Me, too.
Except I want to keep the word “simularal.” That’s goin’ in my scrapbook, along with “expoobidence.”
They’re perfectly cromudile words.
Technically, those still count as dreams occurring during periods of sleep.
I dispute this factual claim. All my daydeams and 82% of my hallucinations have been while I was awake.
I will not allow you to redefine “sleep” just to save face.
I’m sorry, I think I took something for granted here. It was namely that the way you described the conversation was the type of conversation I really only have in a casual type of relationship. I don’t have those sorts of discussions with God as I think my later comment pointed out.
The point was was trying to make is that, at least for me, my dialogue with God isn’t like my dialogue with a person in which I say something, he responds in kind, etc. I am aware of people who have made claims to have had experiences like that, but I’ve never had one like that. But my experiences of a bidirectional relationship isn’t any less real.
I felt like he was turning a more specific discusison, about the consistency of God and a loving nature and going to a more general discussion about whether or not God actually exists which I’m not terribly sure is actually relevant to the discussion. As such, in response to that, my answer is essentially that I tend be believe that naturalistic evidence is completely silent on the issue. That is, I believe that inherently science cannot say anything one way or the other about God because it is the study of the natural world and God, by his very nature, is not a part of that.
Some will look at that and say, well, there’s no evidence for, so I have no reason to believe that… and that’s fine. Personally, my experiences and my musings have led to to the opposite conclusion. But like I’ve indicated before, I don’t think there’s necessarily anything special about my experiences, and like any such anecdote, they certainly don’t hold much, if any, persuasiveness when described to others.
Either way, if I did strawman his argument, it was an unintentional misunderstanding on my part and not deliberate, but I hope that that answers the other question as well.
Honestly, I was being a little facetious when I typed that, but I probably should have figured I’d be called on it. To ellaborate on what I touched on above I believe that as creator, God is inherently not part of the natural universe, and so arguing that we have seen no evidence isn’t really helpful at all.
That is, I see science as, more or less, orthogonal to religion (or philosophy or whatever you want to use as a more inclusive term for the non-religious). I think when people try to use religion to solve scientific questions, or science to solve a religous ones, it’s like using a hammer to fix a software bug. I think human knowledge is a culmination of multiple disciplines that involve different types of questions that need to be examined in different ways.
I understand your point, but I think this is where we’re sort of talking past eachother. I simply don’t believe that the whole of knowledge can be obtained through science. The difference here is that the cement block is something that is observable by science, but the latter is not.
As I’ve said, I don’t think my experiences of communing with God are unique to me, and are probably shared by just about everyone. Sure, we can come up with possible explanations for the source of those experiences but, frankly, that’s missing the point because it really doesn’t matter where they come from. If those thoughts are just an internal process, or they’re from God, or some other source entirely, it’s the lessons and growth that come from the experience that is meaningful.
Frankly, the answer is, I don’t know. They are different for me experientially when something comes internally and when something comes externally, other times I can’t easily tell the difference. Other than that experiential difference, the reason I believe it comes from God is simply because it’s consistent with my musings and beliefs. Obviously, your belief is probably consistent with your worldview too.
Unfortunately, the only way I can really differentiate them is basically just saying that it was different and it felt like it came from outside of my own mind. Beyond that, I really can’t think of any way to explain it, akin to try to explain the color red to someone who was born blind… it just can’t be explained meaningfully in the context of another sense.
Yes, I was aware Einstein was first on the list. He did believe in God.
Here are a few of his quotes.
I stand corrected.
Unless you dreamed this response, of course.
Then you should quote your source as others do so all may read them.
Cite!
From the beginning of the same site:
(bolding mine)
Will you at least read your cites before you post them?
See Nature’s Call’s post 98. All the references to God in your cite are to God as metaphor. Would a believer actually say he wanted to know God’s thoughts?
You do it far too often as it is, and the pertinent quotes from your blog have been pointed out to you and others over and over and over again through the years. Get your free advertising elsewhere.
The first couple of quotes including the word “God” are certainly authentic. The problem is that he doesn’t understand what the quotes say or their context.
My father yelling “Jesus Christ” when he hit his thumb with a hammer was not an indication of conversion to Christianity.
The key word here is “personal”, many religions don’t believe in a personal God, but certainly believe in God. A higher intelligence, a higher consciousness, which is also called God. You can tell by my post that I also don’t believe in a God that interferes with my life, but I certainly believe in God, a Higher Consciousness that created the whole of everything.
First of all, Blaster Master I acknowledge and appreciate the tone of your response.
I agree with you to an extent that the discussion of God’s existence can lead away from the OP’s concern whether God loves everyone. There is an overlap, though. Obviously if God doesn’t exist then God doesn’t love anyone. But more than that, evidence of God’s love has to be considered and often the refutations of God’s love directly or indirectly apply to the existence question. I try to keep the two separate in my replies in this thread. It’s very difficult as they are so entwined.
In response to your last post: Somehow in these discussions the words “science” and “evidence” take on strange metaphysical attributes. It is often remarked “God cannot be detected by science therefore one cannot expect there to be evidence for God.”
The point about the cement block was not intended to be “see here’s something science can detect, why isn’t God like a cement block.” My point was only about discerning the truth. I ask that you not focus on the cement - focus on the claim. If I tell you I made a brick fly up you do not believe me. If you tell me thoughts come to you from outside yourself, I do not believe you. There is an opportunity for each of us to dispell each others disbelief. How? The only word that comes to mind is “evidence” Not some spooky, legally sciencey concept. No, rather just describing what is it that convinced us.
I want to focus on the meditation point. I will not argue that meditation is a dumb or worthless exercise. My only concern is whether it is a means to allow God Himself to speak to us. Let’s take, for the sake of argument, that both you and I were born tabula rasa and were raised in more or less the same culture. We each see things fall and develop an internal working model for gravity. We each see how humans behave and treat each other and develop a sense of how to treat others and when to trust/mistrust others. But we diverge on the question of God’s love. I say “there is no God” You say “he helps me through difficult situations if I listen carefully for him.”
I hope I set up this argument in such a way to set aside for a moment the “explain red to the blind” (which I’ll come back to). I assume that you and I are equally equipped of whatever sensory apparatus informs you when God is speaking and not your own thoughts.
With all of those givens and preambles, do you have a reasonable explanation why I have not had the experience of God’s voice that you have had? Let’s assume I have tried meditation to the same degree and frequency you have. Why is God not speaking to me too?
Just a brief comment on the “explain red to the blind” If I was blind, you could very well explain that there is a notion of colour, the mechansim that you have that I lack which allows you to discern colours. You can set up a demonstration: e.g. two surfaces one glowing red hot, the other not. You and I both stand far enough away that neither can feel the heat. But you can with 100% accuracy tell when the hot surface is on the left or the right, and I can at best hope only for 50%. I will be convinced thereby that you have an ability that I do not, and that ability is consistent with your explanation thereof. This isn’t spooky “sciencey-evidencey” mystery. This is just common rational sense (which is why science works). Indeed, if your ability to see red suddenly disappeared because science got too close, I would doubt your ability to see red at all.
Here are more Einstein quotes, the Internet is full of them.
http://www.sonic.net/~gralsto/einstein/quotes.html
There is no doubt Einstein believed in God.
In other words you are refusing to show your source, which really doesn’t say anything like what you say it does.
Another page of unverified "quotes’’ from anonymous sources? Please stop.
I want to frame my response by reminding you of how this line began:
It appears you are saying
- there have been scientists who believe in God
- Einstein was one of these
- therefore there are more ways than the scientific method to discover the true nature of God/the universe
I refute the notion that Albert Einstein would endorse anything other than the scientific method as a means of understanding the universe. I repeat the quote I quoted earlier:
There is no doubt Einstein used the word God. We can debate whether those uses were metaphorical or whether Einstein believed in something tangible that he called God. That’s not the point. (sidebar: I myself have been overhead saying “God help me, I’m late for work” Taken out of context you may convince people I’m not an atheist. That doesn’t make it true.) Whatever else Einstein may have meant by God, he didn’t mean an higher intelligence or higher consiciousness (that’s what “personal” means “the persistent and contiguous unity of the individual person which is attested by consciousness” - Webster) and certainly not a source of knowledge that bypasses the scientific method.
- Your posting history is my “cite”-if anyone else has trouble finding out what you’ve posted, I’ll PM them.
- Again, I’m not going to advertise your blog for you.
The universe is not set up to please one individual. God gave us free will so we could learn about ourselves and Him at our own pace. There is no hurry, we have an eternity. The laws governing the universe are just, equal, and absolutely fair to all. Those who seek will find, those who knock will find the door open. Those who do nothing and expect God to make the first move will be disappointed.