Antiseptic,

>>My point about Einstein's theory (or indeed those of Copernicus, Newton/Leibnitz's integration of infinitesimals, etc) is that they are counterintuitive and met with great resistance from those grounded in the dominant theory of their day. General relativity is still being tested today, hence the LHC exists.<<

I agree (except for the phrase ”integration of infinitesimals” that obviously stands for the calculus). This is what Thomas Kuhn meant by his “paradigm shifts” in the history of science. And who can predict what “shifts” are still out there for humanity (or what it evolves into) to go through?

What I was warning against is an expectation - sorry if I misunderstood you - that this could lead to a definite answer to the problem of God. Different “paradigms” might bring about different, hopefully better, understandings of reality as science “sees” (represents) it. However, science will never be able to answer on its own the question of God’s existence - related or unrelated to this or that sacred text - for instance, by providing a theory that will justify His existence in a similar way as e.g. the Standard Model of particle physics justifies the existence of quarks. There will always be scientists who will believe in Something beyond what science of the day can represent, and those who will not. This, at least, follows from my (theist|) understanding of the concept of God.

[I do not think LHC is “testing” Einstein”s general relativity theory (if the word “testing” is at all appropriate here; and if, it was the Higgs boson they were “testing”) which is a well, established theory (e.g. your GPS calculates your position using general relativity: it would be very inaccurate if it used Newton's mechanics). So is quantum physics. Both theories are widely accepted (both many times “tested” if you like), therefore their mutual formal }mathematical) incompatibility causes headaches to physicists and philosophers of science.]

it must be clear..that proof of god
much depends how much you try to find him..
as god is love grace mercy..light logic and life..[as well..as servile..[loving serving other]

the dead the hatefull./user/abuser the cruel the judgmental..the un-mercyfull [ie those of the darkness..or even simply those with their passion..being..of the flesh..or self obsessive..simply wont

its simple fact..if
your analogue..your not receiving the digital sig-nature of nurture..
or even simple humbleness..you can never mind meld with the greatness..till you synchronize your..vibe.with love/grace/mercy et....

all you got is the comfort that..he send us..
that which.feed off our delusions of separated-ness..of self..
sustained by that of illusory demons...feeding off/on interacting with our baser passions

mind activity is key hear..as science will in time observe
but as usual will miss accord..because of the obs-erver effect
[we only allow our mind to see that which our conscious allows recognition]..[ie lower heaven and upper hell..are all right 'here'..right now..occupying but different di-mention

as for science proof of god
google..pdf '30 years among the dead
or the story of last law..against witchcraft..passed in briton..

..after details of the sinking of a war ship..was relished as it happened..via seance../

..if you cant find proof

b..its cause your afraid of what you will find..or just not looking thats why god allows us freewill.. [sort of once you know..it obligates us..but thus is the law..of freewill bound by grace mercy

if its too much..god fully comprehends..and forgives
but churches removed that bit..from the record
as some took that .as licence to do eve..il

No I didn't describe my observation. The mere fact that I say I had them should be enough for you to take me at my word. It is only by an acceptance of good faith in those we talk to that a discussion can be held. If every claim has to be supported by exhaustive evidence then there is no conversation, merely a cross-examination.

"You're really not getting this, are you"

Au contraire, I "get it" just fine. You reserve the right to assume things about the ontology of my view without evidence, while demanding that I must provide evidence for you to accept my statement about that ontology.

"I said that we're ALL defective"

You're assuming a normative model that only exists stochastically and that variance from the norm is an indication of defect. The problem is that the population variance is so large as to render such a norm fairly meaningless in the context. You may be at one side of it and me at the other, or either of us may be an outlier. I'm not playing the "wounded deer", simply pointing out that you are assuming I am an outlier and you are normative, with no evidence.

"Wrong."

I have no idea of what you may know, but it's safe to assume it's a small set of the total knowledge of all people. Therefore, you defer to a consensus or to the authority of an expert on most aspects of what you "know". This is trivial, surely?

I'm not asserting anything at all, other than my own observations and the conclusions of my own reasoning.

George, I don't know if you're right about whether an ontological proof for existence of God can be developed. It's a fertile field for thought. My own position vis-a-vis theism is not "belief"-based as such, it's an hypothesis to explain some observations and as such is most assuredly based on the epistemiological approach of the scientific method, with one cognitive leap which is that God may be real, which is assumed to be not valid within a scientific context generally.

if you cant conceive it..or conceive it in error
your seeing may guide your believing

<<what type of thing..the concept is likely to be.
Identifying an object..(and so differentiating between similar objects—such as a horse and a cow)..requires access to more fine-grained semantic information,..which is provided by distinctive features.>>

ie unique identifiers..only lovers can love
only god can make life live..to get grace first give it

<<edited..Concepts,..which share many features, generate conceptual ambiguity..in which many concepts are activated...This ambiguity can be resolved by information about the distinctive features of a concept,>>

know god is all good
that not ggood isnt 'of'god

features concepts..<<which serve to disambiguate the concept from its semantic competitors...For example, a distinctive feature of a camel is that it has a hump...Knowledge of the feature has a hump in isolation may not be informative..about the identity of the concept; instead,..this information must be combined with the concept's shared features..>>

ie all living..all loving..all grace..all mercy
all serving..all knowing..omnipresent..energy/light

<<in order to identify the concept as a camel...Thus, identifying objects at the basic-level requires the integration of distinctive and shared information.>>

jkusyt the act..of sharting breaks the fixationonself
god is the collective sumtotal..of all selves..[atonment/at-one-meant

<<Given that the coarse-grained or categorical information emerges before fine-grained information, we hypothesize that the effects of shared semantic information will be apparent within the first 200 ms, while effects of distinctive features will occur post-200 ms.>>

edited<<In addition to feature distinctiveness,..the extent to which a concept's features tend to co-occur,..correlational strength, is claimed to be a crucial factor in accessing conceptual meaning (McRae et al. 1997; Taylor et al. 2008).>>

anyhow expose continues

http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/01/23/cercor.bhs002.full

on how perception
shades what we are allowing our minds eye to be seeing

<<This account..predicts that the effects of highly correlated features will occur rapidly, while effects associated with the processing of weakly correlated features will occur during later stages of conceptual processing>>

}:(
or
{:}

Antiseptic,

I certainly agree that here we are into a “fertile field for thought”, and I indeed appreciate your contributions.

>> whether an ontological proof for existence of God can be developed.<<

I would be very careful with the use of the word proof. In everyday language one speaks of proving this or that, implicitly assuming that the context is universally and unequivocally accepted. The same when the context is pure mathematics or formal logic. This is not the case even when the context is our understanding of physical reality and how it is represented by this or that theory. Therefore I spoke not of the “proof for existence of quarks” but rather “the Standard Model of particle physics justifying the existence of quarks”. Even less so, when the context embraces all possible worldviews.

I know, there are many "proof" for the existence of God - for instance, Aquinas’ five - actually arguments, since, as you know, they are not universally convincing (if they were, a single one would suffice). On the other hand, the arguments, or rather supporting evidence, a physicist can provide for the “existence” of quarks are universally (i.e. for all those who can understand them) convincing .

>>hypothesis to explain some observations and as such is most assuredly based on the epistemological approach of the scientific method, with one cognitive leap which is that God may be real, which is assumed to be not valid within a scientific context generally<<

This does not differ very much from what I believe, except that “epistemological approach of the scientific method” sounds like something agreed upon by all scientists. I wonder whether it is the same as what is called “methodological naturalism or atheism” binding for all (natural) scientists. I believe that an “epistemological approach of the scientific method” can establish the existence of quarks, not of God.

As a theist I believe that God is the most satisfying explanation of our quest for beauty, truth and goodness. Hence also of (some) observations.

Otherwise, “a cognitive leap” outside the scientific context is something I would go with.

Antiseptic,

Seriously, enough with the strawmen already.

<<No I didn't describe my observation. The mere fact that I say I had them should be enough for you to take me at my word.>>

I haven't doubted your sincerity for a second. As for whether or not you hallucinated, it would be irrational of me to completely discount the possibility - especially if your observation had supernatural qualities. Nor could I assume that your "provisional" theism is the most rational path of inquiry given that I don't know what your observations were.

Ultimately, all I have expressed doubt about, is that your observations had some divine meaning to them. Not that you actually had them (hallucination or not).

<<If every claim has to be supported by exhaustive evidence then there is no conversation, merely a cross-examination.>>

And I've suggested nothing of the sort.

Individual claims require varying degrees of support, depending on how extraordinary or not they are. It would be foolish, a waste of time, and counterproductive to simply take on faith everything that everyone else claimed - no matter how far-fetched - just for the sake of discussion.

<<You reserve the right to assume things about the ontology of my view without evidence, while demanding that I must provide evidence for you to accept my statement about that ontology.>>

No, that's just been your assumption every step of the way despite my continual clarification.

<<You're assuming a normative model that only exists stochastically and that variance from the norm is an indication of defect.>>

No, for the third or fourth time now, I'm simply acknowledging that our brains are prone to hallucination.

<<I have no idea of what you may know, but it's safe to assume it's a small set of the total knowledge of all people. Therefore, you defer to a consensus or to the authority of an expert on most aspects of what you "know". This is trivial, surely?>>

Somewhat, yes. Which is why I suspect you're focussing on this relatively insignificant qualifier at the end of the actual point I was making when I said it.