Knowing vs Believing

[apophenia]

I agree that "god" may work well as a symbolic representation of mystical experience. However, I do think its a mistake to claim a perfect understanding of reality or label the experiences as literally "god" or "Cosmic Consciousness" as if something was apprehended outside of imagination and intuition. Even our imaginations are constructed by data originally collected by sensory-perception, so chances are subsequent interpretations of mystical experiences are more mundane and human than we probably realize. It's probably best not to label the experience if someone doesn't know the difference between literalism and metaphor. "God" works well as a metaphor for that which transcends all comprehension.

Somehow I missed that post Straw Dog.

I agree with you. What I will add is that the experience to which I am referring is in no way a source or confirmation of any other kind of knowledge.

What I have noticed is - when integrating this meditative awareness into their world view, many take it as a confirmation of the other ideas bundled with whatever 'system' was associated with the meditation practice.

Unfortunately the meditative absorption then becomes a confirmation of all the redundant packaging with which it is conflated in the world view of the meditator.

In other words, the experience of meditative bliss or oceanic awareness or whatever you call it is described in terms like 'god' or 'nirvana' in specific paths like Buddhism or Hinduism, and then the experience is placed in that context by the meditator.

It doesn't need to be placed in any context at all, and is in itself confirmation of nothing at all .

This experience is not evidence of the correctness of any proposition with which it may be associated.

 

[Falvlun]

I think at this point you may want to look into maybe like a logic 101 class. I don't have the time to spend teaching basics on a forum. Maybe if I had more than a phone, but I don't.

The problem is that, so far, you haven't used any logic whatsoever. You have claimed that experience is the only way to obtain knowledge, but then you reject some experience, seemingly arbitrarily. You claim that personal opinion doesn't inform objective knowledge, but then you give nothing but your personal opinion to choose which is objective and which isn't. You position, if anything, is anti-logical, with all its internal contradictions.

 

[1137]

The logic class is to teach about what objectivity is, it seems surprisingly confusing. And if you think empirical evidence is personal opinion the logic class should help with that too.

 

[1137]

The problem is that, so far, you haven't used any logic whatsoever. You have claimed that experience is the only way to obtain knowledge, but then you reject some experience, seemingly arbitrarily. You claim that personal opinion doesn't inform objective knowledge, but then you give nothing but your personal opinion to choose which is objective and which isn't. You position, if anything, is anti-logical, with all its internal contradictions.

I never rejected experience nor would I. I reject the explanation of some experience, such as "mystical" ones based on empirical evidence (different than opinion). There is no contradiction, just misunderstanding

 

[Thief]

Logic or theology? Can you be consistent just this one time? I'm open to the idea of some type of God, but it's a jump in the contingency argument. You, on the other hand, are not open to the idea of no God (no spirit = no afterlife) and so blindly make that jump.

It's not a jump....and it's not illogical.

At the point of singularity....science cannot continue.

But theology can.

Spirit first or substance.
If logic prevails...so does the Spirit.

The type of God would be ...Creator.

 

[Windwalker]

If we have knowledge that shows the brain is completely creating the experience of God it shows the brain exists, not God. Rather simple to understand.

There's a problem with this statement. Why do you say it as the experience of God is "completely" created by the brain? This again, if put this way, applies to all of your world as well: your experience of your family, your experience of your job, your experience of yourself, etc. All that too is "completely creating the experience of..." fill in the blank. Correct?

I'm sorry but this argument that all we can say is the brain exists in regards to questions about God applies to the totality of your experience of reality itself. All we can say is your brain exists, not that you do.

 

[Windwalker]

I like the idea that objective truth is a high degree of certainty. We have empirical evidence that the moon orbits the earth, there is not one reason outside of faith to believe a deity even exists...

I think the problem is in how you qualify what that existence entails. It appears you are defining God as an object outside oneself to speak objectively about, like one is talking about that big tree over there or something. If God is not so defined, than to argue as you are at best says that idea or notion or concept of God is flawed in someway or another. But if God is known through experience; a qualitatively different order of experience than the mundane or the ordinary, that we can say objectively that people experience "that", whatever you may wish to call that.

 

[Windwalker]

As far as objective truth goes, doesn't that really only just mean at it's core that it is something external to ourselves? It is an object, as opposed to subject. The subject sees the object as outside itself.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think at this point you may want to look into maybe like a logic 101 class. I don't have the time to spend teaching basics on a forum. Maybe if I had more than a phone, but I don't.

I see. Along with your magical ability to sort objective reality from subjective reality, you are also an actual master of logic.

OK. I probably should have known that after reading your first few postings.

Nevermind. I am not so silly as to tangle with a Logic Master.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The problem is that, so far, you [Doors of Perception] haven't used any logic whatsoever. You have claimed that experience is the only way to obtain knowledge, but then you reject some experience, seemingly arbitrarily. You claim that personal opinion doesn't inform objective knowledge, but then you give nothing but your personal opinion to choose which is objective and which isn't. You position, if anything, is anti-logical, with all its internal contradictions.

That's how it seems to me, too, It's probably some kind of special logic, is what I'm thinking.

 

[1137]

I think the problem is in how you qualify what that existence entails. It appears you are defining God as an object outside oneself to speak objectively about, like one is talking about that big tree over there or something. If God is not so defined, than to argue as you are at best says that idea or notion or concept of God is flawed in someway or another. But if God is known through experience; a qualitatively different order of experience than the mundane or the ordinary, that we can say objectively that people experience "that", whatever you may wish to call that.

Well if you asked me if I believe God exists in the mind I would certainly say yes. My point is just there's nothing supporting the idea of a God separate from experience. Personally I think this is almost the case for everything (though much suggests things external of our minds there is no possible way to be certain), but as I said that's a point of view that is pointless to argue (why argue when we know nothing)?

I see. Along with your magical ability to sort objective reality from subjective reality, you are also an actual master of logic.

OK. I probably should have known that after reading your first few postings.

Nevermind. I am not so silly as to tangle with a Logic Master.

No need to act like a child. If you ho back to see the post where I gave my view I do not even believe we can know anything with absolute objective certainty. There is nothing magical about me being intelligent enough to know some basic definitions and concepts, and logic 101 is hardly master level. But I hate children, maybe we can have an grown up conversation one day

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you ho back to see the post where I gave my view I do not even believe we can know anything with absolute objective certainty.

The problem is that you refuse to define your terms and to answer direct questions about your position. In my experience, that does not point to a debater who is comfortable with is own worldview, much less familiar with basic logic. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings... just trying to express why we are unable to communicate.

Why not try? Define 'objective reality' for me. Please don't send me to the Logic 101 Dictionary. Give me a rigorous definition of what you are trying to mean by 'objective reality'. Then stand bravely and answer my followup questions about your meaning.

That's what logicians do.

But I hate children, maybe we can have an grown up conversation one day.

That would be wonderful. I look forward to your attempt to define 'objective reality.'

 

[1137]

Well then you'll have to wait an hour or so until I have time. But if I can't give you definitions I'm not sure how to define something for you... I'm also unsure of how you've missed my explanations to your questions but we'll start over. Perhaps a one on one thread?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well then you'll have to wait an hour or so until I have time. But if I can't give you definitions I'm not sure how to define something for you... I'm also unsure of how you've missed my explanations to your questions but we'll start over. Perhaps a one on one thread?

One-on-one is fine or we could just try and do it here. As you like. Either way, I appreciate your offer to define your term(s). It seems to me a necessary part of worldview-wrangling.

 

[Windwalker]

Well if you asked me if I believe God exists in the mind I would certainly say yes. My point is just there's nothing supporting the idea of a God separate from experience.

Does existence qualify as as separate from experience? Put it this way, you experience the world. That experience is through the brain. Right? So as you experience the world objectively, you also experience it subjectively. Which means there is qualitatively different types of understanding or knowing that is going on. But the world is the object that the subject experiences. So too then with God. The experience of God is a response to "something", not nothing. It has a particular quality that people who experience that are prone to use the word God to describe that as it transcends "normal" experience.

Here's me spelling it out a little, which of course is not really possible to convey in words. What God is, is Reality, or *real* reality. The experience of "God" is simply seeing and experiencing that which just Is. So, does that which "Is", exist? Of course it does. You exist, I exist, the universe exists. The only difference lies in what we see, what we perceive, and subsequently what we experience. Seeing "God" is simply a perceptual shift that allows us to see Reality as it is. God is simply the word we use to make a qualitative distinction of "That", *real* reality, from the "normal", mundane, illusion people call reality. But even that experience of "normal" is reality too, but just seen "through a glass darkly", not "face to face". That "face to face" experience is what is, for lack of a better word, "God".

Does reality exist? Than God does. It's simply a matter of what someone sees, or doesn't.

 

[Koldo]

Does existence qualify as as separate from experience? Put it this way, you experience the world. That experience is through the brain. Right? So as you experience the world objectively, you also experience it subjectively. Which means there is qualitatively different types of understanding or knowing that is going on. But the world is the object that the subject experiences. So too then with God. The experience of God is a response to "something", not nothing. It has a particular quality that people who experience that are prone to use the word God to describe that as it transcends "normal" experience.

Here's me spelling it out a little, which of course is not really possible to convey in words. What God is, is Reality, or *real* reality. The experience of "God" is simply seeing and experiencing that which just Is. So, does that which "Is", exist? Of course it does. You exist, I exist, the universe exists. The only difference lies in what we see, what we perceive, and subsequently what we experience. Seeing "God" is simply a perceptual shift that allows us to see Reality as it is. God is simply the word we use to make a qualitative distinction of "That", *real* reality, from the "normal", mundane, illusion people call reality. But even that experience of "normal" is reality too, but just seen "through a glass darkly", not "face to face". That "face to face" experience is what is, for lack of a better word, "God".

Does reality exist? Than God does. It's simply a matter of what someone sees, or doesn't.

Your need to call it 'God' is the most interesting part.

 

[Windwalker]

Your need to call it 'God' is the most interesting part.

I qualified that if you didn't notice. "That "face to face" experience is what is, for lack of a better word, "God"". God is simply the face we put upon that. You're free to call it whatever you wish. But I would think it would need to convey something beyond what people recognize as "normal reality", from that point of view. What word would you suggest that does that? I have plenty others myself.

 

[1137]

Does existence qualify as as separate from experience? Put it this way, you experience the world. That experience is through the brain. Right? So as you experience the world objectively, you also experience it subjectively. Which means there is qualitatively different types of understanding or knowing that is going on. But the world is the object that the subject experiences. So too then with God. The experience of God is a response to "something", not nothing. It has a particular quality that people who experience that are prone to use the word God to describe that as it transcends "normal" experience.

Here's me spelling it out a little, which of course is not really possible to convey in words. What God is, is Reality, or *real* reality. The experience of "God" is simply seeing and experiencing that which just Is. So, does that which "Is", exist? Of course it does. You exist, I exist, the universe exists. The only difference lies in what we see, what we perceive, and subsequently what we experience. Seeing "God" is simply a perceptual shift that allows us to see Reality as it is. God is simply the word we use to make a qualitative distinction of "That", *real* reality, from the "normal", mundane, illusion people call reality. But even that experience of "normal" is reality too, but just seen "through a glass darkly", not "face to face". That "face to face" experience is what is, for lack of a better word, "God".

Does reality exist? Than God does. It's simply a matter of what someone sees, or doesn't.

I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure I would agree.

 

[Windwalker]

I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure I would agree.

In what ways?

 

[1137]

One-on-one is fine or we could just try and do it here. As you like. Either way, I appreciate your offer to define your term(s). It seems to me a necessary part of worldview-wrangling.

I can't type too much from my phone so here works.

By objective reality I'm meaning a reality that exists independent of the mind. So, if no life existed would the universe still exist? We can say yes with a high degree of certainty because of empirical evidence (we have evidence the universe existed before life in it for example), but we must accept never attaining 100% certainty. This is because all the evidence we gather for anything is through our own experience.

Now, the mystical experience. Or the NDE, whatever you want to look at. We have reason to believe that they are caused by the brain. Assume this is an "objective truth" (meaning highest degree of certainty, truth independent of opinion, subjectivity, etc) the the group who would claim otherwise is simply wrong. Now we have proven no such thing, apologies for not being clear that I'm not passing is off as truth.

So back to the original purpose of the thread, knowing vs believing. We know (highest possible degree of certainty) the the earth orbits the Sun, it is objectively true. We have no objective evidence God exists, because assuming something of the sort does exist it is spiritual, we cannot gather empirical evidence, there cannot be a high degree of objective certainty. It is belief, faith, and moreso than the admitted faith in any objective truth. I accept we cannot have 100% objective certainty on anything, but there's a difference between passing earth orbiting Sun off as objective knowledge and passing God's existence as objective knowledge.

With God I, personally, am completely and permanently agnostic. Hopefully this makes sense, my thumb is going to fall off hahaha