ok then - so its not beyond us to subjectively accurately experience an objective phenomena?
Limbo
- Thread starter alexb123
- Start date
Look... I think you're missing my point. Something which is objective is the same for everyone. Something which is subjective is different for everyone. Experiences are subjective. We understand reality through our experiences, and thus, we cannot know reality objectively. Yes, there is an objective reality, but we can only know it subjectively. This means that every interpretation of reality which we come up with can only amount to an approximation.
Objective reality can only be inferred, which is why science (which attempts to understand objective reality) talks about models. Science works through creating useful models of objective reality, but it's not actually showing you what gives rise to your experiences. It's only giving you a useful way of looking at it so that you can manipulate it. Get it?
So to cut to the chase - do you say there is an objective basis for god?
In other words are (successful) theists across the entire expanse of cultural geography and history subjectively perceiving the same objective phenomena that gives rise to "god"?
I'm saying there is something giving rise to the experience that people often term "god". Whatever that is, I don't care to name because I feel that any name given to it doesn't do it justice, and usually leads to misconceptions and misuses of the term.
Also, I recognize that it has no use in the everyday life of most people. This is why I have no religion, and why I consider myself an atheist. I detest the honest belief in the personality of whatever it is that gives rise to "spiritual" experiences by serious intellectuals, because anyone can personify everything. To think that "the Source", or whatever, is actually something with a will, intentions, and which takes a personal hand in the lives of people and in the workings of the rest of existence seems utterly fallacious to me. For all intents and purposes, in my eyes, there is no God.
Jaster Mereel
what general principles do you apply to determine whether a description does, whatever you think passes for god, justice?
Obviously you mean something specific here but I can't understand exactly why you think god has no use in everyday life?
Personifying things doesn't make them false - you seem to be saying that you are convinced there is no personal force in the universe (beyond perhaps ourselves) and therefore any such personal descriptions are obviously false. what you neglect to mention is how you arrived at the conclusion that the universe is nilhistic.
From here you should state the exact intents and purposes that lead you to such a conclusion
what general principles do you apply to determine whether a description does, whatever you think passes for god, justice?
Obviously you mean something specific here but I can't understand exactly why you think god has no use in everyday life?
Personifying things doesn't make them false - you seem to be saying that you are convinced there is no personal force in the universe (beyond perhaps ourselves) and therefore any such personal descriptions are obviously false. what you neglect to mention is how you arrived at the conclusion that the universe is nilhistic.
From here you should state the exact intents and purposes that lead you to such a conclusion
lightgigantic
What general principles do you apply to determine that I need to provide you with the general principles I apply in order to determine whether a description does, whatever I think passes for god, justice?
I mean the abstraction that most people call "God" is not something that dominates the thoughts of most people, during most of their lives.
No... personifying things doesn't make them false, but the personification itself is not an accurate description of the thing being personified if you think that that thing literally is a person. It is clear that you are convinced there is a personal force in the universe (beyond ourselves), and therefore any such personal descriptions are obviously true. What you neglect to mention is how you arrived at the conclusion that the Universe is not nihilistic (I never said it was, anyway. In fact, nothing I said even indicated such.)
From here you should state the exact intents and purposes that lead you to all of your conclusions. About everything. In fact, from now on, I'm going to pull the same annoying line on you about every claim that you make.
Just the general principles of debate - if you can't establish your premises you just have opinions
Yes - most people are superficially religious
Do you think that you are literally a person?
I didn't say any description - on the contrary god has very specific characteristics that define his personality (omnipotent etc)
Nilhistic means that there is no personal intelligence driving the universe, so all search for meaning and purpose within the cosmos is ultimately nilhistic (it doesn't seem you are pantheistic)
- perhaps we can avoid a semantic argument if you just say how you arrived at the conclusion that any personal description of god is obviously fallacious
If you are going to make declarations you should be able to answer why - you have made the claim that all personal descriptions of god are undoubtedly false - on what grounds should this be accepted?
If I make claims I will be sure to give premises, but since I haven't made any to you as yet (although by default you are allocating some to me) I am not obliged to do so - at the moment I am just trying to understand what your opinions are and what are the premises you utilized to develop your opinions
*****Actually I have made the claim that god is omnipotent - but the basis for that claim is semantics, particularly scripture, which gives us the standard definitions for such terms.
Little_Birdie
Registered Senior Member
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
i think thed def of objective is the world outside the shroud of personal opinion it is not what everyone agrees upon
was it objectively true that the world was the center of the universe or flat for that matter everyone belived it
i belive that god is objectively real real because he is not because we perseve him to be human perseption is clouded by many thing emotions opions over thinking simple things all these these lead us away from the simple fact that god exists
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
i think thed def of objective is the world outside the shroud of personal opinion it is not what everyone agrees upon
was it objectively true that the world was the center of the universe or flat for that matter everyone belived it
i belive that god is objectively real real because he is not because we perseve him to be human perseption is clouded by many thing emotions opions over thinking simple things all these these lead us away from the simple fact that god exists
Everything we say here is opinion. In fact, if you read my post carefully you'll see that the way I framed my response was with the recognition that I was speaking only of my opinion and not of some kind of absolute truth.
So, in order to be religious you have to be a monk or a theologian?
"Person" is a label which I assign to myself and anything that I deem similar enough to myself to use the same term on. I don't feel that "God" is literally a person. Ultimately, the word has only the meaning which I choose to assign to it, unless of course you are going to insist that English has no existence apart from dictionaries.
These characteristics vary from religion to religion. They are in no way universally consistent with one another.
I don't need to describe how I arrived at an opinion of an abstraction for which there are no universally recognized attributes, nor universally recognized authorities who may assign attributes. Knowledge of "God" rests on personal experience, or anecdote, and since I trust my own experiences on "God" (for whatever reason, but mainly because it's such a controversial subject) more than I trust self-appointed authorities, and I have never experienced anything which I might call both "God", and a "person", then I arrive at the conclusion that personal descriptions of God, until I experience it myself or until someone who's opinion I trust, is fallacious.
It's my opinion on a controversial subject with no universally accepted authorities. It doesn't need to be accepted by anyone, because I am not claiming to be an authority on God. What's more, I am saying that I do not feel the need to accept the word of others on the nature of this abstraction called "God", because I do not recognize self appointed authority. I do not doubt the experiences of people, but I do not place the experiences of some people over the experiences of others just because they say so.
I'm not assigning opinions to you, I was thrusting your pretensious, pseudo-socratic bullshit back at you because it's annoying to have someone ask you why you believe what you believe every single time you give an opinion, especially when they are in no position to question you as if they are somehow in a more enlightened state. What do you believe about God, and how did you come to those conclusions? No doubt you'd give the same general, feeling-based answers that everyone else gives, or you'll cite self appointed authorities on the subject. Then, I will ask you to describe the exact mental procedures by which those authorities arrived at their conclusions, and then I'll ask you the exact procedures by which you arrived at the conclusion that such authorities can be trusted as authorities. You're not Socrates, so stop pulling this endless questioning bullshit every time someone says something that you can't reconcile with your own views in an attempt to squash their argument, because ultimately all knowledge rests upon faith in intuition. No one knows a damned thing, and neither do you. This is becoming tiresome, and I am now realizing why so many people around here have long-ago lost patience with you.
Why don't you try a new approach, like simply discussing what you believe? Express your own opinions before you question others, asking for what amounts to an equivalent of Descartes Meditations, because unless you submit yourself to the same examination that you insist others must come under, your entire line of questioning is meaningless.
Last edited:
and debate pivots on one's ability to provide premises for one's opinions
No - they just have to endeavour to follow god's instructions with intelligence
so if I called you a person that would be an accurate desciption?
granted there may be a few obscure exceptions but I think all religions advocate that god (or gods) is omnipotent - they tend to differ on details
There are no descriptions of the word "god" in the dictionary?
There are no scriptures which give further detailed knowledge?
it rests on the personal experience of saintly people, whose behaviour is mostly in line with scripture - you can say that you think god is $20 worth of gasoline but if you tell the garage attendant "I need god" he won't understand you, even if you arrive at such a conclusion by your personal experience (in other words your direct experience may not be credible enough to warrant normative terms)
but you have just self appointed yourself as an authority?
If you had changed "fallacious" to "beyond my capacity to determine it is true or not" your statement wouldn't be fallacious - its not clear how you can arrive at the point of definitely discrediting something while admitting your knowledge is incomplete to determine th etruth or falsity of the matter
The very fact that you can use the word "god" and I know that you are not talking about $20 worth of gasoline indicates that there are authorities - even if they are only lexicographical authorities
But you have already done it - youplace your own experiences (that there is no personal god, or even god full stop) over persons who have different experiences
what are you looking for on a debate forum then? Fanmail?
actually I haven't advocated anything of my beliefs as yet - you are the one who is advocating yours (on a debate forum too) and getting angry when someone asks "why?"
actually I had a thread called the correct epistemology for perceiving god - my conclusion was that there is no point trying to discuss even the nature of the process how to perceive god until all atheistic arguments are exhausted
I am just trying to examine the logic of your argument - I would have thought that someone would be prepared for such scrutiny on a debate forum
lol - all is not lost - here's something we agree on
How do you know that? (just joking)
its got nothing to do with other people being atheists and unable to reconcile their views in an attempt to squash theism ?
No point until a person has exhausted all their atheistic arguments otherwise they will just crop up midway through discussion
First lets hear why people are convinced that god definitely doesn't exist and determine the logical basis for such assumptions - wouldn't want to come across as a fanatic or something
Oh really? What's your premise for this conclusion?
Um... ok.
If you want. It makes no difference to me.
Alright, a fundamentally different view of what constitutes "God" is not just a difference over details.
Language is not defined by the dictionary, especially when you decide to dispute the dictionary's definition in a philosophical discussion.
I don't accept the authority of scriptures, so whatever they say is lumped into the same bin as the personal experiences of Joe-Schmoe in the alleyway down the street.
Who determines who's personal experience is credible enough to warrant normative terms?
In terms of defining my own experiences, and then drawing conclusions based upon them? Absolutely. No one is better at telling me what I am experiencing than myself, since no one else can have the same experiences.
I was under the impression that admitting an incomplete knowledge on the subject infers an incapacity to determine the absolute truth or falisty of the matter. I didn't think I had to spell it out for you. I was expressing my intuitive leanings on the subject, not any conclusions as to the absolute nature of God.
Give me a break. The definition of words comes through consensus, not authority. Everyone has agreed that "God" usually means something, but really, what does any word mean? Try to define any word in any totally all-encompassing way. I dare you. See what happens when you try to assert an absolute definition to a word.
Yes, in terms of determining what I believe on the subject. Ignoring my own experiences in an area where there are so many disputes and inconsistencies would be irresponsible. Accepting the authority of someone whom I've never met and know nothing about seems equally irresponsible. Why would I accept that? Because they say so?
How about some intellectual honesty? Maybe a little bit of respect? At the very least, a change in tactics to suit the opponent from you would be nice.
I know you haven't advocated anything of your beliefs as yet - I asked you to do so, and now you're dodging it so that your same line of questioning can't be used against you. It means that you have nothing to say, I think.
Also, I'm not getting angry because someone is asking me "why", I'm getting angry because I'm explaining that it's sort of a gut feeling based on my personal experiences, and you are still insisting that I give you a formal philosophical dissertation on my particular set of beliefs, while at the same time not giving your own.
And what does that mean, exactly? Oh... I remember. You were saying that you have to accept the authority of people who have claimed to experience God before you can proceed in your argument. Very enlightening. Revolutionary, even.
There was no logic to the argument. I was expressing some thoughts on the subject, you know, throwing them out there to see what people thought? Instead of a comparison I get an interrogation. We go from informal discussion to the Socratic method. It's a matter of courtesy, you know. It's something you're lacking in. It's like smacking someone in the face with a brick that you had in your pocket right as your in the middle of enjoying your morning breakfast.
We'd probably agree on a few things, since the only reason why we're arguing is because your pretentious line of questioning is old, worn out, and lacking in any kind of common respect.
From reading your posts. (Just joking)
Of course it does at times. In fact, a lot. This is the reason why I've spent the better part of my time here arguing with atheists whom I agree with more often than not. It's behavior I have a problem with, not belief.
So, in other words, you have to accept the authority of people's experiences of God before you can know God? I think we've gone through this, but we could continue if you'd like.
How about a lack of personal experience of God? Doesn't that work well enough for you? Maybe it's a difference in terminology? Remember, a thread was created a while ago asking "What is God?", and it turned out that atheists and theists tended to have different definitions of the word.
There are two options for this q - if you don't accept the first proceed to the second
1- premises enable for the presentation of ideas, distinguishing a higher and lower truths - otherwise you are left with a forum where anyone can say anything about anything with no means of gradation of content
2- because the green jellyfish are hungry on mondays
But you wouldn't accept it if you were called a lightning conductor and someone proceeded to utilize you as one?
Therefore religions are fundamentally similar - ecclesiastical hair splitting happens over details (something we have a passion for as humans)
the dictionary however gives universally recognized attributes, otherwise discussion wouldn't even be possible - it was a response to your
I don't need to describe how I arrived at an opinion of an abstraction for which there are no universally recognized attributes,
lexigraphers will be more inclined to approach scripture than joe schmoe for their definitions
in terms of religion, the direct experiences of saintly persons 9as opposed to joe schmoe - unless joe is a saintly person of course) - in physics it is physicists, in france it is the french etc etc
you suggest that theistic claims about the nature of god (the conclusions of which are at odds with yours) are not reliable because they are self appointed authorities (which I would argue against, but anyway just to let it ride for the time being) - if being a self appointed authority bears no merit why does your self appointment bear merit?
When you start making statements like this
To think that "the Source", or whatever, is actually something with a will, intentions, and which takes a personal hand in the lives of people and in the workings of the rest of existence seems utterly fallacious to me.
they certainly don't appear tentative - it begs the q why do you think it is utterly fallacious
at the very least saying it means $20 worth of gasoline is not very authoratative
if you compile such definitions you end up with a dictionary
but rather than saying "I don't know" (agnostic) you say "I know they don't know (atheist)
intellectual honesty is examining premises - respect is avoiding ad homs
You are saying statements with authority, not tentatively - so the tactic is quite straight forward
Its enough that you know that I advocate god exists for the time being
then you should change your status from atheistic to agnostic - or at least indicate that your opinions are tentative instead of absolute
actually if you read the fourth point you would see that this isn't the case ..... but even you declared earlier that faith was inseperable from knowledge
better to be more careful with your language and not use words like "utterly fallacious"
when there are two or more tentative suggestions that contradict each other why is it considered ungentlemanly to proceed with scrutiny and logic? Its not like I have been ad homming you
its not clear what are the new and improved methods of dealing with contradictory claims amongst different parties
“ its got nothing to do with other people being atheists and unable to reconcile their views in an attempt to squash theism ? ”
actually, despite your claims, the improper application of argument is to argue about things you agree on (unless you are disagreeing on the manner of presenting argument of course, eg - ad hom, straw man etc etc)
In the beginning, yes - just like in the beginning you have to accept the findings of physicists before you study physics, otherwise you wouldn't be prepared to undergo the austerity of study over several years or more
Then the next q is what must one do to gain experience of god - like for instance do the persons who claim to have experience of god also advocate processes for coming to that platform of perfection? Or is experience of god given to be as easy and straight forward as seeing the back of one's hand?
didn't see that thread - were the defintions outside of dictionary definitions?
And what general principles did you apply to arrive at this conclusion? We could do this forever, you know. Why don't we just skip it because we've both agreed that all knowledge rests on faith, remember?
This is a ludicrous comparison. We're talking about words, not what you do because of them.
Of course religions are fundamentally similar... which is why they are all religions. The question I would offer you is, why do you think that the attributes you assign to God are given by all religions? Do you think it could, perhaps, be a matter of interpretation on your part? I see you quoting Vedic scripture all the time, yet your conclusions about Hinduism are quite different than my Brahmin friend. Does this mean that one of you is wrong? If so, who would be the proper authority on the subject, you, or my Brahmin friend who's spent his entire life studying his religion?
Obviously those attributes are not universally recognized if people dispute the definitions given by the dictionary. What you're saying is that the dictionary has final say over the meaning of words- an appeal to authority. Appeals to authority have no more weight than my faith in my own experiences and intuition. All it does is offer another layer of abstraction between what you believe and the faith it rests upon. What general principles did you use to conclude that the word of authorities could be trusted?
That's wonderful. I don't care. You love making appeals to authority, as if it offers some kind of final nail in the coffin of my argument. Well, once again I would ask you what principles you applied to arrive at your conclusion that the word of authorities could be trusted?
And who determines what constitutes a saintly person? Other, self-appointed saintly persons? It means nothing. It's still an appeal to authority.
Obviously you don't know much about science, either, as I can tell by your use of a physicist as an example of an authority. You see, the difference between a theologian's conclusions about God and a physicists conclusions about the physical laws of the universe is that, no matter how famous or well respected that physicist is, anyone can challenge his or her conclusions, from other famous, well respected physicists, to the lowliest High School dropout, provided that their reasoning conforms very rigidly to the Scientific Method. Yes, this is still an appeal to authority, but the reason why science is so consistent is that the authority is uses to make it's determinations is non-personal. It's a rigid, mechanical thought process which has no personal bias, and does not rely on personal experience. Religions don't have this, and so in order to believe the word of an authority you must trust the person claiming to be one. I do not, because my own personal experiences conflict with those authorities claims, and since we are on a fundamentally equal plain in terms of religious truths (since there is no objective standard for arriving at religious conclusions) my opinion on the matter carries as much weight as the Pope's.
It bears merit if I am talking about my own beliefs, and not trying to assert that my claims are best for everyone else. I haven't said that what I believe is what everyone should believe, in fact, throughout the post I said things like "to me", and "in my eyes", implying that I don't feel anyone should give what I say any more weight than the simple opinion of a normal person on the subject of God. What you've done is gone ahead and taken the usual theist route, thinking that because I've made a claim about the nature of God I must be speaking in absolutes. The fact that I tell you I am not speaking in absolutes means that I am not, so stop approaching the discussion as if I am.
How about I quote the part of that statement that makes it tentative, since you so obviously have a hard time finding it:
Jaster Mereel said:
Because most people wouldn't accept it, not because it's an inherently incorrect usage of the word. You seem to think that words have a platonic existence of some kind. Words derive their meaning through consensus via usage. Nothing more.
That's right. What's more, you still fail to give any kind of absolute, universally acceptable definition. The fact that someone -anyone- disputes the definition of the word means that it is not universally accepted. As I said, words don't have a platonic existence. They derive their meaning through consensus via usage.
That's right. I'm not confused on the subject. I believe that they don't know, just as you believe that they do. Neither position carries more weight, you know.
Intellectual honesty is not only sharing what you believe, but acting as if the opinions of others on a controversial subject with no universally recognized authorities are just as valid as your own, at least on the surface. Respect is trying to avoid baiting the other person by appearing pompous, arrogant, pretentious, etc...
You're wrong. See above.
Alright, then it's enough that you know my conclusions are based upon personal experiences and careful self-reflection based upon these experiences. If you don't need to give more, why do I have to?
If you read my post I do not strictly fall under the category of an atheist, but in terms of having no religion I do. However, I am not agnostic, as I do not caim that I don't know, and I do not claim that I cannot know. I have indicated that my opinion are indeed my opinions, since I don't recognize any authorities on the subject of God. The only reason why I am acceptable as an authority for myself is because no one else is in a better position to interpret my personal experiences than myself. This does not, however, mean anything to anyone else unless they decide I am an authority on the subject.
That is, quite obviously, the pillar upon which your own conclusions are based. Authority. Otherwise, stop continually citing authorities whenever making arguments.
Yes, all knowledge rests upon faith. I've never contended otherwise.
Better for you to read every word I write carefully, lest you pull something out of context.
No, but you've been provoking me by asking me to provide you with a formal philosophical dissertation on my conclusions about God based upon personal experience, self reflection, and interpretation of the ideas of others. That's something that most people, when asked, cannot provide, which is obviously why you do it, because it makes the other person look like a fool who doesn't know anything about the subject at hand, and it serves to make you appear to be a reasonable, fair, and highly intellectual figure because the other person will invariably respond with hostility, especially since you don't offer counter suggestions to the ideas which they present. It makes you look like an empty shell of an intellect, with a nice glossy overcoating.
It's called avoiding what I described above in order that real communication can take place. Also, no contradictory claims have been made that can actually be compared- you haven't offered your opinion other than to say that you believe God exists, and then you've proceeded to ask me to write a book about my beliefs, and the experiences, self reflection, and interpretation which led to those beliefs. It's a mighty task that you ask of me, and you like to ask it of everyone without doing it yourself.
I have argued with atheists because of a disagreement over particulars, so saying that I agree with them totally and that I have been defending theists in order to be fair is not entirely accurate. Sorry for the misconception I've stirred in your head, but I was saying that the fundamental beliefs of most of the atheists on this forum, and myself, on the question of God, are closer together than my own beliefs and those of theists.
You don't have to accept the findings of physicists before studying physics, you just have to accept the Scientific method and go from there. Of course, it's easier just to accept what they say when studying, but at any time you are totally within your rights to question both their methods and their conclusions. Physical models are just that: models. They do not represent fundamental truths about the universe.
I think you misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that people (including myself) have had experiences which other people assign the label "God", and have not called it "God". It's a difference in interpretation, not experience. I say a lack of experience of God because the interpretation of the experiences that you have are, for all intents and purposes, the same as the experiences themselves. What I have maintained throughout is that the objective thing which gives rise to the experience of God in some people is real, but that it is interpreted differently by different people, and that it's nature is not subject to absolute defintions, despite what the dictionary, or religious authorities say about the subject. The fact that there are counter claims and disputes over the usage of the word itself means that those attributes are not universally accepted, since if it were everyone would agree and there would be no argument.
Most, but some people just quoted the dictionary. It kind of defeats the purpose of philosophical discussion when you just decide to give up your own decision making power when it comes to philosophical conclusions to an authority. If that's what you're advocating, then I'd say we're at an impasse.
Last edited:
2- because the green jellyfish are hungry on mondays
You don't think its remarkably similar that religions define god as the cause of all causes?
Its a matter of evidence given in scriptures
Possibly - I am also a brahmin, and part of brahminical culture is learning how to argue on the basis of sastra (vedic history is jam packed full of arguing brahmins) - alternatively we could also be both right and you could be wrong because you have an absence of theoretical knowledge to reconcile our apparently different views
actually the proper authority is vedic authority (sabda)- that is why brahmins quote it - but there are lesser authorities like logic, deduction (anumana) and even lesser authorities like direct perception (pratyaksa) - admittedly I mostly sport with the lesser two on this site for obvious reasons.
god is a very specific term - arguments over definitions are on details - at least when you say (re- god) ....
.... its obvious that when someone is talking about god they are not talking about $20 worth of gasoline
if by your own authority you determine that you have fine health but a doctor, by dint of his authority, informs you that you have testicular cancer who's authority do you accept?
if you don't think language has authority try typing responses to your emails by rolling your forehead on the keyboard
its determined by scripture actually, much like physic text books determine recognizable qualifications for a physicist (would you trust the authority of a physicist who had never heard of an electron before?)
you are not doubting my authority are you?
it relies on a person conforming to the scientific method ... sounds like personal experience to me (if you don't have personal experience of an electron you don't go very far in physics)
Initially yes - just like in science - initially you have nothing but faith in the lecturer or teacher in school - thats why they generally teach theory before prac. Later one comes to the point of direct perception
or alternatively your looseness in defining god indicates that you have not applied the relevant processes to determine what is god's nature - in other words you are just like a person who has not applied the rigid scientific method in science.
so why did you say this earlier .......
my opinion on the matter carries as much weight as the Pope's
????
"utterly fallacious" sounds quite absolute
so in other words if a person perceives an absolute phenomena it is not absolute?
if you didn't use the word "utterly" (utter / Ñ 'VtJ(r); NAmE Ñ / adjective, verbŒ adjective[only before noun] used to emphasize how complete sth is) I think you would be able to get away with what you are saying
my point is that when you say there ar eno universally recognizable qualifications to the term "god" you are violating the consensus
language indicates very real things, particularly nouns like gasoline and god.
but there are universally recognized authorities on god - the similarities between different religions is a coincidence?
No - respect is avoiding ad homing - like indirectly calling someone pompous, arrogant and pretentious - and using such name calling as a means to avoid addressing the issues in contention
you mean this?
“ but rather than saying "I don't know" (agnostic) you say "I know they don't know (atheist) ”
That's right. I'm not confused on the subject. I believe that they don't know, just as you believe that they do ....
sounds authoratative
when you make statements that your personal experiences are on par with the popes I contend that your personal experiences are not authoratative
Imagine having a scientific discussion with someone who did not accept the authority of science
the same thing that you find offensive is the same thing that philosophers find inspiring
if a person cannot provide responses to the queries they are not philosophical
what is real listening if it doesn't innvolve scrutiny?
you claim there is no universal recognizable authorities in theism for the purposes of definitions of words so elementary as "god" - this is tantamount to pointing to a dust particle and saying it is an electron because it is "small"
you just have to explain why god has no universal recognizable qualities - since any established theist in the field seems to declare the opposite
..ok
the point is that in all fields of subtle knowledge there is a window period where knowledge is gleaned by faith - its not that faith bereft of direct perception as one's eternal bedfellow - -it enables the quicker assimilation of knowledge by accepting another's experience as authoratative - the alternative is to re-invent the wheel everytime I guess
Not sure what you are saying here ....you've experienced god? Why was it to be called "not god"?
there are arguments even in science over what a particular "experience" (ie collection of data) evidences, but it is still all science
a dictionary is not the final word in definition but it is a suitable departure point to begin discussion - the biggest contribution to useless debate is unclear terminology
Sorry if this appears a bit intense - did you know that in medieval india debates between brahmins would sometimes be initiated with the stakes that the loser would commit suicide?
I'm fairly certain that many of the world's religions haven't even considered this point. Also, it appears that the opinions of many quite learned people around the world who don't associate with a particular religion, or don't quite adhere to their faith's definition of God, are left out in the cold by you. What a shame to leave out so many intelligent minds on the subject, in favor of a few authorities who's power comes from being first, and being their an extremely long time.
Scriptual evidence is still anecdote, and it's still a matter of making an appeal to a traditional authority. Scriptures were written by people, unless you're going to tell me that scriptures were written by God... in which case this conversation is certainly over since we cannot possibly find common ground.
It's kind of insulting when your good friend explains religious ideas he's been studying for his whole life to you, you repeat it back to him using your own terminology, and he agrees that you understand the concept, only to have someone else tell you that you don't understand the concept and that you may have been mistaken in your interpretation. Aside from that, I'd say that, when he speaks of it, I have a pretty decent handle on the underlying concepts, provided that an appropriate translation can be found in one or more languages which I am somewhat familiar with.
Unless you're going to insist that I obviously don't know what I'm talking about because there is absolutely no way that the same material could be interpeted in two completely different ways by two individuals who belong to the same culture, and undoubtedly have the same level of education in the subject, then I'd say my point is quite clearly made right here.
The fact that two of your so-called "experts" on God can come to different conclusions reading the same scriptural evidence means that there is no absolutely correct interpretation in that particular religion. I'd extend this to all religions, since we've established (from both history, and now personal experience) that scriptural religions can produce varied interpretations from even the experts, and obviously non-scriptural religions can also do this.
Yes, I'd suppose that you are correct in saying that Vedic authority would be the proper authority, but the problem with this is that it's still language. All language can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. In fact, the meaning of certain words changes, sometimes greatly, over often very short periods of time. There were no dictionaries in any language, I'd be willing to bet, until very recent times, offering no guide to the meaning of words. As I said, words gather their meaning through consensus.
No, God is not a very specific term. Obviously this is true. The fact that so many people will argue with you over the definition means that it's not a very specific term. I think you're dismissing everyone who doesn't accept a singular definition of "God" right here. You seem to dismiss a lot of people with your claims.
Now it is. This has nothing to do with some kind of absolute definition of the word. People use one word for the subject we usually call "God", and they use another word for the object which we often call "gasoline". This could possibly change, for whatever reason, in a thousand years. Besides, you're using an extreme example. A subtle difference in the connotation of the word "God" can produce an entirely different type of religion. Stop using extreme examples. No one will think, today, that "God" means "20 dollars worth of gasoline". Lots of people would think of "God" and come up with a slightly different meaning to the word than what you would probably provide, or anyone else, for that matter.
Of course, you'd probably say that these people haven't had the proper education in the subject of God, and so their subtle differences in meaning would be inconsequential, but what you'd be dismissing is the fact that every speaker of a language contributes to the definitions of the words used in that language. There is no such thing as a final linguistic authority.
Well, if I felt fine I'd probably doubt his prognosis. However, he'd be able to explain, in a broad manner, the science behind his conclusions. What doctors usually look for when testing for testicular cancer, what most often means what, ways that I could look for it myself, etc... the point is, any true expert in a field will be able to explain to the laymen how he came to the conclusions he came to, even if it takes a while because he'd have to condense years of training to do it.
However, there are those who, when posessing a vast knowledge in a particular field, tend to think of themselves in terms of an elite. They usually don't try to explain anything, often just saying "you don't have the appropriate education to understand", or, in your case "you're not applying the correct epistemology for perceiving God". It's exactly the same thing. If you're so serious about no one having the proper education to understand religion, then why don't you try and explain it? Of course not. But, you'll ask everyone who you think isn't an appropriate authority in the field to explain the exact methods they used in order to come to their conclusions. That's not how an expert behaves. if you honestly believe that no one here knows how to perceive God correctly, then you should be trying to explain it. I think, rather, you're just here to read your own writing.
Nice one, but no. Language is interpreted by the speakers of that language, with all of the individuals contributing to the defintion of words. Hence, words derive their meanings through consensus. Here's a neat question that will thoroughly explain my position: Why do dictionaries need to be updated?
You seem to think that text books are supposed to be authorities on whatever subjects they cover. They are supposed to be a guide to learning the subject on your own, as any good teacher will tell you.
I'm sorry, I don't deal in terms of authority. At least, I try not to whenever possible. If someone shows a familiarity with a subject, they are a credible source, whatever their education or recognized authority by others. If someone starts talking about electron spin and wave/particle duality, then I consider them to at least have a cursory familiarity with the subject. That may, perhaps, change with time. Afterall, I think String Theorists are crackpots and not real scientists, but I'm no physicist.
Of course it's personal experience... stop strapping the same label onto me that is appropriate for the rest of the atheists around here. Everything is personal experience, or anecdote, which itself is personal experience. The point is that the scientific method is meant to focus your experience in order to ensure that your interpretation is as rigid and narrow as possible. People like Newton, and Einstein weren't using the scientific method when they came up with their ideas, you know. They just happened to have moments of insight that happened to provide useful models for the universe. Religion has nothing like the scientific method, but rather it relies almost exclusively on the same kind of insight that produced Gravity and General Relativity, and if there are any religions which offer something so rigid (my friend has claimed that Hinduism comes close) they still aren't the same as the scientific method, if only that it is entirely possible, and even common, for experts in the field to have very wide gaps in interpretation using the same material as their source. (You can't directly perceive an electron... you can only infer it's existence)
Well, yes. I'd have to agree to an extent. The point I'm trying to make, however, is that a reading of scripture, as well as the words of others, is enough to make one qualified to have opinions on God, since the subject is so broad and much of it is undefined. You seem to be contending that a religious authority must decide that you have the appropriate knowledge to continue.
Science isn't like that. Now it is, but in it's infancy the common man (well, not so common since only the wealthy had the free time to do it) performed experiments and made observations, and came up with models of reality based on those experiments and observations. He would then share those ideas with all of his buddies that gathered around in cocktail parties, and then those people would go and perform the same experiment, or make the same observations, and then it got spread around amongst the general scientific community. That's how it used to work. It didn't have any authorites until it became an established part of society. Religion was probably the same, in my opinion (call it intuition), and now that the world is so connected it's gone back into it's infancy. The old, established religious communities have stagnated and started breaking down, and now it's turning back into a free-for-all, where anyone who's read a certain amount about religion in general is mostly qualified to have opinions ont he subject, even if those opinions don't conform to traditional religious models. This is why everyone hates appeals to authority, because the old religions don't have any authority anymore.
Or, alternatively, there is no rigid method to religion as evidenced by the conflicting views of so-called experts on the subject of God. My girlfriend was a Catholic theology major, so I've had many a view thrown at me from all sides. Often times, I am the one finding common ground between these conflicting views, but in order to do so one must broaden their definition of God... magically, it all starts to fit once you do that. This is why I would probably agree with you that all religions are reconcilable, but not perfectly so.
Many aspects of religion have nothing to do with spirituality, and so have to be thrown out in order to make them fit together. The general theological concepts, however, tend to pan out if you understand the subtle differences in meaning between different sets of terminology and different cultural contexts within different languages.
I was speaking in terms of determining what is good for me to believe and not believe. Not for everyone else. Stop taking my words out of context. You seem to have a nack for it.
"utterly fallacious to me". I already pointed this out, remember? As soon as I specify that it seems that way in my eyes, it's no longer absolute but rather tentative. You keep ignoring those two little words. Apparently you like to ignore whatever is inconvenient for your argument.
People never perceive absolute phenomena, only phenomena which they interpret as absolute. Unless you are saying that human beings are capable of omniscience?
I think that you keep taking things out of context, and/or blowing words used to provide emphasis on an opinion as if they are the crux of my argument. I think you're doing this because you can't actually argue with my central points.
Billions of people disagree on the meaning of the word. That's hardly consensus.
Words represent things which we experience. They are not an accurate depiction of them. After all, does gasoline, or god, have a direct correlation with the sound waves emitted by your voicebox when you speak?
Similiarities != sameness.
Actually, I was calling you pompous, arrogant, and pretentious directly. Also, the length of my responses, and the detailed composition of my posts directly conflicts with your assertion that I am not addressing the issues in contention.
On the other hand, you seem to like one-liners.
Actually, it was definitely tentative, hence adding the word "believe" to the sentence. If I wanted to be authoritative, I would have said:
That's right. I'm not confused on the subject. They don't know.
Why? Isn't the Pope a human being? What makes one person's experiences more authoritative than another's? Is there some kind of quantitative standard that you can provide me with to determine this? If not, then I suggest that you stop making appeals to authority.
Even if the persons you cite know what they are talking about, saying that something is, because they say it is, loses you a lot of respect in a debate. This would only matter if your goal was actually to change opinions or reconcile views. I guess it doesn't matter, since I'm fairly certain that you only post to make yourself feel good.
I don't accept the "authority of science" and I have scientific discussions all the time. I don't accept the "authority of scriptue" and I have religious discussions all the time. You don't have to accept the authority of someone or something in order to have a fruitful discussion about a subject. I accept scientific models as reliable sources because the scientific method is a very precise way of coming to conclusions, and the scientific method has proven it's usefulness in my everyday life. The computer that I am using is very good evidence for this. I accept scriptural texts, although tentatively, because the ideas within them have been compiled over millenia by many, many people. However, although I may accept scripture, I would only accept it insofar as it may be a guide to further understanding on the subject.
Philosophers don't find it inspiring when someone constantly badgers them to list the exact methods by which they arrived at every single conclusion that they come to every single time that they express their opinion. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Perhaps you are trying to say that I find religion offensive? if you've actually paid any attention to anything I've written, I've spent the better part of my time here defending the beauty and even the necessity of religion to the lives of every person in the world.
When the queries are delivered in an offensive, condescending manner they are not legitimate queries. All you had to do in order to try and figure out how I came to the conclusions that I came to was to ask me what I believed, and then engage in a discussion by providing counter-claims and suggestions, and eventually it would have come out. Either you weren't interested in knowing, or you're not very patient. That's not very philosophical, either.
You have no right to scrutinize unless you approach the conversation with some intellectual humility, something which you seem to be lacking in large, very necessary, quantities.
Boy, do I love strawmen. Do you have a wheat field with a crow problem or something? Well, I'm not a crow, and strawmen don't scare me. Stop thrusting them in my face.
Also, there are no universally recognized authorities on the subject of God. The fact that there is widespread disagreement amongst theological "experts" provides sufficient evidence for this. The fact that religions around the world have any incompatible components is further evidence. Finally, the fact that there are so many arguments which involve a different usage of the word "God" on this message board should be enough evidence for you, and to top it off the last one should remind you of extensive personal experience. You can't possibly think that every person on here is either a crackpot, or in denial, can you?
Um... no. I know two people who border on, or qualify as, experts in the "field", and neither of them declare that. In fact, both of them get quite frustrated at times when people don't seem to agree on a single definition of God.
Also, this goes back to an earlier point. Authorities don't define words, every speaker of the language contributes to the definition. After all, the language belongs to all of them.
Yes, but saying that you can't reinvent the wheel because someone else has already done it before you is awefully limiting for a lot of people. Also, the "faith bereft of direct perception" is an eternal bedfellow- you always have faith that the experiences imparted on you by another were reliable, and thus, that all of your subsequent conclusions were henceforth reliable by extension. Accepting authority is just quicker than experiencing it yourself, not better.
I've experienced deep spiritual sensations, which I suppose could be called experiences of God. And not once did I ever say that I called is "not God". I said that I didn't call it God. How can something be called "not God"?
Yes, and no matter how "authoritative" said experiences, or persons having said experiences, is considered, it is still science. If you observe an apple falling to the ground, and start talking about gravity, but you're not a physicist, are you not qualified to talk about what you just experienced?
In the same way, it doesn't matter how religiously educated an individual is, only that they have had the experiences of spirituality and have created or adopted terms to describe those experiences that are compatible with the language that everyone else speaks. In the same way, that is still spirituality.
I agree, but controversial terms are usually the focus of debate. Otherwise, there would be no deviance of opinion that wasn't cleared up immediately.
I've heard this before (remember, I have a brahmin friend). I think it's kind of cool, actually. However, what first comes to mind is that the loser must decide that he has lost in order to commit suicide.
an ad hom adds neither quality nor quantity
.... anyway I will get back to the content later when I have a bit more time
Last edited:
Wrong. It certainly adds quantity.
Don't worry. My hands, arms, and head are all perfectly intact. I'm not frustrated at all.yes - the guy in the little animation seems to be typing quite a bit
Sorry about the ad-homs. Your approach to debate is annoying to me, moreso because a lot of the people I debate with have your attitude (they don't necessarily agree with you), and most of the time they have no idea what they are talking about.
Oh yea, answer my long-winded reply. Hit the meaty, important stuff so we can shorten our posts. I'm enjoying this.