How to get reliable informations about God

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.

---

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 ~:)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Also correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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

---

But I did, or I did!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Theoretical discussion is by nature conceptual.

---

But about what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

I prefer intellectual unreason. ~;)

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.

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

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".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

I fear I noted that already.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Jesus...believes in piece

---

Hmm, nothing very special about that, a lot of guys believe in piece. Fervently! ~:)

PS I think the word you were looking for is "peace" ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

You have admitted yourself that some of your convictions have changed.

---

yeah, but you are responding to me saying you have none. Change is one thing, not having any is quite different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Thus, either they have been wrong before or you have wrong convictions now.

---

No such thing as right and wrong, only ignorant and not ignorant.

Quote:

---

Either way, it is proven that you can be mistaken. Do you have an interest in avoiding that?

---

To be mistaken is quite different from changing your convictions as you see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

I have convictions, I only question them from time to time. I don´t like dogmas. Including the dogma "I`m always right".

---

If you have convictions it's good to question them, but it's not good to rely on other people to change them through dialectics, that can be dangerous and history itself has shown.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Well I don't particularly care, and neither should you if someone says this to you. It's part of being your own person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

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.

---

So is God matter or energy?

If not then he is not physical. If this god is not physical, you'll NEVER get any empirical evidence at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

So is God matter or energy?

If not then he is not physical. If this god is not physical, you'll NEVER get any empirical evidence at all.

---

Exactly right. (to quote Pindar)

If god lies in the metaphysical he could never affect the physical world. His existence whether true or not, could not affect anything. There for we can't actually have any empirical evidence.

Pindar is a mormon. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Exactly right. (to quote Pindar)

If god lies in the metaphysical he could never affect the physical world. His existence whether true or not, could not affect anything. There for we can't actually have any empirical evidence.

Pindar is a mormon. :laugh4:

---

Joseph Smith was a Mormon, and he kicked ass.

I don't think Joseph Smith would appreciate that comment. He was the king of being nice.

Joseph Smith had 24 wives. The comment stands.

‘Ello, my name ees Eugène. I am writeenk a piece of thee-a-tayr. Eet ees called ‘Waiteenk for God’. I must ask you not to move one eench from your eentellectual position. Please stay put until my casteenk director contacts you. Merci!

http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/00009160.gif

Damn casting couch :beatnik2: :pimp:

It always makes an atheist go Awww GawwwwwwwwwDddd :hide:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

‘Ello, my name ees Eugène. I am writeenk a piece of thee-a-tayr. Eet ees called ‘Waiteenk for God’. I must ask you not to move one eench from your eentellectual position. Please stay put until my casteenk director contacts you. Merci!

http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/00009160.gif

---

Is that dutch? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Exactly right. (to quote Pindar)

If god lies in the metaphysical he could never affect the physical world. His existence whether true or not, could not affect anything. There for we can't actually have any empirical evidence.

---

Actually, Pindar is quite unsure hence he contradicted himself by agreeing with A. Saturnus that the Soul and God are physical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A. Saturnus

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 Pindar

I think that is right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

If the Soul is physical, then it should have physical properties and it should obey the laws of physics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Is that dutch? :laugh4:

---

Non, zat would bee French. Ah haha. Don't move, mon petit Prince, I weell conserve your youthful cruelty for all eternity...

http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/artist.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

yeah, but you are responding to me saying you have none. Change is one thing, not having any is quite different.

---

Where did I say that?

No such thing as right and wrong, only ignorant and not ignorant.
If that statement isn´t right, why are you saying it?

To be mistaken is quite different from changing your convictions as you see fit.
Indeed, being mistaken can happen to everyone, whereas changing convictions as you see fit is a sign of intellectual immaturity.

If you have convictions it's good to question them, but it's not good to rely on other people to change them through dialectics, that can be dangerous and history itself has shown.
I do not rely on other people, I rely on ideas.
"All certainty arises from the comparison of ideas" - David Hume


Well I don't particularly care, and neither should you if someone says this to you. It's part of being your own person.
Depends. If a significant number of rather reasonable people thought I were an ass, that would give me pause, I admit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

No such thing as right and wrong, only ignorant and not ignorant.
If that statement isn´t right, why are you saying it?

---

It's not wrong either, it's insightful and intelligent in my opinion. 'Right' and 'wrong' are semantically contradictory words anyhow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

To be mistaken is quite different from changing your convictions as you see fit.
Indeed, being mistaken can happen to everyone, whereas changing convictions as you see fit is a sign of intellectual immaturity.

---

A matter of opinion really, I think the best way to think about things is to edit them yourself after deep contemplation. When you are reading a book you are reading someone's else thoughts, and from that you later get new ways of looking at the subject. My experience has shown that that has never once hapened in these boards through debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Well I don't particularly care, and neither should you if someone says this to you. It's part of being your own person.
Depends. If a significant number of rather reasonable people thought I were an ass, that would give me pause, I admit.

---

Again, history has shown the contrary. Look at all the great scientists that had to deal with adversity. They were pretty much looked down upon by everyone around them. Now look at how acceptable someone as racist and unreasonable as Hitler became, doesn't make much sense does it. I'm sure there's less extreme examples BTW. What is reasonable is also not fixed. I hope you see what I'm saying.

It's ironic that this is increasing my debating skills. ~D

Pindar, do you have any reliable information on God and his existance ??

george bush is the best way to get it..... or blair or any other presidatial person

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Kantian framework or not, you cannot claim that a rejection of naive realism requires the acceptance of a coherence schema.

---

I have not made that charge. However, a Kantian framework is a coherence model. Any time one admits the subject impacts experience they will move into a coherence schema.

Quote:

---

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.

---

As we have already determined: the question isn't about truth or a perfect standard but reliability which may be mistaken. Reliability is a trustworthiness. I have argued that any reliable information about Deity would come from direct experience with Deity.

Quote:

---

Here´s a commercial information from their website:

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

---

I'm goin to make a booking. This is exciting.

Byzantine Prince,

I read through your most recent reply to me. I suggest your refer to my post #196.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

Actually, Pindar is quite unsure hence he contradicted himself by agreeing with A. Saturnus that the Soul and God are physical.

---

Where did I contradict myself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Pindar, do you have any reliable information on God and his existance ??

---

Yes.