re: #603 Aceofwhat?

It’s not just strange to you. Faith is a strange thing, period.

Your paragraph about artificial inducement is interesting. Is it a poor analogy to say that a greater understanding of the mechanism is only that, as opposed to a commentary on who or what is inducing the impression?

If i heard God with my ears, understanding how the ears work or being able to induce auditory sensations in other manners wouldn’t prove or disprive what i said i heard, right?

Is that a proper analogy?

Knowing that the brain can be fooled does not disprove anything by itself. It is only when taken in the context of other things that evidence can be taken in either direction. Despite the interesting conversation LVQ and I had, last night I believe, the onus is on believers to show what they experience isn’t something simpler, such as momentary electro-chemical changes. All it (artificial induction) does is remove the feelings you get from the pool of possible evidence for God. That argument is circular anyway.

That said, the ability to induce those feelings artificially does not disprove God as the inducer at other times.