EnviroLink Forum

Other than how you feel about dinner, what evidence is that? That it gets served? That it exists? We're talking "goodness" here, a concept just as abstract as a supernatural God. Either way, it boils down to "if you say so."



Yes, in fact I do, and it has been discovered by countless others. I'll tell you the same thing I told Wayne, it's similar to love. If you've never experienced it, then you have no idea what it is or that it even exists. Many people in the world exprience love. Many people also experience God. It's okay if you haven't. I hope you do eventually but I must also accept that you may never. Some folks never experience love either. It's the way of the world.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Indeed. What you believe--how you believe--is your business.



Ever felt the presence of anything when there was nothing there? Not talking ghosts or anything like that, but more of a positive thing. Not talking something in the room with you either but rather within you.



Works for me.

_________________
TANG SOO!

So as long as we view a supernatural entity as an indeterminate human feeling or emotion and not a true entity that impacts the universe as a whole we can all agree. That would seem to change the definition of the supernatural entity as claimed in the organized beliefs, but whatever works.

It cannot be directly compared to love as there are specific physical changes in relation to love which can be measured by science, just as good can be quantiifed by measurements. The impact of the belief may have certain factors which can also be measured in humans, but the impact of a belief is not evidence of the accuracy of said belief.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

That is the best way science can define it.



Emotional effects, which are essentially what we're talking about (i.e. the limbic system), can be measured despite nature of the stimuli. Many a Christian has wept over their faith or lack of and gotten just as emotional as someone who's lost a loved one. Adults crying over nothing? I don't buy that.



If "they" say so and we trust them at their word, sure. Aside from you being able to see the food, how is that any different from measuring how many people think God exists?



Then what's it there for?

_________________
TANG SOO!

But the emotional effects you use as an example are not different from other unrelated emotionall stimuli and thus are not evidence of a difference. Crying is a response related to being happy, sad, unstable, and hormonal imbalances so it can be the result of nothing emotional or nothing physical.



No, we can measure brain responses to good food or other positive stimuli giving pleasure to the person.



That is the error in your position. It matters not whether people think something exists but whether that something actually has evideince to support it existing. People can think many things which are not supportable by evidence. There are people who think someone is innocent of a crime eventhough there is massive amounts of evidence to counter that thought. All it takes is the ability to disbelieve what you wish to.



The gratification of the invidual? No reason? Peer pressure? Mass suggestion? Space aliens trying to control our minds?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

That's what I'm saying--that there is no difference between those effects and those originating from what I think we can agree exists--love.



It can happen for no reason or in some cases, at will, but we're talking about it being the result of something that is quite obviously emotional, predictable, and not necessarily the result of other factors lending to same.



You can measure responses when one speaks (or hears) of an afterlife, God, or other supernatural, positive stimuli that also give one pleasure. You may not understand why it but it’s a measureable reaction either way nonetheless.



I feel just as strongly that some food is good as I do that there is an afterlife. If I am misinterpreting my senses, how do I know I am not mistaken when it comes to simple things like good food? If I think the food sucks, everyone else thinks it sucks, and I told you thinking it's good that you have no evidence, would you change your mind?



True, but we’re not talking about denial.



Scientifically, I’m going to have to go with gratification. Pleasure is quite gratifying. Stress reduction could certainly be advantageous at times.

_________________
TANG SOO!

No, what I was saying is your example of crying is not identified with any specific emotion and thus could not be used as evidence for a specific claim in any way. For example, people cry for no emotional reason due to physical changes in hormones, they cry due to extreme happiness, they cry due to extreme sadness, and they cry due to physical pain or discomfort.



If you are using it as evidence to claim existence there has to be something which is specific only to the point being claimed and that is not the case.



I have not seen any such studies on this do you have any references?



That the food give you pleasure is reproducible and science can provide measurements to support that fact. That you believe in an afterlife does not prove there is an actual afterlife in any way regardless of how it makes you feel. That is the very significant difference between something with evidence and something without.



You cannot be mistaken in that case because the senses and the responses generated by them are the defining factors. The belief in something can be measured to determine the similar impact but that does not make the subject of the belief real in any case.



No, because we can measure to determine the real impacts if we wish. The food is real, the impact on the body is real, and the belief related to that impact is subjective to the individual. In any question of whether you actually be live it is good and others do not, we can perform tests to measure that physical effect on the brain to know.



Yes, we are. You are in denial that belief does not constitute existence.



But this still does not prove there is anything other than a placebo effect related to the belief in something. It clearly does not prove the existence of the subject of the belief.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

In this case, I am willing to accept other than scientific evidence. That's that.

_________________
TANG SOO!

I disagree. The goodness of food is quantifiable. We eat food that is nutritious, healthy, and with fresh ingredients.





Love is an emotion. If your concept of a supernatural being is an emotion, I can accept that.

Great, but just do not try to tell someone who is not willing to take such a stand that they should.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I'll remember that next time I eat such and it tastes like hell.



That may be the best way science can describe it.



Never. If it's come across like that then I profusely apolgize. Doing such a thing is where I part ways with most of the faithful crowd. I'm more into simply setting an example. If folks want to know why I do what I do, then I tell them. They can either pick it up themselves or not.

Along the same lines, I trust you don't tell people how to believe either.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Incorrect. It is just one example of the absence of evidence for an omnipotent, omnipresent, supernatural entity.
An entity for which you have no proof.
Simple conclusion that satisfies this?
No such entity exists.
QED.

Just becuse the almighty does not stop the un-necessary suffering in the world does not provide evidence of his non-existance.

It just means that if he does exist he is a right evil git.

Because...you say so? If that's the case, what of those who have eventually been fed for the rest of their lives? Is that not evidence counter to your position or does it, for some magical reason, have to be that everyone's hunger gets satisifed?



Scientific proof (i.e. that which fits your acceptance criteria)? No, I do not have that.



Or that your detection methods were inadequate, which is more likely since we've gone through and are still developing in that regard.

_________________
TANG SOO!

the problem with much of the arguments here is trying to quantify a population of one individual. Statistics is the only way to quantify the action of individuals and you need a population of sufficient size to see trends. If this individual we call God heals one person but not another there is no statistic we can place on this individual in regard to healing. Looking the other way around, nearly every culture in the past has miracles in its mythology. Statistically, the belief in miracles is high and consistent. Statistically the belief in a supernatural power is also high and consistent. It is untested theory but I would suspect both of those bell-curves are directly proportional within the same types of populations. This tells me that miracles do happen and likely only happen to be witnessed by those that believe in a supernatural being. I also have had non-believers witness the miracles I witnessed myself. Shortly later I have had some of these individuals tell me they have no memory of the event. The most logical conclusion is that these people could not reconcile the miracle with science and so their brains relegated that memory to being fiction or a dream. You cannot rely on an individual to be consistent and in a monotheistic religion (as most modern ones are), it is the actions of a single individual being called God. Some "Eastern" religions will ascribe spiritual activity to a force of the spirits of all the deceased but they still ascribe the actions of this collective spirit to intelligent decisions which is not consistent with a physical force that fallows scientifically verifiable laws in a repeatable fashion.