waitasec
Veteran Member
i think you missed my edit in post 99...
-
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!
If there could be a God, couldn't people experience him?
- Thread starter Man of Faith
- Start date
i think you missed my edit in post 99...
Kindly allow me to get two clarifications. 1) What does progress mean to you -- what are the measurable or objective criteria? 2) Progress, as defined by you in your answer to q. 1, is your ultimate goal or is it a step towards an ultimate goal?
waitasec
Veteran Member
to learn, to gain... to attain something new
forward momentum..
it's the only goal. otherwise we are static, still, motionless, inactive...
life is about tension and release, if life doesn't have tension it's not life as we all know it.
so....if we all thought and understood everything the same way, there wouldn't be progress, forward momentum or the ability to achieve a different perspective...
In basic terms, yes. In detail, probably not.
However, that doesn't mean that we can't speak to the validity of taste judgements at all. For instance, based on our knowledge of chemistry and human physiology, if someone said "apples taste like bacon!", we would be able to do lab tests to confirm that they don't.
Again, note all the "coulds" in there. Why would I logically have to accept the existence of God based upon a whole bunch of maybes? Those all could be true, yes, but it is also possible that none of them are true. I am an atheist precisely because I believe that is is much more likely that none of those things are true: God probably doesn't exist, and people probably aren't experiencing God.
Except that even if one person did experience God, to everyone else, it'd be just one more crazy-seeming person making claims they can't back up. Hardly compelling evidence.
I don't think you know what atheism is.
Also, we could apply this logic to any god, not just the Christian God. If one person experiences Odin, then that means that he exists (at least)... so how can you call yourself a monotheist?
In some cases it does differ, in other cases there is much overlap. If looking rigorously for differences / discrepancies, that can be found, though would be accurate with I believe every experiment ever performed. Perhaps not. I'd be willing to test that out if someone wishes to feed me something to test, and provide as much detail as you care to provide, and then allow me to seek out discrepancies / differences in the experience, verse what my experience with the test is, we will then see (or I will for sure see) whether or not all tests, always have discrepancies.
Whereas, I think you are saying we (experimenters) try to control those items as much as humanly possible, within reason, and hopefully agree on terminology going into test, during testing, and whatever emerges that is 'new' must be substantiated, foremost (hopefully) by the controlled test, and also by conclusions (further interpretations) from the experimenter. If hypothesis is very solid, concise going in, I would say it is likely that experimenters are not coming up with vastly different conclusions nor vastly different results in events / phenomenon. Perhaps debatable, but I stand by this. And am speaking to outer experimentation (i.e. studies of physical world) AND inner experimentation (i.e. introspection / metaphysical study).
And this is where we profoundly disagree. The (actual) source of experience. The perceived source of experience is something that philosophy of materialism is working with / through and is making claims that strike me (in very factual way) as illusionary (i.e. that the body's eyes can see things). While this may be another topic for you, it is for me same topic and has everything to do with "personal experience" of all studies I'm aware of, have ever heard of, have studied, and therefore the (or my) totality of 'knowledge' as that term is used here in human land.
I believe this was covered with snake bites. What you are saying, regarding inverse, is like saying, because one person hasn't experienced snake bites, that means there are not snakes.
I believe you are attempting to say the other claim is unfalsifiable. I believe I would agree with this, though the basis for "physical reality," I believe is also unfalsifiable. And admittedly, I am still coming to terms with what unfalsifiable means, but that doesn't mean I don't get it. At least, it doesn't mean that to me. To me, it means the rabbit hole goes deeper than those who throw around terms like "empirical evidence" and "objective."
If someone who is 'credible' (say by your definition of credible) were to tell you their experience with an unicorn, then it would be irrational to claim that "unicorns do not exist." Less irrational would be the agnostic position, "I don't know whether unicorns exist or not." And more rational would be, taking last statement and adding, "because I do not think I have seen one."
Reminds me of my ultimatum that I've put out now around 57 times which says, "where is objective existence for the physical?" I feel very open to evidence in this area. I mean, I fully expected in first dozen times I put that challenge out, that someone would answer it in way that is truly objective. I felt very open. But ask for something upwards of 60 times with no one stepping to the plate, especially in "scientific" forums or philosophy / rational type forums, and no one has evidence that is objective for physical existence.
Thus, it is factual to state that the claim "I can see my human body" and/or "I can see the physical world," is unfalsifiable.
The findings can be.
External experiences cannot be objectively shown to external viewers. Or if they can, they will be potentially met with various interpretations of that same experience. Unless we greatly limit observation skills. Like ridiculously limit them, and somehow manage to call that rational.
I.E. - stand outside, and tell me what color the sky is in your area?
Later, I go outside, and I plant a flower. And I tell you that I did.
No, I said tell me the color of the sky. You have to follow exactly what I said in this experiment, and you must reach similar conclusions to me, otherwise, you are just being stubborn. Stubborn people are delusional you know?
or
I.E. - look within, and tell me what Jesus told you about abortion?
Later, I go within and am inspired to write a poem about flowers. And I tell you that I did.
No, I said for you to ask Jesus about abortion. You have to follow exactly what I said in this experiment, and you must reach similar conclusions to me, otherwise you are just being stubborn. Stubborn people go to hell you know?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
If only thinking was valued in public education.
My thought (honestly) is that we do think everything the same way. We appear to understand it differently, though I see that as say, "coming to terms" with the way we think.
We think.
We.
And the idea of progress being made, is something I feel can go two ways. Such that I see progress being made, and I see changes where arguably no progress is being made. Arguably we are regressing.
Medicine and healing would be primary example of this. I understand (I think) when people argue we've made lots of advances in medicine and yadda yadda yadda technology here is vastly improved than it was ever prior to this point. But healing still basically sucks. Little progress. Arguably we are regressing in our understanding of healing. We might be doing wonders in terms of treatment and understanding symptoms, but in terms of healing, I believe we think of it in the same way. Coming to terms with what healing actually means with the tools we have a) within us and b) around us in the physical, I think we are still in kindergarten.
Not only do I think differences in understanding here are regressing, but it seems a bit obvious that we are essentially manifesting chaos that itself will have to be treated and healed. Cause, I can't think of way in which high end professional medical people, who spent both lots of time and money to get to place of "high end medical professional," can treat for 'those most in need,' unless they sacrifice a lot (physically speaking), or we collectively sacrifice at least a little so doctor can live modest life and treat those most in need. Not heal, treat. And most in need, I am saying are those without luxury to pay outright for whatever appointment, testing, procedure and/or medication that amounts to treatment plan. That gap is growing. 15 years ago I became acutely aware of it, and regardless of Obama-care, it is spinning vastly out of control, such that 'most in need' persons in society is growing significantly. I would say spinning out of control. I do not see way around this, and I think it has a lot to do with misunderstanding healing. Misunderstanding it from an outward-in perspective.
For healing comes from within, and where that is deemed "impossible" or "illogical" or "must be proven in a lot of cases before we go in that direction" - that is seriously just "coming to terms with what healing is." Cause we all still think healing is (virtually) the same. But how to get there, we understand it vastly different. And last time I checked, doctors (so called healers) will not come remotely close to guaranteeing there brand of healing. I mean nowhere near sense of reliability. In fact, we all know that is HUGE aspect of cost involved. Since treatment and healing are not the same, a doctor can always claim (righteously so), did I not treat you with most advanced care available? While patient can always retort, yeah, but I'm not healed. To which we've allowed doctors to have escape clause that amounts to, "well, there is no guarantee for that." Which is precisely the standard a faith healer is held to. Either you perfectly heal the person in question, or faith healing is some ridiculous claim, made by delusional people, who don't know anything about the body. I mean, where did they go to school? What are their credentials?
Me, I am certain anyone reading this, that I can aid in healing of whatever you got. I have done faith healing. I generally don't tout this aspect, but if I were to meet with someone reading these words, I would do all I could to assure you that healing comes from you. You KNOW what healing is. We think of it in the SAME way. But our understanding of how to get there may be different, and thus if you are going with outward-in logic, then yes, you may doubt me, yourself, and ultimately well being / health. Such that, magically, you are not experiencing "healing" even while I claimed on some forum that I could aid in healing whatever it is you got. I stand by that. (Fact is, you don't need me.)
Because I think I know what healing is. I think we know healing in the same way.
We have decided globally to take the roundabout way of getting to that place where healing of whatever pops up, is natural, free, and easy.
waitasec
Veteran Member
i'll get to the rest of your post later, hopefully today...
but i just wanted to point something out...
the reason why you think healing sucks is because our ailments aren't being healed....we're just applying a band aid of sorts and not getting to the root of the problem...like how we approach type 2 diabetes, 'just give me a shot and i'll be fine', instead of actually changing ones diet. however, if we are talking about detecting cancer in it's early stages we are more advanced then ever... so in that aspect it doesn't suck...
Ha! If only thinking was valued in homeschool education too.
EDIT: I was a homeschooler, so pardon my outburst.
waitasec
Veteran Member
this entire forum exists because people think differently...
and we find the end result of a discourse is either:
1. the same as it was when you started...stagnant.
2. you gained a new perspective...momentum
3. you gained understanding/knowledge of your opponents perspective...momentum
other than in medicine...which we both came to an agreement and can no longer add to the discussion because we agree...what else can you say is regressing?
we need to 1st define what healing means...
I'm just going to say we understand different. I believe the idea of "Truth" is the same. And the way we think "Truth" is the same. Then "about Truth" is understanding, and that is coming to terms with "Truth."
I think in Truth, we gain new perspectives / momentum. But I think on the surface, as if we are 'fronting,' we can show up (rather easily) as stagnant. In fact, I wonder sometimes if we are individually changing, even a little bit. It seems like no. But upon introspection, I realize lots of seeds are being planted, some even watered, but sprouts that may have sprung, are not being seen (yet) because 'my' big ol' tree over here that I've been leaning on for umpteen years is 'all' the support I think I'll ever need. So, here on the surface, let me just stomp out your little sprouts as best I can to show just how righteous I am. And call that in vein of "for sake of truth."
I said equal to or regressing. I think I could come up with a few, but another biggie would be economics. Many ways to address this one, and I'm just looking to select one or two 'scopes.' When I was younger, er many decades ago, it seemed like 'helping the poor' was just getting started. Not that I'm 3000 years old, but I mean as an organizational philosophy type thing. And so there were organizations around that were essentially making the claim of, "you believe in the good life, yes? Well for just 6 cents a day, so can these under privileged people. Will you help them out?" So, flash forward to today, and what continues to show up to me as stagnant, possibly regressing, is:
a) technology advances you might think would have by now significantly addressed some of these items (i.e. hunger), instead it arguably seems worse
b) that we would hear at least some indication (publicly, proudly) that money coming in is really helping. Really helping a lot. Nope, I NEVER hear that. NEVER. Instead, it seems like even more money is needed. But I would venture to guess that, in my lifetime alone, that both private and public organizations have obtained somewhere in neighborhood of 3 trillion dollars to 'feed the poor.' Regardless of the figure, it seems like not only are we not making dent, but the problem of 'hungry people in this world,' is worse. Or, at least it is presented that way (often).
c) gap between rich and poor is seemingly growing. That to me would be fairly sure sign of regression.
Other area of concern, for me, is how we handle taxation. I realize everyone and their mother has some solution, and well me too. I say let it all be voluntary. Entirely. First of all, if this became reality, you know it won't happen tomorrow, so give me / yourself credit for reality of how this might actually come about. At some level, I see it now as voluntary, but we have it set up very much like, "if you don't pay, you are to be punished." When reality is, if we don't collect 'enough,' we are all punished. Some more than others, but I say all in some way. And I think the whole taxation thing is near heart of why economies around the world are on brink of collapse. Not only reason, but near core reason. Because, I think we all do want to 'give back' especially if we have something to give back. But our 'competitive views' have lead to place where we believe 2 things, a) there is not enough (I disagree with this, but is another discussion) and b) because of a, we absolutely have to compete for dollars. This sense of competing, together with mandatory taxation has made us so bitter, that cutting anything that agrees with "me and mine" is just simply off the table. So, only reasonable (or logical) alternative is system implodes.
I said 1 or 2 items about economy, though do want to work in there something about transparency of markets and expense accounts, given our current technology. But since I know myself well enough to realize that would be incredibly wordy to make rather simple point of, "stop hiding money," I'll just leave it at that.
I don't think we do. We may desire that, but I believe, very very strongly, we all know it without definitions. Getting there, seems to require definitions / classifications and understanding processes. Healing does not require this, and arguably we can allow healing to be denied via sense of analysis paralysis.
Believe me, I know.
idea
Question Everything
the evidence comes through a life-time of experimentation.
I believe that our conscience - as defined as that inner voice which directs us for good - is literally the voice of God. I believe everyone has experienced listening to and acting on guidance from their conscience, but most do not understand the origin of where these promptings come from.
Nadia Faiazova
Member
Hi there! Bible teaches that God is a spirit, so we can not be contained with him. We can recognize his qaulities through the creation and through his written word.
(John 4:24)
(John 4:24)
St Giordano Bruno
Well-Known Member
Has there ever been any palaeographer or expert in ancient handwriting who can prove that any ancient written text is the actual handwriting of God?
idea
Question Everything
Why use a palaeographer? why not just go ask God directly?