This is different then normal fire because it doesn’t burn and its known also their are many videos with people putting the fire on them selves and their clothes and hair. There is no explanation.
Other Religion do have many stories about miracles but they are easily able to disprove. And they are said to be a long time ago. They don’t have proof or any miracles that are happening in present time that are such big deals like St.Mary and the light coming out of the tomb. They will say someone was healed from a sickness but it is easily explained.
[quote author=markmarcos link=topic=13328.msg155950#msg155950 date=1337821910] This is different then normal fire because it doesn’t burn and its known also their are many videos with people putting the fire on them selves and their clothes and hair. There is no explanation.
This differs from what I remember seeing. I'll take another look.
Other Religion do have many stories about miracles but they are easily able to disprove. And they are said to be a long time ago. They don’t have proof or any miracles that are happening in present time that are such big deals like St.Mary and the light coming out of the tomb. They will say someone was healed from a sickness but it is easily explained.
[quote author=markmarcos link=topic=13328.msg155950#msg155950 date=1337821910] Other Religion do have many stories about miracles but they are easily able to disprove. And they are said to be a long time ago. They don’t have proof or any miracles that are happening in present time that are such big deals like St.Mary and the light coming out of the tomb. They will say someone was healed from a sickness but it is easily explained.
Believing is seeing.
This is not true at all. Miracles should not serve as the foundation to anyone's faith. Our Lord warned us, "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24).
A faith based on miracles is in danger of crumbling when tested. In addition to this, a faith based on miracles is not based on trust in God. Therefore Christ also said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)
[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=13328.msg155953#msg155953 date=1337823092] [quote author=markmarcos link=topic=13328.msg155950#msg155950 date=1337821910] Other Religion do have many stories about miracles but they are easily able to disprove. And they are said to be a long time ago. They don’t have proof or any miracles that are happening in present time that are such big deals like St.Mary and the light coming out of the tomb. They will say someone was healed from a sickness but it is easily explained.
Believing is seeing.
This is not true at all. Miracles should not serve as the foundation to anyone's faith. Our Lord warned us, "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24).
A faith based on miracles is in danger of crumbling when tested. In addition to this, a faith based on miracles is not based on trust in God. Therefore Christ also said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)
i beleive that what you have said is true GMA but i was just explaining how if their are miracles then their is a God
[quote author=K-man link=topic=13328.msg155940#msg155940 date=1337810051] Hello Father Peter,
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg155938#msg155938 date=1337808680] There is plenty of reasonable evidence to show that Christ existed and that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.
I agree with the first part of this, but disagree with the second. My understanding is that the majority of current scholarship does not consider the Gospels to be eyewitness accounts, and has held this view for some time. That doesn't automatically make them right, of course, but as of now I find them convincing. This is not to suggest I'm not willing to be persuaded otherwise.
But I know of no person who has been convinced into faith. Faith should be reasonable, but God is beyond investigation, and to begin by proving God seems to me to be starting on the wrong road. Blind Bartimaeus had it right. He neither saw Christ, nor knew him. But he cried out, Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me. This is always the cry of the one seeking God.
Hmm....How would you recommend one go about it? If we can't deduce His existence in some compelling way, how would I come to believe it?
I have a lifetime of reasonable experience that supports my faith, but my faith is a living trust in the God who is here with me always. I do not have faith because someone has proved to me that God exists, but because I have met him.
A few years ago this was exactly how I felt as well. But, as I currently have no way of differentiating between genuine experience and the whole thing being in my head, and since I also currently do not have even a basis for assuming it to be genuine experience, I'm forced to take the view that the whole thing was in my head. I really want to be proven wrong here especially.
The people of Samaria were drawn to hope in Christ because of the testimony of the woman's experience of Christ. But when they met him for themselves they said...
Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
But....Isn't this an example of someone being convinced into the faith? They wouldn't just take her word for it till they saw it for themselves and found it convincing.
If a person does not meet Christ for themselves they cannot have faith, because faith is trust in a person, not accepting certain facts. They must have a sense of need and even a fragile hope. The journey of faith is not unreasonable but it is not intellectual. If a person has no need and no hope they will not easily find Christ.
I'm not sure I understand...
Just a brief response
i. Modern scholarship has pretty much demolished the older, and generally atheist/deist view that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. The detailed and scientific work of scholars such as Bauckham have shown that it is impossible to support the view that the Gospels are late and not closely connected to the Apostles.
2. I am not sure that any one who has come to faith has done so because evidence has been presented rationally in a compelling way. Therefore I think that you are on entirely the wrong track. It is not until you admit that you cannot find God by your own efforts but still ask him to reveal himself nonetheless that you begin the journey. God is not a specimen who can be examined in a microscope. Your sights are set too small. There is plenty of evidence of God in the world but you cannot see it. Is the problem with the evidence or with your method of proceeding?
The way to proceed is to pray continuously in the manner of Bartimaeus. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me. Pray this 100 times a day with care and attention and as if addressing it to one who hears. You will lose 10 minutes a day. Is that a big deal? Read a chapter of the Gospels each day with care, and respect, seeking to understand what the author intended. What have you got to lose. Stop trying to prove God and start exercising faith. You will lose a few minutes a day. You will never find God by the mind alone, because the evidence is all there and you will not accept it. It would not matter if hundreds of arguments were presented, you would still find another obstacle. This is because we are not argued into the kingdom.
3. But you are choosing to ignore all the evidence of other people's experience as well. You are self-selecting what evidence is acceptable to you. I only have to read John Cassian's Conferences, describing his conversations with the monks in the Egyptian desert in the 4th century to see clearly that they had experienced something. They describe a human spiritual experience that is not easily described as delusion. The most sane people I know are the great spiritual fathers of the Church. It is not reasonable or scientific to ignore their testimony.
4. The people of the Samarian town DID believe on the basis of the woman's testimony, that is why they all came running to see Jesus. But THEN they experienced him themselves. You are choosing to deny the testimony of all those billions of us who know God and have known God. Our voices are of varying quality and authority certainly, but they add up to a lot.
5. If you are only searching to fulfill an intellectual desire then you will not find Christ, or not very easily. If you know that you are in pain because you do not have God in your life then when you cry out with perseverance you will find him. If it doesn't matter either way whether God exists or not then you will not find God, and even if he sent an angel you would be led to find some other cause for the apparation.
I am deeply sympathetic for your situation and pray for you and for all in a similar situation. But you must find a need for God in your heart, and cry out to God from that place. If you do not need God then he will remain hidden in plain view.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg155957#msg155957 date=1337842121]
Just a brief response
i. Modern scholarship has pretty much demolished the older, and generally atheist/deist view that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. The detailed and scientific work of scholars such as Bauckham have shown that it is impossible to support the view that the Gospels are late and not closely connected to the Apostles.
It's not an "older" view though, it is (or was, if what you say is accurate) the majority view. (I was actually preparing to post notes arguing in support of this, but doing that probably wouldn't accomplish much). I'll see what this guy has to say.
I am not sure that any one who has come to faith has done so because evidence has been presented rationally in a compelling way. Therefore I think that you are on entirely the wrong track. It is not until you admit that you cannot find God by your own efforts but still ask him to reveal himself nonetheless that you begin the journey.
This was my first step. Nothing I could find or nothing anyone could say would be able to even come close to His help. But no such help ever came, and meanwhile, my research gradually led me to this conclusion. The ideal time for help to come would have been before this started snowballing downhill.
Your sights are set too small. There is plenty of evidence of God in the world but you cannot see it.
If one person sees it as evidence, and another doesn’t (meaning even its status as evidence is open to interpretation) then by that definition how can it be considered evidence?
The way to proceed is to pray continuously in the manner of Bartimaeus. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me. Pray this 100 times a day with care and attention and as if addressing it to one who hears. You will lose 10 minutes a day. Is that a big deal?
I’m at a point where I can no longer make myself do this. I lost this months ago. It’s not the time I’m concerned about.
Read a chapter of the Gospels each day with care, and respect, seeking to understand what the author intended. What have you got to lose. Stop trying to prove God and start exercising faith.
But there needs to be some objective basis for the faith I would be exercising, which would again lead me back to this mode of inquiry.
You will never find God by the mind alone, because the evidence is all there and you will not accept it. It would not matter if hundreds of arguments were presented, you would still find another obstacle. This is because we are not argued into the kingdom.
I must disagree. If He exists, I see no reason there should not be solid arguments as to why or how we know, and how we know His identity (if they can dismantled by counterargument then they are not solid). Otherwise, I would have no reason to start believing in the first place. It is after this that faith then takes over. If the faith has to come first, I’m in big trouble.
3. But you are choosing to ignore all the evidence of other people's experience as well. You are self-selecting what evidence is acceptable to you. I only have to read John Cassian's Conferences, describing his conversations with the monks in the Egyptian desert in the 4th century to see clearly that they had experienced something. They describe a human spiritual experience that is not easily described as delusion. The most sane people I know are the great spiritual fathers of the Church. It is not reasonable or scientific to ignore their testimony.
I can’t change the entire course of my life because of what others might have experienced. Even if it’s true, I need to know it for myself. This is too important to let go to that.
Secondly, I need some way of differentiating between the experiences reported by the various religions. Because of this, I see no way around this line of inquiry. All routes seem to lead me here.
Thirdly, feelings alone (if that is what you were describing above) are not a source of evidence. They are subjective and fleeting. My own feelings toward God have undergone a complete reversal over the past several months. But this tells us nothing about whether He actually exists.
4. The people of the Samarian town DID believe on the basis of the woman's testimony, that is why they all came running to see Jesus. But THEN they experienced him themselves. You are choosing to deny the testimony of all those billions of us who know God and have known God. Our voices are of varying quality and authority certainly, but they add up to a lot.
And both of us are choosing to deny the testimony of the billions of Muslims who have done the same.
5. If you are only searching to fulfill an intellectual desire then you will not find Christ, or not very easily. If you know that you are in pain because you do not have God in your life then when you cry out with perseverance you will find him. If it doesn't matter either way whether God exists or not then you will not find God, and even if he sent an angel you would be led to find some other cause for the apparation.
My perseverance has run dry. I have nothing left of my own. That’s why I turned to you guys. If I saw an angel or a saint, and spoke with them, I would believe it immediately. That’s all it would take for me to completely disregard all of the research and counterevidence that I’ve done and found.
I am deeply sympathetic for your situation and pray for you and for all in a similar situation. But you must find a need for God in your heart, and cry out to God from that place.
hi k man, i think it's not so much that faith has to come first, but that being open to the idea of faith that comes first.
my parents were brought up atheist. one grandparent in particular got very angry if anyone even mentioned God. i was aged 4-5 years old when my parents became Christians (they are protestants). they started showing love and shouting less and i noticed and asked them what was going on! so i followed them and believed too.
after that i experienced loads of disappointing things about the church, so i understand that it's easy to see what goes on sometimes and conclude that all these people must just be disillusioned and that it's not real. i will pray for u to see the love of God in the world and in people's lives, so that u will see that there is evidence for God; it depends how u look at it whether u understand this or not.
[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=13328.msg155965#msg155965 date=1337892235] hi k man, i think it's not so much that faith has to come first, but that being open to the idea of faith that comes first.
my parents were brought up atheist. one grandparent in particular got very angry if anyone even mentioned God. i was aged 4-5 years old when my parents became Christians (they are protestants). they started showing love and shouting less and i noticed and asked them what was going on! so i followed them and believed too.
after that i experienced loads of disappointing things about the church, so i understand that it's easy to see what goes on sometimes and conclude that all these people must just be disillusioned and that it's not real. i will pray for u to see the love of God in the world and in people's lives, so that u will see that there is evidence for God; it depends how u look at it whether u understand this or not.
[quote author=K-man link=topic=13328.msg155964#msg155964 date=1337880832] I must disagree. If He exists, I see no reason there should not be solid arguments as to why or how we know, and how we know His identity (if they can dismantled by counterargument then they are not solid). Otherwise, I would have no reason to start believing in the first place. It is after this that faith then takes over. If the faith has to come first, I’m in big trouble.
So then why would you need faith later on if you have already "proved" the Incomprehensible One? If it is as you say, then your mind would just accept God as fact and move on with your life. Then where is the faith? Why would you even need faith after that, if it is already proven? This is why you need faith FIRST, then you will understand.
Father Peter make a great point:
God is not a specimen who can be examined in a microscope. Your sights are set too small.
We can not put the Infinite, the Unchangeable, the Immeasurable under our own examination. But rather, He gives us a knowledge of Himself as witnessed in the Holy Scriptures.
My thoughts are with Peter who denied who Jesus was three times before Jesus was crucifed. Jesus had told Peter how and when he was going to die after the resurrection. Do you think Peter would of denied Jesus again unless he had seen the resurrection. No, he was a willing martyr. That leaves us either denying Christ because of ourselves, or believeing in him. Would you deny Christ because you have an inquisative nature?
So then why would you need faith later on if you have already "proved" the Incomprehensible One? If it is as you say, then your mind would just accept God as fact and move on with your life. Then where is the faith? Why would you even need faith after that, if it is already proven?
Mmm, good point.
Can He be proven (completely proven) though? I don't think its possible. I think the closest we can come is reasonable philosophical argumentation, which I have not yet encountered (though, my searching for such is by no means over).
This is why you need faith FIRST, then you will understand.
A Hindu or Muslim would tell me the same thing though. How would I choose who to give priority to?
Father Peter make a great point:
God is not a specimen who can be examined in a microscope. Your sights are set too small.
We can not put the Infinite, the Unchangeable, the Immeasurable under our own examination.
I recognize that God Himself, if He exists, is beyond our ability to comprehend. Furthermore, the direct question of His existence or nonexistence is completely outside the realm of science. What experiment would possibly be designed to investigate Him?
But rather, He gives us a knowledge of Himself as witnessed in the Holy Scriptures.
This is where science comes in. There are certain claims made in the Scriptures that contradict, or seem to contradict, established scientific principles (ex. a literal interpretation of the creation story). Or, there are claims of things that should leave lots of specific types of evidence, but to the best of my knowledge have not done so (ex. the Flood, the Exodus). My issue from science lies here. These contradictions demand some sort of explanation. (Telling me the Bible is not intended as a science book does not really solve the problem.)
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=13328.msg155975#msg155975 date=1337929572] Would you deny Christ because you have an inquisative nature?
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo
However, since I recognize my sense, reason, and intellect are by no means perfect, I came to you guys with this.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg155987#msg155987 date=1337971563] The Bible is not intended to be the source of issue to worry about. The Christian faith is not in the Bible it is in God.
Yes, but the thing you're using as the primary source for your knowledge of God is the Bible, is it not? So if information in it is questionable, it stands to reason that what it tells us of God is likewise questionable. This is also the same (but not the only) objection I would level at, say, the Koran.
Christ is all. What do you say about Christ. Nothing else matters in the same way.
Most modern histories of mankind begin with the word evolution, and with a rather wordy exposition of evolution, for much the same reason that operated in this case. There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word and even about the idea. As a matter of fact, it is not, touching these primary things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' even if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.' For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species. Everlasting Man
I would recommend Chesterton's Everlasting Man. But you have to read the whole book first and suspend judgements til you are done. If you have already read it what are your thoughts?
Furthermore, I see that you rely on science as the one to cast doubt on faith. But to rely on science(or even to do science) you must first accept that you have a rational mind capable of studying a rational universe that has rules that can be deduced. Yet there is no rationality behind an uncreated universe that is structured, ordered and rational. Why would it be? and also it is apparent that all of humanity has a concept of a supreme being or supreme beings yet how could these come about out of nothing.A pigmy from the rainforest doesn't wake up and say"I really want a Big Mac right now!" How can you want something you do not know or have no idea about. Sure you can say People can think of a pink sky but there isn't one, but you'd still need to know what pink and sky were, right? Just because I call a thousand men father doesn't mean I don't have one(sorry if I'm rambling) My point is there is no way to Know there is no God but there are plenty of reasons to have faith in him.
[quote author=kalsam link=topic=13328.msg156097#msg156097 date=1338127280] Most modern histories of mankind begin with the word evolution, and with a rather wordy exposition of evolution, for much the same reason that operated in this case. There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word and even about the idea. As a matter of fact, it is not, touching these primary things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' even if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.' For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species. Everlasting Man
I would recommend Chesterton's Everlasting Man. But you have to read the whole book first and suspend judgements til you are done. If you have already read it what are your thoughts?
I know I have a copy somewhere. I'll hunt it down.
I did have comments to make on this passage, but I will wait until I've read the whole thing and see if they still need to be said.
[quote author=kalsam link=topic=13328.msg156098#msg156098 date=1338128179] Furthermore, I see that you rely on science as the one to cast doubt on faith. But to rely on science(or even to do science) you must first accept that you have a rational mind capable of studying a rational universe that has rules that can be deduced.
Not quite. Rather, it is a necessary assumption we all have to make in order to continue to function properly.
I cannot prove, for example, that the information relayed to my brain by my senses is not just an illusion or hallucination. But I also have no basis for assuming this to be the case; the decisions I make based on information gathered by my senses seem to work out for the most part.
But let's assume for a moment that external reality is in fact an illusion. Even if that turned out to be the case, what could I do about it? Not a thing. So it seems to me the best option is to assume it's real and act on that assumption. So far that method seems to be working.
Yet there is no rationality behind an uncreated universe that is structured, ordered and rational.
If by that, you mean that there is no logical necessity for an uncreated universe to behave by rules that are mathematically predictable, I completely agree. I think about this all the time. I admit I don't have an answer.
If this is not what you mean, then I have a question: are the molecular clouds in outer space ordered? They certainly don't seem to exhibit any kind of order. And yet, our solar system formed from one, seemingly with no outside help. I'm fairly certain this is also how stars are formed (also seemingly, with no outside help). The way i see it is, the universe is unfathomably large and unfathomably old; ostensibly ordered things arise from ostensibly disordered things more often than we would think.
If you were not referring to either of the above, please forgive my rambling.
Why would it be?
The most intellectually honest position I can take right now is to say that I do not know.
and also it is apparent that all of humanity has a concept of a supreme being or supreme beings yet how could these come about out of nothing.
This seems like a variation of the Ontological Argument. But I don't know if it works, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it is logically fallacious to assume that because most people believe (or have believed) something, that the something must be true. The number of people who believe an idea can only us about the popularity of the idea. It tells us nothing of its truth value. There was a time, for example, when the majority of the population believed that the earth was the center of the universe, or that smoking tobacco was good for you.
Secondly,
Imagine a young child trying to lift a small stone. He is able to pick it up easily in one hand, using what little strength he has. Now imagine he moves on to a larger rock. This one takes two hands to lift, but, eventually, he is able to pick it up. Then, he moves on to a boulder. Try as he might, he is unable to so much as nudge the boulder from its position.
The child realizes that it took considerably more strength to lift the second rock than the first one. He realizes it will take considerably more than he has in his whole body to lift the boulder. If he were to imagine someone much stronger coming along and lifting it, would that belief be unjustified? Probably not. If he were to further imagine a big, strong man, so strong that he can lift any object, no matter how large or massive, so that there would never be something he couldn't pick up, would that be unjustified? Again, I'd say no. Children have active imaginations and this is not difficult for a child to come up with.
But, the fact is, there is no basis whatsoever in reality for a man who can lift any object of any size. No such man has ever been born. The child got this idea from considering his own qualities, and magnifying them to what he saw as their greatest possible utility. I see it as being no different with the concept of God.
We have wisdom? How about a Being who has infinite wisdom? We have knowledge? What about a Being which has infinite knowledge, and knows all there could ever be to know? We think we are capable of love? How about a Being who is love? Do you see what I mean?
I'm sure there are flaws in this argument, as I just came up with it two seconds ago on roughly one hour of sleep. Whoever reads, please feel free to point them out.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg156099#msg156099 date=1338130870] There is no way to prove that the universe exists and is not simply an illusion within the person who is experiencing it.
Please see above. To be clear, I absolutely agree with this statement.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13328.msg156102#msg156102 date=1338136567] Often, what is needed is to change perspective from an external perception, to an internal one.
The best thing I have ever read that helped me with my faith is Fr. Matta El-Meskeen's : Orthodox Prayer Life.
I really recommend it to more sophisticated readers who need help re-attaining a spiritual worldview.
Yep, that sounds about right. Is it accesible online?
Posting "A Complete Loss of Faith" is such a joke, the act itself contradicts the statement. I am amazed at how many people are on this site just to cause confusion. Either that or its multiple accounts of the same person.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=13328.msg156110#msg156110 date=1338150122] Posting "A Complete Loss of Faith" is such a joke, the act itself contradicts the statement.
The act is happening because everyone I have talked to seems utterly convinced I am wrong, and I would rather they be right than me. What would you rather I have called it?
I am amazed at how many people are on this site just to cause confusion. Either that or its multiple accounts of the same person.
What confusion? The guy needs help. There are no multiple account, there is a child of God who is distressed over these feelings. We need to love him an aid him. K-Man, you are more than welcome to ask what you must, but keep an open mind to what advice you are given.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13328.msg156112#msg156112 date=1338151883] What confusion? The guy needs help. There are no multiple account, there is a child of God who is distressed over these feelings. We need to love him an aid him. K-Man, you are more than welcome to ask what you must,
Thank you. Seriously.
but keep an open mind to what advice you are given.
Lots of trouble with this part. Egyptian stubbornness is so not conducive to this situation.
If you do not know whether the universe exists then why is acting as if it does the best way forward?
How do you know that it works? The universe you seem to be experiencing surely has many problems? Surely it would be more reasonable to assume that you are not best served by proceeding as you do? What if you are experiencing some reality in completely the wrong way?
How do you know that you can do nothing about your perception of a universe? What have you tried?
You seem to be choosing to accept your perception of the universe in one way, but without any evidence it is the right way, especially if you are not at peace and 'working properly' as some perceiving being. It would make more sense to consider how the universe could be perceived in some other way that did seem to work better.
But while you are unable to even show that the universe exists you are demanding such stringent evidence that God exists? This isn't meant as any sort of proof of anything, but I remain confused by your search for God as 'subject of investigation' when we have such little evidence of anything. If in the end all we have is our own perception then that seems to me to give more weight, not less, to those perceptions of God which others express, and which appears to produce in the best of them a more balanced, peaceful and joyful existence.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg156114#msg156114 date=1338152659] If you do not know whether the universe exists then why is acting as if it does the best way forward?
It seems to me that this is the only assumption about the matter that allows you to do...well anything, really. What other workable alternatives are there?
How do you know that it works? The universe you seem to be experiencing surely has many problems?
It "works" in the sense that it allows me to function. I don't want to respond in a more detailed way without making sure I understand the point you make above. What's the nature of these problems?
Surely it would be more reasonable to assume that you are not best served by proceeding as you do? What if you are experiencing some reality in completely the wrong way?
How would I be able to tell the difference though?
You seem to be choosing to accept your perception of the universe in one way, but without any evidence it is the right way, especially if you are not at peace and 'working properly' as some perceiving being. It would make more sense to consider how the universe could be perceived in some other way that did seem to work better.
I don't think I understand. I thought the premise was that I can never know if my senses themselves could be feeding me illusions (i.e. I have no way of proving to myself that I'm not a brain in a vat somewhere). Altering my perceptions of the illusion wouldn't change its status as an illusion.
Also, I suspected above, and now here, that we might be using different levels of definition of the word "work"...?
But while you are unable to even show that the universe exists you are demanding such stringent evidence that God exists?
Because I'm operating under the assumption that it does. If I was operating under the assumption that it didn't, then the question of God's existence would be a moot point. I would go so far as to say the question of the existence of anything that was not myself would be a moot point.
This isn't meant as any sort of proof of anything, but I remain confused by your search for God as 'subject of investigation' when we have such little evidence of anything. If in the end all we have is our own perception then that seems to me to give more weight, not less, to those perceptions of God which others express, and which appears to produce in the best of them a more balanced, peaceful and joyful existence.
Right, right. Again, I'm operating under the premise that my perceptions give me a more or less accurate picture of the thing we call reality.
However, if your point above were true (that is, all that exists is our own perception), it would open up all sorts of confusing and unpleasant possibilities. For instance, all of the people I have ever heard of would themselves be illusions, in which case any perceptions of theirs that are communicated to me would also be illusory.
To summarize: I act as though the universe and other people besides myself exist, despite the impossibility of proving either, because:
1. I have no real reason to suspect that this is not the case 2. Even if it were not the case, I would have no way of knowing. 3. Assuming it not to be the case would render us unable to do much of anything, including those things that bring us enjoyment (or, if you like, what we perceive as enjoyment).
For instance, I have pointed out the difficulty of keeping a monkey and watching it evolve into a man. Experimental evidence of such an evolution being impossible, the professor is not content to say (as most of us would be ready to say) that such an evolution is likely enough anyhow. He produces his little bone, or little collection of bones, and deduces the most marvellous things from it. He found in Java a piece of a skull, seeming by its contour to be smaller than the human. Somewhere near it he found an upright thigh-bone and in the same scattered fashion some teeth that were not human. If they all form part of one creature, which is doubtful, our conception of the creature would be almost equally doubtful. But the effect on popular science was to produce a complete and even complex figure, finished down to the last details of hair and habits. He was given a name as if he were an ordinary historical character. People talked of Pithecanthropus as of Pitt or Fox or Napoleon. Popular histories published portraits of him like the portraits of Charles the First and George the Fourth. A detailed drawing was reproduced, carefully shaded, to show that the very hairs of his head were all numbered No uninformed person looking at its carefully lined face and wistful eyes would imagine for a moment that this was the portrait of a thigh-bone; or of a few teeth and a fragment of a cranium. In the same way people talked about him as if he were an individual whose influence and character were familiar to us allEverlasting Man
As this passage illustrates a biologist finds a piece of cranium,a thigh bone and some teeth draws a portrait of it and calls it the Java Man, the missing link in evolution. If a man beats up his wife the psychologist calls it the inner cave man compelling him to act barbarously but the psychologist knows nothing about the cave man. All we know about the cave man is that he made cave drawings but in both cases these scientists have concluded the most outrageous things based on little evidence.can you explain how this flawed way of viewing the world can be called science? (please note the mentioned scientists are Eugene Dubois and Sigmund freud)
[quote author=kalsam link=topic=13328.msg156127#msg156127 date=1338194428] For instance, I have pointed out the difficulty of keeping a monkey and watching it evolve into a man. Experimental evidence of such an evolution being impossible, the professor is not content to say (as most of us would be ready to say) that such an evolution is likely enough anyhow. He produces his little bone, or little collection of bones, and deduces the most marvellous things from it. He found in Java a piece of a skull, seeming by its contour to be smaller than the human. Somewhere near it he found an upright thigh-bone and in the same scattered fashion some teeth that were not human. If they all form part of one creature, which is doubtful, our conception of the creature would be almost equally doubtful. But the effect on popular science was to produce a complete and even complex figure, finished down to the last details of hair and habits. He was given a name as if he were an ordinary historical character. People talked of Pithecanthropus as of Pitt or Fox or Napoleon. Popular histories published portraits of him like the portraits of Charles the First and George the Fourth. A detailed drawing was reproduced, carefully shaded, to show that the very hairs of his head were all numbered No uninformed person looking at its carefully lined face and wistful eyes would imagine for a moment that this was the portrait of a thigh-bone; or of a few teeth and a fragment of a cranium. In the same way people talked about him as if he were an individual whose influence and character were familiar to us allEverlasting Man
As this passage illustrates a biologist finds a piece of cranium,a thigh bone and some teeth draws a portrait of it and calls it the Java Man, the missing link in evolution. If a man beats up his wife the psychologist calls it the inner cave man compelling him to act barbarously but the psychologist knows nothing about the cave man. All we know about the cave man is that he made cave drawings but in both cases these scientists have concluded the most outrageous things based on little evidence.can you explain how this flawed way of viewing the world can be called science? (please note the mentioned scientists are Eugene Dubois and Sigmund freud)
Because this is a strawman. You should be more critical of the stuff you read. There are at least six different things wrong with this.
If science were this flimsy, we would all still be living in medieval conditions. If this is the general gist of his book, I'm becoming increasingly less motivated to read it.
You guys are really fixated on fossils for some reason. I have never looked at fossils in the lab. Not once. Was Everlasting Man written before molecular biology took off? I would guess yes. (Actually, I would hope yes, because otherwise it means he really doesn't know what he's talking about.)
Bottom line: I am not here to debate evolution. If you perceive it as that much of a threat to your beliefs, it may be time to reexamine them. That's all I can tell you.
Comments
Other Religion do have many stories about miracles but they are easily able to disprove. And they are said to be a long time ago. They don’t have proof or any miracles that are happening in present time that are such big deals like St.Mary and the light coming out of the tomb. They will say someone was healed from a sickness but it is easily explained.
Believing is seeing.
This is different then normal fire because it doesn’t burn and its known also their are many videos with people putting the fire on them selves and their clothes and hair. There is no explanation.
This differs from what I remember seeing. I'll take another look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Reputation_for_miracles_and_clairvoyance
Millions of people will attest to this guy. Obviously I don't buy this, but you get the idea.
Other Religion do have many stories about miracles but they are easily able to disprove. And they are said to be a long time ago. They don’t have proof or any miracles that are happening in present time that are such big deals like St.Mary and the light coming out of the tomb. They will say someone was healed from a sickness but it is easily explained.
Believing is seeing.
This is not true at all. Miracles should not serve as the foundation to anyone's faith. Our Lord warned us, "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24).
A faith based on miracles is in danger of crumbling when tested. In addition to this, a faith based on miracles is not based on trust in God. Therefore Christ also said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)
[quote author=markmarcos link=topic=13328.msg155950#msg155950 date=1337821910]
Other Religion do have many stories about miracles but they are easily able to disprove. And they are said to be a long time ago. They don’t have proof or any miracles that are happening in present time that are such big deals like St.Mary and the light coming out of the tomb. They will say someone was healed from a sickness but it is easily explained.
Believing is seeing.
This is not true at all. Miracles should not serve as the foundation to anyone's faith. Our Lord warned us, "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24).
A faith based on miracles is in danger of crumbling when tested. In addition to this, a faith based on miracles is not based on trust in God. Therefore Christ also said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)
i beleive that what you have said is true GMA but i was just explaining how if their are miracles then their is a God
Hello Father Peter,
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg155938#msg155938 date=1337808680]
There is plenty of reasonable evidence to show that Christ existed and that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.
I agree with the first part of this, but disagree with the second. My understanding is that the majority of current scholarship does not consider the Gospels to be eyewitness accounts, and has held this view for some time. That doesn't automatically make them right, of course, but as of now I find them convincing. This is not to suggest I'm not willing to be persuaded otherwise. Hmm....How would you recommend one go about it? If we can't deduce His existence in some compelling way, how would I come to believe it? A few years ago this was exactly how I felt as well. But, as I currently have no way of differentiating between genuine experience and the whole thing being in my head, and since I also currently do not have even a basis for assuming it to be genuine experience, I'm forced to take the view that the whole thing was in my head. I really want to be proven wrong here especially. But....Isn't this an example of someone being convinced into the faith? They wouldn't just take her word for it till they saw it for themselves and found it convincing. I'm not sure I understand...
Just a brief response
i. Modern scholarship has pretty much demolished the older, and generally atheist/deist view that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. The detailed and scientific work of scholars such as Bauckham have shown that it is impossible to support the view that the Gospels are late and not closely connected to the Apostles.
(Jesus and the Eyewitnesses)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337841086&sr=8-1
2. I am not sure that any one who has come to faith has done so because evidence has been presented rationally in a compelling way. Therefore I think that you are on entirely the wrong track. It is not until you admit that you cannot find God by your own efforts but still ask him to reveal himself nonetheless that you begin the journey. God is not a specimen who can be examined in a microscope. Your sights are set too small. There is plenty of evidence of God in the world but you cannot see it. Is the problem with the evidence or with your method of proceeding?
The way to proceed is to pray continuously in the manner of Bartimaeus. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me. Pray this 100 times a day with care and attention and as if addressing it to one who hears. You will lose 10 minutes a day. Is that a big deal? Read a chapter of the Gospels each day with care, and respect, seeking to understand what the author intended. What have you got to lose. Stop trying to prove God and start exercising faith. You will lose a few minutes a day. You will never find God by the mind alone, because the evidence is all there and you will not accept it. It would not matter if hundreds of arguments were presented, you would still find another obstacle. This is because we are not argued into the kingdom.
3. But you are choosing to ignore all the evidence of other people's experience as well. You are self-selecting what evidence is acceptable to you. I only have to read John Cassian's Conferences, describing his conversations with the monks in the Egyptian desert in the 4th century to see clearly that they had experienced something. They describe a human spiritual experience that is not easily described as delusion. The most sane people I know are the great spiritual fathers of the Church. It is not reasonable or scientific to ignore their testimony.
4. The people of the Samarian town DID believe on the basis of the woman's testimony, that is why they all came running to see Jesus. But THEN they experienced him themselves. You are choosing to deny the testimony of all those billions of us who know God and have known God. Our voices are of varying quality and authority certainly, but they add up to a lot.
5. If you are only searching to fulfill an intellectual desire then you will not find Christ, or not very easily. If you know that you are in pain because you do not have God in your life then when you cry out with perseverance you will find him. If it doesn't matter either way whether God exists or not then you will not find God, and even if he sent an angel you would be led to find some other cause for the apparation.
I am deeply sympathetic for your situation and pray for you and for all in a similar situation. But you must find a need for God in your heart, and cry out to God from that place. If you do not need God then he will remain hidden in plain view.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg155957#msg155957 date=1337842121]
Just a brief response
i. Modern scholarship has pretty much demolished the older, and generally atheist/deist view that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. The detailed and scientific work of scholars such as Bauckham have shown that it is impossible to support the view that the Gospels are late and not closely connected to the Apostles.
It's not an "older" view though, it is (or was, if what you say is accurate) the majority view. (I was actually preparing to post notes arguing in support of this, but doing that probably wouldn't accomplish much). I'll see what this guy has to say.
This was my first step. Nothing I could find or nothing anyone could say would be able to even come close to His help. But no such help ever came, and meanwhile, my research gradually led me to this conclusion. The ideal time for help to come would have been before this started snowballing downhill. If one person sees it as evidence, and another doesn’t (meaning even its status as evidence is open to interpretation) then by that definition how can it be considered evidence? I’m at a point where I can no longer make myself do this. I lost this months ago. It’s not the time I’m concerned about. But there needs to be some objective basis for the faith I would be exercising, which would again lead me back to this mode of inquiry. I must disagree. If He exists, I see no reason there should not be solid arguments as to why or how we know, and how we know His identity (if they can dismantled by counterargument then they are not solid). Otherwise, I would have no reason to start believing in the first place. It is after this that faith then takes over. If the faith has to come first, I’m in big trouble. I can’t change the entire course of my life because of what others might have experienced. Even if it’s true, I need to know it for myself. This is too important to let go to that.
Secondly, I need some way of differentiating between the experiences reported by the various religions. Because of this, I see no way around this line of inquiry. All routes seem to lead me here.
Thirdly, feelings alone (if that is what you were describing above) are not a source of evidence. They are subjective and fleeting. My own feelings toward God have undergone a complete reversal over the past several months. But this tells us nothing about whether He actually exists. And both of us are choosing to deny the testimony of the billions of Muslims who have done the same. My perseverance has run dry. I have nothing left of my own. That’s why I turned to you guys.
If I saw an angel or a saint, and spoke with them, I would believe it immediately. That’s all it would take for me to completely disregard all of the research and counterevidence that I’ve done and found. Thank you.
my parents were brought up atheist. one grandparent in particular got very angry if anyone even mentioned God.
i was aged 4-5 years old when my parents became Christians (they are protestants).
they started showing love and shouting less and i noticed and asked them what was going on!
so i followed them and believed too.
after that i experienced loads of disappointing things about the church, so i understand that it's easy to see what goes on sometimes and conclude that all these people must just be disillusioned and that it's not real.
i will pray for u to see the love of God in the world and in people's lives, so that u will see that there is evidence for God; it depends how u look at it whether u understand this or not.
hi k man, i think it's not so much that faith has to come first, but that being open to the idea of faith that comes first.
my parents were brought up atheist. one grandparent in particular got very angry if anyone even mentioned God.
i was aged 4-5 years old when my parents became Christians (they are protestants).
they started showing love and shouting less and i noticed and asked them what was going on!
so i followed them and believed too.
after that i experienced loads of disappointing things about the church, so i understand that it's easy to see what goes on sometimes and conclude that all these people must just be disillusioned and that it's not real.
i will pray for u to see the love of God in the world and in people's lives, so that u will see that there is evidence for God; it depends how u look at it whether u understand this or not.
Thank you Mabsoota.
I must disagree. If He exists, I see no reason there should not be solid arguments as to why or how we know, and how we know His identity (if they can dismantled by counterargument then they are not solid). Otherwise, I would have no reason to start believing in the first place. It is after this that faith then takes over. If the faith has to come first, I’m in big trouble.
So then why would you need faith later on if you have already "proved" the Incomprehensible One?
If it is as you say, then your mind would just accept God as fact and move on with your life. Then where is the faith? Why would you even need faith after that, if it is already proven?
This is why you need faith FIRST, then you will understand.
Father Peter make a great point: We can not put the Infinite, the Unchangeable, the Immeasurable under our own examination. But rather, He gives us a knowledge of Himself as witnessed in the Holy Scriptures.
So then why would you need faith later on if you have already "proved" the Incomprehensible One?
If it is as you say, then your mind would just accept God as fact and move on with your life. Then where is the faith? Why would you even need faith after that, if it is already proven?
Mmm, good point.
Can He be proven (completely proven) though? I don't think its possible. I think the closest we can come is reasonable philosophical argumentation, which I have not yet encountered (though, my searching for such is by no means over). A Hindu or Muslim would tell me the same thing though. How would I choose who to give priority to? I recognize that God Himself, if He exists, is beyond our ability to comprehend. Furthermore, the direct question of His existence or nonexistence is completely outside the realm of science. What experiment would possibly be designed to investigate Him? This is where science comes in. There are certain claims made in the Scriptures that contradict, or seem to contradict, established scientific principles (ex. a literal interpretation of the creation story). Or, there are claims of things that should leave lots of specific types of evidence, but to the best of my knowledge have not done so (ex. the Flood, the Exodus). My issue from science lies here. These contradictions demand some sort of explanation. (Telling me the Bible is not intended as a science book does not really solve the problem.)
Would you deny Christ because you have an inquisative nature?
However, since I recognize my sense, reason, and intellect are by no means perfect, I came to you guys with this.
Christ is all. What do you say about Christ. Nothing else matters in the same way.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg155987#msg155987 date=1337971563]
The Bible is not intended to be the source of issue to worry about. The Christian faith is not in the Bible it is in God.
Yes, but the thing you're using as the primary source for your knowledge of God is the Bible, is it not? So if information in it is questionable, it stands to reason that what it tells us of God is likewise questionable. This is also the same (but not the only) objection I would level at, say, the Koran. I'm confused, can you please restate this?
rather wordy exposition of evolution, for much the same reason that operated
in this case. There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word
and even about the idea. As a matter of fact, it is not, touching these primary
things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine
how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by
explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more
logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' even
if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some
unthinkable process.' For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody
ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than
he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the
fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand
it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that
they have read the Origin of Species.
Everlasting Man
I would recommend Chesterton's Everlasting Man. But you have to read the whole book first and suspend judgements til you are done. If you have already read it what are your thoughts?
The best thing I have ever read that helped me with my faith is Fr. Matta El-Meskeen's : Orthodox Prayer Life.
I really recommend it to more sophisticated readers who need help re-attaining a spiritual worldview.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Most modern histories of mankind begin with the word evolution, and with a
rather wordy exposition of evolution, for much the same reason that operated
in this case. There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word
and even about the idea. As a matter of fact, it is not, touching these primary
things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine
how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by
explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more
logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' even
if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some
unthinkable process.' For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody
ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than
he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the
fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand
it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that
they have read the Origin of Species.
Everlasting Man
I would recommend Chesterton's Everlasting Man. But you have to read the whole book first and suspend judgements til you are done. If you have already read it what are your thoughts?
I know I have a copy somewhere. I'll hunt it down.
I did have comments to make on this passage, but I will wait until I've read the whole thing and see if they still need to be said.
Furthermore, I see that you rely on science as the one to cast doubt on faith. But to rely on science(or even to do science) you must first accept that you have a rational mind capable of studying a rational universe that has rules that can be deduced.
Not quite. Rather, it is a necessary assumption we all have to make in order to continue to function properly.
I cannot prove, for example, that the information relayed to my brain by my senses is not just an illusion or hallucination. But I also have no basis for assuming this to be the case; the decisions I make based on information gathered by my senses seem to work out for the most part.
But let's assume for a moment that external reality is in fact an illusion. Even if that turned out to be the case, what could I do about it? Not a thing. So it seems to me the best option is to assume it's real and act on that assumption. So far that method seems to be working. If by that, you mean that there is no logical necessity for an uncreated universe to behave by rules that are mathematically predictable, I completely agree. I think about this all the time. I admit I don't have an answer.
If this is not what you mean, then I have a question: are the molecular clouds in outer space ordered? They certainly don't seem to exhibit any kind of order. And yet, our solar system formed from one, seemingly with no outside help. I'm fairly certain this is also how stars are formed (also seemingly, with no outside help).
The way i see it is, the universe is unfathomably large and unfathomably old; ostensibly ordered things arise from ostensibly disordered things more often than we would think.
If you were not referring to either of the above, please forgive my rambling. The most intellectually honest position I can take right now is to say that I do not know. This seems like a variation of the Ontological Argument. But I don't know if it works, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it is logically fallacious to assume that because most people believe (or have believed) something, that the something must be true. The number of people who believe an idea can only us about the popularity of the idea. It tells us nothing of its truth value. There was a time, for example, when the majority of the population believed that the earth was the center of the universe, or that smoking tobacco was good for you.
Secondly,
Imagine a young child trying to lift a small stone. He is able to pick it up easily in one hand, using what little strength he has. Now imagine he moves on to a larger rock. This one takes two hands to lift, but, eventually, he is able to pick it up. Then, he moves on to a boulder. Try as he might, he is unable to so much as nudge the boulder from its position.
The child realizes that it took considerably more strength to lift the second rock than the first one. He realizes it will take considerably more than he has in his whole body to lift the boulder. If he were to imagine someone much stronger coming along and lifting it, would that belief be unjustified? Probably not. If he were to further imagine a big, strong man, so strong that he can lift any object, no matter how large or massive, so that there would never be something he couldn't pick up, would that be unjustified? Again, I'd say no. Children have active imaginations and this is not difficult for a child to come up with.
But, the fact is, there is no basis whatsoever in reality for a man who can lift any object of any size. No such man has ever been born. The child got this idea from considering his own qualities, and magnifying them to what he saw as their greatest possible utility. I see it as being no different with the concept of God.
We have wisdom? How about a Being who has infinite wisdom? We have knowledge? What about a Being which has infinite knowledge, and knows all there could ever be to know? We think we are capable of love? How about a Being who is love? Do you see what I mean?
I'm sure there are flaws in this argument, as I just came up with it two seconds ago on roughly one hour of sleep. Whoever reads, please feel free to point them out.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg156099#msg156099 date=1338130870]
There is no way to prove that the universe exists and is not simply an illusion within the person who is experiencing it.
Please see above. To be clear, I absolutely agree with this statement.
Often, what is needed is to change perspective from an external perception, to an internal one.
The best thing I have ever read that helped me with my faith is Fr. Matta El-Meskeen's : Orthodox Prayer Life.
I really recommend it to more sophisticated readers who need help re-attaining a spiritual worldview.
Yep, that sounds about right. Is it accesible online?
Posting "A Complete Loss of Faith" is such a joke, the act itself contradicts the statement.
The act is happening because everyone I have talked to seems utterly convinced I am wrong, and I would rather they be right than me.
What would you rather I have called it? There was no need to say these things.
ReturnOrthodoxy
What confusion? The guy needs help. There are no multiple account, there is a child of God who is distressed over these feelings. We need to love him an aid him. K-Man, you are more than welcome to ask what you must,
Thank you. Seriously. Lots of trouble with this part. Egyptian stubbornness is so not conducive to this situation.
How do you know that it works? The universe you seem to be experiencing surely has many problems? Surely it would be more reasonable to assume that you are not best served by proceeding as you do? What if you are experiencing some reality in completely the wrong way?
How do you know that you can do nothing about your perception of a universe? What have you tried?
You seem to be choosing to accept your perception of the universe in one way, but without any evidence it is the right way, especially if you are not at peace and 'working properly' as some perceiving being. It would make more sense to consider how the universe could be perceived in some other way that did seem to work better.
But while you are unable to even show that the universe exists you are demanding such stringent evidence that God exists? This isn't meant as any sort of proof of anything, but I remain confused by your search for God as 'subject of investigation' when we have such little evidence of anything. If in the end all we have is our own perception then that seems to me to give more weight, not less, to those perceptions of God which others express, and which appears to produce in the best of them a more balanced, peaceful and joyful existence.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg156114#msg156114 date=1338152659]
If you do not know whether the universe exists then why is acting as if it does the best way forward?
It seems to me that this is the only assumption about the matter that allows you to do...well anything, really. What other workable alternatives are there? It "works" in the sense that it allows me to function.
I don't want to respond in a more detailed way without making sure I understand the point you make above. What's the nature of these problems? How would I be able to tell the difference though?
I don't think I understand. I thought the premise was that I can never know if my senses themselves could be feeding me illusions (i.e. I have no way of proving to myself that I'm not a brain in a vat somewhere). Altering my perceptions of the illusion wouldn't change its status as an illusion.
Also, I suspected above, and now here, that we might be using different levels of definition of the word "work"...? Because I'm operating under the assumption that it does.
If I was operating under the assumption that it didn't, then the question of God's existence would be a moot point. I would go so far as to say the question of the existence of anything that was not myself would be a moot point.
Right, right. Again, I'm operating under the premise that my perceptions give me a more or less accurate picture of the thing we call reality.
However, if your point above were true (that is, all that exists is our own perception), it would open up all sorts of confusing and unpleasant possibilities. For instance, all of the people I have ever heard of would themselves be illusions, in which case any perceptions of theirs that are communicated to me would also be illusory.
To summarize: I act as though the universe and other people besides myself exist, despite the impossibility of proving either, because:
1. I have no real reason to suspect that this is not the case
2. Even if it were not the case, I would have no way of knowing.
3. Assuming it not to be the case would render us unable to do much of anything, including those things that bring us enjoyment (or, if you like, what we perceive as enjoyment).
Does any of my rambling make sense?
edit: I accidentally a word
watching it evolve into a man. Experimental evidence of such an evolution
being impossible, the professor is not content to say (as most of us would be
ready to say) that such an evolution is likely enough anyhow. He produces his
little bone, or little collection of bones, and deduces the most marvellous
things from it. He found in Java a piece of a skull, seeming by its contour to be
smaller than the human. Somewhere near it he found an upright thigh-bone
and in the same scattered fashion some teeth that were not human. If they all
form part of one creature, which is doubtful, our conception of the creature
would be almost equally doubtful. But the effect on popular science was to
produce a complete and even complex figure, finished down to the last details
of hair and habits. He was given a name as if he were an ordinary historical
character. People talked of Pithecanthropus as of Pitt or Fox or Napoleon.
Popular histories published portraits of him like the portraits of Charles the
First and George the Fourth. A detailed drawing was reproduced, carefully
shaded, to show that the very hairs of his head were all numbered No
uninformed person looking at its carefully lined face and wistful eyes would
imagine for a moment that this was the portrait of a thigh-bone; or of a few
teeth and a fragment of a cranium. In the same way people talked about him as
if he were an individual whose influence and character were familiar to us allEverlasting Man
As this passage illustrates a biologist finds a piece of cranium,a thigh bone and some teeth draws a portrait of it and calls it the Java Man, the missing link in evolution.
If a man beats up his wife the psychologist calls it the inner cave man compelling him to act barbarously but the psychologist knows nothing about the cave man. All we know about the cave man is that he made cave drawings but in both cases these scientists have concluded the most outrageous things based on little evidence.can you explain how this flawed way of viewing the world can be called science?
(please note the mentioned scientists are Eugene Dubois and Sigmund freud)
For instance, I have pointed out the difficulty of keeping a monkey and
watching it evolve into a man. Experimental evidence of such an evolution
being impossible, the professor is not content to say (as most of us would be
ready to say) that such an evolution is likely enough anyhow. He produces his
little bone, or little collection of bones, and deduces the most marvellous
things from it. He found in Java a piece of a skull, seeming by its contour to be
smaller than the human. Somewhere near it he found an upright thigh-bone
and in the same scattered fashion some teeth that were not human. If they all
form part of one creature, which is doubtful, our conception of the creature
would be almost equally doubtful. But the effect on popular science was to
produce a complete and even complex figure, finished down to the last details
of hair and habits. He was given a name as if he were an ordinary historical
character. People talked of Pithecanthropus as of Pitt or Fox or Napoleon.
Popular histories published portraits of him like the portraits of Charles the
First and George the Fourth. A detailed drawing was reproduced, carefully
shaded, to show that the very hairs of his head were all numbered No
uninformed person looking at its carefully lined face and wistful eyes would
imagine for a moment that this was the portrait of a thigh-bone; or of a few
teeth and a fragment of a cranium. In the same way people talked about him as
if he were an individual whose influence and character were familiar to us allEverlasting Man
As this passage illustrates a biologist finds a piece of cranium,a thigh bone and some teeth draws a portrait of it and calls it the Java Man, the missing link in evolution.
If a man beats up his wife the psychologist calls it the inner cave man compelling him to act barbarously but the psychologist knows nothing about the cave man. All we know about the cave man is that he made cave drawings but in both cases these scientists have concluded the most outrageous things based on little evidence.can you explain how this flawed way of viewing the world can be called science?
(please note the mentioned scientists are Eugene Dubois and Sigmund freud)
Because this is a strawman. You should be more critical of the stuff you read. There are at least six different things wrong with this.
If science were this flimsy, we would all still be living in medieval conditions. If this is the general gist of his book, I'm becoming increasingly less motivated to read it.
You guys are really fixated on fossils for some reason. I have never looked at fossils in the lab. Not once. Was Everlasting Man written before molecular biology took off? I would guess yes. (Actually, I would hope yes, because otherwise it means he really doesn't know what he's talking about.)
Bottom line: I am not here to debate evolution. If you perceive it as that much of a threat to your beliefs, it may be time to reexamine them. That's all I can tell you.