How to get reliable informations about God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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

---

Yes. :coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

A Girlfriend?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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

---

Why ?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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!
~;)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

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

---

Have you finally finished that Nietzsche book? :mellow:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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.

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?

How do you prove that Nietzsche existed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

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?

---

Individuals. We have started with revelations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't understand why you drew this conclusion.

---

Experience ?? ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Good, a base reliability is subject bound.

Quote:

---

You´re mistaken. Hallucinations can involve all senses.

---

I see.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

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

---

He would have no trouble demonstrating his notion of an eternal recurrence of the same, Byzantine Prince.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

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.