Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DRFseven · 07-20-2002, 07:34 PM

It seems kind of spooky that there are things instead of that there are no things. Why should there be things? I mean, sure, you could ask the same question in reverse; why shouldn't there be things? But, still, the fact that there is no possible answer feels sort of immense and spooky and like, well, jeez, nothing could really be stranger than that things exist.

Bible Humper · 07-20-2002, 08:03 PM

The "best" arguments for God are surely the emotional ones. All else is "God in the gaps".

AJ113 · 07-20-2002, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Automaton: I do trust my judgement, my judgement whether or not something is merely a hallucination.

This does not make sense to me. How would you know you were not hallucinating at the time you made your judgement?

Quote:

Automaton: Or are you saying that in a circumstances where what you are seeing is very likely a hallucination (Jesus and John Lennon riding around town on a walrus), would you simply say, "Well I am seeing this, so it must be actually happening?"

If I can see it, hear it and touch it, it exists. Isn't this the same for everybody?

Quote:

Automaton: Most people's "direct, mystical experiences" with their personal diety of choice reflect very closesly a fluctuation in neurotransmitter balances in their brain,

Most people? Is this a statement utilising extrapolation, or have most people been tested?

Personal deity of choice? So you judge that no-one has ever had a revelational experience with a deity?

Quote:

Automaton: Theists may claim that the drugs, or 5-HT receptors, or whatever, have some kind of magical curse on them, so when you take a certain drug which binds to neurotransmitter sites, God somehow springs into action and reveals himself to them. Now this is a very arbitrary way to behave for a deity.

I'm sorry I do not understand this. What drugs? What are 5-HT receptors, and what have they to do with this? Which theists are you discussing who make these claims? I've never heard a theist make claims about magical curses before.

Quote:

Automaton: Instead of condoning the use of potentially dangerous hallucinogens,

Can you show me any biblical or dogmatic evidence that God condones the use of potentially dangerous hallucinogens?

Quote:

Automaton: why doesn't God simply reveal himself to those who seek him

But you have stated that you would judge yourself to be hallucinating if this happened.

And what makes you so sure that he does not reveal himself, especially to those who seek him?

tronvillain · 07-20-2002, 09:56 PM

I have some confidence in my ability to tell whether or not an experience was a hallucination, simply because of what I know about the brain and hallucinations. I can think of many bizarre god appearances which, if experience, I would not be inclined to attribute to hallucination. On the other hand, virtually no religious experiences of which I am aware are anywhere near such a level.

tronvillain · 07-20-2002, 09:59 PM

To answer the initial question, intelligent design (in the form of [i]Darwin's Black Box) made me think for a few hours. Other than that, I can't think of any especially compelling arguments.

HRG · 07-20-2002, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AJ113:


Thank you for the clarification. So it is reasonable to regard sensory experiences as hallucinogenic if they do not corellate with our personal beliefs?

No - if they don't correlate with the sensory experiences of others.

HRG.

Theli · 07-21-2002, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AJ113:


Thank you for the clarification. So it is reasonable to regard sensory experiences as hallucinogenic if they do not corellate with our personal beliefs?

I never said that.
I think HRG has already given a good answer to this question.
What I'm saying though, is that you cannot base a belief on a onetime experience. Especially if that experience has no direct explaination.

Theli · 07-21-2002, 03:31 AM

Philosoft....

Quote:

In the sense that it is said to be a singular thing that exists, rather than a label for a collection of things, as pantheism.

Ok, I think I see the difference now.
What I don't see though is why pantheists refer to themselfs as theists, as natural laws cannot be called deities (they are not beings).

AJ113 · 07-21-2002, 08:24 AM

Quote:

HRG: No - if they don't correlate with the sensory experiences of others.

How would you know that no-one else in the world had experienced the same as you?

Or are you prepared to declare all unique sensory experience as hallucinogenic?

There is a phrase which is used frequently on these boards - I think it is a quote from Carl Sagan - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Personally I do not agree with this, but in any case I could not think of more extraordinary evidence than a personal revelation from the big man himself. Yet the general push here seems to be that if this type of extraordinary evidence were to materialise, it would be dismissed as a hallucination, on the basis that it is extraordinary.

Theli · 07-21-2002, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AJ113:


How would you know that no-one else in the world had experienced the same as you?

Or are you prepared to declare all unique sensory experience as hallucinogenic?

There is a phrase which is used frequently on these boards - I think it is a quote from Carl Sagan - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Personally I do not agree with this, but in any case I could not think of more extraordinary evidence than a personal revelation from the big man himself. Yet the general push here seems to be that if this type of extraordinary evidence were to materialise, it would be dismissed as a hallucination, on the basis that it is extraordinary.

Let's test this.
If a person witness something he identifies as a miracle (unexplanable event), he will most probably become a believer in the religion most common where he lives.
Along with that religion he will adapt several claims from the religion's texts (creation stories, prophecies and ofcourse - a god) wich he then include in his own wordview.

Now he will favor them over any other religious claims, and to a degree scientific claims.
Simply based on a single experience he couldn't explain.
He couldn't possibly have derived all that information from that experience, could he?
And as this was a unexplainable event, he can't seperate a false explaination from a true one.

A meeting with a (supposed) god would be an overwhelming experience, I agree.
But it would not be very comprehensible, and thus no good to base your beliefs on.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2002, 07:34 PM	#21
DRFseven Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,322	It seems kind of spooky that there are things instead of that there are no things. Why should there be things? I mean, sure, you could ask the same question in reverse; why shouldn't there be things? But, still, the fact that there is no possible answer feels sort of immense and spooky and like, well, jeez, nothing could really be stranger than that things exist.

07-20-2002, 08:03 PM	#22
Bible Humper Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,125	The "best" arguments for God are surely the emotional ones. All else is "God in the gaps".

07-20-2002, 09:56 PM	#24
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I have some confidence in my ability to tell whether or not an experience was a hallucination, simply because of what I know about the brain and hallucinations. I can think of many bizarre god appearances which, if experience, I would not be inclined to attribute to hallucination. On the other hand, virtually no religious experiences of which I am aware are anywhere near such a level.

07-20-2002, 09:59 PM	#25
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	To answer the initial question, intelligent design (in the form of [i]Darwin's Black Box) made me think for a few hours. Other than that, I can't think of any especially compelling arguments.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.