kx000
Valued Senior Member
No, but were not talking about a single source for this "ancient "scripture."
"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
No, but were not talking about a single source for this "ancient "scripture."
once again, if you are simply talking about acoustic verification many things become significantly easier to validate ...
:shrug:
And that's my point precisely : the knowing has nothing to do with any empirical models
It has everything to do with personal experience models, which are empirical.
Personal experience is still empiry. It's not the usual scientific empiry, but it is empiry nonetheless.
I'll put it this way:
Suppose you have been following someone's teachings for a long time. Then, over time, doubt starts to accumulate in your mind. You try to assuage that doubt by following the teachings even more strongly, but it just increases your doubt. Eventually, you realize you are at odds with the person you've followed for so long.
What do you do?
Last edited:
the thing is that the object being experienced contextualizes the seer (as opposed to the seer providing the context for the object ... which is the standard procedure for anything empirical)
So ... while seeing a chair doesn't contexutalize me,
seeing you contextualizes me?
Seeing God contextualizes me?
Not unless I am someone like the president who has extreme powers that dictate the context others view him in
yes
I think we have already established, abundantly, how difficult it is to talk to you, so, yes, me seeing you is contextualized by you. You get to have the upper hand.
I think this is by now a fairly non-controversial point.
The problem is, at least the way I see it, that non-theists have to just trust theists on what the requirements are for seeing or in any other way relating to God.
And since theists are generally a very exclusivist and elitist group, this makes it really difficult to approach them, and with that difficulty, approaching or relating to God is practically impossible for non-theists.
This wouldn't matter if God would be merely a political figure or a film star or some such. Except in some statistically rare cases, the majority of the population can go by just fine without having any personal interaction with important politicans, scientists, film actors etc. Generally, our lives also don't go to shambles when such a politician etc. is claimed to be involved in a scandal, or dies.
God, however, is in a completely different category. We are supposed to build our lives around Him.
And yet in doing so, we are expected to trust hostile second-hand and third-hand sources on how to do that.
You don't see a problem with that?
Sorry, I thought you meant what if the truth unravelled by personal experience becomes at odds with someone else.
I don't think there is a definative answer your above point, as it relies on
the exact context of the situation. Such contexts, I doubt, can even be fully known by the people involved, let alone someone who is not.
jan.
Last edited:
Well, to someone who says
things are obviously all crystal clear with no need for any further discussion or decision-making.
What is clear, is the denial of God.
I find it funny hence the smiley/LOL.
But more importantly, you've by-passed our discussion with something irrelevant. Are you going through one of your changes again? Or has a theist kicked you in the teeth (figure of speech).
jan.
''Hale'' you say?
Is that part of the Moshi-Monsters religion?
jan.
I am not making a fun baby. You all will go to hale, to the deepest region of hale.
Do mean ''hell'', by any chance?
Or is there a region actually called ''hale''?
jan.
To you, perhaps.
Not at all.
As usual, you bypass my point.
Did you get bored again? Did you miss me?
Gee, there's a surfer boy who tears my heart apart on a daily basis.