What will it take to change your mind?

a reply to: namine

So I take it you believe in what Jesus taught but not all the mythology surrounding him?

The parts about forgiveness, love, patience, those kind of things? Yes. But most of us have that in us already.

We may or may not choose to follow what we know is right in our hearts, though.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Doesn't work that way for you. For you there is no proof possible.

Anyway...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If there is no proof possible, then a soul doesn't exist. That's how it works. If a soul exists, then it must be interacting with the physical world in some way. Thus, due to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, a cause MUST produce an equal and opposite effect. So a soul acting on the universe in ANY way must leave evidence of it doing so. So if you tell me that this evidence doesn't exist, then you just told me that a soul doesn't exist.

Also why did you post a link to another post I wrote in this thread? What was the point of that?

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: zosimov

How is life a supernatural event? Hell, define supernatural for me, because the way I see it, the supernatural is impossible. Everything within the universe is natural. We just either understand what is going on or we don't. Just because we are unaware of something though, doesn't make it supernatural. Supernatural is a made up word.

Okay that's a good point but all words are made up. What basis do we have for language, or logic for that matter? How does something appear from nothing?

What I mean by "made up" is that there is no official definition to what is or isn't supernatural. If naturalness extends to everything in the universe then the only recourse to what could be supernatural would be something outside the universe or can traverse in and out of it. Currently there is no scientific evidence that such an entity can exist let alone such things even being possible in the first place.

It's very true that we don't have answers for these questions, and perhaps that is why we have come up with a number of explanations that are impossible to prove or disprove. For me, I have seen real life positive effects that have come directly from my new-found belief. Why would I stop believing something that has benefited me in great ways?

Confirmation bias can be a very powerful convincing force. Staying open minded and skeptical is tough in the face of unexplained events, but one must try not to jump to conclusions when one witnesses an unexplained event.

For instance, if you see a UFO in the sky. Nothing is wrong with saying that you saw an unidentified flying object. HOWEVER, if you start saying that the UFO was alien in nature, that is when you've jumped to a conclusion. Some thing for supposedly divine events (which is what I think you are referring to). If you witness an event that most would call "supernatural" labeling it supernatural or even divine in nature is jumping to a conclusion. How are you ever going to truly understand what you saw if you never actually research its properties and why it happened? If you just believe your biases all the time you'll just be locked in a bubble of confirmation your whole life and never learn anything.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If there is no proof possible, then a soul doesn't exist.

Just Wow.

Have you died yet?

Saying nothing is beyond your sense is like saying there is nothing outside the womb. Or the earth is the center of the universe. Or there is no such thing as spirit.

Pretty arrogant.

a reply to: intrptr

You told me the evidence doesn't exist, thus the applicable answer is that a soul doesn't exist. Something cannot exist without evidence existing. I'm only following what you are telling me. I'm trying to keep an open mind here so you can prove your concept to me, but you are being overly antagonistic and combative with me.

Saying nothing is beyond your sense is like saying there is nothing outside the womb. Or the earth is the center of the universe. Or there is no such thing as spirit.

I never said this. You are putting words in my mouth by taking what I said out of context. I suggest you take a minute, pull your foot out of your mouth, and go reread that post you just responded to. I edited it to make it a bit clearer as to what I was saying.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wouldn't worry too much about me and my learning process if I were you. I am a life-long scholar and am always seeking new knowledge and ways in which to enrich my existance.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You told me the evidence doesn't exist, thus the applicable answer is that a soul doesn't exist.

No, I said we can't describe something theres no words for. Its like trying to describe a hypercube. Even if I did, you still might not get it.

You want 3D 'proof' for the 4D world. We have to die, first. Or witness it yourself. Until then, meh. What you believe is your business.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You told me the evidence doesn't exist, thus the applicable answer is that a soul doesn't exist.

No, I said we can't describe something theres no words for. Its like trying to describe a hypercube. Even if I did, you still might not get it.

A hypercube is an object in 4D space that has equal sides like the 3D version called a cube. I explained it rather easily.

Also, science doesn't seem to have a problem describing things words don't exist for. Because that's what science does, it seeks to explain the unexplained.

You want 3D 'proof' for the 4D world. We have to die, first. Or witness it yourself. Until then, meh. What you believe is your business.

I see. You are of the opinion that just because science hasn't studied it yet, then the evidence doesn't exist. You do know that science is aware of less than 1% of how the universe works right? It is absurd to make this assumption unless you don't understand science.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wouldn't worry too much about me and my learning process if I were you. I am a life-long scholar and am always seeking new knowledge and ways in which to enrich my existance.

Fair enough. Just be careful, even the best of us succumb to confirmation bias from time to time.

a reply to: namine

I invite both believers/non-believers to share what it would take for them to change their current position...

If you don't believe in God, what will it take for you to change your stance and start believing? What counter evidence would be significant enough for you?

If you do believe in God, what will it take for you to change your stance and stop believing? What counter evidence would be significant enough for you?

I've had some difficulty for the last 22 years or so finding a label for my rather eclectic worldview, since giving up Christianity as a worldview.

Today, I will use the label Spiritual naturalism, that has an entry in Wikipedia at least. I have an Aristotelian outlook as far as questions of will and self-determination go, which forms the basis of my ethics. I have an Epicurean outlook as respects the classic gods, respect but not to the extent of fear or superstition. Like the passage of Lucretius wherein Epicurus ascends the heights in ecstasy and observes the gods going about their business not especially concerned with the goings on of the humans. Also, Epicurean with regards to dissolution of the soul upon death, in the same manner in which the body decays.

Humanity just happens to be top dog of the planet at the moment, that hasn't always been the case, neither is there reason to think it will always be the case. We are part of the life process of the biosphere and its evolutionary process.

The overall current framework of my worldview would be difficult to change, because it's based on my experiences and formal education within the current time and place in the overall space/time continuum of the Universe. I don't have a time machine nor a warp speed cruiser.

originally posted by: pthena
The overall current framework of my worldview would be difficult to change, because it's based on my experiences and formal education within the current time and place in the overall space/time continuum of the Universe. I don't have a time machine nor a warp speed cruiser.

Hm, thanks for chiming in... so what you're saying is you can't think of anything that would disprove the current framework of your worldview? You say difficult but how difficult? Like impossible difficult? What if your experiences could be explained in conventional terms? What if crucial aspects of your "formal education" were shown to be incorrect? Would you think it's rational to persist in believing what you do?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Outside of forcing us to witness it, it would be pretty hard.

There's a story in the Qur'an about a guy who doubted Allah. Allah made him dead for a hundred years, then made him alive. Once he realized that a hundred years had passed then he believed.

Expand that: In the blink of an eye, a hundred years passes. The first to realize it are the Astronomers, then the Biologists, Geologists, etc. Right next to the first telescope is the computer monitor connected to the computer that took the readings and determined exactly 100 years had passed. On the monitor is a Click here. When clicked, the message "The Newest Testament of the Creator ..."

The word goes out. Many accept the truth joyfully. But from many a pulpit the message is preached, "Those scientists, this is just their latest attempt at overthrowing faith!"

a reply to: Krazysh0t

A hypercube is an object in 4D space that has equal sides like the 3D version called a cube. I explained it rather easily.

No you didn't lol. Its an 'object' that is everywhere at once. But objects can't be everywhere at once, can they?

Do go on...

a reply to: pthena

Do you know that accomplishing that with science will eventually be possible? We don't have the technology right now, but since time is relative the theory is already in place to do things like that. Changing the speed that time flows for a person isn't that hard scientifically.

So if I put someone in a machine that alters the amount of gravity exerting on him or alters the velocity he is traveling through the universe (keep in mind that all objects are moving in the universe) and let 100 years pass for him would that mean that I'm Allah?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

A hypercube is an object in 4D space that has equal sides like the 3D version called a cube. I explained it rather easily.

No you didn't lol. Its an 'object' that is everywhere at once. But objects can't be everywhere at once, can they?

Do go on...

Hypercube

In geometry, a hypercube is an n-dimensional analogue of a square (n = 2) and a cube (n = 3). It is a closed, compact, convex figure whose 1-skeleton consists of groups of opposite parallel line segments aligned in each of the space's dimensions, perpendicular to each other and of the same length. A unit hypercube's longest diagonal in n-dimensions is equal to n [displaystyle [sqrt [n]]] [sqrt [n]].

An n-dimensional hypercube is also called an n-cube or an n-dimensional cube. The term "measure polytope" is also used, notably in the work of H. S. M. Coxeter (originally from Elte, 1912),[1] but it has now been superseded.

The hypercube is the special case of a hyperrectangle (also called an n-orthotope).

A unit hypercube is a hypercube whose side has length one unit. Often, the hypercube whose corners (or vertices) are the 2n points in Rn with coordinates equal to 0 or 1 is called "the" unit hypercube.

Or this

a geometric figure in four or more dimensions that is analogous to a cube in three dimensions.

No YOU go on. I don't think you understand the 4th dimension properly.

a reply to: namine

What if your experiences could be explained in conventional terms? What if crucial aspects of your "formal education" were shown to be incorrect? Would you think it's rational to persist in believing what you do?

Miracles can't be explained conventionally, so kind of a dead end there. However, miracles do not prove one doctrine as true over another. Visionary type experiences are explained as delusion, or sometimes hallucinations. Those experiences, unprovable to another, being personal, cannot form a basis for teaching another some message or doctrine. They can only influence an outlook which influences actions.

Formal Education: I have recently looked into the formal definition of Evolution, which posits that all life descends from a single latest ancestor. I have decided that, based upon recent discovery that metabolism can begin before a DNA strand exists, that abiogenesis is not limited to one event but can, and probably is, ongoing. All life may descend from many ancestors. The fact that all DNA seems to work universally the same, can be attributed to the basic laws of organic chemistry.

A theory, supposedly based on neurobiology, is being floated, to the effect that will as understood by Aristotelian Philosophy is an illusion, and that human actions are determined by pre-determined biology and environment without any thought or decision making involved. That idea, I would tend to resist quite vehemently, until it was verified numerous times, by numerous scientist with completely unbiased opinions before experimenting. No millions of propagandists repeating the "findings" of a biased group of people will change my beliefs on Aristotelian understanding of human will.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

would that mean that I'm Allah?

Only if you told him ahead of time. If you wait a week or so, probably wouldn't count.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Krazysh0t

would that mean that I'm Allah?

Only if you told him ahead of time. If you wait a week or so, probably wouldn't count.

What do you mean if you told him ahead of time? If I told the guy a week before I put him in the machine that I'm going to advance the world 100 years, then put him in the machine and that would make me Allah once he got out? That doesn't make sense. That sounds more like a lie to dupe that guy to me.

That's tought to say considering part of my faith is based in the supernatural to begin with.

When you grow up in a haunted house and one of the only ways to get the entity to leave you alone reliably is to call on God, that's a tough thing to replicate and prove or disprove in more ways than one.

That early, reinforcing behavior has been backed up by one or two other instances and experiences over the years, but that early stuff was the key.

So how to disaprove that in a way that would demolish that meaning for me? I'm not sure it easily exists. Yes, there is little that is rational to it, but what is rational about supernatural experiences?

originally posted by: pthena
Miracles can't be explained conventionally, so kind of a dead end there. However, miracles do not prove one doctrine as true over another. Visionary type experiences are explained as delusion, or sometimes hallucinations. Those experiences, unprovable to another, being personal, cannot form a basis for teaching another some message or doctrine. They can only influence an outlook which influences actions.

What miracles are these if I may ask? Let's say visionary type experiences may be explained as delusion or hallucinations or reality... if they can be reasonably explained as delusion or hallucination and cannot be reasonably explained as reality (based on current evidence and understanding), would it be rational to believe without a shadow of a doubt they are in fact reality despite the other reasonable explanations available?

originally posted by: pthena
Formal Education: I have recently looked into the formal definition of Evolution, which posits that all life descends from a single latest ancestor. I have decided that, based upon recent discovery that metabolism can begin before a DNA strand exists, that abiogenesis is not limited to one event but can, and probably is, ongoing. All life may descend from many ancestors. The fact that all DNA seems to work universally the same, can be attributed to the basic laws of organic chemistry.

A theory, supposedly based on neurobiology, is being floated, to the effect that will as understood by Aristotelian Philosophy is an illusion, and that human actions are determined by pre-determined biology and environment without any thought or decision making involved. That idea, I would tend to resist quite vehemently, until it was verified numerous times, by numerous scientist with completely unbiased opinions before experimenting. No millions of propagandists repeating the "findings" of a biased group of people will change my beliefs on Aristotelian understanding of human will.

That's great! In essence if such experiments could consistently produce results that are contrary to your beliefs, that's what it would take to change your mind. I like that. You don't have to believe "millions of propagandists" but you do have a set of criteria that would shift your perception if it came to pass. I think that's pretty open-minded and rational of you. You might be surprised how many people are unwilling or unable to think of any circumstances that would prove them wrong.