greenberg
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
falling in line with normative descriptions does enable to attain
”
This is of course ideally true, not only within a religion, but generally.
And it makes sense.
why can it not be the case with religious teachings?
for instance
BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
wouldn't it stand to reason that the claims of a persons who are influenced by material attachment, fear and anger stands outside of the normative prerequisites for discerning the nature of god?
But the problem is that one cannot deliberately "fall in line with normative descriptions" - because in order to do that, one would in advance need to know what it is like to be in line with normative descriptions in the first place.
hence normative descriptions, regardless of what ever field of knowledge one is discussing, can be located by examination of practitioners and books of knowledge related to such practices (the normative descriptions of physics can be discerned by examining physicists and physics text books) – understanding this enables ever opportunity to fulfill the normative requirements
**************************
Cris
lg,
“
once again, the richness of normative descriptions in scripture tends to suggest otherwise
”
Logical fallacy. Truth is not determined by a popular opinion.
truth or conclusion is however approachable by fulfilling the
normal
requirements however
Lg,
“
you raised this earlier and I suggested that you would have a difficult time suggesting how anything can exist outside delusion with out accepting something a priori - for instance try and present an argument how the world really exists and is not a delusion and see how far you can get without relying on something a priori
”
So what you are saying then is that if someone asserts that the sun exists, for example, then there is no way to show that they are not deluded?
according to your definition of delusion, yes.
you :
My objection is that the claimed knowledge from such a subjective process
cannot be distinguished from delusion which is a more credible alternative than the acceptance that a super being exists capable of creating a universe.
So when everyone looks up and sees the sun and feels its heat then they all might be deluded, is that it?
you do realize that seeing and feeling the sun is subjective don't you?
(now remember, you have just asserted in your above intro
Truth is not determined by a popular opinion, so you also can't assert that the sun exists due to popular opinion or common subjective experience either (after all communities of blind people all over the world don't see the sun - seems like you are making a claim based on popular subjective experiences, which is essentially what you hold as the foundation for ideas indistinguishable from delusion)
Clearly what you propose is simply silly.
clearly your suggestion on defining delusion is silly
But then I’m not the one making any claims, but you are, and by way of your challenge here you are very much admitting that you have no way to show even to yourself that your claim of direct perception of a god is not a delusion.
No - you are making a claim (I even bolded it for you)
you are making the claim of a delusion
I am pointing out that if we want to accept your philosophy it presents an absurd world view, which ironically tars you with the same brush you are trying to paint others
So I again make my simple observation – you claim the existence of some vast supernatural being capable of creating a universe and that there is a similarly vast supernatural realm populated by an infinite number of souls, etc. As opposed to the vastly more credible alternative that you are deluded and that your claim is just a fantasy of your mind.
no its not so simple
first of all I think you should present why your world view is more credible, rather than just begging the question by saying it is - when you do that we can then make a comparison
So given that no one, not even you can show that you are not deluded then why have we any reason to give you any credibility for your fantastic claims?
I think you have missed the point - I am showing how that your definition of deluded is silly and is also hypocritical since even by your own standards of philosophy, your own claims are indistinguishable from delusion.
************************
skinwalker
"Normative" is an interesting choice of terminology. It has several different meanings used variously by different academic disciplines and one wonders if LG choses such terms in the interest of being vague and ambiguous, true to his post modernist side.
true, it does have many different significances - given the context that I brought it up in, I thought it would have been clear however
if this is the standard description for normative
1. Relating to or dealing with norms
"normative discipline"; "normative samples"
2. Pertaining to giving directives or rules
and if the topic of how does one understand a particular conclusion is being dealt with, it should be obvious - for instance how would one normally become familiar with what an electron is? (a cursory examination reveals a degree of familiarity with theory and practice of physics)
as for the rest of your post, it just indicates that you are more interested in asserting your agenda rather than requesting a clarification on the issue actually being discussed – if you want to discuss such things, better that you make your own post rather than drive others off topic
************************************
Q
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
there in lies the problem
falling in line with normative descriptions does enable to attain what you hold as impossible (and its clear the only reason you hold it as impossible is simply because it collides with your preconceived beliefs of non-existence)
”
Hilarious. Your inability to demonstrate your claims for a gods existence is somehow my fault due to my so-called 'preconceived beliefs.'
the high school drop out also lies outside of coming to terms with issues like electrons because they do not believe in the practices of physics
he is probably also laughing too ....
doubt (particularly blind doubt, the opposite extreme of blind belief) is a powerful force of ignorance
Clearly then, your insignificant and impotent god cannot rise beyond my questioning of his existence. I can therefore crush him out of existence by simply saying so, just like you say so.
I think you give yourself more credibility than you deserve - you haven't even come close to the platform of questioning (you have made a remarkable contribution to reiterating your beliefs about god's non-existence however)
