If God Is Real

Sentience.

This is the answer to all of your questions.

It is the things inside ourselves that we see in other people.

What part of you have I exposed?

 

I don't know, my yearning to have others express themselves in a comprehensible manner?

Apparently I'm not very effective at it.

 

The truth isn't predicated on being able to convince everyone anyways. I've been saying the same thing for the past 10 posts & I don't think anyone gets it at all.

It really is a matter of being able to interpret language.

Because literature is interprative.

Truth itself is also an interpretation.

Which means I cant help you if you don't help yourself.
Hezekiah 6:1

Your brain is processing these words in a way that renders you unaware of what is really going on around here.

 

If that is directed specifically at me, I am actually quite comfortable with my awareness and understanding of most of the discussion that is going on in this thread. It is your inability to specifically adjust to and address other's questions which makes your arguments rather weak, even borderline unintelligible at times. If that is a generalization to people in general, some substantiation to the claim might be beneficial.

Saying something like "sentience" is the answer to all the questions I have posed may sound profound over a bowl or something but it doesn't play so well over written text, where specific questions are being prompted, can directly be accessed with a scroll up and which necessitate specific answers and reasoning in the responses.

I agree that language can often be vague, which makes it all the more puzzling why you do not attempt to be more specific and/or detailed in your responses.



You give off the impression that you don't feel any need to justify your responses and we are just supposed to know what you mean by one word responses and short phrases. Something more tangible in your posts rather than getting the impression you are channeling your responses from the aether, may be more helpful in my understanding of your posts.


Ok with that out in the open we can backtrack to a part of the discussion hopefully for some clarification... You said

For the sake of discussion, let's say I do not understand the particulars of the distinction between Nature vs. Nurture. In my basic understanding, Nature to me represents those factors which are innate to an organism such as those that they are born with, while Nature represents factors which are external to the organism which shape the organism in various ways.

Why is this distinction of Nature vs. Nurture superflous? How might we explain the beliefs and behaviors of religious/spiritual practices in an alternative way (as you suggest)? How does this alternative way account for differences in religious beliefs?

 

actually it sounds as if when GB presented you will requests for a more clear explanation of your ideas, you were not able to do so and, as so often happens, you resorted to babbling nonsense that YOU think sounds all esoteric and shit, but really is just meandering BS and offers no real insights into what you are getting at.

Sorry dude, GB isn't that gullible.

 

I think the strength of an argument is its consistency. An argument needs to conform to a much greater and robust philosophy that also answers questions which are implied by the original proposition.

Everything makes sense if you look at it in a way that is all inclusive. Dismissing a "bad" argument is like scoffing at a piece of art you think looks ridiculous.
There is nothing true or false about the work of art in and of itself. It is how you look at it. The world is what you make it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, every man is right in his own eye, but the Lord pondereth the hearts, ect..."Weakness" would then be a quality that exists in your head. It is having lemons handed to you, and then not having the ability to make lemonade. Though, I bet if there was a gun to your head you would get to squeezing.

That is why I said "I suspect that you just choose not to be inspired". You're not motivated enough to understand what you believe to be gibberish. But everything sounds like gibberish when you don't speak the language.

These are not claims that need to be substantiated. It's more like if you don't understand what claims like this mean, you don't really understand the parameters of your own life and opinions.

They are self evident claims about awareness. Emphasis on the self.

They are claims that originated 300-2,000+ years ago. I once asked myself what could they possibly be talking about that would resonate with someone in the new millennium? I believe the answer is sentience, awareness, or just simply being human. Whatever you want to call "it". It probably could be more accurately described as "aether".

Fortunately for the sake of aether and what I believe to be my subjective experience, there is nothing logical about the fact that we exist, either.

We are things that just are.

It's like trying to explain why a joke is funny. It doesn't really lose its humour, the effore it took to understand the joke should have been spent laughing is all. And now I'm babbling again I guess.

You remind me so much of a post I wrote way back. I think it was a few paragraphs about the importance of coherent text. I'll see if I can dig it up because I'm curious too about who I was responding to and whether they still sound the same.

Birth takes place within an environment.

Everything does.

When you were growing inside your mums tummy as a fetus, you were in an environment. And as a sperm cell, and as inorganic molecules before that, "you" were in an environment that can never ever be separated from anything you talk about. Ever.

Because you are the environment. That is what "you" are. The only difference is that now, in "your" human form, "you" are thinking about yourself.

From earlier posts:
I've seen an elephant push a tree down.
without the tree the elephant could not practice his influence.
without the elephant the tree would not have fallen.
The world shapes the elephant, and the elephant shapes the world.

like if a tree had leaves that were being blown by the wind. The wind is just as responsible for that behavior as the tree is. Now replaced the tree & wind with two humans, it is the same situation.

Behaviorism.

Religious beliefs are the affirmation of something. Usually an individual is clueless about what exactly it is they are affirming, but that doesn't mean there is nothing there. God just means something to them that they are unaware of.

Someone might say they believe in god, and then think about all the time they have spent with their family and friends at church feeling terrific. Their place in the universe is right there with their loved ones, worshipping together.

In their heads when you say God does not exist, you're not only telling them that they are wrong about how they feel, but you are also telling them that everyone they know is wrong. And that the things they do that bring them together are wrong.

They will do to you as you have done to them......It is in their books.

They will disregard your experience.

I didn't think I was being timed.

Though I did have a feeling....

I have been at Disneyland. That is what REALLY happened, noxiousgas.

 

If this is so, what makes the idea of Nature vs. Nurture superflous?

As your next paragraph suggests, perhaps from a philosophical perspective we can see them as in relation to a comprehensive phenomena, however in a scientific and practical respect we can see how the distinction of Nature vs. Nurture is valuable and allows for us to specially address particular phenomena whether that be the aforementioned gene therapy or various programs setup to benefit people.

...Good response.

Interesting, I can certainly picture what you are saying in regards to religion being a powerful reinforcer in many cases but as you have it laid out, it pretty much stands as an assumption.

So if compelling evidence is available you think most religious people will side with their faith in the ineffable?

 

...

 

By definition, you can never be your environment. You can be part of someone else's environment, but never your own. Otherwise, "environment" has no meaning.

 

I now take the existence of God and the teachings of Christ on blind faith and interpret any seemingly logical inconsistencies as simply being beyond my comprehension.When you truly invite the holy spirit into your life you will feel infinitely enriched and in peace.I have for example just experienced evidence of the supra miraculous.I can now see perfectly normally without my glasses and have been cured of my visual impairment.I am currently in a state of complete amazement.

 

Value is another one of those things that are subject to whim. One man's trash is another man's treasure. If your capable of reconciling the explanation with your philosophy and it works for you then by all means, I can understand. But if you're having trouble seeing or explaining the difference between the two, it is possible that you seek something more fundamental and not just more unnecessary labels.

Scientific levels of precision begin with a few basic assumptions. Methodological naturalism is an assumed position whether the scientist is a naturalist or not.
What is considered by an individual to be adequate proof is also subject to whim. I believe my ability recognize how philosophy fits together is adequate. When I discover something better I will do that instead.

I don't think most people ever actually make an informed decision to be faithful in the first place. They are born into families that behave a certain way so they act accordingly. Eventually it becomes what they know, what they do and who they are.
If they are enjoying their life, I don't think any radical changes will be made.

[SIZE=12.8000001907349px]I am capable of influencing my surroundings and I am thus capable of influencing my environment. what or who's environment would you suppose I am a part of if not my own when my environment is the only location my experience must necessarily exist. It is the only set of circumstances I am allowed to reference when referring to myself which yes is also an unnecessary label now that I think about it.[/SIZE]

 

There are Christianity scientists.Some scientific research is inherently evil and some is the divinely inspired revelation of the workings of God's wondrous universe.Yes there are people of faith who Discover important clues as to the structure of creation itself which is as is often too perfect to be the result of random chance.God encourages the good Christian scientist who works for the good of mankind.But some research and technologies are being practiced under the influence of Satan.Following Satan's agenda may well make you rich and satiate your lusty desires.You may get to experience immense power and enjoy the tainted pleasure of controlling the world.But the immediately important point at this very moment in time is that it won't make you truly happy and nourish your soul as it cries out in desperation for succour and the gentle healing balm of the holy spirit.

 

if god is real, why would you expect it to be the god you think it is?
there's really no reason anywhere ever to do so.

 

I'm not sure about that last sentence. When they realize that they disagree with the beliefs they were brought up with, enjoyable life or not, people often make those radical changes in their beliefs. It mostly seem to depend how much a person happens to be intrigued by the content of their beliefs/religion (and it's doctrines). No radical changes will be made when they are mainly in it for the traditional/family experience I guess. Because they had no strong feelings about it in the first place. Other than an idea like 'it is part of the religion/set of beliefs I follow so when necessary I say I stand by them'. But even when they have no strong feelings about their beliefs a person with a comfortable life may change in a way that they leave their religious beliefs behind. After all, if you don't feel strong about something it is easily and often neglected

You can be part of your own (and other's) environment(s), but it's not like you are your own environment.

 

You are it seems, religious about your confusion. You are not in a position to help anyone or rather you take a position that does not help.

The way you use the term here the truth in your first sentence, means what is so. There are many ways to regard this question having to do with economies of scale. There is what is so in terms of the level playing field that all phenomena belong to which we could give the name, energetic. What is so for all equally is that we are energy behaving energetically.

The universe is made of information every bit itself informed. As part of what is so on this level we are fundamentally informed as we are. We apprehend energetic exchange in terms of sensory experience and as such we are relatively informed in time and space. At this level truth is determined by comparison. The comparisons we make to determine what is so are in forms or terms.

You are confusing speculation with reasonable discernment of form or terms in your last sentence. Your conviction in the words you use determines what you will see. The practical form of god is in the power of your own invocations to manifest the quality of your own experience and the way it relates to others. If you are to perceive anything more than solipsistic relativity it pays to be magnanimous with your convictions. What is so in terms of the reality we all share is that it cannot be different for you and another. Obviously it is possible that you don't share your convictions with another but all the same are willing to convict. It is not guerillabedlam that is painting himself into a perceptual corner as much as you that are attempting to imprison or belittle on the basis that you have a superior grasp or are privy to some private joke about what is going on.

 

No, I am not confusing one with the other.

Speculation and reasonable discernment are the same things too as long as what is fair and sensible is also subject to whim.

Science suffers the whim of the universe in every way she knows how since what we currently know is considered knowledge but can always change.

As a matter of fact, I was going to say the universe changes every day but its more like a day is the universe changing. They are the same thing.

"Reasonable" has historically meant many things. Which is why i believe the most important aspect of scientific inquiry is its susceptibility to fallibility.

In other words: asking a question is more important than answering it. It is a path, not a destination, ect....

Its not a joke nor is it private.

I am sharing my thoughts with guerillabedlam, you, and whoever else chooses to read them. Superiority is like morality to me. Subject to whim.

So yes, I guess you are right that my grasp is just that.

At which point, you realize life is but a joke. And the laugh is on you.

Thats funny, right?

 

I suppose as long as we aren't reasoning for the purpose of determining what is true, then speculating or musing could be the same thing as trying to discern through reasoning simply by virtue of the fact that it represents mental activity. Fair and sensible is what you are aiming for, I guess as defense for the gibberish, although to that end I don't think you come any closer than you do to the process of apprehending what is so.

This is a poetic way of saying what? Science doesn't suffer but a mind full of convictions can suffer for them and this would belong to the scientist not to science generally. Knowledge is being shared and coming to know is being present to a constant state of becoming or becoming familiar. Having and being are the same. In real terms nothing is lacking in any moment and this includes knowledge. The proportions of the ongoing state of becoming flow freely into an open mind.

This reminds me of my sister when I was a kid who in running out of reason would say fuck you. When I point out that fuck you is not sound reasoning, she would say she was only kidding. Neither fuck you nor I am only kidding address reasonably the subject matter so frankly the humor escapes me and i am generally a funny guy. Might be a good joke I suppose if the delivery were better timed? There is nothing whimsical about morality, it is everywhere fundamentally predicated on self interest. Certainly self assessment in terms of whether or not you or anyone else upholds an ideal is vain and this could reflect on your measure of self interest. I say it is vain because there is no standard metric to compare to. All such comparisons being of dubious value.

 

Humdiggity to the last statement here....

I have said that before to some people and it is the worse thing I have ever said....but that is how much something got under my skin. I was never proud of saying that....and have not said it often......and will damn well try to never say it again.

There are other ways...

I have heard things you would not be able to dream of for much of my life.....and words hurt me many times......FU hurts...i know, too.....
I also know that actions can speak louder than words sometimes.....I wish I had realized that a long time ago.

 

I can't say the same as far as being the worst thing I've ever said. I think it is very well measured. I don't object to fuck you as being a hurtful thing to say but as being the end of reasonable things to say.

Unfortunately we don't have actions to count on in this venue, we can only go by what is said so the only fidelity to action we can count on is consistency in what is said.

 

yes, there are actions to count on this venue, as well.......postingg in some places to certain people, etc.....are actions as well. Just typing this now that i am doing is an action......

I am trying to be real here.....and i know the words suck. I hate hearing them myself.....and they have been said to me in my life.....it does hurt if you are the one the words are being said to.....so I am aware of that and was aware already before with a conversation I had with someone before you ever said anything.....so I thought it was the best place and time to talk about it now.

Funny...when someone says it to someone else...i laugh at times....it can be funny, too....but mine are never funny.