the telepathy thread

[Bagnu]

2 hours ago, Ayeleeon said:

To me, the problem with this is the implication that we make a choice as to what we believe. Yes we consider the evidence, and that evidence combined with our past experiences leads us to believe something, however I do not think we choose that belief. All of those things cause that belief dispite ourselves.

I fully agree. Belief is based on knowledge and experiences, and also what we have been brought up with. I personally can't just suddenly believe in something.

[Bagnu]

Now another question. Everything came from nothing. I mean total, absolute nothing. Where did the physical laws of existence come from?

[Innula Zenovka]

29 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

From a broader perspective, Pascal is saying that people who believe in God are going to win anyway, regardless of why they believe and whether God exists.

Which god, though?    Gods generally require a little more from their worshippers than simple belief, I think, and if you've picked the wrong deity in which to believe and it therefore transpires you haven't been fulfilling whatever obligations are required by the deity or deities that actually do exist, then you're badly out of luck.

Pascal's wager has never seemed to me anything like a bet on a sure thing.  Far from it.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Innula Zenovka

[Rolig Loon]

14 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

Now another question. Everything came from nothing. I mean total, absolute nothing. Where did the physical laws of existence come from?

That's one of the big cosmological/religious questions of all time. There's lovely speculative thought from both perspectives. Scientists can put testable limits on their understanding of the first few seconds of the universe, but it seems unlikely that they will ever be able to peer back far enough to get a good, clean answer to that question.  The best we can do is play the ball where it lies and understand how the universe we see works.

[Rolig Loon]

6 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Which god, though?    Gods generally require a little more from their worshippers than simple belief, I think, and if you've picked the wrong deity in which to believe and it therefore transpires you haven't been fulfilling whatever obligations are required by the deity or deities that actually do exist, then you're badly out of luck.

Pascal's wager has never seemed to me anything like a bet on a sure thing.  Far from it.

That's a good point.  It does assume a monotheistic universe.  Crusades, cult communes, and death camps have been part of our nasty history as we have disagreed about whose God is the real one.  Bet on the wrong God and you could be in deep doo-do, well before you go to meet your Maker.  Pascal's narrow argument was about whether to believe in any God.  Given that choice, his pragmatic decision makes sense, but you're right that it is culturally conditioned.

[Chroma Starlight]

55 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

As far as I am concerned, personally, that's a good way to look at things, but it is sort of wishy-washy. It really leaves us on neutral, relativistic ground where one person's belief is as good as another's.

So I agree with you as far as an individual is concerned, that's a good way too look at things. It doesn't need to be more than that; culture and meaning are a shared construct. Once we have everyone in agreement about the general human possibility, only then is it possible to create lasting new structure and organization in all kinds of ways, some of them quite curious and new given Internet connection and technological augmentation, or new green building methods and designs, architectural spirits, or new forms of learning and play, the general availability of powerful ideas and knowledge in support of almost any idea, and so forth. 

seems to anyone, especially a child, way better than

We're certainly capable of creating our own order based on what's spiritually right. We're capable of actually following all the amazing wisdom that we've already developed and have on hand, yet again.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Chroma Starlight

[Arielle Popstar]

46 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

Not really.  Pascal's personal decision was largely pragmatic -- less about belief than the consequences of choice.  As far as he was concerned, God might exist, or might not.  If he chose to believe that God exists, and he was correct, he would end up among the faithful and have eternal life.  On the other hand, if God doesn't exist but Pascal chose to believe anyway, he wouldn't be any worse off.  So, Pascal reasoned, he might as well believe.  Win-win, as we might say.  

From a broader perspective, Pascal is saying that people who believe in God are going to win anyway, regardless of why they believe and whether God exists.  It was a good argument for faith, as he saw it, or at least for going through the motions.  I imagine that the same argument could be made for almost anything that you believe in but have no rational basis for ( invisible elephants, faeries, ESP, or the goodness of mankind, ... ).  Given the choice, if there's no real downside, you might as well believe. 

As far as I am concerned, personally, that's a good way to look at things, but it is sort of wishy-washy. It really leaves us on neutral, relativistic ground where one person's belief is as good as another's.  Maybe that's as much as we can expect when it comes to our thoughts about religion.  When it comes to beliefs that are based at least in part on observations that can be tested, however, I don't think Pascal's argument works.  When we think we see invisible elephants, we should ask, "Really? Are there elephants there, or do I have a spot on my glasses?  Do I just wish there were elephants there?"  We should not leap to belief, but should begin with disbelief and say, "Prove it."

The way I see it is that Pascals wager is but a start. There is a difference between having a belief there is a God and developing a faith that there is one and that He helps get through the trials of life. It is sort of like my neighbor telling me there is a new mechanic in town who is good and charges a fair rate. When I go to him for a repair job, I go with a belief based on the testimony of my neighbor. The mechanic does a good job and I am satisfied. The next time I go to him for a different repair, I go with a measure of faith because of my satisfaction with my previous experience with him. With each successive successful repair, my faith grows stronger that he is good and fair and I can continue to trust him.

24 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Which god, though?    Gods generally require a little more from their worshippers than simple belief, I think, and if you've picked the wrong deity in which to believe and it therefore transpires you haven't been fulfilling whatever obligations are required by the deity or deities that actually do exist, then you're badly out of luck.

Pascal's wager has never seemed to me anything like a bet on a sure thing.  Far from it.

Well I don't know about all the different religions out there but in one at least, there is in the readings a listing of changes that will happen within the adherent that is correctly following the path. These changes are pretty difficult to achieve without the help of their God and so from those inner changes, the believer has some assurance of being led by the right God.

[Bagnu]

2 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

That's one of the big cosmological/religious questions of all time. There's lovely speculative thought from both perspectives. Scientists can put testable limits on their understanding of the first few seconds of the universe, but it seems unlikely that they will ever be able to peer back far enough to get a good, clean answer to that question.  The best we can do is play the ball where it lies and understand how the universe we see works.

That's not my point actually. In order to peer back at anything, it had to exist. I'm talking about total lack of existence. Absolute 0. Not even a state where physical laws exist.

And I totally agree.  Playing the ball where it lies is the best we can do, and all we have to work with. 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Bagnu

[Ceka Cianci]

3 hours ago, Bagnu said:

Now another question. Everything came from nothing. I mean total, absolute nothing. Where did the physical laws of existence come from?

Here is something on nothing..

 

[Bagnu]

8 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Here is something on nothing..

 

Lol, that has nothing to do with the concept of absolute non existence!!!

[Ceka Cianci]

2 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

Lol, that has nothing to do with the concept of absolute non existence!!!

Other than saying what it pretty much takes to get to that, I guess not.. hehehe

[Bagnu]

It doesn't, but it was enjoyable to watch!!!

[Ceka Cianci]

11 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

It doesn't, but it was enjoyable to watch!!!

It was something wasn't it? hehehe

[Madelaine McMasters]

10 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The only reason scientists believe dinosaurs to be 65 million years old is because of the rocks they are found in, not the age of the bones or fossils. In fact the soft bits they are suddenly finding in many of them show to be significantly less than 100,000 years old by carbon dating so we should expect that in the next 50 years or so even mainstream science will come around to the idea that dinosaurs having coexisted with man.

Citation?

If this is about Mary Schweitzer's dinosaur soft tissue discovery, I'm looking forward to what you've found to support your claim.

 

[Ceka Cianci]

Just curious.

Wouldn't the bones be older than the rock since the rock formed after the bones did?

[Madelaine McMasters]

17 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

That's a good point.  It does assume a monotheistic universe.  Crusades, cult communes, and death camps have been part of our nasty history as we have disagreed about whose God is the real one.  Bet on the wrong God and you could be in deep doo-do, well before you go to meet your Maker.  Pascal's narrow argument was about whether to believe in any God.  Given that choice, his pragmatic decision makes sense, but you're right that it is culturally conditioned.

This is why I won't take the wager. Dad just went with the god of his upbringing, yet taught that man makes god in his image, and that critical thinking is both important and fun. So, the god of my making doesn't require me to believe in him. If I imagine a god that has that requirement, I just end up pitying him.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters
Clarification

[Bagnu]

27 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Just curious.

Wouldn't the bones be older than the rock since the rock formed after the bones did?

No. The rocks could not have formed afterwards. 

[Ceka Cianci]

22 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

No. The rocks could not have formed afterwards. 

Now I'm even more curious..

How did the dinosaurs get inside the rocks?

[Madelaine McMasters]

28 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Now I'm even more curious..

How did the dinosaurs get inside the rocks?

They're super sneaky.

[Bagnu]

30 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Now I'm even more curious..

How did the dinosaurs get inside the rocks?

If they were inside the rocks, no one would find them.

[Ceka Cianci]

3 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

If they were inside the rocks, no one would find them.

Then why are they even aging rocks they are found in if they aren't even in there?

To be honest, That's kind of rude of them dinosaurs to be not being there, like they're sposed ta be.

 

🙃

 

[Bagnu]

2 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Then why are they even aging rocks they are found in if they aren't even in there?

To be honest, That's kind of rude of them dinosaurs to be not being there, like they're sposed ta be.

 

🙃

 

I'm not sure why they are are aging the rocks around them, or even if "they" are. give us a link showing "they" do. And it's so rude of the dinosaurs. Nasty things to be that rude!!!

[Ceka Cianci]

Just now, Bagnu said:

I'm not sure why they are are aging the rocks around them, or even if "they" are. give us a link showing "they" do. And it's so rude of the dinosaurs. Nasty things to be that rude!!!

I'm the one that's curious here.. Don't try turning this around on meh! \o/

Seriously, I was just bouncing off what someone else said in the thread about 65,million year old rocks and fleshy dino meats.. hehehe

[Bagnu]

3 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I'm the one that's curious here.. Don't try turning this around on meh! \o/

Seriously, I was just bouncing off what someone else said in the thread about 65,million year old rocks and fleshy dino meats.. hehehe

LOL!!! I didn't read far enough back.

[cunomar]

Telepathy exists , as the saying goes "animals smell fear" . But you can stare down a vicious dog forcing it to back away if you mentally tear it apart with your teeth .

It's an untrained Neanderthal instinct because we live in a civilized world .

I would very much like to link a rl story here of an Argentinian military officer who though captured was refusing to relinquish his weapon , until an S.A.S soldier chanced to walk by and simply looked at him .

According to witnesses, without a word spoken the message was obviously heard loud and clear because the captive dropped his weapon instantly .

Sadly i can't find reference on the internet , perhaps i read it on paper as is my preference .