Keep finding more and more evidence against the bible

Except it wont be sleeping it will be nothing, literally nothing. I don't think a rational mind can WANT nothing, you cannot comprehend it.

You sure like to speak in certainties. Where is your evidence for these claims?

were you terrified before you were born?

That's the scary part, i never was, that wasn't me and i won't be me after death, i like being me, i want to see more. I want to see the future, i want to see where humanity goes. There's still so much that can be done far outside of a human lifetime. I don't want to die. Being a believer in God and the afterlife led me tl believe that i could at least spectate humanity and speak with others in eternal rest. I don't want to stop being me. I can't visualize nothingness and that scares me immensely.

nothing afterwards

That can't be right. People turn to dirt when they die. That's an after. Dirt is something.

You retard. There never was any "evidence" FOR the bible.
You're almost free. Can't believe you bought those fairy tales your whole life.

I just keep seeing people bring up points about how certain parts of the bible were modified to fit prophecies and how if jesus really was performing miracles and preaching to thousands of people there'd be more scriptures and writings of him, and yet all we have are texts made long after his death. I want to believe with all my heart in Jesus but i also like to see evidence to truly believe in something. I thought there was solid evidence before backing up Jesus and God but I've been seeing all that evidence get debunked like how there's no evidence of the disciples dying as martyrs for Jesus.

Testimony is a kind of evidence

Nothing for your consciousness to experience because it's gone when you die.
The idea of "heaven" is that your mind floats away and you're still thinking and doing stuff for all eternity, whatever that means.
Laughable nonsense.

Nothing for your consciousness to experience because it's gone when you die.

Can you prove this?

At least there's also no hell. Christians here somehow think that it's almost 100% certain they will go to heaven, but they can't actually know that.

Eternal nothingness and no consciousness scares me 1000 times more than being tortured for all eternity. At least I'd still have ny thoughts and memories and be me. At least i would still exist. Also I'm catholic so i believe in purgatory.

The kind you have to really stretch to believe. You believe this testimony that's been told and written down and rewritten dozens of times over thousands of years? You believe it despite none of these "miracles" ever having been reproduced in modern times for anyone to see?
That's always the ONLY answer there is. Testimony from those who said stuff which ended up in the bible.
Not a damn thing in my entire life has ever occurred that would make any of that religious magic shit seem believable. No matter how much your parents instilled a belief and fear of god and hell in you, how the fuck can you still make your brain believe such obvious bullshit?

tl;dr. I'm just going to read that as

"I have no faith and God never gave me a wife and homestead to plow"

No. So therefore heaven is possible I guess. I guess I'm just a rational person so I'd want some sort of proof, any at all, that the consciousness can live on. We know that when the brain dies there's nothing going on in the tissue anymore, and we know that our consciousness emanates from our living brains, but yeah, jesus is magic, so if none of that can dent your "faith", lol.... I'm afraid you've wasted a lot of your time.

people say this shit and then believe that a man can turn into a woman because THE SCIENCE told them they can

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

bananaphone testimony across centuries, all recorded thousands of years ago and bananaphoned AGAIN hundreds of times through different language translations?

He can try and you can be kind to them in their journey. They're still more real than your god

Your religion is dying slowly but queer people will always exist

If you take ancient testimony as evidence, you better start believing in a whole plethora of religions
Truth is testimonies are true when they're convenient

You believe it despite none of these "miracles" ever having been reproduced in modern times for anyone to see?

People who don't believe in miracles will never see them. They do happen, always have, and always will.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=soCkftBBsBo

I imagine it's like when I'm asleep and not dreaming. For that time I just cease to be as far as my own consciousness is concerned. Death is probably like that, but your last moments seem to last a very long time. Who knows, but there's no reason to believe in heaven or hell based on religion. Until someone I respect tells me they died and actually went there and then returned I won't consider it. Even if they did I wouldn't change anything.
As if this "afterlife" is really only for those who spent their beforelife worshiping and donating their money like fools!! lol

Either way I don't care. Nothingness? I won't be there to notice. Heaven? Cool, but won't that get old after 10,000 years? I can't even fathom wanting to be conscious forever.

I'd sooner believe reincarnation because I believe the energy goes somewhere and people have memories they can't explain. But not heaven and no religion. Why waste any of your life living differently just in case there's a reward?

I have a wife and we own a home. I have faith in myself and it's always served me well.
I'm sorry you have no attention span and don't wish to read more than a few words at a time. That will not serve you well.

If you take ancient testimony as evidence, you better start believing in a whole plethora of religions

Christianity isn't necessarily incompatible with other religions.

I don't know what people believe that either. You're retarded if you think there are only hardcore godfag heaven believers and then far-left extremists who think men can get pregnant. Most of us live way in the middle and think both ideas are silly and senseless.

Really? I read it was only for incels who can't get any pussy and will die virgins because they're ugly or "autistic".

I'm glad there are even more reasons I'm not welcome on "your" safe space board.

They want to believe that badly, yes.

lol
You saw the virgin mary in your tortilla did you??

Gid is omnipotent and can make heaven not boring.

My priest doesn't like it when I bring up my imam though. Don't even get me started on the rabbi.

The truth is observable to all regardless of their beliefs, that's what makes it truth. Things fall. The earth is round. Like charges repel.

It's only true if you believe

Is just another way to say it's a lie.

I remember someone once told me that the domain of heaven would bring you far greater joy and bliss than any pleasure on earth. It's not hard to imagine omnipotent being making a field of constant ultra dopamine whatever for the soul just to have people constantly happy.

What kind of evidence are we talking about here? In my experience, so-called "contradictions" have a way out, or are clarified from another point of scripture to where it would cease to be a contradiction.
A good thing to remember is that induction is only good in so far as it's supporting deduction, otherwise it's just empty rhetoric. You'll notice that all atheist arguments are never really deductive in nature, but are ones in which outlines something which may make a person uncomfortable, but don't make theism itself invalid. A good example of this occurring is in the divine hiddenness argument and the problem of evil. Divine hiddenness loses all credence when a person understands that principles of being all point towards God. For the problem of evil, it only has weight if a person assumes evil to be objective (otherwise just as much as one person can call it evil, another can call it good, which has it lose momentum,) but for evil to be objective is to implicate that there's an objective moral law. Now, a moral law requires a moral lawgiver, and a moral lawgiver implies God. Or even, a person can just simplify this and follow the principle of sufficient reason since things will always eventually lead to the conclusion that God exists when one does enough deduction.
Understand that even if you were to dismiss the validity of the bible and you apostatize from Christianity, this wouldn't mean that the concept of God itself is invalid and therefore false. Persons like Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus are people who believed in God in an organic, almost entirely non-religious context.
To finalize this, here are some books that I think would benefit you:
1. Five Proofs of The Existence of God by Edward Feser
2. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology

I don't commonly go on R9K, and I even more rarely ever post, but I'll check back in a bit if you have any questions.

Christianity isn't necessarily incompatible with other religions

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me

Seems really incompatible with any other creed that offer any spiritual path to salvation other than christ.
I'll make a prophecy that you will bend semantics and beat these words up until they mean the opposite of what's literally written

What kind of evidence are we talking about here?

One that is verifiable and doesn't depend on a person's own belief to be verified

Five Proofs of The Existence of God by Edward Feser

This is just beating saint Augustine proofs to a pulp, and it boils down to this

God exists because the universe must have been created by something

Despite being unfalsifiable, this belief that existence itself proves god, does nothing to say that one particular sect of human religion is truer than the others.
If god exists, you are left with the challenge of picking up his "true" message in a sea of 2500 religions.

What a superficial definition of a miracle.
That is not how the human psyche works. Someone who does not believe "the truth" will not see "the truth". They will see what they believe it to be. Humans lack the ability to perceive objectively, everything is filtered through your subjective senses, which is filtered through your subjective predispositions, such as beliefs.
I could say to you demons exist, and point you to a demon in front of your face. But, since you do not believe in demons, what you will see will not appear to you as such.

Trying to reference "objective truth" as if you're some sort of mechanical robot who lacks subjectivity is a futile, fallacious way of presenting arguments.

The only person stopping you from being a Jew, Christian, and Muslim simultaneously is yourself.
As long as you're also Christian, you're taking the one path to the Father.

This is why cults of longevity led by public figures like Bryan Johnson have become so popular in today's increasingly secular world, your brain was designed to survive and prosper but it was unfortunately equipped with the capacity to foresee its inevitable demise which creates a crisis of purpose, the only solution I've found is to trick yourself into proceeding with gusto via a series of mental gymnastics which in a way is what Christianity has done for primitive people for millennia, but now it's becoming too difficult to suspend disbelief for such a cartoonish idea of the world and we're turning towards more pragmatic means of comfort, imo the only real, lasting solution to this crisis is to solve the problem of death and sadly it may very well be unfixable within our lifespan but I still hold out hope for some reason, well the reason is obvious, there is no other hope, kind of bleak but idk distract yourself with a video game or something and try not to think about it lol

That is not how the human psyche works.

Truth goes beyond the human psych. You don't need the human psych to verify the strength of gravity in a consistent way, regardless of your personally held beliefs.
The mere claim that miracles will only happen in the foggy realm of human psychology is another indication of the invention of lie

The only person stopping you from being a Jew, Christian, and Muslim simultaneously is yourself.

It's coherence, actually. If you want to throw it away and embrace cognitive dissonance, suit yourself. Every religion has their share of cognitive dissonance in the core of their values

God is good

The amalekite children deserved to die

What an absolutely absurd thing to say. You have absolutely no idea that things would not change in ways that we couldn't imagine if the human psyche didn't exist. Even if you take out the human psyche, psyches in general still exist, and so does perception of animals, and plants, and consciousness as a broad concept.

For all you know if all things which are capable of perception disappeared, that the effect of gravity wouldn't change. You just don't know. Don't say stupid things.

>God is good

>The amalekite children deserved to die

The only things you said that made sense. God said kill the babies. Amen.

If you are a jew, your fundamental belief is that the promised messiah is yet to come and he wasn't Jesus.
If you are a muslim, your belief is that Mohamed surpassed jesus, and jesus is not the resurrected son of god.
Only a person of faith could live with such contradictions

Even killing babies can be considered good with the grace of the lord

Up is down. Evil is good. Obedience is freedom.
Religion is the original dystopia

If you are a jew, your fundamental belief is that the promised messiah is yet to come

Christians believe that there's the second coming.

and he wasn't Jesus.

I don't think you can speak for all jews

If you are a muslim, your belief is that Mohamed surpassed jesus, and jesus is not the resurrected son of god.

Jesus said that people would do greater things, but again, I don't think you can speak for the beliefs of muslims.
You'd need more sources for your claims for me to take you seriously, and neither of us have that kind of patience.

I'm also a Celtic neopagan, a worshipper of Isis and a Shinto shrine maiden. My rabbi doesn't talk to me anymore.

as if you're some sort of mechanical robot who lacks subjectivity

You rang? Just because you're an impressionable brainlet with no internal locus of control doesn't mean everyone else is

Try joining a reform temple

You have absolutely no idea that things would not change in ways that we couldn't imagine if the human psyche didn't exist.

The existence of verifiable results that are consistent throughout time, space and different beliefs of the observers is the founding principle of observational science that religion can never live up to.
Regardless of human psychology, water will boil at a consistent temperature in the same pressure conditions and that result can be infinitely replicated by as many people as you want with the same, verifiable result.
To defend the absurdity of miracles, you must run in the opposite direction, abandoning science and approaching esotericism, as you question the philosophical nature of the mind itself, where anything you believe in can be true just because it's unfalsifiable.
Your miracles are the furthest thing from facts. They're lies believed by those who want to believe in magic disguised as holiness.

Christians believe that there's the second coming.

And Jewish people believe that the first coming of Christ was a fraud, that he was a fraud and he did not perform miracles or resurrected at all. For jews, there will not be a "second coming" because there wasn't a first to begin with.

Reminder that science states that matter cannot come from nothing and yet the big bang theory states exactly this

actually it came from a hot dense state

Where did the molecules that make up that hot dense state come from? We've barely just started to truly learn about the world around us and already we act like we have the answers to everything even though science cannot even recreate something like ball lightning. We can't even comprehend where consciousness truly comes from in the brain despite studying it so much.

Jesus said to follow the Torah, and Christians and Jews are both waiting for the messiah, so besides some historical disagreement, there is no functional difference.

I don't think you can speak for all jews

If you are a jew who believes that jesus was the messiah, you are on the same caliber as a Christian who doesn't believe that jesus was the son of god, or a muslim that doesn't believe Muhammad was god's chosen prophet.
If you're going against the main tenants of a religion, are you still a part of that religion? Up to debate

Jesus not being the messiah isn't a core tenet of Judaism. He wasn't even born yet when its core tenets were written.

There are phenomena that have been recorded like ball lightning which mentions that cannot be repeated under circumstances done in a lab over and over. To say that these miracles are fake would be the same as saying that most rare phenomena that science cannot replicate would be fake as well. Science states that dark energy is pushing the universe outward yet we cannot recreate it in a lab therefore it does not exist.

the big bang theory states exactly this

A vulgar misunderstanding.
Unlike religion, science doesn't claim to hold the answers. The big bang theory absolutely does not explain where the universe came from, or how it originated. It doesn't even try to.
The big bang theory is based on observations that shows us that our universe was once hot and dense, and with time it's getting colder and more spread out.
Many times, religious folk's criticisms of science come from lack of understanding. Science is the pursuit of answers. Religion is the pretending to have all answers.

It would appear that you have no concept of what any of the words you just spewed from your mouth mean. You do not lack subjectivity, you are engulfed in it. Everything you perceive, think and know is filtered through your subjective senses.
What, who pray tell, were those who verified the verifiable? Were it, perhaps, humans with their psyches? Do you see the loop you've caught yourself in?

Regardless of human psychology, water will boil at a consistent temperature

You do not know this. Nobody has ever perceived the world(universe) in a state without anyone to observe it. Again, do you see the problem here? just because it functions like this while we are alive observing things happening, does not mean it would continue to do without us (and every other living thing). For all you know, consciousness is the grounding principle for all of reality, and without it everything collapses.

Unless, of course, you're trying to say that there is an ever encompassing, all seeing, super consciousness which always observes, you know, like God, maybe? Then there's some merit to your argument.

someone once told me

LOL, you're talking about the afterlife. That person is very knowledgeable I guess. A lot of people will want to know more.

Yeah, but how are you seeing this demon I can't see? And when no one else sees this demon how the hell can you still believe it's there?
Are you talking about some jerk person you think is "possessed by EVIL" or some shit? WTF

Jesus said to follow the Torah

Yeah he was an apocalyptic Jew after all. but he claimed to be the promised messiah from Isaiah's prophecies. Jews doubted that. Isaiah said that the messiah would bring about the Armageddon, the destruction of the world. Jesus himself claimed that the world was near it's end, and went as far as saying that the generation who would witness the end of the world was already born.
It's been 2 thousand years. The Jewish faith still rejects Jesus role as son if god and sole savior. They're not expecting the second visit if the messiah, but the first. To jews and christians, the apocalypse will be revealed by two completely different characters: jesus and not jesus.
If you go to a synagogue today, you won't hear them praying for jesus as much as a mosque would.

Nothing stupider than saying you believe in heaven and god and baby jesus, retard.

This. Keep slaying these fucking religitards, anon.

Jesus not being the messiah isn't a core tenet of Judaism.

A core tenant of Judaism is the coming of the promised messiah as Isaiah's prophecies laid out. They do not believe that man was/will be jesus. Your belief in jesus as that person already puts you in the "christian" team, on the opposite side of the room from the "not christians".

St. Elmo's Fire on the high seas in an electrical storm cannot be reproduced in a science lab so therefore I believe in jesus who is also his own dad, GAWD!

Where did the molecules that make up that hot dense state come from?

Science doesn't have the answer to that, and neither does religion. Religion just says the answer is god and magic. And that's an okay belief.
Believing that the creator picked favourites to deliver his message, and all these relevant events happened in the same pocket of sand in the middle east neglecting all other human civilizations, is not a good belief.
If god created the universe, you have no idea what this god is like apart from indifferent to human suffering

and already we act like we have the answers to everything

Sounds like religion to me

I see it because I know the qualities of a demon.
I don't need other people to believe what I believe in order for me to continue believing it. My beliefs are not predicated on yours, or others approval or agreeance. Further more, just because the majority believe something, does not make it true.

I'm not talking about anything or anyone in particular, but rather a broad concept, so I'm not going to say yes or no to that last question.
Everyone believes in heaven, all that differs is the word they use to describe it. Heaven is the place from wince your consciousness arose. Everyone believes in this place. Even atheists. They call it "nothingness" "It'll be just like before you were born".
Everyone believes in God, they just call it something else.
Jesus was a real person. Since he was a real person, he must've been a baby.

Soooo, yeah.

humans with their psyches?

No, instruments built by humans that can record measurements and that can be reproduced with consistency regardless of the personal belief of each human participating in an experiment.

It would appear that you have no concept of what any of the words you just spewed from your mouth mean

It would appear you're an ESL retard if you can't intuit how they apply to you

It's telling that you doubt the reliability of the human psyche on matters such as scientific experiments, observable evidence, data analysis, etc
But you blindly believe the human psych when it comes to ancient literature. More precisely, one compilation of letters from ancient literature.
Sounds like double standards. Science must live up to your highest scrutiny and philosophical standards of mind over matter.
But religion, that you just believe in simply.

*whence

Everyone believes in heaven

Oof

Nobody has ever perceived the world(universe) in a state without anyone to observe it. Again, do you see the problem here?

That problem seems to be that if you reject every axiom, than nothing can be proved at all because you don't even know if you're real right now. But that also doesn't prove any religion.
These axioms are necessary to bring the discussion further than the surface level of "questioning every bit of evidence because it was filtered through our feeble fallible mind". That would mean to question your religion as well.

So your analogy doesn't work. You can't say demon is a broad concept and also that you see one and I can't see it there. You're so out of your depth and you want so badly to somehow win an unwinnable argument.
That's why religion just isn't for the rational mind. You're not too crazy to get through life, but you're nuts in my book.
I don't believe in heaven or god by any name. You're making a big mess now pretending all of it is so broad that you can be sure we're all with you. We're not. Nothingness is heaven? No. I don't know if you're arguing in bad faith (no pun intended) or what, but if not you're misunderstanding what atheists (don't) believe.

Only less than bright people fall for all this in the first place, so no wonder you fail to grasp so much else about the world.

Unless, of course, you're trying to say that there is an ever encompassing, all seeing, super consciousness which always observes,

Not at all. Reality existed before your birth and it will continue to exist after your death. Although that doesn't prove that reality isn't a slave of my consciousness, it proves reality was completely independent of your mind.

Notice how the ball lightning, like all nature phenomenons, is very indifferent to the faith of the people who see it happening, and not at all relies on beliefs to manifest itself
Unlike your selective miracles.
That's a false equivalence right there. To say that these miracles are fake says nothing about other yet inexplicable events

You might want to search on youtube for NDEs / Near Death Experiences, where people report going to the afterlife and back to earth after a car crash or some other cause of death. But they return back to their bodies.

This earth realm is only a temporary experience. Eternity awaits us on the other side, and it is a much more pleasant experience than what earthly life has to offer.

Oh, my bad, I forgot they did this in another universe where all conscious beings had been eradicated, robots reigned supreme and did not need humans to operate them and they were able to just gather data on their own.
Oh wait, nope, that didn't happen.
They did it in this universe, with humans verifying the data that was output.

*ring ring*

"Yes, hello?"

Hello. Anon is projecting again.

"Oh, thank you, bye bye!"

Bye.

youtube.com/watch?v=O7iEN_HF-vk

you doubt the reliability of the human psyche on matters such as scientific experiments, observable evidence, data analysis, etc

Literally what the fuck? THAT is what you got from my posts? I said nothing of that matter. Read it again.
See above ^^^
You've completely lost the plot, like that guy.

Reality existed before your birth

And was full of...? Conscious beings, perhaps? We do not know what the state of the universe would be if there were not conscious beings observing it.

independent of your mind.

Absolutely. But not MINDS. There were many minds before mine.

godfag anon knows his logic doesn't work, but there's nothing else. They have this list of points that they think may sway the dumbest of people. Sadly it's no more likely we can wake him up than it is that he'll get us to start believing in godshit. That's the power of faith, for better or worse. Mostly worse.

You will find similar reports from people who took high doses of hallucinogens.
So it's either psychedelics are a portal to the other realm
Or we trip balls as we die and the brain is starved of oxygen.

I know. There's no easy way of saying that something you have believed your entire life is a lie.
They will find a way to twist semantics or bend facts to fit their own dogmas. When questioned about science, his response was basically

How do you even know you're real and the world exists beyond your consciousness?

But they never respond to the most obvious retort: how do you know that your religion is real then?
They don't. Faith is to believe what cannot be proven

They say DMT is released by our brains when we are born and when we die. This would explain all the "going into the light" stuff and whatever visions people saw when they died and came back.
There's always a scientific explanation for what happens, we just don't know very much yet, despite all that we have learned about our world. Funny how we've hit this bottleneck and now with all the access to information people are going backwards and believing the earth is flat and space is fake and history is lies, etc...
Something to think about.

These experiments will not be be affected by your death in particular, but somehow you think that without any living human to observe, the rules of nature would somehow change?
That's the egocentrism that's prevalent in abrahamic religions. The universe centered around us, built for us, and we being the very image of god

you don't remember all the millions & billions of years before you were born. i like to think that the same happens after we die. ricky gervais has a bit on the stephen colbert show where he talks about this.

Of course, one day we believed that diseases were curses from the gods, and the starts in the sky were sprinkled milk from the goddess tits.
As science advances, we see that every little event we attributed to magic/divinity had another logical explanation that's way more reliable than "god did it because he hates you"

supernatural things are almost certainly not real at all. or if they exist they're only in a very very abstract quasi-deist sense like the simulation hypothesis, and even quasi-deism has an extremely low chance of being real

accept the physicalismpill, anon. the only worthwhile parts of religion or spirituality (if there are any) are the ones that adhere to physicalism (like some - but definitely not all - buddhist ideas about sense of self and such)

and by "quasi-deism" i mean there are no objective "truly omnipotent truly omniscient truly immortal" beings anywhere. so if there indeed is a conscious creator of our universe/reality, that creator or those creators are not actually truly immortal or omnipotent within the context of their own frame of reality. extremely powerful in our reality, but not literally omnipotent

Without any living being who contains within itself consciousness and the ability to perceive the world. There is no way to prove that the world would remain in tact the way we know it to be. The laws of reality could change if consciousness did not exist, yes. And we have no way (currently) to prove that the laws of reality as we know them are not foundationally predicated on consciousness existing.

This isn't like my special little magical thinking thing either.
In quantum mechanics there's something called the observer effect. Participles exist in a superposition, and when they are observed they collapse into a definite state.
There's a whole bunch of philosophy on this topic as well.

THAT is what you got from my posts?

Context is very important, little autist. You are trying to counter argument with people challenging religious miracles, in favor of these miracles. It's obvious that your skepticism doesn't reach over the realm of faith.
Your argument that we simply cannot know reality for as long as we exist because we will always depend on our consciousness, completely shuts off any discussion about any topic, it's a philosophical hostage situation, and maybe that's your goal.
If you believe we cannot discuss anything about human knowledge because we don't know how things would behave without our consciousness to observe them, you have nothing of value to add to any discussion about any topic besides

You can't know that

I wish you would give religion this same treatment

There were many minds before mine.

And the universe was indifferent to the passing of each one of those, as you can observe for yourself.

And we have no way (currently) to prove that the laws of reality as we know them are not foundationally predicated on consciousness existing.

this is just an appeal to ignorance. for a variety of known and strongly suspected reasons, it is almost certainly the case that the universe would be exactly the same if no life ever evolved on earth or if earth was never formed and if no other life ever formed anywhere in the universe

you completely misunderstand quantum mechanics and the mechanics of the observer effect. it is not at all dependent on consciousness, sentience, awareness, intelligence, or life. in the very early days of quantum physics some quantum physicists (like von neumann) suspected that could possibly be the case, but nowadays it is completely rejected by basically all actual scientists

Without any living being who contains within itself consciousness and the ability to perceive the world

That's a philosophical dead end. From that premise, nothing can be proved or affirmed. Nothing can be known. Not even religions.
It's a slap in the face of the actual scientific advancements we have made as a species. If you were dying from an infection you wouldn't question the doctor about the epistemology of scientific research, you would simply ask for the best antibiotic and trust its power in full
Because unlike miracles, medicine actually works without belief.

I don't get how people find peace in there being nothing afterwards. That's terrifying, the thought that it all ends and that's it freaks me out to no end. I'm genuinely shaking from fear and feel nausea just thinking about it.

of course it is utterly absurd to find peace in it. of course it is terrifying and horrible. it is the worst thing there is. but the desirability of something has no relation to the likelihood of its being true

it is true and it is very bad. the only good response is to promote humanism, non-violence (except in unavoidable self-defense), and more research into longevity and eventual biological immortality

The problem with Christianity and islam is not that it promises you everlasting life
It's that it promises everlasting suffering for all who dare disagree. In that way, emptiness and nothingness are the actual hope: hope that the after life won't be terrible like these dreadful religions say it will be for billions of people.
When you disbelieve, you are giving hope to billions of souls.

Interesting, another form of projection.

this is just an appeal to ignorance.

Because this is your argument for the lack of god, as well. We have no way to disprove god, and guess what, that's an appeal to ignorance.
Uh oh! You just dismantled your own point of view!
Just like this guy! I don't even have to do it. You did it for me. Where's your proof God doesn't exist?
Tsk, tsk tsk,

*finger wag*

No appeals to ignorance.

it is not at all dependent on consciousness

Again, you. do. not. know. this.
We have never observed the world in a state without observers. How are you not grasping this concept?
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I don't claim to be able to observe how the universe reacts to the passing of a mind. For all I know, each time something dies, it has a very observable and quantifiable change on the universe. In the same way that if you remove a grain of sand from the bottom of the ocean, the entire ocean shifts. Since the entire ocean is connected. If you then launched that grain of sand into space, the entire world would change.
We have no way of saying one's consciousness leaving does not have this same effect on the universe.
That's not true. Things can be known.

Because unlike miracles, medicine actually works without belief.

You caught yourself in a trap too. Work is a strong word. Medicine has a failure rate. Not only does it have an acceptable failure rate, but they can also exacerbate your problem, or even add news ones!
Also, have you ever heard of a placebo effect? If you believe a medicine to work, it oddly works better.

You athecucks sure are good at dismantling your own arguments.

We have no way to disprove god

That goes a long way from believing one set of mythology over another, as all of them rely on the same unfalsifiable claims you do.
We can absolutely disprove the abrahamic god though

Thread hidden stop bringing me back to when I was 5 years old and realizing this for the first time you fucking retard

Where's your proof God doesn't exist?

In the same drawer you keep your proof that Santa Claus, mermaids, and the boogaloo at the bottom of the ocean don't exist.
That's also a fallacy called onus probandi

the existence of ignorance and non-certainty does not mean no claims can be made. you are making a strong claim for the existence of something. in its absence of evidence, detractors retort that we should not believe it due to lack of evidence. "you can't disprove god's existence" is elementary school cognition.

We have no way of saying one's consciousness leaving does not have this same effect on the universe.

you can pile on a billion "we don't know [X]" and "we can't disprove [X]" statements for any number of things. they do not make for a good argument for anything in life

Also, have you ever heard of a placebo effect? If you believe a medicine to work, it oddly works better.

i would be curious to know what politicians you vote for and what you believe about history and science, because your tools of logic seem distorted

Too much for them to process. They will trust their jeebus to make sense of it. Until then you need to prove that it's not real. He'll totally accept your proof too. He just needs proof.
Except for his stuff. He takes that on faith.

We have never observed the world in a state without observers

And never will, taking your argument to the next logical conclusion that we cannot know anything at all, and that's your only contribution to any debate.
Sadly you don't give religions the same treatment of utter skepticism

Anon is projecting again

Cute little skit there

THAT is what

But not MINDS

Unhinged wacko detected

i at least appreciate the theists and deists who try to make genuine logical arguments for believing in deities. those can be engaged with logically, and those debates can be fun and interesting. people like this are just boring and sad

for example, i disagree with benthams.substack.com/p/the-best-argument-for-god and benthams.substack.com/p/the-ultimate-guide-to-the-anthropic, but this is at least an intelligent person trying to make a coherent positive argument for existence of a deity, not just repeating "you can't know!!!!! we can't know anything!!! who knows!!!!!!" in a billion ways over and over

I don't claim to be able to observe how the universe reacts to the passing of a mind

You can, just now. You can perform a series of experiments today, record their results, and repeat them after the death of all 150 thousand people that will pass in a day, only to find the same results.
Of course these deaths will have an impact on the universe, butterfly effect style, that was never up to discussion.
The discussion was always your claim that our collective consciousness affects our experiments, and we can't know if the laws of nature would behave the same without conscious observers. Please don't try to shift the goal now.

We have no way of saying one's consciousness leaving does not have this same effect on the universe.

We have experiments showing consistency results regardless of the loss of human life.
We have no evidence suggesting that our consciousness interfere with the laws of the universe and its constants.
You are relying more on superstition than anything else.

it's funny how these people always try to mishmash various different ideas they half-know, like quantum mechanics woo and other things, because they don't really have a strong, crystallized idea in their mind for why their belief is true. it's like debating conspiracy theorists. (and i assume this person likely believes in various conspiracy theories)

genuine logical arguments

What is the genuine logical argument in believing one set of mythology over another?

Abrahamic religions share a lot with conspiracy theories. They are apocalyptic myths that fearmonger imminent disaster after all

click the links i linked in the post. though this person i think is not arguing for a particular mythology but merely the existence of a sentient omnipotent or omnipotent-ish creator entity, from what i understand

each time something dies, it has a very observable and quantifiable change on the universe

Didn't you just say that our observations and measurements are unreliable and can't be known for sure?

if you remove a grain of sand from the bottom of the ocean, the entire ocean shifts

How do you know this? Are you relying on men's observations and their measurements?
Funny how no logical argument can withstand the scrutiny of your own doubt. Funnier still how you completely turn off that scrutiny when It's convenient

God is the personification of the unknown, humans do this naturally to cope with a cruel and unusual world, they assign human characteristics to inhuman objects and concepts to comfort themselves with familiarity, it's rather simple psychologically speaking

Why are you arguing with this Indian zealot?

There's actual proof for these religions. Real proof too. It's something like "follow these rules and you will see an outcome within your life."
That's why they have a book, because you read the book and then do what it says.
Also, you can't disprove it. You can, however, disprove your own conceived strawman of what you believe it to be.

That's always easy to do though.
The burden of proof is not a fallacy... Silly little boy.

in its absence of evidence

There is no absence. It's merely the fact that you do not see it, because you do not believe in it. We're back at the first step where this whole "subjective/objective/perception/observer effect" argument began. Just read right here down so we don't have to rehash it again: It would appear you do not understand the purpose of my saying those things. I love when people try to refute claims without know what the claims are even trying to say.

Sadly you don't give religions the same treatment of utter skepticism

I do. I've observed the effects. I've seen the miracles. The framework of reality is quite clear.

The universe is indifferent to your death

Well, actually you're right, it's not indifferent and it has a measurable outcome

Flip flop fishy over here. Pick a side.

was always your claim that our collective consciousness affects our experiments,

It's not really my claim. It's a claim made by quantum mechanics. It's quite literally what the observer effect describes.

You say it's """my claim""" like I'm the first person to say this, or that it's my original idea. There's all sorts of work and theories around this idea already. It would seem that you just aren't very well read.
Which is unsurprising, since you likely haven't even read the religious books which you disagree with.
There must be a person alive to conduct an experiment. Therefore no experiments have been conducted with zero observers.

Didn't you just say that our observations and measurements are unreliable and can't be known for sure?

No. That is not at all what I was saying. Not even in the slightest.

Funny thing how bad your reading comprehension is.

if the truth were self-evident and obvious to all, there would not be so many atheists and agnostics. so you'll have to do better than that

Silly little boy

Despite your protracted effortposts dripping with undeserved condescension you're still a scared little child (ironically a form of projection, an insult you've been projecting this entire thread due to your own insecurity regarding your projecting tendencies) shivering in light of a cold, infinite oblivion, allowing the defensive hallucinations of the mind to take hold and guide your ability to think critically

There's actual proof for these religions. Real proof too

Not really. It's why we started this whole conversation, as you claimed miracles could only be perceived to those who believe it
And I answered that real truth doesn't rely on the observer.
We will all be delighted to hear your evidence of which religion is the true one and why.

Follow this rule and you will see an outcome within your life

The world is filled with examples of that not being universally true: people of true faith who suffered terrible fates. People without faith or ethics who were blessed with rewards.
There's a reason why religion's promises focus on the after life. You are staying away from abrahamic theology

this discussion is so boring because there's obviously a massive intelligence gap between the supporter and all of the detractors (which isn't always the case; sometimes religious people are smart and sometimes atheists are dumb. though it's usually the case). or at the very least the person develops this huge logical blindspot when it comes to their beliefs. though here i think this person is probably like this with everything

What, who pray tell, were those who verified the verifiable? Were it, perhaps, humans with their psyches?

You do not know this [water boiling at consistent temperature] Nobody has ever perceived the world(universe) in a state without anyone to observe it. Again, do you see the problem here? just because it functions like this while we are alive observing things happening, does not mean it would continue to do without us (and every other living thing). For all you know, consciousness is the grounding principle for all of reality, and without it everything collapses.

It seems like you doubt even that water boils consistently without our own observation, and therefore that can't be proved. Ever
Running around in semantic circles, you have reached the point of backtracking

He is just not arguing honestly. His posts make very clear implications but he has left out certain words on purpose to keep plausible deniability. A common tactic.
After several paragraphs explaining how our observations can't make universal claims because we have no way of knowing if the universe even exists outside of our consciousness, he goes all the way around that to believe observations that support his religion.
His whole discourse into epistemology and the very nature of the universe versus our consciousness, our inability to know if the natural laws persist without our minds to appreciate them: he just threw all that in the garbage

The burden of proof is not a fallacy

It actually is, when someone claims something is real merely because we can't prove it isn't.
Which is what you did with god earlier:

Where's your proof God doesn't exist?

Tsk, tsk tsk,
You went further to say :

it is not at all dependent on consciousness

>Again, you. do. not. know. this.

>We have never observed the world in a state without observers

But now you are back to trusting observations that reinforce your faith.

you can't disprove it.

We can disprove many parts of the holy texts actually. Jesus himself made wrong prophecies

It's merely the fact that you do not see it, because you do not believe in it.

You don't trust that water boils consistently because our observations cannot be trusted as universal claims.
But the observation of miracles by believers is good enough for your sensibilities
Truly we are dealing with double standards here

I have no intention to convert you, but I have been a Theravada buddhist for 2 years. I attend services regularly at a Sri Lankan temple in my city and everyone is always warm and friendly there. The doctrines are internally coherent and the practice works in every day life. Buddhism unironically changed my life because now I'm more aware of my thoughts and actions and I can manage my anxiety better. Also I have some monk friends at the temple and I learned to socialize there because no one will judge you for being socially awkward. If you'd like to try a religion that actually makes sense and revolves around becoming emotionally independent and free from suffering - rather than clinging to a god for salvation, try buddhism.

Nothing ends, if you are lucky the entity will allow you to stay there, if you are unlucky then the entity will send you back here to live again as somebody else.

The doctrines are internally coherent

you neglect to mention if they're coherent with reality/the external world

(they largely aren't)

buddhism teaches many useful concepts and can be psychologically beneficial in some ways but all of its supernatural/metaphysical precepts are misleading at best and actively harmful at worst. notably, certain interpretations of belief in reincarnation and karma can lead to absolutely horrible thoughts and life decisions. for example, they can potentially cause suicidal people to believe they deserve their suffering and lot in life, and they can potentially cause suicidal people to believe suicide is a good way to "reset"

purely secular, physicalist interpretations of buddhist thought are probably fine, though

This notion can be easily dismissed just by citing something like flat earth theory, and how people believe the earth is flat, despite the overwhelming self apparent evidence to prove the contrary.
You can also completely invert the idea and say, if it were self evident that God didn't exist, there wouldn't be so many theists of different flavors. And even take the idea even further, and say that since the amount of religious people is significantly more than the atheists, that it must be true that it is self evident that God exists.

But, that isn't how things work.

lol ur crazy!! xD

Lel. K.

as you claimed miracles could only be perceived to those who believe it

Yes, you can only see what you believe in. That's literally how our minds work. There's all sorts of philosophy and psychology on this very topic.
The very fabric of reality hinges on our perception. For, we are the very fabric of reality, not separate from it, but one with it. The state of the universe without an observer would be quite possibly different because of the observer effect, yes. Who knows what the state of water would be in without someone to observe it, maybe it doesn't boil at all. Maybe the very concept of boiling no longer even exists. The state of matter as a whole could shift into a completely different paradigm, simply because of our lack of observation of the matter. The quantum particles could collapse into something else entirely and create all new matter that's completely alien to what we know.
Or, the universe could exist in a constant state of flux and be in a superposition where nothing is anything and anything is nothing until some sort of observer looks at it and it all collapses into existence again. It would be so far fetched to call that observer God.

So it's okay to use the fallacy to "disprove" God? But it's not okay to use the fallacy to disprove the disbelief of God?
Really?

I've observed the effects. I've seen the miracles

Earlier this thread:

The laws of reality could change if consciousness did not exist.

And we have no way (currently) to prove that the laws of reality as we know them are not foundationally predicated on consciousness existing.

There is no way to prove that the world would remain in tact the way we know it to be. The laws of reality could change if consciousness did not exist

We do not know what the state of the universe would be if there were not conscious beings observing it.

Nobody has ever perceived the world(universe) in a state without anyone to observe it.

just because it functions like this while we are alive observing things happening, does not mean it would continue to do without us (and every other living thing). >For all you know, consciousness is the grounding principle for all of reality, and without it everything collapses.

Clearly there is a different standard here, one for the observations of scientific truth, and the other for the observations of believers.
When truth fails, faith is required.

you neglect to mention if they're coherent with reality/the external world

they are, impermanence and non-self are verified by neuroscience and science

certain interpretations of belief in reincarnation and karma can lead to absolutely horrible thoughts and life decisions. for example, they can potentially cause suicidal people to believe they deserve their suffering and lot in life, and they can potentially cause suicidal people to believe suicide is a good way to "reset"

They're called wrong views for a reason, karma is not set in stone. You can generate merits here and now to counter the negative karma or just learn how to deal with loss through meditation and mindfulness. My head monk always tells me never to think about my next life, because this is where we are living now and speculating about where I'll be reborn next is a waste of energies and time. The Buddha already refuted the fatalistic views of karma that get peddled in popular culture today.

Unironically i was you four years ago. But then I found out that NDEs are actual, real things that happen. When you look over the horizon there's something there and it can show you incredible things. SUCH AS, seeing family members you've never seen before. Tell me, if there's truly nothing after this then why does that happen so much to them? It also proves that heaven and hell are real places, but most go to heaven. Just live and spread peace, you'll be okay.

The framework of reality is quite clear.

You just said we couldn't know if reality wasn't dependent on consciousness and therefore we couldn't know if water boils consistently without conscious beings observing it...
The framework of reality is only clear when you want to defend your faith from the truth

cause suicidal people to believe suicide is a good way to "reset"

also if you commit suicide you're going to be reborn in hell, because killing living beings is breaking the very first precept of buddhism. like i said, those views are wrong and if you talk to a real monk they will tell you how buddhists actually think in life.

You don't trust that water boils consistently because our observations cannot be trusted as universal claims.

Nope, try again. You literally cannot wrap your head around what I am saying. I am making so such claim as what you think.
Seems as if you have no comprehension of why I was making the claim that reality as we know it could change were there not (something) to observe it.

I was never using it to say, as the idiots cannot seem to comprehend, that our scientific observations are meritless or invalid. I don't know why you cannot grasp this very simple concept, even though I've said it numerous times.
(you) for the obvious troll.

it's okay to use the fallacy to "disprove" God

The whole point of the fallacy is to show how you can never disprove any unfalsifiable claim. Can you prove there's not a teapot in orbit around the sun?
You can never disprove anything because absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. You are stuck in a negative loophole.
People who make the claim in the first place are the ones who carry the weight of prove on their shoulders.
Onus probandi means that the onus of proving lies with you claiming there is a god, because proving there isn't one is impossible like proving there isn't a teapot in orbit

The very fabric of reality hinges on our perception.

But you doubt that perception when it comes to water boiling consistently.
You don't doubt it when it comes to miracles.
These standards are not in equilibrium

I was making the claim that reality as we know it could change were there not (something) to observe it.

Your claim was that there wasn't objective truths like gravity, water boiling, etc, since we couldn't know these phenomenons were universal outside pf our perception.
But somehow you believe in a god and claim it is true, even though you just rejected the universal truth of natural laws.
Does your god stops existing without conscious beings to observe him? Not very god like.

they are, impermanence and non-self are verified by neuroscience and science

i said "largely", not "entirely"

They're called wrong views for a reason, karma is not set in stone. You can generate merits here and now to counter the negative karma or just learn how to deal with loss through meditation and mindfulness.

karma just is not a real thing in any sense of the term. it would be very nice if it were real, but it isn't, unfortunately. there is no "generation of merits", there is no "negative karma". the latter part of your sentence is a non sequitur. sure you could learn to deal with loss through meditation and mindfulness, but that has nothing at all to do with the nonsensical notion of "karma"

if one cares about accrual of meritorious or good or noble or virtuous things, one should look to adopt some kind of ethical system, like utilitarianism. there are no metaphysical implications. it's funny because buddhism understands how to pierce through the false metaphysical concept of selfness yet tacks on other unnecessary, false metaphysical concepts like karma or reincarnation

My head monk always tells me never to think about my next life, because this is where we are living now and speculating about where I'll be reborn next is a waste of energies and time.

there is a big motte-and-bailey among buddhists about what reincarnation actually means or entails. i could go on about that, but the overall conclusion is that reincarnation also is not a real thing in any sense. no aspect or notion of one's self or of one's consciousness or awareness or sentience or being continues upon death. there are no past lives or future lives. it is a myth and a fantasy. in that sentence, buddhism teaches untrue things about the nature of reality

consciousness is an informational state of a brain (or brain-like substrate). if the substrate is degraded/destroyed, nothing of it ever reappears

also if you commit suicide you're going to be reborn in hell, because killing living beings is breaking the very first precept of buddhism. like i said, those views are wrong and if you talk to a real monk they will tell you how buddhists actually think in life.

i am not saying buddhism inherently promotes or encourages suicidality or suicide. i am saying it can often lead many to believe that

but regardless, in terms of actual truth about reality, that is also all nonsense. there is no hell. there is no cosmic punishment or cosmic reward for acts. any potentially beneficial or useful things taught by buddhism are irrelevant to the discussion. the point of the discussion is buddhism teaches fantastical, false models of reality and existence. an ideology that teaches the other things is perfectly fine. it's the mythological aspects that are bad, and those mythological aspects are intertwined with all schools of buddhism

karma just is not a real thing in any sense of the term. it would be very nice if it were real, but it isn't, unfortunately. there is no "generation of merits", there is no "negative karma". the latter part of your sentence is a non sequitur. sure you could learn to deal with loss through meditation and mindfulness, but that has nothing at all to do with the nonsensical notion of "karma"

that's just because you're used to thinking under a materialistic framework from the 1800s, your actions and words definitely do influence your environment and viceversa
also there are tons of cases for rebirth, they just can't be verified with the current scientific framework

but the overall conclusion is that reincarnation also is not a real thing in any sense. no aspect or notion of one's self or of one's consciousness or awareness or sentience or being continues upon death. there are no past lives or future lives.

You know karma? it gets passed on from life to life, you're the result of your actions, even though your "self" dies with you, you can trace back your previous lives if you follow your karmic line through insight

..... no one tell this guy about sleep

I was never using it to say that our scientific observations are meritless or invalid.

water will boil at a consistent temperature

You do not know this

It's very dishonest how all you have done so far is invalidate our observations claiming they can't prove universal truths beyond human perception
And how you changed your argument entirely to now say that maybe water does in fact boil consistently

And my claim is that God is not unfalsifiable. There is real, objective proof. BUT- and this is a big BUTT. If you, yes, you specifically, do not believe in the evidence you CANNOT observe it. Because that is the very nature of our brains. We filter out what we do not believe, it becomes static, background noise.
Do you know about phenomenology, and people like Heidegger or Merleau-Ponty? I'm not saying new things here. It's all stuff that has been said.
I never doubted perception, Mr. Obvious Troll. You clearly do not understand what is being said.

Your claim was that there wasn't objective truths like gravity

No. Not even remotely close.

you can only see what you believe in.

Your disbelief in our observations will matter not in a lab: water will boil at the same temperature for people of different beliefs, and objects will fall at the same speedz verifiably. It didn't take long for you to recognize the merits of these observations

Who knows what the state of water would be in without someone to observe it

The same as without an observer. You are severely misunderstanding how quantum mechanical effects behave in large scales

that's just because you're used to thinking under a materialistic framework from the 1800s

your actions and words definitely do influence your environment and viceversa

this is another motte-and-bailey. if your actions and words influence your environment and vice versa, that is a materialistic mechanism of action in the upfront sense. therefore there is no requirement for this added notion of karma

You know karma? it gets passed on from life to life, you're the result of your actions, even though your "self" dies with you

if the "self" completely dies, in what sense is there any sort of actual reincarnation? how is it different from neil degrasse tyson's "the stardust you are formed of will later form some other thing after you die" - i.e., a totally meaningless statement when it comes to any kind of continuity of existence?

you can trace back your previous lives if you follow your karmic line through insight

this is just begging the question. it assumes the existence of previous lives and karma. what if there are no previous and future lives? or what if there are, but there isn't karma? you have no evidence for either and no reason to believe either

if the "self" completely dies, in what sense is there any sort of actual reincarnation?

your temporary self dies, but your karma still lives on to generate another life, it isn't extinguished until you reach nirvana

>Well, actually you're right, it's not indifferent and it has a measurable outcome

The laws of physics don't change with the loss of human life.
Your argument that we cannot know if the universe wouldn't change without conscious observers is unfalsifiable and nonsensical, just like your god.

your temporary self dies, but your karma still lives on to generate another life, it isn't extinguished until you reach nirvana

1. this just isn't true and there is no reason to believe it's true
2. isn't that kind of unfair? say you do something terrible in one life and in your next life you are born into crippling poverty or something. where's the justice in that? you don't know what "your past life" previously did, and even if you somehow could know, it was a different "self" and not "you"

even if this were a good or fair system in some way, it's all nonsense with no bearing on reality. so it's no better or more truthful than any abrahamic religion

And my claim is that God is not unfalsifiable. There is real, objective proof.

Objective proof doesn't rely on personal belief, anon. The water will boil at the same temperature for all observers, believers of different creeds. The ball will fall at a constant rate of acceleration. That's what truth looks like.
To undermine these, you have to question the very fabric of reality, but even you said there are merit to these observations.

it's all nonsense with no bearing on reality

that's just like your opinion man

that is the very nature of our brains.

It isn't. You can observe things you don't believe in all the time. These are universal truths.
You can take a flat earther to space and make him see the sunset 10 times in 3 hours. Whether he believes what he saw is irrelevant: the observation is consistent to all observers in the same condition.
If your observation depends on belief, you are definitely not witnessing the truth. Truth doesn't require belief. That's why it's truth.

We filter out what we do not believe

Sounds like you denying the consistency of water boiling without conscious observers

isn't this kind of the root of the problem with any religion? if the religion states "this grand, elaborate metaphysical theory (like heaven, hell, karma, reincarnation) is the foundation of our belief" and someone says "okay what's the evidence or reason for believing this" and the person says "well that's just what we think and if you think otherwise that's just your opinion", what the fuck is someone supposed to do with that?

things should be believed if there's evidence to believe them. otherwise you are promoting feel-good mythology

"okay what's the evidence or reason for believing this"

direct experience through meditation

i do not think meditation does, or could, reveal the objective truth of broad statements like "reincarnation is true" or "karma is real"

meditation is interesting in that it can actually reveal many truths like nonselfness and other (some accurate and useful, some accurate and not useful, some inaccurate) psychological and cognitive insights, but definitely not these broad claims about existence and the universe and the fabric of reality

like, this is no different from a christian saying "i know jesus christ is real and is guiding me through personal experience with the divine and observation of miracles"

You do not understand, nor are you refuting, or even addressing any of my claims. You are simply arguing with a strawman of your own creation.
Again, you do not know that. Our understanding of quantum mechanics comes exclusively from observation. We have less than zero idea of how things would behave were they completely unobserved.

The laws of physics don't change with the loss of human life.

Irrelevant nonsense. Nonargument.

Objective proof doesn't rely on personal belief, anon.

The perception of that proof DOES rely on personal belief. The proof exists, but if you do not believe it, you will not see it. What you see will be in line with what you believe. Perception is informed by your beliefs.

How many more times must I reiterate this very simple point before you grasp the words? Is this my Sisyphean trial?
See above. You and that guy are making the same exact claim.

You drop a ball from a building, and say the ball accelerated towards the earth. You believed that, and thus you saw that outcome in your subjective experience of the world.
I say, no, that isn't what happened. The ball remained completely stationary and the earth accelerated towards the ball and that is what I see in my subjective experience of the world.
Which of us is objectively correct?