Martial Arts & Religion

[Syn7]

This presupposes that ALL people want to hear God or that God WANTS all to hear him, it presupposes that all people that DO hear God will accept what they heard as God, it presupposes that such an event will convince ALL people, it presupposes that this would be something that God would see as a benefit to mankind, etc
In short, it presupposes a lot of things that we have no reason to believe to be true...
One could argue that such an event would even cause more chaos if it were to happen.

Again, if you are asking what proof is required then you must set out the parameters in order to eliminate all presupposition. Feelin' me on that?

Surely you aren't asking anyone to propose what is needed for proof when you aren't willing to commit to what the subject even is. Say it ain't so 180!!! You should know better. Unless you are purposely trying to trap people who haven't thought this one through, I don't understand what you hope to achieve with that?

[Syn7]

Yall should watch this one...

http://youtu.be/QleRgTBMX88

Kathryn Schulz: On being wrong @ TEDtalks

She really breaks it down proper for such a short talk...

I love TEDtalks BTW. If you hadn't caught on to that by now.

[Syn7]

I am, as you know a christian but have been trying to discuss this from a "non-denominational" view simply because before one can discuss God one must first discuss IF God exists.
As a Christian it is my belief that God does NOT reveal himself to all, only to those he chooses to, for whatever reason it maybe and the bible states this also ( which you will find in common with almost every other religion- their God reveals himself to who he/she wishes and not to everyone).
Personally I believe the crucial element is man's free will and man coming to God via free will and NOT be "exerted infulence" by God, which is what a "global revelation" would amount to.
Of course IF God does exist and IF God knows enough about us then God may know that a global revelation may be counter-productive and that those who wil believe shall believe in "due time".
Of course I have no evidence for any of that !
BUT I do know that not all people are willing to receive God, accept God, want anything to do with God and that some people simply do not want god to exists, especially the Judeo-Christian God.

Interesting... I have had people use bible quotes to justify why god loves all equally and shows zero favoritism and I have had people use bible quotes to justify why god only reveals himself to those who deserve it for some reason or another. Alot of glaring contradictions in that book. Any argument about truth should probably refrain from quoting those docs. Stick to reason and reality, it's far more convincing anyways. and the whole point to even argue your end is to convince others you are right, right? I'm glad nobody is throwing quotes at us yet. Thanx for that. Keep it objective and real and progress may even be made.

Personally I feel god reveals himself to the most needy people. The more attention one craves, the more god speaks to them. Funny how that works. Of course I'm talking about the ones who go and tell everyone about it. Not the ones who keep it close and don't ever speak on it, they're cool.

[RickMatz]

An article by Cameron Conaway.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's a good question and all but it cannot be answered until a proper definition of what GOD even is is put foreword. Feel me? How can one define an outline for proving evidence when the subject isn't even clear?

If god is a white bearded man in the clouds then yeah, he needs to come on down and say hi to us all. But nobody really believes that so it's a poor answer. All answers will be subject to severe flaw until an exact definition of what god you want proof of is established. Tell the folks exactly what god is and maybe they will tell you what they need to 100% believe.

The question is just way too subjective for any sort of watertight rationale.

Smart boy

[sanjuro_ronin]

Interesting... I have had people use bible quotes to justify why god loves all equally and shows zero favoritism and I have had people use bible quotes to justify why god only reveals himself to those who deserve it for some reason or another. Alot of glaring contradictions in that book. Any argument about truth should probably refrain from quoting those docs. Stick to reason and reality, it's far more convincing anyways. and the whole point to even argue your end is to convince others you are right, right? I'm glad nobody is throwing quotes at us yet. Thanx for that. Keep it objective and real and progress may even be made.

Personally I feel god reveals himself to the most needy people. The more attention one craves, the more god speaks to them. Funny how that works. Of course I'm talking about the ones who go and tell everyone about it. Not the ones who keep it close and don't ever speak on it, they're cool.

Not getting into a liberal VS Calvanist debate since you can't win those form either side, LOL !
I rarely quote the bible UNLESS I am discussing something about the bible.
The bible is a collection of books of various genres and unless taken as such, people will find in it just about any justification to do almost anything they want.

I agree that God tends to be there for those that need him most because those are the ones that have figured out that we need God.
I don't think that means God is NOT there for anyone else, just that God doesn't come "crashing" into peoples lives unwanted.
Perhaps CS Lewis said it best:
Either we say to God, "they will be done" or God says to us, "they will be done".

I will say this about the contridictions in the bible:
I have found that once you take the genre of writing into the context of what was being written, why and to whom, the vast majority of supposed contridictions get cleared up.

[Syn7]

Can't commit to saying it's impossible but I can't commit to saying it is either. I would classify myself as a kind of agnostic but not necessarily meeting the definition of what is considered the quintessential or classical agnostic. That's as far as I'm willing to go though. It's fun to try and frame it all out though. Really hard to put this stuff into words. For me anyways. I can rattle off statistics and probabilities all day if you wanna talk politics or science but when it comes to that "something" it gets alot fuzzier. To be completely honest, I'm a bit envious of those who have tight knit religious communities. I've never felt that sort of communal closeness before. But I still wouldn't do it coz ultimately I would be lying to everyone and possibly myself. It must be nice to have that comfort of knowing you're all good. It doesn't really even matter if it's true or not. But I still can't live a lie if I know it's a lie. Coz for me it would be a lie.

Anyone take the time to watch the video on being wrong? If you want to know how open one is to being honest with their selves just guage their reaction to that lecture. If you took some sort of honest inventory then you are open to truth, but if you think she's crazy and that there is no subjectiveness in truth then you aren't a very open person.

[sanjuro_ronin]

To me there is reality that is what it is - 1+1 = 2 for example.
That said I feel that far more reality is subjective.
Osain Bolt's reality is that he can run the 100 in 9.5 seconds ( or whatever the WR is), mine is NOT that reality.
There is the reality of the physical realm that CAN be subjective ( as above) and then there is the reality yet to be discovered.
I doubt that anyone will argue that our reality is NOT the reality of someone 1000 years ago or 500 or even 100.
That said, one must ALWAYS be open to the possibility of being incorrect but that works for ALL people.
I know a lot of skeptics that are always on some believers because they can't see themselves being wrong about God, they are too closed minded and such.
Yet the opposite can be said for skeptics too.
We all suffer from hubris to one extent or the other.

[Scott R. Brown]

One of the things that hard evidence people tend to never consider is that, every experience of reality is based upon subjectivity.

Objectivity is subjectively based. Without subjectivity there is no objectivity!

[sanjuro_ronin]

One of the things that hard evidence people tend to never consider is that, every experience of reality is based upon subjectivity.

Objectivity is subjectively based. Without subjectivity there is no objectivity!

Since ALL our exposure to reality is based on our experience with it ( reality) and all experience is subjective, you would be correct.

[David Jamieson]

That seems a bit off to me.

there is a reality that exists whether I do or not.

the world is here. That is not a reality I created and it doesn't matter how subjective I am. Earth exists, whether I am here or not.

Fire will burn you, water will drown you, space will suffocate you etc etc.

We are within a greater reality that we merely interpret with our own subjectivity, but we do not define or invent that which pre and post exists us each as individuals.

subjectivity applies to experience, but not to hard reality. That can be proven over and over again with something like a pin with which I would pierce some random place on your body and ask you if the pain is real or not. lol

Or maybe I'm not reading you guys clearly enough.

IMO - Reality, true reality pre and post exists us each, we do not alter that with our subjective view, we only alter our individual view of it. It is in fact real and extant whether we are or not.

[Scott R. Brown]

That seems a bit off to me.

there is a reality that exists whether I do or not.

the world is here. That is not a reality I created and it doesn't matter how subjective I am. Earth exists, whether I am here or not.

Fire will burn you, water will drown you, space will suffocate you etc etc.

We are within a greater reality that we merely interpret with our own subjectivity, but we do not define or invent that which pre and post exists us each as individuals.

subjectivity applies to experience, but not to hard reality. That can be proven over and over again with something like a pin with which I would pierce some random place on your body and ask you if the pain is real or not. lol

Or maybe I'm not reading you guys clearly enough.

IMO - Reality, true reality pre and post exists us each, we do not alter that with our subjective view, we only alter our individual view of it. It is in fact real and extant whether we are or not.

Unfortunately your impression of the reality that exists separate of your experience of it may only be demonstrated to exist by a mind. And that experience, that other mind, is still subjectively based.

Nothing can be proven to exist separate from mind. Because it is mind that determines what exists or not, and mind determines the rules of what is used to prove what exists or does not. Without mind, nothing can exist and mind is subjectively based.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That seems a bit off to me.

there is a reality that exists whether I do or not.

the world is here. That is not a reality I created and it doesn't matter how subjective I am. Earth exists, whether I am here or not.

Fire will burn you, water will drown you, space will suffocate you etc etc.

We are within a greater reality that we merely interpret with our own subjectivity, but we do not define or invent that which pre and post exists us each as individuals.

subjectivity applies to experience, but not to hard reality. That can be proven over and over again with something like a pin with which I would pierce some random place on your body and ask you if the pain is real or not. lol

Or maybe I'm not reading you guys clearly enough.

IMO - Reality, true reality pre and post exists us each, we do not alter that with our subjective view, we only alter our individual view of it. It is in fact real and extant whether we are or not.

Our perception of the reality we NOW is real, but it is still subjective.
We may drown in water but fish don't, so our reality is not their reality.
1+1=2 in our reality because that is the numerical value we have chosen do decide on base don our experience of the reality we live in.
It is possible that 1+1= something else, somewhere else.
Sure it doesn't change our reality, at least not yet.

[Scott R. Brown]

Our perception of the reality we NOW is real, but it is still subjective.
We may drown in water but fish don't, so our reality is not their reality.
1+1=2 in our reality because that is the numerical value we have chosen do decide on base don our experience of the reality we live in.
It is possible that 1+1= something else, somewhere else.
Sure it doesn't change our reality, at least not yet.

Without mind, quantity and its various groupings cannot exist! It takes a mind to perceive and manipulate quantity. Without mind quantity does not exist.

The experience of drowning follows a specific progression of phenomena all determined by mind. At best all we can say that if a person drowns, eventually their brain and thereby their body will cease to function in a manner mind has determined is necessary for life to continue. Except that the person observing the drowning and the person experiencing the drowning are still depending upon mind to perceive and define the experience.

Without a mind on either part to perceive the event, nothing happened, and no one can demonstrate anything happened absent a mind to experience/define it.

[David Jamieson]

when you speak of mind Scott, are you speaking of only your own?