or is the process so miraculous

> that there is a will component of the mind that is actually thinking

> continuously of our movement down to atomic sizes?

>

>> >

>>> >> But you¹re abstracting out these 2 things that have become parts of

>>> >> our conceptual framework, force and will, and then using that to

>>> >> form a facile connection to the universe, forces in the universe,

>>> >> and them being willed.

>> >

>> > Yes, exactly.

>

> But...the reasoning is terrible!

>

>> >

>> > Measuring or observing the force that pulls us to the ground is

>> > empirical evidence of a force that we call " gravity " . Something has

>> > to cause this force. Do you want to call gravity a force of " nature " ?

>

> I try to constrain myself from ascribing silly labels to things...

>

> I will not debate you as to whether gravity exists. I¹m not sure where that

> gets us. As to whether it is actually a force itself, or exerts one? Well, I

> think that the general theory of relativity gets more into gravity, but I

> should stop speaking at this point. I think that you, for one, understand too

> little of the way the world works to accept the notion that everything fits so

> easily into the cause/effect chain. It sounds a bit strange to me to say that

> something is CAUSING gravity. In fact, seriously in error. But it would take

> too much time to try to pull that apart with more precision.

>

> If I were to have to come up with a mystery that would compel me to accept the

> existence of a higher power, it would be that of subjective consciousness.

>

> The physical properties of the universe don¹t impress me at all. They are just

> parlor tricks.

> ...

>

>>>> >>> Interpreting what causes the force is open to opinion.

>>>> >>> What do you believe causes gravity to work the way it works and

>>>> >>> not somehow differently?

>>> >>

>>> >> I believe that there are many, many things that I do not know, and

>>> >> do not automatically assume that therefore they are being willed. I

>>> >> do believe, as Wittgenstein put it, that " explanation has to end

>>> >> somewhere " but he did draw a distinction between a " religious point

>>> >> of view " and ascribing God to everything that one couldn¹t explain.

>>> >>

>>> >> In other words, yeah the way that the universe works, and that so

>>> >> much of it is such a mystery to us is wondrous...but people used to

>>> >> be baffled by things that are now explained by science. You can

>>> >> always go one more level down and ask why things work the way that

>>> >> they do....

>>> >>

>>> >> But I think that it¹s a bad mistake to call this evidence in the

>>> >> sense that was talking about evidence. And that, after all, is

>>> >> what the discussion is about, isn¹t it?

>> >

>> > This discussion IS relevant to 's asking for evidence for " God " .

>> > I think it boils down to explaining the cause of the " forces " of

>> > " nature " or the " unknown " or Whatever you want to call it.

>

> No it isn¹t relevant. isn¹t interested in a pseudo philosophical analogy

> about will/action vs God/nature. He¹s interested in evidence, and by that he¹s

> not talking about some chain or reasoning that really only makes an existing

> believer feel good about themselves. He¹s interested in something that would

> convince a non believer. But the whole thing, as I¹ve stated before, is so

> silly anyway. One doesn¹t reach God as a conclusion.

June 26, 2007

--- Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> I¹m sure you¹ll agree that thought and will are 2 different

> concepts.

Gene, from my perspective, an individual thinks, makes a decision,

wills to act out that decision, then attempts to act out that

decision, and if successful, acts out what was willed. This process

can terminate at any point and may not succeed, but when it does

succeed, that is the process.

> I can think about the moon rotating the earth without willing it to

> do so.

And what force or power beyond your control is preventing you from

doing so? And what is the source of that force or power?

> We can also will something to happen to no possible affect. I can

> will the moon to stop rotating the earth, and of course, nothing

> will happen.

Of course, and why is that? To me this is evidence that there is

something beyond the human consciousness and will that is causing

things to work the way they do in this universe.

> But...the reasoning is terrible!

LOL! I'm not a philosopher, but it makes perfectly good sense to me

> I think that you, for one, understand too little of the way the

> world works to accept the notion that everything fits so

> easily into the cause/effect chain. It sounds a bit strange to me to

> say that something is CAUSING gravity. In fact, seriously in error.

So, I guess gravity just happens on it's own?

I guess this philosophy is the same as: sh*t happens?

There's no ryhme or reason why. Science is useless.

We should all crawl in a hole and die

> If I were to have to come up with a mystery that would compel me to

> accept the existence of a higher power, it would be that of

> subjective consciousness.

So there is subjective consciousness?

And I presume objective consciousness?

I'm not familiar with these " labels " .

> The physical properties of the universe don¹t impress me at all.

> They are just parlor tricks.

Hmmm ... parlor tricks ... must be the devil's doing

> No it isn¹t relevant. isn¹t interested in a pseudo

> philosophical analogy about will/action vs God/nature. He¹s

> interested in evidence, and by that he¹s not talking about some

> chain or reasoning that really only makes an existing

> believer feel good about themselves. He¹s interested in something

> that would convince a non believer.

And what kind of evidence is that?

Does he want to meet God in person?

Maybe after he dies

Hmmm ... meet God ...

Some people have claimed that is possible with LSD

Wasn't that Leary?

June 26, 2007

This is silly. I quit.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " " <oz4caster@...>

> --- Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> > I¹m sure you¹ll agree that thought and will are 2 different

> > concepts.

>

> Gene, from my perspective, an individual thinks, makes a decision,

> wills to act out that decision, then attempts to act out that

> decision, and if successful, acts out what was willed. This process

> can terminate at any point and may not succeed, but when it does

> succeed, that is the process.

>

> > I can think about the moon rotating the earth without willing it to

> > do so.

>

> And what force or power beyond your control is preventing you from

> doing so? And what is the source of that force or power?

>

> > We can also will something to happen to no possible affect. I can

> > will the moon to stop rotating the earth, and of course, nothing

> > will happen.

>

> Of course, and why is that? To me this is evidence that there is

> something beyond the human consciousness and will that is causing

> things to work the way they do in this universe.

>

> > But...the reasoning is terrible!

>

> LOL! I'm not a philosopher, but it makes perfectly good sense to me

>

> > I think that you, for one, understand too little of the way the

> > world works to accept the notion that everything fits so

> > easily into the cause/effect chain. It sounds a bit strange to me to

> > say that something is CAUSING gravity. In fact, seriously in error.

>

> So, I guess gravity just happens on it's own?

>

> I guess this philosophy is the same as: sh*t happens?

> There's no ryhme or reason why. Science is useless.

> We should all crawl in a hole and die

>

> > If I were to have to come up with a mystery that would compel me to

> > accept the existence of a higher power, it would be that of

> > subjective consciousness.

>

> So there is subjective consciousness?

> And I presume objective consciousness?

> I'm not familiar with these " labels " .

>

> > The physical properties of the universe don¹t impress me at all.

> > They are just parlor tricks.

>

> Hmmm ... parlor tricks ... must be the devil's doing

>

> > No it isn¹t relevant. isn¹t interested in a pseudo

> > philosophical analogy about will/action vs God/nature. He¹s

> > interested in evidence, and by that he¹s not talking about some

> > chain or reasoning that really only makes an existing

> > believer feel good about themselves. He¹s interested in something

> > that would convince a non believer.

>

> And what kind of evidence is that?

> Does he want to meet God in person?

> Maybe after he dies

>

> Hmmm ... meet God ...

> Some people have claimed that is possible with LSD

> Wasn't that Leary?

>

June 26, 2007

> > And what kind of evidence is that?

> > Does he want to meet God in person?

> > Maybe after he dies

> >

> > Hmmm ... meet God ...

> > Some people have claimed that is possible with LSD

> > Wasn't that Leary?

> >

First, I have to say that I have really enjoyed reading all of

these comments bantered back and forth. There are so many fine minds

in this group. I couldn't begin to respond analytically as you do.

But I do feel inclined to offer the voice of one humble experience

on this subject in case anyone's interested:

I first shook hands with God when I drowned as a child some 46 years

ago. I was about 7 at the time, and this was well before " near death

experiences " were ever talked about - especially to children! So I

had no preconceived notions. As I realized I was drowning I was

terrified, as you could imagine. But the very instant I succumbed to

the water, I felt surrounded by peace and love. Don't ask me how,

but I knew this was God. At the bottom of the pool, I could still

hear my mother screaming for me to swim. While I loved her, I found

God's love so much more compelling, and chose to leave this earth.

If not for my grandfather jumping in to save me, I wouldn't be

writing this post.

Now, scientists would argue that my brain was deprived of oxygen,

etc., and give lots of convincing theories refuting this experience

as being something other than God. But in the many years since, I

have had the same experience while in the waking state, the dream

state, and during deep meditations. In none of those instances were

drugs involved. I know that countless others experience this as well.

Bottom line for me: " belief " or " non-belief " doesn't matter, because

eventually experience will be the convincer. If someone has never

experienced an orange, all of the descriptions in the world,

scientific or spiritual, that might lead that person to believe in

the existance of an orange (or not), will pale in comparison to the

sight, smell, and first taste of that deliciousness.

June 27, 2007

if you chose to leave at the bottom of the pool what has prevented you from

leaving in the intervening 46 years?

oliver...

On 6/26/07, joanhulvey <joanhulvey@...> wrote:

>

> > > And what kind of evidence is that?

> > > Does he want to meet God in person?

> > > Maybe after he dies

> > >

> > > Hmmm ... meet God ...

> > > Some people have claimed that is possible with LSD

> > > Wasn't that Leary?

> > >

> First, I have to say that I have really enjoyed reading all of

> these comments bantered back and forth. There are so many fine minds

> in this group. I couldn't begin to respond analytically as you do.

> But I do feel inclined to offer the voice of one humble experience

> on this subject in case anyone's interested:

> I first shook hands with God when I drowned as a child some 46 years

> ago. I was about 7 at the time, and this was well before " near death

> experiences " were ever talked about - especially to children! So I

> had no preconceived notions. As I realized I was drowning I was

> terrified, as you could imagine. But the very instant I succumbed to

> the water, I felt surrounded by peace and love. Don't ask me how,

> but I knew this was God. At the bottom of the pool, I could still

> hear my mother screaming for me to swim. While I loved her, I found

> God's love so much more compelling, and chose to leave this earth.

> If not for my grandfather jumping in to save me, I wouldn't be

> writing this post.

> Now, scientists would argue that my brain was deprived of oxygen,

> etc., and give lots of convincing theories refuting this experience

> as being something other than God. But in the many years since, I

> have had the same experience while in the waking state, the dream

> state, and during deep meditations. In none of those instances were

> drugs involved. I know that countless others experience this as well.

> Bottom line for me: " belief " or " non-belief " doesn't matter, because

> eventually experience will be the convincer. If someone has never

> experienced an orange, all of the descriptions in the world,

> scientific or spiritual, that might lead that person to believe in

> the existance of an orange (or not), will pale in comparison to the

> sight, smell, and first taste of that deliciousness.

>

June 27, 2007

--- Joan <joanhulvey@...> wrote:

> Bottom line for me: " belief " or " non-belief " doesn't matter, because

> eventually experience will be the convincer. If someone has never

> experienced an orange, all of the descriptions in the world,

> scientific or spiritual, that might lead that person to believe in

> the existence of an orange (or not), will pale in comparison to the

> sight, smell, and first taste of that deliciousness.

Joan,

Thanks for sharing. I've read about many near-death experiences.

Many are pleasant like yours. But many are also unpleasant and

frightening.

I agree that ultimately, it is experience that opens the mind to new

ideas and to conceptions of the universe (or nature or God or Whatever).

June 27, 2007

--- In , " joanhulvey " <joanhulvey@...>

wrote:

> ...Now, scientists would argue that my brain was deprived of oxygen,