User Tag List

First 210111213 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 130

Thread: Blind faith

  1. #111
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post
    You can never prove that something does not exist.
    Yes you can.

    Take the object. If it exists it would have certain effects. If those effects are not present, it does not exist.

    I can prove that there is no second sun right where the earth is now, for example.

    At the current time a lot of definitions of god cannot be proven or disproven, but there are so many definitions, plenty of them have been proved or disproved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Oh, and emotions like "love" and "hate" are social constructions reinforced by neurochemical release. It's the individual expression that is subjective to the user, as each individual recreates past experience to fit what their particular rendition of each emotion "feels" like.
    Love and hate usually refer to qualia, not neuro-chemical releases. Reducing love and hate to social constructs and brain activity denies the existence of qualia. And as Descartes proved along time ago, qualia exist as certainly as A=A.

  2. #112
    Listening Oaky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    6,168

    Default

    We are 3 dimensional beings.
    We can only see, prove and examine what is 1D, 2D and 3D.
    We cannot prove 4D exists because we exist in 3D.
    If we are 3D beings, could there be 4D beings that can see, prove and examine 4D, 3D, 2D and 1D.

  3. #113
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragingkatsuki View Post
    We are 3 dimensional beings.
    We can only see, prove and examine what is 1D, 2D and 3D.
    We cannot prove 4D exists because we exist in 3D.
    If we are 3D beings, could there be 4D beings that can see, prove and examine 4D, 3D, 2D and 1D.
    Technically we're 4D creatures though, and we can affect/change 1/2/3D but can only percieve 4D without the capacity to interact with it.

    It would therefore be an assumption that a 5th dimensional being would be capable of directly interacting with 1/2/3/4th dimensions but only be capable of perceiving the 5th. Then again, that's from a rather woefully small sample group (of ONE) so it's not like yeu can see a pattern emerge from a single example.



    People beat me to most of whot soujiro said soooo I'll cover the parts that're left XD

    How do you explain psychics? Science has acknowledged their "abilities", and when they give readings they aren't taking random guesses, so how are they able to do what they do?
    Can someone explain that to me using logic?
    Psychics aren't really psychic for the most part. We may have some vague connection to one another, but it's not likely to be in the depth that is understood there.

    Instead, a great example is too look at David Blaine, who has performed seemingly miraculous 'psychic' effects of reading minds... except he himself explains it's not about being psychic at all, but rather, in learning to read body language. We all have subtle "tells", where we unconsciously do something very small and seemingly minor; a twitch of the mouth, a smile, a tremor of an eyebrow, the eyes looking a particular direction... this's a very complex science used by interrogators. Looking one direction while attempting to answer a question means the brain is attempting to access its' memory portions, looking another direction means it's using its' creative side, I forget which side is which, but this's readily used regularly in interrogating and questioning suspects for crimes.

    This can be taken several steps farther with intense study and observation; in fact, there was an interesting show I saw awhile ago where they were putting magicians in a CAT scan because they understood aspects of how the brain worked that had previously not even been known to science.

    For example; if yeu make a horizontal motion, like a wide arc, yeur brain does NOT actually follow the hand making the motion, yeur eyes will jerk repeatedly to different stages along the way, and anything that happens in between does not actually exist to yeu, only the starting and end points, meaning yeu can hide an action in the middle of a sideways arcing motion, such as moving yeur hand from one side of yeur body to the other, and the brain won't recognize anything that happened in the middle, it just fills in the gaps with assumptions.

    Our brains are amazing computers, but they don't really process things like a TRUE computer... a true computer has to figure out every single thing 100% accurately and correct. The brain ditches 90% of the information and plays fill in the blanks afterwards if it's decided it needs that information that got ditched. This allows it to handle immense quantities of information quickly, such as sight, sound, and so on, but it ends up leaving out alot of stuff in the process.

    A clear understanding of how the brain processes such information is required for 'psychics', for animation, for street magic, and so on. Everything is based off of making use of the sections of the brain that fail to properly process certain types of information, or process it in a particular way.

    So, too, shows where most 'psychic' stuff comes from. The vast, vast, vast majority of it is not supernatural in any way shape or form, by our own standards. It's merely being capable of reading the other person's 'tells' with a high degree of accuracy.



    How do you explain EVPs, electronic voice phenomena? If we use purely logic here, it makes no sense. How can you take a tape recorder into an empty room, ask a couple questions, play back the tape and hear someone answering the questions you asked?
    Can someone explain that to me using logic?
    They recently made a machine for use in interrogations which works in a very interesting way; it can literally read yeur mind.

    Not by normal brain reading means, but by subvocalizations.

    Any time yeu THINK of anything... such as an inner monologue, yeu actually are physically saying each and every word, but it's waaaaaay lower than even a whisper, just the mere thought of saying such causes yeur brain to automatically adjust yeur vocal chords to the correct position, but yeu aren't breathing any differently so it doesn't make any real sound difference; try whistling, then do so again when breathing normally... there's a very very very subtle difference in how yeu breathe without yeur lips pursed, not enough to create a true whistling sound, but it definitely changes the sound compared to just regular breathing without lips pursed.

    Furthermore, we have the issue of seeing faces in clouds; yeur brain is designed to see patterns that don't exist. There's obviously no faces in the clouds, but we still go OOH THAT ONE'S A COW! =D

    Put these togeather, and yeu find that most of these "EVP" are actually not really there at all. The majority of them have to be amplified to an immensely strong level, which's likely just someone subvocalizing such, which can severely distort one's voice in the process. Another issue is listening to static over and over and over with the intent of hearing something in it... yeu have to keep in mind that these "EVP" sessions often last for HOURS on end, and they'll be asking hundreds of questions, and get maybe 1 response the whole time, which is scratchy and doesn't sound like much of anything unless yeu're actively looking for it with a clear idea of whot yeu WANT it to sound like from the start.

    I'd almost be willing to guarantee yeu that if yeu merely shoved a microphone in virtually any home and left it on overnight when noone was home, yeu'd get SOMETHING eventually which would qualify as EVP.

    This doesn't mean that 100% of EVP cases are false, but like anything with ghosts, the vast majority of all evidence pointing towards them can be dismissed.



    visaisahero
    Nice video, though I found only the first half to be all that descent, after that he kind of rambles and wanders off, don't think he really has thought the rest of it through all that much.

    Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    We speak Shakespearean English
    Actually, this's true. Shakesperean is classified as modern english; the fact that it has the same sentance structure and directly correlated wording makes it so. We can understand it without needing to learn an entirely different language.

    Middle english was half french, and didn't have nearly the same descriptive words that english now possesses.

    Old english (true old english, not the 'ye olde englishe' crap) can't be really understood anymore, and its' grammer was seriously whacked. Prefixes and suffixes played an immense role, for example, yeu could say the priest went to see the bishop, and the order of the words meant absolutely NIL. The prefixes and suffixes stated which was the primary and which was the secondary subject, rather than the order they were listed in, and so on. Well, unless yeu were asking a question, then word order was the only thing used to determine a question from a normal statement; there was no "?". I've heard and read actual old english in class, it's nothing even remotely similar to whot shakespear used.

    Went to wikipedia to grab some examples for why shakespear is considered "modern" english XD

    gomban gyldan. t ws god cyning!
    ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
    Hwt! w? G?r-Dena in ge?r-dagum,

    As yeu can see, these don't look anything like shakespearian english. That's whot "true" old english looks like.


    Whan that Auery?? wt his shoures soote,
    Hath in the Ram, his half cours yronne;
    That hem hath holpen whan t they weere seeke.

    Are examples of middle english; yeu can see it's starting to look at least vaguely similar to english but still doesn't make alot of sense in most cases.

    So yes, we speak shakesperian english; both are considered to be modern english.

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Scientists love not knowing.
    I'm afraid I disagree, rather, scientists are COMFORTABLE with not knowing, but PREFER to know.

    They seek out knowledge; if they loved not knowing they wouldn't bother to learn anything. Rather, they are not afraid of the unknown.

    The lack of knowledge of whot comes after death leads many people to fear and terror, panic to the point they can't deal with their daily lives. Religion always has one aspect in common with it; it explains whot happens after yeu die, despite that this is unknowable. This "knowledge" allows for people to return to their lives, comforted in the fact that they know whot will happen.

    People are generally afraid of whot they don't know. Yeu can either live in fear, or try to find out whot it is yeu don't know. Scientists are the latter. They don't enjoy not knowing, they just accept the fact that they don't know, and then try to DO something about that fact.

  4. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Yes you can.

    Take the object. If it exists it would have certain effects. If those effects are not present, it does not exist.

    I can prove that there is no second sun right where the earth is now, for example.
    Yes, you are completely right- in that context. This only applies when you have a very specific context- that is, when the effects of the presence of the objects are quantifiable. In the case of a second sun, we know what to expect- because we have other suns/stars to draw comparisons from. It was possible to predict the qualities of yet-undiscovered elements, for example, by observing the patterns in the periodic table and extrapolating them.

    What about hypothetical objects without any distinctly quantifiable values, where there is no comparison that can be feasibly made to existing objects? Even if there are supernatural beings, for example, how are we to identify their presence or absence if we cannot quantify the supposed effects that they have on their surroundings?
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  5. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    So yes, we speak shakesperian english; both are considered to be modern english.
    There is a distinction between early modern English and modern English!

    Early Modern English - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    You don't need to read more than a couple of lines from any Shakespearean sonnet or play to realise that. You're right in saying that you don't need to learn another language altogether to understand it, but there are substantial differences which will influence the degree of understanding you could hope to achieve of it.
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  6. #116
    Listening Oaky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    6,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Technically we're 4D creatures though, and we can affect/change 1/2/3D but can only percieve 4D without the capacity to interact with it.

    It would therefore be an assumption that a 5th dimensional being would be capable of directly interacting with 1/2/3/4th dimensions but only be capable of perceiving the 5th. Then again, that's from a rather woefully small sample group (of ONE) so it's not like yeu can see a pattern emerge from a single example.
    The thing is we are perceiving only the 3D. It is impossible for us to be 4D creatures because we live where time does not exist. Everything is in the present. What happens in the future and what happened in the past does not exist to us. Only what happens in the present. So the present is the only true thing that exists to us and it becomes past so the present will soon not exist to us which means we are therefore 3D beings. It is perhaps not possible to imagine the life of a 4D being because we are in the 3rd dimension and cannot comprehend it however if a 4D being were to exist we would perhaps not see it but it would be able to see us.

  7. #117
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    28

    Default

    It will take some time for me to reply to all of you, but I will break it down 1 by 1, so bear with me, lol, it's a lot to reply to.

  8. #118
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post
    Nope, it isn't. You can never prove that something does not exist. The most you can do is to assert that it is highly unlikely or improbable.
    You answered your own question:

    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post
    Yes, you are completely right- in that context. This only applies when you have a very specific context- that is, when the effects of the presence of the objects are quantifiable. In the case of a second sun, we know what to expect- because we have other suns/stars to draw comparisons from. It was possible to predict the qualities of yet-undiscovered elements, for example, by observing the patterns in the periodic table and extrapolating them.

    What about hypothetical objects without any distinctly quantifiable values, where there is no comparison that can be feasibly made to existing objects? Even if there are supernatural beings, for example, how are we to identify their presence or absence if we cannot quantify the supposed effects that they have on their surroundings?
    Exactly, how we can collect evidence on something no one really understands. Where and how do you start? So when people ask for evidence of god? You have to ask them do you even know what god is? The belief in an omniponent being that transcends all. How do you start in even collecting evidence for that? How do you collect evidence for a being that is not of the physical realm? So you see the problem with the "evidence of god" question?
    Also, even when we have things that show hint at the possibility of an afterlife, evps/psychics/stories of near death experiences/hauntings/etc, they just get called phenomena, and no conclusion is ever reached, because we don't have devices that can collect the kind of physical evidence to reach the kind of answers people want.
    What this leaves me to believe is that the kind of evidence people want is for god himself to appear before them, before they believe. Even if a "ghost" were to appear before them, they would say, "well you're just a ghost, and not god, so i guess god still doesn't exist".

    This is a large can of worms- I'll deal with this in a separate post afterwards.
    Please open it, I want to hear what you have to say.

    That's never happened in my experience! There are all sorts of possible things- tampered tapes, white noise...
    EVPs aren't tampered tapes or white noise. You hear the voice of someone that wasn't there. They do exist.
    I got this excerpt from a random evp site, there are a bunch of them if you wanna read more.

    EVP remains an important form of transcommunication, but it should be considered along with such phenomena as apparitions, poltergeist effects and the phenomena of physical mediumship.
    So you see, once there is something that we cannot fully explain with physical evidence, they get deemed phenomena. So should we really be trying to explain something that is spiritual with physical evidence then?

    Personally I believe that "psychics" are people who are highly experienced in the art of reading other people. Malcolm Gladwell describes this beautifully in his book "Blink: The power of thinking without thinking".
    hahaha, I knew you would say that. I'm not laughing at you, but rather at the fact that I knew someone would say that. Psychics actually don't "read" people. There are fake psychics out there, just like in many other things, so it depends on who you listen to. The kind of information they relay to people are things that can't be gotten from "trying" to read someone.

    Psychic: "I'm getting a kathy, katie, katherine, some thing along those lines. Does anybody know someone with that name that passed away"
    Woman stands up
    Woman: "Yes, my sister Kate passed away 5 months ago"
    Psychic: "She's telling me that she's sorry about the plates, does that ring a bell?"
    Woman: "hahaha yes, she accidentally broke my beautiful antique plates that I got for a friend as a gift while looking at them. Lets just say we got into a fight after that."
    ....etc

    That's just an example and a bad one at best. Each psychic is different. Some are more direct with their wording. Also, beware of fake psychics.
    They also give readings over the phone as well. These are things you cannot relay from reading someone's voice.

    We DO know that faith exists- our point, generally, is that it is outdated and unnecessary.
    But why is it outdated, simply because we don't have enough "physical" evidence to prove it? But then how can you have any conclusive evidence on something that isn't physical, especially when all evidence of non-physical things get deemed phenomena, and left at that, inconclusive? So are emotions outdated because they can't be proven?

  9. #119
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    I've heard arguments like this a hundred times before. They don't impress me.

    You can bet that if God were readily falsifiable, religion would be all over the scientific method of analysis to assert their particular deity. It just so happens that there is no present way to scientifically conclude one way or another, beyond casting a profound shadow on the inherent likelihood, given what we presently know of the physical world.
    First off I don't believe in religion. I used to cause that was how I was raised, but not anymore. Now I believe in God, and I'm spiritual. Also, god/faith/spirituality are not dependent on religion, religion is dependent on god/faith/spirituality. God/faith/spirituality existed before religion came about. So we can toss religon out of this discussion, as those 3 are not dependent on it.

    What is bolded is the main problem. People ask for evidence of something that is not physical, and when you do "kinda" give evidence, hauntings/evps/come back from the dead experiences/etc, they say phenomena. They only way they'll believe is if god himself appeared to them.


    Oh, and emotions like "love" and "hate" are social constructions reinforced by neurochemical release. It's the individual expression that is subjective to the user, as each individual recreates past experience to fit what their particular rendition of each emotion "feels" like.

    As far as EVPs and the like, I don't see how pseudoscience relates to the premise at hand.
    The problem is those same neurochemical releases happen when you do other things as well. But does that signify anything?
    It's the individual expression that is subjective to the user, which is true. The same also applies to faith. People's faith differ as well. Not everyone shares the "same" faith, but the subjective individual expression was not what I was asking.
    I was asking if you could prove that any emotion or feeling of any kind exist with physical evidence? Regardless of how subjective it is.
    Cause if you can't then the whole judicial system is flawed.

    Lawyer: Her husband caused her so much emotional pain that she killed him
    -Emotional pain, that's vague. What physical data did you collect to show what emotional pain means?
    Lawyer: He always condescended her, shouted at her, never displayed his love for her.
    -That doesn't mean anything. My mother condescends and shouts at me all the time. I'm not feeling any emotional pain. I want physical data that can be replicated over and over again that will yield the same result. So where is the data showing what emotional pain is? Also, no love for her, show me data for what love is
    Lawyer: Well he was beating her to a bloody pulp
    -that's called self defense, not emotion pain.

    another scenario
    Lawyer: Billy was always made fun of. Because of all the anger built up inside he felt like the only way to escape the pain was to kill his bullies
    -anger? Show me evidence for anger. What is anger to billy might be laughter to someone else.

    These emotions and feelings are used in court cases all the time. Emotional pain, emotional stress, he made her so angry that her only way out, etc, and they pass in court cases all the time.
    There is no data to support any of that, and they are all so vague. So the "law" is flawed. Only data should reign supreme in the court.

    Once again the same question:
    Is there a way to prove with evidence/data that emotions/feelings exist?

    It doesn't matter what someone attributes a chemical reaction in their body to, cause that same chemical reaction can be attributed to a million other things. Hence why i ask for concrete data that is 100% correct all the time.
    You say "It's the individual expression that is subjective to the user, as each individual recreates past experience to fit what their particular rendition of each emotion "feels" like", which in itself is a flaw. Since everyone is different and can attribute any neurochemical release to any "feeling", (a vague word), and can interpret a "feeling" differently, (how we each interpret the neurochemical we each associate with "happiness" is different), or might have no "feeling" at all, and no conclusive data can be collected which has only ONE meaning, (which is what data/evidence is), then there is no such thing as an emotion.

    If there is no data, then there is no such thing as love/anger/hatred/emotional pain/happiness/etc. All we can say is "My body released a chemical", and that's it. Everything else after that cannot be proven with data. It doesn't matter what someone associates a chemical to or what emotion they believe they are feeling, there is no data to prove it so therefore it doesn't exist. Same case scenario as faith/god. There is no data so he and it don't exist. The same logic must be applied to all things. No data, conclusion: it doesn't exist.

    Emotions and feelings are a myth, and should be outdated.

  10. #120
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    IsTP
    Posts
    51

    Default

    I didn't read all of the OP, so sorry if I repeat anything already said.

    I agree with the point that you can't really prove or disprove the existence of God. I think that the concept of something greater than us, whether it be a father-like entity or something along the spiritual spectrum, is just a little out of our comprehension. With this in mind, unless you take a stance on the fence and don't worry about what is and what isn't, I think all of our beliefs, whichever way you go, and despite how logical an answer you can find, they are all answers that have a certain amount of faith and therefore remain somewhat in the dark.

    When I think of somebody having "blind faith" when it comes to this topic, I tend to think more of somebody having the upmost belief in something without any prior questioning whatsoever, like having faith in something because they were raised with it and never really looked into anything else, because that's what they've always known. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, as long as one doesn't impose or misuse their beliefs to discriminate or something. But I do think it's important to question your beliefs and try to understand other points of views, because it can help to understand others with those points of views, and you might find a different answer to the question that you feel works better for you.

Similar Threads

  1. Faith of a Rationalist
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 09:16 PM
  2. Faith vs Faithfulness
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-01-2007, 07:10 AM
  3. Derail from "On Spiritual Gifts": Determining faith-fact from faith-fiction
    By sassafrassquatch in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-28-2007, 03:52 PM
  4. Mother Teresa's crisis of faith
    By Sahara in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-25-2007, 12:18 AM
  5. Survey on faith in America
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-22-2007, 03:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO