Here you go...

[lightgigantic]

Since objectivity and neutrality are not possible options for humans (as we do not have infinite resources), as far as I can see, what remains is checking one's interests and siding with one of the parties. Which is indeed an act of faith.

(If we don't side with any party, this means that the conflict isn't actually relevant to us, which begs the question of why we are paying attention to the conflict to begin with.)

Application can provide only a limited proof/evidence because the field of application is often so vast and so complex that I do not think it is reasonable to expect any definitive proof or evidence within a foreseeable time.

I don't see how anyone can embark on the path of empirically testing anything without also in advance setting some limits.
"We will sail for two months. And if in this time we don't find suitable land, we will turn back."
or "I will pray every day for two months. If in this time my wishes aren't granted, I will give up praying and conclude that there is no God."

But in the case of empirically testing religious claims, everything is so much more complex that defining what a reasonable limit is, seems impossible.
To use the above example - What justification is there to conclude that if after two months of praying the wishes haven't been granted, this is indeed proof that there is no God? I can see none, other than one's own imagination.


What did you have in mind as a way to resolve such a conflict?

You're on track.

Suppose we were discussing how long it is reasonable to set sail for in search of land. What would determine it? Why might it prove difficult to get two people to agree on a specific answer of time?

Do you come from the position that religious claims can indeed be tested in the manner of a controlled empirical experiment, such as laboratory chemistry experiments are controlled empirical experiments?
If yes, what is your justification for holding such a position?

Kind of yes and no.

The problem is that the tool for measuring is the self or consciousness itself, and that doesn't translate into the everyday sense of empirical experiments. IOW how would you propose that one see what one is seeing with?

As far as I can see, because of the content of religious claims, the best one can do is a so-called natural experiment or a quasi-experiment, similar to the way they do them in political and social sciences, or in ecology, meteorology where performing a controlled experiment is prohibitively difficult or impossible.

in many ways, teh soft sciences are more compatible with the claims of theism than the hard sciences. The big whoo-haa about hard science is that it has made radical advancements and redefined the other sciences ... nevertheless, many a physicist has ambitiously ventured into biology only to return to physics at a later date ....

When testing religious claims, one does not have a control sample nor constants that one could rely on, at least I do not see any. Unlike in so many other experiments, in testing religious claims, everything is being tested, especially the tester/experimenter, his sense of who he is, his intentions, his abilities.

There are various constant elements in theistic claims. For instance it is said that the material world has a certain nature, and no matter how it gets dressed up, it remains the same (so dreaming up a means of eternal existence in the material world is simply a waste of time). SImilarly the living entity is also attributed with constant characteristics , as is god. All this makes up for the discussion of different "tattvas"
Jiva gosvami's sandarbha series goes into this in detail.

So far, I am not convinced by the line of reasoning that one ought to do an "experiment" when it comes to religion. I am also skeptical that anyone arrived at religious truths by experiment and could as such take credit for arriving at them. (There are scriptures that clearly make the point that the Absolute truth cannot be discovered experimentally! Eg. Iso, Introduction; SB 2.7.13, pp.)

(hehe isn't the SB quote a gem!)
The idea is that there are certain results of the experiment, and these pertain to the self and not some sort of extended potency that borders on the omni.

IOW the result is to be free from material bondage and not to develop some sort of mystic siddhi (since arguable there are many such yogis who remained within the grip of maya while being bale to perform all sorts of incredible acts)

Hence acts of mystic yoga, karma and jnana are often condemned in light of bhakti

Framing it in the terms of science and calling it an experiment may be initially appealing to those more science-minded. But once looking into religious matters even just a bit, an attitude of experimenting, especially of trying to carry out a controlled experiment, seems to be completely misplaced, because part of the "religious experiment" is to be willing to devote one's whole life to it, everything one has, everything one thinks one is or could be. This rules out any notion of experimenting, unless one already has an unshakable conviction that one will have infinitely many equally auspicious life times so that one may spend them in performing controlled experiments. And how many people have such a conviction?

By use of the word science, SP was not borrowing from the established credibility of science. Its more or less a translation of words like vijnana, which mean that a definitive conclusion is arrived at after application. IOW there is a means and a way to determining a claim. This stands distinct from
whimsy and sentimentality that under-rides much of contemporary theism

I often hear that one should experimentally test religious claims. But I fail to see how this is possible.
(And it's not like, for example, laboratory chemistry experiments are perfectly conclusive either; infinite regress seems to lurk everywhere, if only one allows to see it. Also, there is this tendency that the things that seem to be testable in the traditional scientific sense have very little bearing on our lives.)

Are there constants and control samples that a person can rely on, be sure of in a religious experiment? Prior to beginning a religious experiment, is there anything that a person is fully sure of or can be sure of?

I guess if one is beginning at the drawing board its best to start at the modes of nature and one's own experience of happiness and distress. IOW to look at what motivates one and the mental and environmental contexts that shape such motivation.
This enables one to move on, by strength of intelligence, beyond the ephemeral dictates of the senses (IOW to get the means to be self controlled, which is the very first step in spiritual life)

If anything, it seems it is part of the religious experiment to hold, _on faith_, that such and such are constants and control samples.



Or what am I missing here?

the hold remains a constant to the degree that material desire has a hold.

IOW if our heart is in two places, thinking "I know I should do this and that, but ...", that "but" sours the higher taste of spiritual spontaneity (hence we are spiritually stationed behind the ramparts of rules and regs)

 

[jpappl]

Congratulations Signal,

This:

For me, the biggest threat/handicap is that I do not have omniscience, and that instead, I have to take things on faith, on trust. I am afraid that it is only if I had omniscience that I could make any decisions or devote myself to this or that. But that without omniscience, no decision I make is actually justified, and I have to question it forever.

Is the most honest thing from a theist I have seen in a while on this forum.

It seems this is the underlying theme of many atheistic arguments: "The more important it is to be right about something, the higher need to be the standards of what constitutes valid evidence for it. If something is of infinite importance (such as being right about what God's nature etc. is), those standards should be infinitely high."

From the discussions with theists, it has been my experience that theists tend to take this point lightly, and often with disdain.

You think.

Makes sense to demand that for ourselves doesn't it. Otherwise, all sorts of nonsense could replace that which we have found valid. We have to justify our beliefs and the greater the importance the greater the justification (evidence) for the belief needs to be.

Thank you for admitting that it is faith, for some reason, most theists around here can't do that.

I can readily admit that I have no proof there is no god, on such a subject all we have is the evidence that is available.

To me the evidence does not justify a belief in god but the opposite.

But I can not know that as a fact.

 

[Sarkus]

From #82
...
From #84

And given that you were phrasing those answers in a generalisation that I showed to be flawed, I asked you to clarify in the specific case of belief in God being a prerequisite for application.
And you just couldn't be bothered.

Its the nature of a loaded q that there are other issues more pertinent to what it is staging for discussion

You may have provided a link to Wikipedia or somesuch, but you clearly have no real understanding of what a loaded question is - as I have repeatedly shown you categorically why it isn't - but you side-track, again and again and again.

Its probably more conducive to back track to the problems you find with "belief in anything is a prerequisite to any issue of application that surrounds it" since thats the general principle I am advocating

The fact that you are generalising is an issue you can take up in another thread if you wish, rather than yet again trying to side-track from the specific case.

You can't see how this requires that a person have at least an initial belief in the existence of ice cream vendors?

No - it could have been a Florumget for all I care.
First you seem to be confusing a belief in the existence of something with merely belief in the possibility of existence. The former is a belief in the existence - the latter is not. (You might believe life on Mars is a possibiliy, but you might not believe there IS life on Mars).
Furthermore there is the option of undertaking application for the sake of application (humouring someone, understanding the process etc) which has no requirement for belief in the end result (or a prerequisite belief in the end result).

If you don't attribute any credible existence to ice cream vendors, what would provoke you to look for one?

As I have explained - one could merely be humouring the person making the claim, or to try to understand what the claimant is actually perceiving.
For example - if someone claims that there is a ghost outside the window, I might choose to look to see what exactly that person is claiming is a ghost.
I.e. I might believe there is the possibility that there is something - but not what they claim it to be.

Understand the flaw in your generalisation yet?

The submarine example simply illustrates how even with belief in certain objects, the seer can be contextualized in environments (both physical and social) that effectively prohibit them from inquiry.

Logical fallacy - as the analogy of the submariner concerns issues of practicality, not issues of belief.

You and your 1000+ posts are full of ideas about how various evidences put forward for god are nothing more than the equivalent of psychedelic t-shirt prints

Please argue the point raised, LG, not what you perceive of the person.
At this stage all I am after is the "psychedelic t-shirt", as mentioned plenty of times already.
You haven't had the decency to provide it yet.

and that my friend is the "load" of your loaded question.

Firstly it was not the "load" of any question but a judgement based on your worthless input to this thread to date.
Other than that, LG, you simply do not understand what a loaded question is; your usage clearly shows this lack of understanding.
A loaded question is where BOTH answers (the "yes" AND "no" answers) lead to putting the answerer in a position that makes unwarranted presuppositions.
This just is NOT the case here:
- In what way does you saying "yes, you need to believe in God in order to properly apply..." make an unwarranted presupposition?
- And had you said "no, you do not need..." - what then - what does this presuppose that is unwarranted?

Now that you have gotten that off your chest ... [snip] ... maybe you can go back and examine the critical issues that surround it

Or maybe you could explain why it is not a case of needing to believe in order to believe, as you have indicated it to be?
No, you seem to prefer to avoid and deflect. :zzz:

"I require some evidence before I'll believe in God."
"Sure, you need to apply yourself though, and get qualified."
"And how do I do that?"
"Well, a prerequisite is that you need to believe in God..."

yet nevertheless the same general principle applies for any area of tertiary study you care to mention - in fact if you were studying physics, you could well spend 2 or 3 years in such a state before you come to position of dealing directly with evidence

But at ANY stage you could be shown that evidence.
But you wouldn't understand it.
But you could be shown it.
But you wouldn't understand it.

Blah blah blah blah blah
:zzz:

 

[jpappl]

A loaded question is where BOTH answers (the "yes" AND "no" answers) lead to putting the answerer in a position that makes unwarranted presuppositions.

Have you stopped beating your wife ?

 

[Sarkus]

That is the usual example.
Although I concede that perhaps both answers don't need to be "loaded" as I indicated.
Either way, LG is mistakenly thinking that a question which merely serves an agenda is loaded, which it isn't.
There needs to be presupposition that is not warranted / agreed by the person answering - and in the case of the question I asked him there is no such unwarranted presupposition.

Hey ho.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
From #82
...
From #84
”
And given that you were phrasing those answers in a generalisation that I showed to be flawed, I asked you to clarify in the specific case of belief in God being a prerequisite for application.
And you just couldn't be bothered.

Actually they, and the numerous posts before it were very specific. The only thing you have clearly demonstrated is that you couldn't be bothered to read it due to being too eager to cut to the car chase with your loaded q.

“
Its the nature of a loaded q that there are other issues more pertinent to what it is staging for discussion
”
You may have provided a link to Wikipedia or somesuch, but you clearly have no real understanding of what a loaded question is - as I have repeatedly shown you categorically why it isn't - but you side-track, again and again and again.

hehe
If that was the case you would be just as comfortable working with the q - "Is belief is always a prerequisite for application?" in place of "Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand?" since the former encompasses everything of the later.

“
Its probably more conducive to back track to the problems you find with "belief in anything is a prerequisite to any issue of application that surrounds it" since thats the general principle I am advocating
”
The fact that you are generalising is an issue you can take up in another thread if you wish, rather than yet again trying to side-track from the specific case.

well it may come as a surprise to you but that's the process for determining the validity of an argument - you take the general principle and see how it stands. Its an effective means of reducing the ideological flak that surrounds controversial issues (like say an atheist letting fly with their opinion of theistic claims) - once again, further details on this under critical pedagogy, whenever you get around to reading about it ....

“
You can't see how this requires that a person have at least an initial belief in the existence of ice cream vendors?
”
No - it could have been a Florumget for all I care.

well if they get asked to look for one, they had better have a some idea what they are ...
:shrug:

First you seem to be confusing a belief in the existence of something with merely belief in the possibility of existence. The former is a belief in the existence - the latter is not. (You might believe life on Mars is a possibility, but you might not believe there IS life on Mars).

but even these assumptions work out of the belief that there is something called life and a planet called mars.

Furthermore there is the option of undertaking application for the sake of application (humouring someone, understanding the process etc) which has no requirement for belief in the end result (or a prerequisite belief in the end result).

But such humoring doesn't take the form of extended endeavor and labour - for instance would you undertake a 3 year university course for the sake of humoring someone? Would you expect a submariner to suit up and swim around for an hour in search of an ice cream vendor?

“
If you don't attribute any credible existence to ice cream vendors, what would provoke you to look for one?
”
As I have explained - one could merely be humouring the person making the claim, or to try to understand what the claimant is actually perceiving.
For example - if someone claims that there is a ghost outside the window, I might choose to look to see what exactly that person is claiming is a ghost.
I.e. I might believe there is the possibility that there is something - but not what they claim it to be.

Would you catch a plane to the Andes to get some advice from a ghost expert?
Would you read 10kg of books about ghosts?

Or is it that anything that requires more effort than lifting one's ass off a chair and that can't be revealed by sticking one's nose out a window is simply a waste of time?

Understand the flaw in your generalisation yet?

“
The submarine example simply illustrates how even with belief in certain objects, the seer can be contextualized in environments (both physical and social) that effectively prohibit them from inquiry.
”
Logical fallacy - as the analogy of the submariner concerns issues of practicality, not issues of belief.

Feel free to indicate the practical issues that make it difficult for a submariner to check for ice cream vendors

“

You and your 1000+ posts are full of ideas about how various evidences put forward for god are nothing more than the equivalent of psychedelic t-shirt prints
”
Please argue the point raised, LG, not what you perceive of the person.
At this stage all I am after is the "psychedelic t-shirt", as mentioned plenty of times already.
You haven't had the decency to provide it yet.

Please refrain from taking this thread in the direction of your previous 1000 posts.

If you want to read about a posited evidence for god, just browse your previous posts tab.

“
and that my friend is the "load" of your loaded question.
”
Firstly it was not the "load" of any question but a judgement based on your worthless input to this thread to date.
Other than that, LG, you simply do not understand what a loaded question is; your usage clearly shows this lack of understanding.
A loaded question is where BOTH answers (the "yes" AND "no" answers) lead to putting the answerer in a position that makes unwarranted presuppositions.
This just is NOT the case here:
- In what way does you saying "yes, you need to believe in God in order to properly apply..." make an unwarranted presupposition?
- And had you said "no, you do not need..." - what then - what does this presuppose that is unwarranted?

a yes answer props you for your "theism is a load of crap" response (a response that doesn't account for the notion that all claims of knowledge, particularly the more sublime varieties, are underpinned by issues of faith)

A no answer props you for your "well let's see the peer review tests" response (a response that doesn't account for the notion that its fallacious to expect empiricism to ever be capable of investigating the subject)

Once again, numerous examples there in your previous 1000+ posts

“
Now that you have gotten that off your chest ... [snip] ... maybe you can go back and examine the critical issues that surround it
”
Or maybe you could explain why it is not a case of needing to believe in order to believe, as you have indicated it to be?
No, you seem to prefer to avoid and deflect.

Its more a case of needing to adhere to the epistemological standards of any claim .... but once again, if you're not prepared to examine the critical issues that surround it, you're probably better off playing sudoko or something

"I require some evidence before I'll believe in God."
"Sure, you need to apply yourself though, and get qualified."
"And how do I do that?"
"Well, a prerequisite is that you need to believe in God..."

“
yet nevertheless the same general principle applies for any area of tertiary study you care to mention - in fact if you were studying physics, you could well spend 2 or 3 years in such a state before you come to position of dealing directly with evidence
”
But at ANY stage you could be shown that evidence.

and lo and behold, you would be required to believe in it before you progress to the next stage.

For instance if a physics student stops mid way through the term and thinks "hey this is just a t-shirt print", it kind of spells the end of their degree.

 

[swarm]

A post remarkably similar to the example of an inimical high school drop out labeling everything a physics professor says as crap while simultaneously demanding to be educated.

At least in the beginning, attitude is everything kid.

Once more nothing but bullshit.

Try again.

 

[lightgigantic]

Once more nothing but bullshit.

Try again.

Why bother?

I've had more progressive discussions with alcoholics
:shrug:

 

[786]

Wow.... I'm really enjoying this :roflmao:

Peace be unto

 

[Sarkus]

LG it is quite clear that you can't be bothered to answer any question an atheist puts to you, for fear they might respond to you and highlight the flaws in your claims - what you deem a "loaded question".

You also appear utterly unable to respond to simple questions with simple answers.

It is also clear you have nothing of value or worth to discuss in these threads, and seem content on sidetracking to issues of pedagogy or anything else to change the tack of the discussion, bringing in logical fallacy after logical fallacy, even when they have been pointed out to you time and time again.

It is also quite clear that you are not able to provide any evidence for God, at least to anyone who does not already believe in God - for that is the only viable conclusion to be taken from your persistent stalling and deflecting and unwillingness to provide what has been asked. And you appear unable to see the paradox of that situation, where none exist with evidence for anything else.

In short, LG, you are a charlatan - all talk and no walk. And unfortunately you seem able to neither "put up" nor "shut up" but instead foul these forums with your obfuscating drivel.

I'll therefore leave you to discuss further with the alcoholics that seem more on your wavelength and who are willing to listen and accept the waffle you spout. :shrug: Maybe they think it's alcoholic. Maybe they're just asleep.


If there's any Mod watching, I would suggest this thread is closed, as LG seems unwilling and able - and this thread was for him to put up what he had.
Closing the thread for failure to do so would therefore be a fitting indictment.

 

[wynn]

Congratulations Signal,

This:

Is the most honest thing from a theist I have seen in a while on this forum.

Not so fast.

I am at least ten times the atheist any Sciforums atheist can dream to be.

Please don't think you have any kind of an ally in me.

 

[wynn]

If there's any Mod watching, I would suggest this thread is closed, as LG seems unwilling and able - and this thread was for him to put up what he had.
Closing the thread for failure to do so would therefore be a fitting indictment.

I have things to discuss here with LG.

 

[wynn]

You're on track.

Suppose we were discussing how long it is reasonable to set sail for in search of land. What would determine it? Why might it prove difficult to get two people to agree on a specific answer of time?

Predictions of: weather (storms, heat, cold, windless areas and periods), illness, need for medical and hygienic supplies, food and water supplies (how much food is expected to spoil in what time, whether the food consumption can be spread evenly over four months), accidental losses to any supplies, damage to the ship, size of the crew ...
It's a long list, and the calculation is very complex, as the actual history of sailing shows. The sailors have certainly conducted such calculations; some worked out, some didn't.

But I am not so sure the analogy works for spiritual practice. The sailing example supposes that there will be no input during the journey and that survival depends exclusively on the supplies available onboard and some uncontrollable factors (such as weather). To apply the sailing example to spiritual practice then means: "You have to hold it out on whatever you already have with you, you cannot hope for any input or any positive development, right until the moment you become enlightened/realize God. If you are going to become enlightened/realize God, you will have to do it with whatever you have available right now. You are not going to learn or develop anything new on the path to realization, you will only use up what you have, while being unable to produce more resources."

Which is indeed a grim outlook.

The problem is that the tool for measuring is the self or consciousness itself, and that doesn't translate into the everyday sense of empirical experiments. IOW how would you propose that one see what one is seeing with?

I have no idea. Omniscience seems like the only solution.

There are various constant elements in theistic claims. For instance it is said that the material world has a certain nature, and no matter how it gets dressed up, it remains the same (so dreaming up a means of eternal existence in the material world is simply a waste of time). SImilarly the living entity is also attributed with constant characteristics , as is god. All this makes up for the discussion of different "tattvas"
Jiva gosvami's sandarbha series goes into this in detail.

Sure, but I am coming from the position of radical relativism (not that I like it, but I really don't know any better). From this position, even such things that may be considered constant (such as the fallibility of the temporal), are relativized. One could, after all, say "it is just frailty to be bothered by the fallibility of the temporal".

I suppose I am in the camp of the baby monkey philosophy. Omniscience seems like the only solution when one feels threatened from all sides, feeling that one cannot trust anyone or anything (not even - or especially not - one's mind or whatever one considers to be "oneself").

(hehe isn't the SB quote a gem!)

The verse, the purport, or both?

The idea is that there are certain results of the experiment, and these pertain to the self and not some sort of extended potency that borders on the omni.

I suppose I am afraid that even if I devoted myself to the practice seriously, I would still be the same, except that then I would have some "extra". Like if one has a lot of money, but is unhappy, one can invest the money and buy a car - and then one has a car, but one is still unhappy (and has less money).

IOW the result is to be free from material bondage and not to develop some sort of mystic siddhi (since arguable there are many such yogis who remained within the grip of maya while being bale to perform all sorts of incredible acts)

Hence acts of mystic yoga, karma and jnana are often condemned in light of bhakti

Perhaps I am actually seeing bhakti as a matter of developing a mystic siddhi (odd, that a Westerner can come up with such a paradigm ...), that "extra", while all else actually remains pretty much the same.

By use of the word science, SP was not borrowing from the established credibility of science. Its more or less a translation of words like vijnana, which mean that a definitive conclusion is arrived at after application. IOW there is a means and a way to determining a claim.

I see. So the translations - the English words - need to be seen as merely provisional (for example such as "scripture" doesn't exactly equate to "sastra"), and as such requiring further discussion?

It gets confusing sometimes though, because the teachers and others use the English words, and then build on them, which can bring in extraneous concepts and conclusions.

I guess if one is beginning at the drawing board its best to start at the modes of nature and one's own experience of happiness and distress. IOW to look at what motivates one and the mental and environmental contexts that shape such motivation.
This enables one to move on, by strength of intelligence, beyond the ephemeral dictates of the senses (IOW to get the means to be self controlled, which is the very first step in spiritual life)

Actually, after having explored these things a bit, it seems to me there is a more basic point to consider: respecting one's desire for true happiness.
One would think desiring happiness and respecting this desire is a given, but this is not my experience.
"I want to be truly happy, I don't want to suffer" - how often do we hear this sentence? And if we do hear it, how often is it done away with an idle hand gesture or an idle phrase?

It takes a bit of time (months, maybe even years) to begin to take that sentence seriously, to respect it, to get used to it to the point where one can actually begin to look further into it.

Out of so many human beings who are suffering, there are a few who are actually inquiring about their position, as to what they are, why they are put into this awkward position and so on. Unless one is awakened to this position of questioning his suffering, unless he realizes that he doesn't want suffering but rather wants to make a solution to all suffering, then one is not to be considered a perfect human being. Humanity begins when this sort of inquiry is awakened in one's mind.

You know where this is from.

 

[wynn]

I'm not sure what you see the requirement for omniscience is.

There's a certain glass ceiling imposed by conditioned existence

Sure. And people react/respond differently to this glass ceiling.

Some integrate it into their lives somehow, and others develop control issues.

Fantasizing about the benefits of omniscience and seeing it as the only solution to one's problems (general and philosophical) can be considered as such a "philosophical control issue".

But while everyday life control issues are advised to be solved by referring to one's Higher Power, I haven't yet seen any advice on how to solve the philosophical control issues. Perhaps by referring to everyday life!

For instance if a person says "I know that Jane is my mother and John is my father" does that imply they are having recourse to a type of consciousness that was present during their conception?

It could, I haven't excluded that option, nor the option of omniscience.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG it is quite clear that you can't be bothered to answer any question an atheist puts to you, for fear they might respond to you and highlight the flaws in your claims - what you deem a "loaded question".

If you can't discuss"Is belief always a prerequisite for application?" in place of "Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand?" then its you who are plagued by issues of fear

You also appear utterly unable to respond to simple questions with simple answers.

aka - take the bait of your loaded q's .... errr no thanks

It is also clear you have nothing of value or worth to discuss in these threads, and seem content on sidetracking to issues of pedagogy or anything else to change the tack of the discussion, bringing in logical fallacy after logical fallacy, even when they have been pointed out to you time and time again.

sheesh

feel free to indicate why issues of pedagogy stand divorced from issues of evidence

(On second thoughts, given your proclivity for muddled thought, perhaps its better if you give it a miss)

It is also quite clear that you are not able to provide any evidence for God, at least to anyone who does not already believe in God - for that is the only viable conclusion to be taken from your persistent stalling and deflecting and unwillingness to provide what has been asked. And you appear unable to see the paradox of that situation, where none exist with evidence for anything else.

Actually this would make a suitable topic of discussion relevant to this thread.

Due to you inability to discuss the q "Is belief always a prerequisite for application?", however, you miss the opportunity ....

In short, LG, you are a charlatan - all talk and no walk. And unfortunately you seem able to neither "put up" nor "shut up" but instead foul these forums with your obfuscating drivel.

will the irony never end?

I'll therefore leave you to discuss further with the alcoholics that seem more on your wavelength and who are willing to listen and accept the waffle you spout. :shrug: Maybe they think it's alcoholic. Maybe they're just asleep.

I figured that sooner or later you would tap out

If there's any Mod watching, I would suggest this thread is closed, as LG seems unwilling and able - and this thread was for him to put up what he had.
Closing the thread for failure to do so would therefore be a fitting indictment.

actually the answer is that it all begins at the point of attitude.

Your inability to come to the discussion without your loaded q's doesn't necessarily discredit the claim ....

 

[Sarkus]

If you can't discuss"Is belief always a prerequisite for application?" in place of "Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand?" then its you who are plagued by issues of fear

I discussed it, showed you the error in your thinking/claiming that it is always a prerequisite, and moved on to the specific question I asked.

But having had the flaw in your claim pointed out to you, you sidetrack and obfuscate.

aka - take the bait of your loaded q's .... errr no thanks

And for hopefully the last time: a loaded question requires presupposition. Since there was none with the question I asked, it was not loaded.
You merely saying it does demonstrates your ignorance, and your penchant for deflecting.
:shrug:

When it comes to people disagreeing with your position, LG, you do not discuss: you avoid.
Even when people try to understand your position, by asking simple questions, you avoid answering - presumably seeing the weakness in your own position and thus claiming the question is loaded - again to avoid answering.

I figured that sooner or later you would tap out

Yes, one can only talk with brick-walls for so long - so I shall now move on - I'm sure you'll find an alcoholic to converse with while he pees on your wall.
:wallbang:

 

[lightgigantic]

I discussed it, showed you the error in your thinking/claiming that it is always a prerequisite, and moved on to the specific question I asked.


But having had the flaw in your claim pointed out to you, you sidetrack and obfuscate.

Hardly

You made the claim that the submariner example is surrounded solely by issues of practicality ... even then there is no practical difference to the act of suiting up, regardless of what they are searching for (although examining issues of belief that determine what it may be valid to search for clearly offer a better suggestion as to why submariners NEVER go searching for ice cream vendors)

:shrug:

And for hopefully the last time: a loaded question requires presupposition. Since there was none with the question I asked, it was not loaded.
You merely saying it does demonstrates your ignorance, and your penchant for deflecting.

The exact nature of your loaded q is that there is no consensus on the terms. IOW you are simply trying to cut to the chase of your previous 1000 post. Hence the two loads for any prospective answer are (presuppositions in parentheses) .....

a yes answer props you for your "theism is a load of crap" response (a response that doesn't account for the notion that all claims of knowledge, particularly the more sublime varieties, are underpinned by issues of faith)

A no answer props you for your "well let's see the peer review tests" response (a response that doesn't account for the notion that its fallacious to expect empiricism to ever be capable of investigating the subject)

When it comes to people disagreeing with your position, LG, you do not discuss: you avoid.
Even when people try to understand your position, by asking simple questions, you avoid answering - presumably seeing the weakness in your own position and thus claiming the question is loaded - again to avoid answering.

Actually if you examine the OP, you will see that it is not so much about what is the evidence but what is the means for determining the evidence. The problem with your questioning is that you come with a persistent attitude that predetermines any discussion (see the two loads just itching to be released from your apparently neutral question).

Furthermore, you write off a discussion of pedagogy as superfluous to the topic.

To be quite frank, a person who insists on discussing how to learn divorced from means of teaching is simply not interested in learning.

Yes, one can only talk with brick-walls for so long - so I shall now move on - I'm sure you'll find an alcoholic to converse with while he pees on your wall.
:wallbang:

At least an alcoholic, given time, has the possibility of becoming sober ....

 

[lightgigantic]

Signal

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You're on track.

Suppose we were discussing how long it is reasonable to set sail for in search of land. What would determine it? Why might it prove difficult to get two people to agree on a specific answer of time?
”
Predictions of: weather (storms, heat, cold, windless areas and periods), illness, need for medical and hygienic supplies, food and water supplies (how much food is expected to spoil in what time, whether the food consumption can be spread evenly over four months), accidental losses to any supplies, damage to the ship, size of the crew ...
It's a long list, and the calculation is very complex, as the actual history of sailing shows. The sailors have certainly conducted such calculations; some worked out, some didn't.

My point was that the only constant element to the calculations are the values that underpin it. For instance, in the name of keeping the crew healthy, the ship operational etc etc, a wide variety of calculations are drawn up on issues that may not draw a consensus (like a disagreement on the weather patterns for instance).

IOw the conflict is resolved at the point of examining value, or what one can set out to achieve within the parameters.

But I am not so sure the analogy works for spiritual practice. The sailing example supposes that there will be no input during the journey and that survival depends exclusively on the supplies available onboard and some uncontrollable factors (such as weather). To apply the sailing example to spiritual practice then means: "You have to hold it out on whatever you already have with you, you cannot hope for any input or any positive development, right until the moment you become enlightened/realize God. If you are going to become enlightened/realize God, you will have to do it with whatever you have available right now. You are not going to learn or develop anything new on the path to realization, you will only use up what you have, while being unable to produce more resources."

Which is indeed a grim outlook.

hence the notion of god being a conscious magnanimous personality is a cause for recourse

“
The problem is that the tool for measuring is the self or consciousness itself, and that doesn't translate into the everyday sense of empirical experiments. IOW how would you propose that one see what one is seeing with?
”
I have no idea. Omniscience seems like the only solution.

and since omniscience is logically impossible for empiricism, that means no solution

“
There are various constant elements in theistic claims. For instance it is said that the material world has a certain nature, and no matter how it gets dressed up, it remains the same (so dreaming up a means of eternal existence in the material world is simply a waste of time). SImilarly the living entity is also attributed with constant characteristics , as is god. All this makes up for the discussion of different "tattvas"
Jiva gosvami's sandarbha series goes into this in detail.
”
Sure, but I am coming from the position of radical relativism (not that I like it, but I really don't know any better). From this position, even such things that may be considered constant (such as the fallibility of the temporal), are relativized. One could, after all, say "it is just frailty to be bothered by the fallibility of the temporal".

that doesn't make the temporal any less fallible

I suppose I am in the camp of the baby monkey philosophy. Omniscience seems like the only solution when one feels threatened from all sides, feeling that one cannot trust anyone or anything (not even - or especially not - one's mind or whatever one considers to be "oneself").

The mindset of "the only solution to conditioned life is to become god" is something that successful theistic principles surmount. Even a Buddhist moves in that direction when they culture a mood of detachment to the ephemeral.

“
(hehe isn't the SB quote a gem!)
”
The verse, the purport, or both?

meaning that it could easily open up a field month (an extravagant version of a field day) within the dedicated community of this site

“
The idea is that there are certain results of the experiment, and these pertain to the self and not some sort of extended potency that borders on the omni.
”
I suppose I am afraid that even if I devoted myself to the practice seriously, I would still be the same, except that then I would have some "extra". Like if one has a lot of money, but is unhappy, one can invest the money and buy a car - and then one has a car, but one is still unhappy (and has less money).

What do you stand to become less of, regarding spiritual practice?

“
By use of the word science, SP was not borrowing from the established credibility of science. Its more or less a translation of words like vijnana, which mean that a definitive conclusion is arrived at after application. IOW there is a means and a way to determining a claim.
”
I see. So the translations - the English words - need to be seen as merely provisional (for example such as "scripture" doesn't exactly equate to "sastra"), and as such requiring further discussion?

It gets confusing sometimes though, because the teachers and others use the English words, and then build on them, which can bring in extraneous concepts and conclusions.

commonly, at least on this site, people use the word science when they are actually talking about empiricism (which is labeled as pratyaksa in vedic terminology).

I guess there are greater issues of literacy that escape pure etymology and find their way into social contexts

“
I guess if one is beginning at the drawing board its best to start at the modes of nature and one's own experience of happiness and distress. IOW to look at what motivates one and the mental and environmental contexts that shape such motivation.
This enables one to move on, by strength of intelligence, beyond the ephemeral dictates of the senses (IOW to get the means to be self controlled, which is the very first step in spiritual life)
”
Actually, after having explored these things a bit, it seems to me there is a more basic point to consider: respecting one's desire for true happiness.
One would think desiring happiness and respecting this desire is a given, but this is not my experience.
"I want to be truly happy, I don't want to suffer" - how often do we hear this sentence? And if we do hear it, how often is it done away with an idle hand gesture or an idle phrase?

It takes a bit of time (months, maybe even years) to begin to take that sentence seriously, to respect it, to get used to it to the point where one can actually begin to look further into it.

Out of so many human beings who are suffering, there are a few who are actually inquiring about their position, as to what they are, why they are put into this awkward position and so on. Unless one is awakened to this position of questioning his suffering, unless he realizes that he doesn't want suffering but rather wants to make a solution to all suffering, then one is not to be considered a perfect human being. Humanity begins when this sort of inquiry is awakened in one's mind.

You know where this is from.

I think the desire to be free from suffering underpins all acts. Its just the nature of being expressed within a particular mode of nature (or even beyond it) that determines its feasibility.

For instance tamas renders quite a backwards approach to it. Rajas renders a more bold and extroverted (but futile) approach. etc etc

 

[lightgigantic]

It could, I haven't excluded that option, nor the option of omniscience.

If you are including omniscience as a solution that leaves you with the problem of how 99% of the worlds population possess it (since most people will make such statements with full conviction and sallying forth with dna tests proves them correct 98% of time)

 

[wynn]

My point was that the only constant element to the calculations are the values that underpin it. For instance, in the name of keeping the crew healthy, the ship operational etc etc, a wide variety of calculations are drawn up on issues that may not draw a consensus (like a disagreement on the weather patterns for instance).

IOw the conflict is resolved at the point of examining value, or what one can set out to achieve within the parameters.

Just to be clear: So you hold that the values are relatively stable, and it is not reasonable to expect they will change due to the calculations?

There may be clashes of values between the leaders, the crew etc., though. For example, there may be a conflict as to what is more important: to find new land, or to keep the crew and the ship in good shape.

But in attempts at spiritual practice, a person may experience such an internal conflict of values as well. For example when they find themselves stuck trying to decide what is more important - having at least some kind of stability in the material life, or risking that stability for an uncertain but worthy seeming goal.

hence the notion of god being a conscious magnanimous personality is a cause for recourse

To me, this simply seems to be too good to be true ...

and since omniscience is logically impossible for empiricism, that means no solution

Agreed.

meaning that it could easily open up a field month (an extravagant version of a field day) within the dedicated community of this site

Oh, fer shure.

What do you stand to become less of, regarding spiritual practice?

I don't know really ...

If I had to describe my mind, it is mostly like a scene from a Spanish Inquisition tribunal - the officers of the inquisition asking those insane double bind questions where no matter what one would answer would be wrong, and the defendant screaming in pain while tortured, admitting to anything and everything, while completely losing any sense of what they actually think or believe. All this in the name of God and holy justice.

And the Spanish Inquisition is not limited to the past, actually, its spirit lives on in the reasoning of many Christian preachers, whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. I have tasted a lot of that spirit. It's as if the only two roles I am capable of imagining for myself is either the inquisitor or the defendant - and I want neither, yet it seems that I can only choose between these two, as far as theism goes.

If you are including omniscience as a solution that leaves you with the problem of how 99% of the worlds population possess it (since most people will make such statements with full conviction and sallying forth with dna tests proves them correct 98% of time)

This, in a nutshell, is my neurosis. My default is to think that everyone else is omniscient, except myself.
(Yet in religions, there is the notion that one should consider others to be better than oneself, so it's not like my default would be so outlandish.)

This default leaves me at the mercy of everyone, of whatever they say and do. I feel such an outlook is wrong, and at the same time, I feel it is wrong to resist it.
I wish there would be a way out of this conflict.