There are too many people who think they are smart in the world an that is why we are divided and in trouble.

[Valjean]

Which is faith built on foundations of rock. My knowledge of God can be as strong as my knowledge of the material universe.

Substitute "unfounded belief" for "faith" in that sentence and see if it makes sense. As with "animal," you're not using the term in the same sense we're using it.

"Faith built on a foundation..." is not faith. "Unfounded" means "without foundation." "Faith built on foundations of rock" is self-contradictory. Faith, by definition, is poorly or un-founded, warranted, or evidenced. Once it has a foundation or objective evidence, it is no longer faith.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then why don't serious scholars see it. Please cite some of these criteria.

I see no useful tools that couldn't apply to hundreds of other claimants.
God is just?! Are we reading the same Bible?

Useful is not a concrete thing or the propery of a concrete thing.

Useful is a first person subjective belief in you that has on evidence as you can't see with your eyes useful.
Learn to apply critical thinking to your own beliefs and not just eveybody else, or you are using a double standard.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Substitute "unfounded belief" for "faith" in that sentence and see if it makes sense. As with "animal," you're not using the term in the same sense we're using it.

"Faith built on a foundation..." is not faith. "Unfounded" means "without foundation." "Faith built on foundations of rock" is self-contradictory. Faith, by definition, is poorly or un-founded, warranted, or evidenced. Once it has a foundation or objective evidence, it is no longer faith.

Then please give objective evidence for useful.

 

[Valjean]

I only share from the teaching given in all the Holy Wrirings of the past. This topic requires knowledge of the 5 levels of Spirit, which we can observe and see are at play in this matrix.

What's that got to do with a technical issue in an established, hard science? I've never seen five levels of spirit used in any scientific treatise. I've never seen any sort of spirit included in any scientific calculation or theory.

"The holy writings of the past" knew nothing of biology.

1) Vegetable Spirit - the power of growth
2) Animal Spirit - the power of the senses
3) Human Spirit - the power of rational mind
4) Spirit of Faith - the power of attraction
5) Holy Spirt - the power of creation, the Word.

These are poetic metaphors, not anything concrete or objective.

We are born of the human spirit and this is why Jesus said we must beleive before we can be born again, that is, be born with faith into the Holy Spirit, which no death can overtake.

I'm not sure what "born of the human spirit" means." I don't think it has anything to do with embryology or with objective, palpable facts.
It's poetic metaphor.
I don't believe there's even verifiable evidence of what Jesus said.

 

[Valjean]

Useful is not a concrete thing or the propery of a concrete thing.

Useful is a first person subjective belief in you that has on evidence as you can't see with your eyes useful.
Learn to apply critical thinking to your own beliefs and not just eveybody else, or you are using a double standard.

So, to rephrase: what functional/specific criteria does the Bible cite as "useful" in clearly and inerrantly distinguishing prophets from commoners?

 

[Valjean]

Then please give objective evidence for useful.

That's what I was asking TransmutingSoul before you weighed in to confuse everything!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, to rephrase: what functional/specific criteria does the Bible cite as "useful" in clearly and inerrantly distinguishing prophets from commoners?

Well, I reject your hidden assumption that criteria can be chosen with objective evidence. The problem is that you in effect use a norm for correct knowledge, where there is no evidence for correct or any other such cognitive abstract non-correct non-objective non-observable terms.

 

[Valjean]

Well, I reject your hidden assumption that criteria can be chosen with objective evidence. The problem is that you in effect use a norm for correct knowledge, where there is no evidence for correct or any other such cognitive abstract non-correct non-objective non-observable terms.

But you don't seem to believe in objective anything, certainly not an objective reality. You perceive reality or the world from some abstract, insubstantial, indeterminant, philosophically ideal viewpoint.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you don't seem to believe in objective anything, certainly not an objective reality. You perceive reality or the world from some abstract, insubstantial, indeterminant, philosophically ideal viewpoint.

I do believe in objective reality. I am a cognitive relativist, who believe objective reality is real, fair, orderly and knowable. I just don't have any evidence for that.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Perhaps we should learn to differentiate the smart from the dim, and heed the smart.

The trouble is, everyone thinks they’re smart, and that anyone who disagrees with them is necessarily dim.

Indeed, we might observe that a person’s smartness is frequently in inverse proportion to the degree of conviction they hold in the rectitude of their own opinions..

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's what I was asking TransmutingSoul before you weighed in to confuse everything!

Yeah, but that is a standard that applies to us all and not just the religious people.

You really have to learn how there are limits to knowledge and that they also apply to evidence as a belief system.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The trouble is, everyone thinks they’re smart, and that anyone who disagrees with them is necessarily dim.

Indeed, we might observe that a person’s smartness is frequently in inverse proportion to the degree of conviction they hold in the rectitude of their own opinions..

I see It is more akin to be not open to new Frames of References. Everyone is smart in their own way.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

These are poetic metaphors, not anything concrete or objective.

Science observes these powers, so it is strange people choose not see the evidence.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How does one judge the messengers? There are so many claimants, with so many conflicting claims. How does one test them? Many claimants are long dead, and cannot be questioned, so their claims are just hearsay. Perhaps their very existence is just an oft-repeated legend.

What evidence is that? If it were reliable, objective evidence wouldn't everyone believe it, just as everyone believes the Earth is round and train tracks are parallel?
Evidence that cannot be objectively tested and falsified is questionable, is it not?

I read all your replies, I have chosen not ro respond to most of the questions. I do not see we can gain any further shared insights.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science observes these powers, so it is strange people choose not see the evidence.

Regards Tony

You can't see your evidence through the eyes. You can see as understand, but that is something else. And I can understand differently than you.
Seeing as seeing is objective. Understanding as relevant here or even useful is subjective.

 

[wellwisher]

Isn't it ironic that I am even daring to post this? The audacity! Who am I to have such an opinion?!
But it is true. Just about every opinion gets platformed. You can't escape people speaking there minds about every subject under God's sun. Even if they don't know anything about the subject they will have an opinion about it. Where did they get their opinions? Somebody else told them which opinion they should have on the subject. So even if a person knows nothing about biology, they'll have an opinion about it because they were given a ready made opinion so they conveniently don't have to formulate one for themselves. Easy-peasy ready-made insta-opinions free for everyone in all walks of life! Snake oil from free! Or is it? In my not so humble opinion we should be more like Socrates - we should humble ourselves and admit that we don't know **** and we should question ourselves and what is going on. We should embrace the fact that nothing is certain especially our opinions and we should acknowledge most of what we know is based on bull**** we have incomplete and erroneous ideas of what we think is true and real but have no means of being proven. Yet we keep going on and on babbling away like our lives depended on it.

The opinions all sound the same, similar to the repeated memes you hear on all the fake news stations, on any given day, after they get their marching orders. People appear smart when it comes to book learning, but not when it comes to critical thinking and common sense. Being an expert at a fictional novel, is not exactly critical thinking in reality.

For example, Presidential candidate Harris has yet to have a press conference where all the journalists can ask her questions to learn about her opinions on the problems the country faces, and her approach and solutions. Instead, fake news puffs up her ego with half the country good with that. It is the very half that claims to be most educated. They learn the fiction and assume that is real. Going right to the source is closer to reality than through a pandering surrogate.

They do not even see the irony but they buy the farm and repeat what the propaganda machine feeds them. It has to do with the same political party running the Public education system, and not teaching skills that make you intelligent. Rather they teach you how to do pretend intelligent, so one can look intelligent; identity politics version of smart. If you say the politically correct thing, you are labeled smart. There appears that a virus or bug, has been added their brain's operating system and they do not know how to fix it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You can't see your evidence through the eyes. You can see as understand, but that is something else. And I can understand differently than you.
Seeing as seeing is objective. Understanding as relevant here or even useful is subjective.

Are you offering science does not observe the power of growth, does not observe the brains reaction to the senses and of the brains reaction to rational thought?

After all science also now knows that trees communicate with each other.

Do Trees Talk to Each Other?

A controversial German forester says yes, and his ideas are shaking up the scientific world

www.smithsonianmag.com

What fires all these electrical currents

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you offering science does not observe the power of growth, does not observe the brains reaction to the senses and of the brains reaction to rational thought?

After all science also now knows that trees communicate with each other.

Do Trees Talk to Each Other?

A controversial German forester says yes, and his ideas are shaking up the scientific world

www.smithsonianmag.com

What fires all these electrical currents

Regards Tony

Well, I have seen no evidence that natural science can observe consciousness or any other subjective concepts, since the methodology is in part objective.

 

[bobhikes]

Isn't it ironic that I am even daring to post this? The audacity! Who am I to have such an opinion?!
But it is true. Just about every opinion gets platformed. You can't escape people speaking there minds about every subject under God's sun. Even if they don't know anything about the subject they will have an opinion about it. Where did they get their opinions? Somebody else told them which opinion they should have on the subject. So even if a person knows nothing about biology, they'll have an opinion about it because they were given a ready made opinion so they conveniently don't have to formulate one for themselves. Easy-peasy ready-made insta-opinions free for everyone in all walks of life! Snake oil from free! Or is it? In my not so humble opinion we should be more like Socrates - we should humble ourselves and admit that we don't know **** and we should question ourselves and what is going on. We should embrace the fact that nothing is certain especially our opinions and we should acknowledge most of what we know is based on bull**** we have incomplete and erroneous ideas of what we think is true and real but have no means of being proven. Yet we keep going on and on babbling away like our lives depended on it.

I don't believe people believe they are smart. I have spoken to a lot, and they typically admit to not knowing certain things and will even get flustered if your challenge a core belief. What is happening is that people today believe they are right and then find groups that support these claims ignoring all other groups. This starts with their core beliefs and because these groups are of similar mind it expands to most of their beliefs. The only solution is for people to socialize with all types of people and society has never done this and of late has lessened the amount of socialization required.

You have the internet for chats and interaction with similar people.
You have the internet to purchase anything and have it delivered.
You have specific minded entertainment selections
You can work from home completely or partly for a large section of society
You can video chat your family and friends
Basically, you can live your life without ever leaving your house anymore and people are doing just that.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Well, I have seen no evidence that natural science can observe consciousness or any other subjective concepts, since the methodology is in part objective.

There is some great research happening with this, they have amazing technology that is observing consciousness on levels not previously available.

Go hunting on YouTube, there is a lot of amazing videos for you to find.

You will find that consciousness is intrinsic to life, yet rational thought finds its apex in the human mind.

The mapping of human consciousness is a great way to start.

Mapping human consciousness: A breakthrough study

Scientists have identified a "default ascending arousal network" in the brain that integrates wakefulness and self-awareness by connecting key brain regions, providing new insights into the neuroanatomy of human consciousness.

www.psypost.org

Regards Tony