Experiencing God

[Nakosis]

And the tree makes a sound when it falls, whether anyone was there to hear it....
or not.

Which doesn't matter to anything if nothing is around to experience the sound.

 

[Thief]

Which doesn't matter to anything if nothing is around to experience the sound.

What about the rest of creation?
or maybe you assume the reality revolves around you?
or the reality has no interaction with you?

Not part of this reality?

 

[Nakosis]

You hear the creaking of an old house and experience the fear of ghosts.

What about the rest of creation?
or maybe you assume the reality revolves around you?
or the reality has no interaction with you?

I think obviously, my experience of reality revolves around me. What happens outside my experience, I accept I have no knowledge of. What exists outside my experience, I have no knowledge of. I can pretend or assume knowledge, though personally I try to avoid assuming anything, my pretension of knowledge has no value except perhaps to my ego so I can think I actually know something.

Not part of this reality?

I accept and deal with existence within this reality. Perception is the basis of my reality. That doesn't mean I don't continuously question the reliability of my perception.

 

[Thief]

You hear the creaking of an old house and experience the fear of ghosts.


I think obviously, my experience of reality revolves around me. What happens outside my experience, I accept I have no knowledge of. What exists outside my experience, I have no knowledge of. I can pretend or assume knowledge, though personally I try to avoid assuming anything, my pretension of knowledge has no value except perhaps to my ego so I can think I actually know something.



I accept and deal with existence within this reality. Perception is the basis of my reality. That doesn't mean I don't continuously question the reliability of my perception.

So if the tree falls....you're not close enough to hear it....It made no sound.

If the tree fell on your house.....it made no sound.....but when you got home.....you did!

 

[Nakosis]

So if the tree falls....you're not close enough to hear it....It made no sound.

If the tree fell on your house.....it made no sound.....but when you got home.....you did!

Some years later, a similar question is posed. It is unknown whether the source of this question is Berkeley or not. In June 1883 in the magazine The Chautauquan, the question was put, "If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings would there be any sound?" They then went on to answer the query with, "No. Sound is the sensation excited in the ear when the air or other medium is set in motion."This seems to imply that the question is posed not from a philosophical viewpoint, but from a purely scientific one. The magazine Scientific American corroborated the technical aspect of this question, while leaving out the philosophic side, a year later when they asked the question slightly reworded, "If a tree were to fall on an uninhabited island, would there be any sound?" And gave a more technical answer, "Sound is vibration, transmitted to our senses through the mechanism of the ear, and recognized as sound only at our nerve centers. The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound."

If a tree falls in a forest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps an expletive or two from me, Then I'd set about dealing with the damage.

 

[Thief]

Some years later, a similar question is posed. It is unknown whether the source of this question is Berkeley or not. In June 1883 in the magazine The Chautauquan, the question was put, "If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings would there be any sound?" They then went on to answer the query with, "No. Sound is the sensation excited in the ear when the air or other medium is set in motion."This seems to imply that the question is posed not from a philosophical viewpoint, but from a purely scientific one. The magazine Scientific American corroborated the technical aspect of this question, while leaving out the philosophic side, a year later when they asked the question slightly reworded, "If a tree were to fall on an uninhabited island, would there be any sound?" And gave a more technical answer, "Sound is vibration, transmitted to our senses through the mechanism of the ear, and recognized as sound only at our nerve centers. The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound."

If a tree falls in a forest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps an expletive or two from me, Then I'd set about dealing with the damage.

Oh the fools and their many words!......

When the tree falls there is indeed a sound.
Perception of that sound is called hearing.

If a tree falls and there is no one there.....does it make a sound?......YES!
It simply passed that no one heard it.

Reality is separate of you.
It does not depend on your perception.

 

[Muffled]

Nobody has to prove that God isn't real, it is entirely on the shoulders of those who make the positive claim to back it up.

I believe I have done so but Sha'irullah called my proof fantasy without providing any proof why my proof should be considered that way.

 

[Nakosis]

Oh the fools and their many words!......

When the tree falls there is indeed a sound.
Perception of that sound is called hearing.

If a tree falls and there is no one there.....does it make a sound?......YES!
It simply passed that no one heard it.

Reality is separate of you.
It does not depend on your perception.

Which still doesn't matter if there is no perception of it.

 

[Cephus]

I believe I have done so but Sha'irullah called my proof fantasy without providing any proof why my proof should be considered that way.

I can't say, I don't think I've seen your "proof". I'd be willing to address your "proof" if you'd link to where you presented it.

 

[Muffled]

I can't say, I don't think I've seen your "proof". I'd be willing to address your "proof" if you'd link to where you presented it.

I believe it would be more helpful to repeat it since it is short. I believe God is real because my experience is that He is real. He never asked what that experience was but it most likely is on this thread in the early days of it.

 

[Cephus]

I believe it would be more helpful to repeat it since it is short. I believe God is real because my experience is that He is real. He never asked what that experience was but it most likely is on this thread in the early days of it.

Then you have no proof or evidence, you have only your own experience which you have no way of testing to see if it's actually so. While I don't know what your experience is, I will go out on a limb and suggest that you simply attributed "God" as the cause without having any way of showing that "God" is actually the cause. I say that because I've had many thousands of discussions with theists over the years who have claimed to have experiences with God, yet when we examine their experience in detail, we find that they did, in fact, have an experience, then they blamed it on God without having any rational reason to think that God was actually responsible.

In reality, if you cannot show what is actually responsible for an experience, the only rational answer is "I don't know". Therefore, I doubt your claim.

 

[Thief]

Which still doesn't matter if there is no perception of it.

Of course it matters.
You either consider reality a separate item or not.

I say it is.
The sun will rise, whether or not you get up to watch.
and it matters greatly that it does!

It is your perception that doesn't matter.
Or maybe now you care to say it does?

 

[Nakosis]

Of course it matters.
You either consider reality a separate item or not.

I say it is.
The sun will rise, whether or not you get up to watch.
and it matters greatly that it does!

It is your perception that doesn't matter.
Or maybe now you care to say it does?

My reality depends on perception.
I've no certainty about which there is no information.

Maybe reality is defined as what you imagine to exist regardless of what you actually perceive.

 

[Thief]

My reality depends on perception.
I've no certainty about which there is no information.

Maybe reality is defined as what you imagine to exist regardless of what you actually perceive.

My reality is separate of me.
The sun will rise without me.

It will rise without you.

 

[Muffled]

Then you have no proof or evidence, you have only your own experience which you have no way of testing to see if it's actually so. While I don't know what your experience is, I will go out on a limb and suggest that you simply attributed "God" as the cause without having any way of showing that "God" is actually the cause. I say that because I've had many thousands of discussions with theists over the years who have claimed to have experiences with God, yet when we examine their experience in detail, we find that they did, in fact, have an experience, then they blamed it on God without having any rational reason to think that God was actually responsible.

In reality, if you cannot show what is actually responsible for an experience, the only rational answer is "I don't know". Therefore, I doubt your claim.

I believe I can accomodate you by repeating myself. I had God tell me something specific would happen before it happened. Theoretically others can tell the future but God has the best track record. The second indication that it was God speaking was the theological impact of the prediction. It was something that concerned God personnally.

 

[Cephus]

I believe I can accomodate you by repeating myself. I had God tell me something specific would happen before it happened. Theoretically others can tell the future but God has the best track record. The second indication that it was God speaking was the theological impact of the prediction. It was something that concerned God personnally.

How do you know it was God? How did you verify that it wasn't the "devil" of another pantheon trying to gain your confidence?

 

[SkepticX]

I am amazed that so many believers that have had "spiritual" experiences won't share their experiences with others. It ought not surprise me however, as I too have had "spiritual" experiences that I just will not share with anyone. I gather that the telling of such experiences puts one at risk of throwing one's pearls to the swine.

My experience of God has actually brought me to a point where I no longer require faith to believe in God. I am absolutely certain of his existence and presence in my life.

So I guess that leaves me with a question for those who have had God experiences. What do you think it was that you did which enabled you to experience what you experienced? What did you do to invoke God's attention?

I've had a couple of very powerful such experiences--one that I interpreted as God's presence, the other as an unknown--maybe a neurological misfire of some sort. I frequently have lesser versions of the same experience through meditation, and sometimes they've just happened spontaneously.

These are just the kinds of things humans can experience because we're humans. You may feel confident in your interpretation, but the fact of the experiences and that you've decided to interpret them as conclusive evidence of a god doesn't mean you really have conclusive evidence. I'd consider that hubris, actually. You still require religious faith to feel so confident in your interpretation. So all you're really saying is that you've decided to form an uncritical conclusion and to invest in it pretty heavily. That's not good if you want to really make sure you understand it. It's fine if you've decided it's meaningful for you and you're really not too concerned about looking into any other potential causes.

 

[Sonofason]

I've had a couple of very powerful such experiences--one that I interpreted as God's presence, the other as an unknown--maybe a neurological misfire of some sort. I frequently have lesser versions of the same experience through meditation, and sometimes they've just happened spontaneously.

These are just the kinds of things humans can experience because we're humans. You may feel confident in your interpretation, but the fact of the experiences and that you've decided to interpret them as conclusive evidence of a god doesn't mean you really have conclusive evidence. I'd consider that hubris, actually. You still require religious faith to feel so confident in your interpretation. So all you're really saying is that you've decided to form an uncritical conclusion and to invest in it pretty heavily. That's not good if you want to really make sure you understand it. It's fine if you've decided it's meaningful for you and you're really not too concerned about looking into any other potential causes.

Yes, these are the kinds of things humans can experience. When you look up into the sky, and interpret what you see, you may feel confident that what you see is a sun, but the fact is that the experience that you've so confidently decided to interpret as a sun doesn't mean you really have conclusive evidence that what you've seen is the sun. I'd consider that hubris. You still require faith in humanity to feel so confident in your interpretation. So all you're really saying is that you've decided to form an uncritical conclusion and to invest in it pretty heavily. That's not good if you want to really make sure you understand what you are seeing. It's fine if you want to put your faith in other people, and you're not really too concerned about looking into other potential causes.

 

[SkepticX]

Yes, these are the kinds of things humans can experience. When you look up into the sky, and interpret what you see, you may feel confident that what you see is a sun, but the fact is that the experience that you've so confidently decided to interpret as a sun doesn't mean you really have conclusive evidence that what you've seen is the sun. I'd consider that hubris.

Then how are you so confidently talking about that thing we call the Sun to begin with? Obviously you recognize it as the Sun just like the rest of us because that's what we've decided to call the thing--doesn't matter if we know what it is beyond that hoy, super bright spot in the daytime sky. It's simply convention--noises and squiggles we've agreed to make in order to communicate common ideas. You kinda have to agree on what those noises and squiggles mean, at least for the most par, in order for them to be useful. Accepting that our language calls that thing the Sun is hardly hubris or faith--not even in the ballpark ... unless you want to argue that language requires hubris and faith I guess, but that wouldn't likely go very well.

You still require faith in humanity to feel so confident in your interpretation. So all you're really saying is that you've decided to form an uncritical conclusion and to invest in it pretty heavily. That's not good if you want to really make sure you understand what you are seeing. It's fine if you want to put your faith in other people, and you're not really too concerned about looking into other potential causes.

I pointed out that conclusions are unwarranted. How is that forming an uncritical conclusion?

 

[Nakosis]

My reality is separate of me.
The sun will rise without me.

It will rise without you.

Will it rise without God?