I’m thinking more of an experience like that of Dan Barker than SentientMeat’s.
Certainly some topics evoke greater degrees of emotion than others. That doesn’t mean that they can be easily disentangled and isolated. I’m not sure I’m understanding your point here, so let me ask you to clarify your point about the distribution of tasks in the brain and how it relates to a discussion or a debate about poetry versus math.
Are you, for example, saying that one or the other is an entirely cognitive or an entirely emotional topic, such that it would matter where in the brain the processing of the topic occurs?
So how does the neurophysiology of the brain pertain to whether or not “reason” should be an element of this discussion or debate?
I’ll just try to briefly reiterate my point - discussing either poetry or math (your selections) involves both reason and emotion. You have to have constructs that represent elements of poetry or math in your mind, and you have to convey them to another person in a way that those constructs have some similar meaning for the other person. Both “poetry” and “math” involve cognitions and feelings, although they will differ from one person to another.
Either god/religion/faith can similarly be discussed and debated, or they caonnot. It seems to me that if they cannot, they are so bereft of external meaning as to be useless constructs, leading to questions about what some people are doing every Sunday and how they even share ideas on the topic among one another.
Well, that’s kinda like asking how I know a bachelor is unmarried. God (or at least the sort of God I’m talking about) is supernatural by definition.
I’ve decided to make it a point to minister in that regard to my fellow Christians. We are far too judgmental, arrogant, and dismissive. We can speak of our faith in confidence without playing God ourselves. We need to stop operating under the presumption that you’re missing something or lacking something that we have. Faith really isn’t a commodity.
Honestly, Rev, that line was added as an afterthought. Reading through before submitting, I appeared to be rambling (as I often do.) I was really using a hypothetical “you” that might or might not apply to any particular person or persons.
I think anything that isn’t settled fact can be debated. There’s no point in arguing about whether force is equal to mass times acceleration. But how that came to be the case, or the validity of the underlying formula, or whether it has a moral consequence — all these things are open to debate. Same same for faith. There’s no point in debating about who has it. But how faith comes to be is fair game. And there is the full spectrum from “made up fairy tale” to “gift from God Himself”.
No. I am saying that different communications are processed in the brain with significantly varying ratios of cognitive to emotional activity. The two variations of the trolley problem produce different outcomes because they are processed with different degrees of cognitive versus emotional activity. Just as I suspect are poetry and math.
I’m not talking about varying cognitive to emotional ratios among different people. I’m pointing out that within each person an idea presented somewhat differently can be processed significantly differently - and sometimes in contradiction.
Would it change your approach here to learn that I am an atheist? I’m not talking about external meanings and, as I read it, neither is Liberal’s OP. The OP is talking about talking about external meanings. (Or, from your perspective and mine, the lack thereof.)
So, apology in the works, or…?
If I may just clarify, I said that God would literally have to change my physical neuroanatomy such that, from all the inputs thus far in my life, my working output was “God exists” - ie. God would have to change me into someone else, not SentientMeat anymore!
This is because, if you remember, I have had an experience which was every bit as epiphanic and “divine” as your own, and yet I am now an atheist because I consider that there was (and is) a neurophysical explanation for that experience. In fact, even were I to wake up in heaven or God literally appear before my very eyes, I would still consider a natural explanation more probable - that I was being deceived by futuristic VR technology (which I consider an incredibly compelling logical argument even as I sit here writing this!).
So my point, which I don’t think your way of putting it quite captures, is that even “experiencing God” did not make me a theist, since my brain’s analysis still outputs that “experiencing God” can still be a natural phenomenon (a la Dennett, of course). God (or, indeed aliens) would have to literally change my brain so that it ouput what you output given our qualitatively similar experiences.
In short, He would have to turn me into you. Physically
How do you know that?
Agreed, but …
… hey, no pedestals, remember?
Liberal much of what you posted in the OP is in the Bible, I don’t expect anyone to ever prove God exists externally - that’s just not how God designed the system, but God will show Himself on a personal level on His time frame. Try to go around that system and God will frustrate your efforts.
So scripturally speaking you can not prove God to anyone, only God Himself can do that. If you appeared to do so at best you were acting as a servant of God.
I agree, Kanicbird. 
I don’t understand the question. My claim was that the God I’m talking about is defined (partly) as supernatural. Are you asking me how I know how I define God? Or how I know what I’m talking about? Or what, exactly?
Similar maybe, but certainly not the same. Apparently, my brain was literally changed.
As was mine, but my point was that one could still make a similarly radical change to two different computers which ultimately made one flip its output but wasn’t quite enough, for whatever reason, to flip the other’s.
So, you must be composing a really impressive retraction/apology for it to take this long, right?
Whom are you squawking at? Me? 
I haven’t offered you any apology for anything, and if for some reason you are expecting one, I am flummoxed as to why. You gave us your input with a deep squat and a good grunt, and I was expecting you’d just wipe your rhetorical butt and move on. Yet — you linger, expressing delusions about some grand apology being scribbled just for you.
And in the event that you aren’t addressing me, then could you open a Pit thread or something and demand your apology from that person there. This thread is my witness about what Tris’s post meant to me and my faith. It is not one iota of any concern to you. Thank you in advance for your mature consideration.
You made an accusation and insulted me based on nothing more than your own hasty misreading. It’s not particularly honest or honorable to do that in this thread, and then demand that I discuss it and resolve it somewhere else. What you did doesn’t deserve a pitting: it deserves a correction.
How do you know that god is supernatural? I thought it was a pretty easy question.
Moderator’s Note: Apos, if the thread is turning from a debate or discussion on the issue(s) at hand to a discussion of who owes whom an apology, then it has turned into something that needs to be resolved elsewhere (i.e., the Pit).
Liberal, please keep this sort of rhetoric out of Great Debates.
Conveyed? Really? Doesn’t that confine it? Someone (here, I think) posted a wonderful post about how words are utterly inadequate to describe so many things…do you really feel that everything can be conveyed?
I don’t too often post much to these threads precisely because I find it frustrating to attempt to convey experience in words.
Remember Maslow’s characteristics of “peak experiences”? One of them was that a peak experience has the quality of ineffiability – It would be difficult or impossible to describe adequately in words.
Here’s a more common parallel: Can you imagine being able to convey conversationally with any success the sensations and feelings that are experienced during an orgasm? If you are talking with a totally inexperienced person, there is just no way to describe what it is like.
I had three thoughts in rapid succession when I read that phrase:
- There is no such thing!
- Hmm. Good book title.
- Terrific band name!
But a miracle ceases to be a miracle the moment the mechanism behind it can be understood. Therefore, there are no miracles. There are only stories of them.
As it is with “God”.