touchy subject i know...

[loopylou6]

but what does everyone think about what the dream pyschic has to say about madeleines dissapearance?

I love your posts shinyhappy, I thought I could sense a neale donald walschette in your words,(have them all). I had a sneaky at your profile !! Your beach analogy is very good , might have to use that one !

Have you read his Home with God book yet ??? AWESOME. For UD , thatll explain the end of it all or the begining or the begining of the end or the start of the begining or the start of endless life or the begining of endless life or the start and the end lol !!!!

I used to post on a forum where somebody ery like UQD claimed to have an invisible purple dinosaur living in his sofa. He asked people to prove he didn't, since he believed he did.

LOL!

UD, The God Delusion arrived this morning. If I get converted to atheism I'll let you know!

SHinyhappy, all the examples you give of "mystical" experiences can eaisly be put down to wishful thinking and hallucinations. It is, for instance, extremely common to imagine you see friends or relatives after they have died because (naturally) you want to see them alive again. The heightened awareness/bright clours stuff is characteristic of both some types of migraine and some types of epilepsy. The instructions in dreams are either your subconcious mind presenting you with the solution to a problem, or just random stuff that you only remember because it worked (like all the guff about premonitions and thought-reading, people forget the far more frequent occasions when nothing happens at all).

and so it goes on..

If there is a lesson to learn, a wisdom, something significant -what a waste if there is no one to learn it and use it.
If there is beauty- what a waste if there is no one to appreciate and be in awe of it.
We are physical and there are probably physical explanations for everything even if we don't know what they are yet.
But I can't see how that suggests there's no God though, I really can't.

There is probably a physical reason why some people see auras, but they still see them whatever the cause.
And if they want they can use the ability to be helpful and kind or they can use the ability to take advantage....

ahh yes so all of us with heightened awareness have either migraines or epilepsy ON MASS,(sorry UQD not discouting the fact that you may have this).

Ive been tested for epilepsy via ecg cat scans etc and was all negative.

Melsy: there's always a physical explanation. Could be tiredness, standing up too suddenly, or the sun in your eyes. Of course, some people will interpret every sneeze, fart and rash as some kind of "cosmic messenger" and they are at liberty to do so, jsut as everyone else is at liberty to laugh at them.

I cant even be bothered to counter your argument mZ,(but I will ish).

I feel VERY VERY VERY VERY different to you and if you feel you get something from making small what others get great joy from so be it, its your life, its your reality.

I feel those who dont feel these things, just dont see or feel that dimension of life. In the vain of what shinyhappy has said this is your choice and your free will to be that way(this time around !!!)

and what is this science that discounts metaphysics, qauntum energy , remote viewing, dimensions beyond the 3rd etc???

I'm not suggesting anyone else's "aura" experience is due to epilepsy. I'm not doing to "diagnose" anyone as I'm not a trained medical professional. But that was my reason. (No "may have" about it, BTW.)

But I always come back to the question of why, given one explanation which strains the laws of physics and another simple one which fits them, people go for the unlikely one?

Mediaeval peasants probably thought of comets as great balls of Heavenly fire portending doom. The fact that we now know they are vast chunks of rock and ice burning up as they move through Space doesn't make them any less beautiful or awe-inspiring - probably more so. Why are people so reluctant to accept that there will be a scientific, testable explanation for things? It may not be one which has yet been discovered, of course - science is, by its very nature, evolving.

And science does not "ignore" the things you list, melsy, it just asks for hard evidence for them.

Quantum mechanics is a recognised branch of physics. "Dimensions beyond the third" - well, some scientists accept Time as a fourth dimension. I don't see this as a problem. "metaphysics" - depends how you define it, it would appear. here
"Remote viewing" - I must confess I didn't have a clue what the hell this was, but there is a good summary here .

cant have evidence for faith. i keep saying this . you say thats convenient. but thats kinda the whole point!

proof negates faith. faith is what is required. hence the non conclusion forever more of the argument.

my dh wants proof.

i say faith
he says "pah"
i say "poo to you"
he says " proof baybie proof"
i say " faith sweetie munchkins, faith"
he says "pah"
i say "poo"

and we agree to differ.

Reading this thread made me think of two things.

The first was Maslow's 'peak experiences'. When I first read about these, I rather thought that I had had some. I assumed they were psychological in origin. Interesting that your experiences are due to a form of epilepsy UQD. I love neuropsychology. Wish I knew more about it.

The second was the talk of mutiple dimensions. Made me think about the interview witht he sainted Dawkins that I linked to on another thread. It's a bit of a long quote, but interesting in this context I think.

"Yes, he concedes, modern physicists do talk about 11-dimensional space. ?But that?s nothing to do with theology.? How does he know? Might not God exist in one of those states? ?That might be true, but what?s sure, well, highly unlikely, is that anything that theologians of modern day or any day have to say is going to have anything to do with the wonder of what future physicists are going to discover. It?s going to dwarf not only modern-day science but present-day theology as well.?

But was there not, in his mind, a tiny possibility that one of these future physicists could discover God in one of these dimensions?

?Well, I?m convinced that future physicists will discover something at least as wonderful as any god you could ever imagine.? Why not call it God? ?I don?t think it?s helpful to call it God.? OK, but what would ?it? be like?

?I think it?ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.? He can even see how ?design? by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. ?But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It?s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It?s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it?s going to put theology to shame.?

.......

Again, I lob in the words ?transcendent? and ?numinous?, which I believe sum up what he is trying to describe. God, in other words. ?I suspect they don?t mean anything at all,? he says. But being a good scientist, he leaps from the sofa for a dictionary. He reads: ?Numinous: divine, spiritual, revealing or indicating the presence of a divinity, awe-inspiring.? A moment?s pause. Then: ?I?ll go along with awe-inspiring. Also, aesthetically appealing, uplifting. I?ll go along with aesthetically appealing and uplifting. Those aspects of it, yes. Let?s look for transcendent.?

He finds a definition to do with lying beyond the ordinary range of perception. ?That?s probably all OK and I could go along with that. Going beyond the range and grasp of the presently experienced. Maybe transcendent would be a good word to adopt.?

For probably the fiftieth time, I do not ask for proof, I merely look at the balance of evidence. Any theory needs to be considered in the light of the balance of evidence. Even the agnostic will never be entirely 50-50; there will always be a feeling that there is more evidence on one side than on the other.

To those who believe in paranormal/supernatural matters and say it's all about faith, I ask this.

I imagine you accept that there are people out there who you don't consider to be "genuine"? People who are just charlatans and out to fleece and deceive the general public? How do you identify these people? What method is there, which is better than simply saying "prove it?" If there is a better method, I'd like to hear it.

My point is that, if a friend said to me "I can read minds" or "I can move objects through force of will" or "I can do drawings that predict where lost children can be found" (to bring things back vaguely to the OP) - I wouldn't say "Oh, really? That;s nice." I'd say "Really? Can you show me?"

Uri Geller says he can bend spoons by force of will. So supposing I meet him and I say to him, that's fine. I'm not going to disbelieve him outright. I have an open mind. Here's a spoon, Uri. A normal spoon from my cutlery drawer. I'd then say, let me check your hands for magnets and other concealed devices. Let another independent observer do the same. Okay, here's the spoon, Do it. I bet he couldn't. He's simply Paul Daniels with better hair.

This is the point of Hippo Sofa Man. He wanted to sound deluded and was asking you all to prove him wrong.

I suppose that, in essence, I am asking people to define the difference between this thing called "faith" and simple credulity.

Ooh Uri Geller, years ago he was doing one of those things where he was saying everyone get your broken watches, lets fix them! So in the interest of scientific research Ds and I got my broken watch and we held it tight and said 1 2 3 work along with Uri Gellar on the telly and it started ticking! After a few weeks it stopped again.
Wondered if the heat from our hands and/or our energy had somehow recharged the battery.

Have only read a bit of the God delusion, so far find it slightly depressing and that it still misses the point but I shall continue reading and try to understand his point(s).

i still dont understand what uyour asking you seem to say that your not asking for proof but evidence - which is the same thing

so your charlaten scenario - i dont believe in a person. it matters not to me the clothing of the faith - ie the religeon. as long as i can express my faith. which isn't my religeon - religeon being the conduit. i happen to go to church but if you want to use your living room or stand on top of a stool on one foot - whatever floats your boat man.

uri geller says he can bend spoons - great. good for him he's made money - do i believe him - no. do i believe he believes? yes. do i berate him for his belief? no.

if a friend said to me "I can read minds" or "I can move objects through force of will" or "I can do drawings that predict where lost children can be found" i'd say thats nice. good for you. well done tally ho.

but it doesn't mean i cant be friends with that person. itdoesn't mean i have to say " you are SO full of shit....prove it!" i would say good for you - and carry on

so no i'm not getting the " i;m not asking fro proof but evidence" thing

to me its the same. i cannot prove my religeon. i am not trying to convert anyone. What i don't understand is why you can't just say " thats nice, good for you, whatever floats your boat." ... and carry on

I've often found that my watch, when it has stopped, will start again with a good thump and then conk out again after a week or two. Nothing magic about that!

For me, it's intellectual curiosity. I want to know WHY and HOW someone can believe such things without evidence.

What I mean about evidence is that you can't prove the non-ness of something, so I can't prove God doesn't exist any more than I can't prove the Loch Ness Monster or fairies don't exist. I know people claim to have seen all of them, but anecdote does not equal evidence. So what can you do? Well, you look at the evidence for and against. Having done that, I conclude that it is pretty damn unlikely - right up to the point where one might use the word "impossible" - that any of them exist.

And I wouldn't say to a friend "you are so full of shit", exactly. I'd ask to SEE what they could do. Wouldn't you? Would you not be interested to see such an unusual thing happen? What about if someone said the earth was flat or the moon was made of green cheese or that oxygen was imaginary? Would you just say "that's nice for you"?

What if someone's "beliefs" in the ridiculous led them to start doing dangerous stuff? Like coming off their medication in favour of crystal healing and patently getting more ill, or becoming a Breatharian and claiming they didn't need food?

i still cant prove it or give you any evidence it is what it is

As UQD says, the biggest reason we rational types don't just go Ok, that's nice, good for you about any old crock of shit that people believe in is that sometimes these crocks of shit endanger not only (or not necessarily) the believer but others around them. What of the parents who try to treat a child's appendicitis with crystal healing because they have "faith" in it and also have "faith" that all hospitals and doctors are engaged in an evil conspiracy with the drug companies, etc... Should their faith be respected, or should they be prosecuted for child abuse/neglect when the child suffers or even dies of peritonitis...?

Of course, mostly faith teaches people to be nice and help old ladies cross the road and give money to the poor. Which is great, although I guess people would do that anyway if they are that kind of person. Plenty of people do so without any faith, anyway. And unfortunately it doesn't stop there.

i am all omnimpotent

i have answers to everything

I have questions for everything.
I find that more interesting.