Proof of God (Gnosticism = Knowledge is Power)

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

Thanks for that Hammer. I had a similar experience with a long deceased girlfriend but beyond close family or friends could never allow myself to put it out there for public consumption. Somehow it’s always felt wrong to do so. If that’s a flaw I’m glad you got past it. 
 

cormac

It's never wrong to be true to your own heart, especially in the sweet distillation of fond memories of one whom you cherish.

[oslove]

About burden of proof, that it is the work of a claimant to prove i.e. convince the public that he owns say a watch, which is now worn on the wrist of the suspect, and the latter can just feel so safe with doing nothing, as he is even presumed to be innocent.

However, there can be present among the public, an intelligent observer who will insist that the accused, though presumed innocent, still he bears the burden of explanation, why and how he came to wear the controverted watch on his wrist.

 

So, there is the burden of proof and there is the burden of explanation.

[+Hammerclaw]

17 minutes ago, oslove said:

About burden of proof, that it is the work of a claimant to prove i.e. convince the public that he owns say a watch, which is now worn on the wrist of the suspect, and the latter can just feel so safe with doing nothing, as he is even presumed to be innocent.

However, there can be present among the public, an intelligent observer who will insist that the accused, though presumed innocent, still he bears the burden of explanation, why and how he came to wear the controverted watch on his wrist.

 

So, there is the burden of proof and there is the burden of explanation.

There's no burden, at all. One need only believe and have the good grace to let everyone else go to hell after their own fashion. I'm figuratively speaking, of course, as I don't believe in hell.

[lightly]

Is it normal for a hand ,which for 10 years, had been crippled and curled up and paralyzed from stroke  … completely relax and look perfectly normal immediately after passing  on?    Just curious, because that’s what happened  to my dad’s hand..  Ma took it as a sign. 

[XenoFish]

Just now, lightly said:

Is it normal for a hand ,which for 10 years, had been crippled and curled up and paralyzed from stroke  … completely relax and look perfectly normal immediately after passing  on?    Just curious, because that’s what happened  to my dad’s hand..  Ma took it as a sign. 

Probably due to the muscles relaxing.

[lightly]

Just now, XenoFish said:

Probably due to the muscles relaxing.

Ya, Maybe that’s what happens, I considered that,  just wondering …seems odd that a ‘dead’ hand would  relax?  How would ‘dead’ muscles do anything?

[cormac mac airt]

3 minutes ago, lightly said:

Ya, Maybe that’s what happens, I considered that,  just wondering …seems odd that a ‘dead’ hand would  relax?  How would ‘dead’ muscles do anything?

It’s not just the hand lightly, upon death ALL the muscles of one’s body relax except during rigor mortis.  
 

cormac

Edited June 30, 2022 by cormac mac airt
Spelling

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, lightly said:

Ya, Maybe that’s what happens, I considered that,  just wondering …seems odd that a ‘dead’ hand would  relax?  How would ‘dead’ muscles do anything?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539741/

Changes in the muscles:

Immediately after death, the muscles undergo primary relaxation, as mentioned above, which is followed by stiffening of muscles known as rigor mortis. With the onset of putrefaction, rigor mortis passes off, and secondary relaxation occurs. Secondary relaxation occurs at around 36 hours after death due to the breakdown of the contracted muscles due to decomposition.

[lightly]

Thanks cormac & X ,  I suspected as much…. I was glad Ma was somewhat comforted by the sight.    (Still, sorta strange that fingers curled up and twisted for 10 years could  relax  back to a completely normal appearance ..right before Ma’s eyes).   !?

[oslove]

7 hours ago, newbloodmoon said:

After glancing through the thread I’m still waiting to see the proof of god. At this point I don’t care if it’s the abrahamic god, Vedic, greco/roman, celtic, norse, Mesopotamian gods etc. 

[ . . . . ]

 

Dear New, suppose you expatiate on what it is to prove something to exist.

[cormac mac airt]

56 minutes ago, lightly said:

Thanks cormac & X ,  I suspected as much…. I was glad Ma was somewhat comforted by the sight.    (Still, sorta strange that fingers curled up and twisted for 10 years could  relax  back to a completely normal appearance ..right before Ma’s eyes).   !?

Not really strange as it’s pretty much the default position of most of the body, especially after death. That your mom was in any way comforted by it likely helped her better accept the situation which is a good thing. 
 

cormac

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

Thanks cormac & X ,  I suspected as much…. I was glad Ma was somewhat comforted by the sight.    (Still, sorta strange that fingers curled up and twisted for 10 years could  relax  back to a completely normal appearance ..right before Ma’s eyes).   !?

As Cormac mentioned, it's the take away that mattered the most. 

[oslove]

Paging Newblood.

- - - - - - - - - - -

      8 hours ago, newbloodmoon said:

    After glancing through the thread I’m still waiting to see the proof of god. At this point I don’t care if it’s the abrahamic god, Vedic, greco/roman, celtic, norse, Mesopotamian gods etc.

    [ . . . . ]

    Dear Newblood, suppose you expatiate on what it is to prove something to exist. -Oslove

 

Best we both work together to arrive at the concurred on concept of what it is to prove something to exist, okay?

 

Here, I will get started:

1. Before anything else, we are one human proving to another human that something exists.

This is important because only humans have intelligence and reasoning power and free will.

And therefore: if a human chooses to not conduct himself accoding to intelligence and reasoning power, then all humans should not bother to engage him in the cognitive drama of proving something to exist (or to not exist).

[newbloodmoon]

8 hours ago, oslove said:

 

Dear New, suppose you expatiate on what it is to prove something to exist.

Can god be tested or falsified? Nope one can only ‘know’ god through faith and feelings, or because some sacred text has told us so. With that being said let me quote Christopher Hitchens. “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

[XenoFish]

24 minutes ago, newbloodmoon said:

Can god be tested

The results are confirmation bias and false positives. Making it 100% subjective.

[oslove]

16 hours ago, newbloodmoon said:

Can god be tested or falsified? Nope one can only ‘know’ god through faith and feelings, or because some sacred text has told us so. With that being said let me quote Christopher Hitchens. “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

 

But Htchens never proved that there is no evidence for God existing, so he can be also summarily dismissed.

================

 

Dear Newblood, suppose you expatiate on what it is to prove something to exist. -Oslove

 

Best we both work together to arrive at the concurred on concept of what it is to prove something to exist, okay?

 

Here, I will get started:

1. Before anything else, we are one human proving to another human that something exists.

This is important because only humans have intelligence and reasoning power and free will.

And therefore: if a human chooses to not conduct himself accoding to intelligence and reasoning power, then all humans should not bother to engage him in the cognitive drama of proving something to exist (or to not exist).

[oslove]

Here, I will get started:

1. Before anything else, we are one human proving to another human that something exists.

This is important because only humans have intelligence and reasoning power and free will.

And therefore: if a human chooses to not conduct himself accoding to intelligence and reasoning power, then all humans should not bother to engage him in the cognitive drama of proving something to exist (or to not exist).

 

2. The present issue is to prove God exists on evidence, wherefore all parties both affirmative and negative must concur on what is evidence.

Here is my definition of evidence:

"Evidence is anything existing that leads an honest conscious intelligent and with reasonng power human - to come to the existence of another thing existing, in the present context, God."

 

Okay, Newblood, let me read your definition of evidence.

[cormac mac airt]

19 hours ago, XenoFish said:

The results are confirmation bias and false positives. Making it 100% subjective.

Which matters not at all to the extremist of believers who will pretend they’ve proven something that can’t be. 
 

cormac

[XenoFish]

4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Which matters not at all to the extremist of believers who will pretend they’ve proven something that can’t be. 
 

cormac

Some are conditioned by society to believe a thing. Others do it to themselves. Either out of desire or the need to belong.

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Some are conditioned by society to believe a thing. Others do it to themselves. Either out of desire or the need to belong.

Neither of which is a good position to be in and suggests a lack of critical thinking on their part, regardless of what they’ve convinced themselves is true. 
 

cormac

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 6/30/2022 at 1:49 PM, Hammerclaw said:

After hearing them echo, hollowly, in my own ears, I vowed never again to utter them myself.

Yea, had that myself not too long ago, I tried to separate the content of what they are saying from the sentiment which helped some.  There were maybe a few commiserations that mentioned something that did help or gave me at least a temporary perspective, but 99% of them were people trying to say something when there's nothing much that really can be said, which everyone's done also.  Thankfully for most of the comments it all translated to me as 'I care' which I can't knock them for and was, admittedly maybe more 'eventually', appreciated.

On 6/30/2022 at 2:12 PM, cormac mac airt said:

I do believe there is something beyond life's horizon, not for religious, or intellectual reasons, but simply because I choose to, if only to spit in the eye of death and because-most important of all-I just want to see her again.

I don't think I've achieved the ability to will myself to believe something quite that specific but I take a lot of comfort in 'who the **** knows'.  I don't understand why the oxygen atom in the water molecule that is part of my skin is part of/makes something alive and the oxygen atom in the air an inch a way is just 'a thing'.  I don't understand how a specific arrangement of atoms can generate experiences, the only thing I know for certain exists. 

Most of all it seems their are myriad ways that time is not what I may think it is that basically leads to all kinds of possibilities.  Maybe we keep re-circling through, maybe we rewind, maybe we're in The Matrix and can restore the game back to a previous checkpoint.  When I don't even understand what exactly makes me 'me', all bets are kinda off. I'm not confident we understand 'time' that well, I have trouble just grokking just what science says about its behavior, and without a good understanding of that I then don't really know what it means for things to 'come to an end' on a scale of universes beginning and ending.

And if things are really 'ending', well, flowers that bloom and die every year are still cool.  It's not always possible, but I'm thankful when I can get to a point with grieving for lost people, or even just relationships, where the "I really miss it/them" part can start to be partially replaced by the feeling of 'I'm so glad it happened'.

[cormac mac airt]

17 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Yea, had that myself not too long ago, I tried to separate the content of what they are saying from the sentiment which helped some.  There were maybe a few commiserations that mentioned something that did help or gave me at least a temporary perspective, but 99% of them were people trying to say something when there's nothing much that really can be said, which everyone's done also.  Thankfully for most of the comments it all translated to me as 'I care' which I can't knock them for and was, admittedly maybe more 'eventually', appreciated.

I don't think I've achieved the ability to will myself to believe something quite that specific but I take a lot of comfort in 'who the **** knows'.  I don't understand why the oxygen atom in the water molecule that is part of my skin is part of/makes something alive and the oxygen atom in the air an inch a way is just 'a thing'.  I don't understand how a specific arrangement of atoms can generate experiences, the only thing I know for certain exists. 

Most of all it seems their are myriad ways that time is not what I may think it is that basically leads to all kinds of possibilities.  Maybe we keep re-circling through, maybe we rewind, maybe we're in The Matrix and can restore the game back to a previous checkpoint.  When I don't even understand what exactly makes me 'me', all bets are kinda off. I'm not confident we understand 'time' that well, I have trouble just grokking just what science says about its behavior, and without a good understanding of that I then don't really know what it means for things to 'come to an end' on a scale of universes beginning and ending.

And if things are really 'ending', well, flowers that bloom and die every year are still cool.  It's not always possible, but I'm thankful when I can get to a point with grieving for lost people, or even just relationships, where the "I really miss it/them" part can start to be partially replaced by the feeling of 'I'm so glad it happened'.

LG no disrespect intended but what you quoted me as saying was actually done so by Hammer, although I can understand his reasoning. 
 

cormac

Edited July 2, 2022 by cormac mac airt

[toast]

Above all, its all about potatoes only. I tell ya.

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

LG no disrespect intended but what you quoted me as saying was actually done so by Hammer, although I can understand his reasoning. 

Agreed I can't argue with the reasoning either, and I think he approaches it from a different angle than me but his possibility is within my set also.  Yea, I messed up the quoting and accidentally selected Hammer's words from your quote of him instead of his original.

And ha, no worries, no disrespect either as you and everyone are all good eggs and good camaraderie, but it's just tough for me to feel disrespected by anonymous people on the internet who I will never meet.  

[cormac mac airt]

9 minutes ago, toast said:

Above all, its all about potatoes only. I tell ya.

Baked and loaded hopefully. 

cormac