What we mean by "there is no evidence for theism"

[Windwalker]

There are a lot of crap ideas out there. Merely complaining about the mainstream not accepting your pet groups ideas is not persuasive. When they can convince their peers of their position and achieve mainstream consensus, then I will accept it. You are free to think that scientific consensus is like the Pope if you like.

You missed the point of my referencing them. It was not to defend or debate the field of Transpersonal Psychology. There are clearly flaws in it as a start up, along with positives. That's besides the point. My only point was that were researching, good, bad, or indifferent, actual states of consciousness that have been experienced, having been examined, have been practiced. That was the point.

You said it doesn't exist. Then what were they examining, I asked? Nothing? You simply dismissing it out of hand, is not justifiable. That was my point.

Now as far as my original post you simply dismissed out of hand, what I said in it is valid. There is something there, non-imaginary. Well documented. Well researched, objectively looked at and examined. But my underlying point was that you can use the scientific method with mystical, or transrational, experiences. Buddhists do it all the time. 1. Learn how to do the experiment. 2. Do the experiment. 3. Have an experience (collect the data). 4. Have it reviewed by other qualified peers who have themselves done steps 1-3.

That's a scientific approach. But it has to do with the transmental domains, not the mental domain, nor the physical sensorimotor domains. The scientific method can be used for the mental domain (mathematics) and not just the physical domain. It can also be used for the transmental, or spiritual domain (mystical, satori, kensho, etc).

 

[ppp]

You missed the point of my referencing them. It was not to defend or debate the field of Transpersonal Psychology. There are clearly flaws in it as a start up, along with positives. That's besides the point. My only point was that were researching, good, bad, or indifferent, actual states of consciousness that have been experienced, having been examined, have been practiced. That was the point.

Fair enough.

You said it doesn't exist. Then what were they examining, I asked? Nothing? You simply dismissing it out of hand, is not justifiable. That was my point.

No. What I said is that there is no evidence that spiritual or transmental domains actually exist. And from your links I don't see that they are claiming such either. They are dealing with psychological states that people label as spiritual. They are not claiming that the spiritual is an domain of existence.

There is a well documented mental state that people call spiritual. But I see no evidence that there actually is a spirit.

 

[Windwalker]

Fair enough.

Thanks.

No. What I said is that there is no evidence that spiritual or transmental domains actually exist. And from your links I don't see that they are claiming such either. They are dealing with psychological states that people label as spiritual. They are not claiming that the spiritual is an domain of existence.

Well, here's the rub on that. You may call these states a psychological state, but that is not denying that these are particular states of consciousness themselves which actually exist, and merit being studied on their own, or the least as major subsection of psychology at large. They also have a physical component to them as well, but they are studies as an entire category of their own, just as psychology also has physical components as well. But we don't reduce this down to one thing.

We don't reduce psychology to matter, because it is a distinct domain of inquiry in and of itself. That exact same thing is true of the "spiritual domain", as they cannot be reduced down either to "just psychology" or the "mental domain of inquiry". There is data peculiar to itself, as revealed by these higher states or modes of consciousness itself, which qualified practitioner have direct access to.

I think what you, and a lot of people do, is when they hear the term "spiritual", they imagine that to mean some realm or domain outside of one's own reality, some supernatural 'place' or something or other. First, the nature of these are in fact "transmental" in the sense that they are beyond cognitive, discursive thought where reality is symbolically divided up into linguist categories and considered mentally. These are the "mental" domain. Transmental, or transpersonal (as the ego itself is a mental construct), are actual states of consciousness that do exist. Any practitioner who follows the correct disciplines can access these within themselves. States of "no-thought". States of pure Awareness.. Etc. These are real states. These are real conditions. These exist.

The reason they are treated differently than just another mental state, is for that very reason. They go beyond the mental modes. The reason they are called 'spiritual' is simply due to the nature of the experience itself, which has a sense of absolute connection to all that exists, freed from the constraints of the mental discursive mind, or the physical bodies. Spiritual simply means to be freed, "like wind" which is where the word comes from. That doesn't mean Casper the Friendly Ghost, sort of supernaturalism. It's very much natural. But it is beyond the limitations of the simply, reductive mental reality of the mind. That is a real, repeatable, and well attested to state.

Therefore, it's not imaginary. And by the way, I am fond of the term psychospiritual, as there is in fact a connection between the two. And of course there would be, and should be. We are after all, "body, mind, and spirit". We should not divorce these from each other. But we also should not flatten them down to just one thing either, such as "just the brain", or "just chemicals", or "just psychology". That does nothing for exposing what can actually be revealed from within each of those distinct domains themselves.

BTW, if 'spirit" is disconcerting because of baggage, "body, mind, and spirit" as domains can be reframed as "sensibilia, intelligibilia and transcendelia". That's saying the same thing.

There is a well documented mental state that people call spiritual. But I see no evidence that there actually is a spirit.

I hope I explained this above.

 

[ppp]

Well, here's the rub on that. You may call these states a psychological state, but that is not denying that these are particular states of consciousness themselves which actually exist, and merit being studied on their own, or the least as major subsection of psychology at large.

Right. But I still call them psychological states. They are still a product of brain function. Attaching the word "spiritual" to them is criminally foolhardy. "Spiritual" will always be attached to the supernatural. People already use metaphor and a layman's misunderstanding of quantum mechanics to "prove" their pet supernatural beliefs.

I am not going to quote your post, but these two sentences stood out to me.

The reason they are treated differently than just another mental state, is for that very reason. They go beyond the mental modes.

That is poetic. What does "beyond the mental modes" mean? Does that mean that it is divorced from brain function? And if so, how would you determine that in practical scientific means?

We are after all, "body, mind, and spirit".

I have a body, and that body generates a mind. I see no need or room for spirit. What ever you happen to define it as.

 

[Windwalker]

Right. But I still call them psychological states. They are still a product of brain function. Attaching the word "spiritual" to them is criminally foolhardy. "Spiritual" will always be attached to the supernatural.

That's a rather harsh opinion. Criminal?

No, spirituality is not always, nor will always be attached to the supernatural. I certainly don't take it that way. Historically it has not been taken that way always either. The term spiritual simply means 'beyond the ordinary". It points to a way of life, living not in the mundane, ordinary life, where we get entirely caught up in the world. It points to stepping out of that mode of thought, that mode of being, into a mode of being that is connected, grounded, and transcended from "thought world" as I like to call it. It points to things like the "ineffable" quality of being, that which is beyond putting into words and ideas. That is what spiritual means. It doesn't mean removed from reality. It means beyond the 'ordinary' into the extraordinary way of being and living, in the world.

That you associate it, let it be defined by magical thinkers, is to me what is actually criminal. It's a lot like letting the word 'love' be defined by teenagers in lust with each other, and refusing to use that word to describe the adult understanding of what love means, because children use it in childish ways. Right?

As far as reducing the spiritual, or that which is beyond "thought world", as I call it, to be a product of brain function. Well, that is of course a thoroughly reductionist view. I would argue that neither psychology nor spirituality are a "product" of brain function. I highly doubt you view yourself as nothing more than just a product of brain function, that your sense of self, your love you feel for others, your connection with the world, your beliefs, your values, and all of that, is just a product of brain function. No one lives life that way. No one actually sees themselves this way, or acts as if that's is all they are.

That we see brain function with any experience does not mean that those are products of the brain. The brain rather responds to stimulations and adds certain qualities to help us translate the experience. In other words, as with any and all experience, there is a corresponding brain function. That doesn't matter if it's unconscious autonomic systems, conscious thoughts, subconscious thoughts, or spiritual experiences. The brain is there all the time. But we don't understand these things by looking at the brain. We understand them by engaging in them directly.

People already use metaphor and a layman's misunderstanding of quantum mechanics to "prove" their pet supernatural beliefs.

Sure, and we can address those separately. But as I said before, just because some people turn metaphors into literal supernatural things, or created pseudoscience things out of them, using prerational thought with rational systems, as is the hallmark of most "New Age" thought, does not mean there is not an adult understanding of those same things. You're not going to hear me using spiritual in those ways. I'm using them in the ways the Wisdom traditions have meant them, as other, even atheist thinkers such as Sartre or Camus use them.

Funny story. A friend of mine who is big into French Existentialism defined by Sartre and Camus, as I just mentioned, and I were out at a restaurant along the river having some drinks. He was talking about human spirituality with me, talking about sculptures, and great works of art. We were using the term spiritual in the way people have generally meant spirituality to mean, as an aspect of human experience "beyond the ordinary" or the mundane. We of course did not mean supernaturalism.

A couple of women nearby overheard us talking, and the one came over and said, "It's so amazing to hear two men talk about spirituality! I'm into spirituality too!" She then sat down with us and started talking about her pyramids and crystals and her trip to Egypt. Jon and I almost burst out laughing. That had nothing to do with what we were legitimately talking about as human spirituality.

Ditto.

That is poetic. What does "beyond the mental modes" mean? Does that mean that it is divorced from brain function? And if so, how would you determine that in practical scientific means?

No of course it's not divorced from the brain. If it happens in human experience, the body has to be present.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, or just didn't catch it. This "division" between body, mind, and spirit, is not to divorce these from each other. Of course they are all connected to each other. Rather, they are domains of inquiry, with distinct feature to those domains. You don't talk about your ideas, but looking at blood cells, or brain synapses under a microscope. Those are mental realities, understood in a mental to mental interpretative mode.

These are domains or modes of knowing. I typed this up recently in order to explain this better. This is from Integral philosopher Ken Wilber, who is drawing off of, and expanding on the works and insights of other philosophers and researchers in these areas of human knowledge and knowing. Perhaps it will explain these domains better than I can:

We have seen that each of the three general modes of knowing - sensory, mental, and spiritual - has access to direct, immediate, and intuitive apprehensions or data (sensibilia, intelligibilia and transcendelia). Notice, however, that the very data of the mental mode - its words and symbols and concepts - simply because they are indeed symbolic, intentional, reflective, and referential can be used to point to, or represent, other data, from any other realm: sensibilia, intelligibilia itself, or transcendelia. We can indicate all these epistemological relationships as on page 214.

Mode #5 is simple sensorimotor cognition, the eye of flesh, the pre-symbolic grasp of the presymbolic world (sensibilia). Mode #4 is empiric-analytic thought; it is mind (intelligibilia ) reflecting on and grounding itself in the world of sensibilia. Mode #3 is mental-phenomenological thought; it is mind (intelligibilia) reflecting on and grounding itself in the world of intelligibilia itself. Mode #2 can be called mandalic or paradoxical thinking; it is mind (intelligibilia) attempting to reason about spirit or transcendelia. And mode #1 is gnosis, the eye of contemplation, the transsymbolic grasp of the transsymbolic world, spirit’s direct knowledge of spirit, the immediate intuition of transcendelia.

But notice: Whereas the data in any realm are themselves immediate and direct (by definition), the pointing by the mental data to other data (sensory, mental, or transcendental) is a mediate or intermediate process - it is a mapping, modeling, or matching procedure. And this mapping procedure - the use of mental data (symbols and concepts) to explain or map other data (sensorey, mental, or transcendental) - simply results in what is known as theoretical knowledge.​

We come, then, to a crucial point. Neither the sensorimotor realms per se, nor the spiritual realms per se, form theories. They can be the object of theories, but do not themselves produce theories. The one is presymbolic, the other, transsymbolic, and theories are, above all else, symbolic or mental productions.​

~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pgs. 61-62​

The point is we look at these things as different categories or modes of knowing. While we can see these as 'separate domains', that is simply just a 2-D model for the analytic mind. Of course they are interconnected. Body (brain) is there in Mind (psychology), as it is in Spirit. And Spirit, when developed also directly influences mind, and body. It's goes all the way, and all the way down. But I consider it an error to simply say, "it's just the brain" and ignore what those respective higher domains have in way of content and distinct knowledge in themselves.

 

[ppp]

That's a rather harsh opinion. Criminal?

It is what it is.

No, spirituality is not always, nor will always be attached to the supernatural. I certainly don't take it that way. Historically it has not been taken that way always either. The term spiritual simply means 'beyond the ordinary".

I don't agree.

In Theology, the uses of the word are various. In the New Testament, it signifies sometimes the soul of man (generally its highest part, e.g., "the spirit is willing"), sometimes the supernatural action of God in man, sometimes the Holy Ghost ("the Spirit of Truth Whom the world cannot receive"). The use of this term to signify the supernatural life of grace is the explanation of St. Paul's language about the spiritual and the carnal man and his enumeration of the three elements, spirit, soul, and body, which gave occasion to the error of the Trichotomists (1 Thessalonians 5:23, Ephesians 4:23).​

Now, I live in a country where most people are religious and the vast majority are Christians. More than half of which are Evangelical Christians of some stripe. If I go to the mall and ask random people about spirit, I am going to get primarily religious answers. No new age thought is required.

That you associate it, let it be defined by magical thinkers, is to me what is actually criminal. It's a lot like letting the word 'love' be defined by teenagers in lust with each other, and refusing to use that word to describe the adult understanding of what love means, because children use it in childish ways. Right?

The supernatural usage is the common one. And please don't set up a comparison where you liken believers to children with childish ways. They are not.

We were using the term spiritual in the way people have generally meant spirituality to mean, as an aspect of human experience "beyond the ordinary" or the mundane.

I am pretty sure that I rarely, if ever use it that way. I generally use it as enthusiasm. e.g. In the spirit of discovery; espirit de corps. Or alcohol.

And mode #1 is gnosis, the eye of contemplation, the transsymbolic grasp of the transsymbolic world, spirit’s direct knowledge of spirit, the immediate intuition of transcendelia.

~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pgs. 61-62

Maybe I missed it, but I do not see a definition of spirit, what it is, and how he knows that it his definition connects to something real..

 

[Windwalker]

I don't agree.

In Theology, the uses of the word are various. In the New Testament, it signifies sometimes the soul of man (generally its highest part, e.g., "the spirit is willing"), sometimes the supernatural action of God in man, sometimes the Holy Ghost ("the Spirit of Truth Whom the world cannot receive"). The use of this term to signify the supernatural life of grace is the explanation of St. Paul's language about the spiritual and the carnal man and his enumeration of the three elements, spirit, soul, and body, which gave occasion to the error of the Trichotomists (1 Thessalonians 5:23, Ephesians 4:23).
​

What is the source of this? I see it as very Christian theologically oriented, as it refers only to the Bible. What person and what association with the religion wrote this? It's good to provide links with citations like this.

The context I am using the word spirituality and/or spirit within, is much less narrowly focused. This article from Wiki says a great deal more in line with how I and those I am citing from use it. It's a common understanding in all religions:

The meaning of spirituality has developed and expanded over time, and various connotations can be found alongside each other.[1][2][3][note 1] Traditionally, spirituality referred to a religious process of re-formation which "aims to recover the original shape of man",[note 2] oriented at "the image of God"[4][5] as exemplified by the founders and sacred texts of the religions of the world. The term was used within early Christianity to refer to a life oriented toward the Holy Spirit[6] and broadened during the Late Middle Ages to include mental aspects of life.[7] In modern times, the term both spread to other religious traditions[8] and broadened to refer to a wider range of experience, including a range of esoteric traditions and religious traditions. Modern usages tend to refer to a subjective experience of a sacred dimension[9] and the "deepest values and meanings by which people live",[10][11] often in a context separate from organized religious institutions.[12] This may involve belief in a supernatural realm beyond the ordinarily observable world,[13] personal growth,[14] a quest for an ultimate or sacred meaning,[15] religious experience,[16] or an encounter with one's own "inner dimension."[17]

Spirituality - Wikipedia​

One's own "inner dimension". A "subjective experience of a sacred dimension and the 'deepest values and meanings by which people live', often in a context separate from organized religious institutions". Yes, those. That is how I am using it, and pretty much all the authors I cite from use it to ean. It's word to describe the highest state of human reality. Not strictly supernaturalism, though there are those who interpret it in those terms. That would not be what I am speaking of however.

Now, I live in a country where most people are religious and the vast majority are Christians. More than half of which are Evangelical Christians of some stripe.

Sounds like the United States to me, which is where I live.

If I go to the mall and ask random people about spirit, I am going to get primarily religious answers. No new age thought is required.

We're not in a mall. Those in this thread bothering to discuss these matters generally have more knowledge on the subject than random people walking around. Those folks don't generally hang out and weigh in a questions like what the OP stated. We have a spectrum of views here, from laity, to advanced degrees, from believers to atheists, from fundamentalists to progressives, etc.

The supernatural usage is the common one.

That may be, but you cannot reduce what I am saying to that. That's not listening to what was being posted, and just brushing it away as what the mythic-literal belief sees things as. And there raises a very important point. Most of the posts on this site, just assume that spirituality is nothing but that. That's what you did with my post originally, didn't you?

And please don't set up a comparison where you liken believers to children with childish ways. They are not.

All believers understand things in various ways, from magical, to mythic, to rational, to pluralistic, to pardoxical, and so forth. James Fowler's research into the developmental stages of Faith goes into just those stages, showing how there are different ways in which people grow, or are at a certain stage for however long. Mythic-literal faith, is one which tends to not understand symbolism, and externalizes the symbols as literal historical events with supernatural powers. It is one of the earlier stages of faith, and a great many believers are at that stage. They are the ones that tend to define what faith is, what Christianity is and believes for a lot of people.

Is it childish? I didn't use that word. But it is a child's understanding, yes. Nothing wrong with saying that. The apostle Paul did himself as well referring to believers in his day, recognizing the different stages that believers go through. "Those who still require milk, not ready for strong meat", for one reference. "When I was a child, I thought as child," "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ," etc.

Everyone begins as a child in every line of development for everything we grow in; musical development, mathematical development, spiritual development, and so forth. To not recognize there are less developed and more developed stages is simply unreality. It's not a belittlement of them. But my point is, what you seem to be doing is letting the mythic-literal stage define what these things are, when they are much more than that! That's all I meant by that.

For reference: The Stages of Faith According to James W. Fowler | Thomas Armstrong, Ph.D.

 

[ppp]

Define spirit succinctly and clearly in your own words.

Is it childish? I didn't use that word

You did.

 

[AlexanderG]

Alfred Tarski



Well, your 2 posts are too simple, because you run into the following problem. As for the bold sentence itself is it a part of reality or merely imaginary?

Now if you want to tackle that and describe reality, you have to consider all the following problems in philosophy as they relate to the problems of knowledge, because that is what is going on.
So here are the challenges in chronological order more or less.

• Protagoras for subjectivism/solipsism/relativism as that is what measure is about here: Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not". Remember that one because that one is still with us.
• Agrippa's Trilemma: Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia The justification of anything runs into the following problem of grounding the justification, i.e. how do you justify the justification is correct? Well, apparently it can't done, because it will either be dogmatic/axiomatic, circular or run into infinite regress.
• The evil Demon as per Rene Descartes: How do you in the fundamental sense know, that you can trust objective reality to be epistemologically fair?
• The problem of "Das Ding an sich" as per Immanuel Kant: The only property you know of objective reality is that it is independent of your mind.
• The Is-Ought problem as per David Hume: Relevant to your posts the problem is the following: It is a fact in your system that some people don't have evidence for some of their claims. What ought we do about that?
• Alfred Tarski and the problem that language is self-referral as per your bold one.
• The problem that the axiomatic assumptions in methodological naturalism is not the only possible set of axioms or the only way to understand knowledge: Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
• And finally we circle back to Protagoras and end the same place: Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Or if you want it in practice for teaching high-school students: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

And now I am not going to be nice. If you are of Western culture, you have in effect ignored over close to 2500+ years of history about what the limitations of the idea of knowledge are. And that is what is the problem with your "tribe/subculture" of non-religious people. You all more less believe that you have solved something, that has never been solved in recorded history.
The difference between you and I are apparently that you think you have solved it, where everybody else has failed and I know that so far nobody has solved it and that includes you and I.

You quoted me saying that we as atheists don't want certainty, just any reliable way to produce some evidence to support one explanation over another. And then you spent your entire post pointing out that I can't be certain of ontological truths. Fine, and neither can theists. The point of my OP was that you still don't have any good evidence that supports theistic claims even a little bit. Despite all your points and distractions, you still don't have any evidence. I'm talking about epistemology and you're talking about ontology.

Virtually all modern philosophers are fallibilists, who acknowledge that we don't need absolute certainty to have knowledge. We can rightly ignore what philosophers thought thousands of years ago, at least in certain areas. Because we have progressed so much farther.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You quoted me saying that we as atheists don't want certainty, just any reliable way to produce some evidence to support one explanation over another. And then you spent your entire post pointing out that I can't be certain of ontological truths. Fine, and neither can theists. The point of my OP was that you still don't have any good evidence that supports theistic claims even a little bit. Despite all your points and distractions, you still don't have any evidence. I'm talking about epistemology and you're talking about ontology.

Virtually all modern philosophers are fallibilists, who acknowledge that we don't need absolute certainty to have knowledge. We can rightly ignore what philosophers thought thousands of years ago, at least in certain areas. Because we have progressed so much farther.

So how do you know, that the universe, you are in, is not a Boltzmann Brain universe? That is epistemology in the end. So you just answer. how you know?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't worry about "proof". I am interested in evidence towards or against the probability of a given claim.

No you are not interested.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

No you are not interested.

Regards Tony

Have at least the humility to not pretend that you know my mind.

 

[Windwalker]

Define spirit succinctly and clearly in your own words.

I'm pretty sure I did, at least when I was explaining what I mean by spirituality. If you mean spirit itself, as in the spirit within us, or the spirit that is us, that means to me the essential nature of who and what we are, before and beyond our differentiated, conceptualized idea of a separate self. It's our 'true self', the core or essence of our being. It's what remains when all else is stripped away. It's the "life force", the vital energy that underlies and transcends not only who and what we are, body and mind, but what all things everywhere are. Life itself is Spirit, and that takes many forms. Spirit is the Ground of all Being, as well as its Goal. It's the Foundation of all reality. It is the essence of Reality.

So spirituality then is a focus on that essential nature that is fundamental to all that we are. It stands in contrast to the mental word of language and symbols and concepts and ideas, which divides the world into subject/object dualities. Spirituality, or getting in touch with one's own spirit in this sense, sees beyond that world of division. That's why "love" is considered spiritual in nature. It sees beyond the separate self into seeing ourselves in others. And the height of spirituality is to see ourselves in everything, and everything in us. "Oneness" is a common description of this condition or state of being. Spirituality then is really a condition, much more than a state.

You did.

My language was to say don't dismiss the idea of spirituality by taking less mature or sophisticated understandings as what define these things. It's not to insult those with the less mature perspectives.

I understand that even if they have what "skeptics" see as foolish or childish ways of thinking, they are not all wrong. Just because a believer sees God as an external entirety outside themselves, in literal anthropomorphic terms, its the heart of faith that matters, not how they reason it. In other words, don't dismiss spirituality because ideas of a literal God in the heavens somewhere seems childish to you. There are in fact ways that theistic views are completely compatible with more sophisticated, rational, and scientific views of reality.

I constantly battle that in discussions where people are arguing against that idea of God, and ignoring what I am actually saying. That's what you did in your first response to me, outright dismissing the spiritual domain in human experience, because of some apparent idea derived from a literalistic perspective. That was my real point. Not to insult them.

 

[ppp]

If you mean spirit itself, as in the spirit within us, or the spirit that is us, that means to me the essential nature of who and what we are, before and beyond our differentiated, conceptualized idea of a separate self. It's our 'true self', the core or essence of our being. It's what remains when all else is stripped away. It's the "life force", the vital energy that underlies and transcends not only who and what we are, body and mind, but what all things everywhere are. Life itself is Spirit, and that takes many forms.

This sounds like vitalism.

 

[Windwalker]

This sounds like vitalism.

It sounds like what the world religions mean by Spirit. That earlier scientific attempts at talking about the nature of life sounds like what the Wisdom and escorteric religions have talked about, coming from the insights of mystical experience, that's not much of a surprise. Even what science is saying today is sounding more and more like what mystics have said for thousands of years.

Be careful not to think that mysticism and religion is nothing other than rational attempts at scientific explanations of how things work. That's not what they were about in their core. That "vitalism" may bear some resemblance to this, that does not translate into spirituality being the scientific idea of vitalism. They are quite different in nature and intent. Science looks outside and tries to understand with reason. Mysticism looks within, and tries to understand through insight. Science is about the particulars. Spirituality is about the whole.

BTW, what I briefly touched on about the energy that permeates all things, is something I have directly experienced, long before encountering concepts about these things. It was a mystical experience of the world that realized that directly. Later, I heard the same thing said by others of mystical experiences, such as recorded in the texts of the Hindus and Buddhists, as well as many others. They aren't theoretic ideas. They are descriptions of direct experience. Very different.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So how do you know, that the universe, you are in, is not a Boltzmann Brain universe? That is epistemology in the end. So you just answer. how you know?

We can't know. True. But we can do more than just act on the assumption that we are not by e.g. , examining the implications under the assumption that we are, or more generally how we might reason starting from such solipsist-like assumptions, e.g.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Have at least the humility to not pretend that you know my mind.

That was your response, you did not reply to the question asked of you. So, if you are interested, I will ask it again.

God is made known to us via Messengers, they may seen like a man like others, but they are not, they have innate knowledge.

So, a Messenger arrives and offers a Message from God.

What proof would you ask for, other than the proof the Messenger offers?

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

That was your response, you did not reply to the question asked of you. So, if you are interested, I will ask it again.

God is made known to us via Messengers, they may seen like a man like others, but they are not, they have innate knowledge.

So, a Messenger arrives and offers a Message from God.

What proof would you ask for, other than the proof the Messenger offers?

Regards Tony

I believe that I did answer it. But maybe that was to Trailblazer.

The god showing up for a conversation would be a great start.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I believe that I did answer it. But maybe that was to Trailblazer.

The god showing up for a conversation would be a great start.

The Messenger has answered that for you.

I will quote the start and post the rest in Link.

God is beyond all comprehension of the human mind

"To every discerning and illuminated heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is, and hath ever been, veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men. “No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision; He is the Subtile, the All-Perceiving.”…
The door of the knowledge of the Ancient of Days being thus closed in the face of all beings, the Source of infinite grace, according to His saying, “His grace hath transcended all things; My grace hath encompassed them all,” hath caused those luminous Gems of Holiness to appear out of the realm of the spirit, in the noble form of the human temple, and be made manifest unto all men, that they may impart unto the world the mysteries of the unchangeable Being, and tell of the subtleties of His imperishable Essence...."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 46-49

So we now know the Messenger is all we can know of God, so what is the next proof you ask for, knowing that all we know of God is open to the next request.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

You asked me:

What proof would you ask for, other than the proof the Messenger offers?

And I told you. Your responding with some text from your alleged messenger is dishonest.