Reason and Experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator

[MisterBeale]

Three engineers were discussing the nature of God. The first said, "When you consider the complex structure of the skeleton and the muscles, it's obvious that God must be a mechanical engineer." Said the 2nd: "No. The thing that makes that makes a human being human is the brain and nervous system. When you consider all the electrical signals that must be transmitted and processed, it's clear that God is an electrical engineer" 3rd guy: "You're both wrong,Only a civil engineer would put a waste disposal pipeline right through a recreational area."

The law of nature... "for every action there's a reaction."

Exactly.

Except when someone is reacting to the actions of someone else, right? Then only the reaction matter, and it is a deficiency on the part of the person reacting, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The natural law applies to matter, not emotion.

It does apply to psychology, though. The natural instinct is to react to actions.

If you hit me, I am going to react, either by hitting you back, or calling the law.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You could turn the other cheek.

 

[Czernobog]

This is why the post was not directed to you. You recognise that reality is objective. Misterbeale clearly does not. Which was the point of the post.

Somehow I think you and ding would come into conflict about the supposed objective "reality" of AGW. That is just but one example.

Damn, you are so full of yourself.

If reality were actually objective, this forum would be no fun at all. . .


I step outside, I say it's cold, my son says it's hot.

You think reality is objective huh?

It doesn't matter what I think. Reality is what it is. That is the beauty of reality. It is, whether you believe in it, or not.

And this would be the point at which we are done. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who does not know the difference between imagination, and reality.

I never said I was talking about "imagination," it is just a matter of differing perspectives. We perceive things differently, thus our realities are different.

You perceive the spiritual as zealots, I perceive them as having faith. I'm not accusing you of having an over active "imagination," so don't accuse me of having one. We just have different perspectives.

Okay, when you meditate, or take hallucinogens, or do whatever it is you do to "enter into an altered state", or "spirit walk" as you call it, that is your imagination. Having used my share of drugs when I was younger, I have know doubt that you see all sorts of amazing, and awesome things. Unfortunately, none of them are real, outside of your imagination. Now if you want to base your concept of objective reality on your theta wave dreaming mind, that's entirely up to you. Those of us who have an understanding of neuroscience, physics, and objective reality will continue right on without your blathering affecting us in the least.

 

[Czernobog]

The law of nature... "for every action there's a reaction."

Exactly.

Except when someone is reacting to the actions of someone else, right? Then only the reaction matter, and it is a deficiency on the part of the person reacting, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The natural law applies to matter, not emotion.

It does apply to psychology, though. The natural instinct is to react to actions.

If you hit me, I am going to react, either by hitting you back, or calling the law.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You could turn the other cheek.

Which would still be a reaction.

 

[ding]

Somehow I think you and ding would come into conflict about the supposed objective "reality" of AGW. That is just but one example.

Damn, you are so full of yourself.

If reality were actually objective, this forum would be no fun at all. . .


I step outside, I say it's cold, my son says it's hot.

You think reality is objective huh?

It doesn't matter what I think. Reality is what it is. That is the beauty of reality. It is, whether you believe in it, or not.

And this would be the point at which we are done. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who does not know the difference between imagination, and reality.

I never said I was talking about "imagination," it is just a matter of differing perspectives. We perceive things differently, thus our realities are different.

You perceive the spiritual as zealots, I perceive them as having faith. I'm not accusing you of having an over active "imagination," so don't accuse me of having one. We just have different perspectives.

Okay, when you meditate, or take hallucinogens, or do whatever it is you do to "enter into an altered state", or "spirit walk" as you call it, that is your imagination. Having used my share of drugs when I was younger, I have know doubt that you see all sorts of amazing, and awesome things. Unfortunately, none of them are real, outside of your imagination. Now if you want to base your concept of objective reality on your theta wave dreaming mind, that's entirely up to you. Those of us who have an understanding of neuroscience, physics, and objective reality will continue right on without your blathering affecting us in the least.

Science - as well as common sense and experience - tells us that it is happiness which leads to success and not success which leads to happiness. In this specific case altering perception does lead to an altered reality.

 

[ding]

Exactly.

Except when someone is reacting to the actions of someone else, right? Then only the reaction matter, and it is a deficiency on the part of the person reacting, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The natural law applies to matter, not emotion.

It does apply to psychology, though. The natural instinct is to react to actions.

If you hit me, I am going to react, either by hitting you back, or calling the law.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You could turn the other cheek.

Which would still be a reaction.

Yes, an internal locus of control action.

 

[Czernobog]

It doesn't matter what I think. Reality is what it is. That is the beauty of reality. It is, whether you believe in it, or not.

And this would be the point at which we are done. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who does not know the difference between imagination, and reality.

I never said I was talking about "imagination," it is just a matter of differing perspectives. We perceive things differently, thus our realities are different.

You perceive the spiritual as zealots, I perceive them as having faith. I'm not accusing you of having an over active "imagination," so don't accuse me of having one. We just have different perspectives.

Okay, when you meditate, or take hallucinogens, or do whatever it is you do to "enter into an altered state", or "spirit walk" as you call it, that is your imagination. Having used my share of drugs when I was younger, I have know doubt that you see all sorts of amazing, and awesome things. Unfortunately, none of them are real, outside of your imagination. Now if you want to base your concept of objective reality on your theta wave dreaming mind, that's entirely up to you. Those of us who have an understanding of neuroscience, physics, and objective reality will continue right on without your blathering affecting us in the least.

Science - as well as common sense and experience - tells us that it is happiness which leads to success and not success which leads to happiness. In this specific case altering perception does lead to an altered reality.

No it doesn't. Reality is the same as it has always been. The opportunity for success was what it was. It was always the same. What changed was your attitude, and, thus, your ability to make the best use of that opportunity that was always there. And a belief in a magic skyman is, in no way,. necessary for having a positive self-image, self-esteem, and happiness.

 

[Czernobog]

Except when someone is reacting to the actions of someone else, right? Then only the reaction matter, and it is a deficiency on the part of the person reacting, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The natural law applies to matter, not emotion.

It does apply to psychology, though. The natural instinct is to react to actions.

If you hit me, I am going to react, either by hitting you back, or calling the law.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You could turn the other cheek.

Which would still be a reaction.

Yes, an internal locus of control action.

Wrong. it is still a reaction to an external influence.

 

[ding]

And this would be the point at which we are done. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who does not know the difference between imagination, and reality.

I never said I was talking about "imagination," it is just a matter of differing perspectives. We perceive things differently, thus our realities are different.

You perceive the spiritual as zealots, I perceive them as having faith. I'm not accusing you of having an over active "imagination," so don't accuse me of having one. We just have different perspectives.

Okay, when you meditate, or take hallucinogens, or do whatever it is you do to "enter into an altered state", or "spirit walk" as you call it, that is your imagination. Having used my share of drugs when I was younger, I have know doubt that you see all sorts of amazing, and awesome things. Unfortunately, none of them are real, outside of your imagination. Now if you want to base your concept of objective reality on your theta wave dreaming mind, that's entirely up to you. Those of us who have an understanding of neuroscience, physics, and objective reality will continue right on without your blathering affecting us in the least.

Science - as well as common sense and experience - tells us that it is happiness which leads to success and not success which leads to happiness. In this specific case altering perception does lead to an altered reality.

No it doesn't. Reality is the same as it has always been. The opportunity for success was what it was. It was always the same. What changed was your attitude, and, thus, your ability to make the best use of that opportunity that was always there. And a belief in a magic skyman is, in no way,. necessary for having a positive self-image, self-esteem, and happiness.

Dopamine does two things; it makes us feel happy and it turns on all the learning centers of the brain. Evidence shows that when we are in a positive state of mind we perform significantly better than when we are in a neutral or negative or stressed state of mind. Evidence shows that we can train our brain to be in a positive state of mind by practicing thankfulness, prayer and random acts of kindness for ~1 month.

 

[ding]

Y

The natural law applies to matter, not emotion.

It does apply to psychology, though. The natural instinct is to react to actions.

If you hit me, I am going to react, either by hitting you back, or calling the law.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You could turn the other cheek.

Which would still be a reaction.

Yes, an internal locus of control action.

Wrong. it is still a reaction to an external influence.

You have no concept of what you are trying to discuss. None at all.

 

[Czernobog]

And this would be the point at which we are done. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who does not know the difference between imagination, and reality.

I never said I was talking about "imagination," it is just a matter of differing perspectives. We perceive things differently, thus our realities are different.

You perceive the spiritual as zealots, I perceive them as having faith. I'm not accusing you of having an over active "imagination," so don't accuse me of having one. We just have different perspectives.

Okay, when you meditate, or take hallucinogens, or do whatever it is you do to "enter into an altered state", or "spirit walk" as you call it, that is your imagination. Having used my share of drugs when I was younger, I have know doubt that you see all sorts of amazing, and awesome things. Unfortunately, none of them are real, outside of your imagination. Now if you want to base your concept of objective reality on your theta wave dreaming mind, that's entirely up to you. Those of us who have an understanding of neuroscience, physics, and objective reality will continue right on without your blathering affecting us in the least.

Science - as well as common sense and experience - tells us that it is happiness which leads to success and not success which leads to happiness. In this specific case altering perception does lead to an altered reality.

No it doesn't. Reality is the same as it has always been. The opportunity for success was what it was. It was always the same. What changed was your attitude, and, thus, your ability to make the best use of that opportunity that was always there. And a belief in a magic skyman is, in no way,. necessary for having a positive self-image, self-esteem, and happiness.

Dopamine does two things; it makes us feel happy and it turns on all the learning centers of the brain. Evidence shows that when we are in a positive state of mind we perform significantly better than when we are in a neutral or negative or stressed state of mind. Evidence shows that we can train our brain to be in a positive state of mind by practicing thankfulness, prayer and random acts of kindness for ~1 month.

Evidence also shows that we can do so with meditation, exercise, and those random acts of kindness. See? No prayer, or God necessary.

 

[ding]

I never said I was talking about "imagination," it is just a matter of differing perspectives. We perceive things differently, thus our realities are different.

You perceive the spiritual as zealots, I perceive them as having faith. I'm not accusing you of having an over active "imagination," so don't accuse me of having one. We just have different perspectives.

Okay, when you meditate, or take hallucinogens, or do whatever it is you do to "enter into an altered state", or "spirit walk" as you call it, that is your imagination. Having used my share of drugs when I was younger, I have know doubt that you see all sorts of amazing, and awesome things. Unfortunately, none of them are real, outside of your imagination. Now if you want to base your concept of objective reality on your theta wave dreaming mind, that's entirely up to you. Those of us who have an understanding of neuroscience, physics, and objective reality will continue right on without your blathering affecting us in the least.

Science - as well as common sense and experience - tells us that it is happiness which leads to success and not success which leads to happiness. In this specific case altering perception does lead to an altered reality.

No it doesn't. Reality is the same as it has always been. The opportunity for success was what it was. It was always the same. What changed was your attitude, and, thus, your ability to make the best use of that opportunity that was always there. And a belief in a magic skyman is, in no way,. necessary for having a positive self-image, self-esteem, and happiness.

Dopamine does two things; it makes us feel happy and it turns on all the learning centers of the brain. Evidence shows that when we are in a positive state of mind we perform significantly better than when we are in a neutral or negative or stressed state of mind. Evidence shows that we can train our brain to be in a positive state of mind by practicing thankfulness, prayer and random acts of kindness for ~1 month.

Evidence also shows that we can do so with meditation, exercise, and those random acts of kindness. See? No prayer, or God necessary.

So now you are contradicting yourself. You are admitting that perception can change reality. Different outcomes are different realities. Your present reality is the outcome of your present attitude.

Sure, you don't need to worship God to be happy, but since being thankful, prayerful and kind are fundamental Christian values, it should be no surprise why Christianity was the foundation for the success of Western Civilization and why Christianity has been a force for good. And since atheism makes no effort to teach humanity these successful behaviors, religion does serve a vital purpose for our continued success.

 

[Mudda]

Reason and experience tell us that there is no real proof for a creator.

 

[Czernobog]

Y

It does apply to psychology, though. The natural instinct is to react to actions.

If you hit me, I am going to react, either by hitting you back, or calling the law.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You could turn the other cheek.

Which would still be a reaction.

Yes, an internal locus of control action.

Wrong. it is still a reaction to an external influence.

You have no concept of what you are trying to discuss. None at all.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I find it interesting that anytime I, or anyone else talks about opposing religious encroachment of the non-religious, you call it "external locus of control", as if it is a mistake to do anything other than let religious theocrats, like yourself, do whatever they want. We (humans) tried that approach, once, and we learned a valuable lesson:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

Of course, you think that Niemöller did exactly what he should have done - nothing. don't react to those "external loci", that's baaaad.

 

[ding]

Y

You could turn the other cheek.

Which would still be a reaction.

Yes, an internal locus of control action.

Wrong. it is still a reaction to an external influence.

You have no concept of what you are trying to discuss. None at all.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I find it interesting that anytime I, or anyone else talks about opposing religious encroachment of the non-religious, you call it "external locus of control", as if it is a mistake to do anything other than let religious theocrats, like yourself, do whatever they want. We (humans) tried that approach, once, and we learned a valuable lesson:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

Of course, you think that Niemöller did exactly what he should have done - nothing. don't react to those "external loci", that's baaaad.

How are those examples of me having an external locus of control?

 

[Czernobog]

Okay, when you meditate, or take hallucinogens, or do whatever it is you do to "enter into an altered state", or "spirit walk" as you call it, that is your imagination. Having used my share of drugs when I was younger, I have know doubt that you see all sorts of amazing, and awesome things. Unfortunately, none of them are real, outside of your imagination. Now if you want to base your concept of objective reality on your theta wave dreaming mind, that's entirely up to you. Those of us who have an understanding of neuroscience, physics, and objective reality will continue right on without your blathering affecting us in the least.

Science - as well as common sense and experience - tells us that it is happiness which leads to success and not success which leads to happiness. In this specific case altering perception does lead to an altered reality.

No it doesn't. Reality is the same as it has always been. The opportunity for success was what it was. It was always the same. What changed was your attitude, and, thus, your ability to make the best use of that opportunity that was always there. And a belief in a magic skyman is, in no way,. necessary for having a positive self-image, self-esteem, and happiness.

Dopamine does two things; it makes us feel happy and it turns on all the learning centers of the brain. Evidence shows that when we are in a positive state of mind we perform significantly better than when we are in a neutral or negative or stressed state of mind. Evidence shows that we can train our brain to be in a positive state of mind by practicing thankfulness, prayer and random acts of kindness for ~1 month.

Evidence also shows that we can do so with meditation, exercise, and those random acts of kindness. See? No prayer, or God necessary.

So now you are contradicting yourself. You are admitting that perception can change reality. Different outcomes are different realities. Your present reality is the outcome of your present attitude.

You are clueless. I am admitting no swuch thing.

Sure, you don't need to worship God to be happy, but since being thankful, prayerful and kind are fundamental Christian values, it should be no surprise why Christianity was the foundation for the success of Western Civilization and why Christianity has been a force for good. And since atheism makes no effort to teach humanity these successful behaviors, religion does serve a vital purpose for our continued success.

And since it is also authoritarian, and repressive, it is also no wonder that Christianity was abandoned, and continues to be abandoned since the Age of Reason. Man is figuring out that we don't need your repressive, authoritarian religion to be moral, or to find self-worth, and, as a result, happiness And before you suggest that I am, again, "amending" my position, I never denied that Christianity had fundamental influence on Western civilisation. I dispute that the majority of that influence was positive. There's a difference.

 

[Czernobog]

Y

Which would still be a reaction.

Yes, an internal locus of control action.

Wrong. it is still a reaction to an external influence.

You have no concept of what you are trying to discuss. None at all.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I find it interesting that anytime I, or anyone else talks about opposing religious encroachment of the non-religious, you call it "external locus of control", as if it is a mistake to do anything other than let religious theocrats, like yourself, do whatever they want. We (humans) tried that approach, once, and we learned a valuable lesson:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

Of course, you think that Niemöller did exactly what he should have done - nothing. don't react to those "external loci", that's baaaad.

How are those examples of me having an external locus of control?

It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand the post.

 

[ding]

Y

Yes, an internal locus of control action.

Wrong. it is still a reaction to an external influence.

You have no concept of what you are trying to discuss. None at all.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I find it interesting that anytime I, or anyone else talks about opposing religious encroachment of the non-religious, you call it "external locus of control", as if it is a mistake to do anything other than let religious theocrats, like yourself, do whatever they want. We (humans) tried that approach, once, and we learned a valuable lesson:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

Of course, you think that Niemöller did exactly what he should have done - nothing. don't react to those "external loci", that's baaaad.

How are those examples of me having an external locus of control?

It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand the post.

Then please do explain it to me.

 

[ding]

And since it is also authoritarian, and repressive, it is also no wonder that Christianity was abandoned, and continues to be abandoned since the Age of Reason. Man is figuring out that we don't need your repressive, authoritarian religion to be moral, or to find self-worth, and, as a result, happiness And before you suggest that I am, again, "amending" my position, I never denied that Christianity had fundamental influence on Western civilisation. I dispute that the majority of that influence was positive. There's a difference.

Christianity has not been abandoned. You must have a different definition of abandoned.

Christianity is the opposite of repressive and authoritarian. We are given free will to choose. Repressive and authoritarian is what your religion of militant atheism is all about.

Since you have never done an objective assessment on the value of religion, and since you have already gone on record as saying there is no baby in the bathwater, I'm going to go with you have no objectivity on this subject.

 

[Moonglow]

Reason and experience tell us that there is no real proof for a creator.

Sure there is, my Mom and Dad created me...

 

[Moonglow]

And since it is also authoritarian, and repressive, it is also no wonder that Christianity was abandoned, and continues to be abandoned since the Age of Reason. Man is figuring out that we don't need your repressive, authoritarian religion to be moral, or to find self-worth, and, as a result, happiness And before you suggest that I am, again, "amending" my position, I never denied that Christianity had fundamental influence on Western civilisation. I dispute that the majority of that influence was positive. There's a difference.

Christianity has not been abandoned. You must have a different definition of abandoned.

Christianity is the opposite of repressive and authoritarian. We are given free will to choose. Repressive and authoritarian is what your religion of militant atheism is all about.

Since you have never done an objective assessment on the value of religion, and since you have already gone on record as saying there is no baby in the bathwater, I'm going to go with you have no objectivity on this subject.

The religion is not oppressive, but many of the people who follow it are....