God and Music

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
you miss the point

regardless of whether I accept or reject the offer, the physic teacher is offering an alternative

you however are not
”
But I have, and you know I have. Scientology - regardless of whether you accept or reject the offer - is an alternative belief system to yours. You can reject Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy, but it is indeed an alternative.

but scientology isn't an alternative
all its activities fall within the folds of karma or jnana

“
the same way you find out whether any standard definition in a body of knowledge (aka "theory") is true - practical application
”
So, you need to die in order to find out whether reincarnation is true?

thats one way

just like one way to test whether a wire has 10 000 volts running through it is to touch it.

Intelligent people may opt for a more suitable means of practical application however .....

(But then of course you would also need to remember your past life when you're reincarnated). How does one establish that as being the case? Now.. it is likely you have died many times and been reincarnated. Kindly regale me with stories of your past lives.

thats one way to validate it
just like one way to validate whether a wire has 10 000 volts running through it is to examine the history of the wire and whether it has been hooked up to major generators or something.

Intelligent people may opt for a less labor intensive means of practical application however

How you then go about establishing that you did used to be a dog is beyond me, and frankly if you think you can try and compare this to "any standard definition in a body of knowledge" then you've got a few issues you need to rectify.

yes, its certainly not a very practical method for validating reincarnation, is it ....

“
I did say that there is no satisfaction in a world view that is inherently useless or meaningless
”
I suppose this comes down to how we view 'useless' or 'meaningless'. Whose version?

tell us what meaning you garner from the world view that we are the culmination of billions of years of evolution

“
you never did get around to clearly establishing essential differences between descriptions of omnimax god
”
Well, you are certainly quite gifted in evading points.

I will accept your definition of an omnimax god, I have already stated that I have no issue with that. Now what? How do we go from an omnimax god - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all to "it wants you to worship it, fast at certain times blah de blah".

thats process

that is not value or conclusion

just like there are many methods for calculating velocity

That is where the issue lies. "This is where people come along and give that being qualities, emotions, behaviour patterns, wants and wishes, rules and regulations, shape, size, colour, name and location." That is where the issue lies.

sometimes there may be a little bit of local colour, but the the subject remains the same - just like there are indian paintings of trees, japanese paintings of trees and european paintings of trees - all of which have similar components that allow for the understanding that they are trees - and on top of this you have photography and video footage of trees - in other words there is objective recording of trees "as they are" - similarly, if something actually exists as a "subject", there exists numerous versions with some local colour as well as an objective means - the same is true of systems of religion.

“
there are scriptural quotes in the bible that clearly establish reincarnation does not exist?
”
1) You are arguing that something does exist if something doesn't mention it doesn't?

no

I am arguing that to deem something as incongruent requires an indication of contradictions

2) The answer is actually yes. I would urge you to read the NT because it shows reincarnation does not happen. Of course wait.. there's no need to read other scripture

ok

so shoot with the scriptural quotes (NT)

“
its not uncommon for one person to manifest a variety of behaviours in different time places and circumstances
”
Ultimately you're missing the point, or evading it as per usual by trying to equate a god to human level.

ultimately you are trying to put god on a level less then a human by suggesting that we have access to a greater variety of states of being

“
millions?
you haven't given one yet
”
Again with the evading.

and you aren't?

"So, if you want to assign all these qualities and properties to this omnimax god, (while everyone else does the same), then I need to ask again: which one? If you simply assert that one exists then fine - this discussion can end. When you assert that you know this being inside out then you must expect some questioning and debate"

once again, if there are gazillions of contradictions, name one

“
you don't find theistic processes displeasing do you?
”
Which ones?

the ones that assert the superior position of god as the supreme enjoyer, benefactor and well wisher of all living entities

“
there is one transcendental abode and the material universe is gradated into numerous levels of heaven to hell
”
"But the difference is that some religions say that the heaven and hell are eternal.

This means, once God assignes either heaven or hell, then it can not be changed. It is not true as per the Vedas"

in certain contexts it even says that in the vedas - a greater understanding enables one to entertain a wider context

“
you have scriptural references for this?
”
The NT. I suggest you read it.

okay

which verses in particular

“
when it doesn't offer alternatives to existing definitions like for instance offering me a glass of water in spanish isn't such a grand alternative to offering me a glass of water in chinese
”
"Xenu is introduced as an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living. Scientologists believe the alien souls continue to do this today, causing a variety of physical ill-effects in modern-day humans"

that doesn't even sound remotely religious, since its not clear what is the relationship between the souls and Xenu

Sorry, that is not an alternative to existing definition in the vedas? Roflmao.

an alternative theory yes
I will have to wait until you get back to me to see if it an alternative to any processes elaborated in the vedas

“
I guess we have to go back to the foundation - scripture
”
Which one?

in the case of christianity, the bible I guess

“
hence kanya dana is essential to hindu marriage
”
Yes. More or less essential than getting married? Does the husband talk more about kanya dana or his love for his wife? It's still essential in either case, right?

its not clear what we are talking about the essence of?
Marriage?
Hinduism?
you tell me ...

Kanya dana is not essential for hinduism btw

“
yet somethings make it into the intro and somethings make it as a sub category of a sub category
”
Certainly - such is the nature of writing, (although it was same page, not sub category of a sub category). What you're espousing here is that the first page of LotR was more important than every subsequent page. Why did the battle of Helms Deep only get a mention on page 450 instead of page 1? Do me a lemon.

writing fiction and non-fiction essay presentations are the same writing style?
Do me a lemon ....

“
now the next question would be whether they are atheists like yourself arguing from the foundation of rhetoric or something like children arguing from the foundation of a poor fund of knowledge
”
Neither.

then I guess it behooves you to tell us exactly who's direct perception of leprechauns you are talking about, since by default it certainly doesn't appear to be yours ...

“
there are no substantial philosophers, great thinkers or scientists who have advocated such things
”
You know, every single year roughly 20,000 entirely new insects are found and named. The majority of the time the first person to get direct perception of these never seen before creatures wouldn't satisfy the lg criteria for being a "substantial philosopher", "great thinker" or "scientist".

on the contrary, if they are not validated by an accredited scientist, such findings remain inconsequential

Indeed even you have probably had direct perception of an entirely unknown insect and you come under none of these categories.

hence such findings are inconsequential

So what I want you to tell me is how exactly being a philosopher, scientist or "great thinker" is a prerequisite for getting direct perception of something that happens to exist but has not been seen before?

quite simply, nobody gives a damn until one of these three comes along

What about bigfoot? Are you saying it doesn't exist merely on the basis that no philosopher, scientist or "great thinker" [lol] has seen it?

you would disagree that the lack of credibility of these three types of persons lays suspicious scrutiny on all claims of bigfoot sightings?

 

[SnakeLord]

but scientology isn't an alternative
all its activities fall within the folds of karma or jnana

I said it was an alternative, (they have a different set of beliefs). Unless of course you claim you hindus believe in Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy. You're playing the semantics game.

thats one way

The other?

thats one way to validate it

No it isn't.

tell us what meaning you garner from the world view that we are the culmination of billions of years of evolution

Whose version of 'meaning'? I find it sufficient that I am lucky enough to be one of those trillions of existing beings and am having a good time of it. What more is needed?

just like there are indian paintings of trees, japanese paintings of trees and european paintings of trees

Indeed. I looked up some pictures of trees from these areas. Worth noting perhaps that they are actually all different trees - all completely separate individual entities. Next.

so shoot with the scriptural quotes

Read it, or not. The outcome of your existence is of no consequence or care to mine.

the ones that assert the superior position of god as the supreme enjoyer, benefactor and well wisher of all living entities

Oh.. that's an assertion, not a process. Do I find it displeasing.. hmm.. Not entirely, I find the idea moronic, but if that's what you want to believe it is of no ultimate consequence to me - until of course they start banging on my door. Then it becomes a different issue altogether.

in certain contexts it even says that in the vedas - a greater understanding enables one to entertain a wider context

Well, you'll have to take that up with the hindu website where that quote was taken from. You know better than all other hindus, what was I thinking?

which verses in particular

Revelations is a start.

that doesn't even sound remotely religious, since its not clear what is the relationship between the souls and Xenu

I offered you the alternative - you refused. The answers to your questions wont come if you intend to remain a high school dropout. Study it and ye shall learn.

an alternative theory yes
I will have to wait until you get back to me

Hey, I said you should be more open to other belief systems and spend some time studying them. I did not say I would do it all for you. I don't care if you do or you don't at the end of the day - it simply means you cannot speak in any informed manner on the subject if it is to ever arise.

its not clear what we are talking about the essence of?

Bookmark this page and try again when you're more awake.

writing fiction and non-fiction essay presentations are the same writing style

In that they have a beginning, middle and end - yes. Unfortunately against lg's wishes you can't fit the entire essay into one line. If I was to write a factual account of ww2, I wouldn't start with the actual war, or D day I would start way before the war actually even began. This does not mean that the war itself - because it's not even mentioned until chapter 8, is less important than any of the rest of what is written. Fuck, why do I even need to explain this? jesus h brahma on a snowplough.

if they are not validated by an accredited scientist, such findings remain inconsequential

So do tell me what gods, reincarnations, afterlives, souls, or any of the other bullshit you espouse has been "validated by an accredited scientist"? Hurry before your entire religion is deemed inconsequential.

hence such findings are inconsequential

If you say so.

quite simply, nobody gives a damn until one of these three comes along

I see. Worth mentioning that by very definition I am a scientist.

The mistake you're making is in thinking validity of something comes in the form of famous people or the word of someone who you assume knows more than you do or has seen something you have not because he has a specific title. It all comes down to testing.. (see the is god scientific thread for more on this).

you would disagree that the lack of credibility of these three types of persons lays suspicious scrutiny on all claims of bigfoot sightings?

Yes I would - because you would have to first establish what credibility these people have in the first place. For instance: What "scientist" exactly has credibility? Why should a scientist dealing with the effect of hormone replacement therapy in mice be considered credible when claiming bigfoot exists any more so than farmer Bob who shot the last mouse he saw? What scientist are we looking for exactly? A Bigfootologist?

The other two in your list are kinda pointless.. What's a "great thinker" and how does him being able to think in a great manner means his claim to the existence of bigfoot is any more credible than Farmer John who shares the exact same amount of eyes as the "great thinker"?

It comes down to testing, (see other thread). This is where both leprechauns and gods fail.

Out of interest President Roosevelt claimed to have seen bigfoot. Is he famous enough for you?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

but scientology isn't an alternative
all its activities fall within the folds of karma or jnana
”
I said it was an alternative, (they have a different set of beliefs). Unless of course you claim you hindus believe in Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy. You're playing the semantics game.

once again
its not an alternative
all of the activities fall within the folds of karma or jnana
(BTW these terms deal with the course of action to a goal)

“
thats one way
”
The other?

call a professional, or alternatively become savvy enough with the tools of the trade

“
tell us what meaning you garner from the world view that we are the culmination of billions of years of evolution
”
Whose version of 'meaning'? I find it sufficient that I am lucky enough to be one of those trillions of existing beings and am having a good time of it. What more is needed?

what beings don't exist?

“
just like there are indian paintings of trees, japanese paintings of trees and european paintings of trees
”
Indeed. I looked up some pictures of trees from these areas. Worth noting perhaps that they are actually all different trees - all completely separate individual entities. Next.

still they can be recognized as trees - and lo and behold they serve practically identical purposes in all environments (perhaps the idea of sitting in the shade of a dog was hit upon in some parts but it didn't appear to catch on with the same numbers as trees)

“
so shoot with the scriptural quotes
”
Read it, or not. The outcome of your existence is of no consequence or care to mine.

if you can't specifically source the foundation for your arguments, there appears little merit in such arguments

“
the ones that assert the superior position of god as the supreme enjoyer, benefactor and well wisher of all living entities
”
Oh.. that's an assertion, not a process.

not if you are asserting yourself as the number one enjoyer, benefactor and well wisher

Do I find it displeasing.. hmm.. Not entirely, I find the idea moronic,

if you want a picture of the moronic you should look at modern life with the view that it is the result of billions of years of evolution

but if that's what you want to believe it is of no ultimate consequence to me - until of course they start banging on my door. Then it becomes a different issue altogether.

I guess its your causeless mercy upon us that you linger about the alleys of religious discussion boards the way you do

“
in certain contexts it even says that in the vedas - a greater understanding enables one to entertain a wider context
”
Well, you'll have to take that up with the hindu website where that quote was taken from. You know better than all other hindus, what was I thinking?

I guess its just because I have been trained not to provide scriptural conclusions bereft of scriptural references - must be a bad habit

“
which verses in particular
”
Revelations is a start.

and specifically?

“
that doesn't even sound remotely religious, since its not clear what is the relationship between the souls and Xenu
”
I offered you the alternative - you refused. The answers to your questions wont come if you intend to remain a high school dropout. Study it and ye shall learn.

the physics teacher can answer questions however, even from a high school drop out

“
an alternative theory yes
I will have to wait until you get back to me
”
Hey, I said you should be more open to other belief systems and spend some time studying them. I did not say I would do it all for you. I don't care if you do or you don't at the end of the day - it simply means you cannot speak in any informed manner on the subject if it is to ever arise.

If I have a specific interest in god and if you want to advocate that Xenu has something new or alternative to offer, what do you expect if you fall short of the mark

“
writing fiction and non-fiction essay presentations are the same writing style
”
In that they have a beginning, middle and end - yes.

so does a sausage

Unfortunately against lg's wishes you can't fit the entire essay into one line.

essay writers who are even half adept can fit it into an introduction however

If I was to write a factual account of ww2,

one would expect to find the essence of such an essay in the intro

“
if they are not validated by an accredited scientist, such findings remain inconsequential
”
So do tell me what gods, reincarnations, afterlives, souls, or any of the other bullshit you espouse has been "validated by an accredited scientist"? Hurry before your entire religion is deemed inconsequential.

best to approach a scientist in the case of insects

best to approach a philosophical practitioner in the case of religion

“
hence such findings are inconsequential
”
If you say so.

its got nothing to do with what I or you say. Its simply a fact

“
quite simply, nobody gives a damn until one of these three comes along
”
I see. Worth mentioning that by very definition I am a scientist.

then make a claim and see what happens

The mistake you're making is in thinking validity of something comes in the form of famous people or the word of someone who you assume knows more than you do or has seen something you have not because he has a specific title. It all comes down to testing.. (see the is god scientific thread for more on this).

and who does the testing on say, the claim of a new species of insect?

“
you would disagree that the lack of credibility of these three types of persons lays suspicious scrutiny on all claims of bigfoot sightings?
”
Yes I would - because you would have to first establish what credibility these people have in the first place.

the credibility of a doctor in medical affairs (as opposed to say a car mechanic)
the credibility of a lawyer in legal affairs (as opposed to a doctor)
the credibility of a car mechanic in mechanical affairs (as opposed to a lawyer) etc

For instance: What "scientist" exactly has credibility?

An entomologist has credibility in the field of insects
etc etc

Why should a scientist dealing with the effect of hormone replacement therapy in mice be considered credible when claiming bigfoot exists any more so than farmer Bob who shot the last mouse he saw?

perhaps a scientist involved in zoology would be more suitable

What scientist are we looking for exactly? A Bigfootologist?

if the claim is to accepted as credible, a foundation in cladistics would be helpful

The other two in your list are kinda pointless.. What's a "great thinker" and how does him being able to think in a great manner means his claim to the existence of bigfoot is any more credible than Farmer John who shares the exact same amount of eyes as the "great thinker"?

they were for all claims in general (not just big foot, but also claims in the field of philosophy, values, politics, etc)

It comes down to testing, (see other thread). This is where both leprechauns and gods fail.

testing is done by persons in the field - for instance testing if big foot exists certainly requires the input of a zoologist
the same holds true of religion
the same does not hold true of leprechauns, since persons who advocate such things seem to fall in one of two categories, namely the child on the basis of a poor fund of knowledge or the atheist on the basis of rhetoric

Out of interest President Roosevelt claimed to have seen bigfoot. Is he famous enough for you?

I don't recall stating fame as a particular qualification .... to say the least though, the claims he made in regard to politics stand as more credible and therefore influential

 

[SnakeLord]

its not an alternative

Yes it is.

what beings don't exist?

? Non-existent ones.

still they can be recognized as trees - and lo and behold they serve practically identical purposes in all environments (perhaps the idea of sitting in the shade of a dog was hit upon in some parts but it didn't appear to catch on with the same numbers as trees)

1) gods can generally be recognised as gods - it all comes down to details:

2) They do not serve practically identical purposes. Indeed many people use parasols because some trees don't shade as well as other trees. Kinda pointless sitting under a bonsai don't you think? Kinda pointless making a bow, (as in bow and arrow), out of the most non-flexible wood you can find don't you think?

3) Sure, all trees provide the world with oxygen, have roots, and leaves etc but if you were to claim there was only one tree, I would need to ask, (given the known mass differences in types of tree claimed to exist), which tree you were talking about.

Surely you must understand that?

if you can't specifically source the foundation for your arguments, there appears little merit in such arguments

If you can't provide actual evidence for your gods, afterlives, spiritual realms, reincarnations or anything else you espouse then there is no merit in such claims.

My lack of providing scriptural quotes is specifically because the discussion is about you getting off your backside and studying other belief systems/scriptures. I wouldn't be doing it any justice if I did the work for you.

not if you are asserting yourself as the number one enjoyer

Uhh.. that's still an assertion. Check the bolded bit :bugeye:

if you want a picture of the moronic you should look at modern life with the view that it is the result of billions of years of evolution

And what brings you to such a conclusion especially given that change, adaptation and evolution are apparent in every system? That all evidence shows it to be the case from "accredited scientists" from all different fields of science?

I guess its your causeless mercy upon us that you linger about the alleys of religious discussion boards the way you do

With all due respect, but this is a science forum - not a religious one. It was somewhat of a surprise when I came here many years ago to witness religious fundies insisting that everyone listen to them or burn.

So who is lingering? You're not a scientist and clearly not even interested in science - merely your "afterlife/spirits/souls/gods/reincarnation" pushing initiative that.. well.. is not science. Was there something specifically wrong with hindus-united.com that made you come here and force your non-science on those interested in science?

I guess its just because I have been trained...

Again, take that up with your fellow hindus.

and specifically?

I'm not a religious man to any degree, but even I am aware that if you provide a scriptural quote or passage, it will often not be understood in the context that it should. To avoid this I would suggest you start at the beginning of revelations and end at the end of revelations.

the physics teacher can answer questions however, even from a high school drop out

Certainly, but as you have espoused hundreds of times on this forum: it is pointless because the high school dropout wont understand. If you now change your tune, take it up with yourself. Don't make me pull up one of your little science pictures that shows a bunch of squiggles and numbers and then ask you to explain it.

If I have a specific interest in god and if you want to advocate that Xenu has something new or alternative to offer, what do you expect if you fall short of the mark

Who decides the "mark"? You have spouted so much crap concerning gods and whatnot but that clearly falls short of the mark because I still consider it crap. You're saying that's your fault? The only apt way therefore would be for me to study the vedas for myself, (it can still fall short of the mark). I advise you to do the same.

essay writers who are even half adept can fit it into an introduction however

Not how essays work.

best to approach a philosophical practitioner in the case of religion

Not at all. There's no way to ascertain their qualifications - because there is no evidence to suggest that anything they say is true. Such is the problem with gods and leprechauns.

its got nothing to do with what I or you say. Its simply a fact

I happen to know the keeper of the queen's insects, (Natural History museum), who certainly catalogues insects etc etc. However, he would laugh in your face when you say "findings are inconsequential". Indeed, that is the part with the greatest consequence - whether the finding was by a nobel prize winner, or a prize winning carrot farmer.

then make a claim and see what happens

It's not about claims - which is why religion fails and why ultimately leprechauns do as well.

and who does the testing on say, the claim of a new species of insect?

Depends what's being tested. But this does not in any way, shape or form prevent something from existing and being seen.

the same holds true of religion
the same does not hold true of leprechauns

You're wrong. Unless of course you can show that these people's claims have any validity which can only be done by showing that their god exists. Until such time anything they say is worthless - as you have stated.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
its not an alternative
”
Yes it is.

then i guess its up to you to establish it as such - which would require that you don't hit a glass ceiling at the very beginning of such discussions (ie - "I don't know, read their books")

“
what beings don't exist?
”
? Non-existent ones.

Oh I see - imaginary ones

“
still they can be recognized as trees - and lo and behold they serve practically identical purposes in all environments (perhaps the idea of sitting in the shade of a dog was hit upon in some parts but it didn't appear to catch on with the same numbers as trees)
”
1) gods can generally be recognised as gods - it all comes down to details:

that's true

2) They do not serve practically identical purposes. Indeed many people use parasols because some trees don't shade as well as other trees.

which cultures were totally awed by the suggestion that they could stand in the shade of trees that dotted their local landscapes?

Kinda pointless sitting under a bonsai don't you think?

thats probably why they stood under plum trees in the heat

Kinda pointless making a bow, (as in bow and arrow), out of the most non-flexible wood you can find don't you think?

egad

the uses of trees is more than one ....

3) Sure, all trees provide the world with oxygen, have roots, and leaves etc but if you were to claim there was only one tree, I would need to ask, (given the known mass differences in types of tree claimed to exist), which tree you were talking about.

Surely you must understand that?

if I was to tell you this was a tree, what would you think?

“
if you can't specifically source the foundation for your arguments, there appears little merit in such arguments
”
If you can't provide actual evidence for your gods, afterlives, spiritual realms, reincarnations or anything else you espouse then there is no merit in such claims.

if you could provide evidence that evidence is self evident (bereft of the necessary qualifications of perception) perhaps there would be merit in such claims ....

My lack of providing scriptural quotes is specifically because the discussion is about you getting off your backside and studying other belief systems/scriptures.

and to do that you need to establish something as an alternative

I wouldn't be doing it any justice if I did the work for you.

it wouldn't be such a difficult task if you knew it as an alternative

“
not if you are asserting yourself as the number one enjoyer
”
Uhh.. that's still an assertion. Check the bolded bit

uhh ... but you assert it

“
if you want a picture of the moronic you should look at modern life with the view that it is the result of billions of years of evolution
”
And what brings you to such a conclusion especially given that change, adaptation and evolution are apparent in every system? That all evidence shows it to be the case from "accredited scientists" from all different fields of science?

“
I guess its your causeless mercy upon us that you linger about the alleys of religious discussion boards the way you do
”
With all due respect, but this is a science forum - not a religious one.

must be the way you were thumping on the door that made me think otherwise ...

It was somewhat of a surprise when I came here many years ago to witness religious fundies insisting that everyone listen to them or burn.

and you represent the moderate medium?

So who is lingering? You're not a scientist

I do know something about the history of lightbulbs however ..

and clearly not even interested in science

yes, thats all fine and well, but what are you doing discussing religion - (at least when I discuss science I can reference the source)

- merely your "afterlife/spirits/souls/gods/reincarnation" pushing initiative that.. well.. is not science.

and pushing that evidence is self evident is science?

Was there something specifically wrong with hindus-united.com that made you come here and force your non-science on those interested in science?

probably the same thing that makes you linger in the religion forums

“
I guess its just because I have been trained...
”
Again, take that up with your fellow hindus.

and its clear you haven't been trained to source the foundation for your arguments (what fool gave you scientific credentials?)

“
and specifically?
”
I'm not a religious man to any degree, but even I am aware that if you provide a scriptural quote or passage, it will often not be understood in the context that it should.

its not clear how one can propose to understand or explain a subject without being able to present the context it appears in - thanks for clearing up where you stand in regard to theistic knowledge ...

To avoid this I would suggest you start at the beginning of revelations and end at the end of revelations.

I guess I will just have to wait until i encounter a person sufficiently qualified to explain such things

“
the physics teacher can answer questions however, even from a high school drop out
”
Certainly, but as you have espoused hundreds of times on this forum: it is pointless because the high school dropout wont understand.

it is pointless because the student is unwilling to entertain inquiry - on the otherhand i am inquiring and you are drawing a blank slate

If you now change your tune, take it up with yourself. Don't make me pull up one of your little science pictures that shows a bunch of squiggles and numbers and then ask you to explain it.

i could however ask what they mean

“
If I have a specific interest in god and if you want to advocate that Xenu has something new or alternative to offer, what do you expect if you fall short of the mark
”
Who decides the "mark"?

when you say words to the effect "I don't know - you read the books"

You have spouted so much crap concerning gods and whatnot but that clearly falls short of the mark because I still consider it crap.

the aroma of your mind is one thing - my providing relevant quotes is something else

You're saying that's your fault? The only apt way therefore would be for me to study the vedas for myself, (it can still fall short of the mark). I advise you to do the same.

thats alright

but if I was advocating the vedas as a greater alternative to scientology it would behoove me to provide examples on what it has to offer

“
essay writers who are even half adept can fit it into an introduction however
”
Not how essays work.

time to go back top school

“
best to approach a philosophical practitioner in the case of religion
”
Not at all. There's no way to ascertain their qualifications - because there is no evidence to suggest that anything they say is true. Such is the problem with gods and leprechauns.

the easiest way to ascertain who is a philosopher is to ask them a philosophical question

“
its got nothing to do with what I or you say. Its simply a fact
”
I happen to know the keeper of the queen's insects, (Natural History museum), who certainly catalogues insects etc etc. However, he would laugh in your face when you say "findings are inconsequential".

Indeed, that is the part with the greatest consequence - whether the finding was by a nobel prize winner, or a prize winning carrot farmer.

whatever
but without a zoologist to back up such sightings, they remain inconsequential (how many insects does he catalogue that are bereft of such backings?)

“

then make a claim and see what happens
”
It's not about claims - which is why religion fails and why ultimately leprechauns do as well.

you miss the point

if you are a scientist and you make a claim (in the field of your discipline), what happens?

“
and who does the testing on say, the claim of a new species of insect?
”
Depends what's being tested.

erm - a new species of insect

But this does not in any way, shape or form prevent something from existing and being seen.

hmmm - insect probability (perhaps we have a new branch of quantum theory)

“
the same holds true of religion
the same does not hold true of leprechauns

if you want to place such claims on par with science, philosophy and great thinkers you have a lot of work a head of you ...
”

You're wrong. Unless of course you can show that these people's claims have any validity which can only be done by showing that their god exists.

and it is shown - shown to people who are suitably qualified - as a scientist surely you can understand such a principle

Until such time anything they say is worthless - as you have stated.

now you are speaking like a high school drop out

 

[SnakeLord]

thats probably why they stood under plum trees in the heat

Why? Is there a distinct difference even though you claimed only one tree existed, (to stick to analogy)?

if I was to tell you this was a tree, what would you think?

I'd think you were avoiding what was stated and asked.

And what brings you to such a conclusion especially given that change, adaptation and evolution are apparent in every system? That all evidence shows it to be the case from "accredited scientists" from all different fields of science?

My last statement is quoted above once again. Kindly answer it instead of pasting pointless cartoons. Thank you.

yes, thats all fine and well, but what are you doing discussing religion

The idea generally is to look at the reasons why people have beliefs in such things and the history of it. The general idea is not really to watch lg paste cartoons when he can't answer a question. I put up with it because it can also provide great insight into the minds of the religious.

i could however ask what they mean

Most certainly, but as lg states: if you're bereft of qualification you wont understand it. I know, I don't agree with you either.

time to go back top school

Back top school heh? Uhh o...k.

if you are a scientist and you make a claim (in the field of your discipline), what happens?

Well, I said to my colleagues; "I have seen a leprechaun". They responded quite frankly; "got any evidence?", to which I said; "listen up scumbags, lg states that you can't ask for evidence unless you're a qualified leprechaunist. Stfu". To this they then asked if this 'lg' person was a patient of mine.

 

[Hapsburg]

Playing the part of a devil's advocate here...

Music is a complex collection of air vibrations that stimulate the pleasure centre of humans.
Is your question really does 'God' exist as a complex collection of air vibrations that stimulate the pleasure centre of humans?

Maybe god is music?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

thats probably why they stood under plum trees in the heat
”
Why? Is there a distinct difference even though you claimed only one tree existed, (to stick to analogy)?

I claimed trees as a distinct singular category, distinct from, say, dogs

“
if I was to tell you this was a tree, what would you think?
”
I'd think you were avoiding what was stated and asked.

hey come on - its a tree with four limbs

“
And what brings you to such a conclusion especially given that change, adaptation and evolution are apparent in every system? That all evidence shows it to be the case from "accredited scientists" from all different fields of science?
”
My last statement is quoted above once again. Kindly answer it instead of pasting pointless cartoons. Thank you.

we're not talking about credibility - we are talking about purpose and values - as you stated to get the ball rolling

Do I find it displeasing.. hmm.. Not entirely, I find the idea moronic,

so once again - if you want a picture of the moronic, take the view that modern life is the result of billions of years of evolution - such as imagining non-existent entities to make one feel good about oneself, etc

“
i could however ask what they mean
”
Most certainly, but as lg states: if you're bereft of qualification you wont understand it. I know, I don't agree with you either.

you've got it wrong - qualification is necessary for direct perception (at least it explains why we call a doctor when we get sick as opposed to an air conditioner repairman)
the only qualification required to know something is the ability to ask the right question to the right person - since you freely admit that you "don't know" about all these things you are trying to dress up as alternatives, its clear that you are not the right person

“
time to go back top school
”
Back top school heh? Uhh o...k.

typo errors aside - still doesn't help you with your nutty understanding of essay intros

“
if you are a scientist and you make a claim (in the field of your discipline), what happens?
”
Well, I said to my colleagues; "I have seen a leprechaun". They responded quite frankly; "got any evidence?", to which I said; "listen up scumbags, lg states that you can't ask for evidence unless you're a qualified leprechaunist. Stfu". To this they then asked if this 'lg' person was a patient of mine.

leprechauns are your field of discipline?
:m:

 

[SnakeLord]

I claimed trees as a distinct singular category, distinct from, say, dogs

This all fell on the back of my questions asking you 'which god', to which you said there's only one - which I said I was more than happy with, but which one? Seemingly you don't understand the importance of the question, and I was hoping you would have grasped it after this whole tree thing. Nevermind.

if you want a picture of the moronic, take the view that modern life is the result of billions of years of evolution

And what brings you to such a conclusion especially given that change, adaptation and evolution are apparent in every system? That all evidence shows it to be the case from "accredited scientists" from all different fields of science?

you've got it wrong - qualification is necessary for direct perception

I see, one needs to be a qualified zoologist to see an elephant. Got ya.

leprechauns are your field of discipline?

I know everything about them and have direct perception. So.. yes.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
I claimed trees as a distinct singular category, distinct from, say, dogs
”
This all fell on the back of my questions asking you 'which god', to which you said there's only one - which I said I was more than happy with, but which one? Seemingly you don't understand the importance of the question, and I was hoping you would have grasped it after this whole tree thing. Nevermind.

seemingly you don't understand how possessing characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence necessitates a category that is made up of one

“
if you want a picture of the moronic, take the view that modern life is the result of billions of years of evolution
”
And what brings you to such a conclusion especially given that change, adaptation and evolution are apparent in every system? That all evidence shows it to be the case from "accredited scientists" from all different fields of science?

wake up

you never addressed the foundations on which claims are made - you simply said they sound moronic (just pick up any political/environmental cartoon for a refresher on how modern life as the summit of evolution is moronic)

“
you've got it wrong - qualification is necessary for direct perception
”
I see, one needs to be a qualified zoologist to see an elephant. Got ya.

the qualification for seeing a new species of elephant certainly would require a zoologist

“
leprechauns are your field of discipline?
”
I know everything about them and have direct perception. So.. yes.

and working in the field of mental health simply helps you cultivate such a discipline, right?

 

[SnakeLord]

seemingly you don't understand how possessing characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence necessitates a category that is made up of one

Seemingly you still don't understand the question. Try again with your brain switched on.

you never addressed the foundations on which claims are made

I asked you a question to a direct statement that you made. You still fail to answer, Third time lucky perhaps:

And what brings you to such a conclusion especially given that change, adaptation and evolution are apparent in every system? That all evidence shows it to be the case from "accredited scientists" from all different fields of science?

the qualification for seeing a new species of elephant certainly would require a zoologist

Oh I see, so regardless to having eyes - unless you're a qualified zoologist it is impossible to see a new species of elephant? So they're like invisible to everyone but zoologists? ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Makes me wonder though how - before anyone was a qualified zoologist, that anyone ever saw any animals :bugeye:

Earth to lg's brain.. Anyone home???

and working in the field of mental health simply helps you cultivate such a discipline, right?

No. Anything else? Want to tell me how nobody can see the moon unless they're a qualified astronomer? Nobody can see buildings unless they're a qualified architect? Nobody can see the sea unless they're a qualified fish?

ROFLMFAO!!!

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

seemingly you don't understand how possessing characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence necessitates a category that is made up of one
”
Seemingly you still don't understand the question. Try again with your brain switched on.

possessing characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence can determine an article that is not singular?
:m:

“
you never addressed the foundations on which claims are made
”
I asked you a question to a direct statement that you made. You still fail to answer, Third time lucky perhaps:

And what brings you to such a conclusion especially given that change, adaptation and evolution are apparent in every system? That all evidence shows it to be the case from "accredited scientists" from all different fields of science?

so you would rather change the topic and talk about how claims are verified as opposed to the inherent values (ie moronic ) that run parallel to such claims ?

“
the qualification for seeing a new species of elephant certainly would require a zoologist
”
Oh I see, so regardless to having eyes - unless you're a qualified zoologist it is impossible to see a new species of elephant?

of course you can see it

but your seeing won't amount to much unless you are a qualified zoologist

So they're like invisible to everyone but zoologists? ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no

just means that your claims would not be credible

Makes me wonder though how - before anyone was a qualified zoologist, that anyone ever saw any animals

if there were no zoologists there was probably no one to make the claims of a new " species" of anything ...

Earth to lg's brain.. Anyone home???

I think you lose track of the discussion due to the spontaneous delight you derive from ad homming

“
and working in the field of mental health simply helps you cultivate such a discipline, right?
”
No. Anything else?

lol

Want to tell me how nobody can see the moon unless they're a qualified astronomer?

only if they are making some claims about the astronomical nature of the moon ....

Nobody can see buildings unless they're a qualified architect?

only if they are making architectural claims about the buildings ....

Nobody can see the sea unless they're a qualified fish?

fish don't have the monopoly on the perception of the sea ....

ROFLMFAO!!!

(yawn)

 

[SnakeLord]

possessing characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence can determine an article that is not singular?

Who cares? That wasn't the question. So my assertion that you don't understand the question seems to be a valid one.

so you would rather change the topic and talk...

I haven't changed anything. I am asking you a question in direct response to a statement that you made. Fourth time lucky perhaps?

And what brings you to such a conclusion especially given that change, adaptation and evolution are apparent in every system? That all evidence shows it to be the case from "accredited scientists" from all different fields of science?

of course you can see it

So you now happily dismiss your former statement that "the qualification for seeing a new species of elephant certainly would require a zoologist"?

It wouldn't after all, one does not need any qualification to get direct perception of these things. What you're probably trying to squeeze out is that a person needs some form of understanding to be able to know that what he's seeing is a new species of elephant and not just a hippo in disguise. Photography and video has certainly helped the cataloguing process, but then they are of no help to determining whether you have direct perception of say... gods for instance.

So what you now need to do is find a qualified godologist and ask them. Unfortunately godologists can't see what you see, they can't see into your brain. So how does anyone determine that it is a god they have seen? There are ancient written records perhaps of the qualities of certain gods so I suppose if you see a god that's holding a hammer then it would probably be thor, or if you see a god that has an elephants head then you're probably seeing ganesha.

But then how did the original people know they were seeing a god and not just a powerful alien from the 29th dimension given that they weren't qualified godologists or alienologists, or for that matter hallucinologists, or psychologists or any other ologist you care to mention?

Some guy lays claim to seeing gods - as you yourself now tell me, unless they speak to someone qualified their claim is worthless. This makes every original claim worthless - and thus the whole realm of godology worthless.

However, I am a nice guy. You claim to have direct perception of gods. Tell me exactly what you saw and heard and I shall go and speak to some qualified godologists that I know and see what they say. We shall determine whether what you saw was a god or not a god from the qualified. I can't wait.

I think you lose track of the discussion due to the spontaneous delight you derive from ad homming

Pots and kettles etc.

only if they are making architectural claims about the buildings

Like what? I'm not a qualified architect but I can certainly see that the purpose of the walls in my house are to hold the ceiling up. Or you didn't mean those kind of claims?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
possessing characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence can determine an article that is not singular?
”
Who cares?

persons concerned about coherent arguments I guess ...

“
so you would rather change the topic and talk...
”
I haven't changed anything.

yes you have

your comment which go the whole ball rolling was

Do I find it displeasing.. hmm.. Not entirely, I find the idea moronic,

which was merely about value judgments

I countered that by indicating the cartoon - there are many value judgments of being moronic that arise due to the notion that modern life is the cutting edge of advancement and progress (aka the product of billions of years of evolution)

here is another one

instead you want to suddenly switch lanes and talk about how value judgments are arrived at (aka process), so I will take it as a "yes" that you do want to change topics ...

so


I am asking you a question in direct response to a statement that you made. Fourth time lucky perhaps?

And what brings you to such a conclusion especially given that change, adaptation and evolution are apparent in every system? That all evidence shows it to be the case from "accredited scientists" from all different fields of science?

can science (the testable and falsifiable variety - distinct from say scientific theory) operate where either the cause or effect is beyond the scientists direct perception?

If the answer is "no", then there is no evidence for macro evolution

If the answer is "yes" then you are accepting something as "science" for which there is no evidence

“
of course you can see it
”
So you now happily dismiss your former statement that "the qualification for seeing a new species of elephant certainly would require a zoologist"?

no, since a seeing a "new species" of elephant certainly requires the support of a zoologist

It wouldn't after all, one does not need any qualification to get direct perception of these things. What you're probably trying to squeeze out is that a person needs some form of understanding to be able to know that what he's seeing is a new species of elephant and not just a hippo in disguise. Photography and video has certainly helped the cataloguing process, but then they are of no help to determining whether you have direct perception of say... gods for instance.

they haven't photographed the mind either

So what you now need to do is find a qualified godologist

you mean saintly person?

and ask them. Unfortunately godologists can't see what you see,

but they can clearly determine what is the nature of god, much like a zoologist can clearly determine the nature of a new species of elephant

they can't see into your brain.

neither can a zoologist

So how does anyone determine that it is a god they have seen?

well if you tell a zoologist (or happen to look through a zoology book with the idea) that you have just seen an elephant and proceed to describe something like this

they would probably tell you/you would probably come to understand that you have seen a hippo

in the same way such claims of experiencing god (or something else) can be validated by saintly persons/scripture

There are ancient written records perhaps of the qualities of certain gods so I suppose if you see a god that's holding a hammer then it would probably be thor,

even a hippo looks something like an elephant - of course there are further characteristics - known to persons familiar in the field of course ....

or if you see a god that has an elephants head then you're probably seeing ganesha.

ditto above

But then how did the original people know they were seeing a god and not just a powerful alien from the 29th dimension given that they weren't qualified godologists or alienologists, or for that matter hallucinologists, or psychologists or any other ologist you care to mention?

if god is eternal, and so is the living entity, who would be the original people?

Some guy lays claim to seeing gods - as you yourself now tell me, unless they speak to someone qualified their claim is worthless.

if the word "god" has certain connotations (omnimax etc), then it certainly does require validation - much like any word that has connotations (eg elephant) requires validation on some level - otherwise anyone could refer to anything by any name and then throw a hissy fit when the discussion degenerates into absolute jibberish (which is quite often the case in discussions on sci forums btw)

This makes every original claim worthless - and thus the whole realm of godology worthless.

you have a valid point if we accept the (atheistic) notion that god appeared (originally) at a particular time and place

However, I am a nice guy. You claim to have direct perception of gods.

really?
I don't think we ever moved an inch past the discussion how you would determine a person making such a claim would be telling the truth or not ...

Tell me exactly what you saw and heard and I shall go and speak to some qualified godologists that I know and see what they say.

this is the general outline (since the very act of taking shelter requires something of substance)

SB 11.2.42 Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things—these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.

We shall determine whether what you saw was a god or not a god from the qualified. I can't wait.

btw - how do you determine a qualified saintly person from an unqualified saintly person?

“
only if they are making architectural claims about the buildings
”
Like what? I'm not a qualified architect but I can certainly see that the purpose of the walls in my house are to hold the ceiling up.

Or you didn't mean those kind of claims?

probably explains why there is more to architectural claims than the one you mentioned ....

 

[SnakeLord]

persons concerned about coherent arguments I guess ...

And persons concerned about avoiding the answer to simple questions. I refuse to sit here and believe that you don't understand the question that is being asked. Instead I am under the impression that you just can't answer it.

If the answer is "no", then there is no evidence for macro evolution

Kindly provide me with your understanding/definition of "macro evolution".

If the answer is "yes" then you are accepting something as "science" for which there is no evidence

Inaccurate. One might not have had direct perception of stone age people, but it's quite evident that they made stone tools.

since a seeing a "new species" of elephant certainly requires the support of a zoologist

Inaccurate. Cataloguing it as a new species would require a zoologist, seeing it would not.

but they can clearly determine what is the nature of god, much like a zoologist can clearly determine the nature of a new species of elephant

How? The zoologist can test and compare. What are you comparing god to? See, by doing certain tests and comparisons a zoologist, (and in most instances even non-zoologists - I remember the first time my daughter ever saw a chihuahua - she still knew it was a dog), can tell that this new species is a member of the elephant family.

So the question is what tests are being done and what is the comparison to?

This 'god' of yours isn't what you or he claims that he is. Instead he is a long-living alien entity that likes pulling pranks and writing texts telling you to obey him. He's not a creator of the universe, just a product of it - but so much more advanced than you that he knows you'll fall for it.

So again I ask you: What tests and what comparisons? Without being able to answer that it remains that nobody can claim to be qualified.

well if you tell a zoologist (or happen to look through a zoology book with the idea) that you have just seen an elephant and proceed to describe something like this [pic] they would probably tell you/you would probably come to understand that you have seen a hippo

Indeed, a comparison is made. What are you comparing god to?

in the same way such claims of experiencing god (or something else) can be validated by saintly persons/scripture

Scripture doesn't "validate" anything, it merely asserts that something is true - with no actual way to test it, and apparently - from your own statements, no need to compare it. This is ultimately where it all falls apart. You cannot test and do not compare - and even then can't assert that it isn't just the product of humans or a joking alien entity because you cannot test or compare the claim of a god.

"Saintly persons" as shown above cannot be qualified. They follow something that they claim is 'from god' and then claim to have direct perception of this god - without being able to test this god or compare it to anything.

Sorry, what has been validated? Nothing, that's what.

even a hippo looks something like an elephant - of course there are further characteristics - known to persons familiar in the field of course ....

Certainly, done by testing and comparing. If things were not compared every species would have the same name - because you weren't working out how it differed from anything else. Cats have retractable claws, dogs don't etc.. What are you comparing god to?

if god is eternal, and so is the living entity, who would be the original people?

Who says god is eternal or that the living entity is eternal? How can you test the claim?

Original people would be Adam and Eve?

if the word "god" has certain connotations (omnimax etc), then it certainly does require validation

It certainly does - but how do you propose you test to see if a god is omnipotent [eg] other than asking it to do everything you can think of and more? How do you propose to test to see if a god is omniscient other than asking it everything you can think of and more? The problem with that one and indeed omnipresence is that you too would have to be omniscient and omnipresent otherwise you couldn't accurately test that it was everywhere/knew everything.

So, other than having a claim by people about a being that you can't test, what else do you have?

much like any word that has connotations (eg elephant) requires validation on some level

Indeed, see my point earlier. This comes in the form of testing and comparison. If you claim there's only one god, then what are you comparing it to? How are you testing it?

you have a valid point if we accept the (atheistic) notion that god appeared (originally) at a particular time and place

Actually it's not atheistic, it's biblical. But nevermind, you don't believe in or see value in reading other scripture. Of course, because I know you'll make a drama out of it, the 'originally' refers to humanity, not the claimed god.

really?

Yes really, don't you remember that thread where I asked you if you had direct perception some 20+ times only for you to eventually say that you had indeed told me that you did?

One of your main problems is your inability to answer straight questions and/or do so honestly. See your next quote..

I don't think we ever moved an inch past the discussion how you would determine a person making such a claim would be telling the truth or not ...

We've been through this before, at which time I told you I would be able to tell - I am well versed in recognising liars when I see them. However, I do want to make clear that it isn't of any importance. For the sake of discussion I will accept whatever statement you make as true. Lie to me if you so choose. (I get the feeling that you consider yourself one of these theists that wouldn't want to upset the gods so it's quite unlikely you'll actually lie).

Do you have direct perception of 'god' or not? (yes or no only please).

this is the general outline..

So you're telling me now that all you've seen is scripture and consider that direct perception? If not, why paste scripture - I did not ask for scripture and it doesn't answer what I did ask for. Try again.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
persons concerned about coherent arguments I guess ...
”
And persons concerned about avoiding the answer to simple questions.

determining several omnimax personalities in existence is the basis for a simple question?

“
If the answer is "no", then there is no evidence for macro evolution
”
Kindly provide me with your understanding/definition of "macro evolution".

the standard one

“
If the answer is "yes" then you are accepting something as "science" for which there is no evidence
”
Inaccurate. One might not have had direct perception of stone age people, but it's quite evident that they made stone tools.

kind of but not really

the effect (the stone tool) is visible but the cause is only partially visible (the strata it was located in or means accepted as accurate means of dating) - because the cause is not solidly perceived it stands to be disputed (of which there is much evidence of in the field of archeology)

“
since a seeing a "new species" of elephant certainly requires the support of a zoologist
”
Inaccurate. Cataloguing it as a new species would require a zoologist, seeing it would not.

how would one validate seeing a "new species" without referencing cladistics?

“
but they can clearly determine what is the nature of god, much like a zoologist can clearly determine the nature of a new species of elephant
”

How? The zoologist can test and compare.

because they have knowledge, which begins with theory

What are you comparing god to?

omnimx, cause of all causes, etc

See, by doing certain tests and comparisons a zoologist, (and in most instances even non-zoologists - I remember the first time my daughter ever saw a chihuahua - she still knew it was a dog), can tell that this new species is a member of the elephant family.

all of such, your daughter included, requires a foundation of theory

So the question is what tests are being done and what is the comparison to?

one can test if they have located god - if one is still affected by conditioned nature (lust, wrath, envy etc) it indicates they have a bit of work ahead of them
as for testing what is god, it would be that thing which stands as most great within one's experience (god being the most attractive)

Since most people's experience of the most attractive thing gives vent to expressions of lust, wrath, envy, etc, it tends to indicate that most people have not located god

This 'god' of yours isn't what you or he claims that he is. Instead he is a long-living alien entity that likes pulling pranks and writing texts telling you to obey him.

and how is it that what you are saying is not another mere claim?

He's not a creator of the universe, just a product of it - but so much more advanced than you that he knows you'll fall for it.

its not clear what knowledge base you are drawing from to make such statements

So again I ask you: What tests and what comparisons? Without being able to answer that it remains that nobody can claim to be qualified.

a qualified person can direct one through the process, as above mentioned

“
in the same way such claims of experiencing god (or something else) can be validated by saintly persons/scripture
”
Scripture doesn't "validate" anything, it merely asserts that something is true - with no actual way to test it,

never encountered a normative description in scripture?

and apparently - from your own statements, no need to compare it.

I have made that statement?

This is ultimately where it all falls apart. You cannot test and do not compare - and even then can't assert that it isn't just the product of humans or a joking alien entity because you cannot test or compare the claim of a god.

Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things—these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.

how do you test if you are getting pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger by eating?

"Saintly persons" as shown above cannot be qualified.

shown where?

They follow something that they claim is 'from god' and then claim to have direct perception of this god - without being able to test this god or compare it to anything.

meanwhile 99.999999999999% of the rest of the population is completely surrendered to acts of lust, wrath, envy 24/7

“
if god is eternal, and so is the living entity, who would be the original people?
”
Who says god is eternal or that the living entity is eternal? How can you test the claim?

testing requires that one transcend one's conditioned nature, which is the vehicle for lust, wrath, envy etc

Original people would be Adam and Eve?

just like monday is the first day of the week

“
if the word "god" has certain connotations (omnimax etc), then it certainly does require validation
”
It certainly does - but how do you propose you test to see if a god is omnipotent [eg] other than asking it to do everything you can think of and more? How do you propose to test to see if a god is omniscient other than asking it everything you can think of and more? The problem with that one and indeed omnipresence is that you too would have to be omniscient and omnipresent otherwise you couldn't accurately test that it was everywhere/knew everything.

well if you can't find anything greater than what you have in front of you, you have to determine whether you are still subject to the pushings of lust, wrath, envy etc - if you are, whatyou have in front of you is not god

in the same way that if you are eating while hungry and not getting pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger, you are not actually eating food

“
you have a valid point if we accept the (atheistic) notion that god appeared (originally) at a particular time and place
”
Actually it's not atheistic, it's biblical. But nevermind, you don't believe in or see value in reading other scripture.

you have scriptural quotes that talk about god appearing at a particular time and place?

“
really?
”
Yes really, don't you remember that thread where I asked you if you had direct perception some 20+ times only for you to eventually say that you had indeed told me that you did?

yes i recall it

and to tag what you edited out in addition to "really?", I don't believe we progressed an inch in reaching a conclusion how you could determine if persons making such claims are lying or not

One of your main problems is your inability to answer straight questions and/or do so honestly. See your next quote..

One of your problems is your tendency to metonymicly slice up responses to suit your taste. See your above quote

“
I don't think we ever moved an inch past the discussion how you would determine a person making such a claim would be telling the truth or not ...
”
We've been through this before, at which time I told you I would be able to tell - I am well versed in recognising liars when I see them.

Ok lets test your skills

tell me which of the below statements is true

1. I am wearing a red jumper
2. I was born in russia
3. I am 45 years old
4. My feet are warm
5. I am feeling hungry
6. My children are coming home from school in 2 hours

However, I do want to make clear that it isn't of any importance. For the sake of discussion I will accept whatever statement you make as true. Lie to me if you so choose. (I get the feeling that you consider yourself one of these theists that wouldn't want to upset the gods so it's quite unlikely you'll actually lie).

Do you have direct perception of 'god' or not? (yes or no only please).

yes, much like a person eating food feels relief from hunger, nourishment, etc

“
this is the general outline..
”
So you're telling me now that all you've seen is scripture and consider that direct perception? If not, why paste scripture - I did not ask for scripture and it doesn't answer what I did ask for. Try again.

sometimes requests for outlines can be given by pasting things from books

 

[SnakeLord]

determining several omnimax personalities in existence is the basis for a simple question?

No, try again.

the standard one

Which is....?

the effect (the stone tool) is visible but the cause is only partially visible (the strata it was located in or means accepted as accurate means of dating)

Not really, but ok.

how would one validate seeing a "new species" without referencing cladistics?

The brain via the eyes.

“ What are you comparing god to? ”

omnimx, cause of all causes, etc

That's not a "comparison", but nevermind. How are you testing these things?

all of such, your daughter included, requires a foundation of theory

That's nice, but not the point of my statement.

one can test if they have located god

Located something they think is a god - unless you tell me how they test that it is a god, test it's omni status etc. Well?

if one is still affected by conditioned nature (lust, wrath, envy etc) it indicates they have a bit of work ahead of them

Having or not having lust is not an indication that god exists, merely that humans can control their emotions. That is 'testing human ability'. How do you go about testing a god - his or her omni status etc?

as for testing what is god, it would be that thing which stands as most great within one's experience

So my daughter is god. A bizarre way of coming to a conclusion and not a test by any means of the word. Still, a consolation prize on its way to you for trying.

Since most people's experience of the most attractive thing gives vent to expressions of lust, wrath, envy, etc, it tends to indicate that most people have not located god

Strange, ten seconds ago you were telling me god is whatever stands as the most great within ones experience - which means lust is god if it happens to stand as the greatest experience of someone. But anyway, this is entirely without merit.. I am not asking how you test man - and thus human lust, envy and wrath are irrelevant. How do you test god - his omni status etc?

and how is it that what you are saying is not another mere claim?

It is, that's the point. How do you go about testing it?

its not clear what knowledge base you are drawing from to make such statements

Indeed, that's the point.

never encountered a normative description in scripture?

Bwahahahahahaha! (If you want to know why I'm laughing see the 'problematic heaven' thread.

Now, put away that guidebook for a moment and pay attention. A book is a statement, a claim, a proposal of truth. To ascertain whether the claim, statement and proposal is true one must test the claimed 'truth', (in this instance the existence of an omnimax god). The only way to test the existence or truth of this god is to test that god. You can locate a being which you were guided towards by this book but it is not validation of the claims of this specific being, (i.e it could all have been written by an alien entity that wants your worship - but is not omni anything). To test the books claims of an omni being one must test the being, (if it exists), to see if it is indeed omni. What I don't get is why you continually try and assert that a books claims are true without being able to test the proposed truth within that book.

Clear example

Chapter 1:

"Elephants exist. To observe an elephant you must walk through the jungle."

So you head off into the jungle and eventually stumble upon an animal. "Wow! An elephant", you exclaim happily. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to you, the animal you're looking at is actually a tiger.

Chapter 2

"You can tell it's an elephant because it has a long trunk, is grey, has four tree sized legs and it goes "prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!" when it's happy"

Now you've read this far you are aware of how to test to see if the animal you see is actually an elephant.

I hope that has made it a lot clearer, if not let me know and I'll try again.

meanwhile 99.999999999999% of the rest of the population is completely surrendered to acts of lust, wrath, envy 24/7

Ok, that's a great, noble and worthwhile claim and I accept it - yet also stipulate that I don't personally give a damn because it's of little worth here. What this does is test the abilities of humans and the ability to be serious in their beliefs, not gods, (although you would have to show that anyone has accomplished those abilties which is hard to accurately test as explained a lot earlier in this thread - still, I will accept it for now).

just like monday is the first day of the week

Actually that would be Sunday, but nevermind.

well if you can't find anything greater than what you have in front of you, you have to determine whether you are still subject to the pushings of lust, wrath, envy etc

This isn't coherent given my question. Try again.

in the same way that if you are eating while hungry and not getting pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger, you are not actually eating food

Strange, this evening I had a pea for dinner. It wasn't pleasurable and didn't nourish me or relieve my hunger. I can tell you quite frankly that it is classifiable as "food".

you have scriptural quotes that talk about god appearing at a particular time and place?

Certainly, he appears at certain times and places all throughout the OT - and, if you're a christian that believes jesus is god, then it's safe to say he appeared at a particular time in a certain place for a good long while.

tell me which of the below statements is true
I am wearing a red jumper
I was born in russia
I am 45 years old
My feet are warm
I am feeling hungry
My children are coming home from school in 2 hours

No - although you own one, no, yes, no, mild - not overly warm, you are slightly peckish but are waiting for god to return that carrot you lent him earlier, no.

Anyway, once done with the fun and games..

yes

See!! How hard could it be? Why waste so much time? Sheesh. Anyway, so tell me.. What does he look like? What does he sound like? Does he have an accent?

sometimes requests for outlines can be given by pasting things from books

Certainly, but in this instance I didn't ask for any outlines and your scripture is irrelevant. I asked you what god sounded like/looked like, (from your direct perception of it).

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
the standard one
”
Which is....?

the one linked

“
the effect (the stone tool) is visible but the cause is only partially visible (the strata it was located in or means accepted as accurate means of dating)
”
Not really, but ok.

given that it is the understandings of time scales and how they are interpreted that change in the turbulent records of ancient history and not the artifacts in collections, it seems to actually be the case

“
how would one validate seeing a "new species" without referencing cladistics?
”
The brain via the eyes.

and how would such seeing be distinguished from seeing an already existing species?

“
“ What are you comparing god to? ”

omnimx, cause of all causes, etc
”
That's not a "comparison", but nevermind. How are you testing these things?

you can not test whether something is greater than something else?

“
one can test if they have located god
”
Located something they think is a god - unless you tell me how they test that it is a god, test it's omni status etc. Well?

BG 13.9 Thus the field of activities [the body], knowledge and the knowable have been summarily described by Me. Only My devotees can understand this thoroughly and thus attain to My nature.

for a start one attains a nature like god - transcendental to conditional life, ie the pushings of lust, wrath, envy etc

“
if one is still affected by conditioned nature (lust, wrath, envy etc) it indicates they have a bit of work ahead of them
”
Having or not having lust is not an indication that god exists, merely that humans can control their emotions.

lol - so control your lust and anger if its such an easy thing

That is 'testing human ability'. How do you go about testing a god - his or her omni status etc?

determine whether the object one is studying is indeed independent of everything

“

as for testing what is god, it would be that thing which stands as most great within one's experience
”
So my daughter is god. A bizarre way of coming to a conclusion and not a test by any means of the word. Still, a consolation prize on its way to you for trying.

“
Since most people's experience of the most attractive thing gives vent to expressions of lust, wrath, envy, etc, it tends to indicate that most people have not located god
”
Strange, ten seconds ago you were telling me god is whatever stands as the most great within ones experience -

it was part of the same paragraph separated by an empty line actually ....

which means lust is god if it happens to stand as the greatest experience of someone.

lol - perhaps for a lusty person

But anyway, this is entirely without merit.. I am not asking how you test man - and thus human lust, envy and wrath are irrelevant. How do you test god - his omni status etc?

already given
god is the greatest thing in existence and the purest thing in existence - if one is laying claim to god's association these two things must be there -

1. an understanding of how nothing is equal or greater than god
2. purity

“
and how is it that what you are saying is not another mere claim?
”
It is, that's the point. How do you go about testing it?

by examining the foundations of knowledge and moving through the steps of application and arriving at conclusion - since your claim doesn't have recourse to either direct perception or practice, it can't go the distance

“
never encountered a normative description in scripture?
”
Bwahahahahahaha! (If you want to know why I'm laughing see the 'problematic heaven' thread.

Now, put away that guidebook for a moment and pay attention. A book is a statement, a claim, a proposal of truth.

yes, much like the instruction manual that comes with a piece of machinery

To ascertain whether the claim, statement and proposal is true one must test the claimed 'truth', (in this instance the existence of an omnimax god).

so that would mean following the instructions right?

T

he only way to test the existence or truth of this god is to test that god. You can locate a being which you were guided towards by this book but it is not validation of the claims of this specific being, (i.e it could all have been written by an alien entity that wants your worship - but is not omni anything).

I guess such things can be answered at the stage of conclusion ('practice" being an important contributer to such)

To test the books claims of an omni being one must test the being, (if it exists), to see if it is indeed omni.

all by practice, right?

What I don't get is why you continually try and assert that a books claims are true without being able to test the proposed truth within that book.

what i don't get is how you ascertain one can arrive at conclusion without recourse to practice or even theory

Clear example

Chapter 1:

"Elephants exist. To observe an elephant you must walk through the jungle."

So you head off into the jungle and eventually stumble upon an animal.

so the first thing is that one has a theoretical understanding what an elephant is (otherwise one could write off a tiger as an elephant)
secondly one actually "applies" the knowledge - ie walks into the jungle rather than sitting back in their arm chair speculating what they would see if they decided to get off their laurels

"Wow! An elephant", you exclaim happily. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to you, the animal you're looking at is actually a tiger.

therefore a more complete knowledge would have a foundation of theory don't you think - and don't most people develop a theoretical understanding from books?

Chapter 2

"You can tell it's an elephant because it has a long trunk, is grey, has four tree sized legs and it goes "prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!" when it's happy"

Now you've read this far you are aware of how to test to see if the animal you see is actually an elephant.

I hope that has made it a lot clearer, if not let me know and I'll try again.

now imagine how absurd the situation would be if I chastised you for your above description since to provide descriptions of elephants that can be found in books somehow over rides the principles of knowledge or direct perception ....

“
meanwhile 99.999999999999% of the rest of the population is completely surrendered to acts of lust, wrath, envy 24/7
”
Ok, that's a great, noble and worthwhile claim and I accept it - yet also stipulate that I don't personally give a damn because it's of little worth here. What this does is test the abilities of humans and the ability to be serious in their beliefs, not gods, (although you would have to show that anyone has accomplished those abilties which is hard to accurately test as explained a lot earlier in this thread - still, I will accept it for now).

Regarding knowledge of god it must fulfill these criteria,

BG 9.2 This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed.

of which, purity is paramount

SB 11.23.45 Charity, prescribed duties, observance of major and minor regulative principles, hearing from scripture, pious works and purifying vows all have as their final aim the subduing of the mind. Indeed, concentration of the mind on the Supreme is the highest yoga.

“
just like monday is the first day of the week
”
Actually that would be Sunday, but nevermind.

depends if you are working or not

“
in the same way that if you are eating while hungry and not getting pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger, you are not actually eating food
”
Strange, this evening I had a pea for dinner. It wasn't pleasurable and didn't nourish me or relieve my hunger. I can tell you quite frankly that it is classifiable as "food".

in regard to the needs of your body, a single pea doesn't seem to fulfill your eating requirements

“
you have scriptural quotes that talk about god appearing at a particular time and place?
”
Certainly, he appears at certain times and places all throughout the OT - and, if you're a christian that believes jesus is god, then it's safe to say he appeared at a particular time in a certain place for a good long while.

thats fine then
for a moment I thought you were advocating that god began his existence in a particular time and place

“
tell me which of the below statements is true
I am wearing a red jumper
I was born in russia
I am 45 years old
My feet are warm
I am feeling hungry
My children are coming home from school in 2 hours
”
No - although you own one, no, yes, no, mild - not overly warm, you are slightly peckish but are waiting for god to return that carrot you lent him earlier, no.

Anyway, once done with the fun and games..

lol

50% of them were wrong

now that we have a proper perspective on your qualification in detecting liars, how else do you propose to determine if someone is lying in regards to making claims about directly perceiving god

“
yes
”
See!! How hard could it be? Why waste so much time? Sheesh. Anyway, so tell me.. What does he look like? What does he sound like? Does he have an accent?

god looks very beautiful

“
sometimes requests for outlines can be given by pasting things from books
”
Certainly, but in this instance I didn't ask for any outlines and your scripture is irrelevant. I asked you what god sounded like/looked like, (from your direct perception of it).

by such direct perception in a humble mood of service I experienced devotion towards him and detachment from other things, unlike anything else I have experienced

SB 11.2.42 Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things—these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.

 

[SnakeLord]

the one linked

That link actually provides several views and thus clarification is required.

and how would such seeing be distinguished from seeing an already existing species?

Already existing? Seeing it would indeed hint at the notion that it too is already existing. But I think you're kinda missing the point of what I'm saying, but it probably isn't important either way. All I am saying is that one can see. The knowledge of whether it is a new species or an old one isn't the issue - knowledge of whether something has been seen before does not prohibit one from seeing it. In saying, whether anyone else has ever actually seen a leprechaun before does not prevent you from seeing one if such things actually exist, (which they do).

you can not test whether something is greater than something else?

Not if it's claimed to be the greatest unless you're omniscient.

for a start one attains a nature like god - transcendental to conditional life, ie the pushings of lust, wrath, envy etc

You're in error. That nature you're attaining might not be a nature of a god, but merely a long-living alien entity which you believe is the creator of all because that alien creature told you so. Unless you can actually test that beings claims to omni status you can never ascertain that it is indeed the creator, a god or anything else. Do note that you can't use a book as confirmation of existence or status.

lol - so control your lust and anger if its such an easy thing

Lol what? People do it all the time. There are so many times I have wanted to kill someone but have refrained. There are times when I've seen a hot chick and have wanted to go over and bonk her senseless - but have refrained.

That people can control their emotions is nothing new. Suffice it to say, it's the only reason we're not all in prison.

determine whether the object one is studying is indeed independent of everything

And how do you determine that, (no a book does not suffice)?

it was part of the same paragraph separated by an empty line actually ....

Interesting but changes nothing.

god is the greatest thing in existence and the purest thing in existence

Annnd you test this how? You know everything in existence?

by examining the foundations of knowledge and moving through the steps of application and arriving at conclusion

The conclusion can only come through testing of the claim - and I have yet to see you propose how you manage to test this supposed gods omni status - and have indeed pointed out some of the problems in attempting to do so.

so that would mean following the instructions right?

Yes.

A book is not an indication of truth, it is merely a proposal of it. As an unavoidable result of that, the book cannot be used as confirmation of the proposal contained therein.

In the same manner that you cannot use a book that claims electrons exist as confirmation that electrons do in fact exist, you cannot use scripture as confirmation that the deities contained within that text exist.

This is no different to saying; "leprechauns exist" and then considering the fact that you said it as confirmation of its truth - which is obviously false.

So, you test the proposal. Now, if this instruction manual said: "This is the greatest TV to have ever existed", and you have no access to other TV's how do you go about testing the proposal?

Yes, you can programme the TV, and yes, from a scriptural perspective you can possibly learn how to control human emotions better - but how do you test the external claims? From a biblical perspective you have an omnipotent TV, but you can't test the TV's omnipotence - you just have to, and clearly do, accept the proposal as confirmation of it's truth, which I've already pointed out that you can't do.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

all by practice, right?

All by testing the being. You can't test yourself or a book for omnipotence with regards to whether a god is omnipotent.

what i don't get is how you ascertain one can arrive at conclusion without recourse to practice or even theory

I never said or implied anything of the sort.

therefore a more complete knowledge would have a foundation of theory don't you think - and don't most people develop a theoretical understanding from books?

Yes, that is part of the point - mainly that one then needs to test the proposals of that book.

now imagine how absurd the situation would be if I chastised you for your above description since to provide descriptions of elephants that can be found in books somehow over rides the principles of knowledge or direct perception ....

Uhh no. I take it my example didn't make things much clearer for you?

Regarding knowledge of god it must fulfill these criteria,

BG 9.2 This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed.

Your textual quote merely indicates that you are accepting a proposal as truth. Unless of course you can show me how you have tested whether "it" is 'everlasting', the purest knowledge, the most secret of secrets etc? It also seems to indicate that one simply gets direct perception of oneself.. which, well.. ok.

To test any of those proposals you would have to be omniscient.

depends if you are working or not

Not really, no.

in regard to the needs of your body..

Interesting but irrelevant. You claimed that it's not food. I can assure you it is.

50% of them were wrong

And how do you suggest that proposal is tested? The point.

god looks very beautiful

Interesting but not very detailed. What does he look like, sound like etc?

by such direct perception in a humble mood of service I experienced devotion towards him and detachment from other things, unlike anything else I have experienced

So touching. Alas I didn't ask how you felt, I asked what god looked and sounded like.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
the one linked
”
That link actually provides several views and thus clarification is required.

the first line
Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution

“
and how would such seeing be distinguished from seeing an already existing species?
”
Already existing? Seeing it would indeed hint at the notion that it too is already existing.

thats alright, but remember we are talking about seeing a "new species" hence there must be some means to distinguish it from an "existing species"

But I think you're kinda missing the point of what I'm saying, but it probably isn't important either way. All I am saying is that one can see. The knowledge of whether it is a new species or an old one isn't the issue -

it is if you are talking of seeing a "new species"

knowledge of whether something has been seen before does not prohibit one from seeing it.

it does inhibit one from knowing what one is seeing however

In saying, whether anyone else has ever actually seen a leprechaun before does not prevent you from seeing one if such things actually exist, (which they do).

hence a review of the knowledge base that surrounds leprechauns is a fair indication

“
you can not test whether something is greater than something else?
”
Not if it's claimed to be the greatest unless you're omniscient.

and if you can't uncover anything greater than it?

“
for a start one attains a nature like god - transcendental to conditional life, ie the pushings of lust, wrath, envy etc
”
You're in error. That nature you're attaining might not be a nature of a god, but merely a long-living alien entity which you believe is the creator of all because that alien creature told you so. Unless you can actually test that beings claims to omni status you can never ascertain that it is indeed the creator, a god or anything else. Do note that you can't use a book as confirmation of existence or status.

if one is not satisfied with such a foundation, one can request to see its universal form
of course to come to such a point to test requires attaining the qualification of arjuna

As you are probably aware, claiming that someone is god has become quite a cheap thing - I recall one swami who claimed he was god - I also recall that he had to cancel a lecture because he had a tooth ache

anyway, if one has a firm theoretical foundation on what is meant by the word "god" one can save oneself a lot of trouble ...

“
lol - so control your lust and anger if its such an easy thing
”
Lol what? People do it all the time.

correction
lol
they do it some of the time (and even then, its usually just so they can fulfill some other lustful/wrathful/envious desire at a later date ....)

There are so many times I have wanted to kill someone but have refrained. There are times when I've seen a hot chick and have wanted to go over and bonk her senseless - but have refrained.

lol
confirmed as above

That people can control their emotions is nothing new. Suffice it to say, it's the only reason we're not all in prison.

double confirmation

“
determine whether the object one is studying is indeed independent of everything
”
And how do you determine that, (no a book does not suffice)?

book knowledge is not sufficient but it is a foundation - for instance if you are fully decked out with all the knowledge that surrounds elephants, you can determine a new species and won't be duped by a hippo - so as it relates to god, a good starting point is to find out what independence entails and how god fulfills this requirement - for instance if one determines that objective reality can house more than one fully independent entity, its a good indication that they should go back to the books .....

“
god is the greatest thing in existence and the purest thing in existence
”
Annnd you test this how? You know everything in existence?

ditto above

“
so that would mean following the instructions right?
”
Yes.

A book is not an indication of truth, it is merely a proposal of it. As an unavoidable result of that, the book cannot be used as confirmation of the proposal contained therein.

what if persons claim the conclusion of the book is wrong on the basis of rhetoric (as opposed to direct perception) and yet clearly stand outside of having applied the recommended process. despite such claims of error running against the claims of persons who have applied the recommendations in the book to the point of direct perception (as in the case of the physics professor before our beloved highschool drop out) or by persons who are somewhat partially qualified (physics high school teachers)?

In the same manner that you cannot use a book that claims electrons exist as confirmation that electrons do in fact exist, you cannot use scripture as confirmation that the deities contained within that text exist.

you can use a book on electrons to put the claims of a high school drop out in perspective however ... the reason is because there are standard definitions on what electrons are and how they are (and aren't) visible

So, you test the proposal. Now, if this instruction manual said: "This is the greatest TV to have ever existed", and you have no access to other TV's how do you go about testing the proposal?

other expansions of god are not available for scrutiny?
Well if there is no possibility of entertaining a different option, even theoretically, the result should be obvious ....

Yes, you can programme the TV, and yes, from a scriptural perspective you can possibly learn how to control human emotions better - but how do you test the external claims?

amongst expansions of god, you could examine which expansion has the greatest recourse to pleasure

From a biblical perspective you have an omnipotent TV, but you can't test the TV's omnipotence - you just have to, and clearly do, accept the proposal as confirmation of it's truth, which I've already pointed out that you can't do.

omnipotence is a given for god (much like wetness is a given for water - you wouldn't think to try and locate water that wasn't wet - at least if you were thirsty) - if you can't fathom or locate a potency greater or independent than what you sourced, its not clear where the problem lies-

if someone came along with a TV with a greater potency (maybe it had a stop watch on top of the standard omnipotent modcons), then you would have a cause for review ("Hey you losers, my TV has a stopwatch!" ..... otherwise its just a case of "Imagine if I had a TV that was more omnipotent than yours" (such arguments often find their way on to sciforums)

Do you have something like a "stopwatch" to cause us to review standard definitions of god's omnipotency or are you asking us to imagine that you do?

“
all by practice, right?
”
All by testing the being. You can't test yourself or a book for omnipotence with regards to whether a god is omnipotent.

but before you could even test god, you would have to use a process to approach him wouldn't you? (at the very least you require a process to approach an elephant - ie go to the zoo/jungle - and even then that practical recommendation would bear more intrigue if you knew something about elephants)

“
Regarding knowledge of god it must fulfill these criteria,

BG 9.2 This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed.
”
Your textual quote merely indicates that you are accepting a proposal as truth. Unless of course you can show me how you have tested whether "it" is 'everlasting', the purest knowledge, the most secret of secrets etc? It also seems to indicate that one simply gets direct perception of oneself.. which, well.. ok.

without recourse to theory, how do you propose to determine anything?

“
50% of them were wrong
”
And how do you suggest that proposal is tested? .

no need
I have direct perception

The point.

the point is that your qualification in determining lies doesn't appear so reliable, so it still leaves you with the issue how you will determine the merit behind claims of perceiving god (or anything else that lies outside your knowledge base)

“
god looks very beautiful
”
Interesting but not very detailed. What does he look like, sound like etc?

take a step inside any temple of Krishna and see for yourself



as for directly hearing god that requires great qualification much like directly hearing any powerful personality is not within the realm of your ordinary joe (or even your qualified joe - how many political analysts have been in conversation with George Bush? ... still you find that such analysts can be good at their thing by listening with attention to via mediums - namely mass media broadcasts, not only of the president but also the presidents representatives/spokesmen ... similarities exist with theists who pay attention to via mediums of god - namely scripture and saintly persons)