Proof that creation is wrong?

I've received answers from nature, random circumstance, a random song playing on my playlist, a thing someone said on the radio... These are likely natural coincidences that seem more significant than they are. Dawkins wrote a book about it called "Climbing Mount Improbable". Some may be the result of your own subconscious, particularly beautiful images. Some the result of natural chemicals in the brain. How do you tell the difference between that and the thing you call supernatural?

If I ask someone to pick a number between 1 and 10, and I get it right, does that mean I read their mind? Or does it mean that I had a 1 in 10 chance of getting it right?

No spidergoat, you are looking at this all wrong. You are simply applying tricks of the mind, "subconcious". It wasn't any of that, or the predictions, it was what it felt like, amazing it was about 3 foot above my body. To check I wasn't hallucinating, I asked if it would wait while I have a fag, I had my smoke and went back, still there :)
 
No spidergoat, you are looking at this all wrong. You are simply applying tricks of the mind, "subconcious". It wasn't any of that, or the predictions, it was what it felt like, amazing it was about 3 foot above my body. To check I wasn't hallucinating, I asked if it would wait while I have a fag, I had my smoke and went back, still there :)
But you didn't ask another person if they saw the same thing.
 
I'll assume you're talking about one of the ones I've had. The experience involved answers in the natural world that I didn't have an answer for, but were true.Like if you ask a bus driver "what time is the next bus" if he doesn't answer, you will not know, but if he does, and is correct, you do.
But even if he doesn't tell you, you might know that people use the bus to get to work, so they probably don't come every 2 hours in the morning. Likewise, you know that they don't come every 10 seconds from observation. So right away you have a sense of how often they _probably_ come. You might be wrong, of course. But if you are right, that's not mystical - it's just an informed guess.
Replace the bus driver with some sort of invisible entity that made you feel amazing while it was there. So me not 100% believing in God at the time, or the supernatural it was an amazing experience for me, I felt a beautiful presence which I was blessed to communicate with. I didn't want the encounter to end. The song "I want to know what love is" was answered as well, I know what love is, and it's incredible.
There's a branch of neuroscience that studies religious experiences, and we now know some things that can cause them. For example, researcher Andrew Newberg is a neuroscientist at the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine, and he wrote a book on neurotheology. Through functional brain imaging and EEG studies he has been able to observe the chemical and metabolic changes in the brain that occur when someone has a "religious experience." For example, one thing he discovered "is that intensely focused spiritual contemplation triggers an alteration in the activity of the brain that leads one to perceive transcendent religious experiences as solid, tangible reality. In other words, the sensation that Buddhists call oneness with the universe."

His book - Why God Won't Go Away - is worth a read.
 
No objective evidence. Pointless to you, and your view is pointless to me.
Reason is pointless to you and not to me. Which means you embrace the irrational, and I can dismiss what you assert as being without merit, more like the imaginings of a child than demonstrable knowledge.
 
Reason is pointless to you and not to me. Which means you embrace the irrational
It doesn't actually mean that. At least any more than for any other human being.

He had a personal experience. He is free to apply his own interpretation. He is not asserting it as objective truth, or asking anyone else to verify, or defending it.
He gets to do that, and should be able to do so without persecution.

If, on the other hand, he insisted that you take his interpretation seriously, then you would be free to judge it and react.
 
It doesn't actually mean that. At least any more than for any other human being.

He had a personal experience. He is free to apply his own interpretation. He is not asserting it as objective truth, or asking anyone else to verify, or defending it.
He gets to do that, and should be able to do so without persecution.

If, on the other hand, he insisted that you take his interpretation seriously, then you would be free to judge it and react.
You've got the makings of a good moderator :)
 
Reason is pointless to you and not to me. Which means you embrace the irrational, and I can dismiss what you assert as being without merit, more like the imaginings of a child than demonstrable knowledge.
It's hard to even attempt to reason anything out of my experience, believe me I've tried.
 
Back
Top