If you follow that 'process', can you record evidence of 'divine events' with a video recorder? Can you attain objective knowledge not available to present day human and demonstrate it? If you answered no to these questions then there is nothing to suggest the process can impact anything outside the scope of your own mind.
contradictory evidence!?
- Thread starter sowhatifit'sdark
- Start date
If you follow that 'process', can you record evidence of 'divine events' with a video recorder? Can you attain objective knowledge not available to present day human and demonstrate it? If you answered no to these questions then there is nothing to suggest the process can impact anything outside the scope of your own mind.
I'm not a theist.
What really gets to me, both from many theists as well as atheists, is this sheer cruelty imposed on human cognition by both.
The vocal theists tell me that I am really bad and deliberately refuse to see God when it is so obvious that God is there; that by an act of will, I would see God clearly.
The vocal atheists tell me that I am delusional (and thus bad) and deliberately don't see what is objectively there or objectively absent; that by an act of will, I could see objective reality.
And both the vocal theists as well as the vocal atheists keep more or less directly telling me to forget about my own life, forget about my own happiness, and instead focus on something else. Jesus, or science, or whatever, as long as it has little or nothing to do with my actual experience of life. That I am supposed to find happiness in ways they say I should, and that if I don't, then I am aiming too high and a bad person.
Both the vocal theists as well as the vocal atheists want me to respect them, while they wish to be free not to respect me; both want me to trust them and to believe them, while they wish to be free not to trust me and not to believe me.
No, this is not the way to have reasonable communication.
Doesn't sound like any of the atheists I've ever paid much attention to. Sounds more or less like the opposite of the standard Dennett line, for example.greenberg said:
That settles it: you're hanging around with a very strange bunch of "atheists", and they're no fun. Time for new friends. At least somebody who doesn't present "science" as something one focuses on, outside one's own life or anywhere, or tells people how to be happy.greenberg said:
Did someone say you were?
I would point out that vocal atheism is more of a response to theistical imposition. Without that imposition, I don't think most atheists would care what theists believe. Unfortunately that's not realistic as it's against human nature, so until there is a non-delusional religious substitute (or equivalent), atheism is going to have to butt heads with theism the way it presently does.
Never heard that come from an atheist.
The only thing I would want of you is to ask "where is the evidence?" when presented with something extraordinary (and of course to be prepared to give evidence if ever asked of you).
Interpersonal communication doesn't really work when different parties have different underlying sets of values.
I suspect you are seeking a listener rather than an interlocutor; try a mute atheist !
Your suggestion doesn't even work for empirical claims, what to speak of claims that are beyond empiricism.
For instance what do you make of this
Is it cancer?
Is it a virus?
Is it a bacteria?
Is it a red blood cell?
Unless you have some foundation of knowledge to contextualize what you are seeing, you might as well be looking at a moon walking bear.
Crunchy cat
when you say
To demonstrate a person, an instance of that person suffices.
are you saying that your father is an actual person, or the whole idea of being a person is simply an abstraction?
The problem with the type of knowledge you are presenting is that it is working on certain axiomatic absolutes that are accepted as constants - for instance it is assumed that the speed of light is a constant, that the weight of an electron is a constant etc etc- in this way a greater picture is extrapolated which is entirely beyond one's direct perception (which is the ultimately the saving grace of empirical methods) - this is why persons in the field (the field of empiricism) make statements like this
At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.
- Karl Popper
So your reasoning falls short for the following
(I wasn't aware that recording devices have the capacity to conceptualize what they are "seeing" ... but anyway)
when you say
To demonstrate a person, an instance of that person suffices.
are you saying that your father is an actual person, or the whole idea of being a person is simply an abstraction?
I'm not the one pinning all my hopes on a soft science hypothesis however ....
I haven't got a clue what you are talking about when you say to the effect "real knowledge has falsified god" - I can't even begin to see how one could make sense of it - maybe you can provide an example how you have applied this general principle in your life.
The reason I mention consciousness is because that it the element one works with in validating god's existence (at least according according to the authority of those making the claim).
The problem with the type of knowledge you are presenting is that it is working on certain axiomatic absolutes that are accepted as constants - for instance it is assumed that the speed of light is a constant, that the weight of an electron is a constant etc etc- in this way a greater picture is extrapolated which is entirely beyond one's direct perception (which is the ultimately the saving grace of empirical methods) - this is why persons in the field (the field of empiricism) make statements like this
At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.
- Karl Popper
So your reasoning falls short for the following
- Falsifying issues like the age of the universe is absolutely impossible for empiricism.
- There are many text critical issues of the bible (it has many authors from many different periods of time) - even (most) christian practitioners differentiate between secondary and primary aspects of biblical knowledge (For instance knowing the correct age of the universe will not make one any more inclined towards god) ... as interesting side point, modern science's acceptance of linear time as fundamental in all investigations is something it borrowed from the bible.
- There are other branches of religious knowledge available presenting alternative models of universal chronology (some not even resting on linear time)
so did you develop some foundation of knowledge to make that assessment of the picture or is it something that simply over flowed from the spontaneity of your heart?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
so did you develop some foundation of knowledge to make that assessment of the picture or is it something that simply over flowed from the spontaneity of your heart?
It was a divine insight..
lolIt was a divine insight..
Your suggestion doesn't even work for empirical claims, what to speak of claims that are beyond empiricism.
For instance what do you make of this
Is it cancer?
Is it a virus?
Is it a bacteria?
Is it a red blood cell?
Unless you have some foundation of knowledge to contextualize what you are seeing, you might as well be looking at a moon walking bear.
D) none of the above. The larger circular entity is a white blood cell. The smaller "rice-looking" entities are bacteria. What's more important is that I can detect difference on that photo and isolate the different components it is comprised of. I could have zero knowledge of biology and still identify both presence and difference.
Excellent! This is what I've been fighting with LG over for a looong time. Presence and difference. Our favorite example used to be electrons. I can identify presence and correllated effects. He will never understand this.
They don't but they are sure darn handy for capturing both light and sound for future examination.
I am saying that the correspondence between the idea of a person and reality can be demonstrated by showing my father.
Niether am I, and at the same time the concept of 'hope' isn't applicable to the scenario for me.
It means that when a clear observation of reality shows a claim of particular 'God's interaction with reality to be false then that particular 'God' stands demonstrably non-existent.
Here is a real-life example of how this technique can be applied. I have a friend whom claims he never judges people. Today he was really upset at one of his family members and was repeatedly demonizing her and insulting her intelligence. I pointed out how his behavior today (an observation of reality) demonstrated his claim as being false. He stormed off, grabbed a taco, came back and agreed.
It seems alot more straight forward to go for something much more easily detectable (i.e. comparison of a 'God's claimed interaction with reality to actual reality).
I partially agree. Simply because we don't have access to every single variable in a system, we technically cannot prove it (I think the only system applicable to a proof is a methematical one). We can however provide evidence and while a set of evidence may lead to a solid conclusion, there are still variables unaccounted for and it can't be called a 'proof' simply based on that technicality. 'Truth' on the other hand isn't constrained to only existing in the prescence of a proof. If evidence leads to consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory results then truth (the correspondence between the idea and actual reality) is achieved.
1) We can get a pretty good approximation and even that is nowhere near assertions made by scriptures.
2) Agreed, truth uncovered by science is not likely to influence a beliver whom has already invested himself in a particular religion. What it will do is make religious claims less credible and discourage future believers.
3) Agreed.
. It's personal bias that is affecting LG and that is the toughest obstacle for anyone to overcome because nobody else can recognize it for him.if you had zero knowledge of biology your ruminations of presence and difference would have nothing to do with biology
Crunchy cat
modern sciences speculative approximations are remarkably close to that presented in the vedas - but I think you missed the point - falsifying issues that are beyond direct perception is impossible for empiricism, so talking of a "pretty good estimation" is just airing confidence
more soft science ...
then I guess such recording devices are not "shown" anything
but you can neither demonstrate it nor receive the demonstration without (according to you) anthropomorphizing, so what gives?
soft science is 100% hope
so what exactly are you "observing" when you talk of god?
not really because you cannot even use the phrase 'actual reality' without calling upon issues of consciousness
therefore the saving grace (of empiricism) is direct perception - if something is beyond the purview of the senses (like say the age of the universe) there is nothing to use as yard stick for one's consistent, persistent and non-contradictory results
really?
modern sciences speculative approximations are remarkably close to that presented in the vedas - but I think you missed the point - falsifying issues that are beyond direct perception is impossible for empiricism, so talking of a "pretty good estimation" is just airing confidence
meh
more soft science ...
ok - so has any empirical ground work for any "pretty good estimations" of cyclic time?
Crunchy cat
then I guess such recording devices are not "shown" anything
but you can neither demonstrate it nor receive the demonstration without (according to you) anthropomorphizing, so what gives?
soft science is 100% hope
so what exactly are you "observing" when you talk of god?
not really because you cannot even use the phrase 'actual reality' without calling upon issues of consciousness
therefore the saving grace (of empiricism) is direct perception - if something is beyond the purview of the senses (like say the age of the universe) there is nothing to use as yard stick for one's consistent, persistent and non-contradictory results
really?
modern sciences speculative approximations are remarkably close to that presented in the vedas - but I think you missed the point - falsifying issues that are beyond direct perception is impossible for empiricism, so talking of a "pretty good estimation" is just airing confidence
meh
more soft science ...
ok - so has any empirical ground work for any "pretty good estimations" of cyclic time?
And we mustn't overlook the underlying metaphysical reality which influences our perceptions of the material in a manner conducive to a deeper understanding of the evanescent, which no instrument has yet recorded because the essence is only available to contemplation by minds which have been trained in transcending the transcendent.
I guess if you haven't been trained in transcendence you can always try and bridge the gap with sarcasm ....
What have I said that is sarcastic? I spent seven years in an ashram learning that there is nothing to transcend. It is known as the doctrine of " Transcending the Void" . Most of my friends are also non-transcenders.
My teacher, guru Bagwash Banergee has a motto over the entrance to his innerr sancum. It says:
" He who would transcend does not do so. He who has abandoned all attempts at transcendance has already transcended."