4 ms·

> if "a billion people" say it's true, it must be true. Religion is a great example of this. I have yet to see proof of a god.

by tdons 7y ago

linuxftw 7y ago
What proof would you accept?
DoreenMichele 7y ago
There are animals that navigate via sensing the geomagnetic field. Humans can't sense it (at least most can't, at least not reliably or strongly), but we have tools that sense it. There are blind people. There are deaf people. Failure by one person to sense a thing others sense isn't actually evidence it isn't real. I long ago decided this is probably the best explanation for the divide between those who believe in some kind of God or spiritual force and those who think that's clearly Hokum. Edited for typos, possibly due to autocorrect, aka autocorrupt, the bane of my online communication efforts.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  To be clear, because I don't think I was, I am not saying "God exists and some people are just blind." I'm saying different people have different perceptions (which includes mental models or thought processes) and relate differently to reality around them. It's usually a pretty pointless thing to argue about. Both sides are generally pretty adamant about their views, a la The elephant and the six blind men.
  - stOneskull 7y ago
    With enough definitions, God certainly exists.
GrantZvolsky 7y ago
Proof of god? We can't even prove gravity, or for that matter anything else in the physical world.
- tdons 7y ago
  Okay. But we can demonstrate the existence of gravity. Let go of an apple and watch it drop. I have yet to see a demonstration of divine intervention.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    I think GrantZvolsky means we could be all living in a simulation, dude! (the word dude being obligatory for ending any sentence suggesting we could all be living in a simulation, dude)
    - GrantZvolsky 7y ago
      What would make you think so? I was in fact alluding to fallibilism.
      - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        Nothing in particular, other than that is a pretty common argument nowadays for how you can't prove that existence is as it appears to be and anything that "proves" it can just be a function of the simulation tricking you.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    People like me probably invented religion. I have a son who absolutely doesn't believe in God and all that. He was told growing up that he didn't have to believe, but he absolutely wasn't allowed to be derisive of his own mother and her beliefs -- or anyone else's, for that matter. We were homeless for years and had quite a few bizarre experiences that could be interpreted as "miracles" or "divine intervention" if one is inclined that way. He occasionally would comment on that fact and observe that his belief system was being tested or mocked by life, then follow that observation with remarks about laws of large numbers and that really bizarre coincidences were bound to happen at times to someone. People in both camps tend to see what they already believe in, kind of like the observation in The Sixth Sense about dead people only seeing what they want to see. Please understand that I'm absolutely not suggesting you are wrong. I'm only suggesting that the status of being a believer or non believer seems to be self reinforcing. Believers and non believers can experience the exact same thing and can both conclude at the end of the day that their current beliefs have been verified -- or at least not overturned. (My position is that it's a simulation in 4D and the actual answer neither matters nor can be proven one way or the other. I think people should be free to believe what they believe in that regard. I also think they should, ideally, respect the right of others to do the same.)

> if "a billion people" say it's true, it must be true. Religion is a great example of this. I have yet to see proof of a god.

by tdons 7y ago

> if "a billion people" say it's true, it must be true. Religion is a great example of this. I have yet to see proof of a god.

linuxftw 7y ago

What proof would you accept?

DoreenMichele 7y ago

There are animals that navigate via sensing the geomagnetic field. Humans can't sense it (at least most can't, at least not reliably or strongly), but we have tools that sense it. There are blind people. There are deaf people. Failure by one person to sense a thing others sense isn't actually evidence it isn't real. I long ago decided this is probably the best explanation for the divide between those who believe in some kind of God or spiritual force and those who think that's clearly Hokum. Edited for typos, possibly due to autocorrect, aka autocorrupt, the bane of my online communication efforts.

DoreenMichele 7y ago
To be clear, because I don't think I was, I am not saying "God exists and some people are just blind." I'm saying different people have different perceptions (which includes mental models or thought processes) and relate differently to reality around them. It's usually a pretty pointless thing to argue about. Both sides are generally pretty adamant about their views, a la The elephant and the six blind men.
- stOneskull 7y ago
  With enough definitions, God certainly exists.

GrantZvolsky 7y ago

Proof of god? We can't even prove gravity, or for that matter anything else in the physical world.

tdons 7y ago
Okay. But we can demonstrate the existence of gravity. Let go of an apple and watch it drop. I have yet to see a demonstration of divine intervention.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  I think GrantZvolsky means we could be all living in a simulation, dude! (the word dude being obligatory for ending any sentence suggesting we could all be living in a simulation, dude)
  - GrantZvolsky 7y ago
    What would make you think so? I was in fact alluding to fallibilism.
    - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
      Nothing in particular, other than that is a pretty common argument nowadays for how you can't prove that existence is as it appears to be and anything that "proves" it can just be a function of the simulation tricking you.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  People like me probably invented religion. I have a son who absolutely doesn't believe in God and all that. He was told growing up that he didn't have to believe, but he absolutely wasn't allowed to be derisive of his own mother and her beliefs -- or anyone else's, for that matter. We were homeless for years and had quite a few bizarre experiences that could be interpreted as "miracles" or "divine intervention" if one is inclined that way. He occasionally would comment on that fact and observe that his belief system was being tested or mocked by life, then follow that observation with remarks about laws of large numbers and that really bizarre coincidences were bound to happen at times to someone. People in both camps tend to see what they already believe in, kind of like the observation in The Sixth Sense about dead people only seeing what they want to see. Please understand that I'm absolutely not suggesting you are wrong. I'm only suggesting that the status of being a believer or non believer seems to be self reinforcing. Believers and non believers can experience the exact same thing and can both conclude at the end of the day that their current beliefs have been verified -- or at least not overturned. (My position is that it's a simulation in 4D and the actual answer neither matters nor can be proven one way or the other. I think people should be free to believe what they believe in that regard. I also think they should, ideally, respect the right of others to do the same.)