Thread: God proven

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

Have you considered that this could also easily have happened even if there were no God?

How come overly coincidental or seemingly miraculous events always have to be attributed to supernatural? Is it not possible for these things to happen without a God?

Either way, it is still a cool series of events, however it occurred.

Edit: I just noticed that this was in the "Religion" forum where it is assumed that other faithful will respond and no one will challenge you. In that case, please feel free to ignore this post.
~

korittke what is that about?
and i alsaid it could of just been a higher power

you think i imagained it? hahahaha

Dude, you said this stuff happened MONTHS apart and YEARS ago. No way I believe in the accuracy of your report. Talking about the dream.

umm DUDE whensomething so profound happens you dont forget it

god has shown himself many more times to me if you want more examples

Originally Posted by Bosco

god has shown himself many more times to me if you want more examples

No, thanks. I think I'm fine.

By the way. It's always the same stuff. Someone tells me that several months ago they dreamed EXACTLY what just happened. Yeah, sure. It's called deja-vú. However the fuck you spell that.

Originally Posted by Korittke

No, thanks. I think I'm fine.

haha fucking athiest, what i have posted is the 100 TRUTH, non imagined and not something i forgot

if thats not the best example you have ever heard then you need to give into god

Originally Posted by Bosco

umm DUDE whensomething so profound happens you dont forget it

Not true.

In a study conducted by Peter Lee and Norman Brown (2003) with the University of Alberta students shortly after the September 11th attacks, the students were asked to immediately record their memories and then, years later to recall the details.

Although flashbulb memoris tend to be strong, vivid, and detailed, studies suggest that they are neither as acucrate nor as special as you intend (Neisser & Harsch, 1992; Schmolck, Buffalo, & Squire, 2000; Talarico & Rubin 2003).

Like other memories, they become less detailed and complete with time and are often inaccurate (McCloskey 1992; Weaver, 1993).

Also, in a case study involving the OJ Simpson case by H. Schmolck, E. A. Buffalo, and L. R. Squire of the University of California, San Diego; students were asked a series of question regarding their experience of the giving of the verdict just 3 days after it was given and then many months after it was given. Recollections eventually became distorted and inaccurate as time progressed. After a 32 month period interval, over 40% of subjects' recollections contained major distortions and more than 30% contained minor distortions. Interestingly, 61% of the subjects who exhibited major memory distortions indicated that they had high confidence in their recollections.

Thus, you are wrong - you do eventually forget profound events.
~

Ohhh k.
So... how are things going?

Originally Posted by Bosco

haha fucking athiest, what i have posted is the 100 TRUTH, non imagined and not something i forgot

if thats not the best example you have ever heard then you need to give into god

Please note that atheism has more empirical grounds to believe in than theism. Furthermore, insulting anyones religion immediately makes you a hypocrite if you protest to "love thy neighbour".

We could easily get into the problems of your delusion by believing that God has come to you when you obviously cannot re-enact the instances because, if you could, then we would all believe in God because that means it is a systematic observation. But we're not going to get into that, because I respect your choice of belief. So please, do not resort to insulting others beliefs when you are entirely subject to criticism yourself.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Not true.

In a study conducted by Peter Lee and Norman Brown (2003) with the University of Alberta students shortly after the September 11th attacks, the students were asked to immediately record their memories and then, years later to recall the details.

Although flashbulb memoris tend to be strong, vivid, and detailed, studies suggest that they are neither as acucrate nor as special as you intend (Neisser & Harsch, 1992; Schmolck, Buffalo, & Squire, 2000; Talarico & Rubin 2003).

Like other memories, they become less detailed and complete with time and are often inaccurate (McCloskey 1992; Weaver, 1993).

Also, in a case study involving the OJ Simpson case by H. Schmolck, E. A. Buffalo, and L. R. Squire of the University of California, San Diego; students were asked a series of question regarding their experience of the giving of the verdict just 3 days after it was given and then many months after it was given. Recollections eventually became distorted and inaccurate as time progressed. After a 32 month period interval, over 40% of subjects' recollections contained major distortions and more than 30% contained minor distortions. Interestingly, 61% of the subjects who exhibited major memory distortions indicated that they had high confidence in their recollections.

Thus, you are wrong - you do eventually forget profound events.
~

alright but theres a problem here bud, how come i have proof from all the people i told bout the dream before i ever looked it up?

Originally Posted by Korittke

Ohhh k.
So... how are things going?

Oh, I didn't give the results to the 9/11 attacks, did I?

They were entirely resemblant to the OJ Simpson results. It was only a matter of time until people started to mis-interpret their memories and a matter of time till they significantly and profoundly distorted their memories.

Case studies were also given to those who witnessed the 1993 Challenger explosion and those people were also subject to false memory in distorting their recollections of "profound events that they will never forget".

The only thing that may differ in these studies is the standard deviation for memory recollection; and even that is marginal and not enough to be considered anomalous.
~

Originally Posted by Bosco

alright but theres a problem here bud, how come i have proof from all the people i told bout the dream before i ever looked it up?

Please do not call me "bud" is such a condescending tone - I have enough respect for you to show my points thoroughly, I expect the same in turn.

Can you please be more specific in the proof and what you are talking about? Because it was not specified and is vague.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Not true.

In a study conducted by Peter Lee and Norman Brown (2003) with the University of Alberta students shortly after the September 11th attacks, the students were asked to immediately record their memories and then, years later to recall the details.

Although flashbulb memoris tend to be strong, vivid, and detailed, studies suggest that they are neither as acucrate nor as special as you intend (Neisser & Harsch, 1992; Schmolck, Buffalo, & Squire, 2000; Talarico & Rubin 2003).

Like other memories, they become less detailed and complete with time and are often inaccurate (McCloskey 1992; Weaver, 1993).

Also, in a case study involving the OJ Simpson case by H. Schmolck, E. A. Buffalo, and L. R. Squire of the University of California, San Diego; students were asked a series of question regarding their experience of the giving of the verdict just 3 days after it was given and then many months after it was given. Recollections eventually became distorted and inaccurate as time progressed. After a 32 month period interval, over 40% of subjects' recollections contained major distortions and more than 30% contained minor distortions. Interestingly, 61% of the subjects who exhibited major memory distortions indicated that they had high confidence in their recollections.

Thus, you are wrong - you do eventually forget profound events.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oh, I didn't give the results to the 9/11 attacks, did I?

They were entirely resemblant to the OJ Simpson results. It was only a matter of time until people started to mis-interpret their memories and a matter of time till they significantly and profoundly distorted their memories.

Case studies were also given to those who witnessed the 1993 Challenger explosion and those people were also subject to false memory in distorting their recollections of "profound events that they will never forget".

The only thing that may differ in these studies is the standard deviation for memory recollection; and even that is marginal and not enough to be considered anomalous.
~

that doesnt explain how the verse quoted my dream though and how andomly i turned to the page and again that i told people the dream before i looked it up

also i have experienced a false memory in my life when i got mugged when i was a child, or more of a memory lapse. this was not that

As I said before, coincidental terms and random events can happen without the presence of a God. Otherwise, we would say that everytime someone won something against incredible odds, it was an act of God. Furthermore, I would then ask when do we distinguish the odds from God to just normal?

ie. Is winning 1/40 an act of God? Or 1/50? Or 1/60..? etc. etc..
Then, when is it not God? 1/10? 1/9? 1/8...? etc. etc..

In conclusion, this is still no real reason, or justifiable cogent reason, to believe in a God. Random events can easily happen without a God. Now if a bible miraculously appeared infront of you or the words that you read appeared in the sky, etc. (something that requires divine ability), then I would believe you. And, as I said before, if this were the case, then no one would doubt you and everyone would believe because then we would have systematic observation to "prove" to everyone that God exists.

Just face the fact that the only reason you can believe in God is by throwing away all forms of "proof" and just rely on "faith".
~

Originally Posted by Bosco

also i have experienced a false memory in my life when i got mugged when i was a child, or more of a memory lapse. this was not that

This was not what..? What are you showing here...?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

This was not what..? What are you showing here...?
~

i am saying the event of my dream and when i read the bible was nothing of that matter

How do you know this?

Originally Posted by O'nus

As I said before, coincidental terms and random events can happen without the presence of a God. Otherwise, we would say that everytime someone won something against incredible odds, it was an act of God. Furthermore, I would then ask when do we distinguish the odds from God to just normal?

ie. Is winning 1/40 an act of God? Or 1/50? Or 1/60..? etc. etc..
Then, when is it not God? 1/10? 1/9? 1/8...? etc. etc..

In conclusion, this is still no real reason, or justifiable cogent reason, to believe in a God. Random events can easily happen without a God. Now if a bible miraculously appeared infront of you or the words that you read appeared in the sky, etc. (something that requires divine ability), then I would believe you. And, as I said before, if this were the case, then no one would doubt you and everyone would believe because then we would have systematic observation to "prove" to everyone that God exists.

Just face the fact that the only reason you can believe in God is by throwing away all forms of "proof" and just rely on "faith".
~

i have the proof i need, more comes as my faith comes stronger. And in my philosophy i have proven god with science that i do not feel like explaining now

I do not want to sound corny and say you have to feel it to believe i but thats how it is i guess, i just dont understand how people are athiest, making no sense to me, and dont say god makes no sense to you
i geuss i should say that when i say "God" it to me really doesnt go with any religion, it just is.

Originally Posted by Bosco

i am saying the event of my dream and when i read the bible was nothing of that matter

Of what matter..?

Have you ever heard of the self-fulfilling prophecy or confirmation bias?

Consider this; what would it take to prove what you are saying is wrong? If you say nothing, then we cannot discuss anything further because your argument is entirely reliant on dogmatic reasoning; nothing systematically observable.
~

Originally Posted by Korittke

How do you know this?

How? Because i am not crazy