Proof of the the Divine Presence of religions

[Myles]

Absolutely. All my experiences are, and I assume this is also the case for all the other "experiencers" I encounter, (but this can only ever be a hypothesis).

There is never going to be any possibility of "verification", through some "independent" means, that others do in fact, experience things the way I do, or see or hear things the way I see or hear them. I think Descartes figured something out about all this a while back.

Descartes, practising his method of doubt arrived at his Cogito. From that point on, he argued for the existence of god using a variation of an old argument, which ha long since been refuted. He believed we have a priori knowledge. This was refuted by Locke and Hume both of whom were empiricists.

Some experiences can be shown to be shared and not, therefore, purely subjective. To take a simple example, I would expect you to agree with me that it would be stupid to put our hands into the fire. If we did so,we could compare the burns we received and you could se that your were like mine and vice versa.

If you want to argue that our perceptions are no more than some kind of reflection of reality, that is a different matter.

 

[flameofanor5]

I think it'd be a lot easier if i understood what you were saying.

 

[Vkothii]

Some experiences can be shown to be shared and not, therefore, purely subjective. To take a simple example, I would expect you to agree with me that it would be stupid to put our hands into the fire.

I didn't say I think Rene had it all worked out. He obviously made a few connections that don't stand up (to 20th century analysis, anyway).
Most of us believe things like "fire burns you", or "if you're thirsty, you need water", and so on. We're confronted with evidence that we, and other lifeforms, are affected the same ways by certain things in the world. We assign cause and effect in much the same ways, and we compare notes too.

However, I very much doubt that I could hope to explain what my current "mental" environment is "like", or the "things" in it that I "hear and see" with my eyes shut and my ears stopped up. Our internal experience is the clincher, to that statement I made about "independent verification", there is no independent agent or referee (maybe that's why we invent an external "God").

I think it'd be a lot easier if i understood what you were saying.

Try looking up terms like "theory of mind", "subjective experience", and so on. When I come across a discussion where people are chucking words around I haven't seen before, I go and look them up (wikipedia can be a good starting point). There are plenty of online dictionaries and encyclopedias.

 

[Lori_7]

Lori,

You don’t. But if you want others to believe you or if you would like to appear credible, then you would have to make an effort. If those things aren’t important to you then that’s fine, just as long as you realize that others will likely see you as a religious nutter.

No, Lori, it is not up to me. Without a credible independent method of verification I would not able to tell whether the claimed communication is real or a mental delusion. And we know delusions are very real and very common yet we have absolutely zero evidence to indicate that gods might exist.

Chris,

With all due respect, don't waste your breathe. You're forming an opinion of me based upon nothing but what you want to believe. And I've told you the truth...this is how it works. Why in the world would you want to take my, or anyone else's word for such a seemingly important thing? Especially if you're just going to disregard what I say? I'm telling you the truth Chris...it is up to you. YOU. Do you think that God is not capable of proving Himself to you? No, you're not that stupid. The truth is, that you simply don't want to know.

 

[Lori_7]

Well let's agree that your experience is personal.

WELL DUH!!! What else would it be????

 

[Myles]

I think it'd be a lot easier if i understood what you were saying.

It would be a lot easier if you were educated to an appropiate level. Is it my fault you don't understand my response. Remember it was you who dropped the name Descartes; it was my mistake to assume you knew what you were talking about

 

[Myles]

WELL DUH!!! What else would it be????

Something you regard as being appropriate for others. Have you forgotten you offered to share your knowledge with others which presupposes that you have objective as opposed to subjective knowledge.

 

[Myles]

I didn't say I think Rene had it all worked out. He obviously made a few connections that don't stand up (to 20th century analysis, anyway).
Most of us believe things like "fire burns you", or "if you're thirsty, you need water", and so on. We're confronted with evidence that we, and other lifeforms, are affected the same ways by certain things in the world. We assign cause and effect in much the same ways, and we compare notes too.

However, I very much doubt that I could hope to explain what my current "mental" environment is "like", or the "things" in it that I "hear and see" with my eyes shut and my ears stopped up. Our internal experience is the clincher, to that statement I made about "independent verification", there is no independent agent or referee (maybe that's why we invent an external "God").
Try looking up terms like "theory of mind", "subjective experience", and so on. When I come across a discussion where people are chucking words around I haven't seen before, I go and look them up (wikipedia can be a good starting point). There are plenty of online dictionaries and encyclopedias.

I said SOME experiences can be shared and you are telling me you agree.

 

[Lori_7]

Something you regard as being appropriate for others. Have you forgotten you offered to share your knowledge with others which presupposes that you have objective as opposed to subjective knowledge.

i can share what my personal experience has been. it's called testimony and witnessing. you don't have to believe it, but i'm not sure why you wouldn't. why would you assume i'm a liar? do i seem to you to have an agenda?