• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Believer vs Knowers

PureX

Veteran Member
I'm not prepared to do that. Science is paramount in explaining how the physical world works.
But we don't live in the physical world. We live in a cognitive world that has a physical component. Science helps us cognate the world more accurately, but so does our subjective personal experience of it. And so do our philosophical musings of it. And so does our creative re-imagining of it.
That said, it does not speak to religious or spiritual experiences. Science holds no position on nor does it have any interest in one's personal spiritual experiences.
Science doesn't inform us in a whole range of cognitive ways. That's why these other methods are so important to us. It's not just science or religion.
If science provides evidence that my understanding of existence is incorrect, I adjust my understanding in accordance with science.
But the only evidence it can provide is physical. And that's not nearly enough. We need experiential, and philosophical, and creative evidence as well.
 
Last edited:

McBell

Unbound
Only if it's carved from a Honeycrisp apple.

My point is this: If one hasn't experienced something and another has, the latter has knowledge that is not demonstrable based on their experience. If the former is not seeking to experience the taste, then that person will remain ignorant to the taste. That person may insist there is no taste or tell another they believe it tastes like a tomato, but cannot speak intelligently about the experience of the latter. They can either believe there's a taste or lack belief in a taste, but they have no way of knowing without seeking (unless, of course, the taste spontaneously appeared in their mouth, but even then, they would need to investigate what that taste actually is).
My point is the fact that it is demonstrable by simply taking a bite of an applecrisp.
 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
My point is the fact that it is demonstrable by simply taking a bite of an applecrisp.

And if one has never had one the experience doesn't exist. You may believe in the existence of a Honey Crisp, even vaguely understand how it works since it's a fruit, an apple no less. But you still don't have the experiential knowledge of what the apple actually looks and tastes like.

Gods work the same way. Interacting with the Gods is an experience, and one that is as describable as the flavor of an apple, or color to the blind.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Some knowledge can only be obtained from within, based on first hand experience. Often people who have never had that first hand experience; a Honeycrisp apple, assume it must not exist or os not the worth the hype. And if you have eaten one, others who have never had one, may never reach a meeting of the minds, if you try to explain. It is one of those things you need to do for yourself, so you can get the full inner experience.

The sense of taste is an interesting thing. It is one of our five sensory systems, like sight. But this sense is often called subjective, since we all seem to enjoy different things and various spice levels. There are very few things, where a consensus is formed; Oreo Cookies invented in 1912.

There are people who have refined sense of taste, such as wine expert and chefs.. We can watch and listen and they can teach us how to taste wine and food, and what to " look ", for, so we can collectively say the same things. I wonder if sight works the same way? Is objectivity a trained behavior, seeing that different people often pick up other visual nuances, from the same visual experiential output. Once they point it out, then others can see. But before it is pointed out, their sight may not target it properly, due to something inside acting as a filter.
you're suggesting that it's subjective?
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Um, no.


At least I have never seen anyone come close.

Knowledge is demonstrable. If you can't show it you don't know it.
more importantly it's repeatable. and something i know about myself isn't necessarily demonstrable if it occurred in the past. you'll just have to take my word on that. ;)
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I'm not prepared to do that. Science is paramount in explaining how the physical world works.

That said, it does not speak to religious or spiritual experiences. Science holds no position on nor does it have any interest in one's personal spiritual experiences.

If science provides evidence that my understanding of existence is incorrect, I adjust my understanding in accordance with science.
the consciousness is paramount in projecting thought into form, illusion, delusions, self-discovery, and self-deception.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
more importantly it's repeatable. and something i know about myself isn't necessarily demonstrable if it occurred in the past. you'll just have to take my word on that. ;)
No, observations need to be repeatable. The actual events do not need to be.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
But we don't live in the physical world. We live in a cognitive world that has a physical component. Science helps us cognate the world more accurately, but so does our subjective personal experience of it. And so do our philosophical musings of it. And so does our creative re-imagining of it.

Science doesn't inform us in a whole range of cognitive ways. That's why these other methods are so important to us. It's not just science or religion.

But the only evidence it can provide is physical. And that's not nearly enough. We need experiential, and philosophical, and creative evidence as well.
consciousness is a physical thing albeit not a formed, or having an exact form but still something and not nothing. we don't come from a nothingness otherwise we would return to nothingness
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
No, observations need to be repeatable. The actual events do not need to be.
subjective experiences aren't always observable to an exterior observer. otherwise you could read minds. there are no absolutes in science but you can do all these things and more; if you believe, but the observer must question all points of observed references
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
to the billions of believers what do they lack that the knower has?

John 4:22
22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

John 14:17
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 14:20
20 At that day you shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
Truth. The truth is what they lack.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Truth. The truth is what they lack.

But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:25-26

Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: [neither] let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.
Psalms 35:19

Let their way be dark and slippery: and let the angel of YHWH persecute them.
For without cause have they hid for me their net [in] a pit, [which] without cause they have digged for my soul.
Psalms 35:6-7

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk.
Matthew 22:15

False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge [things] that I knew not.
Psalms 35:11

And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this [fellow] perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
Luke 23:2
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
the consciousness is paramount in projecting thought into form, illusion, delusions, self-discovery, and self-deception.
Which concept of "consciousness" are you speaking of? The Eastern concept of "pure consciousness" (turiya) or the Western concept of human (waking) consciousness?
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
My point is the fact that it is demonstrable by simply taking a bite of an applecrisp.
I'm going to conclude for the sake of continuity you meant "Honeycrisp."

My point is there are those that refuse to take a bite of an apple and just operate under the assumption that it has no taste, just as one refuses to take a bite of the divine.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Which concept of "consciousness" are you speaking of? The Eastern concept of "pure consciousness" (turiya) or the Western concept of human (waking) consciousness?
enlightenment isn't a western/eastern thing because when light appears it doesn't follow a linear trajectory

under pressure the thunder perfect mind, the diamond mind is illuminated. it radiates in all directions like a sun at the center of it's solar system.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
enlightenment isn't a western/eastern thing because when light appears it doesn't follow a linear trajectory
That light is still Maya.
There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth. ~ Guadapada, Mandukya Karika, Verse 2.32
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
That light is still Maya.
There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth. ~ Guadapada, Mandukya Karika, Verse 2.32


i understand that there are conditional things but ninguna brahman or pure consciousness still creates the light and is understood by all even if described by differences in language, or expressions of culture.
 
Top