(January 18, 2014 at 6:18 pm)lweisenthal Wrote: Of course, I can't offer "proof" of "facts" (that the factual dark energy of the universe - or hypothetical dark energy of the multiverse - could contain organized sentience). What I have suggested is plausibility.
By what method did you determine plausibility?
I mean, plausibility is a far step beyond possibility, and should (unless one is gullible) take into consideration evidence for a mechanism that could explain how dark energy could organize itself into sentience.
Got any?
Quote:It was only after I decided that it was plausible that there could be a God that I decided that it wouldn't be a waste of my time to determine if it were possible to develop a belief in said postulated God through regularly participating in several types of religious services.
How is that any different than gullibility?
Quote:Again, my motivation for so doing was that (1) I was impressed by the robust medical literature supporting the hypothesis that there are both mental and physical health benefits (including impressively increased longevity) associated with religiosity and (2) I had some personal behavioral issues which were refractory to secular management strategies.
As far as I can see, all those studies do, is point to the fact that people with a strong social structure do better then those without. Nothing in the studies offers a shred of evidence that a god is involved.
Quote:So, as explained, I did what I did and it's thus far working for me. It doesn't mean that you need to do it yourself, and it certainly isn't offered as "proof" of anything. It's only offered to support the point of view that there are objectively rational reasons for people like me to actively explore the possibility of developing belief in something which is provable only at the level of the individual. Of course, I can't prove it to you, and I'll never have it proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to me (and many of the most famous religious people in history readily "confessed" to having doubts).
Still sounds like gullibility to me.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
