Let me just clarify, that this is not the first time I had thoughts like this. I was a Catholic for 18 years, stop believing that after that time.When I was 25 I contemplated on the faith of deism in the past, but eventually found no evidence to support it, so declared myself an atheist again.

I was in a strange sort of humour the other night and just out of curiosity I prayed just to see what would happen. I asked god to give me stretch to believe to show me a sign that he is there, to give me the wisdom to know that he is there. I told god I know that he cannot show me testable evidence and I accept that. I feel asleep moments after that. But hours later I awoke to a light tapping on my arm that lay outside my bedcovers. It was almost like a gentle but firm tapping of someones hand. Btw, I lock my room at night. I thought maybe my mind was playing tricks on me. But was it? Did I just feel the hand of God?

Please be aware I am very open to the strong possibility that my mind was indeed playing tricks on me. But honestly, I just don't know what to believe or not to believe now. Please don't be mean or harsh to me about this. If I am wrong in what I say here, I'll accept that given reason

Am I losing my mind though? I just need a perspective from non-beleivers to look at all possibilities here. 

Views: 581

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm not sure that we need a more discriminating standard, @Kris.  Wouldn't that just run the risk of introducing bias, by moving significant categories of theories or potential inquiry into the "impossible" group, to be dismissed without consideration?

In Physics, it would (and for a while I suppose, it did) cause people to dismiss the idea of time varying between reference frames.  That just didn't seem to be a rational notion.

When confronting a new phenomenon, it's probably best to stay open to lots of possibilities from different schools of thought, and then eliminate options / falsify conjectures based on observation or other criteria. 

Now, no, I wouldn't advocate beginning with the entire possible solution space.  I'd begin with explanations/hypotheses that occur to the observers of the phenomenon, and proceed from there with efforts to falsify or other alternatives.  But sometimes that weird notion of particles acting like waves or non-invariant time or 10-dimensional strings that we're just kicking around might turn out to have a lot more explanatory power than we anticipated was "possible."

Hmmm...  Yes, I guess we need new words.  Possible/impossible generally define an exclusive pair, with no "undefined."

There are all kinds of phenomena that we observe and take note of long before we answer the underlying "how" question.   We talked about pressure from gasses for decades before we understood statistical mechanics. We talked about cancer from cigarettes long before we understood "how."  Do we understand the mechanism of cancer formation even now?   How does gravity work?  Gravitons.  That's actually not very far from "Aardvarks."   It's just a made up word, to speculate about.

I'm not sure how you can determine an idea is without merit until after you have entertained it, evaluated it, falsified it.

From a practical point of view we do have to choose how to spend our limited time and resources, so we do have to choose ideas we think are worth pursuing.  That's a different thing, and probably turns more on personal interest or artistic merit or economics or somesuch.  Speaking purely intellectually, it seems reasonable to at least entertain current prevalent ideas, however.  Crepe theory in politics doesn't seem very prevalent, but it may be worth giving those Aardvarks, I mean Gravitons a look, perhaps, even though they may be a fiction.

Choosing not to pursue, though, I don't think is "undefined."  Gravitons, Aardvarks, magnetic monopoles, Crepes, all remain in the "possible" category until we run them to ground.  Some of those "possibles" over the years have ended up being correct.

That's excellent! What kind of evidence leaves you wondering if it was evidence at all?

LOL.  Most evidence, actually.  I usually just assume that there's something wrong with the instrument. 

Hey, if it happened once, then conduct an experiment! Do the same thing again and see if you get the same result.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service