Karljett wrote:Well it's a maybe. Lately I've been wondering about how someone can either decide that they believe, or decide that they don't, and it got me thinking.

I disagree that we can just "decide" what we believe. For example, if I were to offer to give you a million dollars if you believed that elves existed, would you really be able to believe that elves exist? You might be able to act as if you believe that elves exist, but that wouldn't be the same as really believing that they did.

Karljett wrote:Maybe I'm just assuming that what I see with my eyes and hear with my ears and so on is all that's perceivable.

If you're going to start believing things that are not perceivable, shouldn't you also be having second thoughts about believing in the existence of fairies, elves, and pixies?

Karljett wrote:Maybe those who genuinely believe in god are onto something that I haven't been able to get.

Maybe people who believe that Elvis is still alive are onto something that you haven't been able to get.

Karljett wrote:
They talk about "knowing" and feeling, . . .

Yes, and what do they say when you ask them HOW it is that they "know?" There were people at one time (and there still are people today) who just "know" that black people are inferior to white people. It's something that they "feel" inside . . .

Karljett wrote:
what if they're right?

Al Qaeda terrorists just "knew" that God gave them the victory when they succeeded in flying their planes into the WTC buildings. What if THEY are right? Obviously, I don't think that they were, but if this is the kind of reasoning you're going to use, you're going to have to open yourself up to a heck of a lot of nonsense.

Karljett wrote:
What if there is a god but to really understand it you have to approach it in a different way? Maybe we're all going on about evidence in something that we're just not even prepared to see or accept as evidence. What would convince me that there's a god? I think that depends entirely upon my own subjective criteria for what constitutes evidence. Like I say it's just a maybe.

Now you're talking about something entirely different. You're talking about evidence, and you're talking about what your own subjective critera for evidence would be. I would be very interested in hearing just what that subjective criteria might be and to know whether or not you would apply that same kind of subjective criteria to other beliefs that you hold.

Nocterro wrote:What method would you use to figure out whether the external world actually exists?

Please be as scientifically rigorous as possible.

Sciences seeks to describe the observable world. Whether it really exists or not is not entirely relevant to the scientific method.

Nocterro wrote:[
Some things are just outside the domain of science. That does not mean we should not accept them, nor does it mean we are not scientific if we do so.

That's an interesting opinion, but doesn't comport with my understanding of science. And I'm a scientist.

Nocterro wrote:

Karljett wrote:

Nocterro wrote:What method would you use to figure out whether the external world actually exists?

Please be as scientifically rigorous as possible.

Great question. I'd say that to be able to perceive, you have to exist, and so does what you perceive. And to perceive, you must be able to perceive. Maybe (just maybe) believers in god do perceive something.

This brings up two further thoughts.

1) How can we scientifically verify that our senses are reliable?

Fair question, but I don't think it really matters. As long as our senses are a more or less consistent characteristic of the human species, then we can make consistent observations.

2) It seems obvious that we can perceive things which do not exist. Example: LSD trips, mirages, optical illusions.

Those aren't material things. They are ideas. Psychological phenomena. The set of ideas is essentially infinite. This alone should be enough to convince anyone that the mind is capable of inventing and sustaining a false mythology.

OT:

Nocterro wrote:

William.Young wrote:As far as the OP's question goes, my answer would be no... and it is a personal attack to claim I'm closed-minded because of my answer and I reported the earlier accusation as such.

How is that a personal attack?

Calling someone "ridiculously closed-minded" is addressing the person, not what they wrote.

End of OT (if you care to discuss it further, take it up in the Tech forum or talk to a mod)

This is specifically for Nocterro and anyone else using the open mindedness canard.

[youtube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/youtube]

Also note that open mindedness relates to considering things, not blind, critically unsupported acceptance thereof.

Stuff the youtube bbcode syntax here, I never get it to work.

May a mere novice suggest that, if there is a deity of any sort or type, it might be more detectable than a teapot orbiting the sun? Or is a deity of less import than the teapot?

Nocterro wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Nocterro wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility

A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction.

Tell me, what logical contradiction is entailed by the teapot?

That we'd have bonked into it by now, that it would have been detected by the zillion different types of measuring equipment we've shot into space, that it would blot out star systems...

I could go on, but...

Non-sequitor. I'm asking about logical possibility. Read the damn link?

Did that.

All you are doing is twisting in the wind.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:There are endless logical possibilities not implemented in nature, what is your point, Nocterro?

Exactly, thank you.

GenesForLife wrote:This is specifically for Nocterro and anyone else using the open mindedness canard.

[youtube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/youtube]

Also note that open mindedness relates to considering things, not blind, critically unsupported acceptance thereof.

Stuff the youtube bbcode syntax here, I never get it to work.

I think that maybe there's a goddess, and she's shaped like Jessica Alba

Karljett wrote:I'm starting to have second thoughts. Does anyone else ever wonder if they've got it all wrong?

Absolutely not, in fact the more I learn the more I know I've got it right

The thing is I haven't learned much, and I don't know much (about science). But I still disbelieve in god. We have scientists and scientifically minded people who believe in god, others who don't, nonscientifically minded people who believe, and those that don't.

For those who disbelieve and are scientifically minded, science merely provides them with a means to stay "in the box" (that's not to say they're wrong but if they are, they'd never know). You see the same with certain religious people, when you ask them something all they do is refer to the bible.

As an outsider, meaning as someone who is an atheist but not scientifally well versed, it is so clear to me that there's very little difference between the two, and I'm probably not the first to ever mention this.

Karljett wrote:I'm starting to have second thoughts. Does anyone else ever wonder if they've got it all wrong?

OK spill the beans - who is she and which denomination ?.

No seriously, it is as wrong to think that here is no god as it is to think that there is a god but it is right to think that there is probably no god.

Karljett wrote:I think choice does come into it to an extent, but it's more of a choice of whether or not to go with your instincts, or to ignore them. Other than that, everyone judges god's existence or otherwise based on their gut feeling, and the rest is nothing more than justification for that.

That does not seem to me to be a very reliable method of determining if the creator of the Universe exists.

Let’s be clear what we’re discussing here. Feelings are emotions such as love, hate, fear, confidence and so on. They are not facts (other than they exist inside you) and they are not explanations.

Feeling or emotions are value neutral. There are no good or bad feelings since all they are doing is providing information to you about the state of you physiology and psyche at a point in time. However the behaviour that results from the feelings you experience may be acceptable or unacceptable to you and/or the society around you depending on what you do.

Now your consciousness provides you with decision making processes based on many factors including the emotional state that exists within you at the time. That should be clear to understand, for example irrespective of the facts, would decisions you make if you were feeling exuberant say, be the same as those made if you were feeling cautious?

So when you say “I have a feeling or gut instinct that God exists” what you are really doing is saying “I have a feeling (unknown so far since you haven’t told us what that feeling is like yet) and I am making an interpretation of it that allows me to posit with some validity that God exist”.

Whether you like it or not that’s what you are doing.

Now perhaps you could verbalise what that feeling actually FEELS like and you will need to use words usually associated with describing emotions rather than those that would be commonly used to describes facts.

John

All I'm really saying is that we could very well be wrong.

GenesForLife wrote:This is specifically for Nocterro and anyone else using the open mindedness canard.

[youtube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/youtube]

Also note that open mindedness relates to considering things, not blind, critically unsupported acceptance thereof.

Stuff the youtube bbcode syntax here, I never get it to work.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/youtube]

Karljett wrote:All I'm really saying is that we could very well be wrong.

Are you going to live your life on that basis or are you going to do something about it?

What choice are you going to make?

John

We could all very well be wrong about plenty of things. But based on the information provided to us, we make the best assumptions we can. We don't spend our entire lives worrying if the sky is going to start falling, because it's never happened to us. Why waste your life worrying if you're wrong about something if all the evidence indicates you're not?

Karljett wrote:As an outsider, meaning as someone who is an atheist but not scientifally well versed, it is so clear to me that there's very little difference between the two, and I'm probably not the first to ever mention this.

No you are not, there are a lot of people who are "not scientifally [sic] well versed" but pretend to think they know enough about science to falsely correlate it with religion.

Karljett wrote:All I'm really saying is that we could very well be wrong.

Which is something a "scientifically minded" person will readily admit. How many religious people do you know who will do that?