Science, Subjectivity, And Paradigms

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

I guess in the same way I know you are an "objective" person. TTBOMK the only way I have of knowing you are real is through my subjective experience of you through the ether of the internet.

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

I guess in the same way I know you are an "objective" person. TTBOMK the only way I have of knowing you are real is through my subjective experience of you through the ether of the internet.

It is easy for me to see how believing you exist as a real person is the best explanation. I don't see how God is the best explanation for some of your experiences. Please explain to me how I'm wrong with regards to God.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

Through my subjective experiences/interactions with him.

IE; I assume that there is some poor peasant living in the back waters of China. But until/unless I experience/interact with him on some level the only way I can know for sure is to interact with him. Till then his existence is only an assumption of mine. How else COULD I know?

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

Through my subjective experiences/interactions with him.

IE; I assume that there is some poor peasant living in the back waters of China. But until/unless I experience/interact with him on some level the only way I can know for sure is to interact with him. Till then his existence is only an assumption of mine. How else COULD I know?

I didn't pose the problem in a clear way, sorry about that.

I was talking about your belief that certain experiences you have (spiritual experiences) come from a being outside of yourself who cares for you etc, etc, etc but is hidden from view. In other words, is God the most likely explanation you can think of for the origins of your experiences? I think we can both agree that it isn't even though you choose to believe God is the source of those experiences. If we take to be what is objective as being the most rational and likely explanation of events, then I don't see how experiencing God can be objective.

[Walden]

Because it falsely pretends that there is "something out there" which has no human significance and which Human(s) did not organize. THAT world which we cannot experience IS the "other world"- I believe nothing exists which humans cannot see or feel.

Do you believe in some world we have not organized which cannot be seen or felt?- All we have is human experience- you cannot get out of it, and pretending just doesn't get you there.

I am confused by this response, but my main point is this:

With regard to god sending storms as some type of punishment, why is there a need to add this extra layer of explanation for occurences that can be explained perfectly using objective evidence. There are very valid, natural causes of storms that is related to meteorological phenomena such as air pressure, humidity, temperature, etc. Storms are caused and can be perfectly explained by these meteorological factors.

Why the need to add a completely unprovable position such as god's motive (or the fact that he even exists) to the equation?

[mfbukowski]

I am confused by this response, but my main point is this:

With regard to god sending storms as some type of punishment, why is there a need to add this extra layer of explanation for occurences that can be explained perfectly using objective evidence. There are very valid, natural causes of storms that is related to meteorological phenomena such as air pressure, humidity, temperature, etc. Storms are caused and can be perfectly explained by these meteorological factors.

Why the need to add a completely unprovable position such as god's motive (or the fact that he even exists) to the equation?

I'm not doing that.

I believe in science. God's influence can only be experienced subjectively, and I don't recall ever in my life saying that God sends storms as punishment.

I don't have a clue what you are saying.

[Walden]

Walden:

Occam's Razor, while useful in certain limited applications, is not all that useful when dealing with human emotions or actions. Which can be and generally are very circuitous.

Agreed, but it is rather useful when examining those things that are outside human emotion or actions. In this case, the storm mentioned in the original post can be perfectly explained by meterological phenomena....there is absolutely no need to add extra layers of "mystical" activity to fully explain the mechanics of storm activity.

The only need that I would see to do this, to add this extra "mystical" layer of explanation, would be the need of a believer to find god in absolutely everything.

[Rivers]

So how the heck does one go about studying the soul?

[Walden]

I'm not doing that.

I believe in science. God's influence can only be experienced subjectively, and I don't recall ever in my life saying that God sends storms as punishment.

I don't have a clue what you are saying.

Sorry, I got this post confused with another....my storm reference was to sometimesaints claim that god responds to prayers to stop storms (see first post on page 2)

[Walden]

So how the heck does one go about studying the soul?

I would guess by first determining exactly what a soul is?

[mfbukowski]

So how the heck does one go about studying the soul?

Meditation!

[thesometimesaint]

Walden:

Can God cause a storm? I believe so. Does he do so very often? Probably not.

Would God use natural processes to cause that storm? Yes.

[mfbukowski]

Walden:

Can God cause a storm? I believe so. Does he do so very often? Probably not.

Would God use natural processes to cause that storm? Yes.

In other words, you would never know if it was that butterfly in the Amazon, or God.

[Mordecai]

In other words, you would never know if it was that butterfly in the Amazon, or God.

You might if you know of a particular prophecy about that particular storm occurring at a particular time.