Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Probe

God and Universe

1,208 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

029b10
3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

So if i experienced the earth stopping rotating and the sun motionless in the sky without disastrous physical effects then  i would know it was possible even if i did not understand how.

However i could never believe via faith that it was possible

Yet you imagine that what you consider an imaginary god has told you that the earth stopped rotating since nothing to that effect was written in the scriptures, seems like you believe it is possible that an imaginary god said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, 029b10 said:

I agree, a person doesn't know when they must believe and person who believes doesn't have faith without some reason which is evidence of the hope.  

So why do you think that I even suggested that the earth stood still from my quote or were you merely making an unfounded assumption?

Have you ever read the scriptures?  

Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.  Josh 10:13

I guess if one believes that the sun rotates around the earth then the fact that the sun does not move from it position in the middle of the solar system, then the fact the sun does not go down about a whole day could be above their pay grade.    But 'about a whole day' is not 'a whole day' yet the sun doesn't go up or down any day since it remains it the same position year after year.   But then again I am sure you believe that the rotation of a day is 23 hr 56 minutes which is about a whole day.   

 

I do not  know what is behind any thing you or another writes.  I simply look at the words and try to decipher their meaning. I give my understandings rather than make assumptions about yours 

So i  don know if you  believe the world really stood still or if oyu see it as a metaphor, or exaggeration of god's power  etc. 

lol read them many times. Studied them with many faiths.  Looked s t them as an academic  and studied their archaeology, history, sociology, and language evolution.

i still do not get your argument from your words, nor is it clear  what you believe or are saying.

  it takes an act of faith to believe that the world stood still, for even a minute, without a  catastrophic event occurring 

Are you saying you have such a faith, and believe the world stopped turning,  despite what science says would happen if that occurred 

Ie are you a person who believes that while some things may be open to interpretation and understanding, basically every thing in the bible is literally true, BECAUSE it is in the bible  and is the word of god? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
3 hours ago, 029b10 said:
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

So if i experienced the earth stopping rotating and the sun motionless in the sky without disastrous physical effects then  i would know it was possible even if i did not understand how.

However i could never believe via faith that it was possible

Yet you imagine that what you consider an imaginary god has told you that the earth stopped rotating since nothing to that effect was written in the scriptures, seems like you believe it is possible that an imaginary god said it.

You two deserve each other...please, carry on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
5 hours ago, joc said:

You two deserve each other...please, carry on...

I haven't really worked out what he believes or is getting at yet.

However, as i have said may times i do NOT believe in things .  I do NOT use or accept magical thinking.

I accept  that many humans need to construct  a belief in gods,  and that they build these  beliefs to meet their psychological awareness of pain death and suffering.

However I do not. 

My argument is that I only "do" knowledge, and the only unusual thing about me is that i have personal -evidenced knowledge of many things, including the presence of "gods", " angels",  "ghosts" etc   

It does not require belief or magical thinking to have knowledge, only experience and evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
9 hours ago, 029b10 said:

Yet you imagine that what you consider an imaginary god has told you that the earth stopped rotating since nothing to that effect was written in the scriptures, seems like you believe it is possible that an imaginary god said it.

Despite joc's comment, i don't have clue what you are saying here. First the sentence doesn't make sense, and second i never said anything like that.  My own POV is that the scriptures are not literal or scientific having been written by people from 2-4000 years ago with little or no scientific knowledge They get some things right via observation and deduction, but much is beyond their ken. 

No i do not imagine any god stopped the earth.

My point was, that if the earth stopped tomorrow  and nothing catastrophic happened, then i would accept that happening, despite the laws of science,   because i was experiencing it happening, and thus knew it to be real.

I would NOT, however, immediately credit anything divine or supernatural about it.

I would assume perhaps that it was caused by very advanced science, but until i knew i wouldn't believe anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Despite joc's comment, i don't have clue what you are saying here. First the sentence doesn't make sense, and second i never said anything like that.  My own POV is that the scriptures are not literal or scientific having been written by people from 2-4000 years ago with little or no scientific knowledge They get some things right via observation and deduction, but much is beyond their ken. 

No i do not imagine any god stopped the earth.

My point was, that if the earth stopped tomorrow  and nothing catastrophic happened, then i would accept that happening, despite the laws of science,   because i was experiencing it happening, and thus knew it to be real.

I would NOT, however, immediately credit anything divine or supernatural about it.

I would assume perhaps that it was caused by very advanced science, but until i knew i wouldn't believe anything.

The user is making a point regarding a person believing an imaginary deity. What they are trying to do, as far as I can tell, is to get you to admit your God is imaginary. 

While stating if the Earth didn't indeed stop it's axial rotation or orbital rotation of the sun, and your God told you in fact it did. They are trying to ascertain if you'd still accept your God's word if in fact you didn't notice the Earth stopping. It's quite simple really 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

my own POV is that the scriptures are not literal or scientific having been written by people from 2-4000 years ago with little or no scientific knowledge

To bad that the discipline of scientific inquiry originated from the principles recorded within the scriptures or else you would  have made and an outstanding scientist.  

Since the scriptures are not hidden behind language or code, but they are hid by principles which are simple to see.  But I guess if the Aristoltle and other philosphers, or the Mayans who developed their knowledge of the celestial bodys, the Egyptians that built pryamids that still stump man today regarding their construction  doesn't meet your standards then look at this way, did you teach yourself how to read and write?  Apparently they did back then.

s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
32 minutes ago, danydandan said:

if Earth didn't indeed stop it's axial rotation

So has the earth always been spinning,

yet if it had a beginning then it wouldn't have always be spinning

so what is so hard to accept that the earth might have stood still at some point in time, 

which isn't what I said nor what I implied it is written that it was the sun

 

 

Edited by 029b10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10

But other than that are you guys having a good new years?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
54 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

So has the earth always been spinning,

yet if it had a beginning then it wouldn't have always be spinning

so what is so hard to accept that the earth might have stood still at some point in time, 

which isn't what I said nor what I implied it is written that it was the sun

 

 

Always spinning, simple fact really. Do yourself a favor and read some astrophysics and some of Einstein's works. 

The Earth didn't just pop into existence, it was a violent birth. Involving massive collisions, gravity ( Einstein's type and Newton's type) and many other things, that resulted in spinning and the continues spinning since Earth was a large Rock no bigger than your head. It's not a simple 'pop' there's Earth, type of story.

If the Earth stopped spinning at any point in time do you have any idea the energy required to get us spinning again. If we stopped spinning at any time, we would look like Mars in a very short space of time.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

@Mr Walker guess know one knows what that user is shyting on about. 

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 hours ago, 029b10 said:

To bad that the discipline of scientific inquiry originated from the principles recorded within the scriptures or else you would  have made and an outstanding scientist.  

No it didn't, that's just bolloxology. 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 hours ago, danydandan said:

The user is making a point regarding a person believing an imaginary deity. What they are trying to do, as far as I can tell, is to get you to admit your God is imaginary. 

While stating if the Earth didn't indeed stop it's axial rotation or orbital rotation of the sun, and your God told you in fact it did. They are trying to ascertain if you'd still accept your God's word if in fact you didn't notice the Earth stopping. It's quite simple really 

Thanks.

I didn't get that at all. I did start to believe there was some form of word games involved, and I don't do those, and am not good at them.

I write literally, and i interpret literally, and believe communication should  be honest, open, and clear.

  I don't try and catch people out, and i don't understand/get it, when people write in such a form. 

The conversation still doesn't make sense, as i never brought belief into it.

i simply stated that, if the earth stopped rotating and nothing drastic occurred, i would accept that reality, without necessarily understanding the forces involved  

THAT'S how i have had to come to understand the entity in my life.

It is real. it is powerful and self directed, and it is interventionist in my life. Its science is beyond my comprehension, although  not entirely 

My impression was that HE believed in a literal bible and that HE accepted the word of the bible, that the sun stayed still in the sky, but was quibbling that this did not necessarily mean that the earth stopped rotating. However, i really couldn't understand what his point was. 

As it happens, i do NOT believe the sun stopped in the sky, but i think he does. 

That  passage was either a literary device to make a point, OR a genuine but mistaken belief, based on a failure of the observer's perception (Like some people, while driving, lose a whole period of time from their memory )

I don't accept any thing my "god " tells me, unless it is verifiable, makes sense, and will do no harm if applied,  but then it never communicates anything that does not meet those criteria, so there has never been a problem, or dilemma, for me . 

Anything is possible, given powerful enough technologies, but, personally, I would put the probability of such an event actually occurring  at less (and probably far less)  than a thousandth of one percent  :) 

Ps the last few posts confirm what i suspected. He is arguing,  not that the earth stopped rotating, but that the SUN actually stopped its movement in the sky, as described.  That is no more, nor less, incredible than the earth stopping it's rotation, but it complicates the physics involved, and was only put in  those words because people BELIEVED the sun rotated around the earth, not vice versa 

His gripe  is that  accepting a halt in the earth's rotation is not enough. I must accept the literal words that the SUN stopped moving  in the sky. Now, how that could actully happen is not explained without halting the earth's rotation but, apparently, if the bible says the sun stopped moving, then it did. 

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I haven't really worked out what he believes or is getting at yet.

However, as i have said may times i do NOT believe in things .  I do NOT use or accept magical thinking.

I accept  that many humans need to construct  a belief in gods,  and that they build these  beliefs to meet their psychological awareness of pain death and suffering.

However I do not. 

My argument is that I only "do" knowledge, and the only unusual thing about me is that i have personal -evidenced knowledge of many things, including the presence of "gods", " angels",  "ghosts" etc   

It does not require belief or magical thinking to have knowledge, only experience and evidence.

“My argument is that I only "do" knowledge, and the only unusual thing about me is that i have personal -evidenced knowledge of many things, including the presence of "gods", " angels",  "ghosts" etc   

It does not require belief or magical thinking to have knowledge, only experience and evidence” ( Walker).

The problem with this argument is that knowledge doesn’t include your personal interpretation of an experience, knowledge is the theoretical and practical application of experience based on the facts. 

For ex: as part of your experience you interpreted headlights to be a talking alien. Headlights do qualify as knowledge in this case, I beleive you saw headlights it can be supported by a common known reality. 

What isn’t knowledge is your personal interpretation ( ancedotal ) of the headlights as a talking alien. 

In Philosophical argumentation, one must set aside personal interpretation ( ancedotal) and just stick with the facts.

Therefore, you must stand corrected knowledge doesn’t include your personal interpretation as evidence. 

With this being said, we all believe things some are factual, some aren’t.

The purpose of critical thinking and logic is to simply make this distinction. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, 029b10 said:

To bad that the discipline of scientific inquiry originated from the principles recorded within the scriptures or else you would  have made and an outstanding scientist.  

Since the scriptures are not hidden behind language or code, but they are hid by principles which are simple to see.  But I guess if the Aristoltle and other philosphers, or the Mayans who developed their knowledge of the celestial bodys, the Egyptians that built pryamids that still stump man today regarding their construction  doesn't meet your standards then look at this way, did you teach yourself how to read and write?  Apparently they did back then.

s

There is nothing magical nor mystical about the scriptures, and any obscurity is due to the amount of time which has passed since they were written and the HUGE change in human knoldge and undertsnding about our natural world and ourselves plus of course the difficulty of translation of complex ideas and beliefs  

For example, the y consist of many forms of writing, with difernt intents, from "historical"/ descriptive to legalistic and social, through allegory metaphorical and poetic.

They y represent many writer's (across a couple of thousand years)   attempt to explain god, and human connection to, god.  Some of the writers appear to have experienced personal connection to and revelation for a god  and a re writing from a primary perspective, while others write more of  tertiary based " analysis and explanation" of how to respond to god.

Again, i do not get your point about history but i think it comes from your own mind, which places biblical history and literalism before academic history science or knowledge and understanding  

The bible is book whose context is embedded in human history and must be seen in that context. One must know and understand the lives, knowledge (and lack of knowledge) beliefs/psychology  and  relationships of its writers to their world and their beliefs,  in order  to understand its words .

Personally, i think that, if you wish to establish a living relationship with god and follow the wishes of that god for you, then  it is better to rely on a personal, one to one, relationship and not on the writings of people from thousands of years ago,

That is not to say that  the bible does not possess much wisdom  but to rely on it would be like relying on the knowledge of a physician from that time.

Th Egyptian and Mayans and Chinesw did show some advances in technology but nothing mysterious or inexplicable.

We can do anything they could do and thousands of times more than they ever could What is interesting is the social and religious /economic contexts and forces which drove humans to build megalithic structures  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
32 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

“My argument is that I only "do" knowledge, and the only unusual thing about me is that i have personal -evidenced knowledge of many things, including the presence of "gods", " angels",  "ghosts" etc   

It does not require belief or magical thinking to have knowledge, only experience and evidence” ( Walker).

The problem with this argument is that knowledge doesn’t include your personal interpretation of an experience, knowledge is the theoretical and practical application of experience based on the facts. 

For ex: as part of your experience you interpreted headlights to be a talking alien. Headlights do qualify as knowledge in this case, I beleive you saw headlights it can be supported by a common known reality. 

What isn’t knowledge is your personal interpretation ( ancedotal ) of the headlights as a talking alien. 

In Philosophical argumentation, one must set aside personal interpretation ( ancedotal) and just stick with the facts.

Therefore, you must stand corrected knowledge doesn’t include your personal interpretation as evidence. 

With this being said, we all believe things some are factual, some aren’t.

The purpose of critical thinking and logic is to simply make this distinction. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are simply wrong here sherapy and it underlies your whole probem 

Human knowldge begins with our personal experience and is dependent on it   All else  is accepted true belief, based on our faith in people and sources 

YOU do not need verification to have knowledge of what you ate this morning or what  size dress you are wearing You KNOW this form observationand experince 

You can tell me  and then i can accept your word and have verifiable true belief.

But unless i observe for myself i do not have knowledge of what you ate or are wearing. This is true for everything.  a single person can make a scientific geographical  or biological  discovery  They then have knowldge which  no one else possesses.

That knowledge can be spread by word, but will not be accepted scientifically until tested, repeated, and verified.

This does not make it knowledge. It always WAS knowledge, from the moment the first human experienced it.This procedure of science    is "just" a way for people to test the veracity of  the knowledge  

ANd again you misrepresent a story of mine to make it fit your own prejudices 

There WERE no headlights.

  There was a very bright pillar of light about 2 metres high and a meter in diameter  which lit up the yard like day.

It appeared by my side and a voice emanated from it. It made a promise and kept tha t promise 

The light was observed by my parents from inside the house through a curtained window with the blind pulled down.  When they asked me what it was, i TOLD them it was a truck turning around in our front drive but only so i did not have to explain what really happened, before i could process it for my self.

Now, you KNOW this, having heard the story a dozen times, yet you twist MY words to fit YOUR inabilty to believe  what actually occurred 

And so, yes, I used evidences and observation to interpret what occurred and came to one logical conclusion (and I recognised other logical conclusions such as an hallucination, but rejected them as not fitting the evidences) 

I did not allow belief or disbelief in what is/was "possible" to override what i experienced, but interpreted the experience using contextual evidences, reality checkers etc The entity was physical and real. It promised to remove my nicotine addiction and did so in that instant. It said i would never smoke again, and i never did.  It was seen by others, and so was not a manifestation from within my head.   As well, of course, it stayed with me in spirit/ connection,  and occurred/manifested physically  over the next 40 years, saving my life, mentoring and teaching me, giving me gifts and abilities,   so it was not a one off event.

I truly wonder how such an encounter would affect you. if it would drive you mad or if you would have to construct and maintain a false sense of disbelief in order to cope

You failed to note that i described my knowledge as evidenced.

While we all interpret our experiences through our mind, we determine their reality and nature from evidences.

That is how you KNOW what you ate or what you are wearing NOT because someone else confirmed those things for you .

I hope you do not have to ask your husband if the dress or track suit you are wearing is real before going outside  Hopefully your own experiential knowldge is enough for you to walk out in confidence. :)

On the other hand, no matter how you perceive your dress to look it is legitimate e to ask him for his perception of it  Thus it is legitimate for you to question my perception of the events  but not to simply claim, I was "wearing no clothes " because you found my description of those clothes to be personally unbelievable. 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel
On 30/12/2018 at 4:57 PM, 029b10 said:

What is logical about believing something doesn't exist or ever existed unless one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist.  Absolutely nothing.  

 

You realize that lacking a belief in something and believing in the non-existence of something is not the same thing, correct? Do you also see how it wouldn't make sense to claim to believe in the non-existence of something? It wouldn't make sense to say "I believe that faeries/leprechauns/angels/etc don't exist.". I simply lack a belief, not actively have a belief in the non-existence of something.

Quote

Moreover, it is totally illogical to conclude that if one could prove God does not exist that it would prove that God did not exist.  

 
 

I agree with you. For example, you could prove that Abraham Lincoln does not (currently) exist, but it would certainly be illogical to say that he never existed.

Quote

Do you believe that Caesar existed? 

Assuming you're referring to the Julius Caesar then my belief is completely irrelevant, as the evidence certainly points to Julius Caesar existing in the past.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Ah, parsing words and quibbling over semantics and syntax is how we greet the New Year, eh?

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You are simply wrong here sherapy and it underlies your whole probem 

Human knowldge begins with our personal experience and is dependent on it   All else  is accepted true belief, based on our faith in people and sources 

YOU do not need verification to have knowledge of what you ate this morning or what  size dress you are wearing You KNOW this form observationand experince 

You can tell me  and then i can accept your word and have verifiable true belief.

But unless i observe for myself i do not have knowledge of what you ate or are wearing. This is true for everything.  a single person can make a scientific geographical  or biological  discovery  They then have knowldge which  no one else possesses.

That knowledge can be spread by word, but will not be accepted scientifically until tested, repeated, and verified.

This does not make it knowledge. It always WAS knowledge, from the moment the first human experienced it.This procedure of science    is "just" a way for people to test the veracity of  the knowledge  

ANd again you misrepresent a story of mine to make it fit your own prejudices 

There WERE no headlights.

  There was a very bright pillar of light about 2 metres high and a meter in diameter  which lit up the yard like day.

It appeared by my side and a voice emanated from it. It made a promise and kept tha t promise 

The light was observed by my parents from inside the house through a curtained window with the blind pulled down.  When they asked me what it was, i TOLD them it was a truck turning around in our front drive but only so i did not have to explain what really happened, before i could process it for my self.

Now, you KNOW this, having heard the story a dozen times, yet you twist MY words to fit YOUR inabilty to believe  what actually occured 

 

MW, I countered that knowledge is not dependent on ones personal interpretation of an experience (ancedotal).

For example: a pillar of light is the knowledge, it is supported by your observation, which I accept  and it is furthered by your parents collaborating that they saw a light. 

I believe you saw a pillar of light as described. You have sufficient evidence to forward this.

You are including your personal interpretation as evidence by  suggesting I take your word that this pillar of light as your interpreted mental representation is reality. Nota bene: you told your parents that it was headlights from a truck "so that you didn't really have to explain what happened, until at which time you could wrap your head around it." I  conclude the pillar of light talking and keeping promises is your personal interpretation of an experience not the experience itself, in other words.

Your interpretation of reality is not believable. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Ah, parsing words and quibbling over semantics and syntax is how we greet the New Year, eh?

Where you see quibbling, semantics and syntax. I see an opportunity to explore bias, heuristics, standard form, deductive and non deductive arguments etc. etc. for my own personal refinement, attention to detail, active listening skills, I see a great opportunity to practice (in the educational sense) the skills of critical thinking and logic in application.  

Quite frankly, I appreciate MW for the engagement in this sense. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Sherapy can you explain to me this strange and kinda weird obsession with Walker that you have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Sherapy can you explain to me this strange and kinda weird obsession with Walker that you have?

Obsession?

 

 

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Obsession?

You quote and discuss with Walker more than anyone I know. The only other person that did that was BackToEarth. All of us know that Wally Walker derails threads, most of us have stopped engaging him for that very reason. You still do, not that you can't. But I'm just curious as to why. What do you gain out of it? Because you know that no matter what he will not change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
9 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You quote and discuss with Walker more than anyone I know. The only other person that did that was BackToEarth. All of us know that Wally Walker derails threads, most of us have stopped engaging him for that very reason. You still do, not that you can't. But I'm just curious as to why. What do you gain out of it? Because you know that no matter what he will not change.

Ahhh, gotcha.

For me, it is educational. 

As I posted, his posts help me understand critical thinking and logic. 

It's not about changing him it is about me refining me. I am enrolled in a Critical thinking and Logic course in the winter session. Just familiarizing myself with bias, heuristics, pulling out premises, conclusions, standard form, statements, missing info.His posts are a wealth of these. This course will require a lot of writing and understanding these things. I have had this professor before, she is tough. 

I hope this helps.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
10 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Ahhh, gotcha.

For me, it is educational. 

As I posted, his posts help me understand critical thinking and logic. 

It's not about changing him it is about me refining me. I am enrolled in a Critical thinking and Logic course in the winter session. Just familiarizing myself with bias, heuristics, pulling out premises, conclusions, standard form, statements, missing info.His posts are a wealth of these. This course will require a lot of writing and understanding these things. I have had this professor before, she is tough. 

I hope this helps.  

 

So you're playing with the poster boy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.