Saintly persons applying gospels that are supposed to formulate a reality IS the basis of your argument. And it is my lack of belief which is the definitive indicator.
Defining what is God.
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Saintly persons applying gospels that are supposed to formulate a reality IS the basis of your argument. And it is my lack of belief which is the definitive indicator.
what I am saying is that there are persons who apply a process to arrive at a point of knowledge by dint of direct perception - your lack of belief is in the credibility of the persons making the claims of direct perception (perhaps due to a lack of theoretical foundations to distinguish between a qualified and unqualified theistic practioner).
Your claim about their falsity would only have credibility if you can establish your application of the processes they advocate (otherswise you are just like a high school drop out dissing a physicist)
oh most definitely understood, thats, the whole point, they can percieve anything they want, without a factual basis it's worthless, as their direct perception is subjective.
exactly, what is the difference.
how so, both have no factual basis, they can claim all the want, it's all subjective.
geeser
“
“
“
the factual basis is the process they advocate by dint of their practical experience (in other words there is a claim of applied knowledge at stake here)
to begin with there are claims by persons (who have applied a process) that a character exists (and the books on the subject, ie scripture, is not intended to be a fiction)
“
your statement would be true if there wasn't claims of a process
perhaps you dont understand what is subjective and what is objective. a practical experience needs to be objective, else the process they advocate is purely subjective and therefore worthless.
I refer you to my previous reply, and whether it's intended or not, without that objective practical experience, it can only be deemed subjective, and fiction.
subjective claims are worthless claims, subjective processes are worthless processes, subjective experiences are worthless experiences. but when put together in book form they can be very entertaining, and there have been some great works of fiction, why do you believe yours is not fiction, when it is purely subjective.
thats my point - there is a practical objective process - if it wasn't objective how could others make progress towards the same point of direct perception by following an established process?
Luck?
where.
by pure blind faith, if I was told by a teacher that zeus lived on top of mount olympus, who had been right on so many other occasions, and I followed his reasoning however flawed it maybe and because I respected the man, and wanted it to be right, I came to the same conclusion, does that mean that zeus actually lived on mount olympus, of was the teacher, imagining it.
you arguemant is a logical fallacy, ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM The appeal to authority.
luck = I don't know
given by saintly persons and scripture of course
you misunderstand - I am not talking about thinking something is correct by theoretical reasoning - I am talking about direct perception - if you came to the point of seeing zeus on top of a mountain (which, BTW, wouldn't really establish so much in the way of god's existence ... it would establish the existence of personalities greater than contemporary notions of humanity however) by dint of following the instructions given, then the situation would be entirely different
there are a class of person applying a certain process to deliver a certain direct perception - if you want to say all claims made in the name of god are delusional you certainly are required to elaborate on at least an analysis of the process and the distinguishing qualities between a qualified and unqualified practioner.
.... after all that is the identical process by which scientific claims are validated
Last edited:
You're completely and utterly wrong. Anyone that makes claims that their supernatural agent is the cause or the reason for anything is required to provide the evidence. This, after all, is the positive claim. Making decisions based upon the perceived desires of a supernatural agent is acting in delusion unless that person can provide evidence that the supernatural agent exists. Period.
The burden of proof belongs to those that claim supernatural agency and no matter how many times you use the fallacy of shifting that burden it will always be.
The burden of proof belongs to those that claim supernatural agency and no matter how many times you use the fallacy of shifting that burden it will always be.
Only in the minds of those are close minded enough to believe in superstition, the paranormal, and other fantasy. For them, proof is the last thing they want to consider. I hope you won't be offended if I don't read the rest of your post. I almost never read more than the first line or two of yours.
Sure, keep it our secret.
again, where. without a factual basis its hearsay.
again, where is the factual basis, for this direct perception.
yes, if I saw zeus for myself, then I may be convinced, but in order for me to convince other I would need to show proof of what I claim, if not, I could have just imagined it, could'nt I. No matter how saintly or respected I was by my pupils.
by your logic one could say that claim of the existence of electrons is false on the strength of one's ignorance to apply the processes required to directly perceive them - when there are claims of direct perception as a result of applying a process, the whole issue becomes validated or disputed on the strength of applied knowledge .... and not the back and forth of confidence statements
once again - its a question of applied knowledge - if a person refuses the application of the relevant process to acquire knowledge their understanding becomes severely curtailed and the credibility of their claims to the contrary also diminishes considerably
geeser
I'll repeat it again - the factual basis is the process (and the details of the process are elaborated by books on the subject and persons established in the field, much like any other branch of knowledge you care to mention)
Nowhere do you get evidence before knowledge (at least for knowledge that is quite cerebral or subtle)- ever wondered why they teach theory before prac? Ever wondered why the police hire forensic detectives to investigate crime sites?
Branches of knowledge are vindicated through intellectual study. This is not so for religious text (in terms of asserting it's truth). I'm sure you will say it is something 'spiritual', but that is meaningless word which has very vague connotations. If intellectual prowess isn't even required to perceive the truth of whatever it is you claim to be true (still something you've been coy about), then it may only be true because a person wants it to be true - belief/delusion/faith.
Last edited:
yes but where is the factual basis for the direct perception, that started it all, where is the factual basis for the direct perception, that made someone put pen to paper, to write the book on the subject, you quite clearly dont understand subjective from objective.
no, those have a factual basis, yours does'nt.
What! how the f**k do you aquire knowledge, without learning from evidence.
for instance I will not stand in front of a gun thats about to fire, I have the knowledge that the bullet will kill me, but I was'nt born with this knowledge, I learnt it from evidence formed from my visual and audio senses. (Ie: from the media and books and verbal instruction.)
another example, we know the periodic table has gaps, we know( can theorise) that there must be elements, not yet discovered, we know this because of the evidence from the other known elements.
we know a person is ill from the evidence, yet we dont have to have knowledge of illnesses.
lg,
What knowledge? No religion has ever demonstrated they have any knowledge outside of science.
There is no demonstration that knowledge is possible through your religious indoctrination processes and hence no incentive to participate in brainwashing.
What claims? You are the ones making claims but can’t show they have any truth.