Printable View
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:
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.
I couldn´t help but chuckle at this ~:)Quote:
the metaphysics getting muddied with science
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.
BP, thank you for your adjudgement. I will try and do better next time!Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
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.
Congratulations, mate. :balloon2:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
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
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.
Congrats, Franc ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Finally something nice to read after having to go through some nasty threads ~:)
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: )
I am not aware of any "official" age limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
"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 ~:)
Ooohh, I remember that one! Something like 'help me beat my dad'. It was the cutest thing I've read here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
:love: :sunny:
Her father - who was it again? - came in for a sneak peak too.
She's 29 (hours) ~:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
: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 ~:)
My other daughter is 19 months. Guess too old for these childish backroom posts. ~:handball:
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:
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.
Hasn't stopped you from reading our childish backroom posts meticulously. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
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)
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
:idea2:
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!
I ask GWB. If hes not available I ask Nav. ~;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
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.
I refered to my own posts of course. I will show my children yours to give them a decent education :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
well.. not always, certainly.. i've heard lots of people ramble about their divine experiences. i just nod and smile. :yes:Quote:
Of course the Holy Ghost will touch the souls of those who listen to your tale to verify your claim…
:no:
I think that is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
If the Soul is physical, then it should have physical properties and it should obey the laws of physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar