Actually, you can discern different brainwave activity when people report mystical states, furthermore, it appears you can teach other people how to do the same (experience a mystical state). Some people may have had a mystical experience and didn't recognize it as such, but research in this area is just beginning as technology is improving.

-TC

Well, for me, I'm compelled. It's like a puzzle with no solution, but I can't help but try to solve it.


There's nothing inherently wrong with saying "I don't know." For me personally, I just can't leave it at that. I have to try to understand.


It has been pointed out to me recently that I "speak with great assurance," so let me take a moment to say that I readily admit that all my beliefs boil down to speculation, and I don't presume to have the truth. When it comes to God, we're all just guessing. My beliefs make sense to me, but that's as far as it goes.


A human failing, I think.

__________________
We do not fear the night, who have loved the stars so fondly.

I didn't answer the question. I want you to define God. Simply stating that God created the universe and then didn't do anything about it afterwards isn't defining God, it's defining an action.



As it relates to the existence of God, it isn't evidence. As it relates to people have what they call religious experiences, it is evidence that people have religious experience.


Hence my question, define God?

The problem is, that when you ask for a definition, you're requesting something that might be described as infinite in finite terms. So whatever answer one gets, its automatically limited by the words themselves. For example, if I say God is "everything", then you could respond, "So God can't be 'nothing'". If God is supposed to transcend the rational, it can't be fully described by it either. A description would imply you could contain "God" within the limitations of your rational comprehension. So one can't turn around the limitations of rationality as an excuse to dismiss a partial description.

-TC

Yes, you did. You asked me to define God. I said let's use the deistic model. You then asked what the deistic model is, and then went on to explain it.

Only if you ignore the rest of the deistic model, which is basically the theistic model without intervention.

Experiences which we believe to be experiences of God, not religion. Religion is mere explanation of such experience.


I have done so. For purposes of this thread, I choose the deistic model. I would offer to explain it, but you have already displayed familiarity. So please, stop wasting my time and answer the question.

__________________
We do not fear the night, who have loved the stars so fondly.

No, I stated that the deistic model describes what this God being supposedly has done.

It does nothing to point out the attributes of said God.

So then define it, in your words.

Stop dodging the question.

I did answer your question:

If you're going by deism, doesn't a deist believe that God created the universe and put no further hand in its function, doesn't care about humanity, or is just an observer? Not sure how you would go about providing evidence of that.

If you're also operating on the deistic model, then that pretty much invalidates all religious experiences because of the concept that the deist God doesn't involve himself in the universe, doesn't care about humanity or is just observing.

The statement itself does cast doubt on the subject. If one isn't providing me with the concept THEY are going on, then why would I even attempt to answer any questions he has on it?

God isn't a singular concept. It's a highly subjective and conflicting concept based on individual whims and experiences.


Why would you call that God?



Ok, what does your quote have to do with materialism and why would selflessness and altruism go against any such thing?


Of course, but why does that matter if it's not grounded in reality?


No, because there is no empirical data. Observation and experimentation are intrinsic in empiricism.

I'm not saying they shouldn't, I just commented that the way it is phrased is dismissive. I was actually just having a little fun with you, sorry for being onery. I just think those type of responses have more of an effect of turning off conversation than encouraging it.


No it isn't a singular concept, but neither are grand unified theories. But, if someone asked me my thoughts on grand unified theory, I would have an inking of what they expected. Some GUTs are better than others, but that wouldn't prohibit me from giving my thoughts on the matter, or at least a genuine inquiry as to what GUT the other person had in mind.


Because I think everything is perspepective before it is anything else., thus making it the Alpha and Omega of anything, or nothing.


Because materialism cannot adequately account for consciousness, always trying to reduce it to a genetic adaptation. If there is no adequate material answer for consciousness, then postulating evidence beyind materialism is an appropriate measure to take.


Ah, so now I get to play your game. What is reality? It seems to me you have a very defined measure for such a word. Wouldn't that measure indicate bias more than an empirical justification?


I disagree. I believe you can have intellectual data, and you can have contemplative data. What you cannot do is reduce those types of data to a material basis. Taste may differ, but there is no denying that "Hamlet is a comedy" is a bad interpretation of the intellectual data.

-TC

I'm going to come back to this thread later. I'm starting to get overheated and need to cool down.

Sorry, not my intentions. Hopefully just information overload as opposed to something I said! Maybe I need to use more emoticons.

-TC