How to get reliable informations about God [Archive]

Sigurd

08-04-2005, 13:13

All the topics about life, God, life after daeth, souls ... are very important to everyone, I guess. But it is really hard to get relyable information.
What do you think is the way to get trustable information? :help:
It is not easy to get correct information (note that I am not saying true) because of enmity between religious and non-religious, between sects or denominations and across faiths. In addition to that are the many degrees of maturity/understanding of individuals in the different faiths.
The questions you have are more or less directed at religion and should be answered by religion.
The way I got information was going to the different denominations in question and ask. It is however important to verify the answers especially if the answers are opinions of individuals (ref: maturity and understanding). The best way is to get official pamphlets and or official books.
The worst thing you can do is to get information about the Catholics from the Protestants and vise versa. The likelihood of getting incorrect information is quite high.
Go to the source.
That being said it is nearly an impossible task to get a complete overview of one of the topics you mention. Just within Christianity you could spend a lifetime just to compile definitions of God.

[edit]: I didn't notice this was a poll...
I have never experienced the supernatural of religions and hence must rely on what I can read and answers I get to my questions.
The combination of book sources and learned men in the form of scholars and teachers are probably the best way to gather information.

JAG

08-04-2005, 13:14

I am God.

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

08-04-2005, 13:32

I just open the fridge. There it is, as reliable as it can get.

Louis,

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

08-04-2005, 13:32

I am God.

Get out of my fridge!

:furious3:

~D

Louis,

Petrus

08-04-2005, 13:41

I think a clear, exhaustive, reliable, non ambiguous and non interpretable definition of god must be given to be able to respond to this question.

Without it it seems that the fridge answer is the only correct and reliable one.

Navaros

08-04-2005, 13:49

the best source of information on God that we have on this planet is found in the Bible

however i do not agree with lumping the word "tradition" in with that, as this poll has done.

Templar Knight

08-04-2005, 13:51

God is probably a woman

LeftEyeNine

08-04-2005, 13:52

I am not an Islam preacher nor do I want to touch so sensitive veins but in one thread, I guess Don Corleone had briefly said that and I'd like to repeat it by explaining it a bit more : Kur'an (Qoran the way you call it) is the absolute words of God written by Qatips immediately after Hz. Muhammed was revealed the phrases of Kur'an. If you may neutrally get interested in thsi subject, you may have a look at it.

However, if you are "memorized" to be religious of a religion - e.g. by your parents . This faith usually collapses by some time in your life. The true fatih thrives in your heart after you deeply think about the God. That is not about "What's the meaning of life?" crap since it does not even worth asking. This is about understanding the life that reveals the path to faith.

So, holy books which are far from being changed, deep thinking and observations are key elements to know more about God, IMO.

But I want to emphasize that there may be arguments between believers and non-believers, as it is already commited. So I request from all friends here to discuss the subject without humiliating each other's beliefs. I am a deep believer and would be pleased to know about the self-rational claims of non-believers, if any.

One quote from a Turkish writer, I guess, about the religion :

"Put religion away where it belongs.. Between you and the God, not elsewhere.."

CBR

08-04-2005, 13:57

What do you mean by reliable information? Is it the official version of God you are after or do you want to know the background of the religion? In other words is it the book you are interested in or the sources behind the book.

CBR

Franconicus

08-04-2005, 14:00

I do not discuss the attributes of God nor if there is a God or a Nirwana, or if Christians are right or Muslims.
The question is what are the sources we can use and how reliable are they.
If you say that tradition or holy books are a good source then I agree. However there are many different and they do not all say the same thing.

If there is a God (whatever that is) and is somehow in connection with us then there should be the chance to get at least some information.

I know that in Middle Age there were Christions who chose the mystic way and others who have a more intelectual approach. Even others relied on the authorities.

Even if you do not believe that there is a kind of God, how do you get this point of view?

JAG

08-04-2005, 14:02

God is probably a woman

I am not a woman.

edyzmedieval

08-04-2005, 14:08

I am not a woman.

That means you're not God.....

Jokes aside. The traditional way of the Holy Books, plus miracles, like a Holy Icon(don't know if it;s the right word) crying......

Ronin

08-04-2005, 14:10

Samurai Waki

08-04-2005, 14:20

Sorry the Correct answer is Voodoo. If you believe in anything else you are going to burn in the eternal flames of Mount Umbaba-Kwektylon-Vvratu-Mpenu and be prodded in naughty places by the Great Chicken.

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

08-04-2005, 14:26

easy.....

just send me a letter pointing out your doubts and i´ll gladly answer them for you..(hey..it´s not like anyone can prove me wrong anyway ~D )

P.S.-Include in the letter one 100€ bill to ensure speedy reply.

Would you care about giving me my chocolate ice cream back? :furious3:

Louis,

PS: that's how you know God can be vengefull! Chocolate Ice Cream! If that's not reliable information, what is!

Franconicus

08-04-2005, 14:30

I am God.
So you are responsible for all this ... :furious3:

Templar Knight

08-04-2005, 14:46

chicken burger and chips from an indian take away in my town - the best ever, especially with salad ~:)

now thats God!

JAG

08-04-2005, 14:49

So you are responsible for all this ... :furious3:

Well you know, I have been busy.

Don Corleone

08-04-2005, 15:50

I put other because I didn't know you could enter multiple answers. I would say scripture and prayer.

A.Saturnus

08-04-2005, 16:21

Sasaki Kojiro

08-04-2005, 17:02

Die.

Byzantine Prince

08-04-2005, 17:05

[demonic voice] God is dead, talk to me again in 100 years when I have reached the stage of uberman and self proclaimed 'angel of death' [/demonic voice]

:devil:

Big_John

08-04-2005, 17:08

Die.damn it! you beat me to it. :cry:

Well you know, I have been busy.i want a refund!

scooter_the_shooter

08-04-2005, 17:10

This is an easy question.... the bible one of the best (if not the greatest) books ever made.

LeftEyeNine

08-04-2005, 17:16

Isn´t that just a disguise for the problem? How do you know Muhammed is a reliable source? How do you know his source was reliable?

Religion is basically uninquirable acceptance. You accept the existence and unity of God without questioning it, and relying every aspect of life (the nature, fate, deeds, the happy hours you have with your beloved ones or the tormenting times in hospital etc.) on him.

As long as Muhammed's existence as a Godsent prophet was the most recent one, he showed many miracles to prove his prophecy and unlike the others, his words were directly turned into written form, I find him reliable.

I am not implying other religion's being false or something. I only say that Muhammed, Kur'an and Islam have the all to explain about God.

BTW, I am not an "imposed" believer. I can feel Allah's existence myself. That's just personal, nothing to explain.

bmolsson

08-04-2005, 17:18

Social science... ~;)

Papewaio

08-04-2005, 17:38

'Lets play, Is there a God?'

We have evolved a brain capable of self examination and understanding of the environment around us yet we are so afraid that we go to the extreme of creating a way of life to avoid those abilities and pass off all questions to God.

scooter_the_shooter

08-04-2005, 17:52

~D A question to all you heathen atheist out there.... Have you ever even read the bible ~;)

Sasaki Kojiro

08-04-2005, 18:00

~D A question to all you heathen atheist out there.... Have you ever even read the bible ~;)

We read the old testament in class. Noahs ark, adam and eve, and some Ruth person that's all I remember.

Papewaio

08-04-2005, 18:01

Yes I have. Although I would say I fluctuate between Atheist, Agnostic and Christian.

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

08-04-2005, 18:41

~D A question to all you heathen atheist out there.... Have you ever even read the bible ~;)

I did, a pretty funny book, good mythology, some solid story... A bit too long on some description, like... who really care how big the temple shall be, or what to sacrifice in which case.
New testament is not really as good, it lacks the imaginative power of the Old one... And it's a bit repetitive ~D 4 times the same story, it's worse than CA selling STW 3 times! St John and the apocalyps is good though, and key to understanding many things in Western art

I fail to see how that relate to my fridge though. Not to mention disapearing Chocolate Ice Cream.

Louis,

Samurai Waki

08-04-2005, 18:54

I read about 50 pages of the bible and then I was suddenly reminded of the Dukes of Hazard and I stopped reading it. ~D

Ronin

08-04-2005, 20:14

~D A question to all you heathen atheist out there.... Have you ever even read the bible ~;)

yes.....in fact it´s one of the main reasons i became an atheist.....too many contradictions....too silly a plot ~D

Big_John

08-04-2005, 20:23

yes.....in fact it´s one of the main reasons i became an atheist.....too many contradictions....too silly a plot ~Dparts of it are pretty good. lots of good action. it get's a little far-fetched at the end though..

Quietus

08-05-2005, 01:21

~D A question to all you heathen atheist out there.... Have you ever even read the bible ~;)....

Reverend Joe

08-05-2005, 03:10

Why is there no option for "drop acid and just ask him"? Man, you people have no room for hippies.

Anyway, I put down other, because if there is a god, how the hell do we know anything about him?

bmolsson

08-05-2005, 03:57

Why does everyone assume that God is a God ? He might be something different...

Reverend Joe

08-05-2005, 04:05

I kinda assumed there was more than one god... you know, like the Pagan pantheons.

(waits for "BLASPHEMER!!!" comments)

Byzantine Prince

08-05-2005, 04:26

Me and JAG are Gods. We are what we think we are and so we are Gods. Worship us, like you do your other gods and you'll never have to worry about anythign again.

The Bible consists of:
The Old Testament:
https://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8678/067960175901lzzzzzzz1lk.jpg

The New Testament:
https://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6898/067186780601lzzzzzzz4ub.jpg

scooter_the_shooter

08-05-2005, 04:50

HEATHEN *ties up byz and burns him at the steak*

Byzantine Prince

08-05-2005, 05:07

LMAO, Caesar, isn't that a little similar to what they did to Jesus? ~;) ~;) ~;)

What would Jesus do? Would he really burn me on the stake, or would he grab an officer of the law and give me some steak to take home? That is the question.

kiwitt

08-05-2005, 05:16

Physical Science (i.e. Biology, Physics or Chemistry and related sciences) proof is still awaited.

Roark

08-05-2005, 06:15

Seeking the Divine is not a task or something on a to-do list. It takes no more and no less than a lifetime, in my opinion. My suggestion to someone who (hypothetically) had asked me how to begin to search for God, would be:

Spend a week on your own in the wilderness. No phone. No human contact. Pray and meditate on the world around you and what it means to you. Consider the sincerity of your search.

Pick up the scriptures and have a read. All of them. As many as you can stomach. The Bhagavad Gita, Bible, Quran, Talmud. Consider their portayal of the creator of the universe, and how humankind relates to the Divine. Consider the conflict between them and examine the historical veracity of their claims, and the integrity of the messages themselves.

Pray and meditate. I don't think God is remote at all, She just needs to be treated with respect and sincerity.

But... I don't think many people have time for any of this kind of thing. After all, we have Playstation 2 now... and microwave burritos.

Roark

08-05-2005, 06:41

Case in point then, eh.

I'm not particularly interested in the dogma of organised religion myself, but this doesn't preclude me from having a spiritual life.

Religion and religiosity can be... pretty obnoxious.

LeftEyeNine

08-05-2005, 07:45

Everytime there is something about religion, the non-believers gather and have fun, make jokes of anything related to religion. Only making fun although I requested them to make their claims.

* Put that Karl Marx s*it away from Quran..

Byzantine Prince

08-05-2005, 08:43

Believe it or not us non-believers acount for 60% of the .org.

I should know, I started a thread entitled "Do you believe in God?" and most people were in fact atheist.

LeftEyeNine

08-05-2005, 10:04

I do not care about your beliefs, it's none of my business, nor do you have to about mine. The point is "sense of humor" sometimes sounds annoying. I bet you understand me.

Ianofsmeg16

08-05-2005, 10:46

Although sometimes i beleive i am god when i see little kids coming asking me for directions and theres me sending them in the opposite direction of where they need....hmm fun, Anyway i beleive in god, jesus and stuff i dont beleive that there should be a rift between the different christianities, e.g Protestant and Catholic. We all beleive in god and stuff so why the split? I call myself a Christian not a Protestant or A catholic.

BTW Read the book of revelation, its like a sci-fi movie, its great but its also the only book i've read (in the bible) all the way through so i wouldnt know about the others
EDIT: Joke about Religion eh? well i have some fine ones here ~D
(This is not meant to be offencive to any religions, it is only a bit of fun and does not relfect the views of myself or, perhaps, any other person)
1.What is the Ultimate Jewish Dilemma? Free Ham.
2. Why wasnt Jesus born in America? Because God couldnt find 3 wise men and a virgin
and 3. (probably the most contraversial) A rabbi, a minister and a preist were on a cruise with a bunch of kids. Suddenly the ship caught fire and began to sink.
the Rabbi Cried ou "Quick! The kids"
"Fuck the kids!" the minister shouted, heading out the exit.
"Do you think we have time?" Said the priest

Sigurd

08-05-2005, 12:40

Believe it or not us non-believers acount for 60% of the .org.
I should know, I started a thread entitled "Do you believe in God?" and most people were in fact atheist.
Your poll did not accommodate for agnosticism and was a yes/no poll only.
I could point to two other polls that reduce atheism on this board to respectively 40.68% and 30%; the latter being an even more recent poll than yours.

Lazul

08-05-2005, 12:54

I am God.

hmm that means there is more then one god, seeing as I am the God of Wisdom. :bow:

Slyspy

08-05-2005, 13:54

Can I be the god (notice the small "G", I'm hedging my bets!) of Gah?

Lazul

08-05-2005, 15:06

I believe that each person should find his personal god so in my oppinion he Mind is the place to look. Only through philosoy and meditation... and sex maybe can you reach a level in wich you can claim to have discovered god. Which shape your own god or gods takes is personal.
Main thing is that you shouldnt try and push your own god into other people minds. You can ofcourse show your god to others... like showing the Koran or Bible so someone.

Personally; sexuality and enjoying yourself... thats where my "god" is.

Byzantine Prince

08-05-2005, 16:15

hmm that means there is more then one god, seeing as I am the God of Wisdom. :bow:
Let's hear some fn wisdom then! ~D ~D ~D

Lazul

08-05-2005, 16:38

Let's hear some fn wisdom then! ~D ~D ~D

you want wisdom!? You Cant Handle The Wisdom!

... oh and dont run with knifes. :bow:

Byzantine Prince

08-05-2005, 16:45

God damn it, I was looking for some wisdom and all I got was truism. ~:)

Kagemusha

08-05-2005, 16:50

Im sorry, but the day i will meet him.I wont be typing here to tell you guys. :bow:

yesdachi

08-05-2005, 18:05

That’s a pretty broad topic. Is there a particular god you are trying get reliable information about? There is plenty of literature about gods of all kinds but you might have to pick one at a time, as there are definitely conflicting stories.

This question is kind of like “How to get reliable information about Star Trek”. There is lots of information out there but its probably fictions, but reliable. There are 4 decks on a defiant class ship and Jesus did have 12 apostles. Both are true but are they fact or fiction? The difference would be proof. I can prove Star Trek is fiction. But I can t and neither can anyone else, prove there is or isn’t a god. I happen to think there is and it would be nice if there were some reliable information about God. I have a hard time trusting the official “books” because I think they may have been interpreted incorrectly, example: burning bush. Our languages change so often it is sometimes hard to read/translate documents that are hundreds of years old let alone thousands. I cant trust my brother to decipher the instructions to set a VCR how can I trust a zealot of questionable education and motive to translate the word of God. “The righteous will live by faith” plus I don’t want to know too much, I’d like to have a surprise waiting for me on the other side (Captain Kirk is that you?)

Oh boy, I just compared God to Star Trek… That’s not going to look good on my resume when applying for an angle job in the next life. I will probably get reincarnated into a monk for that.

A.Saturnus

08-05-2005, 21:57

Religion is basically uninquirable acceptance.

That´s not an answer to my question. The reliability of something may influence whether you believe it, but whether you believe it doesn´t influence reliability.
Were Muhammed´s miracles any better than David Copperfield´s? But even if, that would still not make his source reliable. You should consider the possibility that should God tell you something directly, it might still be wrong.
That you feel God´s existence might be reason enough for you, but it is still not a reliable source, even for you. Feelings can be misleading.

LeftEyeNine

08-06-2005, 04:16

Your statements lead you to your words' self-conflict. So may be your thoughts are. So may your "null" feelings about God be wrong although it is only an outcome of your own mind.

That's a paradox based on confusing and stunning statements you are claiming right now.

David Copperfield was an entertainer Muhammed was a Prophet. Please choose your words when directing something towards me. I never accused blamed or humiliated any of you due to your beliefs.

The purpose of showing miracles was intented to knock down the stiff mentalities of the people of that time. As you know human brain and capability evolves continuously. And they simply rejected the discipline Muhammed offered in words. And he was times and times asked to prove that he was a Prophet. They wanted to be convinced to their eyes. That's why.. I bet he was not having fun with tearing the moon apart in two - he had to.

Byzantine Prince

08-06-2005, 07:11

LeftEyeNine

08-06-2005, 13:25

I don't see any self-conflict in Saturnus's post.

Mohammed might have been a prophet but the way he proved that was with miracles, kind of like David Coperfield with magical tricks, but for different reasons of course. No one is humiliating anyone by simply comparing what they both did.

Saturnus makes a great point about feelings being misleading. Many Christians also say they have "Jesus in their hearts" or they "feel the presense". People just say those things, because they are so infatuated by their beliefs.

You should get the point. I see it is way too blurry from your point of view. Comparison of a guy's tricks derived with gadgets and plans with Muhammed's miracles humiliate me. You may be atheist but should be - as a human being - aware of what the sensitive points that should be discriminated from "the subject of discussion" and "I feel funny today" thing are.

You just explained the difference between believers and non-believers. Some can "feel" the presence of God or the Prophets, and some just do not. They can get how one can believe something that dictates, writes a fiction and what's more, is unvisible and unperceivable.

I can really understand the non-believer's way of thought. You may just not get it. But I do. Keeping the "right" or "wrong" things aside - I never tried to judge or make fun of your mentality as you do to believers, and I will not intend it ever - believing is all about the "being another person". We are all different..

P.S. I did not mention these to avoid discussion. I several times sat down and tried to think about how a non-believer may think, how he/she may give meanings to aspects of life. That's why I say "I can understand you".

Quietus

08-06-2005, 16:14

LeftEyeNine,

Let me help you out getting in a non-believer's shoe (objectively).

You were reading the newspapers today. In it is an article entitled: "God's son parts Red Sea". In it a person, Joe Doe, claims he parted the Red Sea and he is the son of a God. There was no pictures or videos of the event, apparently, just a drawing of the guy parting the Red Sea. Lastly, in the tradition of the Torah, the Bible and the Koran, he's writing a book he calls the New Message (latest teachings from his father).

After, reading this, at that point in time, would you believe this claim? A simple Yes or No answer would suffice.

ps. (keep in mind, you haven't witnessed anything with your own eyes).

A.Saturnus

08-06-2005, 18:17

LeftEyeNine, it was not my intend to offend you, please accept my apologies if I did. But I do not understand your answer. What is my "self-conflict"? I merely pointed out that a feeling you have cannot be a reliable source of information. I don´t want to belittle such a feeling, I fully understand that it is important to you and that it influences your live. Actually, I find it quite reasonable that you live by it. We all use feelings to let them guide our way in life. But nevertheless, it is not a reliable source of information about something independent from you and that feeling. That feeling may be important for you, but it provides no evidence about the world outside you.
Also, the comparison between Muhammed and Copperfield was not meant to ridicule the Prophet or your believes, though I realize that my wording was a bit hasty. The point is that there is a similarity between those two. Both - if we believe witnesses - have done things that seem to be impossible. In both cases, we can´t be sure how they did it. That their intentions were greatly different is out of the question.

Really, I am perfectly comfortable with what you believe and I don´t want to change it, although I disagree with you. For me, this is not a discussion atheist vs. believer, not even a discussion about God. It is a discussion about what is reliable information.

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 19:08

Religious texts such as the Bible and Koran alone are not a reliable source of information.

By relying on this information alone you will become a victim of circular reasoning:

"The Bible is the word of God because it says so."

It is impossible to argue with somebody who uses circular reasoning. Not because they are right, but because they cannot apply logic.

Any religious text must be supported by observations as well as scientific fact.

For example: Creationism and big bang theory coincide well: God said so, and boom, it happened.

The fall of man coincides with evolution. Adam (Hebrew for mankind) lived in the jungle without awareness of good or evil (like animals, hmm). The fact that they were unaware of good and evil meant that they did not know it was evil to defy god and eat the apple or whatever. Anyway, an event happened (eat an apple or whatever) which created conciousness and the freedom of choice. Wow. Now we could develop away from swinging in the freaking trees. Yay.

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 19:15

Why is there no option for "drop acid and just ask him"?

First you have to get past the oversized snake that wants to swallow you.

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 19:23

sex maybe can you reach a level in wich you can claim to have discovered god.

Wow. You must be having some good nookie. Because the last time I checked, it was just me and the wife gettin the sheets wet. ~D

Byzantine Prince

08-06-2005, 19:27

You should get the point. I see it is way too blurry from your point of view. Comparison of a guy's tricks derived with gadgets and plans with Muhammed's miracles humiliate me. You may be atheist but should be - as a human being - aware of what the sensitive points that should be discriminated from "the subject of discussion" and "I feel funny today" thing are.

You just explained the difference between believers and non-believers. Some can "feel" the presence of God or the Prophets, and some just do not. They can get how one can believe something that dictates, writes a fiction and what's more, is unvisible and unperceivable.

I can really understand the non-believer's way of thought. You may just not get it. But I do. Keeping the "right" or "wrong" things aside - I never tried to judge or make fun of your mentality as you do to believers, and I will not intend it ever - believing is all about the "being another person". We are all different..

P.S. I did not mention these to avoid discussion. I several times sat down and tried to think about how a non-believer may think, how he/she may give meanings to aspects of life. That's why I say "I can understand you".
I'm afraid I do not follow your point. So you can relate to beign a non-believer and... what? That's where I'm lost. You "feel" the presense of god, but I don't see how that's any different from any other religious person who also "feels" the presense of whoever it is they believe in. If we take that as a fact then there are more then one gods out there that influence whoever the people believe in. You see my logic?

Also I don't think you can ridicule my beliefs, seeing as I have none. There's nothing there for anyone to humiliate.

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 19:41

I think Left Eye Nine's statements show exactly what is wrong with all religion. Not to pick on Left Eye, as Christians do the same thing.

The devout just cannot take the criticisms of others. We have the right to say what we want of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any other for that matter. Left Eye, you get bothered if someone calls miracles a joke? If you believe in your religion so much, then you should be confident enough to agree to disagree.

MODS: My intent is not to turn the tone here. I am just addressing what I see as a serious infringment on human dignity.

Throughout history, powerful religious leaders have killed, tortured, and generally caused hate and discontent. If we want to say Jesus is a joke, so be it. If we want to say Mohammed is a farse, that is our human right. People actually murder over this. And that is insanity. Look at the sitaution with the director and the Muslim extremist. The director disrespected mohammed so the Muslim killed him. WTF?!

I love God and thank him for the favor he shown my pathetic existence. But that does not mean I am going to show anger if someone like Jag and BP says that they are God. That is because my belief is so unshakeable that it makes no difference what they say.

So relax Left Eye Nine. I have every respect for your right to worship how you see fit. But don't tell others what to say or write. Some of your comments are downright scary. ~:eek:

EDIT: I just wanted to add this. Left Eye, I hope you will take what I say lightly. I am not trying to piss you off. I just want to make a point. Your contributions to this forum have offered a unique and fascinating perspective.

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 19:49

I thought I would also open my little beliefs so anyone could poke fun all they want.

If there is purpose is one single thing, then there is purpose in everything.

The purpose of nerve endings is to feel. Therefore there is a God.

Kagemusha

08-06-2005, 20:10

First i would like to answer to the question of this thread.How to get reliable informations about God?In my opinion and limited experience,you cant.I dont mix religion with science.I dont understand what or who God is,or does God have a somekind of plan for us,or does God even care.
But i do believe in him.I think many people think im stupid or weak because i believe in something that i cant even prove to exist.So what?I dont care.To me religion is faith,and faith gives me hope.I want to believe that around us is an entity that has given purpose to our lives.My faith doesnt really follow any religions holy texts.So im a heretic in face of many other people.
I think there are much wisdom in bible,but my belief that everything is meant to be,is against christianity.I think we all have purpose in this world.But i dont understand it,because im not god.Call me stupid if you like,but my faith takes away my fear.And that allows me to be a better person,or even try to be one.If im only imagining all this,its my personal problem.Whether im right or wrong,it wont hurt anyone else. :bow:

Viking

08-06-2005, 20:54

First i would like to answer to the question of this thread.How to get reliable informations about God?In my opinion and limited experience,you cant.I dont mix religion with science.

Yep. Reliable information is impossible to get about God since it`s a matter about belief. Reliable means it has to be proven scientific and not just a persons opinion.

The only right answer is: I am God. You`ll have a hard time proving that I`m not.

~:cheers:

Kagemusha

08-06-2005, 21:02

Yep. Reliable information is impossible to get about God since it`s a matter about belief. Reliable means it has to be proven scientific and not just a persons opinion.

The only right answer is: I am God. You`ll have a hard time proving that I`m not.

~:cheers:

Well said Viking. ~:cheers:

scooter_the_shooter

08-06-2005, 21:05

Even though me and lefty eye are of differing religions I agree with him here. Do you want me to start going on about you atheist.......

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 21:10

Even though me and lefty eye are of differing religions I agree with him here. Do you want me to start going on about you atheist.......

Who are you addressing, zealot?

LeftEyeNine

08-06-2005, 21:38

Please avoid provocation, casesar010.

As long as they take only miracles as religion, there is no point in discussing religion here.. I am out..

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 22:48

Please avoid provocation, casesar010.

As long as they take only miracles as religion, there is no point in discussing religion here.. I am out..

There is a difference between religion and faith.

Faith is believing in something you know cannot be true.

Religion is paying money to do so. ~D

Brutus

08-07-2005, 11:22

Everyone here please just read Oolon Coluphid's brilliant trilogy; Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who Is This God Person Anyway?

It really clarifies a lot.

A.Saturnus

08-07-2005, 17:42

If there is purpose is one single thing, then there is purpose in everything.

The purpose of nerve endings is to feel. Therefore there is a God.

Interesting perspective. It may be a little off-topic but we can analyse this step for step.
The implication you have postulated suffers of course from a lack of plausibility. Why should it be so? Further, is it not neessarily false? If it were true would that not require that there are no things that have no purpuse? What about waste? Obsolete designs? Etc.? Should you mean "everything" in sensu composito, it is even more obvious: the purpose of something must lie outside itself, but nothing lies outside everything, thus everything cannot have a purpose.
Your premise is right if unprecies. Nerve endings cannot be said to feel. They contain or carry receptors which react to certain stimuli by causing a nervous impuls. These impulses are used in the brain to generate feelings. This vagueness leads to a problem with the term "purpose". Is it the purpose of nerve endings to feel, or to transmit electric impulses, to let humans function, to optimize gene reproduction success? Which of these? "Purpose" is a man-made concept, it has no precies analogue in the real world. Nerve endings exist and do what they do because of causation, not because of purpose.
Because of these problems, your conclusion must remain in doubt.

Roark

08-08-2005, 04:12

I think the problem with this thread is that, once again, it has returned to using scientific tools to observe a being who exists outside of the measurable universe (the metaphysics getting muddied with science).

I understand that an atheist (of which there are quite a few here) has no other context in which to discuss theology, but it just confuses things for everyone.

People who want to discuss theology should discuss theology. People who want to convince everyone that there is no God should maybe just avoid threads like this. I don't mean that maliciously at all, it's just that I think the original point of the thread may have fallen by the wayside...

This wasn't directed specifically at you, Saturnus...

Byzantine Prince

08-08-2005, 04:18

Roark

08-08-2005, 04:23

You use the adjective "ridiculous" a dozen times a week to describe threads, man... ~;)

Rather than argue semantics ("How can a matter of faith be reliable, ie scientifically measurable?"), why not just go with the general nature of what the original poster intended to get our input on?

Additionally, it isn't compulsory to post in every thread. If it's boring, why not just find another thread? This board doesn't mean to cater to your specs.

Roark

08-08-2005, 04:29

What I mean is:

It could have been a good thread.

We could have been discussing the mysticism (see poll option) of Sufism, and it's contrast to the scripture-focused faiths of Judaism and evangelical Christianity.

We could have talked about differing approaches to the common human purpose of "exploring the Divine".

It only got boring to me personally because a whole bunch of people, with nothing to add, decided to add a whole lot of nothing.

Don't mind me, I'm just having a whinge because I'm actually interested in this stuff.

ichi

08-08-2005, 05:45

Right on, Roark

ichi :bow:

Byzantine Prince

08-08-2005, 06:20

No one said anything interesting nor did the original poster provide any links to something in particular we could talk about like Gawain and countless others do. You can't start conversations with generalized topics.

Ok example: You guys know where I can get info on milk?
- Yes just go to a website that talks about it.

~D

This thread could never go in the right direction, it had no direction. The only interesting I saw was JAG saying "I am God" and then other saying what they thought about it. ~:)

When you start hanging around the backroom you'll understand that people here need direction or else it just won't be taken seriously.

Roark

08-08-2005, 09:27

Well BP, threads certainly don't benefit from your little tirades about how boring, uninteresting or irrelevent they are. (I've been hanging around the back room long enough to notice the frequency with which that happens). It's almost like you're lobbying for people to abandon the thread.

Anyway, 'nuff said on my part. I would simply encourage you to resist poopoo-ing something just because you personally don't find it interesting. :book:

Ja'chyra

08-08-2005, 11:05

Reliable information about a mythical being? Make it up that's what everyone else does. Then if you find it's not quite what you want you just change it to suit.

A.Saturnus

08-08-2005, 15:43

the metaphysics getting muddied with science

I couldn´t help but chuckle at this ~:)
Well, Roark, it may be that we understand the purpose of this thread differently. As I said above, I don´t see this so much as a discussion about God but about reliable information. I never said scientifical measures have to be used, but the question is how information can be reliable. The assumption I have for this topic is that "reliable information on x" has some specific characteristics that are independent of what x is. If you do not share this assumption, I´m not certain discours is even possible.

Franconicus

08-09-2005, 08:18

I would be glad to talk about theology, but this thread is too simplistic for that. Look at the question, it's ridiculous. How else can you get reliable info on god other then religious writing? I mean the answer is obvious. So I think most of us got bored and started bad mouthing religion.
BP, thank you for your adjudgement. I will try and do better next time!
I do not think that religious writings are so reliable. If you look at the Bible, the you see the experience people had with life and God. It is very subjective. And often politically motivated. Further more there are some discrepancies there. I do not say that there is not truth in the Bible or that you cannot find it, but it may not be as obvious as you say.
If the people then had the chance to get more or less dirctly in touch with God, why can't we? Or how can we? That was my question.
About the Koran, well, I do not know enough about it (although I bought one 20 years ago).
I think observations and visions are good sources too. Unfortunatelly noone mentioned how he uses them.

If the proovable informations are so poor then most of our believe is - just believe. That is alright! But why then is everybody so upset if someone says it is untrue or makes jokes about it? Comparing Mohammed with Copperfield for example.

By the way! I do know that there is a God. He send me (another) evidence last night: 54 cm / 3,360g. But do not ask me who or what he is.

Roark

08-09-2005, 08:28

Congratulations, mate. :balloon2:

Byzantine Prince

08-09-2005, 08:44

I do not think that religious writings are so reliable. If you look at the Bible, the you see the experience people had with life and God. It is very subjective. And often politically motivated. Further more there are some discrepancies there. I do not say that there is not truth in the Bible or that you cannot find it, but it may not be as obvious as you say.
Well I don't think I said that the *truth* is obvious in religious writings. I said it's the most *reliable* way to get information on a said religion, because, along with some comments by other religious philsophers(St.Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas), it's the *only* information there is to ever get.

Of course it's all that; politcally motivated, full of discrepencies, cotradictory, and even convolsive. But this is why it's so easy to bash as well, so it's all good. ~D

Sigurd

08-09-2005, 11:56

I find the last few posts in this thread quite an upgrade from earlier posts and I think we have reached the core of this word toss. It is clear that human opinion on a matter is seldom reliable. This is even truer with metaphysics. Whether a ball is red or not can be argued, but the ball’s metaphysics is examinable. God’s isn’t. The hosts of metaphysical claims about God should indicate that the sources are not reliable. That is, some claim the ball is red others green and yet another pink. Some say the ball is square which brings us all into hysterical merriment. That the ball is really not there, it is invisible raises our brows and we think; what’s the purpose of a ball that nobody can play with? It’s illogical. Yet the opinions, because that is all they are, continue and we now have a globe with nearly as many opinions as there are people.

What would be reliable?

The answer is simple; it would be direct revelation of a supreme being declaring its identity as God.

Later what seemed simple would no longer be simple because the philosophers of the world would discredit this revelation and explain it as tricks of the mind or they can prove it wrong because of x and y. See there is no match, x and y are two different letters, it is all a hoax.

Well the ball appeared and it is red, says the prophets and it is currently residing in the temple of Solomon. The philosophers laugh and parry with; there is no temple of Solomon and hence you are wrong. Besides, the ball is invisible and has always been so, and further the ball is an enemy of matter because matter is evil. Therefore, the ball can not even be here in this physical world. Go away liars!

BTW: Congratualtions on the newborn Franconius.

Ser Clegane

08-09-2005, 12:05

By the way! I do know that there is a God. He send me (another) evidence last night: 54 cm / 3,360g. But do not ask me who or what he is.

Congrats, Franc ~:cheers:

Finally something nice to read after having to go through some nasty threads ~:)

Franconicus

08-09-2005, 13:34

Thank you all! :baby:

Ser, can my daughter get membership here or is there a limitation about age?
(of course I will not allow her to go to the backroom. :bigcry: )

Ser Clegane

08-09-2005, 13:40

Ser, can my daughter get membership here or is there a limitation about age?

I am not aware of any "official" age limits.

"Junior" member (in the literal sense of the word) are always welcome here - the youngest patrons I have seen around here were 10 or 11 years old - how old is your daughter?

I remember one thread started by a (seemingly) little girl who was asking for advice on how to beat her dad in M:TW ~:)

Louis VI the Fat

08-09-2005, 16:17

I remember one thread started by a (seemingly) little girl who was asking for advice on how to beat her dad in M:TW ~:)
Ooohh, I remember that one! Something like 'help me beat my dad'. It was the cutest thing I've read here.

:love: :sunny:

Her father - who was it again? - came in for a sneak peak too.

Franconicus

08-10-2005, 07:16

I am not aware of any "official" age limits.

"Junior" member (in the literal sense of the word) are always welcome here - the youngest patrons I have seen around here were 10 or 11 years old - how old is your daughter?
She's 29 (hours) ~:cool:

Ser Clegane

08-10-2005, 08:13

She's 29 (hours) ~:cool:

:laugh4: I thought you were referring to your other child(ren?)

At her age I would suggest that she starts with froggy's game guides to learn the ropes of TW ... then you can show her around the Backroom as an example how a "good girl" should not behave ~:)

Franconicus

08-10-2005, 08:37

My other daughter is 19 months. Guess too old for these childish backroom posts. ~:handball:

ichi

08-10-2005, 18:22

If you're lucky, at some point God will reveal himself to you. If you are really lucky, it won't be an hallucination.

IMHO, the whole thing is a mystery. It is meant to be a mystery. God, or the Creator, or the Supreme Being, or the Heavenly Father, or whatever, has intentionally made it so that there is no known reason for this world - it is unknown to us, perhaps unknowable.

Thus, anybody, or any book, that comes along purporting to explain it all has the same chance of being wrong as being right (actually prolly greater likelihood it is BS). Anything that you may believe is simply based on faith. It wouldn't take much faith to believe in God if there was a proven, real evidence of God, now would it?

So, to answer the question, reliable evidence about God is a lot like God. It is nowhere, yet everywhere. It is not in a book, or a vision, or in the words of prophets. It is all around you, in the sun, and sky, and people, in the world itself. Look closely at a butterfly, or listen closely to a child's laughter, and you'll get a tiny glimpse of God.

ichi :bow:

Big_John

08-10-2005, 21:18

the question about revelation, pertinent to this thread, is how reliable is it? how do you judge the reliability of a direct message from a supposed metaphysical source?

revelation seems to take a couple of distinct forms. an active sense of literally conversing with the metaphysical and a passive form of simply receiving a vision, feeling, word, or something else. "miracles" generally seem to be a specific type of the latter.

just plainly assuming that the metaphysical exists and that communication between the two realms is possible, how can a person know that any given experience they are having/have had is indeed revelation? certainly, many reported revelation sound like a documented and reproducible physiological phenomenon, hallucination.

let's say i see a glowing, ethereal jesus eating the tomatos in my garden, i'm like, "dude!?", and he vanishes. what have i experienced? should there any question to me, the experiencer? what if it were a glowing baby rhino that sung a japanese pop song. would there be any less question as to whether i experienced a miracle or a hallucination?

so what imbues genuine miracles with reliability that hallucinations do not have? i'm open to the idea that, given all the necessary assumptions, a metaphysical source can provide a certain type of information that validates itself, needing no external check or reasoning. but, it seems like that's inventing a lot of extra machinery; not that occam's razor is anything to lose sleep over.

Byzantine Prince

08-10-2005, 21:58

My other daughter is 19 months. Guess too old for these childish backroom posts. ~:handball:
Hasn't stopped you from reading our childish backroom posts meticulously. ~;)

Zalmoxis

08-10-2005, 22:16

Maybe God is a manifestation of energy, and as such has no boduly form, and as such has no gender (if i was written with a HE, then God dam well isn't a she)

Goofball

08-10-2005, 22:42

"Put religion away where it belongs.. Between you and the God, not elsewhere.."

In all my time in the Backroom, I don't know if I have ever seen words as wise as that. If everybody in the world did it that way, think of all the pain that would be avoided...

:idea2:

Quietus

08-11-2005, 02:01

Gawain of Orkeny

08-11-2005, 06:37

I ask GWB. If hes not available I ask Nav. ~;)

Franconicus

08-11-2005, 08:50

God appearing meant he is physical and you should be able to whip out your camera or camcorder to record the phenomenon.

Metaphysical God ----> Physical universe ---> can be detected Physical Human being (yes, according to religion).

Metaphysical God ----> Physical universe---> cannot be detected by Physical Science. (no, :dizzy2: according to the same religion).

If you are going to say God is sending messages to Physical Human Beings then you can't exclude Physical Science out of it. Because both use the exact, same Physical Universe!
There may be a coexistance of physics and methaphysics. Human beings could be both, part of them is physical part of them is mp. Your soul, for example. Then God could communicate with your mp part.
Another possibility is that physics is just the part of the world that we know. And metaphysics is the part we know + all the rest.

Franconicus

08-11-2005, 10:16

Hasn't stopped you from reading our childish backroom posts meticulously. ~;)
I refered to my own posts of course. I will show my children yours to give them a decent education :bow:

Sigurd

08-11-2005, 10:25

...
just plainly assuming that the metaphysical exists and that communication between the two realms is possible, how can a person know that any given experience they are having/have had is indeed revelation? certainly, many reported revelation sound like a documented and reproducible physiological phenomenon, hallucination.

let's say i see a glowing, ethereal jesus eating the tomatos in my garden, i'm like, "dude!?", and he vanishes. what have i experienced? should there any question to me, the experiencer? what if it were a glowing baby rhino that sung a japanese pop song. would there be any less question as to whether i experienced a miracle or a hallucination?
...There need to be a verification schema to such experiences, something that touches our physical realm. In the case of Jesus in the garden one only have to stroll down and look for missing or half-eaten tomatoes. If you saw someone eating tomatoes, there should be tomatoes missing from your garden. This will verify your claim to having seen the apparition. If there is none missing, what happened there? Did you see a prophetic vision of something that is to come or was it only a hallucination?

But you felt the apparition right?, as a burning sensation in your core being; the Holy Ghost testifying of its truthfulness.
Of course the Holy Ghost will touch the souls of those who listen to your tale to verify your claim…
That would be all you can expect from the divine; a feeling.
Anything else would take away the faith necessary for salvation.
Remember, this is all a test to see if you deserve a spot in heaven.

Where in the universe is this heaven?
What is the physical resurrection?
What is the correlation between this physical resurrection and the non-physical heaven?
What is there to do in the eons?
What are the metaphysics of God?
What is the purpose of it all?

Oh, the philosophers did a good job of removing deity from the physical realm in the revival of Christianity back in the old days. That was their escape from the terrible questions that they could never answer.

A.Saturnus

08-11-2005, 16:11

There may be a coexistance of physics and methaphysics. Human beings could be both, part of them is physical part of them is mp. Your soul, for example. Then God could communicate with your mp part.
Another possibility is that physics is just the part of the world that we know. And metaphysics is the part we know + all the rest.

If God communicates with your soul, the same question remains how your soul (something metaphysical) can interact with your brain (physical). If the physical brain is able to sense the metaphysical, artificial devices that can do the same must be possible. Conclusion: if the metaphysical can interact with the physical, it is only another part of the physical.

Big_John

08-11-2005, 17:09

But you felt the apparition right?, as a burning sensation in your core being; the Holy Ghost testifying of its truthfulness. the question is how does a person distinguish between the proposed genuine experience and hallucination? any of that sensation could easily be hallucination. i guess if you want to invent a soul, you can just suppose some sort of verification system as part of it's definition.

Of course the Holy Ghost will touch the souls of those who listen to your tale to verify your claim…well.. not always, certainly.. i've heard lots of people ramble about their divine experiences. i just nod and smile. :yes:

:no:

Pindar

08-11-2005, 18:21

If God communicates with your soul, the same question remains how your soul (something metaphysical) can interact with your brain (physical). If the physical brain is able to sense the metaphysical, artificial devices that can do the same must be possible. Conclusion: if the metaphysical can interact with the physical, it is only another part of the physical.

I think that is right.

Pindar

08-11-2005, 18:40

the question is how does a person distinguish between the proposed genuine experience and hallucination?

If there is a Divine commuique that is supposed to qualify as knowledge and the person is held accountable for that knowledge then the Divine must communicate in such a way that the creature knows without doubt it is the Creator. This could follow an intuitive schema. Intuitive epistemic models are direct. They do not make appeal to any inference or other explanatory device.

Quietus

08-13-2005, 03:32

A.Saturnus

08-13-2005, 21:57

If there is a Divine commuique that is supposed to qualify as knowledge and the person is held accountable for that knowledge then the Divine must communicate in such a way that the creature knows without doubt it is the Creator. This could follow an intuitive schema. Intuitive epistemic models are direct. They do not make appeal to any inference or other explanatory device.

But this cannot exclude beta mistakes (wrong positive). Wether or not the Creator can identify itself to a creature, mental states are conceivable in which the creature erroneously "knows without doubt" anything. In fact, having no doubt is a diagnostic criterium of delusion. The problem is that "knowing the truth" cannot be a state of mind. We only know information, and that information may or may not be congruent to reality. With other words, it is impossible for god to proof me that I´m not insane.

bmolsson

08-14-2005, 06:16

A.Saturnus

08-15-2005, 19:43

To say the same thing differently:
http://muchos.co.uk/members/A.Saturnus/demotivators_1856_7029807.jpg

Pindar

08-16-2005, 00:16

But this cannot exclude beta mistakes (wrong positive). Wether or not the Creator can identify itself to a creature, mental states are conceivable in which the creature erroneously "knows without doubt" anything.

I think you're conflating mediate and immediate systems. Immediate knowledge may be pre-discursive and unarticulated and yet inform both discursive and articulated statements: Socratic ignorance for example. Such may also avoid the standard correspondence dilemmas by moving the whole rubric into a coherence schema. This may have with ontic overtones: here one could think of the standard Platonic sense of knowledge or Neo-platonic metaphysics. The same might be said of a non-allegorical Christian notion that one is a child of God.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-16-2005, 00:34

1 and 4.

|OCS|Virus

08-16-2005, 00:48

To get reliable information about god, you must look everywhere. The bible is a good place to start, though I would not believe everything that I saw in it, because, some of the stories in there I believe where put there so man could try to make sence of certain concepts we have. But I do believe a good portion of what is in the Bible is valid and truthfull. But it's not all there, you need to talk to others about it and make your own enterpitations about it. No one can tell you everything you know about god. As in the matrix, "I can only show you the door, you are the one who has to open it.". Just use your logic and try to see what it all means.

Everyone should bear in mind I only looked at the first couple of entries, so anything else said I didn't really check through.

A.Saturnus

08-17-2005, 00:48

I think you're conflating mediate and immediate systems. Immediate knowledge may be pre-discursive and unarticulated and yet inform both discursive and articulated statements: Socratic ignorance for example. Such may also avoid the standard correspondence dilemmas by moving the whole rubric into a coherence schema. This may have with ontic overtones: here one could think of the standard Platonic sense of knowledge or Neo-platonic metaphysics. The same might be said of a non-allegorical Christian notion that one is a child of God.

Sorry, I think there are just too many philosophical buzz-words in that.
There cannot be a discourse unless we assume that reason itself is flawless and anything derived from reason is certain, but anything that is not derived from reason alone, must be open for doubt. Thus, any information you possess that is not deduced by yourself from reason is uncertain, whether you call it mediate or immediate. That is, unless you DO use a coherence schema. But I reject the coherence theory of truth on the basis that it is ridiculously strong.

Pindar

08-17-2005, 20:21

Sorry, I think there are just too many philosophical buzz-words in that.

Sorry.

There cannot be a discourse unless we assume that reason itself is flawless and anything derived from reason is certain, but anything that is not derived from reason alone, must be open for doubt.

People can and do make mistakes during discourse all the time. Rational perfection is not required to have discourse. I do agree that discourse makes appeal to a rational standard. It doesn't follow from this that non-rational appeals must be open to doubt. It may be they cannot be communicated, but this does not necessarily impact any possible veracity.

A.Saturnus

08-17-2005, 22:42

People can and do make mistakes during discourse all the time. Rational perfection is not required to have discourse. I do agree that discourse makes appeal to a rational standard. It doesn't follow from this that non-rational appeals must be open to doubt. It may be they cannot be communicated, but this does not necessarily impact any possible veracity.

Sure, mistakes happen, I mean we assume that rationality is in principle flawless. If reason is followed corretly, certainty is achieved. But why should non-rational appeals not be open to doubt? Claiming standards that are not necessary for the discourse is intellectually dishonest.

Pindar

08-17-2005, 23:55

Sure, mistakes happen, I mean we assume that rationality is in principle flawless. If reason is followed corretly, certainty is achieved. But why should non-rational appeals not be open to doubt? Claiming standards that are not necessary for the discourse is intellectually dishonest.

If rationality is handled properly the conclusion is valid. Validity reflects the necessity of the conclusion given the premises. This does not mean it has anything to do with reality or truth. We assume reality is amenable to reason.

Non-rational appeals can be open to doubt: must implies a different standard. If one questions a Zen Master about the nature of Enlightenment and he replies: "I point to the Moon and you focus on my finger". The questioner might conclude that the Master is a loon or he might conclude that Enlightenment is not subject to rational inquiry. This has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty.

bmolsson

08-18-2005, 03:06

This has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty.

~:cheers:

A.Saturnus

08-18-2005, 15:57

If rationality is handled properly the conclusion is valid. Validity reflects the necessity of the conclusion given the premises. This does not mean it has anything to do with reality or truth. We assume reality is amenable to reason.

Good enough for me, let´s leave it at that.

Non-rational appeals can be open to doubt: must implies a different standard. If one questions a Zen Master about the nature of Enlightenment and he replies: "I point to the Moon and you focus on my finger". The questioner might conclude that the Master is a loon or he might conclude that Enlightenment is not subject to rational inquiry. This has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty.

That´s a different situation. If someone enters a discourse, he has to abide to the rules of discourse. Among which it stands that he may not make assumptions the other does not make. Something that is not rationally justified is only an opinion, not knowledge.

Pindar

08-18-2005, 23:28

Non-rational appeals can be open to doubt: must implies a different standard. If one questions a Zen Master about the nature of Enlightenment and he replies: "I point to the Moon and you focus on my finger". The questioner might conclude that the Master is a loon or he might conclude that Enlightenment is not subject to rational inquiry. This has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty.

That´s a different situation. If someone enters a discourse, he has to abide to the rules of discourse. Among which it stands that he may not make assumptions the other does not make. Something that is not rationally justified is only an opinion, not knowledge.

I'm not sure I understood your post. Mystical appeals, which seem to operate under an intuitive epistemic, do not to attempt to communicate or replicate that experience through discourse. In fact, the view appears to be that is not possible any more than one can describe salt to one who has not tasted it. They may note the experience occurred, express that it was meaningful, or attempt some conclusion because of it etc. but the content of the experience itself remains closed to the participant.

I think you can maintain a view that rejects all knowledge claims that are outside of direct rational scrutiny, but the position seems more definitional than substantial. It's interesting that all major religious traditions have mystical components that predate the rise of reason (insofar as the religions themselves are older) and have continued on through to the present irrespective of reason.

A.Saturnus

08-19-2005, 16:59

I'm not sure I understood your post. Mystical appeals, which seem to operate under an intuitive epistemic, do not to attempt to communicate or replicate that experience through discourse. In fact, the view appears to be that is not possible any more than one can describe salt to one who has not tasted it. They may note the experience occurred, express that it was meaningful, or attempt some conclusion because of it etc. but the content of the experience itself remains closed to the participant.

I think you can maintain a view that rejects all knowledge claims that are outside of direct rational scrutiny, but the position seems more definitional than substantial. It's interesting that all major religious traditions have mystical components that predate the rise of reason (insofar as the religions themselves are older) and have continued on through to the present irrespective of reason.

Well, ok, I agree to that, but what we were originally discussing is the question how you can exclude the possibility that a certain experience is psychotic in nature. The point I was trying to make is, if you consider the possibility of being insane, you can still not doubt the fact of your own thinking or the flawlessness of reason. But anything else you can doubt. Whatever experience you have, you cannot know for sure that it was no the result of a mental disorder.

Pindar

08-19-2005, 18:17

Well, ok, I agree to that, but what we were originally discussing is the question how you can exclude the possibility that a certain experience is psychotic in nature. The point I was trying to make is, if you consider the possibility of being insane, you can still not doubt the fact of your own thinking or the flawlessness of reason. But anything else you can doubt. Whatever experience you have, you cannot know for sure that it was no the result of a mental disorder.

Can tasting salt be a mental disorder? I'm not sure mystical/intuitive appeals are reducible to simple psychological states. The logic of immediacy and the larger literature would suggest not.

I thought insanity was dependant on an inability to function in society, not by simple held beliefs.

bmolsson

08-21-2005, 04:02

I thought insanity was dependant on an inability to function in society, not by simple held beliefs.

Sometimes that is the same thing..... ~;)

A.Saturnus

08-22-2005, 18:09

Can tasting salt be a mental disorder? I'm not sure mystical/intuitive appeals are reducible to simple psychological states. The logic of immediacy and the larger literature would suggest not.

Well, knowing is a psychological state. The experience of tasting salt itself cannot be a mental disorder. It is part of the phenomenological world and therefore simply what it is. But the same certainty is not there for the noumenale world. The experience of tasting salt can be the result of exposure to the chemical substance sodium chlorid or be the product of a mental disorder, thus a hallucination. The same is true for divine revelations. The experience of a mystical encounter is phenomenological. It cannot be parted from the experiencing mind and therefore, due to delusion of that mind, may be deceiving about its source.

I thought insanity was dependant on an inability to function in society, not by simple held beliefs.

Inability to function is often a characteristic of insanity, but not a necessarily a defining criterium. Simple held beliefs may, if obviously counterfactual and persistent, be enough to diagnose a delusion or other disorders. Hallucinations are among the major diagnostic criteria of psychosis (but not sufficient). But insanity should only serve as an example. Not all hallucinations are pathologic. But they are, by definition, counterfactual.
Please note also that some psychotic patients do not realize that they are socially disfunctional.

Pindar

08-22-2005, 18:48

Well, knowing is a psychological state. The experience of tasting salt itself cannot be a mental disorder. It is part of the phenomenological world and therefore simply what it is. But the same certainty is not there for the noumenale world. The experience of tasting salt can be the result of exposure to the chemical substance sodium chlorid or be the product of a mental disorder, thus a hallucination. The same is true for divine revelations. The experience of a mystical encounter is phenomenological. It cannot be parted from the experiencing mind and therefore, due to delusion of that mind, may be deceiving about its source.

How do you define psychological state? Is it simply synapse firing or the reflective, pondering, mental component of people interacting with their environment? If it is the former would this include those with brain lesions where some brain activity is demonstrable, even if confined to lower levels?

Is hallucination used to refer to feelings? If a person in a hot room says they feel cold is this a hallucination? Is it correct to say: no, you don't.

Now you mention the experience of tasting salt cannot be a mental order. You tie it to the phenomenal realm. Phenomena simply means able to experience. Now if the Divine can be experienced it would be ipso facto phenomenal. Now if the base experience of salt is "what it is" why couldn't the experience of the Spirit of the Divine be the same?

Inability to function is often a characteristic of insanity, but not a necessarily a defining criterium. Simple held beliefs may, if obviously counterfactual and persistent, be enough to diagnose a delusion or other disorders. Hallucinations are among the major diagnostic criteria of psychosis (but not sufficient). But insanity should only serve as an example. Not all hallucinations are pathologic. But they are, by definition, counterfactual.
Please note also that some psychotic patients do not realize that they are socially disfunctional.

If a person sincerely believes he is a Jedi, but in every other way performs normally. Is he nuts?

I recall being told that loons when interviewed seem to know at some base level something is amuck, but may not know the source or corrective for this sense. Is this wrong?

bmolsson

08-23-2005, 13:29

Can tasting salt be a mental disorder?

Depends on the item you are tasting.....

bmolsson

08-23-2005, 13:33

If a person sincerely believes he is a Jedi, but in every other way performs normally. Is he nuts?

Not if his name is George Lucas....

In a normal society, use a different identity than your actual is not nuts, just illegal....

A.Saturnus

08-23-2005, 17:41

How do you define psychological state? Is it simply synapse firing or the reflective, pondering, mental component of people interacting with their environment? If it is the former would this include those with brain lesions where some brain activity is demonstrable, even if confined to lower levels?

Is hallucination used to refer to feelings? If a person in a hot room says they feel cold is this a hallucination? Is it correct to say: no, you don't.

Now you mention the experience of tasting salt cannot be a mental order. You tie it to the phenomenal realm. Phenomena simply means able to experience. Now if the Divine can be experienced it would be ipso facto phenomenal. Now if the base experience of salt is "what it is" why couldn't the experience of the Spirit of the Divine be the same?

I think synapses are irrelevant for the discussion. A psychological state is a possible form of our inner self. A perception, a thought, a feeling, those can be part of a psychological state.
A hallucination of a feeling would be the feeling itself. Like a picture of a picture. If someone says that he´s feeling cold, we should believe him. But the origin of that feeling is important. We do not doubt a schizophrenic that he hears voices, but we doubt that these voices actually are produced by inanimate objects. Though the general experience of temperature is too vague to constitute a hallucination. If someone feels as if he´s touched by flames on spots on his body while nothing of that happens, that would be a hallucination.
The divine could affect our phenomenological world, however, we cannot experience the divine an sich. Just like we cannot experience any Ding an sich. I can see, smell and taste an apple, but the noumenale apple will always be outside my experience. The experiences that I have about the apple are a function of mental categories, past experiences and - possibly - mental disorder. Because of that, the experiences I have about the apple may be deceiving about the real nature of the apple.

If a person sincerely believes he is a Jedi, but in every other way performs normally. Is he nuts?

I recall being told that loons when interviewed seem to know at some base level something is amuck, but may not know the source or corrective for this sense. Is this wrong?

Someone who believes he is a Jedi is not necessarily "nuts", no. Just like someone who receives divine revelations is not necessarily "nuts". The point is that he could possibly be "nuts".
It is true that most patients of psychopathology notice problems. After all, most forms of psychopathology can inflict a serious amount of distress. But it can happen that this is only because they cannot function in society any longer. It is not unlikely that they attribute the cause of the problems to their environment and not to themselves. For example, I saw an interview with a man who believed that flies were breeding in his skin, no matter what he did. That went so far that he heard them sum, felt their touch and believed that they were conspiring with his mother! To him, that was entirely real and he could not even realize the absurditiy of it. Certainly he felt distress, but for him, the flies were the cause of it, not his mind.

Pindar

08-23-2005, 23:08

Depends on the item you are tasting.....

You really should try and rise above the line linner approach to discussion.

bmolsson

08-23-2005, 23:40

You really should try and rise above the line linner approach to discussion.

A message doesn't always have to contain fancy words to be distributed and understood. Also I wouldn't want to rock the current balance on this forum...... ~;) :bow:

Pindar

08-23-2005, 23:46

I think synapses are irrelevant for the discussion. A psychological state is a possible form of our inner self. A perception, a thought, a feeling, those can be part of a psychological state.

OK

A hallucination of a feeling would be the feeling itself. Like a picture of a picture. If someone says that he´s feeling cold, we should believe him. But the origin of that feeling is important. We do not doubt a schizophrenic that he hears voices, but we doubt that these voices actually are produced by inanimate objects. Though the general experience of temperature is too vague to constitute a hallucination. If someone feels as if he´s touched by flames on spots on his body while nothing of that happens, that would be a hallucination.
The divine could affect our phenomenological world, however, we cannot experience the divine an sich. Just like we cannot experience any Ding an sich. I can see, smell and taste an apple, but the noumenale apple will always be outside my experience. The experiences that I have about the apple are a function of mental categories, past experiences and - possibly - mental disorder. Because of that, the experiences I have about the apple may be deceiving about the real nature of the apple.

I don't think there is anything in mystical literature that makes appeal to a noumenal realm. The whole tenure of the knowledge claim is phenomenal. Further, and perhaps more to the point, the experience is immediate. This may or may not mean the experience could be discursive, but the logic of the event is that phenomena itself necessarily precedes any formulation as the formulation is dependant on the phenomena. For example: if one says 'A is B' the "is" is presupposed.

Someone who believes he is a Jedi is not necessarily "nuts", no. Just like someone who receives divine revelations is not necessarily "nuts". The point is that he could possibly be "nuts".

How is loon status determined?

bmolsson

08-24-2005, 00:09

How is loon status determined?

Medical science and legal system.

Redleg

08-24-2005, 00:33

Medical science and legal system.

There I go thinking that a "loon" was a type of bird.

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/Infocenter/i0070id.html

A.Saturnus

08-25-2005, 15:36

I don't think there is anything in mystical literature that makes appeal to a noumenal realm. The whole tenure of the knowledge claim is phenomenal. Further, and perhaps more to the point, the experience is immediate. This may or may not mean the experience could be discursive, but the logic of the event is that phenomena itself necessarily precedes any formulation as the formulation is dependant on the phenomena. For example: if one says 'A is B' the "is" is presupposed.

I´m not sure why you consider the formulation important. 'is' is indeed presupposed because the possibility of an identity relation is an axiom. Logical considerations would hardly be possible without it. But that is not the case for the origin of experiences. It all comes down to the question whether the experiences refer to something outside themselves. If not, there is no problem. If they do, then it should be clear that the experiences may not reflect the real nature of that which they refer to.

How is loon status determined?

First of all, we do not speak of 'loons', normally. Someone has a psychosis or another disorder. Whether this is the case is usually determined by applying the DSM-IV. If someone fulfills the relevant criteria, he or she is considered psychotic or otherwise mentally ill. Delusion is a symptome of several different disorders. We speak of delusion if a person is preoccupied by ideas that are clearly counterfactual and cannot be convinced by any sort of evidence and are not common for the culture the person lives in.
But of course, the DSM-IV is a tool for the practicioner. Practical considerations are important for it. It does not necessarily hold the truth about insanity. We do not know enough over the ethology of mental disorders to base a classification on it. But obviously, there must be an ethiology for insanity. So if we want to know for sure whether our jedi is really insane, we would need to know the ethiology of his conviction and that of obviously insane ones. Maybe then we could identify "insane" convictions. But we aren´t so far yet.

Pindar

08-25-2005, 19:55

I´m not sure why you consider the formulation important. 'is' is indeed presupposed because the possibility of an identity relation is an axiom. Logical considerations would hardly be possible without it. But that is not the case for the origin of experiences. It all comes down to the question whether the experiences refer to something outside themselves. If not, there is no problem. If they do, then it should be clear that the experiences may not reflect the real nature of that which they refer to.

As I understood your position you were appealing to a kantian formula to critique the epistemic basis of mystical claims. You did this by referencing the nouminal realm and the transcendental. I pointed out that mystical claims do not make nouminal appeal and that irrespective of any formulation (transcendental or otherwise) experience is always already there. Experience has logical priority: such may be mediated, but does not necessarily have to be.

Whether experience is self-generated or not and whether such properly reflect reality is a separate question. I know you have opted for a correspondence critique, but I don't think that is the proper formulation of the standard mystical appeal. It seems, particularly given the ontic overtones, that a coherence formula is more accurate. Further, should we restrict ourselves to correspondence positions I don't think mystical claims are any more vulnerable to critique than other experience. If one accepts basic empirical appeals as a basis for knowledge claims then mystical experience would fall within those bounds.

First of all, we do not speak of 'loons', normally. Someone has a psychosis or another disorder. Whether this is the case is usually determined by applying the DSM-IV. If someone fulfills the relevant criteria, he or she is considered psychotic or otherwise mentally ill. Delusion is a symptome of several different disorders. We speak of delusion if a person is preoccupied by ideas that are clearly counterfactual and cannot be convinced by any sort of evidence and are not common for the culture the person lives in.
But of course, the DSM-IV is a tool for the practicioner. Practical considerations are important for it. It does not necessarily hold the truth about insanity. We do not know enough over the ethology of mental disorders to base a classification on it. But obviously, there must be an ethiology for insanity. So if we want to know for sure whether our jedi is really insane, we would need to know the ethiology of his conviction and that of obviously insane ones. Maybe then we could identify "insane" convictions. But we aren´t so far yet.

If etiology is critical to make a diagnosis and no etiology is forthcoming then it doesn't appear possible to label our Jedi or mystic nuts based on a singular belief or claimed experience.

Paul Peru

08-26-2005, 16:05

Sorry to barge in at this stage, but here it is:

There is no God!
Any claim to the contrary is either a lie, or uttered by someone who is mislead or delusional.

Any religious experience is either caused by a misunderstanding, trickery or a psychotic incident.

I could elaborate further, but I think that's really all you need to know about God right there! ~:) ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug:

Pindar

08-26-2005, 16:57

Sorry to barge in at this stage, but here it is:

There is no God!

Logically this is an untenable position. It also shifts the focus of discussion.

Skomatth

08-26-2005, 18:06

Logically this is an untenable position. It also shifts the focus of discussion.

Why is it logically untenable? Epistemologically denying the existence of God is problematic , but I see no self-contradiction in Paul's statement.

Pindar

08-26-2005, 18:15

Why is it logically untenable? Epistemologically denying the existence of God is problematic , but I see no self-contradiction in Paul's statement.

To say there is no god as a point of knowledge (which appears to be the view being expressed) is to assert positive knowledge of a negative. This is untenable as it is impossible to prove a negative.

Skomatth

08-26-2005, 18:24

This is untenable as it is impossible to prove a negative.

I've always been confused by this statement so perhaps you could clarify. I could certainly put forth a valid argument which concludes in the negation of a proposition. I understand "to prove" to mean "to demonstrate a proposition in a given system". If the system is something like propositional calculus it is certainly possible to prove a negation. If the system if epistemological then I think I agree, but I'll withold objection until your reply is forthcoming.

Pindar

08-26-2005, 19:14

I've always been confused by this statement so perhaps you could clarify. I could certainly put forth a valid argument which concludes in the negation of a proposition. I understand "to prove" to mean "to demonstrate a proposition in a given system". If the system is something like propositional calculus it is certainly possible to prove a negation. If the system if epistemological then I think I agree, but I'll withold objection until your reply is forthcoming.

Proof is a logical term. In logic there are two basic formats: inductive and deductive. Deductive basically means going from big to little for example: Bachelors are unmarried, Bob is a bachelor therefore Bob is unmarried. A conclusion is drawn from a general premise. Inductive means going from little to big for example: Those are swans, the swans are white therefore all swans are white. Now if one takes a deductive standard say: "there is no God" and then derive some conclusion from it. That is fine, but the statement "there is no God" is a premise of a proof, not the proof itself. A premise is an assertion that may or may not be true, but the premise has no qualification and therefore no particular standing unless it is a tautology like my bachelor example. Typically when discussing the inability to prove a negative one is thinking of inductive logic. Given that induction is based on a particular, it is impossible to draw a necessary universal conclusion from that particular as the conclusion is constrained by the particular. If you consider the swan example: a swan or group of swans are cited and a general conclusion is draw from that citation. That conclusion carries no necessity. There is nothing that denies a black swan may exist and in fact should one find a black swan the prior conclusion is completely refuted. This is the dynamic science operates under: data is gathered and conclusions are drawn from that data. Scientists then try and falsify the claim through counterexamples. If a counterexample can be found then the process begins anew. If no counterexample can be found then one feels a little more confident about the conclusion. Regardless the length of time a conclusion may stand, it is always subject to a possible counterexample and revision. We hold to inductive conclusions out of a sense of prudence rather than necessity. Does that make sense?

Skomatth

08-26-2005, 20:24

Yes it makes sense. The confusion arose because I thought you were including deductive logic in your statement. I think the proper formulation of "a negative cannot be proved" is "the inductive principle cannot be used to prove non-existence".

A.Saturnus

08-26-2005, 20:30

Whether experience is self-generated or not and whether such properly reflect reality is a separate question. I know you have opted for a correspondence critique, but I don't think that is the proper formulation of the standard mystical appeal. It seems, particularly given the ontic overtones, that a coherence formula is more accurate. Further, should we restrict ourselves to correspondence positions I don't think mystical claims are any more vulnerable to critique than other experience. If one accepts basic empirical appeals as a basis for knowledge claims then mystical experience would fall within those bounds.

As I said above, I reject a coherence criterium. It is much too powerful.
And yes, you´re right, mystical claims are not more vulnerable to critique than other experiences. The same uncertainty I claimed for mystical appeals count as well for any other empirical method. And that is why I said the important point of this discussion is the meaning of "reliable". Since experiences can be deceitful, we require a systematic approach that minimizes the chance of deceit. This systemtic approach sees 'reliable' information as such that plausibility is not achieved by emotional appeal, but by the fulfillment of certain criteria, namely objectivity and statistical considerations. Because of that, a mystical appeal can be reliable if - and only if - it is open for scientific investigation. Just like any other empirical method.

Pindar

08-26-2005, 23:04

As I said above, I reject a coherence criterium. It is much too powerful.

I understand, but I don't know if a proper reading of mystical fare can be given without a coherence model. It seems to be the basic thrust of mystical claims.

And yes, you´re right, mystical claims are not more vulnerable to critique than other experiences. The same uncertainty I claimed for mystical appeals count as well for any other empirical method. And that is why I said the important point of this discussion is the meaning of "reliable". Since experiences can be deceitful, we require a systematic approach that minimizes the chance of deceit. This systemtic approach sees 'reliable' information as such that plausibility is not achieved by emotional appeal, but by the fulfillment of certain criteria, namely objectivity and statistical considerations. Because of that, a mystical appeal can be reliable if - and only if - it is open for scientific investigation. Just like any other empirical method.

I don't think mysticism is science. I think it is a mistake to apply a scientific regimen to a decidedly unscientific arena. There is no standard by which one who claims ineffable knowledge can then make it effable which is what science would require. Still, mystical systems are not completely closed. Zen, Sufi, various Christian mendicant orders etc. all espouse a method whereby one can "know" with the charge: now go and do likewise.

Do you like being free of the moderator's robes?

Pindar

08-26-2005, 23:08

bmolsson

08-28-2005, 05:04

You could say:

Gods are good. They protect their created subjects. Nobody protects us and our world is not good. Therefore there is no God.

Aenlic

08-28-2005, 05:43

Wonderful discussion. You probably lost a lot of people when it got down, or would it be up, to the level of Otto's numen. We'd best hope that no other Friesians wander in here or they'll suffer massive myocardial infarctions. Karl Popper would pop a blood vessel, at the very least. ~D

Paul Peru

08-28-2005, 07:21

Logically this is an untenable position. It also shifts the focus of discussion.
You're right on both counts, of course.
As for shifting the focus of the discussion, I kind of apologized for that.

As for the non-existence of God, you're right that I can't prove it. I am aware of this.
So when I want to be clever I describe myself as a "whatheist" (works slightly better in Norwegian)

An atheist says "there is no God", which is strictly an untenable position.
I actually say "Whether there's a what, now? Why should I even consider such a ludicrous proposition?"
The answer to which is "I was taught'n'told", "there must be something" or some similarly unconvincing statement.

That God is of such a nature that a world without God is indistinguishable from a world without God is the one fact that makes it possible to believe in God, for if His followers claimed that He made a difference in anyway, they would be asked to prove it.

As for mystical experiences. Pindar mentions that they are "available" under many contradictory belief systems. Does not this give us some clue?

Pindar

08-28-2005, 17:44

Wonderful discussion. You probably lost a lot of people when it got down, or would it be up, to the level of Otto's numen.

Its the nature of the beast.

Pindar

08-28-2005, 17:48

You're right on both counts, of course.
As for shifting the focus of the discussion, I kind of apologized for that.

As for the non-existence of God, you're right that I can't prove it. I am aware of this.
So when I want to be clever I describe myself as a "whatheist" (works slightly better in Norwegian)

An atheist says "there is no God", which is strictly an untenable position.
I actually say "Whether there's a what, now? Why should I even consider such a ludicrous proposition?"

So your "whattheism" has a pinch of pragmatism.

Is this common for denizens of Yurp?

Byzantine Prince

08-28-2005, 18:27

One doesn't need to prove God's existence. It's like someone challenging someone else to prove santa doesn't exist. It's a stupid argument to begin with, IMO. If there really was a god and wanted us to believe him he should give us more modern proof of his existence. Something we can all grasp and say "God did this".

And we shouldn't jump into conclusions about the creation of the world either. There's no way we can ever accurately potray what hapened over those billions of years.

If you want to believe in God that's fine with me. But it's a leap of faith i'm not willing to take with you.

bmolsson

08-29-2005, 03:55

bmolsson

08-29-2005, 04:06

One doesn't need to prove God's existence.

I disagree. The current impact of religions and their thirst for power require serious research in the subject. The approach should be serious and it should be seen as a road to better understanding as well as reconciliation between everyone. If you can prove a fundamentalist wrong, he would stop being a fundamentalist and peace would walk earth....... :book: ~:cheers:

A.Saturnus

08-30-2005, 15:30

I understand, but I don't know if a proper reading of mystical fare can be given without a coherence model. It seems to be the basic thrust of mystical claims.

That´s the problem of mystical claims.

I don't think mysticism is science. I think it is a mistake to apply a scientific regimen to a decidedly unscientific arena. There is no standard by which one who claims ineffable knowledge can then make it effable which is what science would require. Still, mystical systems are not completely closed. Zen, Sufi, various Christian mendicant orders etc. all espouse a method whereby one can "know" with the charge: now go and do likewise.

I think the reasoning I´ve given above applies to all forms of experiences. You don´t need to call it science, but without a systematic method one shouldn´t speak of reliability.
That said, I don´t think because of that are mystical systems devoid of wisdom. I think there is wisdom outside reliability.

Deductive models cannot prove a negative either without first assuming a negative premise.

But with "no contradiction", you have a negative as axiome.

Do you like being free of the moderator's robes?

Yes, I do. It´s much better for my teint.

Aenlic

08-30-2005, 15:57

If one insists on "knowing" whether or not God exists, the solution is quite simple. Kill yourself and find out. Even then, the answer might not be conclusive. The cause of your disappearance into total oblivion with no afterlife could simply be that your timing was off and it was God's poker night with Saint Peter. Too bad. Not that you'll know; because you'll be dead.

Pindar

08-30-2005, 17:37

Posted by Pindar
I understand, but I don't know if a proper reading of mystical fare can be given without a coherence model. It seems to be the basic thrust of mystical claims.

That´s the problem of mystical claims.

Not the most charitable of responses or particularly compelling for any advocate.

I think the reasoning I´ve given above applies to all forms of experiences. You don´t need to call it science, but without a systematic method one shouldn´t speak of reliability.
That said, I don´t think because of that are mystical systems devoid of wisdom. I think there is wisdom outside reliability.

The mystical systems I can think of all have a method of sorts, but may or may not be bound to that method. They also all seem to recognize as vital the comportment of the subject: as in the state of the knower impacts what can be known. Reliability as it is tied to experience would seem to depend on the experience.

But with "no contradiction", you have a negative as axiome.

The beauty of assumptions is they can appear without any justification.

bmolsson

08-31-2005, 08:20

KafirChobee

08-31-2005, 11:18

How to get reliable information about God:

1. Smoke a joint (then think).
2. prostrate yourself face down; or cross your legs and get in the "lotus" possition. (after smoking a joint)
3. begin a mantra ... Aaaaaahmmmaaaaaaaaa, etc - is better to consult a disciple of the Lama to find your mantra to reach enlightenment (god), but Aaaaahmaaaaa may work. (after smoking a joint)
4. If you hear voices in your head - and they are coming from your neighbors dog - you might have a problem. Talk to Mommy before actually carrying that axe down the hall to kill her. It may not be god - might be the other guy (er, other god?)
5. All true Christians know that God lives in their hearts - where else would one look for information about God? (still, smoking a joint won't hurt)
6. If you are really interested, I have his personall cell phone number and am willing to share it for a small fee - say $10,000 (after all what is it worth to have a direct line to God?). Rev. Robertson gave it to me - honest.
7. Die, and test your faith. A good place to do this without having to commit the sin of suicide is Iraq - run out and join today. Do not pass goal - just go! [smoke a joint before going]
8. Say something against the new religious right - they'll haunt you 'til you believe in their information on god - and if you really learn to believe as they do, will introduce you to him. You maybe a bit surprised as how much he looks like Rev. Robertson - but, what did you expect? A perfect being? That allows the innocent to die (or doesn't pray for then too).
9. Believe as you will. Oh, wait - that's not right. oh, I know - it's believe as the church (regardless of domination) allows and when you die, you will see the face of god - which will blind you and you will live all eternity in darkness (as you have your life).
10. There is no ten. As there is no ONE. For a person to ask such an ambigious, and yet, biased question is to challenge the existance of a supremebeing. For this, you are going directly to hell. I spoke with God on your behalf, and he is still PO'ed. Bringing up a challenge to his being in any manner is considered a breach of one of the commandments (his words, not mine) - he's really upset about this and i doubt I can talk him out of it. Again, if maybe you give me $10,000 - I might be able to persuade her thatyou were just screwing around (I don't mean really screwing .. as we both know you are totally incapable of).

Yep. God is great, God is all. Sound familiar, yet? ~D

A.Saturnus

08-31-2005, 14:50

Not the most charitable of responses or particularly compelling for any advocate.

Not being able to meet a standard isn´t an argument against that standard.

The mystical systems I can think of all have a method of sorts, but may or may not be bound to that method. They also all seem to recognize as vital the comportment of the subject: as in the state of the knower impacts what can be known. Reliability as it is tied to experience would seem to depend on the experience.

Reliablity is dependent on experience but experience is not sufficient for reliability. Nor is comportment.

The beauty of assumptions is they can appear without any justification.

But not without cause ~;)

Pindar

08-31-2005, 17:47

Not being able to meet a standard isn´t an argument against that standard.

False or contrived standards have no force.

Reliablity is dependent on experience but experience is not sufficient for reliability.

Experience would say otherwise: the sun rose in the East again today.

But not without cause ~;)

Including this post no doubt.

Paul Peru

08-31-2005, 21:12

So your "whattheism" has a pinch of pragmatism.

Is this common for denizens of Yurp?
There's too much and too little of it.
The same goes for principles.
At least that's true for the corner of Yurp called Noway.
It's being highlighted because we'll have a parliamentary election in less than 2 weeks.

A.Saturnus

09-01-2005, 15:48

False or contrived standards have no force.

That´s trivial.

Experience would say otherwise: the sun rose in the East again today.

That´s not a counter-example. The observation that the sun rises always in the east is intersubjective and statistically testable. It is reliable by scientific standards.

Pindar

09-01-2005, 17:23

That´s trivial.

If discussion is concerned with a system that appears to follow a coherence model and your only rejoinder is based on a correspondence schema: that is a false standard and not very compelling.

That´s not a counter-example. The observation that the sun rises always in the east is intersubjective and statistically testable. It is reliable by scientific standards.

The sun rising in the East is not dependent on intersubjectivity. Neither is tasting salt. Recall what your wrote: "Reliability is dependent on experience but experience is not sufficient for reliability. " Experiencing the daily sunrise is sufficient to set a reliable standard. This applies for Robinson Crusoe as well as for any other man.

A.Saturnus

09-01-2005, 20:23

If discussion is concerned with a system that appears to follow a coherence model and your only rejoinder is based on a correspondence schema: that is a false standard and not very compelling.

That depends whether discussion is there for discussions sake or whether it has a use. You can demand that the obviously false assumptions of a system are not doubted, but then the whole discussion is pointless. You cannot simply "follow a coherence model", it´s not a matter of choice. The Coherence Theory of Truth is nonsense and all truth claims made under it pointless.

The sun rising in the East is not dependent on intersubjectivity. Neither is tasting salt. Recall what your wrote: "Reliability is dependent on experience but experience is not sufficient for reliability. " Experiencing the daily sunrise is sufficient to set a reliable standard. This applies for Robinson Crusoe as well as for any other man.

That´s an absurd claim as it denies the induction problem. If that were so, we would not need science and we always could trust our senses. It is a fact that some of our experiences are deceiving, that´s undeniable. We and also Crusoe can trust the sunrise because it has such a high statistical significance. An experience alone is not enough for reliability. If you claim otherwise you have a very strange definition of reliability.

Pindar

09-01-2005, 22:57

That depends whether discussion is there for discussions sake or whether it has a use. You can demand that the obviously false assumptions of a system are not doubted, but then the whole discussion is pointless. You cannot simply "follow a coherence model", it´s not a matter of choice. The Coherence Theory of Truth is nonsense and all truth claims made under it pointless.

False assumptions?, Nonsense? Pointless? Your hyperbole aside, given that coherence models have had standing with a number of thinkers of note and have even marked entire schools of thought i.e. German Idealism. Your chevalier dismissal is a little too provincial. This attitude should be checked all the more when the subject matter is metaphysical by definition. A coherence model where an Absolute is part of the paradigm does not seem so outlandish.

Now I don't know if a coherence model is the best way to understand mystical thought. There seem indications that move in that direction. Regardless, I am happy to entertain any and all notions to better understand it along rational lines. You should do the same.

That´s an absurd claim as it denies the induction problem. If that were so, we would not need science and we always could trust our senses. It is a fact that some of our experiences are deceiving, that´s undeniable. We and also Crusoe can trust the sunrise because it has such a high statistical significance. An experience alone is not enough for reliability. If you claim otherwise you have a very strange definition of reliability.

Reliability and necessity are not the same thing. When someone says X is reliable it means that it is generally the case that the conditions will apply. This does not preclude error nor is it meant to. But, if experience demonstrates some standard ("reliability" seems to suggest a history and thereby multiple exposure) it is not "absurd" to rely on that condition to be the case. If someone has ice cream and knows its cold and says so to their friend. It doesn't require scientific investigature or intersubjective reinforcement to guarantee the ice cream was in fact cold.

bmolsson

09-02-2005, 03:22

The sun rising in the East is not dependent on intersubjectivity. Neither is tasting salt. Recall what your wrote: "Reliability is dependent on experience but experience is not sufficient for reliability. " Experiencing the daily sunrise is sufficient to set a reliable standard. This applies for Robinson Crusoe as well as for any other man.

But the sun doesn't rise ...... Everyone knows that.... :book:

bmolsson

09-02-2005, 03:27

If someone has ice cream and knows its cold and says so to their friend. It doesn't require scientific investigature or intersubjective reinforcement to guarantee the ice cream was in fact cold.

Sounds very much as religion to me. The preacher has a belief that the ice cream is cold and he preach this to all his friends.

Pindar

09-02-2005, 08:39

Sounds very much as religion to me. The preacher has a belief that the ice cream is cold and he preach this to all his friends.

If the idea is someone reporting his experience then yes. The same would apply if someone was telling you about their car or a movie they saw. The focus is the experience, not the evangelism or report per say which may very well fall short in the telling.

The focus of mystical experience is the experience. This is not transferable.

bmolsson

09-02-2005, 12:14

If the idea is someone reporting his experience then yes. The same would apply if someone was telling you about their car or a movie they saw. The focus is the experience, not the evangelism or report per say which may very well fall short in the telling.

The focus of mystical experience is the experience. This is not transferable.

If so, then the ice cream experience is not transferable either...... ~;)

A.Saturnus

09-02-2005, 15:45

False assumptions?, Nonsense? Pointless? Your hyperbole aside, given that coherence models have had standing with a number of thinkers of note and have even marked entire schools of thought i.e. German Idealism.

The same could be said about communism. The fact is that the coherence theory of truth contradicts the common language understanding of truth and it can be used to defend obviously absurd position. I think I could show a coherent system in which I´m the emperor of china.

Now I don't know if a coherence model is the best way to understand mystical thought.
If the focus is to understand a system, I am willing to accept coherence. But understanding is not justification.

Reliability and necessity are not the same thing. When someone says X is reliable it means that it is generally the case that the conditions will apply. This does not preclude error nor is it meant to. But, if experience demonstrates some standard ("reliability" seems to suggest a history and thereby multiple exposure) it is not "absurd" to rely on that condition to be the case. If someone has ice cream and knows its cold and says so to their friend. It doesn't require scientific investigature or intersubjective reinforcement to guarantee the ice cream was in fact cold.
Your counter-examples do not apply well because they are trivial and part of every day life. The experience that ice cream is cold fits into the common understanding of the world. It´s nothing special. What needs to be explained are extraordinary experiences. If suddenly all ice cream tastes bitter, you need to investigate whether something´s wrong with the ice cream or your senses.

Pindar

09-02-2005, 16:53

If so, then the ice cream experience is not transferable either...... ~;)

That is correct.

Pindar

09-02-2005, 17:52

The same could be said about communism.

Certainly. The systemic problems with dialectical materialism stem from a deterministic stance that did not turn out to be correct. History flowed differently.

The fact is that the coherence theory of truth contradicts the common language understanding of truth and it can be used to defend obviously absurd position. I think I could show a coherent system in which I´m the emperor of china.

I thought you were the Emperor of China? Hmmm...

There are a number of coherence schema and arguing one cannot divorce himself from his own set of beliefs is not an absurd position. Further, if mystical experience involves some kind of entailment with the Absolute: then a coherence paradigm is not an absurd conclusion.

I'm sure you are aware that all the standard epistemic models have major issues. Neither correspondence or pragmatic models are free from serious critique.

If the focus is to understand a system, I am willing to accept coherence. But understanding is not justification.

Understanding is not justification, but I have found that it is generally better to understand before placing judgment.

Your counter-examples do not apply well because they are trivial and part of every day life. The experience that ice cream is cold fits into the common understanding of the world. It´s nothing special. What needs to be explained are extraordinary experiences. If suddenly all ice cream tastes bitter, you need to investigate whether something´s wrong with the ice cream or your senses.

Referencing the "trivial" or mundane as a basis for understanding more extraordinary fare seems exactly the stance one should take given both are considered to fall under the label: experience. If Ice cream shifted to tasting bitter then one would expect the subject to wonder why. But a shift in the object of experience is not what we have been considering. A Burmese refugee given ice cream for the first time who notes its cold doesn't have to wonder what's wrong with the ice cream or his senses. He accepts the experience for what it is. One would think that the more ice cream he had the more confident he would be in discussing flavors as well as the base sensation. Whether other Burmese refugees are so lucky to get ice cream does not change the subject's experience.

bmolsson

09-03-2005, 10:45

That is correct.

I guess asking you for advice on ice cream is a waste of time.... :bow:

A.Saturnus

09-03-2005, 19:43

I thought you were the Emperor of China? Hmmm...

There are a number of coherence schema and arguing one cannot divorce himself from his own set of beliefs is not an absurd position. Further, if mystical experience involves some kind of entailment with the Absolute: then a coherence paradigm is not an absurd conclusion.

Believes do not make truth and truth is always concrete. A coherence paradigma cannot even be a conclusion because - obviously - no paradigma can be proved. You assume a paradigma in order to reach a conclusion. But whatever the conclusion, the coherence paradigma is a bad one.

I'm sure you are aware that all the standard epistemic models have major issues. Neither correspondence or pragmatic models are free from serious critique.

I guess that´s the reason why logicians tried to find a better model for the last 50 years. Are you familiar with the Kripke-Feferman Model?

Understanding is not justification, but I have found that it is generally better to understand before placing judgment.
I didn´t judge mystical appeals. Again: I´m discussing reliability here.

Referencing the "trivial" or mundane as a basis for understanding more extraordinary fare seems exactly the stance one should take given both are considered to fall under the label: experience. If Ice cream shifted to tasting bitter then one would expect the subject to wonder why. But a shift in the object of experience is not what we have been considering. A Burmese refugee given ice cream for the first time who notes its cold doesn't have to wonder what's wrong with the ice cream or his senses. He accepts the experience for what it is. One would think that the more ice cream he had the more confident he would be in discussing flavors as well as the base sensation. Whether other Burmese refugees are so lucky to get ice cream does not change the subject's experience.
It still doesn´t apply. Even for the Burmese, experiencing ice cream wouldn´t be extraordinary. It is normal to apply the easiest explanation to any new fact. In case of cold ice cream, that is that the ice cream is cold. This explanation does not require any new concepts and can without any problem be implemented into a standard view on things.
Anyway, the Burmese could not claim to have reliable information about ice cream after just tasting it. The practitioners of occult magic have centuries of information over the working of it. None of that is reliable.

Byzantine Prince

09-03-2005, 20:33

It's funny that Pindar uses words the way he does to express ideas that so irrelevent to anything talked about. It always gives me a laugh. Keep up the good work Pindar!

bmolsson

09-04-2005, 02:51

It's funny that Pindar uses words the way he does to express ideas that so irrelevent to anything talked about. It always gives me a laugh. Keep up the good work Pindar!

It works pretty well though, it gives him a name in the hall of fame..... ~;)
He might get elected mayor next year..... ~:cheers:

Pindar

09-07-2005, 00:11

Believes do not make truth and truth is always concrete. A coherence paradigma cannot even be a conclusion because - obviously - no paradigma can be proved. You assume a paradigma in order to reach a conclusion. But whatever the conclusion, the coherence paradigma is a bad one.

"Sensations void of concepts are blind" - Kant

Believing the subject impacts experience while not being the source of that experience is not a bad paradigm given the amount of theoretical and scientific work that makes appeal to it. There has being no reverse of Kant's Copernican Revolution.

I'm sure you are aware that all the standard epistemic models have major issues. Neither correspondence or pragmatic models are free from serious critique.

I guess that´s the reason why logicians tried to find a better model for the last 50 years. Are you familiar with the Kripke-Feferman Model?

Perhaps you should have used the present progressive instead of the past tense when referring to the search for a better model. Whether one notes Kripke or Tarski or anybody else, my point stands: there is no definitive account. Each model suffers from serious critique. This applies to both deflationary and stronger truth models.

It still doesn´t apply. Even for the Burmese, experiencing ice cream wouldn´t be extraordinary. It is normal to apply the easiest explanation to any new fact. In case of cold ice cream, that is that the ice cream is cold. This explanation does not require any new concepts and can without any problem be implemented into a standard view on things.
Anyway, the Burmese could not claim to have reliable information about ice cream after just tasting it. The practitioners of occult magic have centuries of information over the working of it. None of that is reliable.

An experience is an experience whether it be mundane or no. The same dynamic applies. This is so whether one tries ice cream, discovers elephants, flies to the moon or tastes salt for the first time.. The reliability of the experience may rest on exposure (i.e. repeatability) but the ability to relate the experience to others effectively remains a separate matter. Further, the potency/value of the experience does not dissipate because some other doesn't believe in ice cream.

As far as the reliability of magic goes: I guess that depends on whether you're the Witch of Endor or not.

Pindar

09-07-2005, 00:23

It's funny that Pindar uses words the way he does to express ideas that so irrelevent to anything talked about. It always gives me a laugh. Keep up the good work Pindar!

Back to the shallow end of the pool. Those who can barely spell Nietzsche don't meet the minimum height requirement.

Those who don't know what they don't know are a hazard to themselves and others.

bmolsson

09-07-2005, 02:52

The reliability of the experience may rest on exposure (i.e. repeatability) but the ability to relate the experience to others effectively remains a separate matter.

So a possible re-run of an experience would make it more reliable ?

bmolsson

09-07-2005, 02:56

For some reason this thread made me think of this quote:

People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

~;)

Byzantine Prince

09-07-2005, 03:20

Back to the shallow end of the pool. Those who can barely spell Nietzsche don't meet the minimum height requirement.

Those who don't know what they don't know are a hazard to themselves and others.
I can spell Nietzsche fine, and it's not even an english word! See what I mean? You just did what I described right here. What does someone else's spelling have to do with you using complicated words to describe things that have no relevence to the main point? Even if I was as stupid as you thought my ability to spell would have no relation to that.

Also you can't mask a clear insult to my intellect with some clever words.

What hazard? Oh man, you are so much funnier then you people here realize! ~D

Pindar

09-07-2005, 05:23

So a possible re-run of an experience would make it more reliable ?

It may. Something repeatable or experienced by others would seem to add more as a opposed to less credence to an experience. Experience is not transferable, as I noted earlier with the ice cream example, but that doesn't mean others couldn't have their own similar experience which one may be able to make comparisons with.

Pindar

09-07-2005, 05:23

I can spell Nietzsche fine, and it's not even an english word! See what I mean? You just did what I described right here. What does someone else's spelling have to do with you using complicated words to describe things that have no relevence to the main point? Even if I was as stupid as you thought my ability to spell would have no relation to that.

You missed the point.

bmolsson

09-07-2005, 05:33

It may. Something repeatable or experienced by others would seem to add more as a opposed to less credence to an experience. Experience is not transferable, as I noted earlier with the ice cream example, but that doesn't mean others couldn't have their own similar experience which one may be able to make comparisons with.

So a soap opera aired in enough re-runs would have a larger reliability than a flash news program aired once ?

Pindar

09-07-2005, 05:42

So a soap opera aired in enough re-runs would have a larger reliability than a flash news program aired once ?

One might be more confident about the details as well as the actual experience of a soap opera they saw over and over as opposed to something only seen once.

Roark

09-07-2005, 07:38

The practitioners of occult magic have centuries of information over the working of it. None of that is reliable.

As with historical manuscripts or even plain old everyday advice, the wheat has to be sorted from the chaff.

Many magickal techniques are perfectly reliable at achieving their purpose if implemented correctly. Quite often, though, the casual armchair dabbler has an incorrect assumption about what that purpose is.

bmolsson

09-07-2005, 09:33

One might be more confident about the details as well as the actual experience of a soap opera they saw over and over as opposed to something only seen once.

So we are actually talking about learning here. Repeated experience will create a sense of "truth". The experience doesn't really have anything to do with reality and will become something by itself.
With modern technology you can experience things which in older times was impossible. This would mean that you can make re-run on experiences made by others and then share them over a modern media.
The repeated experiences will become the way of life and create a new set of knowledge among the individuals that experience it.

I think that we here have caught the religions. You are served repeated experiences until you accept them as truth and a part of your reality. This enables the "leadership" use the experience process to form the individuals it need most.

In the end, experiences are transferred and are actually becoming the accepted truth. So I must say that we actually can transfer experiences and have done so for thousands of years through the use of religions......

Pindar

09-07-2005, 10:16

So we are actually talking about learning here. Repeated experience will create a sense of "truth". The experience doesn't really have anything to do with reality and will become something by itself.

The question is focused on reliable information, or more specifically reliable information about a metaphysical object: God. Experience is often taken as a standard for reliability. I have been using that same standard and applying it to God as understood through the general mystical tradition. Reliability is not necessity nor is it truth. Rather it is a standard by which and through which judgments can be made about some X. Mystical experience therefore would be a vehicle for the subject to make judgments about the Absolute.

Now Saturnus and I have been focused on epistemic models, particularly concerning coherence theories. Saturnus rejects them as deeply flawed, seeing such as assumptive schema that can only feed on themselves. I have been arguing that the entailment of a coherence model may be the appropriate way to understand mystical experience. If that is right, it would mean such experience would contain a level of surety normally denied experience claims as the subject/object distinction would be crossed in many ways.

A.Saturnus

09-08-2005, 21:21

"Sensations void of concepts are blind" - Kant

Believing the subject impacts experience while not being the source of that experience is not a bad paradigm given the amount of theoretical and scientific work that makes appeal to it. There has being no reverse of Kant's Copernican Revolution.

That´s out of the question, but it affects only the experience, not the truth. The truth is out there and any serious theory of truth has to reflect that. If our convictions are not congruent to the truth out there they are false. Coherent or not.

Perhaps you should have used the present progressive instead of the past tense when referring to the search for a better model. Whether one notes Kripke or Tarski or anybody else, my point stands: there is no definitive account. Each model suffers from serious critique. This applies to both deflationary and stronger truth models.
I don´t deny that, but some models do better than others. The truth predicate of a model should at least try to resamble the common sense understanding of the term. The coherence model doesn´t do that.

An experience is an experience whether it be mundane or no. The same dynamic applies. This is so whether one tries ice cream, discovers elephants, flies to the moon or tastes salt for the first time.. The reliability of the experience may rest on exposure (i.e. repeatability) but the ability to relate the experience to others effectively remains a separate matter. Further, the potency/value of the experience does not dissipate because some other doesn't believe in ice cream.
An experience is an experience but reliability is different whether it is mundane or not. A mundane experience is uncontested, extraordinary ones never are. Cold and bitter are both experiences but if you claim that ice cream is cold, anyone will believe you instantly. On the other hand, that ice cream tastes bitter, will be met with suspicion. Thus, there must be a difference in reliablity, otherwise you would have to call that irrational.
If reliablity would only need experience, magic would be reliable for anyone, not just the Witch of Endor.

Oh, and don´t feed the troll.

bmolsson

09-09-2005, 07:21

The question is focused on reliable information, or more specifically reliable information about a metaphysical object: God. Experience is often taken as a standard for reliability. I have been using that same standard and applying it to God as understood through the general mystical tradition. Reliability is not necessity nor is it truth. Rather it is a standard by which and through which judgments can be made about some X. Mystical experience therefore would be a vehicle for the subject to make judgments about the Absolute.

Now Saturnus and I have been focused on epistemic models, particularly concerning coherence theories. Saturnus rejects them as deeply flawed, seeing such as assumptive schema that can only feed on themselves. I have been arguing that the entailment of a coherence model may be the appropriate way to understand mystical experience. If that is right, it would mean such experience would contain a level of surety normally denied experience claims as the subject/object distinction would be crossed in many ways.

But isn't everything that we document based on experience ? The written word, test results and knowledge taught through life are nothing absolute. With this point of view, nothing is certain and nothing is really true.

Saturnus is only defending scientifical views and rejects any assumptions based on experience.....

Adrian II

09-09-2005, 08:46

Saturnus is only defending scientifical views and rejects any assumptions based on experience.....So you guys are still at it. Any reliable information about God yet?
:coffeenews:

Papewaio

09-09-2005, 09:06

He was banned from the Org for saying everyone was going to Hell.

Man He knows how to start a flame war.

:angel: :devil:

Adrian II

09-09-2005, 09:12

He was banned from the Org for saying everyone was going to Hell.

Man He knows how to start a flame war.

:angel: :devil:So he was the guy who got banned for using multiple accounts? Go TosaInu!
~:cheers:

Papewaio

09-09-2005, 09:27

Yeah 3 of them.

We figured one was a ghost account and nailed a second to him while the third threatened to turn us into salt and send us to hell with a case of lime and tequila.

Adrian II

09-09-2005, 09:43

Yeah 3 of them.

We figured one was a ghost account and nailed a second to him while the third threatened to turn us into salt and send us to hell with a case of lime and tequila.So God fits the profile of a high-school dropout with a credit card, no job, no GF and absentee parents. I knew it.

Papewaio

09-09-2005, 10:08

So God fits the profile of a high-school dropout with a credit card, no job, no GF and absentee parents. I knew it.

Well describes Jesus after he ditched his job as a Carpenter... :balloon2:

Did he have a credit card?
A Girlfriend?

Adrian II

09-09-2005, 11:19

Well describes Jesus after he ditched his job as a Carpenter... :balloon2:

Did he have a credit card?
A Girlfriend?He didn't have much of a role model, that is for sure. :balloon:

Pindar

09-10-2005, 00:49

That´s out of the question, but it affects only the experience, not the truth. The truth is out there and any serious theory of truth has to reflect that. If our convictions are not congruent to the truth out there they are false. Coherent or not.

Something being "out of the question" means that thing is an impossibility. Judging from the full sentence I think you meant the opposite. If I'm right here then I think we can agree on a epistemic model. Admitting the subject informs experience easily lends itself to an entailment paradigm which I am putting forward as the standard mystical model. Further, I thought we were working with an empirical approach so the "truth" if it applies to something beyond experience (i.e. the nouminal) can be bracketed.

An experience is an experience but reliability is different whether it is mundane or not. A mundane experience is uncontested, extraordinary ones never are. Cold and bitter are both experiences but if you claim that ice cream is cold, anyone will believe you instantly. On the other hand, that ice cream tastes bitter, will be met with suspicion. Thus, there must be a difference in reliability, otherwise you would have to call that irrational.
If reliability would only need experience, magic would be reliable for anyone, not just the Witch of Endor.

Contesting an experience, as you've described it, occurs from an outside element. Such cannot and does not add or distract from the experience proper which remains subject dependant. For example: if Moses comes down off the Mountain and says he has conversed with the Lord. This may appear an extraordinary claim and people may draw a variety of conclusions: 'Moses is the Lord's prophet' or 'Moses is a loon' are two possible choices. Regardless the conclusion people draw, those sentiments do not change the truth value of Moses' claim. The same applies with the ice cream example. Other refugees may or may not have ever tasted ice cream, but our subject's statement that the ice cream was cold stands as an independent claim. Experiences considered mundane are usually thought so because so many have a similar touch stone. Whether ice cream was truly a first for our refugee and his fellows may determine whether it falls into the mundane or extraordinary slot, but it will not determine the truth value of the statement or its reliability. The reliability may be based on the subject's memory and access to more ice cream. Recall that reliability is necessarily tied to the perceptions of the subject and therfore can be constrained by the same.

Oh, and don´t feed the troll.

You are quite right. :bow:

Pindar

09-10-2005, 00:56

But isn't everything that we document based on experience ?

Both of us are following a empirical approach. I think talking about reliability may require it.

Pindar

09-10-2005, 00:57

So you guys are still at it. Any reliable information about God yet?
:coffeenews:

Yes. :coffeenews:

bmolsson

09-10-2005, 03:47

So you guys are still at it. Any reliable information about God yet?
:coffeenews:

We are getting worried here. He doesn't answer his phone and his E-mail bounce back...... :help:

bmolsson

09-10-2005, 03:51

A Girlfriend?

What do you think? His mother was a virgin for crying out loud !!!

bmolsson

09-10-2005, 03:54

Both of us are following a empirical approach. I think talking about reliability may require it.

Why ?

Pindar

09-10-2005, 18:10

by Pindar
Both of us are following a empirical approach. I think talking about reliability may require it.
Why ?

As I mentioned in a previous post, reliability implies a history for the thing indicated. Through this history, this exposure, the confidence to make a claim is determined. Reliability also implies its opposite, 'unreliable' as an option which again is subject to a past. History is not a category of analytic or formal appeals.

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 18:13

We are getting worried here. He doesn't answer his phone and his E-mail bounce back...... :help:That's because of all the nonsense you have spouted about Him and the demise of democracy. So there!
~;)

Byzantine Prince

09-10-2005, 18:32

Are you cunning christians finding anything out yet? ~;)

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 18:36

Are you cunning christians finding anything out yet? ~;)Have you finally finished that Nietzsche book? :mellow:

Byzantine Prince

09-10-2005, 18:51

I've finished 5 and I've thought about them in depth thank you very much. ~:)

I'm worried about you guys. Your heads are going to hurt after all that speculation. ~:eek:

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 18:54

I've finished 5 and I've thought about them in depth thank you very much. ~:) I recognised Nietzsche in your cunning* reference. It's been a while for me though, so what book is that from?

* = 'Ihr schlaue Christen' -- this specially for Kaiser...

bmolsson

09-11-2005, 13:39

As I mentioned in a previous post, reliability implies a history for the thing indicated. Through this history, this exposure, the confidence to make a claim is determined. Reliability also implies its opposite, 'unreliable' as an option which again is subject to a past. History is not a category of analytic or formal appeals.

If you make a scientifical experiment a repeated amount of times, you would call the history of the experiment reliable.
If you see an occurance happen repeated amoung of times you would the history of the occurance reliable.
What is the difference ?

Pindar

09-11-2005, 18:47

If you make a scientifical experiment a repeated amount of times, you would call the history of the experiment reliable.
If you see an occurance happen repeated amoung of times you would the history of the occurance reliable.
What is the difference ?

Both of these statement appeal to experience. That is where the discussion is focused: experience.

Byzantine Prince

09-11-2005, 19:16

It doesn't matter how many times god or jesus have performed their miracles, because I'll never see any of that, therefore it's about as believable as ancient greek mythology. You can't prove either existed.

You talk of experience in terms of theology I take it. are you refering to our experience as individuals or in terms of humanity's experience?

Papewaio

09-12-2005, 02:43

How do you prove that Nietzsche existed?

bmolsson

09-12-2005, 03:30

Both of these statement appeal to experience. That is where the discussion is focused: experience.

Which is not transferable according to you ? Or ?

It seems to me that you don't see human experience as reliable and actually don't trust the very foundation of our modern society.

A.Saturnus

09-12-2005, 15:08

A.Saturnus

09-12-2005, 15:25

Something being "out of the question" means that thing is an impossibility. Judging from the full sentence I think you meant the opposite. If I'm right here then I think we can agree on a epistemic model. Admitting the subject informs experience easily lends itself to an entailment paradigm which I am putting forward as the standard mystical model. Further, I thought we were working with an empirical approach so the "truth" if it applies to something beyond experience (i.e. the nouminal) can be bracketed.

I meant the reversal of Kant´s Cartesian Revolution. Sorry for being unclear.
I´m not willing to bracket anything. An empirical aproach makes only sense if we start with the assumptions that the empiry is a reflection of the world outside us. We do not want to understand our experiences but their causes. The Because of that, coherence is insufficient. If two systems of believe disagree, at least one must be wrong. Truth is not tolerant.

Contesting an experience, as you've described it, occurs from an outside element. Such cannot and does not add or distract from the experience proper which remains subject dependant. For example: if Moses comes down off the Mountain and says he has conversed with the Lord. This may appear an extraordinary claim and people may draw a variety of conclusions: 'Moses is the Lord's prophet' or 'Moses is a loon' are two possible choices. Regardless the conclusion people draw, those sentiments do not change the truth value of Moses' claim. The same applies with the ice cream example. Other refugees may or may not have ever tasted ice cream, but our subject's statement that the ice cream was cold stands as an independent claim. Experiences considered mundane are usually thought so because so many have a similar touch stone. Whether ice cream was truly a first for our refugee and his fellows may determine whether it falls into the mundane or extraordinary slot, but it will not determine the truth value of the statement or its reliability. The reliability may be based on the subject's memory and access to more ice cream. Recall that reliability is necessarily tied to the perceptions of the subject and therfore can be constrained by the same.

Wether an experience is mundane or extraordinary doesn´t affect the truth value but the reliability. Those two are quiet distinct. If I have the experience that Elvis is taking me to a space trip, it is reasonable to assume a hallucination since the actual happening is so unlikely. The reliablity of that experience would be low. Even if it is repeated.
One thing should be clear by now: this is not about the reliability that I had the experience, but the reliability of what the experience is telling me about the things I experience. Reliability is a quality of information.

Pindar

09-12-2005, 22:26

Which is not transferable according to you?

I don't think experience is considered transferable by anyone. Subjects are distinct. Even individuals who exeprience the same event can come away with radically differents takes: crime sceens, food eaten, movies etc. are simple examples.

It seems to me that you don't see human experience as reliable and actually don't trust the very foundation of our modern society.

I don't understand why you drew this conclusion.

Pindar

09-12-2005, 22:50

I meant the reversal of Kant´s Cartesian Revolution. Sorry for being unclear.
I´m not willing to bracket anything. An empirical aproach makes only sense if we start with the assumptions that the empiry is a reflection of the world outside us. We do not want to understand our experiences but their causes. The Because of that, coherence is insufficient. If two systems of believe disagree, at least one must be wrong. Truth is not tolerant.

I see. Very interesting. What is your vehicle to clarify the cause of a correspondence schema. There is the phenomena itself, but unless you defer to a Ding-an-sich framework, how are you going to avoid a solipsistic conclusion. If you do make such deference then, you have posited an extra-phenomenal reality.

Another question: do you reject the idea the subject impacts experience? If so, are you arguing for a naive realism? If not, your critical position seems compromised.

Wether an experience is mundane or extraordinary doesn´t affect the truth value but the reliability. Those two are quiet distinct.

I agree.

If I have the experience that Elvis is taking me to a space trip, it is reasonable to assume a hallucination since the actual happening is so unlikely. The reliablity of that experience would be low. Even if it is repeated.
One thing should be clear by now: this is not about the reliability that I had the experience, but the reliability of what the experience is telling me about the things I experience. Reliability is a quality of information.

What's our definition of reliable? I think the standard is trustworthiness and may be expanded to include notions of function. Now not all experience is immediately functional or the function may be discreet, but both ideas reflect back on the subject itself. Thus, reliability is ultimately determinable by the subject: whether other persons recognize the same is a separate issue.

Quality of information is also rather open ended. If Elvis gave the grand tour of the space ship, which one could apply the whole of their sensual faculties toward: sight, touch, dinging for sound and even tasting I suppose (this is to distinguish from simple hallucinations which I believe are only visual) that would seem to move the experience up on the level of credence. If this is right then more sensory access heightens the quality. Further, if the experience were repeatable and/or others confirmed similar Elvis space tours then again the reliability would seem to further heighten. Still, I don't think such is required to determine reliability: Moses on the mountain or our refugee being the only one of his mates to actually taste ice cream may still consider their experience very reliable irrespective of outside or limited confirmation. It may be the larger community locks both Moses and the refugee up for their claims about Deity and ice cream, but institutionalization does not impact the truth value (as you noted) nor does it determine reliability. Now people as social creatures may be influenced by their peers, so perhaps Moses could be convinced he didn't have any grand experience on Sinai, or our refugee convinced that his ice cream actually tasted bitter, but that simply means Moses, the refugee and those around him have agreed to a certain set of conditions and reversed one accepted standard for another, in which case, the determination has moved beyond the experience itself.

bmolsson

09-13-2005, 04:20

I don't think experience is considered transferable by anyone. Subjects are distinct. Even individuals who exeprience the same event can come away with radically differents takes: crime sceens, food eaten, movies etc. are simple examples.

If so, how do you document results and experiences to move science and society forward ?

I don't understand why you drew this conclusion.

Experience ?? ~D

Pindar

09-13-2005, 05:57

If so, how do you document results and experiences to move science and society forward ?

It gets written down and others attempt to replicate the result. Science is based on the notion of symmetry.

A.Saturnus

09-13-2005, 17:02

I see. Very interesting. What is your vehicle to clarify the cause of a correspondence schema. There is the phenomena itself, but unless you defer to a Ding-an-sich framework, how are you going to avoid a solipsistic conclusion. If you do make such deference then, you have posited an extra-phenomenal reality.

Of course I posit an extra-phenomenal reality.

Another question: do you reject the idea the subject impacts experience? If so, are you arguing for a naive realism? If not, your critical position seems compromised.
Now you have me confused. I thought that my position in this thread is that experience is compromised by the state of the mind of the subject. If the subject would not impact experience, all experiences would be reliable. It seems rather that you argue for naive realism.

What's our definition of reliable? I think the standard is trustworthiness and may be expanded to include notions of function. Now not all experience is immediately functional or the function may be discreet, but both ideas reflect back on the subject itself. Thus, reliability is ultimately determinable by the subject: whether other persons recognize the same is a separate issue.
Reliability may be seen as the chance that the certain outside circumstances cause the expected experience. It can be linked to predictability. Reliability is determinable by the subject, but feedback from others increase reliability. It´s not that relaibility would be a dualistic notion. It is dimensional. Whether others recognize the same is not a seperate issue. Objective information is always more reliable than subjective one.
Of course, people can be mistaken about the reliability of information.

Quality of information is also rather open ended. If Elvis gave the grand tour of the space ship, which one could apply the whole of their sensual faculties toward: sight, touch, dinging for sound and even tasting I suppose (this is to distinguish from simple hallucinations which I believe are only visual) that would seem to move the experience up on the level of credence. If this is right then more sensory access heightens the quality. Further, if the experience were repeatable and/or others confirmed similar Elvis space tours then again the reliability would seem to further heighten. Still, I don't think such is required to determine reliability: Moses on the mountain or our refugee being the only one of his mates to actually taste ice cream may still consider their experience very reliable irrespective of outside or limited confirmation. It may be the larger community locks both Moses and the refugee up for their claims about Deity and ice cream, but institutionalization does not impact the truth value (as you noted) nor does it determine reliability. Now people as social creatures may be influenced by their peers, so perhaps Moses could be convinced he didn't have any grand experience on Sinai, or our refugee convinced that his ice cream actually tasted bitter, but that simply means Moses, the refugee and those around him have agreed to a certain set of conditions and reversed one accepted standard for another, in which case, the determination has moved beyond the experience itself.

You´re mistaken. Hallucinations can involve all senses. The information you get from an experience must be matched with other information. If information is conflicting, reliability is reduced. If Moses says he talked to god, while others say that he didn´t, it is necessary to question both the reliability of Moses´ experience and the reliability of the others (even for Moses himself!). It is not possible that both reliabilities are high. Generally, if sensation can be enough for reliability, why can´t hearsay?

Byzantine Prince

09-13-2005, 19:32

SwordsMaster

09-13-2005, 19:38

LOL. I know I'm late with this, but I havent noticed this topic for a while. And boy, this is the best heading for a topic I've seen in a while! Its just contradiction in itself. ~D

Now the question left to answer is: Does God believe in atheists?

Pindar

09-14-2005, 00:41

Of course I posit an extra-phenomenal reality.

Now you have me confused. I thought that my position in this thread is that experience is compromised by the state of the mind of the subject.

So you admit a reality beyond the realm of experience but nonetheless tie knowledge to the empirical and agree that the subject impacts experience. You sound like you are within bounds of a Kantian framework which is a coherence schema.

Reliability is determinable by the subject, but feedback from others increase reliability.

Good, a base reliability is subject bound.

You´re mistaken. Hallucinations can involve all senses.

I see.

The information you get from an experience must be matched with other information. If information is conflicting, reliability is reduced. If Moses says he talked to god, while others say that he didn´t, it is necessary to question both the reliability of Moses´ experience and the reliability of the others (even for Moses himself!). It is not possible that both reliabilities are high. Generally, if sensation can be enough for reliability, why can´t hearsay?

This matching or informational coherence remains ultimately an internal dynamic bound to and determinable by the experiencing subject. This remains the case regardless of any reinforcement, or its opposite, brought to the table by other sources. I assume you agree given your statement above. Now, let me illustrate this point. In the New Testament, Acts 7 the Christian Stephen is brought before the Council of the High Priest and the following is recorded:

"54When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. 55But (Stephen), being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. 57Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 58And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul. 59And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Stephen claims to have a heavenly vision while in the presence of others who see nothing it would seem. Either Stephen saw the Heavens opened or he didn't. Regardless, he considered the experience reliable enough, irrespective of others present, to sacrifice himself because of it. Reliability, as previously stated, remains determinable by the subject and that is the point.

Pindar

09-14-2005, 01:01

You both realize that this could go on forever and neither of your opinions and views on the subject would change one bit, right?

As I said in another thread this dialectic form of communication is not meaningful. As long as you write down your opinion in a concice and relevent way, you will have the impact that you meant to have, but debating everything over and over is quite pointless.

Good thinkers know how to ruminate. You should know about chewing cud as a self described Nietzsche aficionado.

"Thus passes the day to the virtuous. When night comes, then take I good care not to summon sleep. It dislikes to be summoned- sleep, the lord of the virtues!
But I think of what I have done and thought during the day. Thus chewing the cud, patient as a cow, I ask myself: What were your ten overcomings?
And what were the ten reconciliations, and the ten truths, and the ten laughters with which my heart enjoyed itself?
Thus pondering, and cradled by forty thoughts, I am overcome by sleep, the unsummoned, the lord of the virtues."

-Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Byzantine Prince

09-14-2005, 01:31

Do you want me to bring up what he says about Socrates and Plato and dialectics? That would crush the little excitement you get out of your little debates.

If you state your opinion correctly and elegantly any other debate is quite pointless since it'll basically be you and the other guy saying "you are wrong, this is why...". Don't you recognize that pattern?

As for Thus Spoke Zarathustra you can't take something like that and try to prove something. There are entire chapters in that book dedicated to making fun of people with virtues and how important they think they are. Nietzsche's philosophy teaches against ideals and idealism. If you want to be your own person you should make your own ideal and then enforce, not of the groups.

Here's one of my favorite quotes from Twilight of the Idols. I think it proves some of me previous points.

What alone can our teaching be? That no one gives a human being his qualities--neither God, nor society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor he himself. ( --The nonsensical here last rejected was propounded asintellligable freedom by Kant) No one is acountable for existing at all, for being constituted as he is, or for living in the circumstances and sourroundings in which he lives. The fatality of his nature cannot be disentangled from the fatality of all that which has been and will be. He is not the result of some special design, or a will, or a purpose; he is not the subject of an attempt to attain an 'ideal of man' or an 'ideal of happiness' or an 'ideal of morality' -- it is absurd to wish to hand-over one's nature to some ideal or another. We have invented the concept of 'purpose': in reality purpose is lacking.... One is necessary, one is a piece of fate, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole; there exists nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or sentence our being, for that would be to judge, measure, compare, or sentence the whole.... But nothing exists apart from the whole! -- That noone is any longer held acountable, that the kind of being manifested cannot be traced back to causa prima, that the world is a unity neither as a sensorium or as 'spirit'--this alone is the great liberation -- thus alone is the innocence of becoming restored. The concept God has hitherto been the greatest objection to existence. We deny God, in denying god we deny accountability: only by doing that do we redeem the world.

Ahhhh, if only nietzsche was alive to post on this website.... ~D

Adrian II

09-14-2005, 01:33

Ahhhh, if only nietzsche was alive to post on this website.... ~DHe would have no trouble demonstrating his notion of an eternal recurrence of the same, Byzantine Prince.

Papewaio

09-14-2005, 09:35

If you state your opinion correctly and elegantly any other debate is quite pointless since it'll basically be you and the other guy saying "you are wrong, this is why...". Don't you recognize that pattern?

Pretty big If... considering the limits of words and the way both the writer and reader will interpret the words.

From my point of view a debate is like a dance in which both will whirl around covering ground together that alone one would be left beside the wall.

It gives more perspectives and with the greater understanding of the nuances of the debate, the language and the object of debate a greater understanding of the person you debate with is gained.

I often take an opposing point of view not to win an arguement but to gain greater insight into my fellow debator. Do they believe in something because it is fashionable or because they do believe in it? Do they have a fiery temper or do they stay cool under pressure.

There are many things of interest that are revealed in a debate which often have little to do with what is the point that is being chewed upon.

A.Saturnus

09-14-2005, 19:08

You both realize that this could go on forever and neither of your opinions and views on the subject would change one bit, right?

As I said in another thread this dialectic form of communication is not meaningful. As long as you write down your opinion in a concice and relevent way, you will have the impact that you meant to have, but debating everything over and over is quite pointless.

In the contrary, only by a dialectic communciation we can mimimize the chance of mistake.
Informal proofs are inferior to formal proofs. If I had a formal proof for my position, I only had to present it. The opponent would then need to point out the precise position of a syntactical mistake or all reasonable doubt disappears.
Alas, neither of us has such a proof. Therefore we have to present our thoughts and match them. Only if you´re willing and able to defend your position against critique from various sides, you can claim to be intellectually honest.
In fact, you´re proving my point. The intersubjective discourse increases the reliability of convictions.Thank you ~:)

Now the question left to answer is: Does God believe in atheists?

Should she exist, she better believes in atheists. Otherwise she would be mistaken.

Byzantine Prince

09-14-2005, 20:35

In the contrary, only by a dialectic communciation we can mimimize the chance of mistake.
What mistake? Your only mistake is not having any convictions.

Informal proofs are inferior to formal proofs. If I had a formal proof for my position, I only had to present it. The opponent would then need to point out the precise position of a syntactical mistake or all reasonable doubt disappears.
A clearly and obviously self-contradictory thread like "How to get reliable info about God" is hardly the place to be reasonable, unless you were debating something else. Sometimes I can't even tell what the object of the conversation is because you only speak in concepts and nothing concrete.

Alas, neither of us has such a proof. Therefore we have to present our thoughts and match them. Only if you´re willing and able to defend your position against critique from various sides, you can claim to be intellectually honest.
Only you feel that need. I don't care what people think about my opinion.

In fact, you´re proving my point. The intersubjective discourse increases the reliability of convictions.Thank you ~:)
Ok. well I never debated Nietzsche, yet he changed my mind about a lot of things. How do you explain that?

I was a Christian for most of my life, and then I changed, with no debating that leads nowhere. I have never been swayed by all the 3,000 posts I have done. My only influence is myself!

Pindar

09-14-2005, 21:49

In the contrary, only by a dialectic communciation we can mimimize the chance of mistake.
Informal proofs are inferior to formal proofs. If I had a formal proof for my position, I only had to present it. The opponent would then need to point out the precise position of a syntactical mistake or all reasonable doubt disappears.
Alas, neither of us has such a proof. Therefore we have to present our thoughts and match them. Only if you´re willing and able to defend your position against critique from various sides, you can claim to be intellectually honest.
In fact, you´re proving my point. The intersubjective discourse increases the reliability of convictions.Thank you ~:)

This is exactly right.

Should she exist, she better believes in atheists. Otherwise she would be mistaken.

Also correct.

What mistake? Your only mistake is not having any convictions.

Charging Saturnus with no convictions means you have not read or did not understand what he has written.

A clearly and obviously self-contradictory thread like "How to get reliable info about God" is hardly the place to be reasonable, unless you were debating something else. Sometimes I can't even tell what the object of the conversation is because you only speak in concepts and nothing concrete.

Asking for reliable information about an object (metaphysical or no) is not self-contradictory.

Theoretical discussion is by nature conceptual.

Ok. well I never debated Nietzsche, yet he changed my mind about a lot of things. How do you explain that?

My only influence is myself!

Regardless how Nietzsche changed your mind, he was writing with some 2500 years of intellectual tradition behind him. It is near impossible to grasp Nietzsche's project without a proper understanding of that history. This applies to the thinker who he was directly responding to: Hegel, as well as to the larger tradition.

Classical Greek education focused around the notion of Paideia. Paideia contained not only the awareness that the ignorant cannot change that state unless acted upon by some independent force (as in a teacher and/or reason itself) but also an essential moral component. Part of the moral dynamic is humility: the base willingness to learn and be teachable.

If knowledge independent of any religious appeal is your aim you should note Saturnus' standards of rigor and intellectual honesty.

Byzantine Prince

09-15-2005, 03:15

Charging Saturnus with no convictions means you have not read or did not understand what he has written.
But I did, or I did!

Asking for reliable information about an object (metaphysical or no) is not self-contradictory.
You can't have reliable information about something that is beyond this world and will never be able to affect this world, you know the one we live in.

Theoretical discussion is by nature conceptual.
But about what?

Regardless how Nietzsche changed your mind, he was writing with some 2500 years of intellectual tradition behind him.
We all have to study crap at school. ~;)

It is near impossible to grasp Nietzsche's project without a proper understanding of that history. This applies to the thinker who he was directly responding to: Hegel, as well as to the larger tradition.
He only mentions Hegel once in a while. He mostly critisizes Plato(harshly) and Kant (to the ground and beyond). He also has a little paragraph about Socrates and dialectics I'de like for you to read, but I'm too lazy to reproduce from the book.

Classical Greek education focused around the notion of Paideia.
Paideia simply means education in greek. I suspect you don't speak the language so you wouldn't know. It's nice of you to inform ME about such things. I lived in Athens most of my life.

Paideia contained not only the awareness that the ignorant cannot change that state unless acted upon by some independent force (as in a teacher and/or reason itself) but also an essential moral component. Part of the moral dynamic is humility: the base willingness to learn and be teachable.
You really missed the point.

If knowledge independent of any religious appeal is your aim you should note Saturnus' standards of rigor and intellectual honesty.
I prefer intellectual unreason. ~;)

Papewaio

09-15-2005, 03:31

Are we defining atheists in general regardless to the faith they are atheist relative to?

Ie a Hindu atheist or a Catholic or a Protestant or a insert world religion.

My general definiton of atheist goes along the lines: Someone who does not believe in a higher being (or beings) then themselves.

If the Christian God exists, He is the Highest Being hence He too is an atheist as he does not believe in a higher being then Himself. ~D

One, Two, Three, One, Two, Three, Twirl.

Byzantine Prince

09-15-2005, 15:05

Yeah Pape, that's why I always say that Jesus is an atheist and a socialist. He can't be a believer of god because he is part of the trinity of god, and he also believes in piece and helping everyone. I like Jesus. ~D

screwtype

09-15-2005, 15:56

How do we get reliable information about God? That's a pretty good question.

First of all, I think we have to define what we mean by "reliable". It seems to me there are (at least) two species of reliable - first, empirical evidence, and second, personal experience.

I think it's going to be a long time before we ever get empirical evidence about God. This is because God if it exists is the subtlest of the subtle - what instrument is going to be subtle enough be able to register it? Also, God is not a relative entity, God is the Absolute - how do you measure the Absolute? It is immeasurable. There is nothing to compare it to. There is nothing outside it, nothing beyond it. Therefore it presents enormous, perhaps insurmountable difficulties to empirical science, which knows only how to quantify the relative.

The second thing I want to say is that scripture by itself is not a reliable source of information either. Why not? Because it is, from the individual's POV, merely hearsay. Somebody experienced, or thought he experienced, God, and wrote some stuff about it. How do you know his experiences were authentic? How do you know he wasn't just deceiving himself, or perhaps, even setting out to deceive others for his own purposes? So scripture is at best secondhand knowledge of God, and therefore not very reliable on its own.

Which brings us to the only other alternative, which is personal experience. IMO, the ONLY way to validate God is to validate it for yourself, via direct, personal experience (the way of the mystic). The ONLY thing that qualifies you to speak about God is such personal experience. If you haven't had such experience, then when you talk about God you are merely parroting other people. You don't really know what you are talking about.

The question then remains as to whether your own experience of God is authentic or complete. Here is where scripture can help you, by comparing your experiences with those of others. You could, for example, take the advice in the New Testament, that you can measure authenticity by works. So that if your experiences have changed you, made you genuinely happier, more content, more loving and so on, one might fairly conclude that your encounter has been genuine, at least at some level.

One of the most common pitfalls on the mystical path is I think that of spiritual ego - when your ego takes over and decides that you really do know it all. People who succumb to this temptation, and there are many of them, can end up doing a lot of harm to others, because they think they are perfect when in fact they are simply serving their own egoic desires. This is the "Jim Jones" syndrome. In Christian terminology one might call it the Luciferian flaw, where Lucifer, brightest of all the angels, decided he was as great or greater than God and thus fell. Whether or not one avoids such a fate is, I guess, dependent on the reason for your seeking the Ultimate in the first place and the level of your sincerity or integrity.

A.Saturnus

09-15-2005, 15:58

Excuse me for my delayed answer, I´ve been abducted by aliens. And now, you can be too!

So you admit a reality beyond the realm of experience but nonetheless tie knowledge to the empirical and agree that the subject impacts experience. You sound like you are within bounds of a Kantian framework which is a coherence schema.

Kantian framework or not, you cannot claim that a rejection of naive realism requires the acceptance of a coherence schema.
There is the subject and the world outside the subject. Knowledge is a part of the subject, but it refers to things outside the subject. The process by which the world informs the subject is perception. But perception is not a straight-forward process. It is a function of the outside as well as the inside circumstances. Because of that, information about the world is dependant of the subject and never perfectly reliable.

Stephen claims to have a heavenly vision while in the presence of others who see nothing it would seem. Either Stephen saw the Heavens opened or he didn't. Regardless, he considered the experience reliable enough, irrespective of others present, to sacrifice himself because of it. Reliability, as previously stated, remains determinable by the subject and that is the point.

Whether he saw the heavens open is still something else than the heavens really being open above him. Others didn´t see what he did. Regardless of who you are, one of the perceptions involved must have been deceptive.
The subject may be able to be determined by the subject, but that doesn´t mean that the subject is always right. Stephen´s might have been mistaken to think his experience was reliable.
Note the following quote:
Barney did not describe the star map, but Betty recalled it in detail under hypnosis. She even drew a picture of it. She claimed the aliens explained to her that it was a map of the stars in their "trading group", thus it was a sort of trade map that showed the location of the earth and that of the aliens' home star system, a double star. The aliens did not tell her the English name of their star system. The only clue as to where these aliens might have originated was in the layout of the star map itself. Was Betty's memory accurate? If so, how accurate? What could the double-star system have been?

This is part of a report about Betty and Barney Hill who were supposedly abducted by aliens. There´s reason to accept that both really believed that they have been in an UFO. They reported various experiences they had on that UFO. Would you have told them that those experiences they had, were reliable?

But it gets even better. When I searched for a fitting report, I found something very interesting.
Apparently every year thousands of people are abducted by aliens, but still the chance that you share this experience is quite small. Or rather, it was! Because now everyone can have that experience! You no longer have to wait for that choicy little aliens to do experiments with you. You can have an alien abduction experience whenever you want. And to a quite affordable price too! Thanks to Alien Abduction Incorporated, you don´t have to stand aside because you haven´t been abducted or you forgot what happened during your abduction.
Here´s a commercial information from their website (http://www.alienabductions.com/index2.html):

So why wait? Why wonder if they're ever going to come for you? Why even invest the time, trouble, and expense involved in an actual abduction when the highly trained and professional staff at Alien Abductions Incorporated can provide you with personalized, realistic memories of the alien abduction that you have been waiting for your entire life?

When you choose an AAI Abduction Experience our doctors, hypnotists, and memory implant technicians work with you in pre-abduction orientation sessions to customize one of our hundreds of stock abductions to suit your personal taste. You can even pick one of our fetishist's specials--interspecies breeding, medical experimentation--it's all up to you. Whether you select a solo abduction or one of our special Group Abduction packages (great for corporate retreats, school groups, and theme parties), AAI gives you the best abduction for the lowest price.

Contact them now, and soon you can have your own alien abduction experience!

Ser Clegane

09-15-2005, 16:03

Contact them now, and soon you can have your own alien abduction experience!

Excellent - at least this year the problem of what to get my parents for Christmas is solved ~:cheers:

Thanks :bow:

A.Saturnus

09-15-2005, 16:12

What mistake? Your only mistake is not having any convictions.

You have admitted yourself that some of your convictions have changed. Thus, either they have been wrong before or you have wrong convictions now. Either way, it is proven that you can be mistaken. Do you have an interest in avoiding that?
I have convictions, I only question them from time to time. I don´t like dogmas. Including the dogma "I`m always right".

A clearly and obviously self-contradictory thread like "How to get reliable info about God" is hardly the place to be reasonable, unless you were debating something else. Sometimes I can't even tell what the object of the conversation is because you only speak in concepts and nothing concrete.

Every place is a place to be reasonable. Should this thread be self-contradictory, it should be easy to prove that that is the case.
Nothing is as concrete as a well defined concept. Many misunderstanding are caused by not understanding the concepts another uses.

Only you feel that need. I don't care what people think about my opinion.

I fear I noted that already.

My only influence is myself!

Then you´ll surely understand when I don´t follow your example. I mean no offence but it doesn´t strike me as a particularly good one.