Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?

[ppp]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/

So if God operates in a paraconsistent logical manner, then you might be able to talk about. But personally I believe God to be unknowable.

There is nothing to be said about an unknowable, Nothing at all.

 

[ppp]

You still have the hard problem of consciousness and whether physicalism is reductive or not for emergent properties.

I don't think I do. I have never bought it to the hard problem of consciousness. It is entirly possible that I don't understand it - and I certainly don't claim to understand consciousness - but I don't see the "hard problem"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is nothing to be said about an unknowable, Nothing at all.

Correct, I believe in God, but know nothing of God, so I don't speak of God other for the purpose of metaphysics and foundational epistemology. Now sometimes in debates God do come up, but I do a kind of negative theology.

 

[ppp]

That is unless I can believe in God without apprehension, and still find science planted the garden, the divine middle if you will.

Brightly colored bath tools - ponderous and full of notebooks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think I do. I have never bought it to the hard problem of consciousness. It is entirly possible that I don't understand it - and I certainly don't claim to understand consciousness - but I don't see the "hard problem"

For the meaning of this sentence reduces the meaning down into external sensory input and change that to scientific physical statements while not loosing the meaning.

 

[ppp]

Correct, I believe in God, but know nothing of God, so I don't speak of God other for the purpose of metaphysics and foundational epistemology. Now sometimes in debates God do come up, but I do a kind of negative theology.

I find it hard to take someone seriously when they tell me that they believe that something exists, but they don't know any of its characteristics. Not even that it exists. Seems like they are just playing with words to sound profound but are intentionally devoid of meaning.

 

[ppp]

For the meaning of this sentence reduces the meaning down into external sensory input and change that to scientific physical statements while not loosing the meaning.

You have lost me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I find it hard to take someone seriously when they tell me that they believe that something exists, but they don't know any of its characteristics. Not even that it exists. Seems like they are just playing with words to sound profound but are intentionally devoid of meaning.

Well, my God is a stand in for the thing itself as itself and the first unmoved mover. It is a philosophical God and since I am in effect an epistemological solipsist, who believe objective reality is there, but know nothing of it, other than it is there, it gets weird. So I do know that the thing itself exists, but that is all, I know of it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have lost me.

Okay, take physical as processes related to your body and mental as processes in your mind. Now explain everything without using mental words. Only use physical/bodily/eternal sensation words.

 

[ppp]

Well, my God is a stand in for the thing itself as itself and the first unmoved mover. It is a philosophical God and since I am in effect an epistemological solipsist, who believe objective reality is there, but know nothing of it, other than it is there, it gets weird. So I do know that the thing itself exists, but that is all, I know of it.

What do you mean by know in this case?

 

[ppp]

Okay, take physical as processes related to your body and mental as processes in your mind. Now explain everything without using mental words. Only use physical/bodily/eternal sensation words.

I think you jumped a few steps. Why would I take mental processes as being not physical?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean by know in this case?

Okay, test if you can control everything by using thought. You apparently can't. That which you can't control is not you. It is something else, but you only have your experience of it. What it is beyond your experience independent of your mind is unknown, because you know only through your mind. So it is there, but what it is in itself is unknown, because you only know what it is to you. I.e. epistemological solipsism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you jumped a few steps. Why would I take mental processes as being not physical?

Well, if you think mental process are physical, I like evidence.

 

[ppp]

Okay, test if you can control everything by using thought. You apparently can't. That which you can't control is not you. It is something else, but you only have your experience of it. What it is beyond your experience independent of your mind is unknown, because you know only through your mind. So it is there, but what it is in itself is unknown, because you only know what it is to you. I.e. epistemological solipsism.

That leads to odd conclusions. By that reasoning, they keys that I am tapping are me, and my spleen isn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That leads to odd conclusions. By that reasoning, they keys that I am tapping are me, and my spleen isn't.

Well, it was "loose", but the taps are not you, because you can't alter them simply by thinking about them.

 

[ppp]

Well, if you think mental process are physical, I like evidence.

You would like evidence of what? Physical processes generate effects. Fire. Color. Wetness. Thoughts. Do you think that all of those are non-physical? I would need evidence that the non-physical is a candidate explanation.

 

[ppp]

Well, it was "loose", but the taps are not you, because you can't alter them simply by thinking about them.

I think that you are playing fast and loose with the word control. As far as I am concerned I am controlling the keys.

 

[ppp]

Good night

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

It is my belief as a Christian that the Creator gave us two physical eyes because these are the things that help us appreciate his creation....sending messages to the brain that often involve our other senses operating in sync to fully appreciate God;s creation.

Since the third eye is used by religious people outside of my faith, it is not something we seek or employ because the 5 senses we have are more than enough for us....and it puts us all on equal footing, spiritually speaking. We have no "holy men" in our faith, just shepherds who follow the instructions of their ONE Master....Jesus Christ. We are all then servants of the one God...Jehovah. It is a very simple faith, based entirely on the Bible.....an incredible book of God's wisdom in our opinion.

Yes, there is no doubt God gave us two physical eyes and other senses with which to appreciate and enjoy His creation. But He gave us a third eye to help us appreciate Him.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

This may just be a semantic difference in your tradition, I'm not sure. How does one determine if the information gathered via these alternate means is accurate?

When the Truth of one's Self comes into contact with Truth Itself, both recognize what has occurred and there's no doubt about it in either's "mind."