Your Garage Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Psychological proof of God existence vs. logical proof


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 55 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 29, 2010 11:56:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 30, 2010 10:35:54 AM PST
Dr.Soul says:
Everybody knows that it is impossible to prove an existence of God LOGICALY. But try to prove LOGICALY an existence of light to somebody born blinded. To do this logicaly is impossible. But what is impossible logically may be quite easy psychologicaly - it is enough just to see light. With existence of God everything same.

The book "PSUCHOLOGY-XXI. OR XXII?.." I want to present you is about this topic. Below is something like release.

Can psychology become a science about soul? And must it become such science? Or our fate is to speak endlessly about "behavior" and "personal traits", to invent new and new questionnaires, to calculate correlations, and to be happy when some of these correlations are bigger than the level of statistical significance, multiplying in such a way the mass of data, the main value of which is a degree granted to their collector?
I am an optimist and I do believe that our science is worthy of a better fate: not limit itself by surface of huge essence "psyche" that gave it the name, but to go deeper and deeper inside of this mysterious essence. This is why even too poor mastering of English did not prevent me to write this book, which addresses to those "marginal" psychologists who share my optimism.
Three main topics constitute the thematic core of Psychology XXI. Or XXII?.. First is the necessity of radical revision of our views on ontological matters. Individual psyche, which is well known to any person through introspection, is not an isolated essence, but is a part of the big world, which is not less real than the physical world is. From the times of Kant we know that the fact of existence of God cannot be proved logically. However, only now we are starting to understand that it may be "proved" psychologically and that this kind of proof even more serious than logical ones.
Psyche is not an attribute of an individual only, but it is also an attribute of big groups as nations, confession, civilizations, and even of humankind as a whole. Relationships between an individual psyche and group one is the second main topic. And the third one is that psyche is neither static nor dynamic essence, but developing one. We all are the travelers in the Big World and our travel grows us.
The book shows how the elaboration of these three topics will allow the future psychology to become the basis for the future sociology, theology, history and even for the future philosophy.

Contents

Instead of Foreword - How This Book Was Written and What About 11
Chapter 1. PSYCHOLOGICAL PROOFS OF EXISTANCE OF GOD, OR IS "MIND-BODY-ENVIRONMENT" CLOSED OR OPEN SYSTEM? 15
Problem and Approach 15
What Proofs May Be Accepted by the Critics? Epistemological Note 17
Phenomena - 1: Common Ideas and Common Activities 18
Phenomena - 2: Signs of Destiny and Inner Voice 21
Phenomena - 3: Higher Experience - Expanding Conscious, Expanding Ideas 22
Upper and Lower in the Psyche: the Scale of Brightness of Mental States 22
Lifting from Yellow States to Orange and Red Ones - I: Super-aesthetic and Religious Feelings 31
Lifting from Yellow to Orange and Red States - II: from the Occasional Observer to the Permanent "Observer of Observing" 36
Unipolar and Bipolar Models of Reality - Figures 37
Chapter 2. SPIRITUALITY AND DUKHOVNOST 40
Introduction 40
The Difference 41
Bi-lingual Consideration, or about Russian-English Translating 41
Spiritual Crisis and Dukhovnyy Crisis 41
The Spirit, the Spirits and Their World 43
Mystic Experience vs. Higher Experience 43
Development of Human Being 45
Psychology and Ontology 48
Transpersonal Psychology vs. Higher Psychology 51
Chapter 3. DOES CULTURE DETERMINE MIND, OR IS CULTURE DETERMINED BY MIND? MANIFEST OF DEPTH SOCIOPSYCHOLOGY 54
Introduction 54
One Essence with Many Names 55
Reality of the Invisible 55
Relationships between Common Mind and Individual Minds - Emerging Sociopsychology 57
Depth Sociopsychology 57
Necessity of the New Science 58
The Subject of Sociopsychology and the Subject of Depth Sociopsychology 58
Philosophical Perspective 59
Differential Psychology and Differential Cross-Cultural Psychology 60
Superconscious vs. Subconscious in the Collective Unconscious: Archetypes and Traumas 61
Tasks of Depth Sociopsychology 62
Theoretical Tasks 62
Applied Tasks of Depth Sociopsychology 63
Methods of Depth Sociopsychology 65
Psychosemantic Analysis in Sociopsychology 66
Operationalization and study of the collective traumas through the investigation of common attitudes 67
Historical-psychological Analysis of New Mental Formations 68
Sociopsychological Analysis of Culture - Designation of Problem 70
Chapter 4. TRIBUTE TO OSWALD SPENGLER: BIG TRUTH AND SMALL MISTAKES. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SCHEME OF METAHISTORY AND THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF HISTORICAL PSYCHOLOGY 71
Introduction: Two Main Spengler's Discoveries 71
Living Cultures 72
Culture Creates Mind. Spengler, Jung, Vygotsky 73
Psychohistory and Historical Psychology 73
Age and Phases of Lives of Metacultures 74
Coexistence of Metacultures 75
Boundaries of Metacultures. Metacultures, Which Spengler did not Notice - 1 77
Morphology of History Against the Physiology of History 78
Brightness of Mind 79
Spiritual Height of a Person and one of a Society. 79
Methods of Measurement of Brightness 79
Pyramid of History 80
Incomparable and Comparable 80
Axis of the History: What Does Progress Consist in? 80
Ranks of Metacultures and the Pyramid of History 81
Archetypes of metacultures - Three Faces of Pyramid of History 82
Metacultures, Which Spengler did not Notice - 2 82
Birth of Cultures and Ontological Challenge 85
Chapter 5. PSYCHOTHEOLOGY: CHRISTIANITY AS A SCIENCE OF SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPING CHRISTIANITY 87
Presentiment of Future 87
Epistemological Notes 88
Ontological Outline 89
Ideas and beings 90
Ideas and souls 90
Tree of World 91
Man-creator 92
From Creator to Creator 93
Lower and Higher Souls 94
Big Man and Metacultures 94
Reflection in Scriptures 94
The Meaning of Gospel 97
Different Christianities 100
Psychotheology and Future Christianity 103

Instead of Foreword - How This Book Was Written and What About
This book is addressing to rather special category of readers - to the psychologists who realize that our science is too far from to become the science about psyche (soul) and it studies the rather surface phenomena that are too far from the core of psyche, i.e. the essence that transform the set of different phenomena into psyche. I do not hope that this book will find many readers in the nearest years, but I hope that in course of time the number of such readers will increase.
In course of my carrier, I made four attempts to present my work to English-speaking readers - in 1990, 1997, 2001 and in 2009, but cannot say that any one of them was successful. Nevertheless, the character of my work encourages me from time to time to resume such attempts because the things I am writing about are the very important things and to say about them even in bad English is much better than do not say at all.
It would be too long to tell the full story of these attempts, but of course, one of the reasons of their failure was insufficient level of my English. However, this was not the only reason. The person who is ready to perceive some thought and who need this thought will perceive it even in bad English while the one who is not ready would not understand the same thought even when it will be exposed in language of Shakespeare. This is why "The scientist's Conversations with the Teacher" translated by the professional translators also left unknown for readers: when new age ideas address to scientific community, the chilly reception is warranted. However, the same give me courage that the reader, who is ready for the ideas that are exposed in the present book, will be able to crap them even in so imperfect literary form.
My last attempt to present my work to English-readers I start one year ago. In fall of 2008, initially I prepared the Proposal for European Commission, and latter when I found unexpectedly for myself that this Proposal met a rather warm welcome from many colleagues, I wrote five articles addressed to different groups of psychologists, philosophers, historians and theologians, which together outline my work in the last 14 years. I presented these articles in a number of academic journals but received from most of them obviously negative reaction. Nevertheless, the texts were written already and all together (including the English texts I wrote at the same time for my personal website) constituted the volume of small book.
As I said, I do realize this book has no chances for commercial success, but I do feel the necessity to publish it for the future generation of psychologists - if not for the present one - for those who will make the psychology of 21st century. Or maybe - the one of 22d century. The psychology, which will become a base of future history, future sociology and future theology and which will differ from the modern academic psychology not less than the modern physics differs from Newton's one.
What is the main difference between the future psychology and the modern one? This is difference in underlying ontological model and, as a result, in understanding of both theoretical and applied tasks of psychology. Today the psychology in fact rejects the multiple connections of psyche with the invisible subtle world, because the academic science rejects the reality of this subtle world itself. Today psychology continuing the attempts to become "an instant science" like physics with big difficulties accepts even such seemingly "poor psychological" phenomena as "inner Self", "individual spirit" etc - all phenomena threat to scientific picture of the world formed at the late of 19th century. As a result, for the modern psychology, the psyche is the isolated essence like mechanical machine and to deal with this machine must be the same like we deal with all other machines.
Today for the most of psychologists, the mind is not an alive thing. Their attitude to the subject of their work is similar to attitude of carpenter to piece of wood. They evaluate the properties of this piece like its hardness, which seems to them important for using this bream in construction of building. They try to inscribe some texts on this piece and do not like when the piece resists their attempts. However, they usually do see neither that the piece is alive, that it lives its own life, grows and develops nor that the piece is not separate piece at all but the part of big alive organism.
The reason of such blindness is that the academic psychology considers mainly the external, surface levels of psyche, which are less variable and most stable and, thus, seems less alive, and ignores the internal, most movable zones of psyche, masking them by name `unconscious'. However, the shift of attention to these hidden scopes of mind discloses almost immediately two important things. First, the psyche develops, changes in its own specific way, lives its own life. And second, this life of psyche is not independent from the life of world - each psyche plays in the world its own role, receives from the world its own impacts, which determine its life and its work, and return to the world the results of its work.
As soon as we discover for themselves these zones of psyche (in new age literature they are called "inner self", "soul of soul" etc.) and the principles of the psyche's life, it becomes much easier for us to make the next step - to reconsider the applied tasks of psychology.
Today, in applied psychology two approaches dominate - manipulation and selection. Psychologist tries either to force the people to be like he wants they to be (to think what political psychologist and his customer want they think, to buy what advertisement psychologist and his customer want they buy, and in general to live the life, which seems to psychologist as right one), or select the peoples, which seem to him "optimal" for certain social role. In the future psychology, both these meta-approaches will be changed crucially.
Instead of manipulation, to help a person to live his (or her) own life will become leitmotiv of counseling. And instead of selection "right person" for some social role (like selection the right key for given lock), the help in elaborating right individual style for this role will be dominate in the work of both organizational psychologists and educational ones.
Such shift will be provided by the change of the philosophical model in foundation of psychology. The future psychology will base on different ontology, in which the human being is the only leaf, which grows on the World Tree and the tasks of future psychologists will be to help these leaves to grow. The book I propose to your attention begins with elaborating this topic.
Thus, the first central topic of present book is new ontological/psychological model. The first and the last (fifth) chapter deal with this topic. The first outlines the problem and provides the phenomenological base, the collection of phenomena that demands revision of academic views on the world. The last elaborates the future ontology in more details and outlines the frameworks of the future theology - psychotheology, which will not conflict with the science, but instead will constitute together with science the single scope of knowledge.
The second central topic of the book is the development: the personal (or in other wording - spiritual) development of human beings that makes from a weak, low, imperfect being "A Human Perfect". What changes of mind constitute such development and how facilitate such development - these two problems will form the core of theoretical and applied tasks of future psychology, correspondingly. All chapters deal with the problem of human development.
And the third central topic, with which chapters 3 and 4 deals primarily, is the problem of relationships between an individual and a society. Today we customize ourselves with the mode of thinking about them as about two although interconnected but separate essences, one of which (a human being) is primary and the other (a society) is secondary. We consider society as a set of individuals and in best accept the influence of such social phenomena as culture on individual mind. Reality, however, is more complex: there are social organisms, which are alive as people are, and each human being besides he is an individual, enters in such social organisms by the parts of his mind like the cell enter in bodies. All we are the parts of such living essences as our nations, our super-nations, our cultures and so on. Although we are separate individuals on the levels of our physical bodies, on the level of our minds, by significant "parts" of our psyche, we are even not simply closely inter-related one with others, not simply are parts of the same whole, but are identical to this whole. Understanding of this situation opens new vision of both our personal (individual) situation and our common (social) situation. We all are subjects not only of our personal lives but also are subjects of the history and of those invisible but very powerful forces that creates the history. This is why the future psychology will form the base for both future sociology and future scientific history, the first instantly scientific history in the history of history. With this pun I want to finish this brief foreword. Enjoy!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2010 12:51:21 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 29, 2010 12:53:04 PM PST
Uueerdo says:
<<<But try to prove LOGICALY an existence of light to somebody born blinded.>>>

Sighted: "There's this thing I call light. It allows me to perceive things at a distance."
Blind: "No way. You're just pulling my leg."
Sighted: "No seriously, I can prove it."
Blind: "Go ahead, try."
Sighted: "How many fingers am I holding up?"
Blind: "How should I know? I am not holding your hand and nowhere near close enough to hear the sounds of your fingers moving."
Sighted: "Well, if you could perceive light, you would be able to... I'd say 'see' but it would be a tautology. Hold up some fingers, but don't tell me how many."
Sighted: "Three."
Blind: "Hey, wait, I didn't even tell you they were up yet."
Sighted: "That's because I could see them...or if you want to get technical, I saw the light reflected off of them."
Blind: "Wow! You sure you weren't using echo-location beyond my hearing range?"
Sighted: "Yep, I'm sure. I'm actually deaf and have been reading your lips the whole time."
Sighted: "You know, there is more to light than that even. There are certain types of light that I can record to see INSIDE you."

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2010 8:21:13 PM PST
Denny Crane says:
And thus, Setarcos takes the wind out of another cultist's sails, and ends another thread.

-Denny Crane!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2010 8:26:44 PM PST
F. Cone says:
Agreed. Game. Set. Match. Thanks for playing.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2010 8:31:53 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 29, 2010 8:33:07 PM PST
b<r>ats...:(

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2010 8:40:06 PM PST
SinSeeker says:
Dr.Soul says: "Everybody knows that it is impossible to prove an existence of God LOGICALY."

Try reading Nicholas Everitt's The Non-existence of God: An Introduction. (2004, London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-30107-6.) He does a pretty good job of demolishing arguments for god and supporting arguments against, using LOGIC.

One example is the logical problems that arise from the classical attributes of god. For example, the problems a deity who is "eternal" or "outside time" would have in operating in (and even understanding) a universe with time as a parameter. A second example is the logical problems arising from omnipotence. Is god able to kill him/herself. If "yes," what proof is there that this hasn't already happened? If "no," god is unable to perform an action that a human can perform, and hence can't be omnipotent. There are of course theist responses to these problems, but Everitt cuts them down ruthlessly and methodically.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2010 2:27:43 AM PST
Dr.Soul says:
To prove non-existence LOGICALY is impossible also, but all these things were discussed already millions times. What is possible is to disprove others' UNDERSTANDING of some religious maxims or even more often - OWN UNDERSTANDING (misunderstanding) of these maxims. The good example is one with omnipotence. The author believe that "omnipotence" is ability to do everything. But omnipotence is a quite different thing. This is ability to do what Divinity wants to do (to use a little childish language).

The logical exercises like ones you provided is useful also because they develop the ability to think logically, but their main goal is to demonstrate to the person that logics cannot resolve this kind of tasks.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2010 2:37:47 AM PST
Dr.Soul says:
Your example is good only for the blind who is not to sceptical about existence of light. Really sceptical person would propose a dozen of contra-arguments. This "discussion" continues many centuries with the only positive result that their participants begin understand its fruitlessness.

Indeed, blinds believe in existence of light not because somebody proves them that the light exists. They believe because everybody says them that the light exists. This is also a kind of "psychological proof", although of one different nature.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2010 2:44:35 AM PST
SinSeeker says:
Dr.Soul says: "The author believe that "omnipotence" is ability to do everything. But omnipotence is a quite different thing. This is ability to do what Divinity wants to do (to use a little childish language)."

Actually Everitt doesn't "believe" that omnipotence is the "ability to do everything." He starts with that as the opening position and points out that the theist could respond by saying that omnipotence is the ability for god to do what he wants to do. He then demolishes that variant of the argument, LOGICALLY, by exposing the logical problems inherent in that response.

Theists always respond to the logical problems in omnipotence by restricting the definition of omnipotence in some way. Everitt demonstrates that this is not a sensible move on the part of the theist, as it leads to even more logical confusions.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2010 5:45:11 AM PST
Irish Lace says:
Oh, Set, you are just too much.

(Not in the "too much" sense of, "Dr. Soul's post contains too much nonsense and bad English." You are "too much" in the colloquial sense of over-the-top entertaining.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2010 7:01:35 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 1, 2011 12:47:52 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2010 10:52:53 AM PST
Dr.Soul says:
I'm too bad "presenter"... I forgot to provide the title. Now I corrected this in first mes of thread. Thank you a lot. The book title is "PSYCHOLOGY XXI. OR XXII?.." With sub-title "Good thoughts in bad English". Thus I accept the obvious comment about bad English (my Russian is much better, but at this time I wanted to address to English-speaking auditory), but what about ninsense I have to say here that often we call "nonsense" something sense of which we do not understand. But even in these cases the critics are right - this is indeed nonsense (for them).

But the discovery of sense in what seems early as nonsense is the only possible way to God - the way, which at its end proves existence of God and opens that real God is quite different to what we think about God.

The book may be bought in Amazon, or simply downloaded from http://russkiysvet.narod.ru/eng/block3.pdf.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2010 11:05:23 AM PST
Dr.Soul says:
About the logical proofs.

To build some logical conclusion we must first to determine strictly the language of traits, which we use to describe the object of consideration and further - the system of axiom. Both cannot be done if we consider the subject of Divinity, where already the system of traits which must be taken into consideration is too huge and too complex to be grasped by human being. God is too complex "thing" for this. Thus, when we attribute to God some traits we do not reconstruct real God but construct only OUR OWN REPRESENTATION of God, representation which is much "poorer" than prototype, much more simple.

This is the common trait of all religions. All of them say about own fantasies more than about real God. Similar, most philosophers of religion (not important, theists or atheists) say about own thoughts about God rather than about real God. But the bad reflexion does not prove the fact that there is no thing which the mirror reflects.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2010 9:38:56 AM PST
Uueerdo says:
DS: "Your example is good only for the blind who is not to sceptical about existence of light. Really sceptical person would propose a dozen of contra-arguments."

Set: Really? Can you think of even one?

DS: "Indeed, blinds believe in existence of light not because somebody proves them that the light exists. They believe because everybody says them that the light exists."

Set: Are you sure you actually read the entirety of my post? Nowhere in it do I use the ad populum logical fallacy. So, even if most blind people did believe because "everybody says so", it can be logically proven to them. In fact, I would say most would quickly become skeptical of the existence of light if the observations of those who professed to be able to see were inconsistent with each other.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2010 10:26:15 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2010 10:26:34 AM PST
Stan Furman says:
To Dr. Soul:

<<The book may be bought in Amazon, or simply downloaded from http://russkiysvet.narod.ru/eng/block3.pdf. >>

So, are you the author? Is there a russian version of this book?

Posted on Feb 1, 2010 10:48:38 AM PST
D. S. Clark says:
How could such a large piece be written without some sort of editing and grammar checking? I get that it's in "bad english" but that makes it frustrating to read...to the extent that I won't try.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2010 1:13:15 PM PST
Dr.Soul says:
Is there a russian version of this book?
================================

No, there are 3 other books written by me in Russian (one of them was translated into English professionally and may be found also in Amazon and in my website; this one deals with philosophical matters - epistemiology, methaphysics, anthropology), but "Psychology XXI" (excepting some Appendicies, which are translation of excerpts from Russian books) was written in English and till now was not translated into Russian. I aimed to share some of my "discoveries" with English-speaking audience, but without spending thousands to polish the language. One of the reasons of such decision was that I do not expect that this book may have many readers now, and not only because of "bad English". The central ideas may be rather foreign for most of modern psychologists. But the times change... and we change also with them.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2010 1:17:38 PM PST
Dr.Soul says:
You are right. And I know that there is no excuse for me. I want to note only that "bad English" may be not only reason for frustration in this book. I think that this even not most frustrating feature of "Psychology XXI". And after all, each of us has his own books to read...

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2010 1:21:04 PM PST
Stan Furman says:
To Dr.Soul:

You might want to consider posting the book on LuLu (http://www.lulu.com/) and on Scribd (http://www.scribd.com/). That will open it up to a very wide audience. I might also find that your ideas are not as foreign to local readers as you might think... and there is definitely a huge russian speaking population that might be interested in the russian version of the book.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2010 1:31:03 PM PST
Dr.Soul says:
Contr-arguments of the deaf? Please. "All this is kind of trick. I do not know how you do this, but I know that there are no miracles and hence this is a trick".

This is always simple to construct dialogue with artifficial opponent. But the real opponents have another sorts of arguments. They invented a lot of "explanations" which allow them to keep the corner stones of their view of world.

About "logically proven to them". There is a big difference between "logically proven to them" and "they accept these proves". One does believe that he prove something "logically". The only problem is that his opponent does not accept his arguments. Our exchange of mess is the only one from millions of such interactions. This is why even possesing "logical proves of the existence of God" I never provide them as "logical proves". They are quite logical, but they cannot convince sceptics.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2010 3:30:00 PM PST
Uueerdo says:
DS: "All this is kind of trick. I do not know how you do this, but I know that there are no miracles and hence this is a trick".

Set: That is the best you could come up with?! Just a statement of disbelief? Is the blind person now going to accused the sighted one of witchcraft? Will blind person not accept the identical observations of two or more sighted people who have never met, that were perhaps picked out at random from a large pool of people claiming to be sighted? The blind person can even establish the test itself, based on the claims about light these people claiming to be sighted have made.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 2, 2010 1:04:46 AM PST
Dr.Soul says:
What you are writting is exactly the shift from the "pure logics" to the fields of psychology and culture (mass beliefs). Of course, the existence of sighted majority will shift the blind's attitudes. But he must be a very intellectual person (besides posses many other specific characteristics like intellectual boldness) to design own experimental program to "discover" light. Billions believes in X-Ray, although only thousands know the history of their discovery. And what convince these billions is not a logics.

The book I'm presenting is about some kind of "experimental program", which allow to "discover" God. By not as a logical proof (as I said already there are a lot of such proofs, but they do not convince and cannot convince sceptics with their single but strong contr-argument - the disbelief), but as kind of psychological proof - forming the new experience, which may be called "Experience of God". It may be useful for those who are internally (psychologically) ready for this kind of discoveries, but definitely not for those who is satisfied completely by the positivistic views.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 2, 2010 9:37:34 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 2, 2010 9:38:55 AM PST
Uueerdo says:
DS: "What you are writting is exactly the shift from the "pure logics" to the fields of psychology and culture (mass beliefs)."
Set: No, I am not. I am describing the standard methodology of science. The existence of light and people that can perceive it has certain implications. If those implications are proven false, then light and/or people who perceive it must remain in the realm of fairies. If all the people claiming to be sighted continually show inconsistent perceptions (one sees a ball while the other sees a giraffe), the blind person is justified in denying their claims.

DS: "Billions believes in X-Ray, although only thousands know the history of their discovery. And what convince these billions is not a logics."
Set: For some maybe, but as is often the case, "seeing" is believing...when people see the resulting images from medical x-rays, it ceases to be a "psychological proof" and becomes a logical one.

DS: "... cannot convince sceptics with their single but strong contr-argument - the disbelief"
Set: Disbelief is not the counter argument...or it could be viewed as such only in the sense that disbelief is the default position for an unproven claim. The alternative is believing in "magic" by default.

DS: " It may be useful for those who are internally (psychologically) ready for this kind of discoveries, but definitely not for those who is satisfied completely by the positivistic views. "
Set: So basically it is only for people who want "because I want to believe" to be considered a valid argument.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2010 4:43:27 AM PST
Dr.Soul says:
Set: I am describing the standard methodology of science. The existence of light and people that can perceive it has certain implications. If those implications are proven false, then light and/or people who perceive it must remain in the realm of fairies.
====================

Yes, you do. Just too comments. Standard methodology of science does not base on "pure logics". As you show yourself it bases in even more extent on empirics. This is exactly what I say about the possibility to prove existence of God. We need "experience of God" for this. And it is our only chance to get such proof. The second. "Standard methodology" is good for study relatevely simple systems, but we cannot use it equally successful when we study the complex system: the more complex system the worse standard methodology works. God is the most complex system in World. And here the standard methodology is useless. We know almost nothing about God (the religion tales give prophans almost nothing from knowledge of INSTANT GOD as It is). Thus our models cannot works here.

Set: For some maybe, but as is often the case, "seeing" is believing...when people see the resulting images from medical x-rays, it ceases to be a "psychological proof" and becomes a logical one.

Not. They become not logical but empirical. Nevertheless, there are a lot of different examples (gamma-radiarions, cells etc.) where the common people have no empirical knowledge, but do believe into existence of these essenses basing only on own trust in authority of scientific and quasi-scientific texts.

Set: Disbelief is not the counter argument...or it could be viewed as such only in the sense that disbelief is the default position for an unproven claim.

In fact, it is. Disbelief is kind of an axiom while axioms are the corner stones of every logical proof. What you call arguments are not simply logical facts. These are empiric observations. These observations (the parts of experience, which the person is clearly aware of) are different for different peoples. Introducing one more observation into the sceptic's consciousness may convince or not convince him depending on many other factors all of which are not "pure logical".

Set: So basically it is only for people who want "because I want to believe" to be considered a valid argument.

Of course, for them also. But not only for them. The "experience of God" is a sort of psycholological phenomena, which are not very common, but are not extremely rare. Moreover, this kind of experience become more and more rich in course of a person's spiritual development. In this process, the person becomes to be more and more aware about this side of own mind, and in such a way more and more ready to understanding of the reality of God. This is the only way for atheists to come to God.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2010 11:17:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 3, 2010 11:19:14 AM PST
Uueerdo says:
DS: "God is the most complex system in World."
Set: Unfounded assertion. You cannot prove God by begging an exception for him.

DS: " And here the standard methodology is useless. "
Set: Perhaps useless in proving what you want it to prove.

DS: "We know almost nothing about God"
Set: Except that he is apparently the "most complex system in World"?

DS: "Not. They become not logical but empirical. Nevertheless, there are a lot of different examples (gamma-radiarions, cells etc.) where the common people have no empirical knowledge, but do believe into existence of these essenses basing only on own trust in authority of scientific and quasi-scientific texts."
Set: When everyone else, including those you disagree with on other things, has observations that correspond to your own, and they have no motive to deceive yourself or themselves, it is logical to believe what you have observed. That is the basis of empiricism. The only axioms required are that our senses are not systematically deceiving us, and that the universe is something that we are capable of understanding. I am sure some do believe in gamma rays etc from the authority of the scientific and quasi-scientific sources; but they also believe because many of those sources have established credibility regarding those things...and chances are the more "quasi-scientific" the source they have put their trust in, the less certain or even accurate the actual truth of their beliefs may be. Your begging for a "new method psychogical proof" is asking nothing short of creating a new _pseudo_ scientific method to prove what you want to believe.

DS: "These observations (the parts of experience, which the person is clearly aware of) are different for different peoples."
Set: That's odd. It seems to me you are begging that science admit the differing observations as empirical evidence, when the entire idea of such evidence is that it must be corroborated by independent sources.

DS: "The "experience of God" is a sort of psycholological phenomena, which are not very common, but are not extremely rare."
Set: Like hallucinations and daydreaming, which are very very common.

DS: "Moreover, this kind of experience become more and more rich in course of a person's spiritual development."
Set: Ah, the old "believing is seeing" argument. "If you just accept my conclusion, you'll accept my conclusion."

DS: "This is the only way for atheists to come to God."
Set: Actually, the only way for most atheists to come to God is for rain to fall "up", a booming voice from an empty sky to loudly take credit for the feat, and other skeptics having the same experience. Once mass hallucinations and aliens impersonating a deity are ruled out, we'd have no choice but to accept the logical conclusion...of course, then we'd have to figure out which "God" it is, if there is more than one, and whether such a being deserved anything more than acknowledgement.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  55
Initial post:  Jan 29, 2010
Latest post:  Feb 7, 2010

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions