What will it take to change your mind?

originally posted by: ketsuko
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?

Well, the experiences are only 'supernatural' if we don't have the means to explain them with our current understanding of the universe. I don't think it's irrational to think they are supernatural as long as you're open to the possibility that they may be completely natural, and were perhaps misinterpreted events. If somebody could provide a reasonable explanation for why you believe you grew up in a haunted house and calling on God to chase out the entity helped, would you be willing to abandon your belief that it was a haunted house? If not, what would it take for you to abandon that belief? Or will you continue to believe your current interpretation of prior experiences regardless of any evidence presented to you against them?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

None of that tells me what a hypercube is supposed to depict. Its a picture of lines on paper. The paper is flat, the lines are one dimensional, the drawing is a depiction of a 3d object whose sides are expanding...

to where?

a reply to: namine

What miracles are these if I may ask?

Once upon a time, circa 1991, a woman was in a coma, living will stating, "no measures to extend life", so call it terminal coma. A guy, who had only met her once before, about 1 1/2 years before, went to visit her in a convalescent facility, with two other people.

The nurses on duty indicated that it wouldn't do much good to visit her since she was comatose. They left the nurses and went to the woman's room. The guy said her name, she sat up and said, "I know you." After 15 minutes or so chatting, the three people left the room.

At the nurses station, one nurse said, "I told you it wouldn't help."

The guy said, "Sure it did. We had a nice chat." To which, the nurses raced toward the woman's room while the three visitors left the building. Official reports of the woman's death two days later stated that she had never regained consciousness during the whole time of her coma.

One of the witnesses thought that the event was a miracle. The other witness, though stating having clearly seen the woman sit up, didn't think anything was special or remarkable about it.

So, although I personally may consider that a miraculous event, the witnesses are divided. And no other objective evidence is available except maybe enhanced interrogation of nurses, which I don't endorse. The point is that it proves nothing anyway. Maybe the guy had the right tone of voice. Doesn't prove that his worldview is more correct than another's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

would it be rational to believe without a shadow of a doubt they are in fact reality despite the other reasonable explanations available?

It doesn't matter except to the experiencer. It influences the experiencer to view life a little differently. The experiencer is not required to present it as fact or reality. She/he can paint pictures, or write poetry, or fantasy, or dance, or sing, or if all else fails, just smile more.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

None of that tells me what a hypercube is supposed to depict. Its a picture of lines on paper. The paper is flat, the lines are one dimensional, the drawing is a depiction of a 3d object whose sides are expanding...

to where?

Sorry buddy, but not all mathematical models have corresponding objects in the physical. If you were to take multi-variable calculus, set theory, or matrix manipulation you'd already know this though.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But if were are going down this road, please prove to me a soul exists now.

Prove it doesn't.

How? HOW do you still not understand that burden of proof lies with the person making the claim?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

Just Wow.

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.

No it is not the same.
I also don't believe in souls or spirits. Sorry. There isn't anything there in my opinion. You die, you die.

a reply to: namine

I myself didn't believe it was a haunted house for a long time until I found out my sister had the exact same experiences with it and that nowhere else offered the same experiences I had there.

I thought I simply had an over active imagination for most of my formative years.

As a Christian, I began having significant doubts around the age of seventeen. I already knew a lot of it didn't add up, especially considering the Bible itself. With so many different cultures and beliefs on the planet, how could I know for sure mine was right? I decided I needed to figure it out. Honestly I was a bit nervous at first but I felt that if it was true, God couldn't fault me for questioning it. Long story short, I am now an atheist. Nothing will convince me of the Christian narrative, or the narratives of the other Abrahamic traditions, or those of other religions. They are too broad and varied, with many errors.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But if were are going down this road, please prove to me a soul exists now.

Prove it doesn't.

How? HOW do you still not understand that burden of proof lies with the person making the claim?

Atheists place the burden of proof on believers, but they believe there is no spirit, whats their criteria?

They never saw one.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

Just Wow.

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.

No it is not the same.
I also don't believe in souls or spirits. Sorry. There isn't anything there in my opinion. You die, you die.

Well thats just your subjective belief / opinion, too.

Having never died before...

how could you know?

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But if were are going down this road, please prove to me a soul exists now.

Prove it doesn't.

How? HOW do you still not understand that burden of proof lies with the person making the claim?

Atheists place the burden of proof on believers, but they believe there is no spirit, whats their criteria?

They never saw one.

That makes no sense dude. So anyone can claim anything and ask the non believers to prove them wrong? That silly. Religion and spirituality doesn't get a special pass with regards to burden of proof. Sorry.

a reply to: ketsuko

Just because "supernatural" things exist snd happen (which I believe they do), it does not 'logically' follow that "Christianity" is true.

I believe in the supernatural because of my own experiences with the very same such things, and I believe in reincarnation, life after death, all that jazz.

As SentientCentenarian said: No religion required.

So - how about you let go of "Jesus" as being "god" and just accept that things happen that we don't understand? What would it take for that to happen? For you to accept that disembodied spirits, telepathy, and the intertwining of the dimensions and physical world we live in with others we neither see nor hear nor can explain EXIST without there needing to be "Jesus" on a cross.....

I believe all those things are real. They happen quite often. That doesn't mean "Jesus" did something only a "God" could do. Gurus and yogis and swamis all have done those things, too.

See, we're all just like Jesus. You're not going to "hell" (or "heaven") --- your soul is, however, eternal and will survive.

My dad, after passing, made the second hand on his watch move. Twice. My husband's deceased grandfather walked through the house he had built with his own two hands and bumped up against the couch where I was lying, and also appeared in the other room where my husband and kids were sleeping.

Other things like that. No "God" required.

"Psi" and "religion" are two separate things. Likewise, reincarnation and NDEs are FAR more likely to be 'real' phenomena, and still NO RELIGION REQUIRED.

Do you get what I'm saying?

I noticed that, on this thread, the impetus or pressure to be open to change one's mind is only being applied to the religious, rather than the non-religious. OP, do you believe somehow that religious are more intractable/ less open to new ideas/ closed minded? Because what I'm reading doesn't support this hypothesis.

If it's not faith in God, it's faith limited to the study of the observable, but faith in general appears to be strong indeed.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

That makes no sense dude. So anyone can claim anything and ask the non believers to prove them wrong?

"Non"-belief is a belief, too.

You "believe" there is no spirit. You have to say 'believe' because like beliebers you can't prove your theory either.

Now what?

I was beginning to explain that to Krazyshot using the hypercube dimension analogy thingy, but he dropped off the edge.

People demand 'proof' but quickly turn away when someone has a go at that enormous task of breaching the denial wall you've built around your reason. You want scientific proof or to continue hiding?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

None of that tells me what a hypercube is supposed to depict. Its a picture of lines on paper. The paper is flat, the lines are one dimensional, the drawing is a depiction of a 3d object whose sides are expanding...

to where?

Sorry buddy, but not all mathematical models have corresponding objects in the physical. If you were to take multi-variable calculus, set theory, or matrix manipulation you'd already know this though.

You just called it a model. Its not . Its a representation of a three dimensional object transforming to the fourth dimension. The sides of the cube are expanding to infinity. If you were to set a cube on a table and somehow transform it into the 'next' dimension, from your perspective it would appear to disappear, right before your very eyes.

It would no longer be visible to your perception.

Just like in 2D flatland. If you could pick 'up' an object there it would appear to disappear to the flatlanders in the room.

Sir Flat: Where'd it go?

Sir Thin: It disappeared.

Sir Flat: Thats impossible.

Sir Thin: We both saw it.

The object has not disappeared, its still in the room floating above them in the third dimension, they just can't perceive it in their 2D 'realm'. The third dimension is all around them, but they have no perception of it.

Like wise, 'objects' in the fourth dimension are all around us, invisible to our perception, too. Unless they decide to appear by dropping 'in'. Then we see them appear as if from nowhere and disappear again when they 'leave'.

Just like the object you picked 'up' from 2D flat land would magically reappear again to Flatlanders if you set it back 'down'.

Sir Flat: Hey look its back.

Sir Thin: Dude, thats freaky.

Sir Krazyshot: You guys are nuts. That never happened, you need to be on medication.

I'm really hoping you'll take the time to review this:

a reply to: intrptr

Look guy. This isn't a thread on mathematical models. You asked me to simply explain a hypercube and I did. First with my own words then with two separate sources. I'm not looking to get into a theoretical discussion with you on the appearances and behaviors of a hypercube, for one because that is going beyond simplicity and for two it isn't part of the thread topic.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thats why you will remain ignorant. You cite math, just listen to Sagan for 9 whole minutes of your shallow perceptive life.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thats why you will remain ignorant. You cite math, just listen to Sagan for 9 whole minutes of your shallow perceptive life.

Maths has given you everything that makes your life enjoyable. Everything that allows you to live past the age of 30. Everything that allows you to go anywhere you want to on the planet.

Maths have given us computers, health, space probes, television, cars, MRI scans and another million things that you take fro granted.

What has spirituality and religion given us?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: 3danimator2014

That makes no sense dude. So anyone can claim anything and ask the non believers to prove them wrong?

"Non"-belief is a belief, too.

No it f*ing isnt. Stop making the goal posts so wide that you dont have to prove anything at all.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: namine

What miracles are these if I may ask?

Once upon a time, circa 1991, a woman was in a coma, living will stating, "no measures to extend life", so call it terminal coma. A guy, who had only met her once before, about 1 1/2 years before, went to visit her in a convalescent facility, with two other people.

The nurses on duty indicated that it wouldn't do much good to visit her since she was comatose. They left the nurses and went to the woman's room. The guy said her name, she sat up and said, "I know you." After 15 minutes or so chatting, the three people left the room.

At the nurses station, one nurse said, "I told you it wouldn't help."

The guy said, "Sure it did. We had a nice chat." To which, the nurses raced toward the woman's room while the three visitors left the building. Official reports of the woman's death two days later stated that she had never regained consciousness during the whole time of her coma.

One of the witnesses thought that the event was a miracle. The other witness, though stating having clearly seen the woman sit up, didn't think anything was special or remarkable about it.

So, although I personally may consider that a miraculous event, the witnesses are divided. And no other objective evidence is available except maybe enhanced interrogation of nurses, which I don't endorse. The point is that it proves nothing anyway. Maybe the guy had the right tone of voice. Doesn't prove that his worldview is more correct than another's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

would it be rational to believe without a shadow of a doubt they are in fact reality despite the other reasonable explanations available?

It doesn't matter except to the experiencer. It influences the experiencer to view life a little differently. The experiencer is not required to present it as fact or reality. She/he can paint pictures, or write poetry, or fantasy, or dance, or sing, or if all else fails, just smile more.

That, in no way whatsoever is a miracle